Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Paul was once charged as being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” He denied that he was guilty of the political motivations and methods of strife with which he was charged. “Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers. . . ” (Acts 24:5,13-14). The charges of political motives, methods of strife, attempting to ringlead a sect, and an attitude of legalism are being hurled today in the controversy over grace, unity, and fellowship. Veterans of by-gone battles must find the charge legalism very familiar, as will veterans or new-comers who have tried to convert denominationalists. This writer, for one, denies the charge of legalism, but confesses without shame, “After the way which they call legalism, so worship I the God of my fathers.”

Have such charges really been made? What do the chargers mean by legalism What is legalism Is the scheme of redemption a system of legalism? Is it possible that the scheme of redemption in Christ is misunderstood by some, so that when it is preached in its simplicity and purity, such preaching seems to be legalism in the eyes of some?

The Charge “Legalism” Has Long History

Denominations have charged gospel preachers with legalism for generations. During the 1800’s, those who pled for a return to the ancient gospel without addition or subtraction were charged with legalism and neglect of God’s grace. Baptist D. B. Ray objected to the legalism of making “the connection between justification and baptism. . . inseparable;” Rom. 3:28 (“justified by faith without the deeds of the law”) shows “the conclusion of Paul was quite different from that of the Campbellites; for they conclude that justification is made to depend on baptism, while Paul makes it to depend on faith without works.”(1) The “Campbellite” system of legalism is criticized as being based on the motivation of fear. “Campbellites” fear their sins will not be removed without baptism; from this, Ray creates and destroys a straw man.

“This shows that it is fear alone which moves the Campbellites to obedience. But the true spirit of Christianity is that we obey God because we love him. All those who attempt to keep the ordinances through fear of punishment alone are not the children of God. If we are Christians, we love God because he first loved us, and then we will keep his commandments, for they are not grievous.”(2)

A man would be a fool not to fear hell, but that does not mean that he does not love God when he obeys the gospel. If the scheme of redemption arouses fear of the consequences of continuing in sin, much more does it arouse love for deliverance from those consequences. Still, in the New Testament the Holy Spirit has preserved many approved examples, of warning men “against the day of wrath and revlation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom. 2:4-5). Gospel preaching which includes such warnings is considered legalism by those who have a denominational concept of the gospel.(3)

Ben Bogard objected to the legalism of (what he calls) Campbellism. “Campbellism Teaches Salvation by Infallibility Instead of by Grace.”

No matter how fully a man has repented, no matter how strong his faith, no matter how pious his life, if he has been mistaught concerning baptism, and even through ignorance misses baptism, he must go to hell! The mere mention of this devilish doctrine is enough to turn every right-thinking man against it. Such a doctrine demands infallible knowledge, which no man has…(4)

Men with denominational concepts, like Bogard, always object to the “bad spirit” of (what they call) legalism.(5) “I Object to the Spirit of Campbellism. Everywhere its spirit is bad. They are contentious, nagging, strifebreeding.”(6)

Anyone who reads Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger or Leroy Garrett’s Restoration Review, or other papers which have capitulated to denominational concepts (Mission, Integrity, etc.), is familiar with the constant charge of legalism. F. L. Lemley is Ketcherside’s doctrinal twin brother (with articles appearing in Mission Messenger, Integrity; Firm Foundation, Gospel Guardian(7)); after William Wallace finally printed an article openly questioning the loose concepts of Ed Fudge, Lemley objected the author “is legally oriented and argues from a legal point of view.”(8)

Loose Use of “Legalism” By Ed Fudge

Edward Fudge has been chasing and charging, here, there, and yonder, Don Quixote style, after something which he calls legalism-with which he sees himself in mortal combat. Some brethren have read Fudge’s writings thinking that his lance was pointed at a real monster all of us should be willing to attack. When his writings are taken in the total context of his teaching and in connection with his applications, it becomes apparent that the monsters he so valiantly fights are nothing but windmills; the war he wars against legalism is a fantasy. The enemy he pierces is imaginary. Yet the damage he is doing is very real. How can fighting an imaginary enemy do real damage? By arousing others to see the same fantasy, fight the same fight, chase the same windmills. Every soul that puts on denominational concepts for his armour and goes out to do battle with this legalism is lost to the cause of truth.

In his tract on The Grace of God, Brother Fudge lampoons legalism as a view which says, “Keep the rules perfectly and be saved; good luck!” (p. 14). In one place he says, “It is not legalism to seek to do God’s will as accurately and exactly as possible,” and that “legalism is not law-keeping, but law-depending,” (pp. 13-14), all of which sounds like Ed preaches that we are required to do God’s will accurately and exactly. It sounds like he says such is required, but when done such is not meritorious–which would be exactly right!, But in another place he says, “Salvation cannot come by lawkeeping . . . . Legalism is not grace. God does not simply give a list of rules in the New Testament and say: ‘Here are the rules. Keep them and be saved. Good luck!”‘ (p. 17). Now we will agree that God did not just wind up the world and walk off, as the Deists claim; nor did He simply wind up the New Testament and walk off, leaving us to ride it like a mechanical toy. The Gospel is Spiritual. God is Still Alive, Still Ruling The Universe, Still Here, Still Concerned, Still Answering Our Prayers. No, God did not simply drop us a rule book, tell us to never make a mistake, and make no provision for the fact that we stumble and sin from time to time. He did not say, “And I will be back in a million years to snatch. up every one who stumbled and sinned on any occasion to hang them from the highest tree with glee. Don’t call for my help, don’t ask for my forgiveness when you stumble, don’t expect anything from me until hanging time. Good luck!” But is this all Ed is saying when he says salvation does not come by keeping the law or rules revealed in the New Testament. ‘If that were all He is saying, there would have never been a problem. But there is more to it.

