A CHALLENGING THESIS AT ABILENE

I have been reading an M. A. thesis written by a student at Abilene Christian College that is really something else. One does not have to agree with all its conclusions in order to appreciate its candor and objectivity, its freedom from traditional thinking, and its bold attempt to discover truth and that alone. The student, Milo Richard Hadwin, and the graduate Bible faculty of the college are to be commended for turning out such a piece of work. Now that the thesis has been approved and deposited in the college library, we can feel free to write about it in this article.

Mr. Hadwin is concerned with the problem of New Testament examples as related to biblical authority. He recognizes that we have long been, influenced by that triad of direct commands, necessary inferences, and approved examples. He is taking a close look at the examples, and is asking if these do indeed stand as authoritative in the life and work of the church. He is aware that this problem underlies many of the controversies that have produced our numerous divisions. We have looked to this or that example in the scriptures, interpreting it according to this or that whim, and have insisted that all others follow our prescription at the pain of disfellowship.

He gives us a history of the idea that New Testament examples provide a pattern for the church, a notion that dates back at least to old Archelaus in 262 A. D. who insisted that believers must follow the Jerusalem church in the communal sharing of earnings and property. Others along the way have pointed to the laying on of hands, the holy kiss, and foot washing as patterns to be followed.

As for the Restoration Movement the notion of patternism in examples goes back to John Glas and Greville Ewing, precursors of the Campbells, who found authority in examples not only for weekly communion, but also for a plurality of elders and community of goods. Glas concluded that there must be a set order of worship, based upon Acts 2:42, and there is still a group within the Movement that makes this a test of fellowship.

James Alexander Haldane (1805) is quoted as saying what probably represents the thinking of our people to this day in reference to examples: “If we are not bound by the practices of the apostolic churches recorded in Scripture, there is no precise model whatever in the New Testament for the constitution and government of the church.”

Moving on to America the author shows that Stone “found that there was neither precept nor example in the New Testament” for some of his practices, and that Thomas Campbell wrote in the Declaration and Address that nothing should be required of a believer except what is expressly enjoined in the scriptures “either in express terms or by approved example.”

Beyond the Campbell-Stone days we have the likes of Tobert Fanning, J. W. McGarvey, and David King, the consensus continuing to be that “When we can determine, with even a good degree of probability, an apostolic custom, our own judgment should yield to it” (McGarvey).

Next comes many pages of review of the cooperation controversy that has raged in recent years, with views of everyone from J. D. Thomas and Thomas Warren to James W. Adams and Roy Cogdell. This feud centered in whether there was a scriptural example for the Herald of Truth radio program. But no one questioned that last prong of the triad, approved example. Each side presumed to find examples for their practice. J. D. Thomas in his book We Be Brethren has proved to be the most daring, for he listed 17 examples in scripture for his “pattern principle.” That is, he concludes that it is essential that we wear the name Christian because the disciples in Antioch were so designated (Acts 11:26), and in Acts 9:26-27 he finds authority for “placing membership,” for Paul desired to join himself to the Jerusalem church. But interestingly enough Acts 20:7, the usual prooftext for weekly communion, is not one of the seventeen. That was back in 1958. Thomas now tells the author of the thesis: “I have 17 such binding examples in my book. Some of them may be pretty thin. I would grant that. I read the New Testament through several times looking for those examples — it may be that I stretched a point here and there — I’m just as human as the next person and maybe I was hoping to find some.” No one can justly criticize that, for it sounds like a growing scholar. It only illustrates the problem that one has on his hands once he is in the maze of finding authority in approved examples. Each of us usually ends up doing his own approving!

Milo Hadwin takes issue with his Restoration forbears and his Abilene professors by concluding that “the specific teachings of the New Testament on examples and imitation does not seem to justify the conclusion that a pattern for the church regarding worship, government, discipline, and so forth is to be found in the actions of the primitive church.” Nor does he find grounds for believing that the Holy Spirit selected certain examples from among the many (he lists scores from one chapter alone) to be imitated? The scriptures make no such claim, he observes.

He thinks John Locke had a better eye for what is required than the Restoration heroes, whether yesterday’s or today’s. Said Locke: “Now, nothing in worship or discipline can be necessary to Christian communion but what Christ our legislator, or the Apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have commanded in express words.”

In this regard Hadwin gives crucial information. He points to the influence that Locke had upon the Campbells, noting that Thomas may well have borrowed .from this quotation in his Declaration and Address. But in specifying what should be required he added “approved precedent” to Locke’s express command. Years later when telling of his first reading of his father’s Declaration, Alexander Campbell said that he saw ambiguity in the term approved precedent, though none in express terms. Alexander made it clear that he did not look to the scriptures for an exact pattern for everything that the church does: “There is too much squeamishness about the manner of cooperation. Some are looking for a model similar to that which Moses gave for building the tabernacle. These seem not to understand that this is as impossible as it would be incompatible with the genius of the gospel.”

