I was coming back from the bowling alley with a truck load of 11 and 12 year old girls. This song came on the radio and they wanted to sit in the truck and finish listening to it. So in honor of my girl and her friends ....
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The immersion of Alexander Campbell in 1812 by Baptist preacher Mathias Luce has been long been a troublesome issue for some heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. For some like Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, Campbell's baptism was downright embarrassing. The cause of that embarrassment is rooted in two historical facts: 1) Alexander (and his father Thomas) was baptized by a Baptist and 2) Campbell did not understand baptism's role in the remission of sin -- and would not for quite some time after. This presented such a problem for McGary that he even suggested that Campbell was secretly rebaptized -- a notion that David Lipscomb rightly dismissed as highly dubious. Even as late as 1999 a brother wrote an article concerning "Alexander Campbell's Baptism"[1] that was another stretched attempt to remove this apparent black eye from Campbell.
The debate over Campbell is important. At the center of the debate is how much of the NT teaching concerning baptism a person must grasp before she can obey the Great Commission. Is one saved by submissive faith or precise knowledge? It is a critical question. Even those who demand that one must absolutely know that baptism is the POINT that one obtains remission are reticent to condemn Campbell to hell. Some even try to force Campbell into the rebaptist camp -- a great irony.
For example, the aforementioned article attempted to show that Campbell did indeed understand that baptism was for the remission of sins in 1812. The evidence from Robert Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell is dismissed. Attempts are made to buttress the rebaptist position with a quotation from Selina Campbell that comes second hand from a debate that H. C. Harper had in 1917.
Alexander Campbell himself is quoted from his 1844 Debate with N. L. Rice and from Campbell's 1853 book on Baptism. These quotes have zero relevance, however, because Campbell is not discussing what he knew or what anyone must know about baptism at the time of their immersion. Selina's "evidence" (she was not even married to him at the time -- they were married 16 years later) there is simply no evidence to support the position that Campbell understood the "design" of baptism [2]. There is no reason to doubt Richardson in the Memoirs.
Pertinent to our discussion here would be Campbell's understanding of baptism exhibited in his 1820 Debate with the Presbyterian John Walker. It is critical to remember that this discussion took place eight years after his immersion. Campbell affirmed in this debate that baptism confers spiritual blessings only "figuratively" [3]. Campbell argued that the phrase "the renewing of the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3.5 is used figuratively with respect to baptism and not in reality [4]. Campbell then explicitly places the new birth PRIOR to baptism. In his own words:
"Hence "THE RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT," is a phrase that denotes the influence of the Holy Spirit, exerted on the whole soul of man; and implies a death unto sin, and a new life unto righteousness . . . Which leads the subject on his gracious work to submit to 'be buried with Christ' . . . The outward rite [i.e. baptism], then must bear an analogy to the doctrine exhibited in and by it. Hence immersion in water is a beautiful and striking representation of our faith in the death and burial of Christ" [5].
This "outward rite," according to Campbell in 1820, is a "representation" of a reality that has already been accomplished by the Holy Spirit. In fact, Campbell makes this point crystal clear earlier in his Debate with Walker, "THE CALLED, cannot mean those whom every preacher invites to Baptism, but those whom the Lord calls by his grace or Spirit"[6]. Quotations of this nature can be multiplied from the Walker-Campbell Debate but such is needless. It is clear, though, that in 1820 Alexander Campbell did not have a doctrine of baptism that would be embraced by many of his descendants -- he clearly did not think baptism was "necessary" or for the remission of sins.
Campbell testified in 1838 that he had not given the special meaning of baptism much thought prior to 1820. In the winter of 1821-1822 Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell discussed a tract on the specific import of baptism by a Scotch Baptist minister named Henry Errett (later to be the father of Isaac Errett). It was from this tract that both Campbell and Scott learned of a deeper meaning involved in baptism. Even with this significant discovery, Campbell, says he was "engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration" [7]. The wider paragraph from Campbell is significant,
"In 1820 the Editor had a debate with Mr. Walker on the SUBJECT [sic] and ACTION [sic] of Christian baptism. He had not then turned his thoughts to the special MEANING [sic] or design of that ordinance. Either during that discussion or in transcribing it for the press, an impression was made on his mind that baptism had a very important meaning and was some way connected with remission of sins; but engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration ..."
