Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight I want to read to you an interchange that Alexander Campbell, the editor of The Christian Baptist, had with one of his readers back in 1826. Now, a lot of you may have no idea of who Alexander Campbell is. So let me give you a very brief biographical sketch. Alexander Campbell was born and grew up in Northern Ireland. His father, Thomas Campbell, was a minister in the Presbyterian Church there.
His father eventually came to the position that the divisions existing among Christians were caused by a lack of conformity to Scripture, and that the true and certain way to ensure such unity was to cast aside all creeds and follow only the teachings of the Bible. But the more rigorously he advocated these views, the stronger the opposition to him became there in the Presbyterian Church.
Well, he and his family immigrated to the United States and settled in Washington County, Pennsylvania, which is not too terribly far from where Scroll Publishing is now located. Well, meanwhile, Alexander Campbell, his son, was studying at the University of Glasgow for the ministry. And when his studies were finished, he joined his father in Pennsylvania. Well, the opposition from the Presbyterian Church increased towards what Thomas Campbell and now his son Alexander as well were advocating.
And this eventually led to their leaving the Presbyterian Church with quite a number of other people, and they started a new church afresh in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Well, as I've mentioned, the Campbells and the members of their church wanted to use the Bible alone as their only authority. Well, one day a member in the congregation raised the question, is infant baptism scriptural?
Well, at first, both Alexander Campbell and his father set out to defend infant baptism, because that's what they were used to with their Presbyterian upbringing. However, they said, well, let's go to the scriptures and examine this. And after doing so, Alexander and his father both came to the conclusion that infant baptism did not have scriptural authority. They also concluded that immersion is the proper method of baptism, not sprinkling that they had been used to.
So in this spiritual journey of theirs, they had started out as Presbyterians, and now they had essentially become Baptists. In fact, Alexander and his father were immersed by a Baptist minister, and they started a Baptist Church in 1813. And the church they started was part of a Baptist Association called the Redstone Baptist Association, a geographical area. Now the 1800s were a time when debates drew numerous attention.
Not only did you have the famous political debates, but you also had them among church teachers as well. And Alexander Campbell soon established himself as an extremely capable debater. And his fame as a debater spread among the Baptists, particularly when he successfully defended adult baptism against infant baptism and immersion against sprinkling when debating with Presbyterian ministers. But eventually the Campbells came to differ from the Baptists on the significance of baptism.
The Campbells held to the view that baptism is more than just a symbol or a step of obedience. Rather, it is the method that Jesus chose to which He extends His grace and His forgiveness of sins, which is a position very similar to what the early Church believed.
Well, another difference is that Alexander and his father wanted to take whatever steps were necessary and to make whatever changes were required in order to restore the teachings, the order of worship, and the type of church government that the New Testament church had. And this led to the establishment of a new movement originally within the Baptist Church, and later it became a distinct movement from the Baptist.
And that sets the stage for the somewhat lively interchange that Alexander Campbell had with one of his readers. Alexander had started a monthly paper or magazine called The Christian Baptist. Although at one point in time, Alexander had withdrawn totally from any spiritual communion or association with the General Baptist churches, he eventually felt that he had erred greatly in this.
And so he renewed his fellowship with them and even stated in his magazine that he was in full communion with a certain Baptist church that was in his area. Well, that seemed like a big compromise to some of his readers, and one of them wrote him a very challenging letter accusing him of being wishy-washy and wanting to be popular and inviting him to defend himself or to explain his actions. Well, Alexander published this reader's letter, and he answered the accusations quite ably.
And it's this message, Alexander Campbell's reply, that I think is a very important message for all Christians today to hear, particularly those of us who are seeking a restoration of primitive or New Testament Christianity. So I'm going to read to you both the letter and Alexander Campbell's reply to the letter. Now the letter is addressed to Mr. Editor as Alexander Campbell was the editor of the Christian Baptist. The letter begins: " Mr.
Editor, my own consciousness approves the goodness of the injunction, judge not, and intimates the folly of expecting perfection in any living man. But we do expect consistency, especially in a reformer and a restorer of the primitive order of things in the Church of Christ. Allow me to call your attention to a few things which demand on your part a public explanation. " In your reply to Mr.
