Summary and Review. . .

WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING (3)

This is the conclusion of a three-part series of a summary of some of the themes treated in this journal over the past four decades. We have had evidence through the years that many people were liberated from legalism, sectarianism, and obscurantism by what they read in this journal. Many people through the years have written or called to express eternal gratitude. We rejoice if we have helped even a few people out of partyism and closer to the security that is in Christ. Here are a few more subjects that have made a difference in their lives.

Nature of the Movement

This journal has stood almost alone, especially among Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches, in telling people that the so-called “Restoration Movement” was a unity movement more than it was a restoration movement. Readers are surprised to learn that in the early days of the Stone-Campbell movement our people nearly always referred to their efforts as “the current reformation” or “this reformation” (Campbell liked “the New Reformation”) and never, not even once that I have found, did they call it “the Restoration Movement.” This was not used until divisions began to occur over the tension between restorationism and unity.

They did use the term restoration, particularly Alexander Campbell with his theme of “the restoration of the ancient order,” but it was either used as a synonym of reformation or much as we would use renewal. They did not use the term in an a historical sense, which says the church through the centuries does not matter, or with the idea that they were restoring the original church that had ceased to exist.

The purpose of the movement was what the Campbells and Stone said it was, a unity movement. The founding documents are all unity documents, setting forth unity principles, and most of them do not even contain the term restoration. Robert Richardson, the movement’s first historian and the most resourceful one, said that “the movement was born of a passion for unity and unity has been its consuming theme.”

When the Church of Christ and the Christian Church leaders gather for their “Restoration” forums, it is restoration that they talk about. They appear oblivious to the fact that the movement was an effort to unite the Christians in all the sects. It is fair to say that these two denominations are not unity movements and have little or no concern for ecumenicity. They are restorationists, not unitists, and this is a tragic betrayal of their heritage. Restorationists always hold the view that they have restored the true church and unity is a matter of all others joining them. Stone and Campbell, who believed the church has always existed and who pled for unity on grounds of catholicity, did not believe that.

Baptism and Who Is A Christian

One only needs to read this paper back through the years to see how we have sought to free our people of a legalistic view of baptism and to give them a nonsectarian view of who is a Christian. We have insisted that while we hold to everything the Bible says about baptism, we reject some of the deductions drawn from what the Bible says. One deduction that we reject is that if one is not baptized by immersion for the remission of sins he is not a Christian. We have repeatedly observed that usually the order in the New Testament in becoming a Christian is faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit, but not always. Cornelius, for example received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, and I have no problem conceding to a Baptist that the repentant thief on the cross was saved without baptism. I just point out that penitent believers are not usually hanging on a cross and thus hindered from being baptized!

Barton Stone gave this definition: “Whoever acknowledges the leading truths of Christianity, and conforms his life to that acknowledgment, we esteem a Christian” (Biography, p. 332). Alexander Campbell had what he called his “favorite and oft-repeated” definition: “A Christian is one that habitually believes all that Christ says, and habitually does all that he bids him” (Mill. Harb.. 1837, p. 566). In the Lunenburg Letter Campbell put it this way: “But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one 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).

I have been called a liberal and a heretic for not being an “ultraist” on baptism (Campbell’s word). It should at least be acknowledged that Stone and Campbell were liberals and heretics before me. Oddly enough, our pioneers were never hard-liners when it came to baptism, even when they defended the ordinance on the polemic platform, as many of our people are today. They preached baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, but did not make it “absolutely essential,” as Campbell put it.

In one article on this subject in 1980, I suggested that we’re asking the wrong question when we ask who a Christian is, for it is barely a scriptural term. We should rather ask who is a disciple, or better still, “a disciple indeed,” the term Jesus used. Our Lord says, “If you continue in my word, then you are a disciple indeed? (Jn. 7:31) Perhaps we should settle for that. We all seem to know who a disciple is. We have concretized and sectarianized the term Christian.

Nature of Error

One of the important distinctions we have made through the years is between intentional, bad-spirited error and being sincerely mistaken. There are errors and there are errors, and we should keep that in mind when we label folk “brothers in error.” We are all in error about some things, except those among us who are perfect and have all knowledge. When Carl Ketcherside was accused of having fellowship with “brothers in error,” he would reply, “I have no other kind of brothers except brothers in error.” The most serious error is to be proud, arrogant, and judgmental; these are the sins our Lord condemned. Some people are sincerely mistaken about things we suppose we are right about. That doesn’t keep them from being Christians, unless we presume that a Christian has to render perfect obedience and have perfect, knowledge.

Sam Stone, editor of the Christian Standard. tells the story of a preacher friend of his who when visiting an acappella Church of Christ was told he could not be called on to lead prayer because he was a brother in error, for he had an instrument in his church. The preacher replied, “I would like to meet the one you call on for prayer.” It is a story that lays bare our arrogance when we presume others to be in error but not ourselves. There may be errors so serious that they would hinder our prayers, but surely being sincerely mistaken is not one of them. If so, who could pray?

