|
The above is the title of the address delivered by Dr. Royce Money,
which opened the 1993 Abilene Christian University Lectureship.
The speech had the endorsement of the ACU board of trustees and
was sent out to the ACU mailing list. The speech addressed critical
issues and challenges facing churches of Christ. Dr. Money said
that he faced his task with a heavy burden on his heart. His primary
purpose was to avoid fracturing, dividing and losing the vision
that Christ intended for his people.
The Christian Chronicle editorialized in the January issue
of 1993 that brethren have not in their lifetime witnessed the
kind and amount of turmoil now afflicting the churches. Some of
our liberal brethren appear to say, "If you can't fall in
with us, then fall out with us!" What sickens this writer
is that great crowd of Christians who sit in their pews and become
pawns in the church games we play, as we wallow in our maudlin
love for one another.
The ACU board of trustees gave a blanket endorsement to the address:
The Board of Trustees of Abilene Christian University is dedicated
to assuring that the university will always be true to the purpose
for which it was established. Along with the administration, faculty,
and staff, we pledge to preserve our heritage and uphold the ideals
set forth by our predecessors. With God's guidance and blessing,
Abilene Christian University will continue to succeed.
We are greatly encouraged that the ACU board of trustees will
fulfill their pledge to pass on to future generations the time-honored
heritage of the institution.
The College of the Bible "Board of Trustees"
Historians are not clairvoyant. We should learn from history to
avoid making mistakes of the past. The Christian Churches and
the College of the Bible were facing major problems in 1917. The
outcome was a wrecked college, and the Christian Churches were
thrown into a state of turmoil for the next 50 years.
A Lesson from the Past in Shorthand. The classic case of
a college "take-over" among the "Disciples"
took place in the College of the Bible in 1917. On March 12, 1917,
Benjamin F. Battenfield mailed out a circular letter to 300 Christian
Church ministers and other Disciples. The letter charged that
President Richard Henry Crossfield and four of his faculty held
advanced "critical views" (liberal theology identified
with the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis and form and source
criticism in the Old Testament and New Testament). E. E. Snoddy
is alleged to have said that "I am a hard evolutionist."
W.C. Bower was reported to have said that "Jehovah is the
tribal God of the Jews." A. W. Fortune was quoted as saying
that the "New Testament writers were inspired, not their
writings." The accused never denied the allegations.
Lexington "Fire Storm"
The Christian Standard published on March 24, 1917, the
statement of H. L. Calhoun that "candor compels me to state
that for more than a year, I have been fully convinced that 'destructive
criticism' (liberal theology) was being taught in the College
of the Bible." Throughout the spring and summer of 1917,
a theological "fire storm" was ignited in the College
of the Bible, the Christian Standard, and Christian Evangelist.
The Christian Standard during the summer of 1917 and beyond
headlined the controversy.
On May 1, 1917, the board of trustees went into the first of 15
executive sessions to get at the bottom of the whole matter. All
parties were heard from, including administration, faculty, and
students. The proceedings reached a fever pitch. W.C. Bower threatened
to resign under the pretext that he would not be a party to a
"heresy" trial. Calhoun had no choice but to resign.
He left Lexington dejected and defeated.
The last two sessions of the board were occupied in writing the
final report. The board reported that the proceedings were not
in any way a "heresy" trial. Furthermore, the board
completely exonerated the accused faculty and found that their
teachings were in harmony with the traditions of the Christian
Church. The board found no student who said that his faith had
been shaken by the instruction of the accused faculty.
Any hope that this would be the end of the matter was dashed.
The Christian Standard was turned into an open forum. Witness
after witness was paraded through the pages of the journal. The
allegations against the accused facility were fully documented.
All of this proved fruitless. The College of the Bible was lost
to the church. The name of the College of the Bible today is the
Lexington Theological Seminary, and it is as liberal as any seminary
in the nation. (Read the Doran-Choate book, The Christian Scholar,
for the complete story.)
Questions Addressing Dr. Money's Speech
Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the problems facing the churches
of Christ surfaced two years ago. Roots of the problems are easily
traced to the 1960s. Some of our brethren trained in liberal schools
of religion began to infiltrate the Bible departments of our schools.
Dr. Money does touch on the major "nerve endings," however,
with a lack of specificity. In reading the speech, some questions
jump out at the reader, begging for forthright answers.
Selected questions: Who are the voices on the extreme fight
and left who are unduly influencing the brotherhood? Would I be
included among them? The Gospel Advocate published four
of my Restoration biographies, and I served as a staff writer
under B.C. Goodpasture. What does Money mean when he says that
unity must be forged from a diversity of beliefs that are beyond
the core beliefs of Christianity? How would we go about separating
the apostolic faith from apostolic traditions and customs? Is
it suggested that there can be a limited level of fellowship with
the denominational churches? How can we identify those who sow
discord and strife among the brethren? How must they be marked,
so we may know who they are?
How may we define the role of women in the worship and work of
the church? We are informed that the old hermeneutic is not all
that good and that the new hermeneutic is not all that bad. Some
scholars, in their Christian Scholar's Conference papers, gave
the old hermeneutic low markings. Some brethren would tell us
what the new hermeneutic is but neglect to set up their concept
of a working model. The problem could be cleared up if the advocates
of the new hermeneutic would define it. College presidents in
providing leadership for their faculty should be more definitive
than merely to say that the old hermeneutic is not all that good
and the new hermeneutic is not all that bad.
The Boards of Trustees of Our Christian Colleges
If the trustees of our schools will study in detail what happened
to the College of the Bible in 1917, they will get useful and
crucial information attendant to their responsibilities. It is
incumbent upon the board of trustees to appoint administrators
and faculty and to remove all who will not abide by the rules
of the institution. From time to time, a brother will tell me
of some problem, e.g., in the Bible teaching program of a school.
He wants to know what he can do about it. My advice always is
to go to a board member(s). His is a church and public trust,
and he has the moral responsibility to listen.
A Summary Appraisal
The problems set forth in the speech are already being addressed,
and no end is in sight. Only the tips of the problems have so
far surfaced. We urge those who speak and write about "church
renewal" to be precise and tell us what they have in mind.
They are given too much to continual posturing and sweeping under
the rug what they do not want us to see. We long for the time
when the editors and writers of Wineskins, The Second Incarnation,
and The Church in Transition will mount their courage
and tell us plainly exactly what they wish to change. These brethren
are qualified to do this. We shall maintain eternal vigilance
lest we lose our "freedom in Christ."
|
|
Free sample issue of Firm Foundation
Click here to order a free sample issue or subscribe to the Firm Foundation.
|
|