T of Boone County, Missouri, you say, " I in the church with which I am connected are in full communion with the Mahoning Baptist Association, Ohio, and through them with the whole Baptist Society in the United States. And I do intend to continue in connection with these people. " End quote. Now, sir, I have no doubt, but you feel honestly about this full communion with the whole Baptist society.
But in fact, and in effect, it is but a white lie, an equivocation, a time-serving expedient, and tends to shake the confidence of those who love you as to the downright sincerity of your magazine, The Christian Baptist. It has at least disturbed me not a little. Pray, sir, what is full communion? Is it not full union in the common worship, doctrine, and institutions of any church or denomination? Yes, this is the understanding where the language comes from the lip or pin of integrity.
Your profession implies, according to your own principles, a sincere conviction that the whole Baptist Society, that is, the regular associated Baptist, is the Church of Christ, of which Jesus is the head, and that they are conformed to the New Testament law, as respects doctrine, worship, and order.
You, by this, publicly avow that in your judgment, the regular associated Baptist, exhibit the model of Christ's house, or the election of grace, and may be pointed out as the living epistle of the Holy Ghost to be seen and read of all men. This is not what the Christian Baptist says, but it is what your visible standing and professing conduct says. If so, in what sense are you a restorer of primitive Christianity?
If they, as a society, are the Church of Christ, what right have you to interfere with their existing order and state? But if at heart you do not confess them as holding that order, which would rejoice the soul of an apostle, what do you mean by professing full communion with them? Pray sir, who or what are the associated Baptists in the United States? Are they not a large denomination of religionists, differing from the other religious sects in no respect, affecting this question?
After you have approved their dipping and criticized the sprinkling of the others, in what particulars are the associated Baptists a special people? Unless it be that after having made one right move, their conformity to the course of the Christian world is more sinful, as it is more inconsistent and glaring. This may be disputed, but cannot be disproved from God's Word.
And he who has full communion with the whole Baptist society as the New Testament Church, and yet refuses to extend the right hand of fellowship to the rest of the evangelical sects, is a blind Pharisee straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Let me set forth a hypothetical dialogue between one of these regular Baptists and you, the editor of the Christian Baptist, who are professedly of one faith, of one mind, of one church, speaking the same things, and of one heart to serve the king of Zion as he has commanded.
Okay, at this point, the person that he calls the regular Baptist, in other words, the member of an ordinary Baptist Church begins off, saying: " Our churches are founded on the Philadelphia Confession as the bond of union and the statute of discipline. " Is not that proper in scriptural? And now the editor Alexander Campbell is supposed to give this reply: " By no means, it is anti-Christian and must be considered rebellion against the great king and head of the church.
" The regular Baptist responds: " It prevents varieties in doctrine which could not be tolerated among us as particular Baptists in sound Calvinists. Is not Calvinism according to the scriptures? I mean the limited super sub lapsarian plan? " The editor replies, " I think not. Calvinism is a corruption of Christianity and of course a curse to the world by perverting men from the simplicity of the faith. " The regular Baptist responds, " Indeed! But Mr. Editor, what think you?
Ought the Lord supper to be attended more often than once a month? Or is it a matter left to the churches to fix as suits their views? You know the Scriptures say as often without telling how often or often, and the associated Baptists throughout the Union considered a matter of indifference until determined by a vote of the Church. They generally commune once a month, or at least once in three months, in the country churches. Is not our order scriptural? The editor responds, unquestionably, it is not.
The Church of Christ must break bread every first day. No, it is the main design of their coming together. Monthly communion is a vile deviation from gospel order. To this, the regular Baptist responds: " Well, at any rate, the associated Baptists are right in casting out of the association any church that has more than one bishop or elder. " It has been lately done. And was that not strictly scriptural? To this, the editor responds, " No! The primitive churches each had a plurality of elders or bishops.
" And without at least two bishops, they were not fully organized. These men grew up in the church and were never imported from the outside. You should know, sir, that in each church, there was a body of elders. Examine, and you will be satisfied of this too. Now the regular Baptist says, " Well, well, Mr. Editor. Though we don't agree in most things, yet we are one as respects the glorious duty of going down into the water and coming up out of the water. We both despise baby baptism, do we not?
