sign in sign up
<<
Home , David Purviance, Restoration Movement

Please HONOR the copyright of these documents by not retransmitting or making any additional copies in any form (Except for private personal use). We appreciate your respectful cooperation.

______Theological Research Exchange Network (TREN) P.O. Box 30183 Portland, Oregon 97294 USA Website: www.tren.com E-mail: [email protected] Phone# 1-800-334-8736 ______

ATTENTION CATALOGING LIBRARIANS TREN ID#

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) MARC Record #

Digital Object Identification DOI #

Ministry Focus Paper Approval Sheet

This ministry focus paper entitled

WE CAN BEAR IT NO LONGER: TOWARD A CONFESSIONAL WITHIN THE

Written by

PAUL A. SMITH

and submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Ministry

has been accepted by the Faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary

upon the recommendation of the undersigned readers:

______John W. Drane

______Kurt Fredrickson

Date Received: March 15, 2015

WE CAN BEAR IT NO LONGER: TOWARD A CONFESSIONAL THEOLOGY WITHIN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

BY

PAUL A. SMITH MARCH 2015

ABSTRACT

We Can Bear It No Longer: Toward a Confessional Theology within the Churches of Christ Paul A. Smith Doctor of Ministry School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary 2014

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the need for members of the Churches of Christ to restore confession in both private and communal practices. The major premise is that the men who inspired the movement that gave birth to the modern Churches of Christ either ignored or misunderstood the secular that influenced their work. As a result, the Churches of Christ as a whole have marginalized the practice of confession, and that marginalization has had several adverse effects on the churches. Recognition of those philosophies, combined with an honest critique of the most common hermeneutical principle derived from those philosophies, allows for a new perspective of the current crises confronting the Churches of Christ. The thesis is explored through the examination of three distinct themes. A general history of the Churches of Christ reveals the absence of a confessional theology, and a number of explanations for that absence. A survey of the shows that confession is multi-faceted, and all of the forms of confession occur throughout Scripture. Finally, a review of Christian history proves how confession has been a major component of the life of discipleship in every age. An additional study of the life and writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer validates the overall thesis and demonstrates the value of learning from traditions outside of one’s own narrow understanding of Scripture and history. The study concludes that a confessional theology must begin with a proper understanding of the transcendence of and the sinfulness of human beings. Specific practices are valuable in nurturing a life of confession, but the acts of confession must originate in the core of a confessional theology. Specific disciplines for confession, both individual and communal, are provided as an entry point into a deeper life of confession.

Content Reader: John Drane, PhD

Words: 295

To Susan and Kylee You helped me hear the voice in my heart

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Shirley Rollinson of Eastern New Mexico University, and David Heflin, preaching minister for the Third and Kilgore in Portales New Mexico, for their willingness to read the manuscript of this dissertation. Their comments and suggestions were invaluable.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

INTRODUCTION 1

PART ONE: CONTEXT

Chapter 1. THE HISTORY OF AN AHISTORICAL MOVEMENT 9

Chapter 2. THEOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A BURDEN TOO HEAVY TO BEAR 30

PART TWO: THEOLOGY

Chapter 3. LISTENING TO CONFESSION IN SCRIPTURE: A BIBLICAL SURVEY 52

Chapter 4. HEARING THE CONFESSION OF OTHERS: A SURVEY OF CONFESSIONAL LITERATURE 79

Chapter 5. A CASE STUDY: DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AND THE CONFESSION OF A CONFESSING 101

PART THREE: PRACTICES AND DISCIPLINE

Chapter 6. BECOMING A CHRISTIAN SHAPED BY CONFESSION 122

Chapter 7. BECOMING A COMMUNITY SHAPED BY CONFESSION 146

CONCLUSION 171

BIBLIOGRAPHY 178

v

INTRODUCTION

This study is born out of a deep love for the family of known in the

United States as the Churches of Christ. A large number of ministers, elders, deacons, university teachers, and common members have taught me how to answer questions about God and my . Through my experiences among this fiercely independent association of congregations, I have learned the art of dispassionate thinking, critical questioning, and hopeful searching. The Churches of Christ in the are the inspiration for this study.

However, the study is also intended for all disciples of who can identify a need in their lives to explore the spiritual discipline of confession. Many Christian traditions possess a rich heritage of confessionalism. Many do not, and even if a tradition has an element of confession, it is hoped this study can be used to deepen that component.

The Churches of Christ in the United States in the twenty-first century have experienced a decades-long crisis of identity. Partially because of this crisis there is a growing apprehension that a major in the Movement is either imminent or has already occurred. This current challenge is the latest in a number of critical moments for the Churches of Christ. Although scholars and preaching ministers have produced many valuable doctrinal and practical studies during this turbulent period, none have addressed the specific issue of confession. This void provides an opportunity for the exploration of the spiritual discipline of confession, and a more comprehensive theology of confessionalism, within the Churches of Christ.

1

The terminology used in this study requires some clarification. It will be demonstrated that the concept of “confession” has at least four applications throughout the Bible. First, there are a number of positive connotations. These include the human adoration and praise to God, the declaration of faith in God, and the acknowledgement of the truth of a proposition. Second, there is the offering of thanksgiving and gratitude.

Third, there is a declaration of physical and spiritual hardship through lament. Finally, by far the most modern understanding of the concept, there is the negative connotation of the acknowledgment of sin. In addition to these biblical usages of the word confession, during the movements highlighted by and , another meaning of the word gained prominence. That use was of a specific Confession of Faith, which served to give identity to one assembly of Christians as distinct from others who observed a different Confession of Faith.

The term “confessional theology” as used in this study is to suggest a comprehensive understanding of the nature and practices of confession. A confessional theology must include the confession of a transcendent God and praise for his work in the world. It must also include an acknowledgment of human failure, and an acceptance of the consequences of that failure. A confessional theology, however, must not be limited to verbal declarations. A confessional theology requires behavior consistent with the understanding of the supremacy of God and the fallibility of humankind. A confessional theology leads to confessional practices that both demonstrate and promote a confessional lifestyle.

2

The terms “confessional” or “confessionalism” are used interchangeably. They refer to a lifestyle, a pervasive sense of the power of confession and an acceptance of the practices of confession. As used in this study these words are inspired by the body of work produced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the young theologian who participated in the church struggle against Nazism before and during World War II. Bonhoeffer was a leading figure in the “Confessing Church” in Germany, a movement so named because of the members’ adherence to the foundational confession of faith in Jesus as the exclusive

Lord of all. An important part of this study examines the implications of what it means to be a confessional movement, especially as that term relates to the American

Movement.

The study of the theology of confession and related practices is important for at least two reasons. First, there is an often-unconscious connection between a person’s philosophical foundations and that individual’s practical choices, especially in a religious context. Much of a person’s and theology is invisible: unless that person intentionally examines his or her physical, social, and spiritual perspectives, he or she just assumes that a or an action is correct because it makes sense in that situation at that time.

This process can be demonstrated in the life of Alexander Campbell, one of the foundational leaders of the American . Campbell functioned in the realm of Enlightenment Modernism in general and the American pioneer spirit in particular. For twenty-first century members of the Churches of Christ, as well as for those in the other Christian denominations, this means living and working in the realm of

3

Postmodernism. A major aspect of this study is to demonstrate just how pervasive various philosophical viewpoints can be, and thereby to encourage readers to critically evaluate the philosophies that guide their behavior.

Second, a study of confession is valuable because it presents specific disciplines that can help a person, or a congregation, overcome a lack of confessionalism. Jesus proposed concrete, repeatable practices intended to facilitate a closer relationship with

God. Spiritual leaders in every generation, from the apostles to modern authors such as

Thomas Merton and Richard Foster, have endeavored to do the same. A careful study of confession reveals a number of spiritual practices to follow and demonstrates how they can be used in the larger context of spiritual formation.

There is an additional, more personal motive for this study. For various reasons, members of the Churches of Christ have resisted the use of spiritual directors. This was certainly my experience. Students preparing for ministry are encouraged, or even expected, to participate in an internship program as a part of an undergraduate education.

However, congregations rarely design these internships to provide structured spiritual formation. The internships are designed to introduce the life and work of congregational ministry. They are exercises in function, not formation. This study is further intended to encourage young ministers-in-training to discover the discipline of confession, and to employ the talents of a spiritual director.

This dissertation condenses the results of many years of private reflection, culminating in six years of intensive study. It represents the synthesis of three main courses of study in the Doctor of Ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary. An

4 introduction to the philosophy of Postmodernism came in the course “Ministry in the

Postmodern Matrix” in the fall of 2008. The exercises required in that class revealed how the principles of Modernism influenced the leaders of the

Movement. This awareness was sharpened a year later in a course entitled “Spiritual

Formation and Discipleship in a Postmodern World.” A seminal moment in the formation of the topic of confession came during the preparation of a paper examining how the

Psalms, and the Psalms of lament in particular, have no significant role in the life and worship of the Churches of Christ. Finally, a greater part of a year was devoted to a guided study comparing the theological trajectories of Dietrich Bonhoeffer to those of leaders in the Churches of Christ, especially Barton W. Stone and . An academic program that began with no clear goal slowly developed into one with a sharp focus: the examination of how a restoration and unity movement could begin with such promise and yet quickly lapse into a multitude of divisions.

The purpose of this study is therefore to demonstrate the lack of a theology of confession within the Churches of Christ. In addition, it will explore the implications of a lack of confession, both in terms of doctrine and in practice. Finally, biblically based and theologically sound approaches for the restoration of the spiritual discipline of confession will be proposed for individual members and congregations of the Churches of Christ. As mentioned above, although this study is intended primarily for members and congregations of the Churches of Christ, it is hoped that a wider audience of Christians will find the background information instructive, and the associated conclusions and proposals beneficial.

5

The presentation of material is composed of three parts. The first part focuses on the historical context of the American Restoration Movement in general and the Churches of Christ in particular. Chapter 1 gives an overview of that history, including a more detailed examination of the philosophical foundations that minimized confession in the

Restoration Movement. Chapter 2 examines the theological and practical consequences of the lack of a confessional theology.

Part Two provides a biblical and historical theology of confession. Chapter 3 consists of a review of Scripture, focusing primarily on the Psalms. Other Old Testament and passages that relate to confession are examined using the themes identified in the analysis of the Psalms. Chapter 4 contains a review of confession throughout the Christian ages. A key part of Chapter 4 is an examination of the

Postmodern emerging church movement, and how segments of this movement share common traits with the Stone-Campbell Movement. Part Two concludes with a detailed case study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his confessional theology.

Part Three is dedicated to examining specific spiritual disciplines and practices that lead to a life of confession. Chapter 6 focuses on personal practices for individual

Christians. Chapter 7 provides guidance for entire congregations or communities of believers.

In addition to original research, this study incorporates sections of material prepared in response to issues raised throughout an entire doctoral program. Chapters 1 and 2 incorporate research originally prepared for the courses in Postmodern Ministry,

Spiritual Formation in a Postmodern World, and the guided study on Dietrich

6

Bonhoeffer. Chapter 3 incorporates many of the discoveries made during research for the course in Spiritual Formation. Chapter 4 relies upon the rich material discovered in the process of completing the Postmodern Ministry course. The conclusions in Chapter 5 are the result of the guided study on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The last two chapters borrow extensively from all three courses that comprised the major component of this academic program.

The results of this study are not intended to be the final answer to the many questions and issues confronting the Churches of Christ. The material offered here is intended to be a valuable addition to the conversation. It is offered as an objective expression of the goal of my study – a confession of the absolute supremacy of a transcendent God, and in full recognition of the frailty of all humankind.

7

PART ONE

CONTEXT

CHAPTER 1

THE HISTORY OF AN AHISTORICAL MOVEMENT

The examination of the history of any movement requires a thorough knowledge of the leading characters and main events that shaped the group. Such a history also requires an unbiased examination of every aspect of the group, including those features that reflect positively and negatively upon that group. The writing of this history also requires a far more fundamental component: the researcher must admit that the group being examined does, in fact, have a history to examine. For many members of the

Churches of Christ this admission has been a difficult one to make. This section presents a basic overview of the history of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and explores a few of the major causes and consequences of this peculiar ahistorical heritage.

General Overview

Beginning in the late 1700s, the American Restoration Movement grew from a disparate collection of spiritual visionaries who shared a common evaluation of the religious situation in the United States. They believed the reality of denominational divisions did not resemble the vision of the Church as presented in the New Testament.

James O’Kelly (1735-1826), Rice Haggard (1769-1819), (1769-1846), and

9

Abner Jones (1772-1841) are generally recognized as being among the earliest pioneers to attempt to heal the divisions.1 These men proposed solutions that differed in degree, but agreed in two main goals: to restore the New Testament Church based on a discernible blueprint revealed in the New Testament, and to unite Christians based on a return to that New Testament pattern.

Although historians credit the four men mentioned above with sharing in the

Restoration spirit, they also recognize three other men as soon taking a place of preeminence. Those men were Barton W. Stone (1782-1844) and Thomas Campbell

(1763-1854) and Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Their influence is demonstrated by the fact that the movement is frequently referred to as the “Stone-Campbell” Movement.

Although this Movement often bears their combined names, these men held different views on many issues. Some of the differences were profound, and had consequences that are evident today.

Partially as a result of a multi-denominational camp revival in 1801 at Cane

Ridge, , Barton Stone became dissatisfied with the stringent control of the

Presbyterian Church. He, along with a small group of like-minded ministers, created a separatist Presbyterian , although remaining nominally within the denomination.

When they decided it was impossible for them to remain a part of the Presbyterian

Church and be faithful to the New Testament, these ministers published the first major treatise of what would become the Restoration Movement, entitled The Last Will and

1Gary Holloway and Douglas A. Foster, Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2006), 25-29. 10

Testament of the .2 Stone would dedicate the rest of his life to the cause of “restoring” the Church to the standard of the New Testament writings.

Congregations that followed Stone typically referred to themselves as “Christian

Churches,” or “Churches of Christ.”

Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander were likewise disaffected Presbyterians.

Thomas saw too much division in the “Old Light, Anti-Burgher, Seceder Presbyterian

Church” for which he was a minister in Western . He aggravated his superiors in the synod by, among other things, allowing any professing Presbyterian to partake of the Lord’s Supper at his church.3 After his governing synod rebuked him,

Thomas proceeded to create an inter-denominational Bible study. This association ultimately became the , where Thomas and Alexander refined many of their teachings. It was Thomas Campbell who penned the second of the formative documents of the Restoration Movement, the , in 1809.4

Alexander Campbell’s estrangement from the Presbyterian Church occurred while he was in Glasgow, Scotland, before joining his father in America. A group of separatists from the Church of Scotland impressed Alexander, most notably in the simplicity of their independent Churches compared to the rigors of the Seceder Presbyterian Church. When he arrived in the United States in 1809, Alexander was delighted to discover his father’s

Declaration and Address, and he decided to promote the restoration cause throughout his

2Barton W. Stone, et. al., Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery (1804; repr., St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1978).

3Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 41.

4Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address (1809; repr., St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1978). 11

life.5 Due to several factors including wealth, education, and his father’s position,

Alexander became the leading advocate of the American Restoration Movement.

Congregations that followed the lead of Thomas and Alexander Campbell described themselves predominately as “Disciples of Christ.”

The two groups led by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell merged in January

1832.6 However, the alliance was never as unified as many historians have portrayed it.

By the end of the Civil War, it was obvious that two separate religious bodies had taken the place of one unified body. The division between the restoration-oriented Churches of

Christ and the unity-oriented Christian Churches was confirmed when the United States census of 1906 formally recognized each as a separate Christian group.7 Approximately fifty years later the Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ separated from one another, leaving the movement once promoted as a unity movement for all Christendom in the tri-partite configuration of Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of

Christ.8

One significant difference between Stone and Alexander Campbell that had implications for the practice of confession involved the identification of the last days, or

5Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement 1849- 1865 vol. 1 (Nashville: Advocate, 1974), 53.

6Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 58.

7Ibid., 89.

8Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches (Joplin: College Press, 1981), 615-619. A case could be argued that a fourth branch emerged from the Churches of Christ with creation of the “Crossroads” evangelistic movement in the 1970s. This group, variously known as the “Boston Movement” eventually became known as the International Church of Christ. However, most in the Churches of Christ view the ICC as cultists, and those in the ICC view the Churches of Christ as an irrelevant institution. See Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2008), 357-363. 12

.9 Alexander Campbell was an ardent post-millennialist and had an optimistic view of the future.10 He believed the new movement would lead to a Christian America, and ultimately to a Christian world.11 Barton Stone, however, was pessimistic about the ability of man to improve the world. His worldview, while not clearly pre-millennial, has been identified as apocalyptic and had certain tendencies toward pre-.12

Campbell’s post-millennial view gradually became predominant within the Restoration

Movement. His optimism led to triumphalism, which would eventually squelch any effort toward confessionalism.

Philosophical Foundations

Leonard Allen and Richard Hughes identified four different roots of the

Restoration Movement in America.13 The first of these was the Bible; the second was the larger theological environment occasioned by the Reformation; the third was the philosophical background of the ; and the fourth was the specific

Restorationist ideals of Stone and the two Campbells. Early histories of the Restoration

9 This is a prominent theme in the writings of Richard Hughes. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 3; and Reclaiming A Heritage: Reflections on the Heart, and Future of Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002), 93-118.

10Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 3.

11Ibid. See also David Edwin Harrell, Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866 (Nashville: The Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), 41-53. This is demonstrated in the title of Campbell’s second periodical which he began publishing in 1830, The .

12Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 3. Alexander Campbell’s view has also been labeled as apocalyptic. However, I believe that as it relates to Campbell’s eschatology, this is incorrect. See Scott Celsor, “The Old Testament in the Formation of Alexander Campbell’s Apocalyptic Worldview,” Restoration Quarterly 44, no. 4 (4th Quarter, 2002): 214.

13 C. Leonard Allen and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots: The Ancestry of the Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988), 6. 13

Movement in America emphasized the names, dates, and critical events related to the restoration concept. Recent historians have increasingly investigated how philosophical and cultural forces shaped the Movement.14

Two philosophies deeply influenced Alexander Campbell. The first was rationalism, best personified by , and the second was the Scottish

Common Sense Realism exemplified by and therefore frequently referred to as “Baconianism.”15 To be sure, Campbell did not fully accept the Deistic conclusions given by Bacon and Locke. He simply appropriated the rationalistic methodologies that would allow him to unlock the great truths contained in the Bible. Just as Bacon and

Locke used reason to unravel the mysteries of nature and to create a new society based on self-evident truths, Campbell applied the scientific method to the Bible in order to restore the Church to its pristine beginning. He appealed to nothing other than the facts that, at least to Campbell, were as self-evident as the truths on which the new Constitution of the

United States was fashioned.

The serious miscalculation that Campbell made and ultimately bequeathed to his spiritual heirs was a reliance on philosophies that were “essentially invisible” to him.16

By failing to recognize the philosophical underpinnings of his approach to Scripture,

Campbell suggested to his followers that the movement to which he was calling people

14The groundbreaking work in this direction was Harrell, Quest for a Christian America. More recent analysis has been most provided by C. Leonard Allen and Richard T. Hughes. See C. Leonard Allen and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots: The Ancestry of the Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988); Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith; and C. Leonard Allen, Things Unseen: Churches of Christ in (and After) the Modern Age (Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood Publishers, 2004).

15Allen and Hughes, Discovering Our Roots, 78-86; Allen, Things Unseen, 71-98; Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, xii.

16Allen, Things Unseen, 72. 14

was based on the Bible exclusively. However, the unyielding power of human rationality became all too evident in the second and later generations of leaders. As Allen and

Hughes observed, “In effect, they conceded that neither the authority of the Bible nor the authority of God were adequate to legitimate the Christian faith. Indeed, the final court of appeal was reason.”17 This appeal to human reason has proven disastrous for a movement that began as a call to unify the Lord’s Church. As the influence of human reason increased, the reliance upon God’s power decreased. Disagreements based on conclusions derived by human rationality became non-negotiable matters of fellowship. According to the latest directory of Churches of Christ in the United States, there are at least nine different sub-groupings or divisions within the fellowship of Churches of Christ, one of the three main divisions of the original Restoration Movement.18

The American Restoration Movement was certainly not the only casualty of a reliance on Enlightenment philosophy. This particular spiritual movement is significant, however, for one reason not apparent in other denominations. The leaders of the

Restoration Movement claimed to follow the New Testament exclusively. Their goal was to restore the Church to its pristine beginnings. They intended to be a Premodern community within an unquestionably Modern context.19 Their use of Modern practices and especially of Modern philosophies guaranteed that the result of their experiment was going to be thoroughly Modern. To summarize a long and complicated process, Allen

17Allen and Hughes, Discovering Our Roots, 83.