He says repeatedly things like, “. . . man, by nature, is a sinner . . . . man, by nature, does not keep the rules perfectly!. . . Just as license ignores the nature of God, so this doctrine (legalism, R. H.) ignores the nature of man . . . . the very eternal truth we have already been talking about: the nature of man-the fact that he is a sinner, that he has never kept the rules perfectly and that any hope of salvation on the basis of his own performance is doomed from the very start …. It is an eternal principle that man, because he is a man sins …. It is impossible because of the way man himself is and has always been-for law to save. . . Grace is not legalism. Legalism says, ‘here are the rules; keep them and be saved-good luck!’ Legalism frustrates the true grace of God. It ignores the fundamental fact of man’s nature, that he is weak in the flesh and always sins. He never keeps the rules perfectly” (pp. 14-18).

Ed not only is saying men do not live perfectly before God-i.e. we sin and must seek salvation. He is also saying that because of the very nature of man, man cannot comply exactly with the conditions – of forgiveness when forgiveness is sought. Because of the very nature and make-up of man, man cannot sustain a relationship with God on the basis of obedient faith–cannot maintain a life of obeying the word of God by faith. Ed realizes as all of us do, that as a Christian sins from time to time, he has forgiveness by confession and prayer to God. In this respect, whenever we fail to obey we have conditional forgiveness. But when Ed talks about man by his nature not being able to perfectly obey, he means something more than sins we commit and confess from time to time. He means something more than sins we commit, repent of, confess, repudiate, and quit practicing. He means there are some sins we may commit throughout our lives, never repent of, never confess, never repudiate, and never quit practicing. Sin is in our very nature, in our lives constantly, in the very sir we breath. There is something broken in man. Man is sinful by nature. The dark cloud of sin hangs constantly over man. As we shall show, in application of this Calvinistic or Neo-Calvinistic view of human nature, Ed finds people who worship with instrumental music or who centralize and institutionalize the church as being in the grace of God. These are problems that arise because of people’s sinful nature, just as we all supposedly have sins in our lives that will never be repented of, confessed, repudiated, or quit because of our sinful nature.

So while we may try to meet the conditions of forgiveness and of a continued right relationship with God, our sinful nature prohibits us from doing so. To preach that we must meet those conditions is to be guilty of legalism. To receive brethren who obviously are not meeting those conditions is to show a good understanding of (1) the sinful nature of man, and (2) the grace of God. Ed thinks he has hit the happy medium by telling people that God wants them to try to obey His will, but that on account of man’s sinful nature God will receive men by grace even when they are disobeying his will. . . or what Ed calls not “keep(ing) the rules perfectly.”

How can man be saved while constantly practicing sin on account of a sinful nature? Apparently this problem which is posed by accepting a Calvinistic or NeoCalvinistic view of human nature, is solved by accepting another tenet of Calvinism: the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer. “Because of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they never do achieve perfect obedience themselves . . . . there is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinner and that sphere is ‘in Christ.’ ” Speaking of “the person who expects to be saved because of his own full knowledge or his own perfect record,” Ed says, “To him, Christ is a mere law giver, not a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience.”(9) In other words, a proper understanding of Christ includes this: he is “a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience.” To think we do not need this representative perfect lawkeeper who kept the law in our stead, to think the obedience we render to God in meeting the conditions of forgiveness is sufficient is to be guilty of legalism.

This article will deal with the term legalism and with the idea of merit later, so we will not fully review the following quote just yet. We simply offer it in establishing what Fudge thinks he is fighting. In The Grace of God, Ed states, “Legalism says that man will be saved because he has kept the rules,–because he has earned it” (p. 15). Ed equates meeting the conditions of grace, just as God stated them, with earning salvation. In another article, Ed returns to his happy medium, “We must not choose between legalism (depending on our own performance for salvation) and license (denying the necessity of seeking perfect performance).” Ed believes, “The man ‘in Christ’ is saved. . . not because he is ‘right’ on every issue, but because he is right about Jesus Christ and seeks to obey Him.” But those embracing legalism believe, “The man ‘in Christ’ is not saved, although he is right about Jesus Christ and seeks to obey Him, unless he is also ‘right’ about every issue.” Such legalism is “dangerously near repeating the very central error of first-century Judaism, of making salvation conditional on human performance in addition to Bible-defined faith in Jesus Christ.”(10)

Ed is fighting a fantasy when he claims brethren require a man to be right on every issue or make salvation conditional on human performance in addition to faith in Christ. Obedient faith requires meeting and maintaining the conditions of Grace! The conditions of grace do not require a man to be right on every issue-many issues do not involve sin, do not involve the conditions of grace (cf. Rom. 14). The conditions of grace do require that a man not abide in sin (1 Jn. 3:9). Ed charges that we minimize the sins we practice because of our sinful nature, and maximize the sins of other brethren which they practice because of their sinful nature: “categorize sin.”(11) Thus he makes it appear we make some sins more important than others. No, we teach in regard to sins of all kinds which men continue to practice, ourselves included, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). We do claim what Ed will admit: some misunderstandings are not sins at all, do not involve the terms and conditions of grace. What does all this teach us about the legalism Ed (Quixote) Fudge is fighting? The monster (1) tries to earn, deserve, and merit salvation; (2) requires brethren to be right on every possible issue brethren can raise; (3) requires something in addition to genuine faith in Christ.