Campbell then goes on to say "Immediately on receiving a challenge from Mr. Wm. L. M'Calla, of Kentucky, dated May 17, 1823, I resolved to settle the true meaning of baptism before I ever debated the subject again" [7].
Campbell's debate with William MacCalla was in 1823. Even with this public pronouncement of the notion of remission of sins it was largely just theory rather not practice. It was left to Walter Scott's famous tour of the Western Reserve (Ohio) in 1827 to not only put this theory in practice but to invent the five-finger plan of salvation as well.
The mature Campbell’s views on baptism are more complicated than ours. Campbell’s theology of baptism certainly affirmed the rite was for remission, though he strongly denied that cognitive comprehension of that fact was required by God -- only submissive faith that was obedient. He thus never made specific knowledge of remission the litmus test of biblical baptism. On the contrary he believed such a position was sectarian to the core and a denial of the principles of the restoration movement itself. Campbell even opposed adding the phrase "for the remission of sins" to the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" of Matthew 28.19 when immersing a candidate [8]. When Campbell reflected upon his own immersion in a "Dialogue on Reimmersion" he remembered that he simply confessed his faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Then Campbell adds, "Nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself" [9].
Alexander Campbell responded in 1831 to a question about rebaptism put forward by Andrew Broaddus, a prominent Baptist minister. Campbell (who addresses Broaddus as "brother") says that though baptism is associated with remission that is not the total New Testament witness concerning the subject. He says,
"Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution." Campbell goes on to comment, "To be baptized for the remission of sins exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ . . . I know some will say the candidates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time!"[10]
Rebaptism could not be justified simply because a person did not grasp the specific "design" of baptism but rather that they were really unbelievers at the time of the first immersion. He writes:
"Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify reimmersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God -- that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day, at that time of the first immersion -- that he now BELIEVES the testimony of the apostles concerning him . . . The instant that rebaptism is preached and practised [sic!] on any other ground than now stated -- such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, change of views -- then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "He who believes and be immersed shall be saved" -- then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation" [11].
The simple fact is that Campbell taught that if a person would believe One Fact (i.e. that Jesus is the Christ) and submit to One Act that reflects that Fact (baptism into his name) that person has been inducted by the authority of God into the Kingdom [12]. On this point Alexander never wavered.
Those who have been ardent supporters of nonsectarian Christianity have consistently held the same ground as brother Campbell. The great names, virtually synonymous with the Gospel Advocate for 150 years have held the same ground as the great Reformer. David Lipscomb militantly opposed as sectarian and digressive the notion that one must have a clear grasp of the doctrine of remission of sins in order to receive biblical baptism. Lipscomb always pointed to the priority of the Great Commission as Jesus gave it in Matthew 28 [12]. E. G. Sewell, Lipscomb¹s long time co-editor of the GA was nearly as vocal in his opposition. Probably none, though, opposed the sectarian doctrine more than co-founder of the Nashville Bible School (David Lipscomb University) James A. Harding. Harding debated the issue twice, once in 1888 with Austin McGary and in 1901 with J.D. Tant. Harding wrote, "It is manifestly wrong to call remission of sins the design of baptism and insist that it shall be understood." Harding "doubt[ed] if there ever was a man who fully understood the design of the ordinance at the time of his baptism since Christ gave the commission." Because this is so, the question to be asked is not, according to Harding, "What did you believe about baptism?" Rather, the proper question is, "Did you believe wit h your whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and did you confess him as Lord?" [13]. Giants like Walter Scott, Moses Lard, J.W. McGarvey, Benjamin Franklin, James F. Rowe, F. D. Srygley, M.C. Kurfees, J. C. McQuiddy, B.C. Goodpasture, J. N. Armstrong, George Benson, J. M Powell, Jimmy Allen all held this same ground because of a commitment to biblical nonsectarian Christianity. Even Daniel Sommer opposed Austin McGary on this one!
It does not follow that those who hold to the same ground as these great men, believe that baptism is an empty, meaningless ritual. Rather this ground is held precisely because the belief that the action performed in baptism is GOD'S work, not ours, and he will grant the wonder of forgiveness to those who come in submissive faith to his Son. I close with the wise words of David Lipscomb:
"If we make baptism depend upon what man understands about it, its purposes and meaning, he will never know when he is baptized. It has been told of Dr. John Thomas, who when he started out to be baptized that when he learned a new truth about the purposes of baptism, that he was baptized over twenty times. . . but what we understand of the purpose of baptism is not the proper ground for being baptized. But the ground is, God has required it as an act of fealty to him, and we do it to obey him; and when we do this, we enter into him, that in him we may enjoy all the blessings and favors he gives" [14].