18Churches of Christ in the United States, Carl H. Royster, compiler (Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009), inside cover.

19The use of capitalization for words such as Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern is to distinguish these philosophical categories from the customary use of such terms as normal adjectives. 15

and Hughes concluded, “The Enlightenment infused our movement with a rational perspective according to which the Bible itself became a sort of scientific manual, a constitution, or a technical blueprint.”20 This Modern approach to restoring the Church, based almost exclusively on human reason and achievement, was antithetic to a theology of confessionalism, which depends upon a foundation of human frailty. If confession was relegated to an obscure status in many churches, within the churches of the American

Restoration Movement it was excised completely.

The Goals and Method of Restoration

Barton W. Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and like-minded Christian pioneers had two goals in mind. First, they would restore the Church to what they believed was the perfect New Testament pattern. Second, they would unify all Christians, beginning in America and extending throughout the entire world.21 The method they used was a primitivist approach to the text of the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular.22

The Goal of Restoration

Contrary to the opinions of many critics, not all of the earliest restorationists believed that the Church of Jesus Christ had utterly disappeared following a cataclysmic

20Allen and Hughes, Discovering Our Roots, 82.

21Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 74; Richard T. Hughes and R. L. Roberts, The Churches of Christ, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001), 5.

22Russ Dudrey, “Restorationist Hermeneutics Among the Churches of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30, no. 1 (1st Quarter 1988): 18. 16

apostasy.23 However, they were convinced that throughout history the Church had been corrupted through the introduction of extra-biblical teachings, and the pure doctrines of the Church had become weighed down by the addition of man-made and

Confessions of Faith. The corruptions and human additions were responsible for the

“horrid evil fraught with many evils” that was made manifest in the countless divisions of the Church.24 Alexander Campbell clearly defined the goal of restoration in the first of a series of articles published in his first journal, the , entitled “A

Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things”:

A restoration of the ancient order of things is all that is necessary to the happiness and usefulness of christians. No attempt to “reform the doctrine, discipline and government of the church,” (a phrase too long in use,) can promise a better result than those which have been attempted and languished to death. We are glad to see, in the above extract, that the thing proposed, is to bring the and the church of the present day up to the standard of the New Testament. This is in substance, though in other terms, what we contend for. To bring the societies of christians up to the New Testament, is just to bring the disciples individually and collectively, to walk in the faith, and in the commandments of the Lord and Saviour, as presented in that blessed volume; and this is to restore the ancient order of things . . . Just in so far as the ancient order of things, or the of the New Testament is restored, just so far has the Millennium commenced, and so far have its blessings been enjoyed.25

In this definition Campbell emphasized the two criteria that have been promoted by virtually every proponent of the Restoration Movement, and a third that was of particular interest to him and his disciples, although not uniformly accepted by all. First,

23Alexander Campbell did use the term “great apostasy,” but it is evident that when all of Campbell and Stone’s works are considered in context they sought to call all Christians out of religious error into a pristine Church. Such a call would be meaningless had the Church utterly disappeared. See Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 78-79, also below chapter 2.

24See Campbell, Declaration and Address, 47-48.

25Alexander Campbell, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. 1,” Christian Baptist. 2, no. 7 (Monday, Feb. 7, 1825): 136. 17

restoration was to be based exclusively upon the New Testament. Second, the

“restoration” was separate from, but dependent upon, the previous “reformation.”26 Third, and unique to the teaching of Campbell, the “restoration” of which he spoke would usher in the millennial reign of Christ. Alexander Campbell believed that he and those allied with him were engaged in a genuinely novel experiment: the complete restoration of the

Church of Jesus Christ.

The Goal of Unity

If the goal of restoring the church was primary, the goal of the unity of all

Christians was second only in terms of sequence. If Christians “individually and collectively” could be brought back to the “standard of the New Testament” then the result would be a unified Church. The emphasis on unity is introduced by the Imprimis of the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, “We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one Body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.”27 Thomas Campbell made unity the topic of the first of his thirteen propositions in the Declaration and

Address. He wrote, “That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in

Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and

26Note, for example, how Campbell combines both terms in the title of his book, The Christian System, in Reference to the Union of Christians and Restoration of Primitive Christianity as Plead by the Current Reformation 2nd ed. (1839, repr., St. Louis: Christian Publishing Co., n.d).

27 Stone, Last Will and Testament, 17-18. 18

properly called Christians.”28 To underscore the seriousness of division that Campbell found in the churches he added in proposition ten,

That division among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antichristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is anti-natural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.29

For the Campbells, no less than for Barton Stone, division among the churches was simply unthinkable. Jesus had created one Church, and it was incumbent upon his followers to repair the ruptures in the unity of that Church.

The Method of Biblical Primitivism

The method to meet the goals of restoration was as clearly identified as were the goals. Barton Stone and the others in the Springfield Presbytery wrote, “We will, that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of life in Christ Jesus.”30 Later they added, “We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into

28Campbell, Declaration and Address, 44.

29Ibid., 47.

30Stone, Last Will and Testament, 18. 19

hell.”31 Thomas Campbell was no less emphatic about the primacy of the Bible, and the

New Testament in particular:

That in order to do this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent.32

A few paragraphs later Campbell added, “Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.”33

The American Restoration Movement was not the only eighteenth-century group, religious or secular, that sought to re-create an organization based on a pristine model.34

Richard Hughes and C. Leonard Allen identified the , Landmark , and the

Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) as also sharing in some form of primitivist impulse. However, the one characteristic that does separate the Stone-

Campbell Movement from all other groups was the unabashed reliance upon the text of the New Testament alone as the only sure guide for doctrine and practice, to the exclusion of all creeds and Confessions of Faith. The leaders of the Stone-Campbell

Movement believed the only sure way to unify the Church was to remove the inventions that were the cause of the divisions within the Church. The defining feature that evolved

31Ibid., 19.

32Campbell, Declaration and Address, 45.

33Ibid., 46.

34Richard T. Hughes and C. Leonard Allen, Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2008), 3. 20

from this primitivism was the hermeneutic of “command, example, and necessary inference.”

The Power of an Empiricist Hermeneutic

When Thomas Campbell penned the words “approved precedent,” he had no idea of the precedent he was setting. In fact, Campbell exercised great caution in determining what should be admitted to the faith and practice of the church. The Campbell had serious misgivings about the propriety of imposing any human deduction from Scripture as a matter of faith upon someone who could not arrive at the same conclusion. Although he admitted that “inferences and deductions” might be drawn from Scripture, he also argued, “Yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God.”35 Campbell acknowledged that the tendency of human beings was to force obedience to inferences that are obvious to some and illogical to others. Unfortunately, this caution was not observed by many or for long.

Moses Lard (1818-1880), first a student of, and then a co-worker with, Alexander

Campbell, was the first to take the “express terms or by approved precedent” in Thomas

Campbell’s proposition and expand it to include the practice of implication or inference.36 The addition of this third criterion was to have profound and lasting implications for the Stone-Campbell Movement. As one example, many recent observers

35Campbell, Declaration and Address, 46.

36Hughes and Roberts, Churches of Christ, 54. 21

of the Movement have identified that the Movement is experiencing an identity crisis.37 A major component of that identity crisis has been the tri-partite hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference.38 The lingering ramifications of the hermeneutic will be discussed in detail in the concluding section of this chapter, but two influences related to this hermeneutic bear immediate attention.

The first is the irony, unrecognizable to its staunchest defenders, that this method of interpretation is entirely extra-biblical. No “direct command” or “express term” exists in Scripture by which inspired authors teach such a method of interpretation. “Approved precedents” are identifiable, but there are few examples of an earlier event or doctrine used as a lasting principle for all generations.39 Simply stated, the formula of “express terms and approved precedent,” while not being inherently invalid as a method of interpreting Scripture, is not a divinely-commanded method of interpreting Scripture.

Second, this hermeneutic elevated the human deductive reasoning that Thomas

Campbell sought to minimize in the Declaration and Address. With the addition of

“necessary implication” or “necessary inference” as a part of this restoration hermeneutic,

Moses Lard negated the intent of Thomas Campbell to wean Christians off dependency

37 This is a common refrain, repeated but not limited to: C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes and Michael R.Weed, The Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal, 2nd ed. (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1991), 1; Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 123-124; Richard Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 121.

38Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 110, 127-131. See also Thomas H. Olbricht, Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ (Abilene TX: ACU Press, 1996), 122-127.

39For example, the national covenant at Sinai fulfilled and enriched the familial covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and the universal covenant created on Golgotha fulfilled and enriched the covenant made at Sinai. 22

on “the wisdom of men.”40 The re-introduction and elevation of deductive reasoning also made it virtually impossible for anyone to develop a confessional theology within the

Stone-Campbell Movement. The exact reasons for this impossibility will be explored throughout the remainder of this study.

The Limitation of an Empiricist Hermeneutic

The hermeneutic of most Restorationist leaders is a curious mixture of inductive reasoning (the collection and analysis of pure Bible “facts”) and deductive reasoning

(drawing necessary conclusions from the proven, or assumed, truth of related premises).

In order for this system to function two components are necessary: one, there must be a substantial amount of facts that a researcher can gather; and two, there must be a number of valid premises on which to build necessary inferences. The New Testament, especially the writings of Acts-Jude, provided the restorers with an almost limitless supply of both factual statements and logical premises. Subsequent leaders of the Stone-Campbell

Movement promoted the hermeneutic of “command, example, and necessary inference” specifically with the New Testament in mind.

However, the hermeneutic is not designed to explain the majority of the material contained in the Old Testament nor the . Few Old Testament literary genres are amenable to a strict empiricist method of interpretation. The only type of literature that does fit within the hermeneutic of the restorers is the Mosaic Law as

40It is important to add here that in his book The Christian System Alexander Campbell articulated a method of interpreting the Bible with seven precise rules (p. 15-18). That Lard’s three-fold hermeneutic of “command, example and necessary implication/inference” would eventually supplant A. Campbell’s hermeneutic is one of the great mysteries of the Restoration Movement, and is beyond the scope of the present study to unravel. 23

recorded in Leviticus through Deuteronomy, and it is the Mosaic Law that Campbell and his followers rejected most vigorously.41

The genres of narrative, poetry, and prophetic proclamation contain few, if any, empiricist facts that can be directly applied to a person’s relationship with God. Even if the polemical nature of the restorationist hermeneutic could be temporarily held in abeyance, there simply is no place in the strict realist worldview for the carefully nuanced poetic narrative such as Genesis 1. In this hermeneutic the writings of the prophets become useful only as far as their predictions relate specifically to events in the life of

Jesus or the apostolic church. The one category of Old Testament literature that suffers the greatest amount of neglect from the empiricist hermeneutic is that of poetry, which means a neglect of the Psalms.42 However, all the narrative sections of the Old Testament contain poetic elements, and the messages of the prophets are written predominantly in poetic form. Therefore, a major section of this study will be devoted to examining the poetic material of the Bible.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

One vexing issue involved in any type of human endeavor, whether scientific, social or religious, is the reality that when a new policy is enacted or a new action is performed, consequences occur that were never foreseen, and certainly not intended. In

41Alexander Campbell, “Sermon on the Law” Millennial Harbinger Ser. 3: 3, no. 9 (September 1846): 493-521. For a survey of the importance of the Sermon on the Law, see Everett Ferguson, “Alexander Campbell’s ‘Sermon on the Law’ A Historical and Theological Examination,” Restoration Quarterly 29 no. 2 (2nd Quarter, 1978): 71-85.

42Sadly, this neglect continues. In a volume totaling 241 pages of written text whose main purpose was to correct a misinformed reading of Scripture within the Churches of Christ, a scant 5 pages was dedicated specifically to the Psalms, and the essence of those pages was in praying the Psalms. See, Kenneth L. Cukrowski, Mark W. Hamilton and James W. Thompson God’s Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002) 131-136. 24

common vernacular this is the “law of unintended consequences.” The Stone-Campbell

Movement offers no exception to this principle. This section examines the most significant consequences that affected the Movement.

First, by severing their present from their formative past the early restorers removed any opportunity to apply the positive contributions from that past. In their zeal to expunge the supposed errors of many centuries of Christian history, the restorers made it difficult, if not impossible, to draw any wisdom or strength from those centuries. It was as if the men and women of faith who lived, and the critical events that took place from the close of the apostolic age until the founding of the United States, simply never happened. In another irony in a movement that is full of ironies, the ultimate consequence of the disregard of history has been the development of an attitude among their spiritual descendants that even denies the significance of Barton W. Stone, and Thomas and

Alexander Campbell.43 Once the restorers severed the Movement’s relationship to the past, all connections to that past were severed – including their own historical significance.

Second, by adopting a hermeneutic that depended heavily upon empiricism, the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement limited any influence of the Holy Spirit on the

Movement. This was problematic because of the experience of Barton Stone at the great revival at Cane Ridge in 1801. Throughout his ministry, Stone was far more open to the influence of the Holy Spirit than was Alexander Campbell. As the influence of Campbell eclipsed that of Stone, the Movement lost the openness that Stone had shown to the

43See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 307-310. For example, Hugh Fulford writes, “The congregations of Christians known most commonly today as the churches of Christ do not recognize Alexander Campbell as their founder.” Hugh Fulford, “Did Alexander Campbell Start the Church of Christ?” 123, no. 19 (Oct. 1, 1981): 596. 25

manifestation of the Spirit.44 This, then, had the further consequence of diminishing any recognition of the working of the Holy Spirit past the close of the apostolic age.

Third, by combining the loss of historical continuity with the past with the highly rational hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference, the founders of the

Stone-Campbell Movement left their spiritual heirs with a philosophical incapacity to formulate any semblance of a confessional theology. Thomas Campbell wrote that “The

New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church” as the Old Testament was perfect for the people of Israel.45

A nineteenth-century Church once “individually and collectively” restored to the standard of the New Testament had no mechanism for the admission of error. Confession was rendered irrelevant except as one requirement for membership in the Church and for cases of individual failure. As with the first two consequences, this consequence was surely unintentional. However, the result is that the Stone-Campbell Movement in general and the Churches of Christ in particular, have a significant weakness as relates to the spiritual discipline of confession.

The Challenge of Conceding a Deficient Theology

An ahistorical worldview combined with an emphasis on human reason in the hermeneutic of the Stone-Campbell Movement has significant repercussions. Three of these repercussions are the inability to apply positive lessons from the Christian centuries, the loss of a coherent understanding of the working of the Holy Spirit, and the

44Richard Hughes has conclusively demonstrated the significance of the ascendency of Campbell’s view of the Holy Spirit over Stone’s understanding. See Hughes and Roberts, Churches of Christ, 61-98.

45Campbell, Declaration and Address, 45. 26

resulting incapacity for the development of a confessional theology. A fourth follows: when a group of people believe they are infallibly correct and refuse to consider any challenge to their conclusions, it is impossible for that group to concede that their conclusions may, in fact, be in error. Through two hundred years of hardening attitudes, this is exactly what has occurred within the Stone-Campbell Movement.

Thomas Campbell unwittingly created the likelihood that later generations would claim ecclesial perfection and therefore reject any need for admitting fault. In the

Declaration and Address he encouraged, “Let us do as we are there expressly told they did, say as they said; that is, profess and practice as therein expressly enjoined by precept and precedent, in every possible instance, after their approved example; and in so doing we shall realize and exhibit all that unity and uniformity that the primitive church possessed, or that the law of Christ requires.”46 Two phrases in this passage are significant. First, Campbell acknowledged with the phrase “in every possible instance” that there might be aspects of the New Testament church that the nineteenth-century church could not duplicate. Second, regardless of that provision, he believed that, to the extent the early nineteenth-century Church could duplicate the behavior of the first- century Church, it would “exhibit all that unity and uniformity that the primitive church possessed, or that the law of Christ requires.” Because of the sermonic language he used it can be argued as to whether or not Thomas Campbell believed that absolute technical perfection was feasible in every aspect of the Church. However, there can be no doubt that later writers within the Movement did believe that not only was such perfection

46Campbell, Declaration and Address, 77. 27

possible, but that it was also an accomplished fact.47 It follows that, if these men restored the pure New Testament Church, all that would be needed would be the maintenance of that Church. In addition, those responsible for this accomplishment would be worthy of divine thanksgiving and praise. There would be little room for humility, and certainly no room for guilt.

If Christians could idolize the result of a perfectly restored model of the Church, then they could also idolize the methodology for achieving that restoration. As a recent researcher has sharply critiqued,

By a peculiar sort of Restorationist Baconianism or Aristoteleanism, our movement has used the Bible as a sourcebook of systematic Restoration theology, a theology capable of being synthesized, harmonized, and systematized from the New Testament by the use of deductive or syllogistic logical method…The great advances pioneered by the early restorers have been almost lost by an arid Restorationist that set in as Churches of Christ retrenched following the controversies of the last century; if we may say that Protestant Scholasticism hypostatized by Faith, making it a sort of theological talisman, we have hypostatized Justification by Necessary Inference.48

The empiricist hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference was designed to produce incontrovertible results. Over time this hermeneutic has become as venerated as the goals of restoration and unity of the Church for which it was used.

The challenge of conceding a deficient theology is that an adherent must accept the possibility that a particular theology is, at least theoretically, deficient. A theology designed to restore a pristine church by means of an infallible hermeneutic is inherently incapable of incorporating such a confessional element. Although an empiricist could praise a God, the God that he or she praised would be more Deistic than the God revealed

47Dudrey, “Restorationist Hermeneutics,” 40.

48Ibid., 38. 28

in the Bible. Moreover, those who had the intellect to discover the key to making such restoration possible would deserve an equal or greater amount of praise. This result has developed within the Stone-Campbell Movement, and, it should be noted again that confessionalism has been among its casualties.

Summary

The leaders of the American Restoration Movement were men who expressed fully the formative philosophies of their era. They were spiritual visionaries, men who perceived a calling to restore a divided Church to a pristine, first-century pattern. Their primary hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference was designed to meet this goal. With the certainty of a mathematician solving complex equations or an archaeologist excavating an ancient city, these nineteenth-century restorationists set out to discover biblical facts, arrange them in a logical system, and apply the results to make an ancient church new once again.

Although thoroughly immersed in the philosophies of their time, these restoration leaders were fundamentally blind to the implications of those philosophies. Because they trusted the of their methodology implicitly, they passed down to future generations an unwillingness to question motives or methodologies. Their allegiance to empiricist philosophies created a culture in which questioning either methods or conclusions was not allowed. Although clearly not intended, the presuppositions of the

Movement made certain outcomes unavoidable, and one of the most obvious of those outcomes was the loss of a confessional theology.

29

CHAPTER 2

THEOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A BURDEN TOO HEAVY TO BEAR

The strict empiricism of the early restoration leaders, revealed in the hermeneutic that guided their study of the Scriptures, had definite consequences for the Stone-

Campbell Movement. By diminishing the significance of the Old Testament, these leaders viewed the Psalms, and therefore the subjects of lament and confession, as irrelevant to their goal of restoring the Church to the pattern of the New Testament. This had the consequence of minimizing the importance of confession, and inhibiting the development of a confessional theology, during the formative period of the Movement.

As the second and subsequent generations built upon this foundation, the absence of a confessional aspect of their theology had a worsening effect – the lack of confession fostered attitudes that made confession even more problematic. This chapter identifies two theological and three practical implications of the loss of confessionalism.