Hadwin contends that there is an important difference between an example being approved and being necessary. Quoting Roy Cogdill’s “When the apostles taught a thing or approved a practice engaged in by the church, it was prima facie evidence that Christ had commanded this,” Hadwin proceeds to show that it does not follow that if Paul approved of something it means that Christ commanded it. The saints at Troas met in a third story chamber with Paul’s apparent approval, but it hardly means that Jesus had commanded it. To be sure, Hadwin observes, a church may do what a primitive church did in a similar situation, but it does not follow that it must do so. Examples are therefore sometimes illustrations of what God has commanded, and this makes them important. And they provide us with encouragement and guidelines for our own mission. But this does not place them on the same level of authority with express commands.

He illustrates this with the story of Ananias and Saphira, who interpreted the example of their fellow saints of sharing all things common as binding upon themselves. It was right for them to sell their goods and do likewise, but it was not required that they do so. And so Peter says to them: “While it remained, did it not remain thine own?”

If examples cannot be made into laws, Hadwin says, then the absence of an example or the silence of scripture cannot be made a test. The Bible is silent about a lot of things, some of which we practice and others we don’t, but the mere absence of an example for this or that (he includes instrumental music in his list) does not prove it to be wrong.

One illustration he uses to clarify his position is that of congregational autonomy, which we all cherish better than we practice. This is certainly not commanded, but it was probably the practice of the primitive churches. This example, he observes, shows us the acceptability of such an arrangement. It is righ t for congregations to be autonomous because of the example, but since it is not an express command we cannot conclude that it would therefore be wrong to be other than autonomous. In view of our current practice it is a good thing!

He thinks the Restoration Movement would have been saved a lot of grief had it not foisted upon itself a pattern principle from the examples (or lack of examples) of the early church. If our brethren had never believed what the scriptures do not teach to start with, that is, that we must follow the examples of the early churches, then we would not have divided over the absence of an example for dividing into classes or the manner in which churches did or did not cooperate.

So he says, in further clarifying his point, the only time an example set by a New Testament church is binding upon us is when it can be proved that what they did was the result of an express command. He gains some support for his position from a surprising source, none other than Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation: “I believe that Bible authority rests solely on the revelational nature of the scriptures, and that dealing with necessary inference and approved examples involves the use of the human mind and, therefore, interpretation. Since no scripture is given for private interpretation, there is actually no Biblical ground for disfellowship in differences that are centered either in necessary inference or in approved example.”

This kind of talk from Reuel is better understood when one realizes that he was talking to the non-cooperatives who disfellowship him over Herald of Truth. He was not talking to our Christian Church brethren whom he disfellowships over instrumental music! Unfortunately one’s views on fellowship often depend on who is disfellowshipping whom at the time!

Hadwin emphasizes his thesis that the fact that an action was done does not mean it had to be done. And so just as the presence of an example does not require, so the absence of an example does not forbid. In view of all the fuzzy thinking that has gone on among us about examples, I have to admit that I find this refreshing.

He gives special attention to Acts 20:7, the passage that we have long used to teach that churches must observe weekly communion. Hadwin rejects this view, for there is no command to support this example. To the contrary, Jesus specified the time to be indefinite: “as often as yet eat this bread and drink the cup” (1 Cor. 11:26). Acts 20:7 may show that it is right for churches to use the first day in this way, but not compulsory.

He refers to the old “gopher wood” argument. God specified that wood, which excluded all other wood. So he specified the first day in the example of Acts 20:7, which excludes all other days. Hadwin correctly observes that God commanded Noah to use gopher wood, while there is no such command about communion on the first day.

He warns against universalizing a particular instance, such as requiring all churches to do exactly as Troas did according to Acts 20:7, quoting Campbell again: “It is bad logic to draw a general conclusion from any particular occurrence.”

So I say bully for Milo Richard Hadwin, a brother I do not yet know. I am surprised, but pleasantly surprised, that any student in our colleges would think so daringly in a Master’s thesis. He chose a problem and in good Socratic fashion pursued it wherever reason led him. What his church or his professors have always taught were beside the point. He allowed himself no conclusion that evidence did not support. He is an honest scholar, and while he may be a sectarian like most of the rest of us, he forgot his sectarianism while writing that thesis.

And three cheers for ACC and the graduate Bible faculty for approving the thesis (which of course does not imply agreement) and for depositing it in the college library for all to read. I see it as a significant gesture toward responsible scholarship.

And people wonder why I have hope for our future! —the Editor

True praise is frequently the lot of the humble; false praise is always confined to the great. —Henry Home