The editor replies, " Even here you are blind and uninstructed. You are dipped for no better reason than binds you to any other duty, such as speaking the truth or paying a debt. " You should learn, sir, that the baptismal water washes away sin and is the only divinely appointed pledge that the blood of Christ has cleansed the conscience of the obedient disciple. Why do you stare so?
Go home and read your Bible, and you will see that your regular, particular, Calvinistic associated churches are of the world, and their service is an abomination, for it is written, " In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. " The regular Baptist now responds, " Oh, dear sir, I was mistaken in you. Pray, Mr. Editor, are you a regular Baptist? " The editor responds, " Well, yes, I am. And I intend to be in full communion with the whole Baptist society in the United States.
Though I agree with you in almost nothing, yet by keeping up this nominal fellowship, I can be more extensively useful. I confess that this plea is preferred by almost all the evangelicals in their respective communions as a reason for infant sprinkling, episcopacy. But what then? The regular Baptist replies, " Oh, nothing! " As our brother doctor says, " Utility is the standard of virtue, and conscience is the creature of circumstances. " Besides, you will, Mr.
Editor, be better protected by the association at your back than if you only relied on Christ's promises. It is at least a good thing to lay heavy burdens on the shoulders of other men, though we do not touch them ourselves with one of our fingers. The editor responds, " Well, let us say no more on this subject. Goodbye, my brother. " Okay, we're back now to the man who wrote this letter after he's finished his hypothetical, somewhat sarcastic dialogue. Speaking out to Mr.
Alexander Campbell, he says, " Dear sir, I have used plainness of speech. Print this and speak in your own behalf. If associations are scriptural, why then say so? If not, then come out from among them. " If you are acting apart from pride, love of popularity, or singularity, be assured that in their train comes contempt.
These things have I written, hoping you are desirous of consistency, a man of integrity and uprightness, and from a desire to make you more and more amiable that I may love you more for the truth's sake. And he signs the letter, an independent Baptist. Well, I think you'll agree that that letter was quite a slap in the face, but it actually presents the views of so many people. So now let me read you Alexander Campbell's reply, addressed to an independent Baptist.
And incidentally, both the letter to him and his reply were printed in that month's edition of The Christian Baptist.
He says, " Dear sir, after thanking you for your fidelity and great plainness of speech, and for the favorable opportunity you've afforded me for vindicating my course from wrong imputations, which many may make when and where I should never hear them, and also for the occasion which you have given for illustrating more fully a principle which I think is not yet well understood by many intelligent Christians.
I proceed to observe that your very ingenious dialogue and indeed your objections altogether proceed upon the hypothesis and terminate in one point. That is that my course or rather my declaration that I and the Church with which I am connected are in full communion with the Mahoning Baptist Association and through them with the whole Baptist Society is inconsistent with the sentiments and views exhibited in our magazine The Christian Baptist. If so, your dialogue and letter are unanswerable.
I must lay my hand upon my mouth. If not, your shafts have missed the mark and carry no conviction to my mind and cannot to any intelligent reader. I agree with you that consistency, though a very rare commodity, is essential to a good character, and especially in any person who would call the attention of men to the Bible. It is a misfortune, however, to see men always consistently doing wrong. Consistency is a virtue only when the professed principles of action are good.
In every other case, it is very far from being commendable. Perhaps Satan is a very consistent character ever since the seduction of Eve. Neither sincerity nor consistency are virtues abstract from the qualities which constitute a good man. But without them, no man can claim any regard from his fellow men, nor can his conduct or example be worthy of imitation, whatever other good qualities he may possess.
I considered, therefore, that the charge of inconsistency, when the professed principles of action are good and sacred, is no trivial imputation. But what constitutes consistency? In acting conformably to our own professed sentiments and principles, or in acting conformably to the professed sentiments and principles of others? In answering this question, your letter is answered.