Theological Implications

A distinct line of cause-and-effect can be identified in the evolution of Stone-

Campbell Movement theology. First, Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell and

30

others borrowed from the social and political primitivist philosophies current in the early

1800s and applied their ideas to the goal of restoring the New Testament Church. In so doing, they created a pattern for future generations to jettison the history of the Church, including the history of those who pioneered the Restoration Movement. Second, by declaring that the Church had been restored, and that the dawn of the millennium had arrived, Alexander Campbell’s theology obscured the view of the future from the

Movement’s horizon. In effect, the leaders of the Movement lived, and destined their heirs to live, in a world of an unending present, with no past to guide and no future to inspire. The first implication of this process for the theology of the Stone-Campbell movement is a phenomenon that can best be described as a peculiar form of a realized eschatology couched within an elevated ecclesiology. The second implication is a decreased ability to apprehend and communicate the grace of God.

A Realized Eschatology within an Elevated Ecclesiology

The emphasis upon ecclesiology among the Churches of Christ has been thoroughly researched and documented.1 In the most comprehensive exposition of his restorationist program, Alexander Campbell provided guidelines for the identification of the Kingdom of God on earth.2 Using a secular model to illustrate his point, Campbell identified the defining elements as a King, a Constitution, Subjects, Laws, and Territory.

Campbell applied these to the Church: the King was Christ, the Constitution was the New

Testament, the Subjects were those believers who had been immersed as adults, and the

1For a summary and call for further study, see Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Theology of the Church in Churches of Christ” Restoration Quarterly 50, no. 1 (1st Quarter, 2008): 15-34.

2Campbell, Christian System, 158-190. 31

territory was the entire earth.3 Campbell himself never totally lost sight of the future aspect of the Kingdom of God, but the language that he used was injudicious at best. It allowed those who followed him to aver even more strongly that the physical Church of

Christ/Christian Church as it existed in the early decades of the nineteenth century was equal to the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the elegance of the logic of Campbell and especially that of his disciple made the argument difficult to refute. This logical coherence at least partially explains the impressive growth of the Stone-Campbell

Movement in the early decades.4 During an epoch in which the entire world of human government was being completely re-imagined, the so-called “Restoration Plea” was received by thousands who were philosophically conditioned to accept it, whether they realized it or not.

Alexander Campbell, therefore, conferred on his heirs a legacy that focused on the institutional nature of the Church. Much to the embarrassment of some of his contemporaries, and certainly to some of his later disciples, Campbell believed there were

Christians within all the denominations of his day.5 However, because he admitted that there were Christians outside the fellowship of his “restored” Church, it was incumbent upon him to explain exactly why his vision of the Church was correct and all the others erroneous. This explains, among other things, Campbell’s major emphases on the visible

3Ibid.

4Harrell records that by 1850 the Disciples of Christ were the sixth largest religious group in the United States with 118,000 members. Recognizing that the Last Will and Testament was published in 1804 and the Declaration and Address in 1809, this number represents an explosive amount of growth in approximately forty years. Harrell, Quest for a Christian America, 3.

5Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 78-79. See also, Alexander Campbell, “Any Christians Among Protestant Parties?” Millennial Harbinger new series, 1, no. 9 (September 1837): 411- 414. 32

“ancient order” of the New Testament Church: its name, its government, how membership is obtained, and how its worship services are conducted.6 The major focus of the Stone-Campbell Movement became institutional ecclesiology. The other disciplines of theology, such as soteriology, eschatology, and ethics, were viewed as sub-topics to that larger theme.

Among twentieth-century Churches of Christ, the definitive work detailing the institution of the Church is The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today.7

The contents of the book reveal a discernible lineage to Campbell’s guidelines: it begins with a discussion of the broad categories of covenant and kingdom, including precedents set in the Old Testament but superseded in the New Testament. Successive chapters then cover the nature of the Church, and membership in the Church, worship in the

Church, the specific roles and duties of Church servant/leaders, and the book concludes with a chapter on morality and ethical issues and the Church.8 In his book, Everett

Ferguson offered a far more cautious appraisal of the relationship of the Church to the kingdom of God than did Campbell, but Campbell’s influence is unmistakable.9 The identification of the Church in Ferguson’s book remains predominately that which

Campbell described two centuries earlier: such characteristics as can be clearly identified

6Reference the titles of his thirty-two part series in the Christian Baptist, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things,” which focused, among others, on the “Order of Worship” (number 5), “On the Breaking of Bread” (numbers 6-8), “The Bishop’s Office” (numbers 12-14) and “Official Names and Titles” (number 32).

7Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996).

8Ibid., vii-xiii.

9Ibid., see especially pages 33-35 and 358-359. 33

and measured against the descriptive marks of the Church as recorded in the New

Testament.

The absence of a confessional theology within the Stone-Campbell Movement, precipitated by the strict empiricism that nurtured the Movement, in turn fostered an elevated ecclesiology that remains influential today. This manner of the identification of the Church allows no possibility of a theology of confession. Any guilt for errors in the various churches lay with previous generations. In Campbell’s schema the process of restoring the Church consisted of searching the text of the New Testament for the facts that established the identity of the Church, and then applying those facts to the modern

Church. Once such a restoration was achieved, there no longer existed a need to restore that Church. Additionally, the connection that Campbell made between the Church and the physical kingdom of God on earth had the effect of further elevating his ecclesiology.

As later generations of Stone-Campbell restorers have argued, if the kingdom of God first arrived in Acts 2 and was restored in the early 1800s, there was no need to repeat the petition for God’s kingdom to come “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:8-10).10 Likewise, there was no need to develop a theology of confession, nor the need to educate members in the practices of a lifestyle of confession. Confession of the name of Christ at the moment of transferred a person from the kingdom of the world into the kingdom of God, and, with the exception of subsequent moral failure, confession was not needed nor expected.

10Alexander Campbell, “The Lord’s ,” Millennial Harbinger ser. 5: 1, no. 1 (Jan. 1858): 42. “The reason [the Lord’s prayer cannot be prayed] is obvious; his reign and kingdom commenced one week after his ascension into heaven.” 34

Limitations to Fully Receiving God’s Grace

A serious theological limitation for modern heirs of the Stone-Campbell

Movement is a loss of the ability to accept God’s grace, and as a result, to extend that grace to others. Ironically, much of this loss can be attributed to the phenomenal evangelistic fervor of Campbell and his co-workers. Walter Scott, in particular, was effective in converting large numbers of individuals to the Restoration cause.11 His effectiveness derived from the simple “plan of salvation” that he framed to help uneducated and under-educated people on the American frontier. The plan involved six points. Individuals were to perform three actions: believe in Jesus, repent of their sins, and submit to baptism for the remission of those sins. In return God promised three blessings: forgiveness of those sins, the immediate gift of the Holy Spirit, and the future gift of eternal life.12 Over time the six points were reduced to five in order to accommodate the digits on a child’s hand. Children could be taught about “faith, repentance, baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit” and then be sent home to invite their parents to a meeting being conducted by either Campbell or

Scott.13 The “five finger exercise” was further modified to present only those actions performed by humans: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized.14 An emphasis on

God’s redeeming grace had been completely removed.

11Holloway and Foster record that Scott was responsible for averaging 1,000 per year for a thirty-year period of his life. Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 64.

12Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 51. See also Walter Scott, “Circular Letter,” The Evangelist 1 no. 1 (Monday, Jan. 2, 1832): 17-19.

13Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement, 219.

14Ibid. 35

In evaluating Scott’s accomplishment, it is important to note that in his original scheme he balanced the items: humans performed three actions and God promised three benefits. Note, however, that the actions of the convert preceded the benefits promised by

God. If a person omitted any of the actions, the promises could not be realized. As related in Scripture, however, the relationship of grace to obedience is the reverse: God acts in wholly undeserved ways on behalf of his people, and then God invites the people to respond in loving obedience.15 Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell would argue that

God’s grace did precede the obedience of the repentant sinner. Nevertheless, the unintended consequences of Scott’s simple, and perhaps too simplistic, plan cannot be ignored. The hidden message in Scott’s “five finger exercise” was that humans are at least equally responsible for their own salvation, and if salvation became a merit to be earned, then God’s grace ceased to be grace. The good news of the atonement was reduced to law.

The excessively rationalistic approach employed by the Stone-Campbell leaders effectively eliminated the possibility of a confessional theology developing within the movement. By removing confession from the lifestyle of the believer (except in the brief instance preceding baptism), these leaders also diminished the awareness of the reality and priority of God’s grace. As human reason was emphasized, the ability to apprehend and accept God’s grace was diminished, and in turn, the ability of succeeding generations to demonstrate God’s grace was weakened. This inevitably led to serious practical implications for the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

15Note briefly the covenants God made with Noah (Genesis 9), Abraham (Genesis 15) and Moses (Exodus 1-20). 36

Practical Implications

The preceding section detailing the theological implications of a lack of a proper understanding of confession points to more observable problems for the Churches of

Christ. Many disagreements concerning theology are of an esoteric nature and require such a high level of engagement that the practical consequences of the differing positions are ignored. However, questions about the nature of the Church, or who can be considered a member of the Church, and whether God’s grace can be freely received or must be earned, are issues that have immediate ramifications regardless of the answers given. The Stone-Campbell identification of the Church according to a strict empiricist hermeneutic, combined with an equally pragmatic “plan of salvation” and the distancing of the grace of God, had numerous adverse effects on the Movement. Three in particular bear on the issue of a confessional theology: pride or arrogance, a paralyzing identity crisis, and the inability to move beyond a myth of a perfect past.

Practical Implication One: Pride and Arrogance

Humans can expose their pride and arrogance in two ways. The first is in relation to God, and the result is idolatry. C. Leonard Allen, Richard Hughes and Michael Weed confronted this tendency within the Churches of Christ in their brief book entitled, The

Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal.16 Challenging the Churches of Christ for the perceived weakness of secularism within the Churches, the authors wrote,

We have preached too little over the years of the frailty, the finitude, and the shortcomings of humankind. We have preached too little of the transcendence, the sovereignty, the grace, and the love of God. Too often we have preoccupied

16C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R.Weed, The Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal, 2nd ed. (Abilene: ACU Press, 1991). 37

ourselves with the human response, with what humans must do to secure their own salvation, with exhortations to duty and faithfulness, and with admonitions to keep the law of Christ.17

A few paragraphs later the authors added, “So what might all this say of secularization?

Here is the point: the very heart and soul of secularization is self-reliance.”18 In yet another passage, this time devoted to an analysis of Alexander Campbell’s belief that the

Holy Spirit ceased to be active once the New Testament was fully completed, the authors stated,

Such a view constitutes a secularized doctrine of the Spirit, a doctrine in which God’s power and presence in this world is sharply restricted. Under such influence Churches of Christ developed and sustained a theology of self-reliance. For if God indeed had withdrawn to the heavens, leaving behind merely (sic) arguments and laws to direct human lives, then clearly the burden fell upon human understanding and performance.19

The result of this self-reliance, which is another term for arrogance, is idolatry: humans create God in their own image, and worship their own achievements. Although Allen,

Hughes, and Weed do not use the term “confessionalism,” the claim of preaching too little human frailty and not enough of the transcendence of God does effectively define the term as it is used in this study. The empiricist hermeneutic of Campbell, based on the

Enlightenment philosophies of Bacon and Locke, did not predestine this result, as if the process was somehow mechanically controlled. However, Campbell, Scott, and others would have had to create a robust counter-weight against the rationalism of the hermeneutic, and the only way they could have done that was to have added a strong

17Ibid., 35.

18Ibid., 36.

19Ibid., 60. 38

component of confessionalism.20 Because of the philosophical blinders that restricted their vision, they were unable to do this.

The second way in which humans reveal their arrogance involves other humans, and the result is exceptionalism and exclusivism. During his lifetime, Alexander

Campbell faced fierce opposition to his efforts to restore the Church. Campbell was fearless in his attacks against what he believed to be serious error in the Christian churches of his day. The methods he used, although frequently eloquent, were not always gentle.21 Campbell’s brashness had the result of generating opposition that returned fire with fire.22

A significant amount of the opposition to the Stone-Campbell Movement was based on the hubris of those who believed that they constituted the one and only true

Church. The earliest pioneers of the Restoration Movement had no desire to create a new

Church, or even a separate denomination within the universal Church. Their goal, as noted above, was to inform all Christians of the “horrid evil” of division, and to unite all

Christians under the umbrella of the unadorned doctrine of the New Testament.

Nevertheless, as Campbell himself learned, “denominationalism” was a difficult concept to defeat without addressing specific doctrines, and that meant confronting the individuals who held those beliefs. As the controversy surrounding the letter from

20C. Leonard Allen details the attempt of one man (Robert Richardson, Alexander Campbell’s physician) to do so, and his ultimate failure. Allen, Things Unseen, 72-87.

21Campbell was especially critical of the class of professional , reference his sarcastic “The Third Epistle of Peter, to the Preachers and Rulers of Congregations – A Looking Glass for the Clergy,” Christian Baptist 2 no.12 (Monday, July 4, 1825): 243-247.

22For example, W.A. Jarrel, “The Gospel in Water” or Campbellism Being an Exposition and Refutation of Campbellism, and an Exposition and Vindication of the Gospel and the New Testament Church (St. Louis: National Baptist Publishing, 1886). 39

Lunenburg, demonstrated, Campbell was frustrated by accusations that he was rejecting multitudes of individuals who had hitherto considered themselves to be faithful

Christians. Campbell emphatically denied that this was the case. Campbell’s heirs in the

Restoration Movement have not always followed his moderation.

If the co-workers of Alexander Campbell could declare that they completed the project of restoring the gospel in the early decades of the 1800s,23 it was a small step for later proponents of the Restoration Movement to declare that they had fully completed the entire restoration of the Church.24 The logical extension to this impulse followed that all members in a scripturally organized Church of Christ could consider themselves to be

Christians, and those outside this fellowship could not.25 The irenic Barton Stone would be horrified at such a conclusion, and even Alexander Campbell would disavow it, but this bitter fruit was the result of the primary philosophical foundation of the movement.

Written histories of the Stone-Campbell Movement are replete with accounts of intramural dissension and debate. The two acknowledged leaders of the Movement,

Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell, had differing opinions on many subjects, including the topic of eschatology, and on such fundamental issues as the nature of the

Trinity, the meaning of baptism, and lesser issues such as the frequency of participation

23Walter Scott, The Gospel Restored: A Discourse of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, In Which the Facts, Principles, Duties, and Priviliges of Christianity Are Arranged, Defined, Discussed, And The Gospel In Its Various Parts Shewn To Be Adapted To The Nature And Necessities of Man In His Present Condition (1836; repr., Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club, 1949).

24Hughes and Roberts, Churches of Christ, 5.

25This is the thesis of Thomas B. Warren, The Bible Only Makes Christians Only, and the Only Christians (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1986.

40

in the Lord’s Supper and the name that should identify the movement.26 In an act of forbearance that still defies adequate explanation, these men were able to lay aside their differences for the greater cause of Christian unity.

In the generations that followed Stone and Campbell, issues of far less substance became the source of disagreement between editors, preachers, and even common members of the Movement. For those who had discovered a greater number of Bible facts, marshaled a greater number of commands or examples, or had derived a more defensible syllogism, it mattered little whether the subject was as substantial as the grace of God or as minor as the periodical to which one subscribed.27 Such disputes led to vicious attacks and counter-attacks and the marking of the faithful over against the heretic. The first four points of the description of one particularly pugnacious editor and preacher could serve as an epitaph for several generations of equally argumentative

“”: “(1) He found it difficult to forgive and forget injuries real or imagined

. . . (2) He was utterly intolerant of a point of view different from his own . . . (3) If you were his friend, his enemies must be your enemies . . . (4) He was intellectually arrogant.”28 One remarkable feature of the writings of the editor described is that they were devoted almost entirely to intramural conflicts waged among congregations of the

26Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 53-58.

27The resources here are, unfortunately, too numerous to mention. Two chapter length discussions bear special mention: Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, “Grace, Law, and the Fighting Style,” 168-189 and David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Churches of Christ in the 20th Century: Homer Hailey’s Personal Journey of Faith (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), “The Churches of Christ 1920-1950: A Heritage of Controversy,” 39-114. (Hereafter abbreviated “Homer Hailey” for ease of identification.)

28James W. Adams, “Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Militant Warrior” originally published in Melvin D. Curry, ed., They Being Dead Yet Speak (Temple Terrace, Florida: Florida College Bookstore, 1981), 183- 184, quoted in Harrell, Homer Hailey, 97. 41

Churches of Christ. The targets of sectarian intolerance were no longer those who lived in other houses of worship, they were now those who lived in the Stone-Campbell house.

The “fighting style” that later Restoration Movement leaders employed could not have been the intention of Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell. Even the brash

Alexander Campbell used his acerbic pen in the hope of ultimately creating a peaceful and united Church. However, the philosophical foundations upon which they based their hermeneutic engendered such pride and arrogance that the results were an almost foregone conclusion: numerous divisions, the destruction of congregations, and a reputation for intolerance and exclusivism. What the Movement did not receive from its founding fathers was a mechanism to confess their failings and to work actively to overcome them.

Practical Implication Two: An Identity Crisis – A Loss of Vision

It has become axiomatic that the twenty-first century Churches of Christ are experiencing a crisis of identity.29 Within the past fifty years, scholars in the Church of

Christ have attempted to identify, and if possible, to rectify the impasse that many feel is crippling the Movement. Several issues have been identified: an inability or unwillingness to evaluate the surrounding culture critically, an inability to speak prophetically to that culture; a loss of the concept of the transcendence of God; and a loss of Barton W. Stone’s apocalyptic worldview, which enabled him to proclaim the coming kingdom of God while simultaneously acting forcefully in the present world.

David Edwin Harrell identified the first of these issues. He stated,

29This is a common refrain, repeated but not limited to: Allen, Hughes and Weed, The Worldly Church, 1; Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 123-124; Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 121. 42

The hard facts which tell the story of what men did and thought on a specific social issue are coherent and meaningful in terms of Disciples history and American history only if they are put into the context of people being molded by a vital, creative Christian message and in turn being shaped by the turbulent society of nineteenth-century America. In short, the problem of interpretation is two-fold: a study of the contribution of Disciples to the social consciousness of the nation and an analysis of the sociological impact on the church’s social thought.30

Harrell’s main thesis is that societal forces shaped the thoughts and actions of the members of the Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ more pervasively than had been previously acknowledged. Harrell was the first to document the fact that, instead of being immune from the forces of culture, members of the Church of Christ were just as much influenced by their culture as was every other American. His analysis of the division that occurred among the Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ following the Civil War could serve as a summary for the history of the entire movement: “It is both naïve and inaccurate to dismiss so lightly the massive impact of the great American sectional struggle on the Disciples of Christ. As a matter of fact, during these critical years the

Disciples are a vivid example of the bending of the Christian ethos to fit the frame of social necessity.”31 This “naivety” about the impact that cultural forces have upon the church is both a source for, and a product of, a pervading sense of “historylessness” that affects the average member of the modern Churches of Christ.32 Cultural naivety, combined with a lack of a historical awareness, results in an attitude of spiritual arrogance.

30Harrell, Quest For a Christian America, 21.

31Ibid., 172.

32The word is used by C. Leonard Allen in The Cruciform Church: Becoming a Cross Shaped People in a Secular World rev. ed. (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2006), 19, 20. The concept is illustrated in Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 7, 9. 43

The second source of the current identity crisis among members of the Churches of Christ is the loss of a sense of the transcendence of God. Struggling to define the concept of transcendence to a readership that is largely unfamiliar with the term, C.

Leonard Allen, Richard Hughes, and Michael Weed state, “The term ‘transcendence,’ then, points to two great biblical themes: the majesty and mystery of an infinite and sovereign God, and the fundamental frailty of humankind whose imperfections and limitations place between God and his creation an enormous gulf.”33 The concerns of the authors are substantial. They believe that “Churches of Christ may slowly and imperceptibly become little more than a social club with a religious veneer.”34 A noteworthy connection with Harrell’s thesis becomes obvious at this point. When the

Church loses a sense of God’s transcendence, the only avenue for societal change becomes humanistic, or in Allen and Hughes’s and Weed’s terminology, a matter of secularism. The emphasis then becomes axiology, not theology. Harrell, Allen, Hughes, and Weed demonstrated that this is exactly what has occurred.35 The Churches of Christ have made peace with the surrounding culture.36 As a result, the Movement lost its ability to create, to restore, or to maintain any semblance of a confessional theology.

