Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

There has been so much written in recent articles pertaining to doctrinal matters that I wanted to take the time to write about one of the Christian virtues in this editorial. I could think of no better virtue to comment on than love; indeed, love is the queen of the Christian virtues. What is love?

The definition of a word can be destroyed by allowing it to become so broad in meaning that it encompasses virtually every meaning in the book. This has practically happened with reference to the English word love. Our word love is used to discuss everything from the sexual union of a prostitute with someone she does not know, one’s reaction to the pleasant taste of a food (“I love ice cream”), and one’s feelings toward his wife to one’s relationship with God (God’s love for man and man’s love for God). With the meaning of the word love so broad as it is, we should not be too surprised to find that many things described as love have nothing whatever to do with the Christian virtue commanded by Paul in many places (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22). The need to properly define the word love is obvious.

Defining the Word

The Greek language had several different words to describe the various shades of meaning conveyed in our English word love. The word eros (from which the English word erotic was derived) is used to refer to the passionate love that is predominate in sexual relationships. The word storgos is the primary word to describe the love that exists in a family. The man who is astorgos is without natural affection; he does not have the proper love toward his family as he should have (cf. Rom 1:31). The word philia refers to the love that is attracted to another because what he sees in that other person or thing is pleasant to him. Kenneth Wuest described philia as this kind of love: it is

a love which consists of the glow of the heart kindled by the perception of that in the object which affords us pleasure. It is the response of the human spirit to what appeals to it as pleasurable …. It is a love called out of one in response to a feeling of pleasure or delight which one experiences from an apprehension of qualities in another that furnish such pleasure or delight (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. III, “Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament,” p. 62).

Though each of these words suggests concepts associated with love, none of them reach the height of the Christian virtue commanded by Paul in his usage of the word agape.

Let us turn to define this Christian virtue so that we can better grasp its meaning. One of the very first things that we learn about the Christian virtue known as love is that it is not an emotion. Let me emphasize this thought again. Agape does not describe an emotion! There is no ethical achievement when a man sees something in someone or something which gives him pleasure and he responds to that in a favorable way. Something would be wrong with any person who did not respond favorably to that which gave him pleasure. Yet, Christian love is a virtue-a particular moral quality regarded as good; like all other virtues, it must be developed.

Whereas eros, philia, and storgos refer to emotions, agape refers to an act of the will. This is significant. An emotion cannot be commanded. I cannot say to a man, “Hate!” and expect him to immediately start hating someone he has previously loved. Hate is an emotion; it reacts to one on the basis of how one is treated. However, God commands that we love-even to love our enemies. Consequently, agape is not an emotion; it is an act of one’s will.

This agape, this Christian love, is not merely an emotional experience which comes to us unbidden and unsought; it is a deliberate principle of the mind, and a deliberate conquest and achievement of the will. It is in fact the power to love the unloveable, to love people whom we do not like (H illiam Barclay, More New Testament Words, p. 15).

With the idea that Christian love is not an emotion, let us now inquire into exactly what agape is.

The attempts to define the word agape and its cognate agapao are manifold. This love is built on respect and reverence. It is a “reasoning attachment, of choice and selection. . .from a seeing in the object upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard” (R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 41-42).

“Agapao” speaks of a love which is awakened by a sense of value in an object which causes one to prize ft. It springs from an apprehension of the preciousness of an object. It is a love of esteem and approbation. The quality of this love is determined by the character of the one who loves, and that of the object loved (bluest, op. cit., p. 60).

As an example of the kind of virtue intended by love, let us consider God’s love for man. The scriptures record, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). Anyone familiar with the Bible knows that God did not see anything in this world which gave Him pleasure. He only saw a body of men who had rebelled against His holy commandments and were, therefore, enemies of God (Rom. 5:8-9). What was there in man which could possibly attract God that we should be pleasurable to Him? Nothing! Consequently, we do not read that God had philia toward man but that He had agape. What God recognized was that man had been created in His own image and, therefore, had an immortal soul that was precious in His sight. This was what moved Him to love us-the preciousness of man’s soul.

God’s love for a sinful and lost race springs from His heart in response to the high value He places upon each human soul. Every sinner is exceedingly precious in His sight.