I have no doubt of being able to make it quite obvious that this obnoxious sentence is perfectly consistent with the views and principles exhibited and advocated in this work. Now let me just interject here. The obnoxious sentence he's talking about is the one where he said he and his congregation are in full communion with this Baptist Association. Alexander continues, " But if consistency requires a person to act conformably to the views of " an independent Baptist, " that is, the person who wrote the letter.
And Campbell says a proud and imposing name, or to the views of any other person differing from his own, in that case, you are unanswerable. But if not, a pygmy is an overmatch for a giant full of your dialogue. To come to the point at once, what are the principles of union and communion advocated in this magazine?
Has not the one foundation which the apostle affirmed was already laid, and beside which no other can be laid, which will stand the test of time and of critics, which is the only one on which all Christians can unite and have full communion, and against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail. I say, has not this been the only bond of union which the Christian Baptist ever advocated? And what is it? But a sincere and hearty conviction expressed or confessed by the lips that Jesus is the Christ.
And this belief, exhibited by an overt act of obedience, which implies that the subject has put on Christ, prepares him, or qualifies him, if you please, to be greeted as a brother. So long as he confesses with his lips that he believes in his heart this truth, and lives conformably to it, and supports an unblemished moral character, he is a worthy brother. Your dialogue artfully ignores everything about the one lord, the one faith, the one hope, and it will hardly admit even the one baptism.
And it similarly ignores every other point of general agreement with the Baptist Society. And to the best advantage, it exhibits only the points of difference. Now, a person equally ingenious with yourself could frame a dialogue on the other side, showing how inconsistent I would be with the principles asserted in this work, the Christian Baptist, if I had refused communion with the whole Baptist society. Did I say as ingenious as yourself? Nay, with the ingenuity of a mere boy, he might confound me.
On the hypothesis that I refused or declined union or communion with the Baptist Society, he would introduce an artificial, regular or associate Baptist who would ask me, " Do not the associate and unassociated Baptists believe that Jesus is the Christ?
Do they not believe that He died for our sins, that He was buried, that He rose the third day, that He ascended into heaven, that He sent down the Holy Spirit to advocate His cause, to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, that He will come again to raise the dead and to judge the world?
Do they not declare their belief that His kingdom is not of this world, that the subjects of it are born again, new creatures and must maintain good works and cultivate holiness without which no man shall see the Lord? " To all such questions, I would be forced to answer yes. He would next say, " Do you not contend that unity of opinion is not essential to Christian union? That the one Lord, the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism include all that can legitimately be required?
" To this, I must consistently answer yes. Well then he would say, " You're a hypocrite, a Pharisee, insincere, and most inconsistent, and a transgressor. Building up the very things which you have demolished, to which I would be forced to plead guilty. " You see then how little ingenuity would be required to confound and silence me? Should I act the part of your " independent Baptist " while contending for the principles exhibited in this magazine?
The inconsistency of which you complain is therefore not in me, but it's in your own views. But I'm only beginning upon this subject. I shall now give my own explanation of this offensive, quote, " full communion " with the Baptist Society. Your full communion and my full communion are very different things. You define your full communion to be, quote, " full union in the common worship, doctrine, and institutions of any church or denomination.
" Again, you say, " Your profession implies, according to your own principles, a sincere conviction that the whole Baptist Society (that is, the regular associated Baptist) is the Church of Christ, of which Jesus is the head, and that they are conformed to the New Testament law as respects doctrine, worship, and order, exhibiting the very model of Christ's house.
" To which Alexander Campbell replies, " I question very much whether you yourself have this sort of full communion with the congregation with which you associate. " But this will not excuse me. Again, I question very much whether Paul the Apostle could have broken bread with the congregation in Rome, in Corinth, in Thessalonica, or with the congregations in Galatia, and others at the time he wrote his letters to them.
No, I do not think that the Savior himself could have instituted the supper among the 12, or that they could have had full communion on your principles in that one institution, the night in which he was betrayed. For none of these congregations at the times alluded to, were exhibiting the model of Christ's house.
