Plea and Principles of Disciples

Plea and Principles of Disciples PLEA AND PRINCIPLES OF DISCIPLES
By C. M. STUBBLEFIELD By disciples, I mean those people who call themselves Christians, refusing to call themselves by a human name or to organize themselves into a denomination, but by the world designated Gampbellites. By plea and principles, I mean the plea made, and principles announced, by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and maintained by them and their co-laborers. With some of the items herein mentioned, many now in our ranks do not agree, but no one acquainted with their literature will say that those men have not been fairly represented. I shall quote them freely, using, not sentences alone, but, in some instances, entire paragraphs. This will explain the free use of the pronouns “we,’ “us,” and “our,” etc. Before speaking in particular of the plea and principles, it is necessary to say something of the state of the religious world at that time, for one can neither understand nor fully appreciate them without some knowledge of that state. The papacy was hurling its silly anathemas at protes-tantism, and protestantism, exulting in its young strength, was haughtily retorting every insult. Nor was enstrangement of heart confined to these parties alone, for among protestants themselves, party spirit flamed high, with no sign of subsidence. Calvinism, cold, nar-row, bigoted Calvinism, claimed to be the only orthodox faith in the world and demanded universal credence. Arminianism put forth the adverse claim, and refused to accept a homage inferior to that of its great rival. Out of these huge strifes, sects and parties arose with an astounding rapidity. Bach reared high its narrow standard, proclaimed itself divine, an<| published its “lo here” as a sure specific for every ecclesiastic ill. They hated each other most cordially, the one never causing another an emotion of joy except when some straggling sheep bounded away from its fold seeking shelter elsewhere.

Each party had its creed, or confession of faith, setting forth its rules of faith and practice, around which its members clustered as tilings around a magnet and to which, when assailed, they rallied. Intended, of course, to compose disputes, they served only to estrange the professed followers of Christ; designed to excude error they came, in the lapse of time, to exclude only the truth. They, instead of the Bible, were the criteria by which one’s acceptance with God was determined, those who adhered to them being orthodox, while those who dissented were heterodox. From each attempt to revise a creed, there arose a new sect or party. The language of the “clergy” was a peculiar language, their themes abstruse and metaphysical. The essential natures of the Father and Son, the mystic mode of three in one and one in three, how a spirit divine quickens a spirit human, these were some of the themes. Hloly Trinity, triune God, eternal sonship, eternally begotten, Holy Ghost religion, head religion, heart religion, sanctifying grace, electing grace, particular atonement, general atonement, operation of the Holy Ghost, getting religion, —these are but a specimen of that peculiar dialect with which their discourses were replete. They boldly affirmed their rank and calling to be of God, and pronounced their neighbors heretics and dissented from them with as little scruples as if they had been fallen Seraphs. These assumptions gave them great poiver over the people. The interpretation of the Scriptures was their inalienable right, hence the' people left them unread and unstudied.

Superstition swayed the popular mind. Some were “seekers,” some were “mourners,” some “anxious,” some “concerned,” some “had a hope,” some “doubted,” some were “converted,” some “powerfully converted,” Some had a “bright manifestation,” some a “bright experience, ’ ’ some had ‘ ‘got through, ’ ’ some had not. The common people did not know how to read the Bible. Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century had given the Bible back to the people, but he did not teach them how to read it. No book will ever be much read or much cherished, which is not understood, and one hundred years ago the. people did not know how to read the Bible understandingly. Did a man want to know what to do to be saved? He was as likely to read the Psalms of David as Acts of Apostles. Things said to Moses as prophet or to Aaron as priest, were held equally applicable to the alien sinner for the first time seeking the way of life and salvation. This, in some measure, is a des cription of the religions world one hundred years ago, and, although there has been much improvement in some localities, this, to a great extent, is still its state. A few men of the times, wholly disassociated and en-tirely unknown to each other, saw these conditions and grieved over them. Chief among those whose names have come down to us were Thomas and Alexander Campbell.