“Phileo” which is another word for love, a love which is the magazine response of the human spirit to what appeals to it as pleasurable, will not do here, for there is nothing In a lost sinner that the heart of God can find pleasure In, but on the contrary, everything that His holiness rebels against. But each sinner is most precious to God, first, because he bears the image of his Creator even though that Image be marred by sin, and second, because through redemption, that sinner can be conformed into the very image of God’s dear Son. This preciousness of each member of the human race to the heart of God is the constituent element of the love that gave His Son to die on the Cross (Ibid., p. 61).

The kind of love mentioned with reference to God is a virtue; it is an act of the will. God’s natural feelings toward those who rebel against His holy commandments would be that of antagonism toward man; yet, He acted, not on the basis of feelings, but on the basis of love. Consequently, He sent His Son to die for us.

Now let us make the transition toward man and the application to ethics. The way which seems most reasonable to make the application is to present a human situation as nearly parallel to that of God’s relationship toward man as possible. In. Matt. 5:43-48, Jesus commanded,

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy:” But 1 say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you; In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Christian love does not shut its eyes to the faults of others. Love is not blind. It will use, rebuke and discipline when these are needed. The love which shuts its eyes to all faults, and which evades the unpleasantness of all discipline, is not real love at all, for in the end it does nothing but harm to the loved one (William Barclay, More New Testament Words, p. 22).

Notice several things regarding the love that is mentioned here. (1) It it directed toward one’s enemies. There are those who try to excuse themselves from obligations to love others because they do not “feel good toward them.” Feelings have nothing to do with the matter. Who ever felt good toward his enemies? Yet, the one who is trying to practice this Christian virtue of love is expected to love his enemies. (2) It is commanded. Jesus did not ask that we “try” to love our enemies; He commanded that we love our enemies. Hence, the love of which we are speaking is not an emotion; it is an act of the will. (3) It is based on respect for that which is precious in another rather than emotions. The natural reaction to one who slaps me on the right cheek is to slap him back. The reaction which the Christian is to give to such an enemy is to turn to him the left cheek also. Similarly, the natural reaction of a man toward his enemies is that of hatred or vengeance. This is precisely the point in which love becomes a Christian virtue. Love is the conquering of the natural reactions toward another by an act of the will as a result of which the man seeks the best for those with whom he associates.

Having understood the nature of love as compared by God’s actions toward those of us who, being sinners, are His enemies, maybe we are better in a position to understand how love is to govern our every action. The Christian virtue of love always seeks the highest good for those to whom it is directed.

There are a good many things which pass for love which are not really love. There is a disposition to treat love toward one’s brother as some kind of sweet, syrupy sentimentalism. Indeed, this is especially true with reference to the comments that some make when it is necessary to rebuke the doctrinal or ethical errors of a brother. Some act as if the man who rebukes the errors of another does not have love for him. This may be true but it is not necessarily true. As a matter of fact, a good many of the rebukes which are made spring from Christian love. The brother recognizes that this brother needs to be rebuked to call him back to the way of truth in the same manner as Paul, from a spirit of love, withstood Peter to the face (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul manifested the spirit of love toward Peter in rebuking him. Had he ignored Peter’s conduct, Peter might have continued in his sin and lost his soul; we do know that Peter stood condemned. Yet, Paul’s rebuke called him back to the way of righteousness; he restored his brother, covered a multitude of sin, and saved a soul from death. We simply must recognize that sometime it is for the best good of a man for him to be rebuked and punished! When it is for the man’s good, the one who loves him will administer such a rebuke and punishment.

We understand this fact about love with reference to parental discipline of unruly children; we need to learn the same with reference to the unruly spiritual children of God.

There are few jobs which I have ever done that required a greater discipline of my spirit than that of going to a brother in sin and telling him that the church would have to withdraw from him if he did not chose to repent. Every fiber in me wanted to ignore the man’s faults and let him go his way. Precisely at this point do I recognize why Christian love is a virtue. It requires the conquering of my personal will to subjugate it to Christ’s will. How different is Christian love from the many things which we mean when we speak of love in our daily conversation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, pp. 131-133
February 23, 1978

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Undoubtedly Americans, including many of God’s very own people here, are rushing madly and blindly into hell. Besides that, we are often guilty of so abusing the twenty-four hours of each day that we get very little real satisfaction in this life and actually fill our days and nights so full of events that are really quite inconsequential that we can not even appreciate the beauty of living. For instance:

1. When we had to travel several miles in a horse drawn vehicle, gospel meetings usually lasted two or three weeks and were attended by multitudes. Now we travel in fast automobiles, reaching our meeting place in a few minutes of very comfortable travel, but we have time for only five or six nights of meetings and that is rapidly being reduced to two or three nights. Today the farmer’s cows are milked by a machine, the bookkeeper’s tabulations are done by calculator and/or computer, the mechanic does not repair a faulty part, he just replaces it with a new one, the housewife’s dishes are washed by a machine and the laundry that used to take all day now is done in two hours or less. We are surrounded by “time saving” devices for the home, the factory, the farm, yet we seem to have less and less time to devote to people — call it “people time,” if you will!

2. Husbands and wives do not spend enough time together. Even the little time they do have together is frequently shared with other people so that the marriage partners still have little real communication with each other. In consultations with couples I am often amazed to notice how little husbands and wives know of each others desires, activities or even whereabouts. Business men frequently pursue success so avidly that they lose contact with the family. Wives become so devoted to soap operas, card parties, club meetings, bargain sales, etc. that homemaking is neglected. (At this point it may be well to admonish preachers. Of course we must go everywhere preaching the Word. We must be true to this commitment we have made. But, for the sake of our marriages, to assure the love and respect of our companions, to prevent temptation and jealousy, we must save time to be with our companions. Remember, there are all kinds of ways and circumstances to preach the gospel, far and near, but there is only one woman for you! You need her and she needs you. You will not have made the fruitful use of your life if you are gone from — separated from your wife — almost all the time and then lose your marriage!)

3. Parents frequently spend too little time with their children, especially in a private, family-circle atmosphere. The following story is lifted from “Saturday Evening Post” magazine, and though it was meant as a joke, it represents a serious circumstance: “At the dinner table the wife of the inveterate golfer said, ‘Junior told me that he caddied for you this morning.’ That’s it!’ exclaimed the golf addict. ‘ I knew I’d seen that kid somewhere before!’ “

If you are interested in the security of your family circle, then give it more time — that is, deliberately apportion more of your time to the activities of the family. And I do not mean you should just sit in the same room looking at the same television programs, but I mean really live together: work, play, sing, pray and talk together.

Husbands and wives need to stop the clock long enough to get acquainted again (and the same thing applies to, parents and children). And by this figurative expression I mean we need to make time stand still (see Josh. 10:13) — that is, we need to withdraw somewhat from the “rat race” — from the pent-up turmoil of our high-speed way of life today in order to provide a home atmosphere that is in harmony with God’s intent for us.

Of course I am aware that the business structure, the the recreational emphasis and the way of life in the homes all demand our own participation to the fullest extent and with the maximum of time for each. But we must gladly refuse those demands! Any business, any employment, any vocation that demands so much of our time that we must neglect the family should be rejected or at least minimized somewhat. Any school arrangement that does not allow time for home life is not a good educational venture. Any recreation that isolates us from the family circle, whether we are participants or spectators in the sports, is excessive for our benefit. Any social system that invades the private home life of a family should be abandoned.

The togetherness that is needed in the homes of America and in the family circles of God’s people may require that we figuratively hang out a sign on our front door, “Do Not Disturb.” It may demand that we pull the electric plug on the T.V. set, -cut the cord on the telephone, reduce our demands for more and more money, sell the “second” car, and generally reduce the tensions, frustrations and excessive demands on our time that keep the family apart. (These specifics are symbolic, you understand, but they represent a real, and actual need for self-discipline for the entire family.) The old saying suggests that “Time heals many wounds.” In this case I suggest that “time together” will heal much that ails the families of our land and of the Lord’s people. Take time to live and to love in the family circle-for your joy and for God’s glory. Our next subject will be, “Home Security.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 8, p. 130
February 23, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