They were not " conformed to the New Testament as respects doctrine, worship, and order, " end quote, or had this sincere conviction that all was perfect, just up to the standard of full perfection in all these particulars. If the full import of the words " full communion " when carried to their utmost extent, I do not know that such a communion ever was or ever will be exhibited upon earth. The word " full ", I admit, may be so explained as to confine this sort of communion to the heavenly state.
But in ordinary usage, it means no more than joint participation in a certain act or acts. When I unite in prayer with a society of disciples, I have full communion with them in certain petitions, confessions, and thanksgiving. But requests may be presented, confessions made, and thanksgivings offered, in which I do not have full communion. The same may be said of any other social act of worship.
All that I intend, by the phrase, is that I will unite with any Baptist society in the United States in any act of social worship, such as prayer, praise, or breaking bread in commemoration of the Lord's death, if they confessed the one lord, the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism. Provided always that as far as I can judge, they piously and morally conform to their profession.
But that congregations may be found under the banners of this profession, with whom I would not unite in one single act of social worship, as well as individuals, I will cheerfully declare. And with not one would I unite in prayer or praise or breaking bread if that act is to be interpreted into a full perfect and entire approval of all their views, all their doctrine, and their practices as a society or as individuals. Here, then, is the fundamental difference between your full communion and mine.
Every act of the one you understand as unequivocally expressing full and entire approval of everything among them. I consider every act as only expressing approval of the thing represented and of them insofar as they conform to it. Therefore, I frankly and boldly declare to them, as Paul did to the Corinthians, the things in which I praise them, and the things in which I do not praise them.
And I know of no way, of no course that any Christian can pursue consistently with the whole New Testament, consistently with his serving God and His own generation, but this one. Therefore, I advocate it and practice it. Oh, I've tried the Pharisaic plan and the monastic. I was once so straight that like the proverbial Indians tree, I leaned a little the other way.
And however much I may be slandered now as seeking popularity or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth and not popularity was my object. For I was once so strict a separatist that I would neither pray nor sing praises with anyone who was not as perfect as I supposed myself to be.
In this most unpopular course, I persisted until I discovered the mistake and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth. And as to your blind Pharisee who strains out a gnat and swallows a camel because he will not have full communion with all the evangelical sects in the world, I have to remark that it is not optional with me or you whether we would have Christian communion with them. They have something to say upon that subject.
And here once for all it must be noted that my having communion with any group, Baptist or Pedo Baptist depends just as much upon them as upon myself. Let me explain the word their pedo Baptist refers to infant baptism.
He continues, " Some Baptist congregations would not receive me into their communion, and if any Pedo Baptist group would, it is time enough to show that I am inconsistent with my own principles when any evangelical sect or congregation should have welcomed me to their communion, and I have refused it.
" At the same time, I frankly acknowledge that my full conviction is that there are many Pedo Baptist congregations of whose Christianity, or of whose profession of Christianity, I think as highly as of most Baptist congregations, and with whom I could wish to be on the very same terms of Christian communion on which I stand with the whole Baptist churches. There is, I confess, a great inconsistency somewhere. Yes, everywhere on the subject of communion.
Baptists and Pedo Baptists generally confine communion to the Lord's Table. And indeed, they call it, by way of distinction, the communion. Hence, full communion with the majority means no more than the breaking of bread together, or sitting down at the same communion table. Here originates all error on the subject of your dialogue and on the whole subject of intercommunity with the Christian world. Another proof too that conscience is a creature of circumstances. There is a certain place called the Family Altar.
Baptist and Pedo Baptist of different name often meet at this family altar, and they unite all in one communion. In their monthly concerts for prayers, et cetera, there is another altar at which all sects sometimes meet, and all have full communion in prayer and praise. But if on the next day the Lord's table were furnished, they would rather be caught in the company of publicans and sinners than sit at the side of those with whom they had full communion in prayer and praise just a few hours before.
Their consciences would shudder at the idea of breaking bread in full communion with those with whom yesterday or last night they had full communion in adoring, venerating, invoking, and praising the same God and Redeemer. There is something inconsistent here. It must be confessed too that the New Testament presents baptism as prior to social prayer and praise, as indispensably preceding these as the Lord's Supper. I have thought and thought and vacillated very much on this question.