In a day or so I play on posting a few thoughts on how and where Walter Scott fits into all of this ...
Notes:
[1] Owen Olbricht, "Alexander Campbell's Baptism," Gospel Advocate (September 1999).
[2] I use the word "design" deliberately. Historically this word among rebaptist teachers referred exclusively to the doctrine of remission of sins.
[3] Debate on Christian Baptism Between Mr. John Walker, a Minister of the Secession and Alexander Campbell (Religious Book Service Reprint, n.d.), pp. 136-137.
[4] Ibid., p. 137.
[5] Ibid., p. 138.
[6] Ibid., p. 56 .
[7] Millennial Harbinger, 1838, p. 467-468.
[8] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Standard Publishing Co. 1897), Volume 2, p. 288.
[9] Millennial Harbinger, 1832, p. 319.
[10] Millennial Harbinger, 1831, p. 483.
[11] Millennial Harbinger, 1836, p. 63.
[12] Christian Baptist, April 5, 1824, p. 60.
[12] Lipscomb’s views are easily accessible in his book Salvation from Sin, pp. 215ff and Questions and Answers, ed. M.C. Kurfees, pp. 528ff.
[13] The Way, March 1900, p. 35.
[14] Gospel Advocate, November 15, 1906, p. 728
Monday, February 16, 2009
One of the finest human beings known to me is Monroe Hawley. Monroe was a shaper of my thought long before I preached at Southside Church in Milwaukee where he was one of my shepherds (along with Wayne Alexander, Bruce Williams, and Al Gray). His books Redigging the Wells, The Focus of Our Faith, and Is Christ Divided? have blessed me immensely. I can honestly say that neither he nor I agree on every detail but a more gracious saint I have yet to meet. I mention Monroe because I took the time this weekend to reread his classic Is Christ Divided? in light of Todd Deaver's Facing Our Failure. I do believe that Monroe is right about one fundamental point: a sectarian spirit is the deadly enemy of Christian unity.
Interestingly enough rejection of "sectarianism" is part and parcel of the rhetorical DNA of Stone-Campbell churches. But as we saw in our previous post, Barton Stone noted that many who denied being sectarian simply had become "anti-sectarian sectarians." Perhaps this is because we miss classify sectarianism. Most in our non-denomination denomination would make a near equation of "false" doctrine and sectarianism. But, interestingly enough, this is a false teaching. And if it were correct many in our fellowship might have the label for they teach such things as: the Holy Spirit operates and/or indwells only through the written word; that a person must have more than faith to be biblically baptized; etc; etc; etc. But what is a sectarian spirit? Here is a taxonomy of this accursed evil ... with a nod to Monroe.
1) We betray a sectarian spirit when we display a party (i.e. denominational) loyalty concerned with defending the status quo rather than in the well-being of the entire church of God. A person might say "I'm Church of Christ all the way" or "The Church of Christ teaches ..." this is pure sectarianism.
2) We betray a sectarian spirit when we equate our fellowship of believers with the entire church of God or the kingdom itself. Some have a laundry list of issues by which they think they can identify the members of the family of God. The church is thus identified with a group of congregations of which he/she approves.
3) We betray a sectarian spirit when we think we have "arrived." We and we alone have the real truth. To put it another way we believe we have a "corner on truth." All we do is read, believe and obey the Bible. Everyone else either does not believe or they simply disobey. But to quote Monroe "it is the height of presumption and arrogance to assume that any group of people is exempt from the possibility of misinterpretation." But it is this attitude that lies behind our "brotherhood" Diotrepheses who consider themselves the defenders of God's church.
4) Finally we betray a sectarian spirit in harsh and judgmental attitudes towards others. This personality trait is among the first to be decried by Thomas Campbell in his legendary Declaration & Address. Judging another is a "daring usurpation of the throne of Christ" TC baldly declared. What right do we think we have to pontificate the destiny of any person when Michael the archangel of God himself refused to that to the Evil One himself (Jude 9).
There are at least three ungodly behaviors that are nourished by sectarianism. Perhaps they have been touched on in some way above but I want to lay them out explicitly. If what I have said is true above it seems that sectarianism itself breeds, like a virus, these other spiritual issues ...