Hope for the Divorced

I didn’t realize how much I had written on this subject until a sister in Kansas sent me a list of all the articles over many years, urging that I put them in booklet form. My main complaint has been that certain editors, preachers, and elders are making laws about divorce and remarriage that God has not made. And that it is nothing less than nonsense to say that people aren’t really married in the eyes of God if their divorce was not for “a scriptural reason.” I have noted that it may be true that people sin when they divorce and remarry, but that they are nonetheless now married to the second party. Jesus said as much, “If a man divorces his wife and marries another. . .” He is married to another!

My conclusions on this subject have been moderate, not radical. I have simply said that divorce is not the unpardonable sin, and that anyone who is divorced (even if he or she sinned in divorcing) is free to marry, for that is what divorce means—one is “loosed” and is free to marry, even if the marriage does not necessarily please God. And I consider it not only nonsense but inexcusable to tell someone who has been married a second time and has a second family that if he wants to be a Christian he has to leave his second wife and return to his first wife or remain celibate. I think Olan Hicks shows the absurdity of all this when he notes that one can be forgiven if he murders his wife and marries again, but not if he divorces her!

Interpretation

Responsible interpretation of Scripture is much of what this journal has been about. We have sought to expose the way we have warped, twisted, and abused the Bible in order to defend our party line, such as making “the gospel” to include everything in the New Testament (even things the NT is silent about, such as instrumental music!) and making “fellowship” mean approval or endorsement.

I have questioned the interpretation that says the Bible speaks authoritatively to us when it gives direct commands, approved example, and necessary inference, for there are instances when we all reject all three of these as applicable to us today. I have also warned that “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent” must be taken loosely, for we are all sometimes silent when the Bible speaks, and we all sometimes speak when the Bible is silent. We can’t help but do this if we “do church” in our modem world, for there is no way for us to be a first-century church.

I have not called for a new hermeneutics, but for the only hermeneutics there can be if we are responsible with the Bible, and that is to interpret the Scriptures in the same way and by the same rules we interpret any other literature, such as the daily newspaper or a letter from a friend. Common sense is the basic rule, but I would add in the case of the Bible that we interpret in the spirit of Christ. That would at least mean that no interpretation would be allowed that would contradict the spirit and character of Jesus Christ. How would this affect the conclusions we draw about the divorced, the dimensions of fellowship, and the role of women in the church?

Guest Writers

I want to conclude by recognizing that some of the most seminal material we have published through the decades has been by guest writers too numerous to mention. We have made a significant contribution in allowing people to be heard in these columns that otherwise would not have been heard, and as a result we have on deposit a lot of good stuff to pass along to generations yet to come. I am especially indebted to three people who have written extensively for this paper, Robert Meyers, Carl Ketcherside, and Cecil Hook.

Robert Meyers, who wrote for us mostly in the 1960’s and 1970’s, is perhaps the most creative and ablest writer we have published, and the most incisive and brutal. He has a way with words and can use them like a surgeon uses the scalpel. I will always be grateful to him for all the fires he built under us, fires I didn’t try to extinguish.

Carl Ketcherside gave us his “Pilgrimage of Joy” in sixty installments over six years, along with other good stuff. It was all vintage Carl, both liberating and entertaining. It was a sad day for me when he left us. I miss him terribly and will always treasure our friendship, as abiding as it was unique. We both believed our enemies sought to divide us, “divide and conquer,” but it never worked. They supposed we were in collusion in all we did and wrote, but the truth is that Carl never knew what was in my paper until it came in the mail, and I never knew what was in his until I read it, and sometimes I didn’t know even when I had read it!

While I knew Cecil Hook long before Carl died, he has in recent years helped fill the gap of losing Carl, both as a friend and a writer. Cecil can say more in less space and say it well than any writer I’ve ever had, and he has the gift of communicating with people where they are, issues that concern them. That is why his several books have been widely read and appreciated. He has a way of dressing us down (or is it undressing us?) without being offensive. Ouida and I prize his and Lea’s friendship.

All three of these writers were so capable that I did not have to do any editing to speak of. It is helpful to get stuff that is ready “as is.” And there are writers who do not want to be edited by any editor. I had one excellent writer many years back who was a loose cannon. He was mad at the Church of Christ and it showed, such as referring to Ira Rice as “Puffed Rice.” I tried to tone him down, but the moment I put the red pencil to something he wrote, he quit with no explanation. It was just as well.

I want to add that I especially appreciate several sisters in the Lord who have written for me. It was risky for them to appear in these columns and to say what they said. They are among my heroes, smart as well as beautiful.

Well, it is all over insofar as Restoration Review is concerned, and that too is just as well. A journal, like a person, needs to pass on, and it is better to do so while it is winning. To quote Carl Ketcherside once more, it has been a pilgrimage of joy. Well, at least a pilgrimage!—the Editor