That is, whether Baptists ought, could, would, or should, irrespective of their doctrines, sit down at the same Lord's table. And one thing I do know that either they should cease to have communion in prayer, praise, and other religious observances, or they should go the whole length. Of this point, I am certain.
And I do know that as much can be said, and with as much reason in Scripture on its side, to prove that immersion is essential prior to social prayer and praise, as it is prior to eating the Lord's Supper, if that were to be the case. Dear sir, this plan of making our own nest and fluttering over our own brood, of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the elect few who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated Phariseeism.
The old Pharisees were but babes in comparison to the modern. And the longer I live and the more I reflect upon God and man, heaven and earth, the Bible and the world, the Redeemer in His Church, the more I am assured that all sectarianism is the offspring of hell and that all differences about words and names and opinions hatched in Egypt or Rome or Edinburgh are like the frolics of drunken men.
And that where there is a new creature or a society of them with all their imperfections and frailties and errors in sentiment and views and opinions. They ought to receive one another and the strong to support the infirmities of the weak and not to please themselves. To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle, to associate with just a few units, tens or hundreds as the pure church, as the elect is real Protestant monkery. It is evangelical Phariseeism.
If we would heal the sick, we must visit them. If we would restore the lame, we must take them by the hand. If we would correct, inform, or reform erring Christians, we must do as the Savior did, bear with their weaknesses. We must seek every opportunity of converting the sinner from the error of his way, of instructing the weak and feeble-minded. It is lame charity which requires all of its subjects to be as rich, as wise, and as strong as ourselves.
And the history of the world does not provide even one example of any man or set of men reforming or restoring, enlightening, or comforting the church from which they separated. And the systems and sects which they built in the lapse of a few years were as much in need of reformation as those from which their founders separated. The Baptists exhibit a greater variety than any other society in Christendom.
They are a people made up of all religious persuasions, and generally speaking, their platform is more harmonious to the freedom of inquiry, to freedom from ecclesiastical tyranny, and to the independence of congregations than any other. With the exception of some rigid, " regulars, " confessions of faith and the authority of associations are held in no great esteem by the Baptists. Their congregations in most places are extremely jealous of their rights and delegate nothing to any superior adjudicatory.
I know some Baptist associations whose meetings are as innocent as a tea party or any social or friendly interview. Some I know do imitate a bull, only they lack horns. They resemble a hornless ox. They push with their heads, but cannot gore. But so long as they will bear reproof, suffer exhortation, and allow us to declare our sentiments without restraint, so long as they manifest a willingness to know the whole truth and any disposition to obey it.
So long as they will hear us and cordially have fellowship with us, we will have fellowship with them. We will thus labor for their good and endeavor to correct what appears to be amiss, commending when praise is due, and censuring when it becomes necessary. I hope in this way, to always have the approval of God whose commendation is more to be desired than the admiration and praise of 10,000 worlds. This I think you must see, I do, in perfect consistency with the sentiments advocated in this work.
But if you still think otherwise, I'm willing to hear from you again and pay due regard to what you have to put forth. With best wishes, the editor. So whose views do you think ended up prevailing in the end? Well, setting aside the liberal disciples of Christ, I'm afraid the prevailing spirit of the Restoration Movement became that of Mr. Independent Baptist, not that of Alexander Campbell.
And it's ironic because one of the original intentions of the Restoration Movement was to unite all Christians and end sectarianism. Yet today the Church of Christ and the Christian churches who are descendants of the Restoration Movement are typically among the most sectarian churches in existence today. Alexander Campbell called it evangelical Phariseeism. Now, I'm not saying this as an enemy of the Restoration Movement, but as a friend.
In fact, I have a number of personal Christian friends who belong to some type or another of a Restoration Movement Church, but they see the same issues that I'm talking about. I mean, as a true friend of the movement, I'm not blind to the faults of most modern-day Restorationists. And one of those faults is a tendency towards sectarianism and Phariseeism. Another shortcoming is that so often restorationists become sterile biblicists with an insufficient emphasis on the inner life.