To understand Ed’s tracts and articles against legalism, one must take into account the applications Ed makes which are related to this problem. For instance, he said in 1967 that certain “principles” should be “put . . . . into practice” regarding issues like “instrumental music. . . , the support of human organizations, the use of social dinners and recreational activities as an aid to evangelism, centralized programs of inter-church activity.” He argues such things should not be viewed as departures “from the pattern” or conditions of grace; whatever a man believes about such issues “will not interfere with his salvation.”(12) The following year, he objected to that legalism which applies 2 John 9 to such issues between brethren on how best to please the Lord. “John was not dealing here at all with differences or arguments between saints on how best to please the Christ in whom they all believe.(13) Later Ed assured a church which had gone over to institutionalism that legalism is not the basis of salvation–so the fact that such brethren were not “keep(ing) the rules perfectly” did not mean they had violated the terms of grace. Here is the way he put it, “. . . we are saved ones because of God’s grace to us in His Son, and we are accepted by Him ‘in the Beloved!’ Not because we know it all, or do it all right.” We are not saved “through works of righteousness which we may do, but by the grace of God.”(14) Regarding such issues as named above, Ed recently said,

“There are those who simply want to serve the Lord in all things and happen to be convinced that what we call the ‘conservative’ position does that best. There arse those who want to serve the Lord in all things and happen to be convinced that what we call the `liberal’ position does that best… With either of these groups of folks I can feel a common aim in Christ for I am seeking only to serve the Lord, and that is what these brothers are committed to as well…(15) (To be continued next week)

Endnotes

1. D. B. Ray, Text-Book on Campbellism (St. Louis, Mo.: St. Louis Baptist Publ. Co., 1880), p. 207.

2. Ibid.

3. J. W. McGarvey observed the futility of Lazarus going back to preach to the rich man’s brothers. Those brothers would have been just like people today who object to plain preaching “of the fearful consequences of continuing in sin.” The brothers would have said, “You tell us that our brother whom we loved so well, who was so good and tender and noble-that he is in the torments of hell? We don’t believe a word of it.” McGarvey observes, “My brethren, you will not find many men to-day who are willing to believe that that good, nice, honorable fellow who died recently, is in hell. It is not considered polite to express the opinion that anybody has gone to hell” or that continuing in sin will send anybody in particular to hell. J. W. McGarvey, Sermons, p. 105.

4. Ben M. Bogard, Campbellism Exposed, pp. 31-32.

5. “Anyone who comes out fighting strongly for what he believes is regarded as having a bad spirit. To attack the validity of another’s doctrine is seen as bigotry; to expose a practice which is unscriptural is viewed as biased judgment growing from an unkind feeling.” Ervin Himmel, “Fight, Brother, Fight!” Truth Magazine, Vol. XVIII, No. 45 (September 19, 1974), pp. 13-14.

6. Bogard, op. cit., p. 34. Those who have kept up with various doctrinal positions in the new unity movement will find Bogard’s objection on p. 56 interesting. ‘Campbellism Denies Imputed Righteousness, and Thus Again Denies the Teachings of the Bible …. Campbellites proudly reject the imputed righteousness of Christ and, hence, reject salvation.” Obviously Bogard had not run into the new breed of preachers like Edward Fudge who Affirm Rather than Deny the Reformation-Calvinist position on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Cf. Edward Fudge, “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 21, No. 44 (Feb. 12, 1970), pp. 689-690.

7. It is appalling that William Wallace has printed so much material in the Guardian by men like Lemley without challenging, exposing, and reviewing such dangerous material. It is shocking to see him print articles by Steven Clark Goad After Promising Not To Print Material By This Liberal In Particular. The promise was made in the presence of many brethren at the Expressway church in Louisville, Kentucky, Dec. 3, 1973. and was kept for several months; but then the Aug. 22, 1974 Guardian broke the promise by printing Goad’s “Sin of Revenge”! By the time my article appears in Truth Magazine, the Guardian will be under the editorship of Eugene Britnell; my confidence in Brother Britnell is such that I know the Lemleys and Goads have been sent riding into the sunset by now. Therefore the comments I am making cast no reflection on the Guardian under its new editor.

8. See Don C. Bradford, “What Is Truth,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 10 (July 11, 1974), pp. 151-156, and F. L. Lemley, “A Reaction,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 13 (Aug. 1, 1974), pp. 200-201.

9. Edward Fudge, “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 21, No. 44 (Feb. 12, 1970), pp. 689-690.

10. Edward Fudge, ” ‘Why All the Fuss?’-A Response,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 18 (Sept. 5, 1974), pp. 276-277.

