THE CAMPBELL MYTH

An advertisement of the 20th Annual Lectureship of the Memphis School of Preaching reminded me of what I will call the Campbell myth. I will explain what I mean.

The lectureship is honoring the pioneers of the Stone-Campbell heritage and Thomas and Alexander Campbell head the list. These heroes of yesteryear will no doubt be praised for the great men they were, and the implication will be that those gathered for the lectures stand within the grand tradition of the Campbells. The Campbells will not be ridiculed as liberals or heretics, as some of the rest of us are, but as defenders of the faith and as the heroes of those assembled. This is the myth. It is a myth because those among us who really believe as the Campbells did are summarily rejected by these same brethren as apostates from the faith. It is a myth because these brethren could not possibly fellowship the Campbells if they were among us today.

But the Campbell myth deepens when we realize that in all our factions among Christian Churches/Churches of Christ there is a reluctance to break fellowhsip with our roots, especially Alexander Campbell, however tenuous the relationship with our pioneers may be. No one is willing to make a complete break with Alexander Campbell, however foreign he may appear to us in our sectarian biases. I have noticed this on numerous occasions when I myself was being put down, even as I quoted Alexander Campbell as believing the very thing for which I was being rejected.

1 recall one instance in particular here in Denton when visiting ministers repudiated me publicly for believing that there are Christians among the sects. While I could make no reply publicly, I did confront my accusers “down front,” and with a crowd gathered around us I pointed out that our noble leaders have all believed that there were Christians among the sects, and that included Alexander Campbell, who had been lauded that very day as one of our heroes. But I could not get my accusers to admit that this was Campbell’s position or to repudiate him for it. “Will you disfellowship Alexander Campbell for believing there are Christians among the sects like you do me?,” I would ask, pressing the point as the crowd edged in. I could not get them to reject Campbell for believing what they condemned me for believing.

That is the myth. I was reminded of it all over again when I noticed that these same brethren are calling Goebel Music to speak on “False Witnesses: Stopping the Mouth of the ‘Christians in the Sects’ Teaching.” Goebel speaks after Billy Bland delivers his tribute to “Pioneers on Preaching: Thomas and Alexander Campbell.” Goebel and Billy need to get together. Since both of the Campbells clearly and emphatically believed that there were Christians among the sects, Billy should expose the Campbells for what they really were, heretics whose mouths need to be stopped, and then Goebel can shoot them down as apostates and false brethren rather than noble pioneers of our heritage.

But Goebel will not do this. While these brethren will castigate the likes of Rubel Shelly for this more open view of who is a Christian, as I heard them do at a recent Denton lectureship, they do not want to admit that Rubel has Alexander Campbell on his side. While no one looks to Campbell as authoritative, we all seem reluctant to hold a view that leaves us rootless in reference to our own history. This is probably a good thing, for we all need to have sufficient respect for our forebears as to learn from them. We can draw upon them selectively, following them only as they follow Christ and the apostles.

Moreover, it is one thing to call Rubel Shelly or Leroy Garrett names, but something else to add and Alexander Campbell to the list of heretics. They do not want to put us in such elegant company or in such a respected class. Besides, it doesn’t make sense to eulogize Campbell in one session and to disfellowship him in the next! So, by some strange logic Alexander Campbell escapes their wrath. It is a case of logic yielding to myth. If they were to come to terms with the real Alexander Campbell, they wouldn’t give him the time of day in terms of acceptance and fellowship. As Eusebius tells how the apostle John fled the bathhouse when he learned that Cerenthus the heretic was there, these fellows might take off should the real Campbell come around.

That Alexander Campbell did indeed believe that there were Christians among the sects, even unimmersed ones, we have often shown in these pages. A brief review will be in order.

Such as the quotation we published on the front page of our February issue:

I declare non-fellowship with no one who owns the Lord in word and deed. Such is a Christian. If a man confess the Lord Jesus, or acknowledge him as the only Saviour sent by God; if we vow allegiance to him, and submit to his government, I will recognize him as a Christian and treat him as such. (Chris. Bap., Vol. 7, 1830, p. 651, Burnet Ed.)

Then there is this from the well-known Lunenberg Letter:

But who is a Christian? I answer, Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 411)

It is in this letter that he goes on to say: “I cannot, therefore, make anyone duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion.” He then makes a distinction seldom recognized among his heirs today: “It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for land loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.”