You can have all of your doctrine in a row, but if you don't have a living, breathing, vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ, that does you no good. When Jesus described how he would separate the sheep from the goats, he doesn't even make any mention whatsoever of doctrine. And he hardly ever talked doctrine when he preached to people in his day. And that's the point that Alexander Campbell is making. Let me reread one of his statements.
He says that he looks for, quote, " a sincere and hearty conviction expressed or confessed by the lips that Jesus is the Christ. " And this belief exhibited by an overt act of obedience that implies that the subject has put on Christ, prepares him or qualifies him to be saluted as a brother. So long as he confesses with his lips that he believes in his heart this truth and lives conformably to it and supports an unblemished moral character. Okay, so two things should be noted here.
First, on the theological end, Alexander Campbell only required a very simple statement of faith in order to greet someone as a brother. And can anyone really argue that the New Testament requires more? The early Church certainly didn't. And as we've mentioned, Jesus hardly ever mentions doctrine other than to believe in Him. But please remember that Alexander Campbell is only talking about the minimum he required in order to greet someone as a brother.
He didn't say that he didn't require more than that in order to be members of the same fellowship. Okay, so that's the theological end. But there's a second part of Alexander Campbell's requirement. That is that there is clear evidence that this professing brother has " put on Christ. " Campbell says he must live consistently with what he confesses with his lips. And finally, he must have, quote, " an unblemished moral character.
" So Alexander Campbell was not saying that he was willing to fellowship with or share communion with just anyone. He was saying that theology was not his main criteria, so long as a person held to the simple statement of faith of the New Testament and of the early Church. But the Christ's life had to be there. There had to be an unblemished moral character. Actually, I'm just as choosy as Mr. Independent Baptist when it comes to joining a Christian fellowship.
I wouldn't be very comfortable being a member of the vast majority of conventional churches today. But the issue isn't primarily a theological one. It's the absolute ignoring and even trampling on Jesus ' explicit commandments. For example, Jesus laid down some very clear commandments on divorce and remarriage. Yet in virtually all churches today, restoration churches as well as evangelical churches, members divorce and remarry at will.
The divorce rate among professing Bible-believing Christians is the same as that of the world, or perhaps even worse. And yet I remember growing up as a boy that the Church of Christ had one of the strictest positions on divorce and remarriage of any church that I was aware of. So I have no desire to belong to any church that treats Jesus ' commandments as though they were mere suggestions or that they belong to some other age that they don't apply to us. But in this, I'm no different than Alexander Campbell.
I'm sure he wouldn't have fellowshipped with any such church either. But what separated Mr. Independent Baptist from Alexander Campbell was their difference in spirit. Let me reread to you some quotations from Mr. Independent Baptist Letter that reveal what was really in this man's heart. He uses this character of a regular Baptist and he has this regular Baptist saying this: " Our churches are founded on the Philadelphia Confession. Is not that proper in scriptural? " And Mr.
Independent Baptist replies, " By no means, it is anti-Christian and must be considered rebellion against the great king and head of the church. " Now, it's one thing to say that the Philadelphia Confession contains some theological errors. But does that mean it's anti-Christian? Must it be considered rebellion against the Great King, as Mr. Independent Baptist claims? Isn't it possible that somebody made a mistake? Can't we label it as simply being erroneous?
I don't understand how anyone could read the teachings of Jesus Christ and walk away with the conclusion that anyone who holds the theological errors is automatically anti-Christian and in rebellion against Christ. Because as we've said, Jesus hardly ever even talked about theology. Now it's true that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching doctrines of men instead of the commandments of God. But in the days of King James, when that was translated, the word doctrine meant teaching.
It didn't mean theology as it does today. The specific teaching that Jesus condemned was the fact that the Pharisees abrogated the commandment to honor one's father and mother by supporting and caring for one's parents in their old age. Jesus quotes Isaiah saying, " In vain, they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. " I think the key word there is " commandments. " They were abrogating God's commandments and substituting their own ungodly commandments.
The issue wasn't theology, and it's because of the very thing there that Jesus said that I don't feel comfortable belonging to a conventional church. That's because nearly all conventional churches abrogate Christ's commandments on, for example, divorce, non-resistance, materialism, and a whole host of other things. And they substitute man-made commandments in their place. Let's look a little further at the heart of Mr. Independent Baptist.
