Highlights in Restoration History …

MATTERS OF FORBEARANCE

While we often refer to matters of faith and matters of opinion in recounting our origins and rehearsing our mottoes, we are hardly aware that the idea of “matters of forbearance” goes back to the very beginning of the Stone-Campbell movement.

Back in 1809 when Thomas Campbell was organizing the Christian Association of Washington and writing the Declaration and Address, he came up with the one slogan that apparently originated among our people, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” When Campbell stated this as a principle for the unity efforts he had begun, some of his friends asked if this would not mean that they would have to repudiate infant baptism. While he at first conceded that if infant baptism was not found in Scripture, they could have nothing to do with it, he was later to equivocate by suggesting that it could be made a matter of forbearance.

While Father Campbell eventually decided to be immersed along with his son, which was in a sense a rejection of infant baptism, there is no evidence that he ever changed his mind about treating it as a matter of forbearance. He concluded that each person should determine for himself the validity of infant baptism and the propriety of the various forms of baptism, whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. For the sake of unity, he insisted, such questions about baptism would be left to private judgment. He saw them as belonging to the chapter of non-essentials and by no means as important as the great matters of faith and righteousness.

One of Campbell’s old friends who had come from Ireland before him, James Foster, chided him for his ambivalence, asking him if he could see himself any longer baptizing an infant in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Obviously stunned by the rebuke, Campbell’s face colored and he accused Foster of being “the most intractable person I ever met.”

But Campbell lived comfortably with the principle of forbearance in reference to baptism. He himself, baptized as an infant, was immersed as an adult, and Foster was right in that Campbell never again baptized an infant. He was doing what he advocated: allow each one to decide for himself in the light of his own conscience.

This means that Father Campbell repudiated infant baptism in terms of his own conscience before God, but he did not repudiate it in the sense of rejecting as Christians those who had only been sprinkled as infants. He accepted them and their baptism even while teaching what he believed to be the truth of believer’s baptism.

In explaining this Robert Richardson reveals an attitude that was unfortunately largely lost in the ongoing history of the Movement:

Ardently devoted as he was to the cause of Christian union, and convinced that some concessions were needed in the existing distracted state of the religious world, he continued to insist that this question, as well as certain others of a similar character, might safely be left to private judgment, and be retained for the sake of peace, as belonging to the chapter of “non-essentials,” and by no means so important as the great matters of faith and righteousness. (Memoirs, 1, p. 240)

What happened to Thomas Campbell’s conviction that some concessions are needed in an appeal for Christian union? We can make concessions without compromising truth, as Campbell’s own life indicates. There are questions about baptism that are not easily resolved. Sincere Christians see them differently. Let’s concede this and accept each other as equals in Christ in spite of differences on baptism. And all along we will bear witness both by our teaching and practice what we see to be the truth about baptism. This is the principle of forbearance.

In the above quotation Richardson may not mean that Thomas Campbell saw baptism as non-essential, but that it is not essential for us to agree on all the details. We can see baptism as a matter of forbearance. Each one should practice and teach what he believes to be right, and yet be forbearing toward those who differ with him. Campbell saw this as the way to unity.

It is obvious enough that Christians will never accept each other as equals, which is a mandate of Scripture, if they make unanimity of opinion about baptism a condition of that acceptance. There should be but one condition of acceptance: faithfulness to Jesus Christ according to one’s ability and knowledge. Differences are to be transcended by forbearing love. This is the basis of unity according to Eph. 4:2: “showing forbearance to one another in love.” Forbearance implies diversity. If unity must be based upon uniformity of opinion or exact doctrinal agreement, then there is nothing to forbear. Forbearance says something like I love you and accept you anyway.

Where do you draw the line? is the question often asked by those who suppose a unity based upon forbearing love would go too far and we would be “fellowshipping anybody and everybody.” I could not agree more that the line must be drawn, for otherwise Christian faith has no meaning. The line should be drawn where the early Christians drew it, loyalty to Jesus Christ. When they died together in the Colosseum in Rome it was not doctrinal unanimity that bound them, but a common love and commitment to Christ.

Surely we can enjoy fellowship with any believer who would die along with us out of loyalty to Christ. If he would do that, then we should be able to make “matters of forbearance” of those things that might otherwise keep us separated. — the Editor