Sectarianism breeds name calling. Rather than deal with a person as simply a brother or sister in Christ we label him or her as liberal, legalist, pseudo-add adjective, progressive, conservative, anti, compromiser, modernist, apostate ... and even spiritual retards. "We" even have found ways to justify this behavior!
Sectarianism breeds paranoia. Sectarianism is the original root for conspiracy theories. Dan Brown did not invent them ... sectarianism birthed them! Sectarianism lives in fear (yes fear). It awaits rather nervously every new book, new professor, article and sees these things as threats. Thus paranoia breeds unique combat language like fight, contend, battle, even "gospel bullets." This paranoid fear often borders on irrational. I say this not just as a contemporary observer among Churches of Christ but with a look at the sweep of our history.
Sectarianism breeds isolation. Isolation is the natural corollary to fear. We don't want to be contaminated by foreign ideas, teachings or be associated with those not quite as loyal as ourselves. We do not need to study for we have the truth. We rather "defend" the truth. Other points of view are sort of like biblical leprosy ... they are cut off and quarantined. This is carried out in brotherhood papers and lectureship resulting in a certain amount of inbreeding as we isolate ourselves from one not as sound as we imagine ourselves to be.
Sectarianism is not a "conservative" or a "progressive" issue. It is a spiritual disease that strikes anywhere, at anytime, if we are not on guard. Sectarianism is not simply believing something that is wrong. It is a matter of the heart that destroys our walk with Spirit.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871) was one such new editor. Thomas was a preacher among "us" first in Philadelphia and then Richmond, Virginia. In 1834 he began publishing his new voice in his Apostolic Advocate. By 1835 it became clear that he was promoting sectarian point of view. Stone-Campbell churches had always accepted those who had been immersed into the name of Jesus. Thomas believed this was grave error. Stoned-Campbell churches were not simply Christians they were the only Christians! And apparently many even in his own fellowship were not Christians either. Many, like Alexander Campbell himself, had been baptized at the hands of Baptist preachers never understanding the "deeper" significance of baptism until years later. Campbell vigorously opposed Thomas who eventually left the Restoration movement to form the Christadelphians.
In 1835 other extreme positions bubbled to the surface as well. Matthias Winans, Arthur Crihfield, John R. Howard, and others, promoted a theory of the Holy Spirit that so closely linked the Spirit and the Word that they became nearly indistinguishable. Crihfield would throw his hat in the editor bishop's chair in 1837 with a journal creatively titled The Heretic Detector ... its task would be to root out any and all heresy. It was in the Heretic Detector that, as far as I can determine, we encounter for the first time the "marks of the one true church." The spirit of this publication has been "reincarnated" in journals that yet remain among us.
Interestingly enough Stone, Campbell and even Robert Richardson seem to have sensed that something was afoot at the Circle-K (for those who remember Bill & Ted!). Alexander Campbell wrote a lengthy piece titled "The Crises" (Millennial Harbinger [December 1835], 595-602). Richardson published a letter in the same issue to Campbell under the heading "Reminiscences of 1835" (pp. 611-618). Campbell's last words to his readers for the year 1835 was a plea for them to reread his article and even Richardson's (p.622).
Barton W. Stone had already voiced distress over the direction of some within the movement. In the August 1835 Christian Messenger he shared some "Remarks." Since it is brief, yet powerful, I will reproduce his entire "remark."
"The scriptures [sic] will never keep together in union, and fellowship members not in the spirit of the scriptures, which spirit is love, peace, unity, forbearance, and cheerful obedience. This is the spirit of the great Head of the body. I blush for my fellows, who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ. There is a day not far ahead which will declare it. Such antisectarian sectarians are doing more mischief to the cause, and advancement of truth, the unity of christians, and the salvation of the world, than all the skeptics in the world. In fact, they make skeptics." (Barton W. Stone, "Remarks," [Christian Messenger August 1835], 180)
Stone did not shy from voicing his concern over the direction of some within the movement he helped spawn.
Due to the vigilance of Campbell, Stone, Richardson, and Scott most of the extreme views that began to surface in 1835 were held in check. Yet after the Civil War these uprooted tares among the wheat began to bud again. There is a direct link between the "Texas Tradition" in the Churches of Christ and John Thomas. We might explore that some more soon ... Those devoted to "truth" often have to point the search light back at their own heart. This is a legacy we can embrace from Stone, Campbell, Richardson and Scott.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