A further development that weakened the identity of the Churches of Christ was the gradual, but almost complete, exclusion of Barton W. Stone’s apocalyptic worldview

33Allen, Hughes and Weed, The Worldly Church, 6.

34Ibid., 8.

35Harrell, Quest For a Christian America, 223; Allen, Hughes and Weed, The Worldly Church, 7- 8. 36Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 116.

44

in favor of Alexander Campbell’s millennial optimism.37 Richard Hughes described

Barton Stone’s worldview as, “Apocalyptic, in the sense that it was premised on obedience to the direct rule of God. He and many of his coworkers lived their lives in the shadow of the , and thought of themselves as pilgrims who affirmed their allegiance to the kingdom of God rather than the popular values of the world.”38 As late as the post-civil war period Stone’s eschatological outlook had some ardent defenders, most notably David Lipscomb (1831-1917). Lipscomb edited the influential journal

Gospel Advocate for forty-five years, and published Civil Government, a book that became the definitive, and most divisive, statement related to the relationship of the

Church of Christ to the world.39

Lipscomb’s theology shared three main concepts with that of Stone. Those concepts were a radical dependence upon the sovereignty of God, an apocalyptic eschatology that looked only to God to establish his rule in this world, and an unflagging and therefore a rejection of the powers of this world, especially political powers.40 Although Lipscomb’s biblicism allowed his position to prevail or at least hold its own during his lifetime, by the middle of the twentieth century his views fell out of

37This change was noted in Harrell, Quest For a Christian America, 39-53; but the implications have been more fully explained by Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 93-118. This development is a fascinating sub-plot in the developing history of the Churches of Christ, and is far too complicated to describe here. It is the result of a combination of factors, not the least of which were the social and economic results of the Civil War, the demands of American patriotism during the two World Wars, and the increasingly lavish socio-economic status of the average member of the Churches of Christ.

38Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 92-93.

39Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 104. David Lipscomb, Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation to It (1889; repr. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1957).

40Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 122-127. 45

favor among members of the Churches of Christ. The siren call of patriotism during two

World Wars and an intramural struggle over the theory of pre-millennialism were the two decisive historical developments that drove the Churches of Christ away from

Lipscomb’s views.

The three issues of an identity crisis, the loss of a transcendent view of God, and the loss of an apocalyptic worldview are inter-related. The prevailing mood of the

American frontier was overwhelmingly optimistic, and with each successive technological or military victory the idea of an “American Millennium” became more entrenched.41 However, as Richard Hughes argued, it was only after Stone’s eschatology fell out of favor that Campbell’s strident post-millennialism controlled the theological framework of the growing Restoration Movement.42 This shift either allowed or demanded, depending upon one’s viewpoint, the evolution of the Restoration Movement from an aloof to a full-fledged denomination.43 In either case, as the Movement grew more complacent with its secular surroundings it also grew more intolerant of those who spoke prophetically regarding the necessity for a confessional .

Practical Implication Number Three: An Inability to Move Beyond an Idealized Past

As noted previously, as a culture the Churches of Christ can be defined by a sense of “historylessness.” This is true not only concerning the time period extending from the close of the New Testament until approximately 1800, but for many members of the

41Harrell, The Quest For a Christian America, 44-48.

42Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 92-134. See also C. Leonard Allen, Things Unseen, 99-116, 157-180.

43Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 2. 46

Restoration Movement, this includes the work of Barton Stone and the two Campbells.

However, despite the overall decision to minimize the lessons of history, there does exist in the minds of many individuals one significant era: the golden age of the mid-twentieth century. This was a time of great turmoil but also a time of unprecedented growth for the

Churches of Christ. The nearly mythological status of the decades from 1945-1975 can be understood only when these two contradictory issues are examined.

First, the mid-1900s were a time of great strife within the Churches of Christ.

Power struggles and political feuds within the churches resulted in a separation between the mainline Churches of Christ and the more fundamentalist branch known as the “anti- institutional” group or “antis.”44 Three great internal controversies demanded the entire intellectual capacity of the Movement: a quasi-theological battle over the question of pre- millennialism, a methodological battle over the creation and financial support of parachurch organizations such as colleges, mission societies and charities including orphanages, and a third battle pitting a rising generation who rebelled against the exclusivism that developed from the two earlier controversies.45 Just as the Civil War had done a century earlier, the conflicts split congregations and even families. The enmity that developed on all sides as a result of such emotionally charged disputes had profound effects on the Movement, and those effects endure.

In spite of this internal strife, it appeared that the Churches of Christ were growing at a rate that equaled that of the early decades of the Movement. Church

44Holloway and Foster, Renewing God’s People, 107-109, 117-121. See also Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 254-351. The definitive history of the anti-institutional group to date is told through the biography of one of its leading figures. See Harrell, Homer Hailey.

45Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 307. 47

bulletins and pulpit announcements trumpeted reports of phenomenal growth among congregations as reported in reputable publications.46 During this period, it was reported that the number of members and adherents in the United States approached three million.47 While substantial growth did no doubt occur, later investigation proved that the extraordinary numbers were “baseless estimates.”48 The Churches of Christ were eager to find positive news during this time, however, and members welcomed the information enthusiastically and repeated it interminably. The myth that the Churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious group in the United States was firmly entrenched.

As the mainline Churches of Christ grew numerically, they also grew in wealth and status. Before World War I, members of the Churches of Christ were predominately southerners, poor, rural, generally pacifist and almost totally sectarian in outlook.49 By the end of World War II, the Churches of Christ were building ornate and expensive buildings in large metropolitan cities and had surrendered their pacifist and isolationist positions.50 Some congregations recognized the power of radio, and then television, to evangelize the masses, and soon the Churches of Christ could boast of their own nation- wide television program.51 Several institutions of higher learning associated with the

46See Jeff W. Childers, Douglas A. Foster and Jack R. Reese, The Crux of the Matter: Crisis, Tradition and the Future of Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002), inset on p. 5; Royster, Churches of Christ, viii.

47Royster, Churches of Christ, viii. The term “adherent” refers to those attending, although not necessarily considered a member, such as children of adult members.

48Ibid.

49Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 145-151.

50Hughes and Roberts, Churches of Christ, 11-13.

51Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 239-244. 48

Churches of Christ made the transition from two-year to four-year colleges and then to university status.52 Several scholars who were members of the Churches of Christ earned doctoral degrees from prestigious graduate programs and won critical acclaim in their chosen fields.53 Although self-identification among the majority of members of the

Churches of Christ remained sectarian, it became obvious to some observers that the churches had become another denomination among many.54 These accomplishments conferred an aura of triumph and progress on the Churches of Christ.

The turbulent middle decades of the 1900s revealed conflicting developments in the Churches of Christ. This was a time of great strife and division, but also a time of significant growth. The absence of confession played a role in both of these outcomes, and the results solidified the Movement’s inability to create a confessional theology.

Lacking the essential component of confessionalism, the members of the Churches of

Christ could not admit their own failure in dealing with divisive individuals or with divisive issues. When presented with a point of disagreement, most members of the

Churches of Christ chose either to fight or to flee. A third option, to admit failure to achieve unity, and therefore to approach any question from a position of humility, was carefully ignored. Another significant factor involved the growth that occurred during this period that led many in the Churches of Christ to believe that their hermeneutic and

52These include Abilene Christian University (Abilene, TX), Oklahoma Christian University (Edmond, OK), Lubbock Christian University (Lubbock TX), David Lipscomb University (Nashville, TN), Harding University (Searcy, AR) and Pepperdine University (Malibu, CA).

53These include LeMoine Lewis (Harvard), Jack P. Lewis (Harvard, Hebrew Union College), Everett Ferguson (Harvard), Abraham Malherbe (Harvard), Thomas Olbricht (S.T.B Harvard), John Willis (Vanderbilt), Carroll Osburn (University of St. Andrews, Scotland).

54Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 2. 49

methodologies were identical to those of the New Testament disciples. The inflated growth rate that was reported supported this conclusion. Congregations praised God, but the praise exhibited a notable degree of arrogance. Most members regarded the idea of confession as being a negative one and therefore counter-productive for growth. As rational as the Churches of Christ had become, a counter-productive practice would simply not work.

Summary

The absence of a strong component of confession within the theological framework of the Churches of Christ grew from the philosophical foundations of Barton

Stone and the two Campbells and had significant implications for the Movement. The

Stone-Campbell Movement developed an ecclesiology that magnified the institutional church and minimized the eschatological kingdom of God. As the church increasingly became something that humans could control, the power of God was proportionately limited. These theological consequences created a number of practical implications. The idea that a human could perfectly restore something as profound as Jesus’s Church led to pride and arrogance. In addition, if the leaders had perfectly restored the Church, there would be no reason to look to the future. Indeed, one only had to look to the very recent past to validate that achievement. The recent past became a monument to human competence. At the critical points when each of these developments occurred, if a strong element of confessionalism been present, a different result might have resulted. However, the absence of a strong confessional stance virtually guaranteed the repercussions described above were to occur.

50

PART TWO

THEOLOGY

CHAPTER 3

LISTENING TO CONFESSION IN SCRIPTURE: A SURVEY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The preceding material demonstrated that a key feature of the Stone-Campbell

Movement was its plea to return to the text of the Bible as its sole source of authority.

This chapter surveys various types of biblical literature with the goal of classifying the main components of a theology of confessionalism. Because the book of Psalms presents the human response to God most directly, the main characteristics of confession found in the Psalms will be used as an outline for the chapter.

The Psalms

The book of Psalms provides the church with the broadest and deepest theology of confession. Hans-Joachim Kraus, after quoting Martin Luther’s opinion that the book of Psalms could be called a “little Bible,” wrote “In a similar way, the theology of the

Psalms could be called ‘a biblical theology in miniature.’”1 This evaluation is especially true concerning a theology of confession. Four modes of confession suggest themselves

1Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, trans. Keith Crim (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 12.

52

through a study of the Psalms: activities related to praise, thanksgiving, lament, and confession of sin.

Adoration, Praise, and Confession of Faith

The Psalms not only contain praise to God; they also define praise to God. “It is not coincidental that the Hebrew title for the Book of Psalms is tehillim, ‘praises.’”2

“Praise is not only a ‘category’ within the Psalter; praise of God sounds through all the

Psalms and rises even de profundis, out of the depths of tribulation.”3 Several characteristics of the Psalms provide a greater understanding of how the Israelites conceived the importance of praise, and therefore provide the foundation for a deeper understanding of praise for the modern church.4

First is the call, or exhortation, to praise. Psalm 148 provides the definitive example of this call. The psalmist called on all creation to praise God, beginning with the sun, moon, stars, and angelic beings, and continuing through the inanimate objects and animals of the earth and ending finally with humankind. Similar examples are found in

Psalm 29:1-2 and 96:11-13. In other Psalms the exhortation is generic, with no respondent specifically identified (Ps 112:1, 147:1, 149:1, 150:1). The psalmist frequently calls on all peoples or nations of the earth to offer their praise (Ps 47:1; 67:4;

2C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 124.

3Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, 69.

4In addition to Kraus and Bullock, above, for a fuller examination of these Psalms the standard reference is Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: Press, 1981). For additional studies see Ernest C. Lucas, A Guide to the Psalms and Wisdom Literature Exploring the Old Testament, vol. 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003) and Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984).

53

96:1; 7; 98:4; 99:1; 100:1; 117:1).5 The psalmist also calls on the special people of God to praise him, using terms such as “the righteous,” “us” or “the redeemed” (Ps 33:1; 95:1,

6-7; 107:1-3; 134:1; 135:1)6. Finally, the psalmist offered his own praise (Ps 34:1, 103:1-

2, 22; 104:1, 35). The exhortation to praise God is as vast as the heavenly beings and as intimate as the psalmist’s own soul. Nothing and no one escapes the call to praise God.

Claus Westermann characterized the Psalms of praise as being either

“descriptive” or “declarative.”7 Descriptive Psalms are those in which the psalmist praises God for his nature or being, or for his mighty acts in a generic sense. These

Psalms are commonly referred to as “hymns.”8 Among the many examples of this type of

Psalm are Psalms 8, 29, 33, 65, 93, 96, 100, 103, 104, 117, 134-136 and 145-150.9

One characteristic of these Psalms is the fact that the praise of God is frequently indirect. The praise is communicated by describing God’s awesome power or by describing the inability of human enemies to withstand God’s power. These Psalms are also designated as “Psalms of Trust” or “Psalms of Confidence” (Ps 2, 4, 11, 16, 23, 27,

62, 73, 90, 91, 93, 114, 115, 121, 123 - 126, 129, 131).10 Various passages of these

Psalms provide a catalog of God’s greatest promises, such as “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.” (Ps 23:1). This indirect expression of praise provides a

5Along with most scholars I am interpreting the phrase “all the earth” to be a metaphor for the inhabitants of the earth, that is, humankind.

6All Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version.

7Westermann, Praise and Lament, 31-34. For an opposing viewpoint see Lucas, Guide to the Psalms, 5.

8Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms, 158-167; Lucas, Guide to the Psalms, 11.

9Lucas, Guide to the Psalms, 11.

10Ibid. Also Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms, 165-176.

54

powerful instruction for praise. The Psalms of confidence provide the reader with a form of praise that is neither overt nor demanding. By expressing comfort and confidence in the great and powerful God, the psalmist encouraged praise and confession in a gentle, and yet powerful, manner.

One additional category of the Psalms, the “Torah Psalms,” further illustrates the concept of indirect praise. Psalms 1, 19, and 119 each identify the law as the primary object of praise. However, the ultimate object of adoration in these Psalms is not generic law, but the God who provided his specific law. Obviously every nation was governed by a set of statutes and ordinances, but none compared to those given by God. As these three

Psalms illustrate, the Israelites viewed the law as a precious gift, something that bestowed freedom and life, and as such was a direct link to a beneficent God. By praising the law the Israelites praised the law’s divine author.

The Psalms noted above demonstrate that genuine praise is an elevation of the object being praised and therefore a minimizing of the subject offering the praise. Praise is fundamentally an act of confession: a confession that someone or something is higher than the one offering the praise. The praise can be direct or indirect; its presence can be the result of formal exhortation or informal inspiration. All of God’s creation is worthy of praise and in turn all of God’s creation responds in praise to God.

Thanksgiving

Westermann’s second group of Psalms, the declarative Psalms, is Psalms in which the psalmist praises God for actions in the life of the individual or the nation as a whole.

55

Such Psalms are also referred to as “Psalms of Thanksgiving.”11 A common feature of these Psalms is the use of the first person pronoun, either “me,” “my,” “us,” or “our.”

Examples of this type of Psalm include Psalms 9, 10, 32, 34, 67, 92, 107 116, 118, 124, and 138.12

Although similar to the descriptive Psalms in that praise is given to God, in the declarative Psalms the psalmist recounts an event or action that occasions the praise. That event might be as narrow as the forgiveness of an individual sin, or it might be as broad as deliverance from a national calamity. The actual words of praise, however, are virtually identical to the words used in descriptive Psalms in that God is described as just, his judgments are righteous, and his mercies are beyond what the psalmist can ask or expect. Therefore, the individual, the nation, and indeed all of creation are called upon to praise the God who acts with love and concern for those who seek a relationship with him.

Lament

The Psalms of lament are the largest single category of Psalms, and provide a wealth of material for the study of confession. Claus Westermann listed twenty-three

Psalms as examples of the genre along with sections of more than thirty others.13 Artur

Weiser listed more than fifty Psalms that, partially or completely, express a complaint or

11Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms, 125-152; Lucas, Guide to the Psalms, 11.

12Lucas, Guide to the Psalms, 11.

13Westermann, Praise and Lament, 173-174, 181-194.

56

lament.14 Walter Brueggemann identified forty-six Psalms as “psalms of disorientation.”15 Richard Foster followed the work of A.A. Anderson in listing forty-five

Psalms of lament.16 The following list summarizes the Psalms generally agreed upon as containing a lament: Psalms 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 17, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43,

44, 51, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 102, 109, 123,

126, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143.

Westermann identified two characteristics that link lament and confession. First,

“The lament implores God to be compassionate to those who suffer. This is its function: to appeal to God’s compassion.”17 The second is that “There is not a single Psalm of lament that stops with lamentation. Lamentation has no meaning in and of itself…What the lament is concerned with is not a description of one’s own sufferings or self-pity, but with the removal of the suffering itself.”18 The faith of the Israelites was not merely responsive, nor was it magical (human incantation equals divine obligation); it was dialogical and therefore relational. God’s people cried out to him on the basis of their relationship to him as a covenant people, and he heard and responded as a covenant- making and covenant-keeping God. This relational aspect of the lament is a critical part of formulating a theologically valid and culturally relevant confessionalism.

14Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, trans. Herbert Hartwell (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962), 66-67.

15Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms, 19-23, 51-121. His complete list is found on page 187, note 21.

16 Richard Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home (New York: Harper One, 1992), 257 note 4, referencing A.A. Anderson, Book of Psalms vol. 1of The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E Clements and Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 38-39.

17Westermann, Praise and Lament, 264.

18Ibid., 266. I disagree with Westermann here, as Psalm 88 clearly ends in lament.

57

One issue related to the Psalms of lament is the imprecatory aspect of such

Psalms. Many Christians today share C.S. Lewis’s conclusion that, “The reaction of the

Psalmists to injury, though profoundly natural, is profoundly wrong.”19 Walter

Brueggemann likewise admitted that imprecation is “regressive.”20 However, he then made an important observation concerning the use of the laments by the faithful

Israelites:

While we may think this ignoble and unworthy, it demonstrates that in these psalms of disorientation, as life collapses, the old disciplines and safeguards also collapse. One speaks unguardedly about how it in fact is. The stunning fact is that Israel does not purge this unguardedness, but regards it as genuinely faithful communication.21

Thus, a contemporary view of confession should not shy away from the passionate language of imprecation simply because it is difficult or “regressive.” The imprecation was a significant component of the language of the psalmist, and should equally be a part of the theology of confession for the twenty-first century disciple.

The Psalms of lament played a major role in the spirituality of the ancient

Israelites. Whether individual or communal, primary or responsive, the Psalms played a significant role in the liturgy of the people. They were prayed to God, and as they were designed to produce a specific response from God. The lament was designed to arouse God to respond to a genuine need. The language of the lament was full of raw, sometimes vehement speech, but it was speech that communicated the reality of life.

Finally, the lament did not end as lament, but with praise, or a promise to praise when

19C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958), 26.

20Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms, 55.

21Ibid.

58

God answered the petition. As a reliable record of the trials and faithfulness of God’s covenant people, the Psalms of lament provide a valuable entry point in the formation of a theology of confession.

Confession of Sin

Three Psalms of lament communicate a confession of sin by an individual. Psalm

32, 38, and 51, along with Psalm 73 (mentioned above in reference to Psalms of confidence) connect a confession of sin directly to the lament, and make confession a prerequisite to the petition for restoration that the psalmist presents to God. As very few would challenge this component of confession, the comments on these Psalms will be limited to two.

First, the language of the psalmist is specific and self-accusatory. He acknowledged his actions as “sin,” “iniquity,” “transgression,” “foolishness,” and his thoughts as “stupid,” and “ignorant.” The psalmist made no effort to excuse his actions or offer alternative interpretations. There is obviously no equivalent to the modern behavior of assigning a psychological or genetic explanation to the sinful deed. Honesty and a measured degree of specificity are critical components of the confession of sin within the

Psalms. As is evident, not every single lurid detail of the besetting sin is revealed, but the guilt of the sin is surely exposed and the underlying thoughts and attitudes of the heart are laid open.

Second, the psalmist shared that he was under a great burden when he kept his sin hidden. The psalmist does not suggest that God was somehow unaware of the transgression, but that the effort involved in attempting to obscure the sin was simply too

59

much for the psalmist to bear. The unburdening of his soul accomplished two goals: it allowed God to “blot out,” “wash,” and “cleanse” him from his sin, and it also freed his own conscience from the weight of concealing the sin. Having experienced the release of both the guilt and the shame of the sin, the psalmist instructed all of God’s people to follow his example and confess their sins as well.

