Travel Letter. . .

REMEMBER RICHMOND!
(Delayed)

I thought I might be able to write this account while ensconced on the campus of the Union Seminary of Virginia in Richmond, but two of the seminary’s students, Larry Toney and Chris Davis, graduates of Johnson Bible College, kept me too busy. Here I am back home in lackluster Denton, Texas, relishing the good time I had and realizing that I must be one of the most fortunate men in all of history, for I visit the most fascinating places on earth and commingle with some of God’s most beautiful children. Now you tell me, how can anyone have it better than that? And then I come home to Ouida. It is really too much. All of this and heaven, too!

It was my first visit to Richmond, a city upon which history has laid a heavy hand. There were some “little” things I wanted to see: the hall where Lee accepted the command of the Confederate forces (the only general in history to be offered the command of both sides in a war!) and the place where Alexander Campbell met with Virginia’s great for the 1829 constitutional convention. I did not realize that these two events took place in the same hall in the Capitol, though it now serves only as a shrine. Aaron Burr was also tried for heresy there. So one has to watch lest he be overcome with history.

When I was at Princeton I did a research paper on the religion of Robert E. Lee, a man that I have come to admire greatly. I remembered from my reading that the memorial for him in Richmond, as magnificent as it was, had but one word inscribed on it, LEE. I wanted to see that above all else. Chris and I circumvented the statue not unlike the way the old general did his enemies. Magnificent! Especially since its recent refurbishment. It must be the only major memorial in the world with just one word telling its story. LEE! What more need be said? But I have thought of a possible epitaph, from the perspective of more than a century later. So right and yet so wrong! But it is not possible for Virginia, not even in 1983. Lee is a great study in human personality, of how men of fine character are flawed by pride.

Virginia is not still fighting the Civil War. They just haven’t surrendered yet!

The dear old lady who guided us through the Capitol and I got into a friendly argument. I observed that when Lee retired to the presidency of Washington College (on parole and stripped of U.S. citizenship!) that he told a visitor that had he known the South would have been so ill-treated by the Union he would never have surrendered, that he would have fought to the death. The visitor, one of his “Lieutenants” as I recall, suggested that it was not too late, that there could be another call to arms. But Lee, crushed by the events, lamented that it was indeed too late.

The dear old sister, one of the few left with that engaging southern accent, informed me in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, that such an incident never occurred. I think I know that I remember my history correctly, but I may not have time to search it out, so if some of you Civil War buffs will come to my rescue, I will write the woman and re-open the battle for Richmond.

But I had another thought as I made my way through the Museum of the Confederacy, and I have it now as I refer to “Civil War buffs.” Such suffering, such tragedy, such madness, such nonsense! A new nation, founded under God, committing homicide, suicide, and fratricide all in one. And men of the character of Lincoln and Lee. It confirms the message of Romans, that there is something dreadfully wrong about the human race, and ah, but for the grace of God!

How can any of us be buffs of such an episode of human misery? How can we make sport of such national shame? Virginia is a vast battlefield, and anyone with a metal detector can find enough old bullets and bombs for his showcase, bullets and bombs that left men dying, brother against brother, along with orphaned children, widowed wives, and bereaved parents. One brother told me he had gathered a tubful of such mementos. All such should be melted into a black wreath of continuing repentance for a national disgrace and a highhanded sin against the God that bore us. Brethren will replay the Civil War as if they were playing chess - “If Stonewall Jackson had only lived. . .” Will Germany one day have her “Nazi war” buffs and will her children gather the hair, teeth and ashes of those burned in the furnaces of Auschwitz?

I was in Richmond to speak at the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in the chapel of Union Seminary. Other speakers included a bishop of the Greek Orthodox Church and a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. It is likely that my presentation on unity was more “catholic” than either of theirs, though I did not get to hear them. One Roman Catholic student in the seminary was heard to remark that what I had said about unity was what he believed. Someone else asked our men if what I had said was what their church believed. Their reply was that my presentation was their heritage “at its best,” which means, I suppose, that we don’t always live up to what we preach. But then who does? I plan to publish my remarks under the title “What I Desire for Christian Unity” in this journal, perhaps in the same issue with this travel diary. (Later!)

Chris and Larry were pleased to have someone of their background in the pulpit of that famous old seminary, and they think it is the first time ever that anyone has presented the Stone-Campbell plea in the entire 171-year history of the school.

Those who read my essay may notice that I stated a premise not previously taken: a united church will have an open pulpit, open communion, and open membership. While all of us within the Movement practice at least one of these, many react very negatively to the idea of open membership. My own folk in Churches of Christ suppose they would, repudiate baptism if they approved of open membership, and the Christian Churches fear that it would be a surrender to the Disciples of Christ since that was an issue in their half-century quarrel that ended in division. But all of us practice open membership de facto more than we are willing to admit.

I am persuaded that if we can practice anyone of the three opens without compromising truth, we can practice all three. While I fought this out with myself for years, I am now persuaded that we can make nothing a condition of acceptance of another believer except loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord. Our Movement started that way, Christ-likeness being the only basis for Christian fellowship. We can return to it without any compromise of truth. I think I now know that we cannot be a real unity movement if we make a particular understanding and practice of baptism a test of communion.

I will be saying more about this a we go along, and I hope those of you who are tempted to turn me out as a heretic will forebear and give me a hearing. If you are willing to pass the Supper to one who is not yet immersed, I think I can show that you can list him as a “member” of your church. But this entails an examination of the whole idea of “membership,” official and unofficial. So be a good sport, however much you may disagree with me, and give me time to ask a few questions. One I want to ask is why we assume the prerogative to give people the third degree about their baptism when they come to us as a professed Christian. Why can’t we let our witness for believer’s baptism by immersion be within the framework of fellowship, leaving it to the individual to make response as he sees more truth? What kind of unity people are we when we refuse to accept other believers as equals because they do not see baptism the way we do?

I am not asking for any compromise with truth, but only that we grant to others what we want for ourselves, loving acceptance based upon our common devotion to Jesus Christ, not upon someone’s notion as to what constitutes complete knowledge and perfect obedience. I plan in future editorials to show how we can accept all Christians as equals and have an open pulpit, open communion, and open membership and still have a strong commitment and effective witness to all that we hold as truth. But we need a better term than “open membership.”

While I addressed Union Seminary and two different churches of our heritage while in Richmond, the most important part of the visit were the small gatherings in homes of folk from all three wings of our heritage. The renewal that we hope for among all our churches will come from the rank and file primarily, and when you meet the kind of folk I do you have reason to take heart that we are destined for a better tomorrow. --- the Editor