When the regular Baptist asks him if it's okay that they have monthly communion, he replies, " Monthly communion is a vile deviation from gospel order. " Now, I believe in weekly communion, but I hardly find it necessary to judge monthly communion as a vile deviation. I think it's a departure from the primitive pattern, but I think it's done in good faith, and I think we can be a bit more charitable than Mr. Independent Baptist. People make honest mistakes. Or again, Mr.
Independent Baptist finally concludes that the regular Baptist churches are " of the world and their service is an abomination. " Now, he didn't say that because the regular Baptists were living lives that were less godly than the lives of the members of the Church that Mr. Independent Baptist attended. No, he makes this sweeping condemnation based purely on theology and ecclesiastical order. He doesn't say one word about godly living. Mr.
Independent Baptist was a Pharisee, just as Alexander Campbell correctly saw. He had no room for mercy, no room for forgiveness for allowing people to make honest mistakes. Now, ironically, today there's a somewhat ecumenical movement among many of the Restoration churches. Now, if this new spirit was coming from the spirit of Alexander Campbell, then I think it would be quite praiseworthy. However, from what I've observed, it's not coming from a New Testament spirit.
It comes from the spirit of ecumenism, growing from a watered-down gospel that's rife with the spirit of the world. It's basically saying, " Hey, the evangelicals teach easy believism. We can teach easy believism too. We'll just add water baptism to it. " And lo and behold, our churches will grow just like theirs. Now ecumenism is the opposite spirit of Mr. Independent Baptists, but it's no better. Neither Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
Any form of Christianity that has no room for mercy and overlooking innocent errors is not the kind of Christianity that Jesus handed down. And any Christianity that doesn't require an obedient love-faith relationship with Jesus isn't the Christianity that He handed down either. But the reason why I've chosen this particular writing of Alexander Campbell is that most of my writings and spoken messages focus on the problem of disobedience and worldliness. I've emphasized those things many times.
So this article by Alexander Campbell reminds us of the other danger, the danger of Phariseeism. I know that some of my readers and listeners feel like they can't fellowship with anyone, because everyone holds to some kind of error somewhere. Or even worse, we in our little group have come to a complete and correct understanding of the New Testament, and therefore that makes us and us alone the one true church on earth. You know what I'd love to do?
I would love to be able to get the leaders of all of the churches who claim to be the one true church. And I know there are literally thousands of such churches or groups of churches. Get all these leaders and lock them all up in a big warehouse somewhere and tell them, " Okay, I won't let you out until you all decide which one of you really is the One True Church, since you're all making the same claim.
" Something that God has really impressed on my heart lately is that the essence of Christianity is an obedient love-faith relationship with Jesus Christ. And this is best described in Jesus ' illustration of the vine, in which we are branches. Now, when someone confesses Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord, and I see evidence of godly fruit in their life, then I acknowledge them as a brother or sister in the Lord.
After all, what a wicked thing it would be for one of the branches on this vine of Jesus Christ to refuse to accept as a brother someone else who is also a branch on the vine. I can't help but wonder, what does Jesus think of that? Here he's pouring out His Father's spirit into somebody's life, and He's nurturing and sustaining them as a branch on this vine. And then here comes some Pharisee who says, " I'm sorry, but I can't accept you as a brother, because you've got a lot of your doctrines all mixed up.
" If Jesus accepts them as a branch, we better accept them as a brother. Now again, I'm not saying that we should acknowledge everyone as a brother who simply confesses Christ. But if there is evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in their life, and of a relationship between them and Christ, a living, loving relationship, who are we to judge? Yes, perhaps the father will cut them off of the vine at some point. But that's his judgment call to make, not ours.
And so what if we do mistake someone as a branch on Jesus Vine, and it turns out that they're not a branch after all? So what? Now I'm not meaning that we shouldn't speak out against error and against sin. I'm just saying that if there's evidence there of godly fruit, we had better be quite slow in refusing to treat as a brother someone who is actually a fellow branch on this same vine. Because there is nothing that Jesus hates worse than a Pharisee.