It may be valuable to note that, although the Psalms focusing on the personal confession of sin are few in number, the language used to describe the sin and the condition of the sinner is particularly vivid. The list of communal sins that preceded the calamities described in many of the declarative Psalms, together with the confessions of personal sin, reveal that for the psalmist there was no path to a right relationship with

God without an honest, contrite, and specific confession of sin.

Other Old Testament Literature

The Psalms held a position of prominence in the life and worship of Israel.

However, these songs and poems grew out of a spirituality that indicates an origin earlier than the time that many, if not most, of the Psalms were composed. The remaining literature of the Old Testament confirms that origin, as well as expanding upon the spirituality revealed in the Psalms.

Adoration, Praise, and Confession of Faith

The first recorded confession of faith in God was made by Abraham. Abraham’s acceptance of God’s promise was a pivotal event in the spiritual life of Israel and later the church (Gn 15:5-6, Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6, Jas 2:23). It is significant that Abraham did not speak words of faith until God challenged him to take the life of the one who was the

60

fulfillment of the promise.22 Abraham’s words “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen 22:8) are often overshadowed by the attempted of his son. Yet, this statement revealed Abraham’s faith before the attempted sacrifice.

Abraham’s confession demonstrated that faith does not depend on humans having the answers to God’s instructions, but that faith depends upon the willingness to obey those instructions.

The life of Joseph was also formative for the development of the spiritual life of the nation of Israel. This is demonstrated by the fact that the amount of material devoted to his life in the book of Genesis is second only to the record devoted to Abraham. Two statements made by Joseph are instructive concerning the subject of confession. First, in his response to the sexual advances made by the wife of his master Potiphar, Joseph made two declarations: he could not violate the trust his master had placed in him, and, more critically, any violation of that trust would be a sin against God (Gn 40:8-9). That declaration came to have deep significance for Israel as the events of King David’s adultery with Bathsheba unfolded (2 Sm 11-12) and David’s subsequent confession of sin in Psalm 32 and 51.

The second statement that Joseph made relating to confession involved the reconciliation with his brothers. Twice, in Genesis 45:4-8 and in 50:19-21, Joseph reassured his brothers that, although their motives were decidedly sinister, it was God who directed the events of their lives and, “God meant it for good.” Considering the trials that Joseph endured this statement is astonishing. The fact that the substance of the

22Some might suggest that in the negotiation with God over the destruction of Sodom, Abraham was speaking from a position of faith. However, from the context it appears that Abraham was simply trying to protect Lot and his family. He obviously believed in God’s grace, but his words were reticent, not declarative, and the situation he proposed was more hypothetical than actual.

61

declaration is repeated is evidence that the author of the narrative wanted subsequent generations to pay careful attention to the entirety of the confession. As a precursor to the message of the Psalms, Joseph’s story communicated the need for a purposeful humility in bringing praise to God.

Adoration, praise, and a confession of faith play a significant role within the legal literature of the Old Testament. The definitive passage for understanding the place of adoration and praise in the legal material of the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 6:4-5,

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your

God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”23 The setting of the command is crucial. The “first commandment” (as Jesus defined it in Mt 22:38) was spoken only after the reality of the essence of God was established (Dt 6:4, see also Ex

20:1-2, Dt 5:1-6). Walter Brueggemann commented,

Thus the shema of Deut. 6:4 is at the center of an Old Testament understanding of human personhood. It is important, however, to remember that shema in the first instant means “hear” before it means “obey.” Paul Ricoeur, in one of his early writings, observes that to listen is to concede that one is not self-made and autonomous. Listening – responding in obedience to another – is recognition that one is derivative and inherently connected to one who has the right to address.24

This “derivative” relationship creates the need for humans to express themselves to God in the form of confession.

Three subsequent passages in the book of Deuteronomy clarify Israel’s dependent relationship upon God. First, in chapter 7, Moses told the people that it was not because

23Gary Edward Schnittjer, The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 453-454.

24Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 460, note 25. Brueggemann does not provide a reference to Ricoeur’s statement.

62

they were more numerous than their enemies that God had chosen them, rather they were the fewest in number of any people and it was only because God loved them and honored his oath to their ancestors that they were being blessed (Dt 7:7-8). Second, Moses warned the Israelites against pride in their military strength, and told them that it was not because of their strength that they received the land. God was delivering them by his strength and thus honoring his covenant with their ancestors (Dt 8:8-18). Moses also warned the people against self-righteousness. He reminded them they were a “stubborn people” and were quite undeserving of the blessings that God was bestowing upon them (Dt 9:4-6).

Confession of God’s power, and therefore confession of human weakness, depends upon the realization that all the blessings of life have been provided by an all-powerful God.

One last group of texts includes instructions related to the assembly of all adult

Israelite males for sacrifice and worship three times a year (Ex 23:14-17; Lv 23:4-21). In these passages, there are no explicit commands for confession, but the passages state clearly that the purpose of the assemblies was for a time of worship, sacrifice, and celebration. The annual festivals and times of national worship reinforced to the Israelites that God was responsible for their well-being. In a manner similar to the indirect praise of the Psalms, the feasts acknowledged the dependence of the Israelites upon their God and expressed their joy in receiving his blessings.

Thus the major components of confession were established in a series of texts that did not refer to confession specifically. These texts defined the nature of God and established the relationship between the people and their God. Deuteronomy 6:4 forms the foundation of understanding confession, both for the Israelite and, by extension, for the Christian. The declarations in Deuteronomy 7, 8, and 9 further clarify the relationship

63

of God to his people, and forbid the people’s inclination to boast of any accomplishment or status beyond that of receiving the grace of God. All of God’s faithful people are bound to him through his loving providence, and the primary demand in return is that his people respond to him and to one another in love. Confession begins with a proper understanding of the nature of God, and humankind’s relationship to God and to one another.

Thanksgiving

The examples of thanksgiving in the narrative passages of the Old Testament rely heavily on the form of poetry. Poetry and song represent the pinnacle of human ability to express sustained joy, and therefore thanksgiving. The two clearest examples of songs of thanksgiving are the Song of Moses (Ex 15:1-18) and the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5:1-31).

These songs have obvious similarities to the Psalms of Thanksgiving. It is significant that in both of these songs, while the singers proclaim a great victory for Israel, the one who won the victory is clearly God. The songs are confessions to God’s power and benevolence, as well as giving thanks for his mighty act of deliverance.

In addition to these songs of national victory, there is a record of individual thanksgiving that is instructive regarding the concept of confession. The account of

Hannah is unique in the Old Testament. Hannah’s is one of the few female voices highlighted in the narratives of the Old Testament. Her story is also one of the few in the entire Bible in which her crisis, the depth of her emotions, the prayer for deliverance, and her thanksgiving, is so fully described (1 Sm 1:1-2:10). Her condition is described as one of “deep distress.” In her prayer she “wept bitterly.” She also described her condition as

64

being one of “affliction” and three times referred to herself humbly as a “maidservant” of

God (1 Sm 1:11). Following the birth of her son, Hannah said a prayer of thanksgiving that is remarkable for its spiritual depth and confessional orientation. Four aspects of

Hannah’s song stand out: the praise of God (1 Sm 2:1-2), the self-abasement suggested in v. 3, the personal reference to her infertility in v. 5, and the restoration that can be expected by God’s faithful people in vv. 4-10. After weaning Samuel, Hannah fulfilled her vow and dedicated him to God’s service. She demonstrated in both speech and action the essence of a confessional lifestyle.

Lament

The confessional passages of Jeremiah are among the best known examples of lament in the Old Testament. The laments are found in Jeremiah 11:18-23; 12:1-6; 15:10-

21; 17:14-18; 18:18-23; and 20:7-18.25 J.A. Thompson identified these passages as

“complaints against God,” and noted there is some significance to the fact that they are grouped in a cluster early in the book.26 In language that sounds foreign to the ears of modern Christians, Jeremiah unleashed a torrent of grievances and objections to God’s actions. In 11:19, Jeremiah compared himself to a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter” and in 20:7, he accused God of overpowering him in terms that suggest sexual exploitation.27

In 15:18, Jeremiah asked why his pain was “unceasing” and his wound “incurable,” and had the audacity to accuse God of being a “deceitful brook, like waters that fail.”

25For this section on Jeremiah I am indebted to J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), 349, 88-92.

26Ibid., 349, 27-29. They occur in chapters 11-20, although the exact reason for that clustering does not appear to be obvious.

27Ibid., 459.

65

Thompson’s observation that “the language verges on the blasphemous” appears justifiable. However, the intensity of the complaints is no doubt intentional, and Jeremiah did not escape without rebuke (Jer 11:21-23; 12:5-6; 15:19-21). The rebuke could be equally as pointed as the accusation: “If you have raced with men on foot, and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses?” (Jer 12:5).

A feature of Jeremiah’s complaints that echoes the Psalms is the imprecatory language he invoked against his enemies. In 12:3 he reversed the image of the lamb headed for slaughter (11:19) and called upon God to slaughter his enemies like sheep. In addition, in 18:21-23 Jeremiah uttered a number of imprecations reminiscent of the imprecatory Psalms, calling for God to destroy both the enemy and the enemy’s children.

As with the passionate language of the complaints, the prayers for the destruction of enemies are problematic for a modern culture that prides itself on the of opposing viewpoints. However, such bracing language is instructive concerning the depth of human emotions and the freedom that the prophet felt in expressing his emotions.

Confession, if it is to be honest and genuine, must include the rawest of passions, both positive and negative.

The book of Lamentations echoes these characteristics with piercing emotion. The author describes national and personal defeat with a poetic beauty that contrasts significantly with the bitterness of the loss. Imprecations are made against the victorious enemy. There is a lengthy call for repentance. However, two characteristics of the

Lamentations stand out in terms of separating them from the comprehensive list of complaints. First, there is an admission of the guilt that occasioned the fall of Jerusalem

(Lam 1:14, 18; 2:14). Second, there is a grand statement of faith and praise to a righteous

66

God (Lam 1:18; 3:21-39). The combination of these two characteristics make the book of

Lamentations a type of manual for the expression of Godly sorrow for sins that are being justly punished.

Confession of Sin

Many individuals in the Old Testament demonstrated the acknowledgment of sin,28 but one confession stands apart for its depth and intensity. In Ezra 9, certain Jewish officials informed Ezra of the moral laxity of some of the Jews who had returned to

Judah. Specifically, they had joined in marriage with surrounding pagan peoples, and their moral failing had affected their religious purity. In response, Ezra prayed one of the most intense confessions found in the Bible. First, Ezra admitted he was a member of a sinful people. Second, Ezra acknowledged the greatness of God. Third, there was no appeal to God for any remedy. This was a prayer of pure confession. Confession as exemplified in Ezra’s prayer magnifies God, is completely selfless, and asks for nothing in response.

A number of texts in the legal literature of the Old Testament relate directly to the confession of sin. One group includes instructions regarding confession of individual sin.

God commanded through Moses that an individual guilty of a sin was to make public confession of the sin. In addition to that confession, there was to be restitution for the sin

(if appropriate), and a sacrifice that would atone for the sin (Lv 5:5-6, Nm 5:7, c.f. Lv

28Aaron (Nm 12:11), Balaam (Nm 22:34), Achan (Jo 7:20-21), Saul (1 Sm 15:24), David (2 Sm 12:13), the people of Israel collectively (Nm 14:39-40), Nehemiah (Neh 1:4-11) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:11- 13) – obviously to a greater or lesser degree of sincerity. See also Jeremiah’s confessions, 3:22-25; 14:7-10 and 14:19-22.

67

4:1-12, 22-35). These texts constitute the most direct commands regarding the confession and forgiveness of individual sins in the Old Testament.

A second group of texts includes instructions regarding the confession of the sins of the community. On the annual Day of Atonement, the high was to make confession of the sins of the people over the head of a goat that he then released into the wilderness (Lv 16:20-22). At other times the leaders of the people were to bring a sacrifice to the , who would then make atonement for the people (Lv 4:13-21;

16:1-19).

The third group includes promises related to the confession and forgiveness of future sins. In Leviticus 26:40-45, God promises that, in the event of a future cataclysm brought about because of the persistent sins of the people, if they still could and would humble their hearts, confess their sins and “make amends” for the sins they committed, he would in turn forgive them.29 A key point in this passage is that God specifies that some form of restitution must accompany the humbling of the heart and the confession of the sin. This then is more similar to the confession of the individual sinner in Numbers

5:6.

The Old Testament legal codes made confession a requirement for the forgiveness of sin, both individual and communal. This material indicates that confession was deeply imbedded within the core of Israelite faith. Confession was not, therefore, a single act or even an annual occurrence. Confession described the daily existence of the people of

Israel.

29An interesting recurrence of this theme is found in 1 Kings 8:46-53, in Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the Temple. The expectation of forgiveness of future sins based on heartfelt repentance and confession was instilled deep into the Israelite mind.

68

The Old Testament reveals a portrait of the life of confession as broad as it was deep. The fullest expression of this confessionalism is found in the Psalms, but the main characteristics of adoration, declaration of faith, thanksgiving, lament, and acknowledgment of sin appear throughout the Old Testament. Confession began with the praise of God, but the acknowledgment of the holiness of God made the reality of human weakness evident. Sincere lament combined with confession of sin and a prayer for forgiveness. Joy in God’s forgiveness led the worshipper back into a position of praise and worship.

New Testament Literature

The New Testament relates the history of God’s chosen people in reference to the incarnation of God’s son, Jesus. With the exception of the new covenant language employed by Paul and the author of the book of Hebrews, the New Testament authors viewed their story as a continuation God’s promise to Abraham. It would be expected, therefore, to find the foregoing description of confession as seen in adoration, thanksgiving, lament and acknowledgment of sin to also be present in the New

Testament, although refined through the prism of the life of Jesus.

Adoration, Praise and Confession of Faith

Luke begins his gospel with two of the most eloquent examples of praise and adoration in the New Testament: the Magnificat of Mary (Lk 1:46-55) and the Benedictus of Zechariah, father of (Lk 1:67-79). Both songs of praise demonstrate close affinities with the Psalms of Israel. Both are unique in that instead of looking to a distant or even recent past, they point specifically to the immediate future and the new

69

work that God is inaugurating through the births of the children. Also significant is the fact that they both address a reversal of fortune for God’s people (Mary in Lk 1:51-53;

Zechariah in Lk 1:68-73). Thus, both songs illustrate the attitude of humble submission of the Psalms of the Old Testament.

Though not as lyrical as the Magnificat and the Benedictus, the doxologies of the apostle Paul punctuate his often-bewildering logic with brief expressions of ecstasy.

Foremost among these are the concluding doxologies to the doctrinal chapters in the letter to the Romans (Rom 11:33-36), the letter to the Ephesians (Eph 3:14-21), and 1

Timothy (1 Tm 3:16). Two facets of these adorations are noteworthy. First, although the statements appear at first reading to be spontaneous, from a rhetorical standpoint it is obvious that Paul placed them in these specific locations for a definite purpose. That purpose was theological. In a word of warning that could have been specifically addressed to heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement, John R.W. Stott identified this theological emphasis:

Worship without theology is bound to degenerate into idolatry. Hence the indispensible place of Scripture in both public worship and private devotion. It is the Word of God which calls forth the worship of God. On the other hand, there should be no theology without doxology. There is something fundamentally flawed about a purely academic interest in God. God is not an appropriate object for cool, critical, detached, scientific observation and evaluation. No, the true knowledge of God will always lead us to worship, as it did Paul. Our place is on our faces before him in adoration.30

Paul wanted his readers to avoid that slide into idolatry. His doxological outbursts, seemingly extemporaneous, were carefully crafted messages to remind all readers that the faithful disciple of Christ must never separate the head from the heart.

30John R.W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News For the World (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 311-312.

70

The seer John emphasized this connection between theology and worship repeatedly in the book of Revelation. In his vision he recorded the act of worship, the exhortation to worship God, or the warning not to offer false worship, no fewer than ten times (Rv 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4; 19:10; 20:4; and 22:8-9). As if to further emphasize the importance of worship to the true God, John condemned the worship of idols, demons, the dragon, the beast or the image of the beast an additional nine times (Rv 9:20; 13:4; 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11; 16:2; and 19:20). This is one of the central themes of the book of Revelation: faithful obedience in the face of trial and persecution through worship and praise permeates the entire book.

Two additional types of praise literature are found in the New Testament. First, in the book of Acts, Luke recorded several examples of the first Christians praising God. In

Acts 4:23-31, Luke recorded that when the apostles Peter and John had been released from the Sanhedrin’s imprisonment, they returned to their friends and immediately offered a prayer of adoration and praise, asking God to give them further strength and courage. Later, in Acts 16:25-34, Luke described the actions of Paul and Silas, who, although being imprisoned for healing a girl from a bothersome spirit, were “praying and singing hymns to God.” Luke’s telling of the story suggests that Paul’s and Silas’s worshipful behavior had evangelistic power, as Paul was able to turn a potentially catastrophic situation into the conversion of the Philippian jailor and his family. The fact that both of these scenes of worship occur in the context of persecution is remarkable. In addition, the sequence leading from persecution to worship to the advance of the kingdom of God is noteworthy. Luke communicated, sometimes in subtle, and sometimes

71

in not-so subtle ways, that praise can develop from any situation and will result in the growth of God’s kingdom.

The second type shares a greater similarity to Abraham’s confession of faith than the obvious confessions of adoration. Some examples would include, but not be limited to, the confessions of Peter and Martha that Jesus was the (Mt 16:16 and parallels, Jn 11:27), and the confession by Thomas that Jesus was Lord and God (Jn

20:28). Paul declared that the confession of Jesus as Lord was necessary for salvation

(Rom 10:9-10), and Paul reminded Timothy to live in accordance with the confession that

Timothy made (1 Tm 1:18-20, 6:12). Writers within the Stone-Campbell Movement frequently reference these passages in both polemic and in educational literature. This aspect of confession should be noted, to be sure, but it must not be allowed to become the sole, or even the primary aspect of confession. A confession of faith is but one sub-set of the larger category of praise and adoration of God, and must be understood in that context.

Thanksgiving

As in the Psalms, the expression of thanksgiving in the New Testament closely resembles that of praise and adoration. Paul opened each of his letters, except two, with an expression of thanksgiving to God that is deeply rooted in praise to him.31 In fact, Paul used the words translated “thank,” “thanks,” or “thanksgiving” no fewer than forty times

31The exceptions are Galatians and Titus. See Rom 1:8-10; 1 Cor 1:4-9; 2 Cor 1:3-7; Eph 1:3-14 (blessing to God) and 1:15-23 (thanksgiving); Phil 1:3-11; Col 1:3-7; 1 Thes 1:2-3; also 2:13; 2 Thes 1:3-4; 1 Tm 1:12-17; 2 Tm 1:3-7; Phlm 4-7.

72

throughout his letters.32 In addition to the simple connotation of being thankful, the Greek word had a greater liturgical meaning in the early Christian worship. It is from that usage that modern followers of the Stone-Campbell Movement can rediscover one of the most significant applications of the concept of confession.

The technical term , which was used to identify the commemoration of the Jesus’s last supper, originated from the word Matthew, Mark and Luke used to relate the events of his last meal with the disciples.33 Jesus took bread and blessed (Matthew and Mark) or gave thanks (Luke), for it and then gave thanks (all three writers) for the wine and distributed portions of each to his disciples. The “giving thanks,” eucharistēsas, transliterated and shortened to Eucharist, became the name for the ceremonial remembrance of that event. The importance of this event for the discussion of confession is amplified in Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The message Paul received from the Lord concerning the rite follows the language recorded in the gospel of Luke in one key respect: once in Luke and twice in the story as related by Paul, Jesus told his disciples to partake of the bread and wine “in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor

11:24-25). Then, as a summary, Paul added, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Here are two of the main components of confession as identified in the Psalms: remembrance of past redemption and proclamation of present and future blessings. Because an emphasis on the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper has been an issue of particular emphasis within the

32Eucharisteō, eucharistia, and charis. Note the root word, charis.

33Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries, 3rd ed., (Abilene, TX: ACU Press,1999), 93-94. See Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22-23; Lk 17-20.

73

Stone-Campbell Movement,34 a renewed effort to discern the fuller meaning of this

“remembrance and proclamation” as a component of confession becomes much more significant.