11. Ibid. Cf. Ed’s The Grace of God, pp. 14-15.

12. Edward Fudge, “Faith, or Merely Opinion,” Christian Standard, July 8, 1967, pp. 5ff.

13. Edward Fudge, “Christian Unity: 2 John 9, ” Christian Standard, Nov. 30, 1968, p. 757-758.

14. Edward Fudge, public letter to the Perkins Road Church of Christ in Baton Rogue, Louisiana, copy in my possession, January 4, 1971; (cf. Truth Magazine Vol. XVII, No. 46 (Sept. 27, 1973). p. 724). Ed assured the Perkins Road brethren that brethren “on both sides of the so-called ‘institutional issues’ ” stand in “grace” because God imputes the obedience of Christ to them. . . “His Son lived a perfect life in our stead! Praise God!” In closing, Ed says such brethren can accept each other.

15. Edward Fudge, “Answers to Questions,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 3 (May 16, 1974), pp. 38-43. “Answers to Questions” is also printed separately as a tract.

Truth Magazine XIX: 22, pp. 345-348
April 10, 1975

By Luther Blackmon

“I don’t want to appear nosey, but that is such a pretty suit you have on; how much did you pay down on it?”

“Somebody told me that you have made a log of money in the chinchilla business. How much do you have in the bank now?”

“You don’t look like you are as old as they say you are. How old are you?”

“You look like you have gained a lot of weight lately. How much do you weigh now?”

“Is it true that the finance company repossessed your teeth or did you leave them in a bus station somewhere?”

Friend, I am glad you are not nosey, but you want to exercise caution. A fellow could start where you are and get nosey very quick.

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, p. 301
March 20, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

(Author’s Note: We herewith submit for publication the text of an address on an assigned topic delivered by invitation to the Second Annual Indianapolis Unity Forum, April 30, 1971. Since Brother Willis has complained of the author’s “excessive research” (Truth Magazine, November 7, 1974), we will share with him and the readers of Truth Magazine the results of some `prior research” while we attempt to prepare something more current!

The passing of time has allowed for a “cooling-off” and presented ample opportunity for evaluation-not a bad procedure for those who write for public consumption. Articles written deliberately and then set aside for a reasonable period for later re-evaluation are often superior to those dashed off in a state of youthful impetuosity that sometimes afflicts writers. An idea, seemingly brilliant in the “inspiration” of the late-night or early morning hours, often appears only mediocre in the cold light of the following day. On the other hand, some writers do their best work by just sitting down and letting their thoughts flow through the typewriter, so to speak. To each his own! This particular article has been revised at minor points and altered stylistically in places for greater fluidity of reading; but it is submitted substantially as delivered.

Others who spoke at the Indianapolis Forum included John Clark of Louisville, Jimmy Tuten of Akron, Keith Watkins of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, George Earle Owen of the Disciples of Christ, and Earl West and David Bobo of Indianapolis (Bobo’s speeches were later published in MISSION, November, 1971, and February, 1972). Many others from the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ were present both as participants and members of the audience.)

“What Does the Restoration Movement Communicate to The World?”

Let me begin by expressing appreciation for the invitation to address this assembly. I am grateful for the opportunity. I lack appreciation for the type of attitude which would pessimistically dismiss, out of hand, efforts such as this as totally worthless. At the same time, I have a profound and abiding contempt for those who will use gatherings such as this to enhance their own personal standing or to advance and promote a “unity faction;” or who would erroneously (or even intentionally) make them appear to be that which they are not; or who would falsely attribute to all participants certain attitudes and opinions to which they do not, in fact, adhere. Certainly, however, sincere efforts to communicate with others can and should be welcomed by all those who profess to follow Christ.

On the other hand, while I may appreciate the lofty sentiments which generate forums such as this one, for me to be obscure or less than completely candid would not only defeat the purpose of this program but would be intellectually dishonest. Accordingly, I want to say some things plainly, perhaps bluntly, and yet attempt to do so without personal animosity; as someone has elsewhere said, “to maintain charity of heart without sacrificing clarity of conviction.” At the same time, I do not intend to imitate those who seem to take devilish delight in put-on politeness. Much of what follows will not serve the cause of “unity” which apparently exists in the minds of some present. Many of the following concepts have been articulated well before; they certainly are not original with me. Yet I feel that they represent a viewpoint whose veracity can be substantiated both logically and scripturally.

In dealing with the assigned topic, “What does the Restoration Movement communicate to the world?”, I recognize that I am not the only person ever to have dealt with the question. Accordingly, I want to present not only some of my own answers to the question, but I want as well to deal with some of the most prevalent answers suggested by others.

I. Our first answer might be that, in reality, the “Restoration Movement” has communicated nothing (or at least very little) to the world. This may be a rather odd place to begin, but it seems to me to be a rather sobering thought. Some may pride themselves in rhetorically labeling the “Restoration Movement” as “the stoutest Protestant Reformation since the time of Martin Luther”(1) or “the largest and most influential brotherhood of Christian believers indigenous to American soil . . . (numbering) over six and a half million communicants,”(2) but these statistics pale in comparison to the millions who have never been taught to “speak as the oracles of God.”