America’s Bicentennial year, 1976, was celebrated with a rash of new historical consciousness-raising events; within the past year Americans have been deluged with much information regarding the nation’s past. One such “Bicentennial event” which may have some interest for the readers of Truth Magazine and those interested in the history of efforts to restore New Testament Christianity was a conference held at Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia, July 8-10. Entitled “Alexander Campbell and the Spirit of the Revolution,” it was deemed appropriate to be conducted at Bethany, which was Campbell’s home for many years until his death in 1866 and is still the site of Bethany College, which he founded in 1840. The conference was funded partially by the West Virginia American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, the remainder of the expense and partial sponsorship being borne by riot only Bethany College but Pepperdine University in Los Angeles as well. Many of the living historians who have written about significant aspects of the Restoration were there, including some familiar to Truth Magazine readers such as David Edwin Harrel, Jr., Earl West, Bill Humble, and William S. Banowsky, all affiliated with groups wearing the name “Churches of Christ.” In addition to other historians from the Christian Churches (Lester McAllister, Robert O. Fife, Perry Gresham, Eva Jean Wrather, Richard Pope, and others) there were other non-Restoration historians present, including Robert Bellah (of the University of California) and Franklin Littell (from Temple University), widely recognized in the historical community for their work in the history and sociology of American religion. Rounding out the speaking format were the representatives of the two sponsoring institutions, Hiram Lester of Bethany and Richard Hughes of Pepperdine; and including several faculty members of the respective schools (Burton Thurston, Larry Grimes, and Corey Gifford). A tour of Restoration-related sites near Bethany and Washington, Pennsylvania was sponsored by the College prior to the conference on July 7-8.

A side note regarding the participants which may be of interest to the readers of this journal concerns Leroy Garrett, who also spoke. Dr. Garrett, along with his perennial compatriot, Carl Ketcherside, began promoting and participating in a series of “Unity Forums” about 1965. Although there were a number of other similar forums occurring annually around the country (among such ones with which we are familiar is the one which met for several years each April in Indianapolis), this particular series occured every July for a decade, usually on the campus of a Restoration related college and was the “flagship” of the Garrett / Ketcherside Unity Forums. Beginning at Bethany College, in 1966, the forums were held, among other places, at Milligan College (Johnson City, TN), 1967; Southeastern Christian College (Winchester, KY), 1968; Lubbock (TX) Christian College, 1970; Atlanta (GA) Christian College, 1971; University of Tulsa (OK), 1973; Scarritt College (Nashville, TN), 1974; and “Churches of Christ” in West Islip, NY (1969), and Cupertino, CA (1972). These conferences often featured Garrett and/ or Ketcherside themselves, as well as others such as Pat Boone, Charles Holt, J. Ervin Waters, and regular writers for Mission, Integrity, Restoration Review, and Mission Messenger. At the last of this series of decade long forums, held again at Bethany in 1975, a meeting of some kind was suggested for the next year but no specific plan emerged. Hiram J. Lester, faculty member at Bethany, enlisted Richard T. Hughes of Pepperdine University to help arrange a Bicentennial study on Campbell and the Restoration Movement. “Historians and educators of national reputation” were chosen to “represent a breadth of opinion as well as a wealth of scholarship” (brochure). Rather than a “unity conference” of speakers from a so-called Restoration background, a historical conference was put together, made up of scholars-some of whom like Robert Bellah, and Franklin Littell had no Restoration connection at: all-who could examine Campbell and the Revolutionary spirit from a historical perspective. Therefore, the national historical conference was sponsored jointly by Bethany College, Pepperdine University of Malibu, California, and the West Virginia American Revolution Bicentennial Commission (WVARBC). Instead of being a continuation of Garrett’s Unity Forums,” this conference at Bethany actually was designed by Hughes and the WVARBC to be a kind of successor to a previous conference at Pepperdine in June of 1975, titled “Restitution, Dissent, and Renewal.” This conference, while including some Restoration related material, historians, and spokesmen, such as Harrell, Hughes, Raymond Muncy of Harding College (Searcy, AR), and Everett Ferguson of Abilene (TX) Christian College, also included well-known non-Restoration historians such as Edwin Scott Gaustad (University of California, Riverside), Samuel S. Hill (University of Florida), Robert Michaelson (University of California, Santa Barbara), James Leo Garrett (Baylor University), Donald Durnbaugh (Bethany Theological Seminary) and Littell, among others. In the words of Mission magazine, “It should be underscored that this conference is neither an ecumenical conference nor a lectureship. Rather, it is a high-level, scholarly historical conference designed for church historians, specialists in European and American history, and other individuals interested in the history of the believers’ churches in Europe, American, and elsewhere.. .” (Mission, VIII:8, February, 1975, p. 20; see reports of this conference in Mission, IX:2 & IX:3, August and September / October, 1975, pp. 27 ff. & 5lff.). The Bethany conference was designed along the same lines, rather than being the sort of “ecumenical conference” or “unity forum” Leroy Garrett tried to make it (see below). The conference provided much helpful material for anyone interested in early American church history and the Restoration Movement. We attended the Bethany conference and offer the following observations and comments.