Lament

The one aspect of confession that was so prominent in the book of Psalms that appears muted in the New Testament is lament. In one respect this is to be expected. The psalmist voiced many of the laments because of the sense of God’s absence. In the New

Testament literature that feeling of abandonment had been erased by the presence of

Jesus the Christ, and later by the sending of the Holy Spirit. However, the idea of lament is not completely missing in the New Testament, and its rediscovery is critical for the renewal of a confessional theology within the Churches of Christ.

Jesus himself accentuated a lifestyle of healthy, spirit-induced lamentation in the opening verses of the Sermon on the Mount. In the opening verses of this sermon, Jesus blessed three characteristics of a spirit-filled life that focus on an absence of, or a voluntary renunciation of, human pride (Mt 5:3, 5-6). These verses bracket Jesus’s specific blessing of the ability to “mourn,” an act that often has been misunderstood. This sorrow is not caused by some physical loss or misfortune. As John Stott summarized, “It is plain from the context that those here promised comfort are not primarily those who mourn the loss of a loved one, but those who mourn the loss of their innocence, their

34Alexander Campbell, in his Christian System, devoted thirty-four pages to the discussion of “Breaking the Loaf.” Disagreements among Churches of Christ regarding the Lord’s Supper have primarily focused on the number of “cups” that are allowed, although minor skirmishes have erupted over the question of the propriety of taking the Lord’s Supper any time other than a Sunday, and, to a lesser degree, whether fermented or unfermented juice is commanded. Note the five different groupings of congregations regarding the practice of the Lord’s Supper in Royster, Churches of Christ in the United States, inside front cover.

74

righteousness, their self respect. It is not the sorrow of bereavement to which Christ refers, but the sorrow of repentance.”35 The presence of the does not remove the need for Godly sorrow, rather, his presence should intensify an awareness of unworthiness in the life of the Christian, and that unworthiness should drive the Christian to the spiritual catharsis of mourning.

The apostles Paul and John recorded instances where this appropriate, healthy mourning over the broken relationship between God and humanity was necessary. The first, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, involved the sexual sin of a member of the Corinthian congregation. Paul reprimanded the Corinthian Christians for their arrogance when he declared that they should have mourned instead. The reaction that Paul expected was, in fact, later demonstrated by the Corinthian Christians in response to this, or more probably, a more severe letter that Paul addressed to the congregation (2 Cor 1:23-2:11;

7:5-13). Paul stipulated two conditions that are necessary for the understanding of a

Godly sorrow. The goal is not sorrow itself, but the repentance that should necessarily flow from that sorrow (2 Cor 7:10). Also, a very real danger of “excessive sorrow” exists and must be averted by the forgiveness and restoration by the community (2 Cor 2:8-11).

Lament is not the ultimate goal, but the process that initiates spiritual healing.

In the second example, in his apocalypse John described a failure to demonstrate a

Godly lament, and examples of laments that only served to demonstrate the hardness of the hearts of those who had rejected God. John wrote to the church in Laodicea that, contrary to their self-evaluation, the congregation there was actually “wretched, pitiable,

35John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-Culture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 40-41.

75

poor, blind, and naked” (Rv 3:17). Recognition of this condition should have effected a response of the type of mourning of which Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount. By refusing to recognize their condition, the Laodicean Christians were unable to properly mourn. Later, John described the condition of those who did mourn, but for the wrong reasons and to no avail. As a result of three of the “bowls of the wrath of God” (Rv 16:1),

John recorded that men recognized their situation and “cursed God” but still refused to repent (Rv 16: 9, 11, 21). In addition, John wrote that three groups of individuals would

“weep,” “wail,” and “mourn” over the destruction of “Babylon the Great,” (Rv 18:9, 11,

15, 17). Once again, this mourning was not related to repentance, but was based on a loss of wealth and status. Pride and arrogance effectively prevents Godly lamentation. Far too many leaders within the Stone-Campbell Movement have demonstrated this reality.

The aspect of lament within the larger topic of confession is noticeably more subdued in the New Testament than in the Old Testament, and for good reason. The incarnation of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit were developments that significantly re-shaped the presentation of the new covenant in Christ. However, lament is not absent in the New Testament, and given the new and redemptive message of the gospel, the modern disciple of Jesus must devote careful attention to lament in order to fully embody a life of confession.

Confession of Sin

By far the one aspect of biblical confession that leaders of the Stone-Campbell movement did emphasize was that of confession of sin. This is true because the confession of sin neatly falls within the hermeneutic of command, example, and

76

necessary inference that developed within the Movement and was described in Chapter 1.

The command to confess one’s sins is found explicitly in James 5:1636 and implicitly in 1

John 1:9. A clear example of penitent believers coming forward to confess their faults is recorded in Acts 19:18-19. That confession of sin is a requirement for effective baptism is inferred from such passages as Matthew 3:6 and parallels.37 Everett Ferguson summarized the most common understandings of the primary role of confession of sin within the majority of Churches of Christ in America today: a prerequisite for an individual’s proper observance of the Lord’s Supper, a necessary component of prayer, and the restoration of a Christian who has either carelessly left the fellowship of the church or who has been intentionally removed from congregational fellowship.38 The assumption that confession of sin, along with the confession of faith in Jesus, comprise the sum total of the meaning of confession is clearly the most pervasive belief regarding confession within the Movement. While the combination of these aspects may be the most common within the New Testament, their identification as the totality of confession in the New Testament is imperfect. An appeal for the Churches of Christ to develop a fully biblical understanding of confessionalism must include, but must move beyond, this incomplete view of confession.

36Due to the requirements of proper English translation, an overlooked grammatical feature of James 5:16 is that the “one another” to whom the Christian is to confess is in the plural construction – Christians are to confess to “one another altogether,” or more smoothly, “everyone.”

37The appeal to John’s pre-Pentecostal baptism demonstrates the ability of some within the Stone- Campbell movement to carefully nuance a rejection of the specifics of the covenant that preceded the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2 with an acceptance of general principles that are not bound by time and culture, and therefore have been and are binding under all of God’s covenants with his people.

38Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 256-257, 266-268, and 386-389 respectively.

77

The constituent parts of a theology of confessionalism are as significant in the

New Testament as they are in the Old Testament. Adoration, confession of faith, thanksgiving, lament and the confession of sin are all present. The prevailing Stone-

Campbell hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference caused the

Movement to focus almost exclusively on the positive aspect of confession of faith in

Jesus and the negative aspect of the confession of sin. The aspects of adoration and thanksgiving, however, are equally prominent within the documents of the New

Testament, and lament, while not as conspicuous, is certainly not absent. The continued emphasis on a life of confessionalism in the New Testament, as introduced and described in the Old Testament, confirms the importance of developing a comprehensive theology of confession in the twenty-first century.

Summary

A survey of the Bible reveals a multi-faceted account of confession. Aspects of confession can be classified as adoration, praise, and confession of faith as well as thanksgiving, lament, and acknowledgment of sin. These features of confession are most clearly depicted in the Psalms, but they are also demonstrated throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The biblical evidence for the multiple acts of confession is especially important for the Churches of Christ, a tradition that claims to base all beliefs and practices on the teaching of Scripture. A church that claims to stand upon the foundation of Scripture must proclaim a theology that is built upon Scripture, and a theology that projects itself as a biblical theology must, therefore, be a confessional theology.

78

CHAPTER 4

HEARING THE CONFESSION OF OTHERS: A SURVEY OF CONFESSIONAL LITERATURE

With the death of the last living witness to Jesus the Church faced a crisis. Even within the first century, the disciples were confronting heretical teachings, the temptation for Christians to revert to previous beliefs and lifestyles, and questions involving the faith and practice of the Church. Increased political, economic, and other cultural changes forced subsequent generations to evaluate, and if necessary, modify the language they used and the traditions they practiced. Confession was one of the many facets of

Christianity that evolved over the next centuries. Although the major characteristics of confession never disappeared, the connotation of the term confession did undergo significant changes. The multi-faceted complex of statements known as confession was reduced to two primary meanings: the confession of faith, and the confession of sin. By the time of the German and Swiss Reformers this language had become codified. Formal

Confessions of Faith were elevated to a status just beneath Scripture and were the foci of debate and division. The act of going to confession meant the private disclosure of sin to an ordained church leader for the purpose of having sins absolved and permitting the

79

confessing member the right to participate in the Eucharist. This chapter will survey the most significant of the changes.

The Early

Those who followed the apostles most closely in time also followed most closely their forms of thinking. Within both the Eastern (Greek) and the Western (Latin) churches, apologists, and theologians maintained the meanings of the words for confession.1 The Church Fathers continued the simple declarations of faith and urged the acknowledgment of sins both preceding and following entry into the church.2 As persecutions arose and individuals gave their lives as a witness to Jesus Christ, their martyrdom became their “confession,” and their burial place a confessio.3

One connection between the early Church and the biblical practice of confession is the use of hymns and poetry to convey the content of the confession. Two examples are noteworthy. The first is the Odes of Solomon, a composition generally attributed to the early second century,4 and the second is the Greek Morning Hymn, also known as the

Gloria, an early fourth century composition.5 The similarity between these early

Christian hymns and the biblical doxologies is noticeable. The adoration of God is the

1Jean Leclercq, “Confession and the Praise of God,” Worship 42, no. 3 (March, 1968): 169-171. Job Getcha, “Confession and Spiritual Direction in the Orthodox Church: Some Modern Questions to a Very Ancient Practice,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51, nos. 2-3 (2007): 206.

2See the following for relevant quotations and discussion: Ferguson, Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries 3rd ed. (Abilene: ACU Press, 1987), 19-26. Also, Everett Ferguson, Inheriting Wisdom: Readings for Today from Ancient Church Writers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), 108- 109, 118-128.

3Leclercq, “Confession,” 170.

4Quoted in Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, 146.

5Ibid.,149. 80

primary purpose of the writing. The authors also freely admit their human frailties. The supplicant offered no excuses and praised God for deliverance he provided.

Another connection linking the post-apostolic Christians with their Israelite and apostolic forebears is their prayers. The theologian demonstrated this association in his treatise, On Prayer. He described four elements of prayer: praise to God through

Christ, thanksgiving for what God has done, “bitter accusation” against one’s own sins, petitions for “great and heavenly matters,” and once again, praise to God through Christ in the Holy Spirit.6 The similarity between these four elements (praise occurring both at the beginning and the end of the prayer) and the features of the Psalms listed above is obvious. This is another indication of how deeply the Hebrew psalmists shaped the piety of the early Christians. Everett Ferguson summarized the value of understanding the prayer life of the early Christians:

There is rich doctrinal content in the early prayers. They are a living confession of faith. They are deeply rooted in the great events of salvation, and they are closely related to the daily life activities and needs of the believers. There is a freshness, vitality, and reality about early Christian prayers. They are not mechanical or saying words. The closeness of God and the power of faith are real.7

The fact that the bond between the Christians of the patristic period and the faithful

Israelites and Christians as described in the New Testament is expressed through song and prayer should have special meaning to those in the Churches of Christ, as these two practices are central to the worship services in this fellowship.

The early church theologian most explicitly connected to confession is Augustine

(354-430), who would serve as bishop in the church at Hippo, North . His

6Origin, On Prayer, 33.1, as quoted in Ferguson, Inheriting Wisdom, 247.

7Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, 140. 81

collection of Confessions totaled thirteen books, and those confessions continue to have a significant impact on the spirituality of the Church. He began, appropriately enough, with a quotation of Psalm 144:3, and his introductory prayer continued throughout the first five chapters of book one.8

Augustine’s enduring accomplishment was the ability to communicate the theological truth of the “bivalent” nature of confession – that confession is both praise and admission of guilt – in language that is both captivating and convicting.9 Augustine’s great belief was that, regardless of how “foul” or “corrupt” his life had been he was certain of God’s forgiveness.10 Confession was obviously not for God’s benefit, as God was a witness to everything, even the hidden thoughts and desires of the heart.11 For

Augustine, confession benefited the redeemed sinner, as well as those who might learn from that confession. He wrote, “With what profit, therefore, O my Lord, to whom my conscience confesses daily, being more secure in the hope of Thy mercy than in its own innocence – with what profit, I ask, do I confess to men through these writings, in Thy presence, not what I have been but what I am.”12 Augustine praised God and acknowledged guilt as a redeemed sinner, and, as such, his Confessions remain a valuable instrument in the process of learning the skill of confession.

8Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. Vernon J. Bourke, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 21 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953).

9Ibid., 10, translator’s note 28.

10Ibid., 2.2.

11Ibid., 5.1, 10.2.

12Ibid., 10.3. 82

In the early centuries of church history, the one aspect of confession that did experience notable development was the area of church discipline, especially as related to the acknowledgment of sins following baptism. Initially, confession of sin was a public exercise and resulted in public reconciliation of the repentant sinner with the church community.13 Any period of , if necessary, was to be sufficiently lengthy and was focused on restoration of the sinner: it was to be “therapeutic.”14

This public event gradually became a private confession of sin to a single individual who would then suggest individual penitential actions and absolve the sin.15

Sociological and political factors pressed this change as much as, or perhaps more than, theological reflection. The “Constantinian evolution of Christianity,” in which the church came to be identical to the culture at large, “strained the practicality of the old public discipline when applied rigorously to all sins, especially those that were private and not public.”16 The result was the development of two models of confession: one was therapeutic and based more in terms of restoration to community, and the other was

“juridical” and based more on individual standing before God.17 Those models have implications that continue to the present time. Praise and thanksgiving remained the central aspects of the public worship of the Church, confession of sin and lament in

13Getcha, “Confession,” 206-207. See also Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, 177-187.

141 Corinthians 5:3-5; Getcha, “Confession,” 207.

15John C. Bauerschmidt, “The Godly Discipline of the Primitive Church,” Anglican Theological Review 94, no. 4 (Fall, 2012): 686. See footnote 8 for sources.

16Ibid., 687.

17Getcha, “Confession,” 208-209. 83

general increasingly became private practices with specific, individualistic applications attached to them.

The Medieval Era through the Reformation

The seventh through seventeenth centuries contain some of the richest and yet contradictory developments in Christian theology. At the beginning of this period, the

Church reacted against the encroaching threats of secularism with the establishment of the monastic orders. At the close of this era, there was an equally forceful reaction against the stratification of the Church, which returned much of the power of religious practices to the laity. Throughout this time of change, one of the disciplines that remained somewhat constant was the practice of individual confession and absolution.

The pivotal person in the development of was

(480-547). It was due to Benedict’s organizational power that the monastic system was able to flourish. It was perhaps also due to Benedict’s strictness that the role of confession within the monastic system, and eventually the entire Church, became rigid.

In the prologue to his Rule, Benedict offered this warning, “We are about to open a school for God’s service, in which we hope nothing harsh or oppressive will be directed.

For preserving charity or correcting faults, it may be necessary at times, by reason of justice, to be slightly more severe. Do not fear this and retreat, for the path to salvation is long and the entrance is narrow.”18 Benedict made the “slightly more severe” aspect of the rule plain in that, out of seventy-two “Instruments of Good Works” (chapter four of the Rule), only two have specific reference to practices that could be described as praise,

18St. Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, trans. Anthony C. Meisel and M. L. del Mastro (New York: Doubleday, 1975), Prologue. 84

and none specifically mention thanksgiving.19 Twenty-seven of the instruments begin with a prohibition, and Benedict worded a number of them to stress the ascetic nature of the monastic community.20 Benedict implied that confession, supplication, and the penance required for forgiveness were, in themselves, praise to God,21 but the specific aspects of praise and thanksgiving are noticeably absent from the pages of his Rule.

Not every monastic system, nor every monk, shared the austerity of St. Benedict.

The monastic reformer (1090-1153) was one who realized that confession encompassed the entirety of human interaction with God. Bernard wrote,

“True confessors, confess the Lord in all ways at once; be ‘covered with confession as with a garment’; even more, let all your inward being confess the Lord: by the confession of your sins and by the confession of divine praise, let your whole life confess him!”22

Some of the most simple and yet profound literature to come from a monastic setting came from the pen of Brother Lawrence, the seventeenth century Carmelite brother best known for his work, The Practice of the Presence of God. In that collection of devotions, Brother Lawrence explained how Christians are to worship in spirit and in truth. First, he wrote that such worship is worship that we owe God, in that we present to

19Ibid., chapter 4. Benedict begins with “To love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and adds as number 21, “To love Christ above all else.” It might be argued that number 41, “To put one’s trust in God” and number 42, “To attribute to God the good one sees in oneself” are positive behaviors and lean toward praise.

20Ibid. Number 10, “To deny oneself in order to follow Christ,” number 43, “To recognize that the evil in oneself is attributable only to oneself,” number 48, “To monitor one’s actions ceaselessly,” number 50, “To dash one’s evil thoughts against Christ immediately, and to reveal them to one’s spiritual advisor,” number 57, “To confess past sins to God daily in humble prayer and to avoid these sins in future,” and number 60, “To obey the abbot’s commands in all things, even if he strays from his own path, mindful of the Lord’s command: ‘What they say, do, but what they do, do not perform’ (Matt. 23:3).”

21Ibid., Prologue, chapters 4-5, 16, 44.

22Quoted in Leclercq, “Confession,” 175. 85

him “a true and humble spiritual worship in the very depth of our being.” Second, in such worship we “acknowledge Him to be what He truly is, and ourselves as what we truly are.” Third, to worship God in truth means that we “confess that we live our lives entirely contrary to His will.” Brother Lawrence concluded by asking, “Who will be guilty of the folly of withholding even for a moment the reverence and the love, the service and the unceasing worship, that we owe to Him?” 23 Bernard and Brother Lawrence illustrate that, even within the strict confines of a monastic order, confession and worship belong together.

It is in the writings of the mystics and teachers of the spiritual disciplines that the lifestyle of confessionalism reached its zenith. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), Julian of

Norwich (1342-1416), St. John of the Cross (1542-1591), and the author of the fourteenth century work The Cloud of Unknowing all emphasize the correlation between worship, praise and thanksgiving, confession of faith, and confession of unworthiness and sin. The following summary of the work of Ignatius is illustrative:

As a result, the “greater” praise or glory of God became the motivation which urged him on, and also the criterion by which he habitually made his decisions in deliberations about options he faced. In his usage, “glory,” “praise,” and “honor” to God are synonyms which constantly recur, and often they are linked with or imply “the service of God.” For instance, there are some 140 such occurrences in his Constitutions of the alone.24

A significant connection between Ignatius and the author of the Cloud of Unknowing is the emphasis on lament, especially in the description of sorrow and in the demonstration

23Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God, ed. Harold J. Chadwick (Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1999), 135-136.

24Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works, ed. George E. Ganss, S.J., (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991), 11. 86

of such sorrow in physical weeping.25 In both Ignatius and the Cloud, however, the lament is purgative; it is enlightening, and the process by which one is able to enjoy the blessings and the presence of God.

Among their many of doctrine and practice, Martin Luther (1483-

1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) sought to return the power of absolution in confession to the laity. Both Luther and Calvin identified three separate forms, or types, of confession, each with a different confessor in whose presence the confession was made.26 The first was confession to God, illustrated by the Psalms and commanded in 1

John 1:9, and was to be private. The second was confession to the person that had been hurt by the actions of the one who was seeking forgiveness, as taught by Jesus in

Matthew 5:23-24. The third type of confession was that which was commanded in James

5:16; confession that, especially in Calvin’s opinion, was to be mutual or reciprocal.27

Luther and Calvin emphatically rejected the of sacramental penance, whereby the clergy commanded church members to make private confession of all of their sins.28 Neither Luther nor Calvin was opposed to the practice of private confession,

25Ibid., 238-270, especially the explanatory note number 5, p. 437. Note that much of Ignatius’s weeping is a joyous weeping. See also, Cloud of Unknowing, ed. James Walsh, S.J. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1981), chapter xliv, 203-205.

26Martin Luther, “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics” trans. Frederick C. Ahrens, in Luther’s Works vol. 36, Word and Sacrament II, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), 354-360. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1541 edition, trans. Elsie Anne McKee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), 286-288.

27Calvin, Institutes, 284.