Recently I was discussing some aspects of the history of the Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ in Indiana with a well-known Disciples historian. He made a comment something to the effect that “our plea just doesn’t seem to attract many people any more.”(3) Of course, my rejoinder to that is simply that “the plea” hasn’t been plead effectively (we will have more to say concerning this issue in the ensuing remarks). Even if one accepts, as I do, the continuing validity of the scriptural injunction “to speak as the oracles of God” (or, if you prefer, Thomas Campbell’s paraphrase of it), we are forced to admit our miserable failure to communicate the message. Even were the entire six and one-half million members somehow miraculously to unify on a basis acceptable to all, we would still face this monumental task. A recent book by the Anglican, John R. W. Stott, Our Guilty Silence, highlights the problem. He identifies “the biggest problem” in any kind of evangelistic program: “trying to open the mouths of the people in the pews.”(4) I am reminded of a statement by one of the speakers on last year’s Forum to the effect that “organizational and institutional Christianity will never win the world for Christ.”(5) Now, if by that you mean that the people are no longer going to seek us out for the answers to the problems of existence, and that we must therefore encourage each Christian to do his share of engaging in the spread of the gospel, then I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, this is one of our fundamental problems. Anyone who has ever attempted to motivate others (or himself) to get out and teach people-to develop the principle of “each one teach one”-knows just how basic and vital this issue is! And especially for a group which claims to have a scripturally authentic solution for the problems of a dying and destitute world, our failure is simply inexcusable!

But, as I have hinted above, I believe that our historian’s comment focuses the issue very clearly, as I shall endeavor to show. Of course, this may be unfortunate for some who, in the words of the eminent J. Gresham Machen, would rather that discussions of this nature be kept “in a condition of low visibility!”(6) Is the issue, or the problem, really that the Restoration plea is outdated and irrelevant for what some have rhetorically labeled “an ecumenical world;” or does the problem, in fact, lie elsewhere-in our own failure to clearly communicate and consistently apply it? This brings us to our second answer.

II. Some would contend that the “Restoration Movement” has communicated only the failure and worthlessness of the Restoration plea.

There has never been a lack of abundant criticism of the “Campbellites” by “outsiders;” however, a murmur of self-criticism among “the Disciples” has culminated in the rising crescendo of the last decade as numerous individuals within the movement have jumped rather erratically from one end of the theological checkerboard to the other. To borrow the words of a recent article, we have been bombarded with “dire warnings . . . in various forms. There have been complaints from the dissatisfied . . . suggestions from the concerned . .(and) ultimatums from the desperate.”(7) The words of one recent analyst relative to the so-called “institutional church” certainly have particular applications to “the heirs of the Restoration Movement” as well:

“For a dozen years and more a host of dedicated (churchgoers-,SW) have had to contend with a crescendo of criticism of the form and purpose of the . . church. . . I leave it to the reader to decide now much of that writing is truth, how much cliche, and how much an exercise in masochism. However these elements may be apportioned, such criticism has provoked ritualistic incantations: ‘We are a church; we have a structure; we pay bills; we have members who have never read Rauschenbusch; we are bad; we are obsolete; we must disband and meet in Roy’s living room.’ . . . (T)he clamor sounds like a stuck auto horn in a locked garage. Catatonic bafflement finally sets in . (We) become dispirited and cautious, saying . . ., ‘If we are that lousy, let’s sleep in, beginning next Sunday.'”(8)

While there may be, as our analyst suggests, a grain of truth in these criticisms (of what conceivable system of thought can it be said that it contains absolutely no truth?), there can be no doubt to any who have listened repetitiously to the same trite and inane critical tirades that a significant percentage of them are, if not “an exercise in masochism,” certainly cliche-ridden (isn’t it funny how the ones who deride others for the usage of cliches are themselves the most adept at inventing their own?). That they reflect the prevailing theological complexion few would question. I share with you these comments by the Lutheran scholar, John Warwick Montgomery:

“. . . (We) of the late twentieth century contribute to the falsifying of the church’s proper function through our subjectivism . . . (Our time-SW) is possibly the most subjective period in all of church history. Today everybody talks in psychological terms. We enjoy nothing better than to probe our inner life and its real or imagined frustrations. We wallow in our misery. We go to psychologists, we go to psychiatrists, we go to counsellors. This predilection has been called “navelwatching” by some people; that is, we enjoy nothing better than to sit down narcissistically and look at our own psychic navels. This delightful activity allows us to become completely involved in ourselves. We enjoy our problems. Someone has called our epoch “the Age of Analysis” . . . and it is that, for we want to solve all our problems by subjective concentration upon them.”(9)

Now, I am not suggesting that all our problems are due to spiritual hypochondria. However, as a recent writer has demonstrated, there are “some (who) shout, with apparent glee, about all the things which divide professed believers.”(10) Certainly, no one should object to periodic examination as well as any necessary “corrective surgery.” But let us recognize the essential and monumental difference between one who pulls the bandage off a wound in order to administer the healing ointment, and the one who does so in order that he might display the wound for all to see!