Introductory Lectures

Perry E. Gresham, President of Bethany College, 1953-72, discussed “Mr. Campbell and the American Dream.” Gresham said Campbell was greatly stirred by the same influences that had sparked the American Revolution and created the American Dream: (1) the English counterpart to the French Enlightenment, but without skepticism; (2) the Age of Capitalism; and (3) the thought of Bacon, Newton, Locke, and Milton, especially John Locke’s works on Human Understanding and Tolerance. But in addition, Campbell was enthralled by the rediscovery of the Bible in Scotland and England. He “not only admired Jefferson, he read him,” and shared his intense concern for education. Gresham’s conclusion was that Campbell looked to churches and schools to “redeem man from his propensities of selfishness and greed.”

Hiram Lester of Bethany discussed American “civil religion” — “A Religion Hebraic, But Not Jewish; Protestant, But Not Christian.” Robert N. Bellah’s seminal article of 1967 on civil religion was reviewed, pointing to the blend of religious ideas in American politics. General religious concepts, not specifically Jewish or Protestant or Catholic, are reflected in most solemn public addresses by civic leaders. The “Confession” includes: (1) God’s ultimate sovereignty, even above the electorate; (2) God, not state power, ultimately grants human rights; (3) God’s work must be America’s. American civil religion can be defined from different angles as a transcendent, universal religion, religious nationalism, the democratic faith of humane values, Protestant civic piety, or American folk religion. Lester pointed to the use of Biblical imagery in colonial descriptions of the New World. America was Canaan, the Revolution was the colonists’ Exodus, and the American people Israel under God’s hand — “the American Israel” being often used: Benjamin Franklin wanted Moses at the Red Sea on the American seal; Thomas Jefferson wanted Israel in the wilderness led by the cloud and fire. The Civil War was viewed by many as America’s Atonement — a redemptive price for past sins. Many people spoke of America’s future as the Millennium’, and the Campbells were influenced by this concept. At one point, Alexander called the American Revolution “the American Passover.” The panel following Lester’s speech examined mostly one question: Is American civil religion different in quality or only in kind from the blending of politics and religion which produced Nazi Germany?

“Enlightenment Influence on Protestant Thought in Early National America” was presented by Samuel C. Pearson, Jr., a Disciples historian of Southern Illinois University. As a background, he talked about the incessant attack of the 17th-18th Century Enlightenment on “The. Church” bequeathed by the Medieval Age. All inherited and traditional systems were challenged by the Enlightenment campaign for world renovation through reason. “Experience” became the watchword and science the model in the quest for truth. So-called Christendom felt called upon to clarify its position on at least three fronts. (1) The area of Reason and Revelation was defended largely by John Locke. In his 1695 “Reasonableness of Christianity,” he defended the content and reasonableness of Christianity against both Deists and atheists. (2) Debates on the question of Evil were sparked by men like Voltaire. God was made a defendant to be convicted or vindicated in these discussions on the meaning and cause of evil. (3) On the front of Religion and Morality, defenders of the faith went on the offensive. They felt especially strong in arguing for a vital relation between religion and morality. At any rate, the English Enlightenment writers were well known in America; Locke and Newton were popular well beyond that time. Pearson judged the new Republic in America as the Enlightenment in practice and noted that American Protestantism showed the marked influence of Enlightenment thought. Alexander Campbell like many others of his time utilized Lockean apologetics, although not slavishly. Locke said intuition recognized, “I am,” and can deduce, “Therefore, God is.” Campbell said we cannot deduce or imagine God, but must depend on testimony-God revelaed Himself to Adam and the testimony was handed down.