28Martin Luther, “Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses” trans. Carl W. Folkemer in Luther’s Works vol. 31, Career of the Reformer I, ed. Harold J. Grimm (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), 85. 87

and Luther in particular defended the practice.29 However, for Luther and Calvin the practice should be voluntary and for the purpose of gaining advice and assuaging the conscience.30 Both Luther and Calvin recognized the importance of reviving the therapeutic nature of confession, while maintaining the juridical aspect of a sinner’s forgiveness by God.

It was during the Protestant Reformation that the terms confession and confessionalism received a highly focused technical meaning. In addition to the biblical and sub-apostolic confession of faith in God and Jesus, and the penitential confession of sin, there emerged the specific “Confession of Faith” by which individuals identified their understanding of the true faith.31 Subsequent to the Reformation, when confession or a related term is used the reader must ascertain its immediate context. The term might be used generically, as in reference to confession of sin, or of a faith in God or Christ.

The term might also be used in reference to a specific document that identified a particular tradition of believing Christians.

Modern Reflections on Confession

The religious fervor of the fifteenth through eighteenth centuries, combined with the societal changes brought about by the industrial and political revolutions, generated

29Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” trans. A.T.W. Steinhäuser, rev. Frederick C. Ahrens and Adel Ross Wentz, in Luther’s Works vol. 36, Word and Sacrament II, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), 86.

30Ibid. See also Calvin, Institutes, 284.

31There is a substantive difference between creeds and Confessions of Faith. The former tend to be more fixed, shorter, and in some cases carry as much weight as Scripture itself. Classic examples are the Old Roman Symbol and the Apostles . Confessions of Faith are longer, more fluid in terms of revision, and tend to bear less authoritative weight. Examples are the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Westminster Confession (1646) and, of special importance to this study, the Barmen Declaration (1934). 88

an increasing emphasis on the spiritual life of the individual Christian which continues to the present time. Spiritual guides from all major branches of Christianity have blurred or erased the lines of ecclesial division: Roman Catholic (Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen),

Anglican (C.S. Lewis), Baptist (Dallas Willard), Quaker (Richard J. Foster), and

Reformed (Eugene Peterson), are just a few of the authors who specialize in the development of the spiritual life. Entire programs of spiritual development have been recast from one church tradition into another.32 Two general observations regarding confession and confessionalism can be drawn from this wealth of material.

The first is that modern authors frequently maintain the bifurcation that views confession as either an aspect of the larger complex of worship practices (therapeutic), or as a purely individualistic practice that has no immediate relationship to corporate worship (juridical). Some authors view confession as being separate and apart from other forms of spiritual disciplines, while others link the practice of confession with the related practices of worship in varying degrees. These differences in approach demonstrate the fluidity of the concept of confession, even among those who share a common understanding of the practice.

In her book, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook: Practices That Transform Us,33

Adele Ahlberg Calhoun started with the discipline of worship. Within this larger

32Alex Aronis, Developing Intimacy With God: An Eight-Week Prayer Guide Based on Ignatius’ “Spiritual Exercises” (Makati City, : Union Church of Manila Phils. Foundation, Inc., 2002). Aronis modified the Roman Catholic language found in Ignatius to make his Exercises more understandable, and perhaps more acceptable, to a non-Roman-Catholic audience.

33Adele Ahlberg Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook: Practices that Transform Us (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005). Calhoun uses the acronym WORSHIP as the organizational key for her book: W = worship, O = open myself to God, R = relinquish the false self, S = share my life with others, H = hear God’s word, I = Incarnate the love of Christ, and P = pray. While a clever mnemonic device, this structure does invite some classifications that seem more forced than biblical. 89

category, she listed the related topics of celebration, gratitude, Holy Communion, rule for life, Sabbath, and formal worship.34 She did not address the spiritual discipline of confession until her third section, entitled “Relinquish the False Self.” For Calhoun, confession included self-examination, detachment, discernment, secrecy, silence, solitude, spiritual direction, and submission.35 Calhoun’s handbook is a valuable introduction and guide to the practice of the spiritual disciplines. This method of organization of the various spiritual disciplines for the purpose for which Calhoun produced her “handbook,” is a convenient approach. However, such a method does have a weakness in that it tends to atomize the various disciplines and obscure the necessary links between the various disciplines.

One author within the Churches of Christ who has addressed the practices of the spiritual disciplines is Darryl Tippens.36 Tippens began by specifying that he was writing about a particular type of Christian spirituality, one he labeled “incarnational,” that addressed the “embodied and communal” nature of Christian living.37 Tippens was emphatic about the importance of community: “From the beginning Jesus meant for us to go together, and church is a name for the group of people who follow Jesus together.”38

However, in his chapter on confession Tippens focused primarily on confession made by

34Ibid., 25-46.

35Ibid., 89-120.

36Darryl Tippens, Pilgrim Heart: The Way of Jesus in Everyday Life (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2006).

37Ibid., 13-14.

38Ibid., 27. 90

the individual.39 Although he noted correctly that, “The Bible teaches public and shared confession,” he then concluded, “Twenty centuries later we must still find appropriate and effective ways to confess to one another; and therein lies a challenge.”40 The problem, according to Tippens, is that large assemblies are not “necessarily spiritually or psychologically safe.”41 His solution was to promote individual confession among small groups, where each person has joined in a covenant, and confidentiality can be maintained.42

Tippens’s observations point to a deeper problem. If a worship assembly is

“spiritually and psychologically” unsafe, that is itself a condition that demands confession and repentance. While Tippens does address the need for an individual to confess to more than a single individual, he fails to note that there is a need for public, communal confession as well.

Tippens’s book fills a significant need, especially within the Churches of Christ.

He was more deliberate about the inclusion of community than was Calhoun, although remaining reticent about involving the entire assembled church body. Because Tippens is a member of the Churches of Christ his words have a resonance among the descendants of the Stone-Campbell Movement, and his work will be especially valuable for individuals and congregations of Churches of Christ in deepening the practice of confession.

39Ibid., 99-111.

40Ibid., 108.

41Ibid.

42Ibid., 109. 91

Among the authors who connect confession to a corporate experience, three in particular stand out. The first is Richard J. Foster who included confession as one of his

“corporate” spiritual disciplines, which also involved worship, guidance, and celebration.43 Although he devoted attention to one-on-one confession, Foster correctly noted, “In acts of mutual confession we release the power that heals. Our humanity is no longer denied, but transformed.”44 Foster failed to highlight the plural nature of the “one another” to whom confession is to be made when he quoted James 5:16, but did stress the communal aspect of confession and forgiveness through our “Brothers and sisters [that] stand in Christ’s stead and make God’s presence and forgiveness real to us.”45 In these statements, Foster revealed his connection with both the biblical record and the evidence of the early church fathers.

A second modern author to link the practice of confession to the corporate assembly was Dallas Willard. He divided the spiritual disciplines into two categories: those of abstinence and those of engagement.46 In the latter category he lists study, worship, celebration, service, prayer, fellowship, and submission, in addition to confession. Willard summarized his view of worship: “In worship we are ascribing greatness, goodness, and glory to God. It is typical of worship that we put every possible aspect of our being into it, all of our sensuous, conceptual, active, and creative capacities

43Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth (New York: HarperCollins, 1978), 141-201.

44Ibid., 146.

45Ibid., 147.

46Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God (New York: HarperOne, 1997), 417-418, note 18. 92

. . . Worship nevertheless imprints on our whole being the reality that we study. The effect is a radical disruption of the powers of evil in us and around us.”47 It is only through the process of confession that the Christian is able to make those declarations and to disrupt those powers of evil. As Willard recognized, the primary place for all of this to occur is within the corporate worship assembly.

A third author to connect confession to a corporate discipline, James C. Wilhoit, skillfully related confession to the broader aspects of corporate worship in his book,

Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered.48 Referencing Psalm 34, Wilhoit noted,

“Confessions of brokenness regularly occur in the immediate context of petitions for

God’s rescue or confessions of faith in God.”49 Referring to worship as “advanced intimacy,”50 Wilhoit drew the necessary link between worship and confession:

Worship plays a crucial role in shaping a formative vision for Christians. This formation can only come when the worship is truly centered on God and not simply done as a means toward the end of formation. One of the great obstacles to growth that many people experience is their limited or distorted view of God. It is in truly creative and engaging worship that we not only confess what is true about God but also experience God and learn firsthand of his character. Another aspect of worship so crucial to spiritual formation is that of confession and repentance. The Greek word for confession is homologeō and it literally means “to say the same thing.” When we speak of confessing our faith or confessing sins, we are acknowledging that, to the degree possible, both we and God are saying the same thing.51

47Ibid., 363.

48James C. Wilhoit, Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered: Growing in Christ Through Community (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).

49Ibid., 70.

50Ibid., 98.

51Ibid., 85-86. 93

Much of the therapy that Wilhoit suggested in terms of spiritual formation for the church is radical, but because he identified the clear relation between confession and the totality of worship, his prescription is sound and helpful.

Confession and the Emerging Church Movement

Late in the twentieth century another church reformation movement appeared both in Europe and the United States. Broadly identified as the emerging church movement, it is markedly different from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, yet branches of the two movements share some surprising characteristics; characteristics that followers of each movement would likely be loathe to admit. Many who promote the emerging church reveal attitudes similar to the Stone-Campbell restorationists who refused, or found it impossible, to incorporate confession into the life of the assembly or the individual. The areas where the emerging church shares common weaknesses with the

Stone-Campbell Movement will be identified, with a view to allow both movements to learn from and, if possible, to strengthen each other.

Those who attempt to define the emerging church admit that theirs is a difficult task.52 Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger defined the emerging church as “missional communities arising from within postmodern culture and consisting of followers of Jesus who are seeking to be faithful in their place and time.”53 Later they specified, “Emerging

52Tony Jones, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), 40.

53Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 28.

94

churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern times.”54 Ray

S. Anderson added that such churches are “missional,” “reformational,” “stress kingdom living,” and are “incarnational.”55 Others who have discussed aspects of the emerging church movement are Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, David E. Fitch, Donald Miller,

Spencer Burke and Robert E. Webber.56 While varying slightly in their individual perceptions, these authors agree that the movement is fluid and resistant to unequivocal classification.

The one universally accepted component in understanding the emerging church movement is the concept of “postmodernity.” The foundational principles of the philosophy identified as Postmodern or Postmodernism provide insight into the question of how the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the emerging church movement can be so disparate and yet in some aspects so similar. First, however, it is crucial to understand the underlying principles of Modernity. Stanley Grenz identified five principles that defined the Age of Enlightenment, the period that had the greatest

54Ibid., 44.

55Ray S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 16. Anderson draws a finer distinction between “emergent” and “emerging” than do many. Referencing Dan Kimball, Anderson uses the former in reference to “theological change,” and the latter as practical change as illustrated by “rethinking church and ecclesiology as any would as we enter new cultures.”

56Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001) and A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); David E. Fitch, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church From Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism and Other Modern Maladies (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005); Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003); Spencer Burke, Making Sense of Church: Eavesdropping on Emerging Conversations About God, Community, and Culture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999). 95

influence upon the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement. 57 The principles were: reason replaced revelation as the final arbiter of truth, the elevation of nature and natural law over specific revelation, the autonomy of the individual over and above the community, a belief in an identifiable harmony to everything in the universe, and a belief in continual progress.58

Several characteristics of Postmodernism stand in stark contrast to Modernism.

First, postmodernism exudes a sense of pessimism in the ability of human reason to solve all of humanity’s problems.59 Postmodern adherents no longer assume that pure rationality is the solution to the problems that rationality created. A second characteristic of Postmodernism is the comprehension of truth.60 The idea of a monolithic, eternal truth is rejected, and whatever truths that might exist are all creations of time and circumstance, and are therefore transitory. Third, there is a shift from a well-defined hegemony to relativism and pluralism.61 Diversity is praised; authoritative power, especially hierarchical or patriarchal power, is scorned. Fourth, Postmodernism intensifies the value of community.62 A new tribalism has replaced the emphasis on the individual as seen in Modernity.

57Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 57- 81, see especially 67-71.

58Ibid., 68-70.

59Grenz, Primer, 13; Heath White, Postmodernism 101: A First Course for the Curious Christian (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 49; R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2005), 31-32.

60Grenz, Primer, 14; White, Postmodernism 101, 50; R. Scott Smith, Truth, 32.

61Grenz, Primer, 14; R. Scott Smith, Truth, 32.

62Grenz, Primer, 15; R. Scott Smith, Truth, 18; White, Postmodernism 101, 73. 96

Although the philosophical foundations of the two movements diametrically oppose each other, the emerging church has the potential to end up collapsing on the same faults that troubled much of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Three observations in particular support this conclusion. First, the most obvious similarity between the Stone-

Campbell Movement and the emerging church is a disturbing lack of historical awareness. As with the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement, there are numerous references to the New Testament practices and to “ancient,”63 “vintage,”64 or

“apostolic”65 Christianity, but leaders of the emerging church virtually abandon the greater part of Christian history. Several reasons for this omission are given: the

Constantinian power structures, the paternalism of the early and , the esoteric (and often contentious) debates on the definitions of Greek terminology. All of these issues vex Postmodern sensibilities. Nevertheless, whether the history of the

Church is excluded because of issues of doctrine (as with the Stone-Campbell

Movement) or issues of philosophical disagreement (the emerging church), the result is the same. A church that has no sense of its history is incapable of owning the positive advances of its history and of confessing the errors of its history. Such a church cannot confess the mighty works of God on its behalf, and cannot confess its own failures and human weakness. The Church that seeks to be truly faithful to the entirety of God’s activity in the world must recognize and own the entire history of the Church.

63 Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 25-38.

64Kimball, Emerging Church, 99-254.

65Anderson, Emergent Theology, 28-32. 97

Second, the denial of, or rejection of, the concept of an eternal, universal truth is no healthier than the assumption that an individual can apprehend every aspect of that universal truth. Many of the emerging church leaders have so broadly defined “truth” or

“orthodoxy” that the words have lost their value. For example, the extended title of Brian

McLaren’s seminal book on the emerging church is revealing: “Why I am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/Calvinist + anabaptist/Anglican + methodist

+ catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished

CHRISTIAN.”66 If words and the ideas they represent are to have any substantive meaning, the combination of opposing terms that McLaren attempts to unite in this book is simply impossible.67 If there is no timeless, comprehensive truth, that truth cannot be confessed, nor can it be determinative for a person’s life. The many confessions of faith and failure throughout Scripture are testimonies to the reality of not just one, but many, eternal, universal truths. The pride of humans in claiming there is no ultimate truth is no more legitimate than the claim to own every conceivable aspect of the truth. Ultimately both errors fail for the same reason: an arrogant pride in the ability of human nature and reason to provide guidance in matters of God’s Spirit.

The third similarity between the Stone-Campbell Movement and the emerging church movement is the presence of an institutional pride and arrogance. Once again, pride comes from opposing sources, but the result is identical. Descendants of the Stone-

66McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, punctuation and capitalization in the original.

67Among the many respondents to McLaren, see D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 157-182. 98

Campbell Movement have been accused correctly of ecclesiastical arrogance and doctrinal hyper-purity. However, it is just as possible to be arrogant in denying claims of orthodoxy as it is to be arrogant in claiming to guard that orthodoxy. A dogmatic universalist is no less dogmatic than a convinced Arminian or Calvinist. Pride knows no philosophical or theological boundaries. Those who fall prey to this form of pride make it impossible to confess the true nature of God and to confess their own weakness.

Summary

One weakness of the Stone-Campbell Movement has been a neglect of the wisdom of the Christian centuries. This has created a void of examples of confession within the education system of the Churches of Christ. The uniform message from many different theological perspectives promoting all forms of confession is an indication that confession has always been a critical component of any Christian theology. An examination of how Christians have taught and practiced confession provides valuable insights for the process of restoring confession to the individual members and congregations of the Churches of Christ.

An examination of the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement combined with a study of Christian history also provides a necessary caution concerning the emerging church movement in the United States. While the emerging church movement shares several key concerns with the Stone-Campbell Movement, it also shares some key weaknesses. If the emerging church does not address those weaknesses, it is not only possible, but also highly likely, that the future of the emerging church will resemble the past decades of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Conversely, if the members of the

99

Churches of Christ emphasize the movement’s core values as they relate to concerns expressed by the proponents of the emerging church, and if they create a strong component of confessionalism as well, they will be able to have a valuable position in the conversation of those concerned about the future of the Church.

100

CHAPTER 5

A CASE STUDY: DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AND THE CONFESSION OF A CONFESSING PASTOR

All theological discussions have the potential to become so esoteric as to lose all connection to practical life. One method for a religious group to recognize their formative history is to center current theological discussions in actual experience. Confession, in all of its various forms, is clearly a biblical doctrine. Throughout history, theologians have advocated the practice of confession and have reflected on its benefits. One theologian in particular, however, rises above all others in this regard for a number of reasons. One is the proximity of his historical era to the present time. A second reason for his prominence in this discussion is the extreme circumstances under which he lived. His thoughts concerning confession and the life of confession that he lived are both informative and inspiring. His name is Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The Importance of Confession in Germany, 1933-1945

Born in 1906, Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in one of the most turbulent and formative eras of modern culture. He was eight years old when the war to end all wars erupted, and he died at the age of thirty-nine just weeks before the war after that war

101

ended. Perhaps no modern theologian has received as much attention as has Bonhoeffer.1

Because the main events in Bonhoeffer’s life have been so thoroughly analyzed, only those events that have a direct bearing on Bonhoeffer’s theology and practice of confession will be discussed here.

The brief but disastrous series of events that propelled Bonhoeffer into a position of leadership within a separatist church in Germany began when German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler to the position of Chancellor on January 30,

1933.2 On February 27 the Reichstag building (seat of German government) burned under suspicious circumstances, and the next day Hitler enacted the “Reich President’s

Edict for the Protection of People and State,” abolishing all personal rights hitherto protected by the German Constitution.3 In quick succession Hitler was able to get the

“Malicious Practices Act” (March 21) and the “Enabling Act” (March 23) ratified, which effectively gave him absolute control of the government.4 Then, on April 7, the German

Parliament passed yet another law, the “Law on the Reconstruction of the Professional

Civil Service,” which contained a paragraph that would alter the shape of the Church in

Germany, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life as well. This was the “Aryan Clause” which

1In addition to the magisterial biography by Bonhoeffer’s friend Eberhard Bethge, published in English in 1970 and revised in 2000, at least three additional biographies have been published in the past five years. See Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography trans. Victoria J. Barnett, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010); Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance trans. Isabel Best (New York: T and T Clark, 2010); Charles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014).

2Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 114. Schlingensiepen has an interesting evaluation of why Hitler was appointed to the position, and how the decision to do so became so wrong.

3Bethge, Bonhoeffer, 263.

4Ibid., 266-268. 102

dictated the removal of any non-Aryan from a state-supported career.5 Because of all the official German churches received their salaries from state-imposed taxes, this meant that no pastor with any Jewish lineage could remain in his congregation.

Bonhoeffer’s friend and eventual biographer, Eberhard Bethge, noted that Bonhoeffer was among the first, if not the first, to identify this Aryan Clause as the defining issue confronting the German Church.6 As Bethge remembered Bonhoeffer’s reaction, “His energies were wholly consumed in the fight against the Aryan clause. He believed that only if everything were staked upon this one point would the Gospel worthy of proclamation be revealed.”7

The ramifications of the political actions of Hitler and the efforts of the Christians who supported Hitler and the National Socialist agenda came to a climax on September

5-6, 1933 at the Old Prussian General Synod, held in Berlin. This synod came to be known as the “Brown Synod” because many of the delegates appeared in brown military uniforms.8 Delegates supporting the National Socialists controlled the synod, and the results were predictable: no debate concerning a Confession of Faith was allowed, the church constitution was annulled, and the longstanding structure of provincial churches

(totaling 28) was replaced by one with ten bishoprics, with Bishop Ludwig Müller at the head. Finally, the “Church Law on the Legal Position of Clergy and Church Officials”

5Ibid., 272; Schlingensiepen, Bonhoeffer, 121.

6Bethge, Bonhoeffer, 272.

7Ibid., 276. This evaluation has been challenged. See Stephen R. Haynes, The Bonhoeffer Legacy: Post-Holocaust Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006) for a thorough discussion. It is my position that Bethge is correct, and that critics do not adequately take Bonhoeffer’s situation fully into account when they parse every word and phrase in the writings concerning the Jewish question independently.