But with these thoughts on introspection properly affixed in our minds, let us examine the charge itself. Is it true that the splintering and division of the “Restoration Movement” is inherent in a faulty plea?? Is it true that, as Dr. A. T. DeGroot concluded, “the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive(11)? 11 Is it true (as one of the speakers on last year’s forum affirmed) that because “the path to Christian unity by restoration is strewn with divided churches and internal divisions within the Restoration groups” we must therefore conclude that “the path of Restoration leads to disunity rather than unity”?(12)

At this point, I want to borrow a figure from Dr. DeGroot’s privately published manuscript, The Grounds of Division Among the Disciples of Christ. He affirms that “when several carpenters went to work on the basis of several pages of blueprints, they ended up building a three-room apartment instead of a single auditorium. This is precisely what happened as the so-called blue prints have been consulted as a pattern for the church.”(13) I want us to ask ourselves today if this can be attributed only to faulty blueprints, or if we might not more realistically piace the blame on illiterate or misguided carpenters? In so doing, I choose to deny Dr. DeGroot’s affirmation that “actual church division has resulted from the application of the basic assumption of the movement”(14) and instead insist that it has, in fact, occurred because of a failure to apply those assumptions. This is not to reflect necessarily upon the character, the honesty, or the mental capacity of our spiritual forebearers; it is rather to admit humanity (and ours as well, as we often commit like errors). We certainly can all point to incidences where we “say, and do not;” that is, where we may be sincerely mentally committed to a certain principle, but fail consistently to apply it. And we are not without noble human company when we do so. We are in companionship even with the apostle Peter, who could affirm that “this promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself.”(15) and likewise could conclude that “God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him;”(16) and yet needed to be rebuked by another apostle “because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.”(17) A more recent example is the esteemed A. Campbell, who could preach that the gospel was for all and yet paradoxically state that, “Much as I may sympathize with a black man, I love a white man more;”(18) or, who could fulminate concerning the “autonomy” and “independence” of each local congregation, yet serve as first president of the American Christian Missionary Society!

(If I may digress here for a moment in the discussion of inconsistencies, more needs to be said about Brother Campbell. Please consider the following extraction of a lecture delivered at the first annual “Preachers’ Workshop” at Abilene Christian College).

“Alexander Campbell argued at great length in the columns of the MILLENNIAL HARBINGER as follows: (1) A congregation is a cooperation of Christians; (2) cooperation demands organization, hence God provided for the local congregation with its elders, deacons, and members; (3) each congregation is related to the whole church of God as an individual is related to the local congregation of which he is part; (4) the preaching of the gospel to the whole world, the disciplining of unruly, transient members, general benevolence, and the publication of books, papers, tracts, and song books are matters that cannot be accomplished by a single congregation functioning independently; hence, (5) the universal recognition of the need for cooperation of churches and the consequent necessity to form and implement a general organization among the churches through which they can cooperate in the accomplishment of these matters.

“Having reached this conclusion, brother Campbell deduced from it the scripturalness of the “Missionary Society” by a sixth consideration; namely, since God revealed no specific organization for such purposes, Christians and churches have thellberty to devise such organizations for these purposes as may best be suited to their needs in any given period of time . . .

“. . . I insist that, if we grant brother Campbell’s premises, his conclusions are irresistible. I neither grant his premises nor accept his conclusions. Should I accept brother Campbell’s premises, I should be forced to accept his conclusions . . .

” . . . I have taken the liberty of putting brother Campbell’s arguments in my own words for the sake of brevity, but those desiring to read them in his own words may find them in the MILLENNIAL HARBINGER 1831, p. 235; 1836, p. 333; 1840, pp. 188, 189; 1842, p. 523; 1847, p. 160; 1850, pp. 73, 617; 1857, pp. 303-307; and elsewhere . . . . “(19)

I believe that this is a good example of what we are discussing: consistency and inconsistency in application of the “Restoration Principle.” Another comment made during a meeting of members of churches of Christ estranged over the issues involving cooperation of churches, is illuminating:

“We are in agreement that God authorizes saints to act collectively; and we seem to agree that this gives saints in a local church some organizational structure. Now, if God authorizes churches to act collectively, let us cease to write and preach that ‘the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation.'”(20)

If I may interrupt the speaker momentarily, I believe that abundant examples of calling a local church “independent” or “autonomous” but violating that claim by acting as if they are not can be found even outside the “Restoration Movement.” Consider only the first two to be found in Frank S. Mead’s Handbook of Denominations in the United States:

.. “Advent Christian Church: ‘Congregational in government, each local church is completely independent. The churches are grouped in five districts and five annual conferences; over them is a national general conference, which meets biennially.'”(21)

“Assemblies of God, General Council: ‘Local churches are left quite independent in polity and the conduct of local affairs . . . Work is divided into forty districts in the United States, most of which follow state lines, each with a district Presbytery, which examines, licenses, and ordains pastors.'”(22)

I cite these merely as examples of the same type of inconsistency which seems to plague those of us within the “Restoration Movement.” Literally thousands of other examples could be proffered as evidence, but these will suffice. Let me conclude my “digression” (pardon the pun!) by returning to the previously quoted speaker (and heed him carefully, please!):

“We are in agreement that God authorizes saints to act collectively; and we seem to agree that this gives saints in a local church some organizational structure. Now, if God authorizes churches to act collectively, let us cease to write and preach that ‘the organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the local congregation.” Let us either produce some specific form of inter-church organization authorized in the scriptures; or, with Campbell, admit that the specific form of such organization is not given, and that we are therefore at liberty to `devise ways and means’ for the `whole kingdom’ to cooperate. Let us cease to argue about opinions and expediencies, and get on with the job of restructuring the churchhood for that is exactly what collective action of churches demands and produces. But if the local church is the extent of divinely authorized organization among God’s people, then let us cease this double-talk about “independent” and “autonomous” churches acting collectively . . . (23) (Caps mine for emphasis-sw).”

