CATHOLICS CRITICIZE CAMPBELLITES

These days we do not think of Roman Catholics being apologetical (in the sense of defending their faith) or evangelistical (in the sense of seeking to win others to their faith). It seems out of character for them to be taking on Protestants and defending such things as the papacy, the place of tradition, and the authority of the church. As rare as this might be, there is an instance of this in a Roman Catholic publication called This Rock, emanating from San Diego. It is lay-run but has priestly chaplains.

It takes on all Protestantism in a friendly, scholarly manner, but has a special penchant for bashing Mormons. They even had a written debate with one Mormon until he checked out, explaining that his bishop advised against it. As for the Mormon claim to be concerned for the poor, the Roman Catholic apologist observed that Mormons are not known to reach out to non-Mormons, and asked, “Where is your Mormon Mother Teresa?” They point out that the Mormons can’t stand the slightest criticism of their doctrine.

The journal challenges basic Protestant tenets, such as justification by faith only. In one issue of the journal they argued with some persuasion that Luther understood neither justification nor faith. What is surprising is how often they rely upon Scripture, such as taking Luther to task on what the Bible actually says about faith. I find myself agreeing with them more than I disagree.

Even when they took on the Campbellites I had to concede that they were as much right as they were wrong. In a piece on “Campbell’s Soupy Theology,” in which they said next to nothing about his theology, they gave a brief summary of Campbell’s life and contributions, describing him as “a man of intellect and accomplishment.” They challenged his view of sola scriptura (Scriptures only as authoritative), which is of course generally Protestant, noting that the Bible never claims that it alone is the depository of all truth. I am not sure that Campbell believed that, for he insisted that there is a “consensus fidelium” in the church that must be looked to in determining the meaning of Scripture.

I doubt if we should claim “the Bible alone” is authoritative. If we do, we are in immediate trouble in determining the true books that make up the Bible since many books vied for a place in the canon. If it was the church that determined the canon, which is a fact of history, then some authority has to be given to the church.

The journal saw Campbell as successful in that his movement began with a handful and soon numbered hundreds of thousands, but as a failure in that he intended to unite the churches but only added new divisions of his own, pointing to the three denominations that resulted, the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ.

Since The Rock invites friendly confrontation, I wrote a response to their Campbell piece. ‘I thought you might be interested in what I had to say. Here is my letter to the Roman Catholic journal:

Dear Editor:

As a member of the Church of Christ and as a student of the writings of Alexander Campbell I would like to make a friendly response to Mark Wheeler’s “Campbell’s Soupy Theology” in This Rock, August 1991.

Oddly enough, Mr, Wheeler does not follow through on the title of the article in that he says little if anything about Campbell’s theology. He does correctly refer to his desire to unify the divided church of his day, and adds, “Campbellism failed to reunite even Protestantism, and it ended up contributed (Sic) new divisions of its own.

This is unfortunately the case, for there are now three denominations resulting from the Campbell movement, as Wheeler notes. But does it follow that Campbell’s theology was therefore “Soupy” or his vision of “uniting the Christians in all the sects” was therefore wrong? It could be that he was a man ahead of his time, whose idea had not yet come. He may have been right even though he failed. Mr. Wheeler does not seem to realize that it was never Campbell’s intention to start another denomination. He was very reluctant to leave first the Presbyterians, the church of his youth, and later the Baptists, insisting that he would remain with them so long as he could freely teach. He always claimed he was forced out.

Interestingly enough, Campbell always claimed to be catholic and based his plea for unity on catholic principles—not Roman or Greek Catholic, but catholic in the sense of “the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church.” He was persuaded that all Christians can unite on the things they hold in common. He had a way of saying to his detractors, “You can’t make a sect of us because we are catholics.” Not exactly “Soupy” I would say.

 Sincerely,                

Leroy Garrett          

P.S. I take the liberty to enclose an essay I did on Campbell in case you might be interested, and you might pass it along to Mr. Wheeler in appreciation of his interest in Campbell.

The letter could have included the fact that Campbell’s movement did not divide while he yet lived, and he insisted that it would never divide so long as the principles he had laid down were adhered to. The sum of those principles was that believers can unite only upon the essentials of the Christian faith—the facts of the gospel that are clearly and distinctly set forth in Scripture—and. that they are to allow liberty of opinion in all subordinate matters. Campbell thus distinguished between matters of the faith (where unity is required) and matters of faith (scruples or opinions where liberty is extended). Campbell was adamant in affirming that Christians can never unite upon opinions, and that unity is not a matter of doctrinal conformity. We unite by believing in and obeying Jesus Christ as Lord!

We eventually became a divided people when we departed from this plea of “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.” We never rejected the validity of the motto, but we ceased practicing it, including the latter part, for we quit loving each other and started debating one another and drawing lines of fellowship. It is to our shame that we did not divide over essentials but over methods, procedures, opinions.

This reference in a Roman Catholic source, which is innocuous enough, helps us to see ourselves as others see us—a divided unity movement, which is an oxymoron. Divided unitists! The truth is that for the most part we are no longer a unity people or a unity movement. We have settled in as three more denominations that are quite content to do their own thing and to forget their heritage as a unity people.

The good news in all this in that there is a revival of interest among our people in the noble dream of our pioneers of a united church. We are reading more about unity, thinking more about unity, praying more about unity. We yet have far to go if we once more become a unity people, but enough is happening to assure us that it is not an empty dream.

We may one day take up where Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell left off and once more plead for the unity of all believers in Jesus Christ alone.—the Editor.