If I understand these men, and I think I do, they had' no desire to establish another denomination. They believed that there were too many already, and that to establish another would be but to increase an existing evil. ,I£, then, there exists a denomination called by the world the Campbellite Church, it exists in spite of the life-long desire and intent of the Campbells and their co-laborers. Nor was it their purpose to reform any existing de-nomination. While there was room for a reformation in the denominations of their day, they believed that a denomination, no difference how great a reformation it might undergo, would still be a thing unsanctioned by the Bible. Martin Luther undertook to reform the Catholic church. In this he failed. But his labor resulted in the establishment of Protestantism. John Wesley undertook to reform the English church, and his work resulted in the establishment of Methodism. The Camp-bells and their co-laborers undertook neither to establish another denomination, nor to reform any existing one. If their literature is to be the guide to our conclusions, they sought: To Restore the Church to the World as it was in the Beginning.

They did not believe that the church had become ex-tinct. Nor did they hold that the church existed merely in the “seed.” Not that. The phrase “prevail against” (Matthew 16:18), was defined “overcome,” and that prom-ise interpreted to mean that Christ’s church still existed. The Jews, by reason of their disobedience to God, were carried away into captivity to the Babylonians. But, though under that galling yoke, they were still God’s people. What they needed was to he brought out of Babylon, and their law and worship restored. The “man of sin“ had carried Christ’s church away into captivity to the “doctrines and commandments of men.’’ What it needed was to be led out of denominationalism, and the “ancient order of things” restored. This they determined to do. In the beginuing, Christ’s church was precisely what he wanted it to be. Had he desired that it he different, he would have established it differently. He saw the end from the beginning, and constituted his church to meet the needs of man in every age and under every condition To what extent, then, the church of today differs from the church then, to that extent is the church of today wrong. Moreover, if God looked with favor upon the work of establishing the church, his blessings will attend him who attempts to restore it when apostate,

During the early life of the church, while it had its troubles, both from without and from within, it was not troubled with the divisions which have since charac-terized it. Denominationlism had not yet been bom, nor had sectarianism yet become respectable. Every Christian in the world was a member of Christ’s church, for the simple reason that the same process that made them Christians made them members. All Christians are children of God. Whatever makes one a Christian makes one a child of God. But God’s children constitute his family on earth. God has no children that are not in his family. And his family is his church. From this it follows that all Christians are members of God’s church, that the sum total of Christians on the earth constitutes God’s church. But many who have become Christians, and, therefore, members of Christ’s church have become members, also, of a church not of Christ. They belong to two churches, the church of Christ, and a church not of Christ. We claim to be members of the church of Christ only, but do not claim to be the only people who do. We plead with people to cease being members of a church not of Christ, and to remain members of the church of Christ alone.

We claim to be Christians only, but do not claim to be the only Christians. While we believe that many identified with the denominations have become Chris-tians, they have taken on much that is neither Christian-ity nor anything akin to it. Such people are more than Christians, and in becoming more than Christians they have become less than what Christians should be. We strive to induce such people to cease being more than Christians, and to be Christians only. When the Ethi-opian nobleman heard, believed, and obeyed the gospel as preached by Philip, he became a Christian. But he did not once become more than a Christian. Had God desired him to become more, he would have been so directed. To become more than a Christian, and, there-fore, less than what a Christian should be, it is required that one shall hear, believe, and obey more than was heard, believed and obeyed by this man. We strive with preachers to cease preaching more than was preached by Philip, to the end that people may become Christians ohly, neither more nor less. A chief item in our plea, then, is for a complete:— Destruction of Denominationalism From the Earth

It can mean nothing else. And herein we discover the secret of the hatred toward it which characterizes the sectarian. His effort is to build high the “wall of separa-tion” surrounding his party and keeping it separate from those whom he admits are Christians, while our effort is to crumble such into dust. When denomiuationalism is destroyed, the way will be open through which God’s people may become “one”, but not before. Just how any man can ever raise his voice against such a “plea” is certainly one of the mysteries of sin.