Let me add that, if we cannot find in the Scriptures the authorization to determine our stance toward such issues as church “structure” and “cooperation,” or if the Scriptures are invalid as a source to which appeal can be made to determine such matters, then let us cease our flap and act accordingly! Let us recognize the import of Ronald E. Osborn’s statement that once a Biblically-based set of criteria for action are abandoned, then “Disciples who have repudiated restorationism have no adequate basis for justifying their congregationalism, weekly communion, immersionbaptism . . . or other distinctive practices. They have even less guidance for formulating new procedures, except what may be uncritically absorbed from the culture” (emphasis mine-SW).(24)

But let me return to my main point. The fact that a principle may be abused or inconsistently applied does not negate the validity of the principle-it is merely a sad commentary on the frailty of humanity! Further, the fact that division may have resulted (under certain conditions) is not necessarily the result of a deficient message. Certainly the churches of New Testament days (Corinth, Thessalonica, Laodicea) were divided and imperfect-but it was not due to a deficiency of the gospel as preached by Paul, Apollos, and Cephas; it was rather a reflection of the decay which often occurs when the divine ideal is corrupted by sinful mortality.

(In connection with this concept, the “cute” sophistry of those who derisively ask, “Which New Testament church do you want to restore-Corinth or Thessalonica?” should be dealt with. I share with you the words of a recent writer).

“When we discuss the church in the New Testament, it is good to be aware that even there one may speak of the church in two ways. He might speak of the `New Testament church’ as it is described ideally and regulated in the New Testament scriptures. Or, he might use the same term to mean the church as it existed in the days of the New Testament. The Apostles, too, faced both the ideal and the real.

“No one should object to finding a number of faults in the church of the first century . . . It was just such imperfection which called for the inspired writing of the epistles.”(25)

(To Be Concluded Next Week)

Endnotes

1. Cochran, Louis and Bess White, Captives of the Word: A Narrative History of the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), the Christian Churches (Independent), and the Churches of Christ (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1969), p. ix.

2. Ibid., pp. ix-x.

3. Shaw, Henry K., private statement to me, November, 1970.

4. Quoted in Stott, John R. W., Our Guilty Silence: The Church, The Gospel, and the World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 9.

5. Lane, Richard, “Definitions and Cliches’ ” 1:30 P.M. Session of 1st Annual Christian Unity Forum, ISTA Building, Indianapolis, Thursday, April 23, 1970.

6. Quoted in Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923 (1968)), p. 1.

7. Fudge; Edward, “Give the Church a Chance;” Mission, 2:12 (June, 1969), p. 363.

8. Waggoner, Walter, “Thoughts For Protestants to Be Static By,” Christian Century, (February 19, 1969), p. 249.

9. Montgomery, John Warwick, Damned Through the Church (Minneapolis: The Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1970), p. 72.

10. Jenkins, Ferrell, “Dwelling Together in Unity,” in Thoughts on Unity, ed. Stanley Paregien (St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1971? n.d.), p. 162.

11. DeGroot, Alfred Thomas, The Grounds of Divisions Among’the Disciples of Christ (Chicago: Privately Printed, 1940), p. 220.

12. Owen, George Earle, “An Ecumenical Church For an Ecumenical World,” 8:30 P.M. Session of 1st Annual Christian Unity Forum, ISTA Building, Indianapolis, Thursday, April 23, 1970, p. 7, printed copy of lecture.

13. DeGroot, op. cit., p. 219.

14. Ibid.

15. Acts 2:39 (New American Standard Bible-New Testament).

16. Acts 10:34-35 (NASB-NT).

17. Galatians 2:11-12 (NASB-NT).

18. Campbell, Alexander, “Our Position to American Slavery-No. V;” Millenial Harbinger, 3rd Series, II (May, 1845), p. 234. (Quoted in David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest For a Christian America: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ (Vol. I: “The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866;” Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), p. 97.

19. Adams, James W., “The Church and Organizations,” a Lecture delivered to the “Preacher’s Workshop;” Abilene Christian College, Abilene, Texas, January 11-13, 1971, as reprinted in Truth Magazine, XV:13 (February 4, 1971), pp. 3-9 (195-201)-quotations from pp. 4-5 or 196-197.

20. Turner, Robert F., “Cooperation of Churches,” The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, Fla.: The Cogdill Foundation, n.d.-1969), p. 259.

21. Mead; Frank S., Handbook of Denominations in the United States (New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951), p. 18.

22. Ibid., p. 23. I am indebted to Robert F. Turner for this idea.

23. Turner, op. cit., pp. 259-260.

24. Osborn, Ronald E., “Formula in Flux: Reformation for the Disciples of Christ?”, The Christian Century, (September 25, 1963), p. 1164.

25. Fudge, op. cit., p. 13 (365).

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 297-300
March 20, 1975

By Victorio R. Tibayan

The Filipino Christian’s growth in the knowledge of the doctrine of Christ which is directed towards maturity in the `;faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” is the immediate need of the day. This is implicitly founded on the fact of, (1) The religious confusion bordering on or outright unbelief of the Bible; brought about by the powerful Roman Catholic influence and aggravated afterwards by the modernistic tendencies of the Denominations and Sects, and is explicit in, (2) The mandate of the Son of God.

