Highlights in Restoration History . . .

DEATHBED REPENTANCE

One of the lesser known preachers among our pioneers was one Alexander Graham. One is tempted to add Bell to that name, but he was just Alexander Graham, and he had such a reputation as a preacher that at his death Alexander Campbell referred to his “remarkable and eventful life” and the “irreparable loss” in having to give him up. These were the real heroes of our movement: those who did the work while not always recognized for it.

There is an interesting anecdote about Alexander Graham’s last days. Realizing that the end was near, having suffered “the last bitter dregs of that horrible dyspepsia,” he requested that his friends be brought into his room, one by one, so that he could have a last word with them. He took pains to dress up for the occasion. The girls of the school he taught in Marion, Alabama were among the first to be summoned, to whom he delivered “a calm and most lucid address.”

One gets the impression that our pioneers took dying seriously and did it with style and drama. This was especially the case when brother Graham at last had his wife brought before him, addressing her in “the most affectionate and feeling manner.” These chores all done, he requested that they allow him to die in peace and not prolong his life.

Among those summoned to his side was a Methodist preacher whom he had debated sometime earlier. “Brother Hammel,” he said, “I consider you a gentleman and a Christian brother. We have differed, and, in the heat of discussion, something may have escaped me calculated to wound your feelings; but if so, it was unintentional.”

Brother Graham went on to say to the Methodist divine: “We are both aiming at heaven, and agree as to the great fundamental principles of Christianity. I trust in Jesus Christ’s blood for salvation. There is no other name given under heaven by which we can be saved.”

This obituary notice, appearing in Campbell’s Millennial Harbinger, reminds us that our heritage is not one of exclusivism, where we have little or nothing to do with other believers and where people of other churches are turned into enemies. Our forebears had no qualms about calling a Methodist minister “Brother” and accepting him as a Christian. Alexander Graham’s sweet attitude is refreshing, speaking to us out of our distant past. He knew how to treat his wife with feeling and affection, and when the last hour came he bade her goodbye as one who knew where he was going, his last journey.

He wanted a final word with his Methodist brother, with whom he had some differences, even “heated discussions.” Maybe some unkind word had slipped, so he wanted to make sure there was peace between them. “I consider you a gentleman and a Christian brother,” he said to his friend in the ministry, and how can there be more reconciling words than those?

Once the brother had his house in order, he wanted to be left alone, to die in peace with him who was waiting to lead him across Jordan. I like the anecdote, for it reflects the life of one who knew how to die because he had learned how to live.

Doubtless Alexander Graham had his convictions, and we can believe that he never compromised any truth he held. Yet he could practice forbearance toward those he believed to be wrong on some matters and accept them as equals in the Lord. We can be sure that Graham argued with his Methodist friend about baptism, even “heatedly,” but this disagreement did not keep him from accepting him as “a gentleman and a Christian brother.” Can we really be any other way and still take the claims of unity seriously? If unity means that we have to believe and practice alike on everything, including baptism, then there is no hope for unity. Graham accepted the Methodist minister on the basis of faith in and loyalty to Jesus Christ. If we make anything else the basis of acceptance, we lay down a doctrinal test that lacks scriptural grounds.

“Master, we saw a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him,” one of the apostles reported to Jesus (Mk. 9:38). We are often like that concerning those “not of us,” and we too try to stop them or discourage them in one way or another. Like the vulnerable apostles, we tend to reject those who are not of our party and who do not march by our drumbeat.

We remember Jesus’ response to this: “You must not stop him: no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us.”

We who claim such loyalty to Scripture sometimes see only what we want to see. While our Lord teaches forbearance and acceptance of those “not of us” when they are ministering in his name, we have a way of ignoring the word of God and go right on rejecting all those who are not “Church of Christ.”

One fallacy in our rejection of others is that we magnify the difference between ourselves and other believers. There was not as much difference between the apostles and the one they found as they thought, otherwise Jesus would not have responded the way he did. They had only one reason for rejecting him: he was not one of them! This is usually our reason for rejecting other Christians, for all we know about them is that they are not “Christian Church” or “Church of Christ.” We are slow to see that there can be differences and yet a mutual love for and commitment to our Lord. And is that not what it is all about? We can accept each other on the basis of mutual love for Christ, and whatever differences need to be discussed can be done within a fellowship of love and acceptance.

A good current example of what I am saying is the ministry of the University Church of Christ in Conway, Arkansas. Visiting in our home recently, the minister of that church told Ouida and me how they are enjoying a beautiful fellowship with other churches in their city, albeit other Churches of Christ will not fellowship them since they are accepting those “not of us.” He has visited the pulpits of other churches, and their ministers have addressed his congregation. They can now talk together, pray together, study together --- as Christians should!

The time came when he had gained their trust that he shared with his fellow ministers his concern for the place of baptism. “You brothers trust me now,” he could say to them,” “Now I want you to tell me how you deal with these passages with your people.” He gave them such texts as Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, and Acts 22:16 to study so that they might make a response at a later date. He found them uncomfortable with this subject, but he lovingly urged them to let him know how they interpreted these Scriptures in their preaching.

While some of them balked and showed irritation, others came to terms with the matter in an honest way. Amusingly, one preacher had an “explanation” for all the verses except Acts 22:16, where Saul of Tarsus is told to “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins.” With resignation he said, “I just don’t know what to do with that one.”

The minister is right in sharing his passion for what the Scriptures teach about baptism with his fellow ministers, for the denominations generally handle this subject carelessly and inadequately. But he is also right in accepting his fellow ministers as Christians and brothers in spite of this difference.

And who is likely to place “our plea” before others, those like the Conway church, who create an atmosphere of loving acceptance and unity, or most of the rest of us who will have nothing to do with such folk until they line up and see things like we do? Which is more reconciling? Which is more in keeping with our plea for unity? Which conforms more to the spirit of Alexander Graham and our early pioneers? Which is more in keeping with our Lord’s liberating principle of “He who is not against us is for us”?

We are not really free in Christ until we can accept all those who love him and obey him to the best of their understanding. This is the basis on which we desire others to accept us. If it is a matter of perfect faith and exact obedience (was your baptism perfect?), then who can really be called a Christian? --- the Editor