It is difficult in this day for the world to learn that Christianity may be purely undenominational. When you tell a man that you are a Christian, he wants to know what kind of a Christian you are. If you tell him you are simply and only a Christian, neither more nor less, he knows not where to place you. If you tell him you are a member of the church of Christ, he wants to know to what branch of it you belong. When you tell him that you do not belong to any “branch”, but simply and only to the church which Jesus built, he is unable to give you a “local habitation and name.” In the New Testament day people became Christians, neither more nor less. Their becoming Christians made them members of the church of Christ, but they did not become members of anything else. There was no denomination to become members of. This all know who know anything about it. And if the church shall ever again become what it was then, this condition will obtain. But sects and parties will never cease to be until man-made doctrines have been discarded. And thus we are brought to consider another item in this “plea”:— The Destruction of Creeds and Confessions of Faith

They are the soil from which sects grow. True, the sect exists before the creed is reduced to writing, but the principles it sets forth were promulged, and people were rallying around them, before the sect existed, and were its cause. If a “creed” contains more than the Bible it contains too much; if it contains less than the Bible it contains too little; if it contains precisely and only what the Bible contains, then is it a Bible and not a “creed” at all. Thus the “fathers” argued. But why, it may be asked, do men propagate false principles in religion? The answer is easy: Men do not understand the Bible. But this leads us to consider another item in our “plea”: A Correct Method of Studying the Bible. The devotee of “creeds” contends for them on the ground that the uneducated masses cannot, understand the Bible. We readily concede that the masses do not understand the Bible, but insist that their failure results from their method of studying it. 'Given a correct method of study in g^it, men will understand it and, when they understand it, the last thing that looks like an argument for “creeds” will vanish into thin air. I was a regular attendant unon the services of sectarian churches during the first twenty-five years of my life, and never in that time did I listen to .one sermon designed to teach people how to study the Bible. Alexander Campbell startled the religious world by his “Sermon, on the Law”, showing men how to “rightly divide the word of truth.” From that day until this, the strongest plain churches of Christ have existed in those communities where those principles have been the most forcefully maintained.• Sec- retarians, for the most part, are what they are on account of ignorance of the Bible. But they would study it, and understand it, if they knew how to study it. Why, for instance, do men sprinkle water on infants? Do they quote the “commission” as authority for their deed? Certainly not. Why should I spend my time trying to induce people to be baptized so long as they know no better than to parry my argument with the fact that Abraham was not baptized? Why should I urge people to cease using instruments of music in thnir worship, so long as they know no better than to remind me that David said, “Praise him with psaltery and harp”? The law of Moses is not binding upon us.because, (1), it was never given to Gentiles, and, (2), it ended at the death of Christ. No one can read the Bible Understand* ingly until he learns- that simple truth. But this is the very thing our neighbors do not know. Things said by Moses and David are aeld equally applicable to, and binding upon, us to-day as are the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Small wonder that churches languish; small wonder that infidelity stalks triumphantly through our land. Under such teaching, nothing but confusion can result. The unbeliever sees no people keeping the law of Moses, how can he, if he be intelligent, do otherwise than stand aloof from the church so long as he is taught that it is binding upon men to-day? If the onward march of infidelity is ever checked, preachers of the plain churches of Christ will have it to do. If people are ever brought to an understanding of the gospel plan of salvation, the young men, for the most part, who are being trained for that work at Abilene Christian College, and the Nashville Bible School, and Freed-Hardeman at Henderson, and our other institutions of learning will have to teach it to them. Our religious neighbors don’t know how. Comparing, however, the number of plain Christians and churches now with their number fifty years ago, I do not believe that the success attends our efforts now that did then. I trace this to the failure of our preachers to properly stress our “plea”, especially the item: A Proper Division of the Word. Our strength lies in our peculiarities—the things which distinguish us from our religious neighbors—while this is their weakness. Don’t forget that. The Simplicity of New Testament Conversion This was another item in the Plea and Principles of which I speak. Men must be taught that the “great commission” 'is the first, last and only world-wide and age-lasting au-thority given by the Master for the evangelization of the world. They must be taught that Acts of Apostles is the record of the acts of the apostles in executing that “Commission.” The idea so prevalent that the Holy Spirit operates separately and independently of the truth, going before it and preparing the heart of man for its reception, must be assailed from every hill and valley in the land. The gospel of Christ, in its most inclusive sense, has facts to be heard, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be enjoyed. Paul was not ashamed of it, for, said he, it “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. ” He preached it to the jailor in Philippi, and so powerful was its effect upon that man that he washed the stripes from Paul’s back, fed him at his own table, was baptized by his hands, and “rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God.” If the church is ever restored to its ancient purity, the people must be taught that “The way of holiness” is so sim-ple that “warfaring men, yea fools, shall not err there-in.” Another important item in this Plea, is for a:

Strict Conformity to the Revealed Will of Christ.

All practices, therefore, having their origin in tradi-tion, human reason, or expediency, are utterly eschewed. We strive to induce all the truly pious in Christ to become perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, by accepting, as doctrine, precisely and (Inly what is either actual ly asserted or necessarily implied in the Bible; to speak the same things by speaking what the Bible speaks, and to speak them in the language of the Bible; and to practice the same things by doing simply the will of Christ. We accept, as matters of faith, what, and only what, the Scriptures teach, do everything and only what they enjoin, and reject everything they do not sanction.

There is a divinely established order of Christian worship for the Christian assembly'. It consists in singing, praying, teaching God’s truth, making a contribution of our means, and partaking of the Lord’s supper Those who do more than these, as worship to God, do so without faith, for “faith cometh of hearing” God’s truth, and these alone are the acts of worship authorized therein. However, while we strive to conform our practices to the precepts and examples of God’s word, we should strive, also, to mark the distinction between:

Essentials and Incidentals in Work and Worship Our Master’s command to “Go teach all nations” is binding upon us today, but his riding upon a donkey
was not intended as an example for our imitation. We must “go,” but are at liberty to do so by any method of travel at our command.

We must make a contribution of our means, but, in making it, we are at liberty to do so by any method which commends itself to our common sense, remembering that all things should be done in decency and order. Hence, we may put our money into a collection plate which is being passed through the congregation, or walk up to the front of the house and put it on a table, or into some receptacle thereon. The ancient assemblies sang. This, too, is an example for us. But, while God has bound singing upon us as an act. of worship for the Christian assembly, He has not bound any method of singing upon Us. It is freely ad-mitted, by all who know, that our method of singing lacks nigh onto a thousand years of being as old as the church of Christ. Knowing this, many professed followers of Christ refuse to worship with congregations where the modern method of singing is employed, contending that not only should we sing, but in doing so, we should employ the same method that was employed by Christ and the early Christians and churches. Such people are unable to distinguish between an essential and an incidental. The essential thing is sing, and the incidental is the method.

Teaching, too, was a thing done in the ancient assem-blies and from this fact, if from no other, we would conclude that we should teach. But some contend that, not only should we teach in our assemblies, but the same method of teaching employed then should be the only method employed now. Prom this contention much alienation and strife have come. In some instances brethren have refused to longer worship with congregations where modern methods of teaching are employed, and have gone off to themselves and established another. Before doing this they should remember that there is a difference as broad as the ocean between an act of worship, upon the one hand, and the way, method, or manner of doing that act upon the other; that there is a distinction between the essential and the incidental. They should remember, moreover, that the liberty, they exercise in singing by modern methods—methods unheard of for .almost a thousand years after the New Testament day—is the same liberty claimed by those who teach by modern methods. The above constitute but a few of the items in the Plea and Principles set forth by the “fathers of the restoration”, space forbidding more. Those men have long since gone to their reward, as have those of the generation succeeding them. We too, ere long, shall lay down our armor at the feet of the Captain of our Salvation, but the cause we love will live on, for eternal truth can never perish. God grant that we may transmit it to them in the purity in which we received it!