Campbell always showed charity toward those “in error” who had not yet found their way, recognizing that they were Christians, such as: “But while we remember our own mistakes and the systems and teaching of our time, we must acknowledge many to be Christians who are led away and corrupted from the simplicity of Christ” (Mem. of Alex Campbell, Vol. 2, p. 62). It would be refreshing to hear this kind of graciousness at the Denton or Memphis lectureships.

The real Campbell was not even himself baptized scripturally, if these brethren are right. His biographer, Robert Richardson, makes it clear that it was ten years after he had been immersed, in the McCalla debate, that he came to see the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. He believed that he was a Christian all along and not only at the point that he was immersed. He was immersed because he was convinced that he had not been baptized properly. But he never in his long ministry took a hard line on immersion, such as it being absolutely essential to salvation, as he clearly states in the Rice debate: “Because I do not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation in any case, while he makes the knowledge of Christ absolutely necessary in all cases.” (p. 519).

In that debate Mr. Rice came down hard on Campbell for what he had said about baptism in the McCalla debate, insisting that Campbell was inconsistent. This is what Campbell had said: “The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed; yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism.”(p. 516)

If the fellows in Memphis had a liberal like that on tape, they would give him a harder time than Rice gave Campbell. But Campbell never considered this an inconsistency, for he always avoided a legalistic view of baptism. After all, baptism is not for the remission of sins in every sense but only in some sense. Campbell interpreted baptism in relation to the grace of God and the blood of Christ, which is why he sometimes referred to baptism as “the work of grace.”

In that same debate with Rice the sage of Bethany spoke even plainer about where the Christians are:

I thank my Lord that my charities extend far beyond the contents of that little book lying on the table (pointing to the constitution of the Presbyterian church). Yes, sir, while I go for only one true catholic, apostolic church, and while I cannot find it in any of these Pedo-baptist “branches,” I can find Christian people among them all. (p. 496)

Would that our “Lectureship” brethren were as charitable as Alexander Campbell! If they cannot be, they might opt to come clean and acknowledge that they have little in common with Alexander Campbell, certainly in the area of fellowship and baptism.

But it goes beyond baptism and fellowship, such as his aversion to sectarianism and the notion that “we” have all the truth. Such as this tremendous statement:

I have tried the pharisaic plan and the monastic. I was once so straight that, like the Indian’s tree, “I leaned a little the other way.” And however much I may be slandered now as seeking “popularity” or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others’, I proved that truth and not popularity was my object; for I was once so strict a separatist that I would neither pray nor sing praises with anyone who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth. (Mem. of Alex Campbell, Vol. 2, p. 137)

This is why Campbell moved among all the denominations and why he chose to identify with the Baptists. This statement alone would be enough to hang the real Campbell among his own people today!

I do intend to continue in connection with this people (Baptists) so long as they will permit me to say what I believe; to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views or practices. I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. (Memoirs, Vol. 2, p. 134)

It is noteworthy that both of the first two Churches of Christ under the Campbells joined Baptist associations. The Brush Run church joined the Mahoning and the Wellsburg church the Redstone Association.

These are not the only “sins’ of the real Alexander Campbell. He was instrumental in organizing the first missionary society and was its (first) president for life. Moreover he supported it from some of the royalties from his books.

He saw his own religious body, called variously Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, as a denomination (but never a sect, he insisted), using such terms as “We as a denomination,” while “other denominations” often appears in his writings.

And he capitalized the C in church nearly always when he referred to the Church of Christ. The trial is over, that is sin enough!

He warmly fellowshipped “denominational” preachers, having them speak at the Bethany church and at his college. He heartily entertained them in his home, and, mark it, wined and dined them as brothers in Christ. I must concede that he was not that open toward the Roman clergy!

Well, that is enough, for the real Alexander Campbell, once he stands up, would be mercilessly dispatched by sectarian darts. There is no need in kicking a corpse.

In closing I could turn this around the other way and ask what Campbell would think of us. the twenty-odd sects that are his heirs. Which of us would he join if here today? Louis Cochran, that great Campbell scholar and novelist, asked that question in one of my services in Murfreesboro, Tn. years ago. He thought, perhaps graciously, that he would join the Church of Christ since he was anti-organ (even if barely!). But his wife Bess, a Campbell scholar in her own right, dissented, insisting that if he lived today he would be so disgusted that he wouldn’t join any of us.

These women! They are always right! — the Editor