For about 400 years the Philippines was a colony of Spain . . . once a proud and mighty votary of Roman Catholicism. It is said that she conquered the Filipino people with the “cross” held by her left hand and a sword held by the right hand. The friars who went with the “Invincible Spanish Armada” subjugated the minds of the freedom-loving peoples of this land. Paganism as contrasted to Roman Catholic Christianity was destroyed in the main. And in place of heathen rituals and beliefs; Roman Catholic dogmas, human traditions and superstitions came to be the Filipinos’ religious way of life. The Bible was never introduced and the reading of it was prohibited whenever discovered in the hands of the natives. In the process, the marks of Catholicism seeped throughout all the facets of life of the vanquished people. Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Priests vested in themselves authority which even the Old Testament did not give to the Levitical Priesthood. Papal edicts eroded even the cherished customs of the Filipino people and pervaded their very constitution. As a “crowning achievement” to their infamous colonization, the Philippines is now dubbed as “The only Christian nation in the Far East.” This is a farce. It only means that the majority of the Filipino people are subjects of the Roman Catholic religion and that it is not so with the other nations of the Far East. Furthermore, . the idea is opposed to Biblical teachings as regards the name Christian which is applied only to individuals who have obeyed the gospel. (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.) The religious tyranny of Catholicism aroused the dormant desire of the oppressed to be free. Moreover, this melancholy experience left a deep scar in the hearts of the people as to be from henceforth vigilant against any kind of suppression. Naturally, the very long period of Catholic dominance in the Philippines left also, a great impact in the religious convictions of the Filipinos. But ironically, there was sown a realization among a few of the people that there must be a true religion acceptable to God . . . and they are yearning for this!

At the turn of the 19th century, Protestant Denominations of divers hues and forms appeared on the scene. Quite a number of people embraced the new breed of religionists with hope. Seemingly, these groups are bereft of religious leaders athirst for power. They introduced the Bible and worked for its dissemination. So-called believers were given the impression of total dependence on the Scriptures and not by the authority of man. But considering that Catholic influence kept the people in darkness, the brilliant light of the word of God, sad to say, temporarily blinded the eyes of the reliant victims of Denominational errors. For a period they were prevented from exhaustively examining the Book. And, though sincere in their desire to be right with God, these people “. . . erred not knowing the Scriptures.” As a matter of fact, the Denominations are standing on the naked authority of man and use the Bible only as a scaffolding through which to erect their various human doctrines. Consequently, the sand-based doctrinal structures of the Denominations and Sects with their conflicting tenets brought confusion and utter indifference in the religious realm. Only those who were begotten of the Father kept the “beacon of desire” to seek fully the truth, glowing in brightness. The Protestant leaders, in their desire to .safeguard their cause, are now launching a massive and militant religious invasion of the Philippines. Yet being outgrowths of Catholicism, a majority of them teamed up with the Romanists in the name of Ecumenism. Under the circumstances, the need of the day is for faithful Christians to so arm themselves to the hilt with the word of God . . . to be so grounded in the faith, growing more and more in Jesus Christ.

Such edification is clearly emphasized. most especially in the New Testament. Without this; conversion is rendered worthless. Apostasy follows. All .previous sacrifices that went with the work of enlisting people to the service of the Lord comes to naught. Saints ought to be trained unto perfection! In the inspired account concerning the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, it is said that he, “. . . went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches” (Acts 15:14). And to the Ephesians he wrote, `And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints . . .” (Eph. 4:11,12). The Lord, in what is commonly called “The Great Commission” gave substance to the work of perfecting or edifying the body of believers. He said, “. . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19, 20). Edifying is progressive. Peter admonishes the newborn babes to, “. . . long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2). By this verse alone, it is clear that a child of God must not remain undeveloped. Otherwise, he will be stunted as to Christian growth. In this connection, Paul expressed a supplemental advice in the form of a rebuke. “For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and .evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).

Filipino gospel preachers understand this need (to confirm the saints) and are willing to render their all for the sake of Jesus. Practically speaking, they are most suited for the purpose; being identified with the people and knowledgeable in the understanding of the indigenous problems which confront the brethren. Nevertheless, one important element lacking for a successful and Scriptural accomplishment of this responsibility unto the glory of the Father is a relative sufficiency in the knowledge of the doctrine of Christ. Written materials are such a source of knowledge. For sure, a number of them have access to an abundant literary helps for this kind of work. However, these written aids and references cannot usurp the different kind of advantage which can be had through the personal teachings by faithful preachers who have already attained such stature as to be of great service to other preachers. This is supplemental to the written works and is necessary. Such men of ability have had the benefit of being recipients of a rich heritage from the history of their nation’s religious conflicts; of having sat at the feet of mature Christians and of having access to a far greater number of voluminous religious reading matters.

Possession of these things coupled with an understanding of the unique Filipino problems in the light of their different culture are valid considerations in determining whom to invite here to equip the Filipinos in the work of building up the faith of the saints. The excellencies of brethren Cecil Willis and Connie W. Adams- measure up to our considered expectations in connection with the need for edifying the saints here. We have arrived at this consensus a long time ago and which led us to invite them insistently. Having consented to .come for this purpose, we are assured that they will be able to teach the faithful preachers of the gospel here the more excellent way, and “. . . who shall be able to teach others also.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 19, pp. 295-296
March 20, 1975