The Lawsuit at 6th and Izard Church of Christ …

FREEDOM RIDERS IN LITTLE ROCK

On a recent crisp Sunday morning I attended a special kind of class at the 6th and Izard Church of Christ in Little Rock. It is made up of those who have special interest in the litigation now in progress between opposing forces in that church. They meet and study together as classes usually do, but they have common cause in contending for what they believe to be a basic human right as well as a Christian principle, the right to know.

The evening before I was with these same people in a fellowship dinner in the home of Joe Brown, who is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is tantamount to serving as a representative of the congregation since the suit is asking the court to order the elders to disclose the financial affairs of the church to all the congregation. The cook for the occasion, who prepared the best charcoal steaks in either Arkansas or Texas, was Bob Scott, the attorney who is representing the plaintiff. While I had already read scores of pages of legal briefs regarding the case, this personal contact gave me a better “feel” for what is going on. In the course of the evening I talked with them concerning the issue of freedom and bondage as revealed in the New Testament, and I reminded them that human history is the story of man’s struggle to be free. Even in the church’s long history, beginning with Jesus himself, the lingering issue has been freedom from oppression. Our Lord was addressing those who were oppressed by the church when he said, “Come unto me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Jesus is still the Lord of liberty to all who respond to that call.

In the class that morning I presented to them an autographed copy of my history book, The Stone-Campbell Movement, in which I inscribed: To the “Dirty Dozen” Freedom Riders of the 6th and Izard Church of Christ, which was my way of acknowledging the dramatic role they are playing in helping to free the Churches of Christ today from the oppression of what might be called “elderocracy.”

There are far more than a dozen of them, of course, but it is always a tiny minority that steps out in the name of freedom. They are however “dirty” as folks always are who challenge the arrogance of power. When Jesus confronted the ecclesiastical power structure of his day he was “dirty” with a demon, they said. I’ve always admired freedom riders, such as helped to integrate Central High School in Little Rock back in the days of Eisenhower, which presaged a great era for civil rights in our nation. And now a few blocks away is a new class of freedom riders — in the Church of Christ, believe it! — that seeks to unhorse the arrogant claims of an entrenched hierarchy. It too may presage a great era of self-examination and soul-searching among Churches of Christ that will revolutionize our thinking about “the eldership” and “the authority of elders” and other matters of church policy.

I want these freedom riders to read my history book so that they can see that they are being true to their great heritage in the Stone-Campbell movement. I explained to them in class that the three independent movements that eventually became a great unity movement and finally became Churches of Christ-Christian Churches were first of all freedom movements. The likes of Rice Haggard, James O’Kelley, Thomas Campbell, and Barton Stone were freedom riders! Their first concern was more libertarian than it was doctrinal. Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address reads like the Declaration of Independence, and Barton Stone’s Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery was written “in order that the oppressed may go free, and taste the sweets of gospel liberty.”

The elders at 6th and Izard apparently do not have this high regard for liberty, for they contend in their response to the suit that the members of the congregation do not need to know about the financial affairs of the church and that they as elders have the right to secrecy in such maters. They do not have to give an account to anyone and they are at liberty to spend the church’s money as they please. They thus deny what is generally conceded to be a law of both God and man: the right to know.

Since the church at 6th and Izard is an Arkansas corporation and subject to the laws thereof, which requires such disclosure (even to the general public if there is sufficient cause!), the elders did not challenge the corporate law of the state in their response to the suit. They rather contend that the law does not apply to them since they are a church and are thus protected by the Constitution’s separation of church and state. They contend that the state would be interfering with the doctrinal freedom of the church.

A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, with the judge insisting that the case was a matter of “the law of man” and that a church is not exempt from obeying the law because it is a church. The separation of church and state has no relevance to the case, the judge ruled, and so the elders’ policy of non-disclosure is illegal. The congregation does have the right to know, the judge ruled. Rather than to yield to this decision and thus reveal to their sisters and brothers in the Lord what has happened to their money, the elders have appealed the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

To us outsiders (as well as to many of the insiders), it would appear that the elders and the minister, who is also an elder, have something to hide. Why this policy of non-disclosure and why this insistence on secrecy? Why this distrust of the congregation? Why not be open and aboveboard?

