OUR CHANGING WORLD

 

A recent bulletin of the Friendswood Church of Christ near Houston carried a statement from the elders as to the way they view their minister, who is Gary Taliaferro. He is first an equipper and trainer of the members; secondly, he is an evangelist in the community; thirdly, a counselor within the membership, the community, and the school. It is especially significant that the minister is seen as an equipper , which has the ring of Eph. 4:11-13 to it. If this concept were taken seriously by our people, we would soon have congregations so involved in Body life that the preachers would be free to do the work of an evangelist. The system we now practice largely makes spectators of most of our members.

A number of leaders from the black Churches of Christ met in Miami recently to discuss whether they were the only Christians or Christians only. The reason for the gathering is that there is a substantial effort being made to liberalize the hard-line position that these churches have always taken. The “somewhats” gathered to address the problem, score what they consider false doctrine, and even to withdraw fellowship from the leader or leaders of the more open persuasion. The only white brethren on the program were Ira Rice and Leroy Garrett. We plan to give an extensive report of this stormy event in our next issue.

The day I write these lines is Ouida’s mother’s 90th birthday anniversary. She has now been in our home four years, and while she becomes more senile she is the same beautiful person that I have now known for 44 years. While frailty confines Mother Pitts to her room much of the time, she is frequently at her place at our table. I read to her almost daily and through the years have read much of Barclay’s Daily Bible Study to her, which she is able to appreciate. Ouida is of course very attentive to her, even in the night watches, a ministry that largely confines Ouida to her home, which she lovingly accepts. I assure her that the Lord will use this to prepare her for something special when our pilgrimage here is over. When we hear Mother Pitts calling Ouida on the intercom in the wee hours, not unlike the cries of a child for its mother, I am reminded of how the mother-child relationship can be reversed, one of the tragic turns that life takes. God in his mercy adds the touch of senility so as to make it bearable to the aged one. I have also been made aware of what is increasingly the case in America, that it is the old who take care of the old. And there is no way to forget the wisdom of Shakespeare, who spoke of most of us when he wrote, “Once a man, twice a child.” But I have long since quit trying to understand life. I just try to live it.

J. James Albert, in his little California Letter (Box 811, Corcoran, CA 93212), which I read assiduously, recently wrote to one of his critics, who insists on divorcing himself from his Restoration heritage, of his own view of our history: “I do trace my heritage to Campbell, Stone, et al. We owe a debt of gratitude to those men for starting the Restoration Movement, and for ferreting many truths from the Scriptures for our use. I hope it is not true of you, but often when our people deny their heritage they can’t stand the light of the truths discovered by those pioneers. They abandon restoration principles because they serve to indict their sectarian teachings and practices.”

Crisis in Church of Christ Polity

I recently attended a meeting of Church of Christ ministers in Dallas in which a lawyer gave a lengthy report on the several litigation cases across the country, from Florida to California, involving Churches of Christ. Most of these cases have to do with the role of elders and the general question of authority in a Church of Christ.

 

While the lawyer, himself a member of the Church of Christ, did not use the word crisis, he indicated that the church is destined to face some difficult times if it cannot find a more workable form of church government. Even during this meeting a call came to the lawyer informing him of a U. S. Supreme Court decision relative to a Church of Christ in Florida. The Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that in these four areas an eldership cannot act arbitrarily but must consult the congregation: (1) in the control of property, (2) in the handling of finances, (3) in the hiring of personnel, (4) in the selection or election of elders. In the Florida case the congregation, amidst a prolonged dispute, voted the elders out of office. The elders sued, claiming their authority precluded such action. The courts upheld the congregation.

In legal terms this is the issue: Is the Church of Christ congregational or hierarchical in government? The law recognizes no other options. Our churches must answer this question without equivocation, not only in view of possible lawsuits but for their own understanding as to who they are and how they do things. While all these years we have insisted that we are congregational, we have leaders among us who are prepared to testify in court that in terms of the eldership we are hierarchical, which means that the final authority is with the elders.

The classic example of hierarchical polity is the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope elects the cardinals and the cardinals elect the pope. The lowly member of a Roman Catholic congregation has no voice whatever as to who serves as parish priest, has no control of the church’s property or funds. The bishop is the absolute authority, and above him is the archbishop, the cardinals, and finally the pope. Do we in Churches of Christ have anything like that in our local congregations? If the “eldership” has the final say, with no recourse on the part of the congregation, in reference to finances, property, hiring and firing the preacher, and even selecting other elders, creating a self-perpetuating board, then we have something akin to Roman Catholic polity.

The Methodist Church is also hierarchical in that it is ruled by bishops, who can do as they please, apart from the will of the congregation. A local Methodist Church is owned by the Conference, which is ruled by bishops, so that the people themselves have no control of the property they paid for, and once the money is deposited in the bank it belongs to “the Church,” not to the local people. Is the Church of Christ like this? Or are we congregational, which means that the final authority lies in the congregation itself?

From the days of Stone and Campbell our people have believed: (l) the people elect the elders in some manner, not the elders; (2) the people can remove a sitting elder if need be; (3) the elders are to consult the congregation in the decision-making process and are not to rule arbitrarily or dogmatically; (4) the property belongs to the people, not the elders; (5) the congregation has the right to be informed as to how money is spent and has a voice in how it is spent.

The present crisis exists because we have allowed these democratic values to slip from us. In ensuing essays we intend to enlarge upon these concepts, both from the Scriptures and from our leading thinkers through the years, so that we might see what Churches of Christ are supposed to be. — The Editor