Bethany professor of Mid-Eastern studies, Burton B. Thurston, dealt with “Alexander Campbell and the American Hermeneutics of the 19th Century.” Thurston said that Campbell was conversant with the work of American pioneers in the field of Biblical interpretation or hermeneutics, including Moses Stuart, J.S. Buckminister, Andrews Norton, William E. Channing, and Thomas Parker (who wrote 30 articles on the subject in 1836 alone but was also more liberal than the others). Norton, Stuart, and Campbell propagated many of the same ideas on interpretation, and Campbell acknowledged his indebtedness to Stuart. The Calvinist claim that the Holy Spirit illuminates word meanings in Scripture was vigorously opposed by Stuart. He emphasized the work of the Spirit in inspiration, but argued that if the Calvinist position be true then Bible is not a revelation in the form we have it. We must understand the Bible as we do any other book or language. In the Millennial Harbinger of 1846, Campbell published seven rules for interpreting Scripture, stressing attention to historical circumstances (who, when, where, etc.), dispensational placement, linguistic principles inherent in the nature of language, common word usage, restraint in interpreting symbols, and the necessity of coming within “the understanding distance” in order to fully appreciate Bible teaching (i.e., the will to know and obey truth).

The Civil Religion

Robert N. Bellah, sociologist and historian at the University of California at Berkeley (who began the current controversy over civil religion in his 1967 article on the subject), spoke on “The Revolution and the Civil Religion.” American civil religion is what Abraham Lincoln called “our ancient faith.” Bellah pointed to this fundamental faith or “normative core” in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address (to which Hamilton and Madison contributed), and the Gettysburg Address. This faith includes (1) a God transcending ‘political laws and standing in judgment over, civil institutions; (2) the non-sacred nature of the political order, demanding a change of government when it violates the higher or sacred law; and (3) the necessity of an inner principle of love and duty causing people to govern themselves in order for a Republic to stand, i.e., religion and morality are the “pillars of human happiness.” Bellah also discussed the recurring strain of civil millennarianism, going all the way back to men like John Winthrop who said, “we cannot fail God,” even before setting foot in the New World. Cotton Mather said, “We are God’s new Israel.” But doubters like Roger Williams have rejected this self-conception, denying that the Ship of State is the Ark of Christ! He denied that blessings in this world are the sign of God’s grace and urged rather the need of “soul blessedness,” with the expectation of persecution and rejection in this world. (Even Bellah, a religious sociologist, seemed unable to comprehend the mind-set of a man like Williams, who was willing to take the heady step of separation from all other human beings and their opinions, even including his own wife, in order to stand alone doing what he understood God’s will to be.) Bellah said the Founding Fathers of the Republic rejected the highly optimistic view of the Cotton Mathers and the deeply pessimistic view of the Roger Williams, seeing America not as a divine nation but an experiment offering hope to the world under the providence of a transcendent God. Though Campbell made statements at times bordering on both of the more extreme views, Bellah judged that he was, for the most part, in the moderate tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Alexander Campbell

Robert O. Fife of the Los Angeles Westwood Christian Foundation chronicled “Alexander Campbell’s Role in the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 18291830.” The only elective office Campbell ever sought was a representative of Brooke County to the Virginia Constitutional Convention. He represented the spirit of western reform, locked in battle with eastern power. Some of the pragmatic Easterners pled that abstract truth was not valid for political structures. At one with the spirit of the Revolutionary Period, Campbell appealed to principle and abstract truth in an effort to effect reform. On October 24, 1830, he made a significant proposal: all free white males should have the right of suffrage. The right is conferred by nature, he said. It is the right of thinking, willing, expressing oneself, and God, gave, this. power. Therefore, denying such a natural rigt is more than unjust, it is sinful. The Tidewater elite feared that general suffrage would end up in the abolition of slavery (which Campbell also proposed) and feared the reign of “King Numbers” as ending in excess and corruption. Campbell responded that he loved “King Numbers” because the alternatives were unacceptable. Every major western proposal for reform was rejected, including Campbell’s in the interest of public education (which in his mind was wedded to general suffrage, for he no more than Thomas Jefferson wanted an uneducated general suffrage).