My acquaintance with this case and the general reaction to it leads me to make these observations:

1. Our reluctance to accept the great principle of servant hood laid down by our Lord: It shall not be so among you. Jesus said that in settling a dispute among his disciples over power. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors’.” (Lk. 22:25-26) Jesus is saying that in his kingdom the titles of honor, such as Benefactor, will go to those who are servants. The world thinks in terms of power, control, and authority. It shall not be so among you! If we have elders they are to be servants, not power brokers. I am disturbed that Churches of Christ see their elders more in terms of authority figures than as shepherds of a flock.

2. In reading the legal briefs of the Little Rock affair one gets the feel that the elders see themselves as “the church,” while the people are the members. One sees this in such notions as “the members do not need to know what the church decides.” This confirms my recent essay on “The Roman Catholic Church of Christ,” for this is precisely the position of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the hierarchy, the pope and his priests, that is the church, while the people are only adherents. And they too lay claim to authority and secrecy.

3. The elders at 6th and Izard, and it is growing more common, act as if “the eldership” belongs to them. Even if it be granted that there is really any such thing as an “eldership” in the Body of Christ, it belongs to the church, the people, and not to those that hold the office. The church bestows the office and it has the right to take it back if need be. It is an office that can be recalled and given to another. The very fact that an apostle sought to regulate how a “charge against an elder” would be made shows that such charges are sometimes in order (1 Tim. 5:19).

4. Elderocracy among Churches of Christ has gone so far that elders presume to fill their own vacancies. They have become a self-perpetuating corporate board. We have lost the last vestige of democracy when we have no voice over who “rules” over us. It is common among us for an elder to announce who the additional elders are, selected by the sitting “eldership.” Sometimes there is a lame gesture toward commonality, with some such statement as, “If there be no objection to these names in the next two weeks, these men will be considered elders.” Perhaps that is why the church has no ordination service for elders. We do not ordain them because we do not elect them. In the Churches of Christ elders manufacture other elders by some kind of divine fiat. Roman Catholicism again! Did you ever hear of a Roman Catholic casting a vote for the pope or a priest? The pope selects the cardinals and the cardinals select the pope. But who are we to criticize when we have no voice in either the selection of elders or ministers? In the Church of Christ the elders hire and fire as they please and when they please, and they give account to nobody.

5. We the people are responsible for all this. If we have nothing better, it is because we have not demanded something better. We have elderocracy because we have allowed it. And we often like it that way, for we want others to act for us and to think for us. We want others to make all the decisions and we do not want to be bothered. Vigilance is still the price of liberty whether in a nation or in a church. No people will be free who love bondage. Democracy is for those who are willing to pay the price for it, responsibility.

6. Our institutional eldership has a way of blurring individual responsibility. Whether at 6th and Izard or generally a single elder when approached may be open and conciliatory about any question raised, but it is typical for him to say, “But I am only one elder.” The “eldership” may behave in a way that contradicts the moral sensitivity of anyone elder. It is the “organization man” all over again who may do things that the moral man would not do. When one is lost in a crowd, he not only may resort to mob violence but also to stealth, secrecy, and power brokering.

7. There are several lawsuits now pending involving Churches of Christ, most of which have to do with the arrogance of power assumed by elderships. It is noteworthy that our leadership is reluctant to take the side of the people against said elderships, however blatant be the claims of power. Our people all know that what the elders at 6th and Izard claim goes far beyond what we have stood for all these years. But the elders dare not be opposed! “The System” may be threatened! And this in the light of the apostle Paul’s warning in Acts 20:30 that it may be elders themselves who will lead us astray. This illustrates how far we have gone with all this nonsense about “the authority of the elders.” And yet the New Testament never describes elders in terms of authority!

Down the road some years when our people have developed a more responsible polity we will have reason to be grateful to the freedom riders in Little Rock. Even now they serve as the conscience of all those who pay little attention to what is happening to us as a church. Freedom riders have a way of doing that. They embarrass us into conceding that we are about to lose something that is very precious, our freedom in Christ, if we have not lost it already. — the Editor