QUESTIONS ABOUT UNITY,
BAPTISM AND THE SUPPER 

         Tim Benham of Bloomington, In. sent us these questions, and they may be of sufficient interest to answer in these columns. 

         1. Are there any major differences between the unity platform which you and Carl Ketcherside advocate and A. Campbell? 

         In both practice and theory I would think that what Carl and I have stood for the past two decades would be substantially the same as Campbell's on this question. Campbell moved in a large fellowship. He insisted that all Protestant ministers should speak at both his college and his church in Bethany. The clergy of all faiths were often visitors in his home. In one of his travel letters he tells of attending an Episcopal Church in a town where his people did not have a church. He advocated unity on the basis of what all believers hold in common, which is at least as broad, if not broader, than what Carl and I have said. But more often than not he sought unity on the basis of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" with differences allowed in the area of opinions and private interpretations, and this is what Carl and I have been saying. And he did believe that one may be a true Christian who has mistaken the form of baptism and has not been immersed. He worked well with the Baptists and lived to regret that the Disciples and the Baptists ever separated. 

         2. Is an unbaptized believer a brother to you or a "brother in prospect" as Carl Ketcherside puts it? 

         If I understand Carl, his point is that life exists before birth, and I agree with this vital distinction, even if I am uncomfortable with the term "brother in prospect," which I fear is making too much of a beautiful analogy. All people are sisters and brothers in prospect, in a manner of speaking, in that they may believe and obey the gospel. I doubt if any of us in God's family have anything but sisters and brothers (period), with no qualifications heeded. A professor friend told me one fall that during the summer he had "a death in the family," referring to the loss of a stillborn child. Now and again I hear the sad report, "We lost our baby," and such ones do not seem to think that the child has to be "born" to be their child. Is a pregnant woman carrying her child or her child in propect? It appears to me that the child is as much a child before delivery as after. But there is danger of overplaying an analogy. We all want to avoid being legalists in the use of such figures, even when they originate in scripture. 

         If the sinner has life when he truly believes that Jesus is the Christ, this is significant indeed, and the scriptures make this clear, He who believes has life! Whatever be our understanding of baptism, it is irresponsible to say that life does not begin until one is baptized. Baptism may be the consummation of the regenerative process, but it is not regeneration per se. So Paul calls it "the washing of regeneration," which indicates that regeneration begins earlier, when one believes. 

         Is it amiss to say that when one accepts Jesus as the Lord of his life he is a Christian and our brother or sister? If he has not been properly baptized, then this is a defect in his response to the gospel and should be corrected. While we must be faithful to what the Bible teaches about baptism, we must remember that the essence of the Christian faith is to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. 

         3. Do you hold that baptism is neither a part of the gospel or apostolic doctrine? 

         Strictly speaking, I think it would be true that baptism is neither part of the gospel or the apostles' doctrine, but this would have to be explained, lest one run the risk of being misunderstood. The gospel is made up of facts, historic facts that add up to glorious news. And that is what the gospel is, good news, facts about what God has done for us through Christ. Baptism is neither news nor fact, but a command that is related to the gospel. It may symbolize the gospel, but a symbol is never the real thing. Baptism is the ordinance that God has given whereby we respond to the gospel. 

         There are several instances in scripture, such as Rom. 6:3-4, where teaching about baptism is part of the apostles' doctrine. But baptism itself, which is an act, is neither gospel or doctrine. As such one does not preach or teach it. It is a command to be obeyed. One may of course teach about baptism, showing its implications and significance, relating to the gospel. 

         4. Do you agree with Campbell's idea of restitution, such as one who has stolen is to restore what he has stolen once he becomes a believer. 

         Campbell emphasized this in view of his conception of repentance, which is not merely sorrow for past sins, but reformation of life. I could not agree more that when one becomes a Christian he should try to undo the wrongs he has done to others and thus make restitution, as much as this is possible. This is not sufficiently stressed in our teaching on repentance. 

         5. Do you acquiesce to Campbell's idea on "breaking the loaf, " how it should be observed every Sunday and whether it can be observed any other day? 

         You are referring to Campbell's conviction that the Supper should indeed have a loaf, not crumbs or wafers, as represented in Paul's pungent line: "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17). The one loaf, which stands as a symbol of the oneness of Christ's body, is thus "the bread which we break." Since the modern church is fractured as it is, perhaps it is fitting to serve crumbs. In most churches there is no "breaking of bread," but rather the picking up of crumbs. I agree with Campbell that a loaf (it matters not what kind of bread or whether leavened or unleavened, for Jesus did not choose unleavened bread, but "took bread," whatever was available) should be placed before the assembly as indicative of the unity of his church. It should then be blessed and broken, and passed among the disciples and they should eat. Jesus has given us a meaningful symbol and it should not be neglected. 

            And, yes, I see the Supper as every first day, which appears from both scripture and history to have been the practice. It is of course the meaning of it that is really important, more than temporal accuracy. If a church did it on other days as well, they might be looking to that verse that reads, "As often as you drink it do it in remembrance of me." But I do not recall Campbell discussing this particular point. --- the Editor