An overall interpretation .of Campbell’s work was offered by Richard T. Hughes of Pepperdine University in “From Primitive Church to Civil Religion: The Millennial Odessy of Alexander Campbell.” As in a similar paper published in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion last year, Hughes seemed to think that Campbell was always moved by a highly optimistic, or millennial, hope for mankind-a world-wide reign of the principles of Christ. Before 1840, Campbell hinged this hope upon a return to the ancient gospel and the primitive church. He sought to defuse the divisive power of human traditions and opinions by focusing on and seeking to restore the commonly recognized faith of the primitive church. According to Hughes, after 1840 Campbell shifted his emphasis. The message of restoring the ancient gospel and primitive church was too slow in uniting men for the introduction of the Millennium, so he began to look to civil religion and the power of the Republic to unite men under Christian principles for the Millennium. Hughes pointed out that most millennial Protestants had accepted the latter approach all along. Campbell “baptized” orthodox Protestantism, looked to civic institutions such as common schools to topple priestcraft, expected the collapse of tyranny and ignorance in the world through the American experiment and, confusing the church and the country, waited for the dawn .of the Millennium. Campbell expected something of the primitive faith that is impossible: universal acceptance. Hughes observed that the Anabaptists had long before understood that the restoration approach will not be universally accepted.

Of Love And Unity

In “The Campbells and the American Experience: A Bicentennial Reflection,” Eva Jean Wrather tried to summarize the life and times of Alexander Campbell. She attempted to distill the biographical material being reworked as a definitive biography of Campbell for a major publishing house. Her lengthy reading included standard historical data about the Campbell’s lives, with a statement of their religious views colored by her Disciples of Christ perspective rather than being historically accurate. (She said at one point that they preached there was only one law in religion: “the law of love.” She did not document this modern nebulosity in their writings. Next, Restoration Review editor Leroy Garrett repeated his serially-published “Alexander Campbell’s America As Revealed in His Travel Letters.” The beautiful scenery, difficult schedule, diverse modes of travel, great distances covered, and hardships on Campbell’s family were all recounted from his travel letters published in the Millennial Harbinger. Garrett’s speech was unique in that it diverged from the profitable historical material presented by all the other speakers, especially in the first several minutes. His one track mind apparently misled him into thinking he was at one of his unity forums; he recognized different strands of the Restoration, mentioned various journals represented by writers or editors present, pointed out various individuals (hoping out loud that Ed Harrell, Steve Wolfgang, and Ron Halbrook had not absented themselves simply because he was speaking — which we were not, having left earlier to relax and “caucus” in a side room), and made an impassioned plea for his new unity movement, actually creating a circus-like atmosphere with shouts of “Amen” and applause from his own partisan followers. Garrett alone, of all the speakers, seemed under the delusion that everyone had come to “experience” his kind of unity and fellowship-a delusion absurd on the face of it since the West Virginia Revolution Bicentennial Commission helped fund the event and notable historians like Bellah and Littlel had no connection with the so-called Restoration, no knowledge of Garrett’s fellowship fantasy, and thus no desire to share in it. Several of us acquainted with his fantasy had no desire to share in it, either!

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, pp. 123-126
February 16, 1978

By Earl Robertson

Jesus Is The Foundation

In the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples whom they thought He was, He was confessed to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter made that confession, and Jesus responded, “And I say also unto then, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:13-20).

Upon the eternal truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord here promises to build His church. Under the figure of a building, He approaches this subject. The church has a foundation; it is not Peter, but Christ. Some allege that since Jesus called Peter Cephas, and that Cephas means stone (John 1:42), He promised to build the church on Peter. “Peter” translates Petros which is the Greek word for “Cephas” which is Aramaic. Petros (Peter) is nominative, singular in case, masculine in gender, and means a small stone or detachment of a massive ledge. “Thou art Peter” (Petros), said Jesus, “and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church.” The rock on which Jesus promised to build is not Petros but petra-a large stone. Petra is dative singular in case and feminine in gender. Jesus never promised to build His church upon a man, but upon the eternal truth confessed-“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

A church without Christ as the foundation is not a church of Christ. Paul wrote, “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10,11). Christ was laid as the foundation for the church .in Corinth when Paul preached Christ (2:2; 15:1-4). The church of Christ exists in fact only where Christ is preached and obeyed (Acts 18:8). To preach Christ, His name (authority), His kingdom (church), and His authorized water baptism must be faithfully proclaimed (Acts 8:5,12). There are no exceptions to this! Churches of men exist without such, but not the church of Christ. Christ is the only foundation, the only head, Savior, and builder of His church (1 Cor. 3:11; Col. 1:18; Eph. 5:23; Matt. 16:18). One cannot build upon Christ the foundation without building as His word directs. Build on Christ today!

Truth Magazine XXII: 7, p. 122
February 16, 1978