8Bethge, Bonhoeffer, 306; Schlingensiepen, Bonhoeffer, 136-137. 103

was adopted, and absolute support for the National Socialist regime was demanded.9 In response to this synod a group of approximately twenty pastors created the Pastor’s

Emergency League, an association initially designed as a method of opposing the changes being made to the church law, but also served to take care of pastors dismissed from their congregations.10 This association was the beginning of what became the

Confessing Church in Germany.

In January 1934, Bishop Müller enacted the notorious “muzzling decree” a ban on the public discussion or distribution of any printed materials related to the dissension in the church.11 Thus, in the space of just one year, Germany witnessed the elevation of what would become a brutal dictator, the suppression of all constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the banning of all public dissent even in the realm of the Church, and the disestablishment of entire ethnic groups. At the center of this maelstrom was a small, but committed, group of pastors who refused to allow the State to control the Church. These men built their resistance upon a confession of the authority of the Scriptures, the wisdom of conciliar Confessions of Faith, and a profound faith that God would protect his

Church. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who turned twenty-eight years old in February of 1934, was one of those prophetic leaders.

Confession in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Writings

The words Dietrich Bonhoeffer employed in his native German regarding confession suffer a slight modification when translated into English. The words Beichte

9Schlingensiepen, Bonhoeffer, 137.

10Ibid.

11Bethge, Bonhoeffer, 340. 104

and Bekennen both have “confession” as their root meaning, but their theological implications are more specific. The word Beichte corresponds to “confession of sin” and

Bekennen corresponds to “confession of faith.”12 The editors of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Works in English (DBWE) remove any problems in translation by informing the reader of the correct word if the context is confusing. A third use that Bonhoeffer makes of the terms for confession is in reference to the “confessional writings” of the Confessing

Church. The manner in which Bonhoeffer used each of these terms is critical to understand his expansive theological insights into confession. This chapter will focus on

Bonhoeffer’s repeated emphasis on confession as necessary for the forgiveness of sins, the connection he made between confession and worship, the link he made between confession and church identity (the confessional writings), and how Bonhoeffer applied his theology of confession in his sermons. The chapter will conclude with an examination of how Bonhoeffer’s theology of confession should influence the Churches of Christ.

Confession and the Forgiveness of Sins

For Bonhoeffer, confession of sin was a “necessary” act.13 However, this was not a legalistic necessity, it was based on the appropriation of God’s grace,14 participation in

12Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theological Education Underground: 1937-1940, English ed. Victoria J. Barnett, trans. Victoria J. Barnett, Claudia D. Bergmann, Peter Frick, and Scott A. Moore, vol. 15 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 308 editor’s note #2.

13 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work: 1931-1932, English ed. Victoria J. Barnett, Mark S. Brocker, and Michael B. Lukens, trans. Anne Schmidt-Lange, with Isabel Best, Nicolas Humphrey, and Marion Pauck, vol. 11 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 317.

14Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship, English eds. Geffrey B. Kelly and John D. Godsey, trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss, vol. 4 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 271.

105

it was a joy,15 and reception of the results a miracle.16 Confession for the purpose of receiving absolution was a topic that Bonhoeffer approached in a variety of settings, whether in informal daily correspondence, formal academic lectures, or homiletically through sermons. Although no one single quotation can adequately provide a summation of Bonhoeffer’s extensive thoughts on the importance of the practice of confession of sin, two quotations do demonstrate Bonhoeffer’s identification of confession of sin as being of critical importance to the life of the individual Christian and the Church. The first comes from his doctoral dissertation, where he stated in a footnote, “It should be added that I consider it the most important task for today to make private confession once again a living source of strength for the church-community.”17 The second quote comes from his unfinished work Ethics, “Shame can be overcome only by being put to shame through the forgiveness of sin, which means through the restoration of community with God and human beings. This takes place in confession before God and before another human being.”18 Throughout his life Bonhoeffer returned frequently to this fundamental topic of confession.

As with the majority of his writings, Bonhoeffer’s reflections relating to confession demonstrate remarkable consistency throughout his life. The most concise presentation of these reflections is found in the powerful summation and apologetic of

15Bonhoeffer, Theological Education Underground, 278-279.

16Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Berlin: 1932-1933, English ed. Larry L. Rasmussen, trans. Isabel Best and David Higgins, vol. 12 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 293.

17Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church, English ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens, vol. 1 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 248 Bonhoeffer’s original note n. 117.

18 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, English ed. Clifford Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 6 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 306. 106

Bonhoeffer’s years with the Finkenwalde seminarians entitled, Life Together.19 In the concluding chapter of that book entitled, “Confession and the Lord’s Supper,”

Bonhoeffer summarized much of the material on confession that he presented to the seminarians in lectures on pastoral care.20 Bonhoeffer identified four “breakthroughs” that confession provided: breakthroughs to community, to the cross, to a new life, and to assurance.21 He emphasized that confession must involve the naming of actual,

“concrete” sins,22 something that he demonstrated with brutal honesty concerning the

Confessing Church of Germany during the Nazi regime.23 Bonhoeffer was adamant that, although the church specifically called the pastor to hear confession, any Christian could hear the confession of a fellow Christian, so long as he or she was living “beneath the cross,” that is to say living a life of confession.24 Bonhoeffer concluded with a discussion of two dangers of confession. The first of these is a danger that the one who hears the confession might be tempted to become “tyrannical,” “overburdened,” and prone to abuse

19Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together and Prayerbook of the Bible, English ed. Geffrey B. Kelly, trans. Daniel W. Bloesch and James H. Burtness, vol. 5 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).

20The lectures on Pastoral Care are documented in Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde: 1935-1937, English ed. H. Gaylon Barker and Mark S. Brocker, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 14 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 592-594. Also in an expanded form in Bonhoeffer, Theological Education Underground, 314-317.

21Bonhoeffer, Life Together and Prayerbook, 108-113.

22Ibid., 113.

23Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 138-140. Bonhoeffer made confession for the church with regard to ten specific sins, correlated to the 10 Commandments, concluding with the statement, “The church confesses itself guilty of violating all of the Ten Commandments. It confesses thereby its apostasy from Christ.” (p. 140). See also Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 407-412 where Bonhoeffer discussed the Confessing Church’s relationship to the ecumenical movement.

24Bonhoeffer, Life Together and Prayerbook, 114-115. 107

those who come for absolution.25 The second danger is that the one who comes to confession turns the confession into an act of piety or work deserving of praise.26 The dangers that Bonhoeffer identified will prove to be significant in relation to confession and the Churches of Christ.

Two features of Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the confession of sin have specific application for the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. The first is his stress on the importance of confession for the formation and continuation of Christian community. For

Bonhoeffer, the Christian who refused to confess remained utterly alone in sin.27 A

Church that does not recognize this condition weakens its fellowship and endangers the spiritual well-being of its members. Second, Bonhoeffer was just as adamant that the

Church as a community must confess when it has sinned against God. This concept is noticeably missing from the literature of the Stone-Campbell Movement, and is a critical step for the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement to restore.

Confession and Worship

Closely related to Bonhoeffer’s understanding of the importance of confession for the forgiveness of sins was his connection of the act of confession to the practice of worship. As already noted, the refusal to confess sin destroys the unity of the Church, thereby making void the purpose of the assembling of the Church.28 Regarding the

25Ibid., 116.

26Ibid.

27Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work, 327; Theological Education Underground, 316.

28Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work, 326. 108

positive confession of faith, in his doctoral dissertation Bonhoeffer was no less emphatic,

“It is not possible for the church-community to assemble without coming before God as a unity, without affirming in its faith the divinely established unity of spirit of the church of

Christ beyond our sight, the ‘Christ existing as church-community.’”29 Later he would teach, “There is no worship without confession of faith.”30 It is clear that for Bonhoeffer, confession of faith and confession of sin were both vitally necessary for the existence of the Church.

It is significant how many of Bonhoeffer’s references to confession concerning worship occur in a more narrow discussion of the Lord’s Supper. Bonhoeffer made the connection in his dissertation where he noted, “In the Lord’s Supper the church- community manifests itself purely as voluntary and as a community confessing its faith, and is summoned and recognized by God as such.”31 As already noted, the lengthy section in Life Together in which Bonhoeffer discussed confession came under the heading of “Confession and the Lord’s Supper.” This connection also appeared in his university lecture given in the summer of 1932 entitled, “The Nature of the Church.”32

Yet again, in his seminary lectures on “The Power of the Keys and Church

Discipline” Bonhoeffer returned to both confession of faith and confession of sin as they relate to participation in the Lord’s Supper, and how all of these acts are associated with

29Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 200.

30Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work, 312.

31Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 247.

32Bonhoeffer, Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work, 269-332; a particularly relevant passage is found on pages 325-327. 109

the necessary practice of church discipline.33 Bonhoeffer wrote, “The Lord’s Supper is the repeated feeding of the confessing church-community of the baptized with the true body and blood of Christ.”34 The Lord’s Supper is connected to church discipline in that it requires instruction, an examination of faith, and a resulting personal confession of sin, particularly the sin of the failure to recognize the reality of the body of Christ.35

Bonhoeffer concluded with the warning, “For the sake of the sacred nature of the body of

Christ, for the sake of the people, and for the sake of the church-community itself, the church-community must exclude from the Lord’s Supper those who do not distinguish the body.”36 The connection of church discipline with the participation in the Lord’s

Supper demonstrates the careful attention Bonhoeffer devoted to the importance confession to the acts of worship

Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed in the necessity of the assembly of the church community. He argued against a legalistic interpretation of such a gathering, calling the assembly an “organic” and “obvious” behavior, and stated, “A Christian who stays away from the assembly is a contradiction in terms.”37 A major component of the assembly was the Lord’s Supper, a rite Bonhoeffer studied in depth and closely connected to the Lord’s

Supper were the confessions of faith and sin. Each of these emphases by Bonhoeffer has

33Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 815-838; see especially the relevant passage on pages 830-831.

34Ibid., 830.

35Ibid., 830-831.

36Ibid., 831.

37Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio, 247. 110

a unique parallel to foundational beliefs of the Churches of Christ, and these relationships will be explored in-depth in the concluding chapters of this study.

Confession and Church Identity (The “Confessional Writings”)

No less important than confessions of faith and sin to Dietrich Bonhoeffer were the foundational writings that formed the Lutheran tradition in general and the

Confessing Church in particular.38 Because the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement, and the Churches of Christ in particular, reject human creedal pronouncements and

Confessions of Faith, this aspect of Bonhoeffer’s writings poses one of the most distinct points of conflict between Bonhoeffer and the Churches of Christ. However, careful examination of Bonhoeffer’s writings provides valuable insights for those in the Stone-

Campbell Movement who wish to enter a dialogue with the broad range of Christian churches. These insights can be classified into two groups of topics that Bonhoeffer addressed, first concerning the relationship of the confessional writings to Scripture, and second regarding how a confessional church should relate to other Christian churches.

First, Bonhoeffer established his belief that the confessional writings, including formal Confessions of Faith, are secondary to the written word of Scripture. In the lecture to his seminarians on the topic of instruction before the confirmation of students,

Bonhoeffer answered the question as to why a Confession of Faith was necessary: “The confession is the church’s response to the proclaimed word of God. It is the church’s response to the word of false teachers and its enemies. The confession always stands

38Bonhoeffer identified these “Confessional Writings” as the Small and Large Catechisms of Martin Luther, the Augsburg Confession, the Schmalcald Articles, and the Barmen Declaration. Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 786. 111

beneath Scripture itself and is measured against Scripture.”39 The exact purpose of the confessional writings that formed the Lutheran Church, and the Confessing Church in particular, was to “help prepare pastors for the struggle in which the church is engaged.”40 Several pastors of the Confessing Church, including Bonhoeffer, illustrated the apologetic and perhaps even polemical use of these documents in a brochure entitled

“To the National Synod of the German Evangelical Church” in September 1933. In that document the pastors declared, “We resolve to carry out our mission as servants of the

Word, bound by none other than the Holy Scriptures, according to the understanding given in the confessional writings.”41 Clearly, Bonhoeffer believed that the confessional writings of the Lutheran and Confessing Churches were both formative and informative.

He also believed the writings were in no way intended to replace Scripture or even to hold a position equal to Scripture. The distinction Bonhoeffer made between divine and human words is not one routinely granted by heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement in debates with members of churches formed by these confessional writings.

The second point of contact between Bonhoeffer and the Stone-Campbell

Movement concerning confessional writings is the relationship Bonhoeffer established between the Confessing Church and the ecumenical movement. This relationship has two opposing emphases. On the one hand, Bonhoeffer was deeply involved in the ecumenical movement beginning in 1931, continuing even after the beginning of the Second World

39Ibid., 786.

40Ibid., 174.

41Bonhoeffer, Berlin, 183. 112

War in 1939.42 In a 1935 essay entitled “The Confessing Church and the Ecumenical

Movement,” Bonhoeffer carefully explained his position.43 Bonhoeffer expressed his conviction that the Ecumenical Movement as it existed at that time must express itself theologically, that is, it would have to become “Church,” or it would forfeit its authority.44 Bonhoeffer’s assessment was not positive: “This tells us that ecumenical work has hitherto been conducted by deliberately avoiding the confessional question; at the same time, however, it tells us that only thus can it be conducted further.”45

Bonhoeffer wanted the ecumenical movement to declare itself with theological precision and a show of unanimity in order to force the rising Nazi regime at least to reconsider, and, if possible, to restore the freedoms it had removed from the Church and the German people. In this sense Bonhoeffer was a committed ecumenicist.

Bonhoeffer was emphatic that the Confessing Church represented the true

Church, particularly in Germany. Bonhoeffer declared that the laws enacted by the Nazi party had placed the church in “statu confessionis,” which meant there was no neutral ground; either a person was a member of the true Church or the apostate Church.46 As early as 1935 Bonhoeffer, along with Martin Niemöller, produced a draft for a

“Statement from Opposition Pastors” in which they declared, “Anyone who assents to such a breach of the confession thereby excludes himself from the communion of the

42See Schlingensiepen, Bonhoeffer, 81-93; Bethge, Bonhoeffer, 238-255.

43Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 393-412.

44Ibid., 399.

45Ibid., 402-403.

46Bonhoeffer, Berlin, 366 note 14; also 371-373. See also Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 406. 113

church. We therefore demand the repeal of this law, which separates the Evangelical

Church of the Old Prussian Union from the Christian church.”47 Later, Bonhoeffer declared, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The question of church communion is the question of the community of salvation. The boundaries of the church are the boundaries of salvation. Whoever knowingly separates himself from the Confessing Church in

Germany separates himself from salvation.”48 Bonhoeffer believed that, rightly interpreted, Martin Luther’s confession of faith verified the thesis that “there are no denominations – only heretics and schismatics and the One Church,” and its antithesis, the “Dissolution of confessions – American free churches - Quakers,” to synthesize into one church of the gospel.49 In Bonhoeffer’s estimation the “posture of penitence” upon which Martin Luther based his confession allowed the Church to maintain both a rigid exclusiveness and at the same time be “fundamentally ecumenical.”50 Bonhoeffer’s concept of the Church is as elegantly nuanced as it is technically sophisticated. The sophistication encourages many within Biblicist movements to reject him, but the elegance of his theology demands that his theology be examined carefully.

The language used by Bonhoeffer is striking both for its exclusive tone and, from the context of the Stone-Campbell Movement, its similarity to statements made by key

Restorationist leaders. Bonhoeffer’s comments should not be taken out of the context in

47Bonhoeffer, Berlin, 164. The “breach” and the law to which they referred was the “Aryan paragraph” of the “Law on the Reconstruction of the Professional Civil Service” discussed above.

48Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 675. Latin, “Outside the church [there is] no salvation.” – English edition note 47.

49Ibid., 325-328.

50Ibid., 328. 114

which he delivered them, but considering the number of such comments and the depth of passion with which he made them, it is obvious that he considered that the Confessing

Church of Germany was the true Church of Germany. He worked within the ecumenical movement to receive an official declaration that the member churches agreed with the

Confessing Church; but more importantly that the ecumenical movement would as a whole declare an unequivocal theological stance that would pressure the Nazi government to rescind its unchristian laws. Bonhoeffer’s views on the confessional writings, and his views on the Church and ecumenical relationships, all have significant implications for the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

Confession in the Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s academic writings, lectures, essays, and even some of his personal correspondence can be theologically dense even to the point of being opaque.

His sermons comprise an entirely different type of literature. In his sermons Bonhoeffer revealed his pastoral heart, even if at times he had to use a shepherd’s staff for discipline.

Bonhoeffer’s sermons are a valuable resource for understanding how he intended his theology to be put into practice.

In a sermon delivered on July 29, 1928 in Barcelona, Spain, when he was just twenty-two years old, Bonhoeffer presented two themes that would come to occupy so much of his spiritual pursuit:

Our congregations have forgotten what insuperable [strength] emanates from confession and the forgiveness of sins, in which one not only helps the other in [illegible] distress, nor merely prays for the forgiveness of that person’s sins, but

115

redeems, reconciles that person by acting in Christ’s stead, by becoming Christ for that person.51

This brief quotation reveals that Bonhoeffer was deeply concerned with the communal aspect of Christianity; that far from being simply a passive receptacle for the hearing of a confession, a confessor was to be the one who pronounced the absolution of a brother’s or a sister’s sin. A brother or sister, bound under the cross, did not just forgive in the name of Christ, he or she became Christ to the confessing sinner.

Addressing the Confessing Church struggle created by the decrees of Hitler and the Nazi Party, in a sermon based on Matthew 16:13-18, Bonhoeffer referred to the

Church as the “church of Peter.”52 This church exhibited three behaviors. First, the church was a confessing church: “Peter’s confession is always being made and spoken anew…whether in singing, praying, preaching, or action.” Second, the church was a weak church: “The church of Peter is the church that shares his weakness, the church that also keeps denying Christ and falling down, being disloyal, of little faith, fearful, a church that again and again looks away from its mission and toward the world and its opinions.53 Yet, the church of Peter moves beyond confession and denial, it repents: “The church of Peter is the church that can not only confess, not only deny; it is the church that can also weep…The church of Peter is the church of divine sorrow, which leads to joy.”54

Putting words into Jesus’s mouth, Bonhoeffer drew the sermon to its close with this

51Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Barcelona, Berlin, New York 1928-1931, English ed. Clifford Green, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 10 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 509. Inserts in square brackets are from the translator.

52Bonhoeffer, Berlin, 479.

53Ibid.

54Ibid., 480. 116

supplication, “Not only must church remain church, but you, my church, confess, confess, confess.”55 Once again, Bonhoeffer revealed his theology in a practical way, encouraging his audience to stand firm, yet with the humility to admit failure, and a strength to confess and repent.

Bonhoeffer did not shrink from addressing the dialectic between the strength required to make a claim of absolute truth and the humility required to admit failure and avoid conceit:

This is a struggle – whether or not we agree – over our confession of Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Redeemer of this world. But anyone who inwardly and outwardly joins in this struggle for this confession knows that such a struggle for faith carries a great temptation with it – the temptation of being too sure of oneself, of self-righteousness and dogmatism, which also means the temptation to be unloving toward one’s opponent.56

Once again Bonhoeffer’s pastoral heart is revealed. He called for definite allegiance to the confession, to be sure. Combined with that appeal was the stated recognition that humans are all too frequently unable to separate passion from vehemence, and so humility and the need to confess are ever present.

Through his sermons, Dietrich Bonhoeffer revealed a much different type of theologian than the strict academician seen throughout his dissertations, essays, and lectures. He dealt with the same topics, but his focus was on how his audience could apply the word of God to their specific situation. The situation involved what he considered to be a frontal attack on the truth of the gospel, but he was equally concerned

55Ibid., 481. “The phrase, ‘church must remain church’ was the campaign slogan of the “Gospel and Church” group, which opposed the German Christians in the church elections” of 1933. English editor’s note 10.

56Dietrich Bonhoeffer, London, 1933-1935, English ed. Keith Clements, trans. Isabel Best, vol. 13 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 376. 117

with the more insidious battle with human nature when lines had to be drawn and ultimatums delivered. The words that Bonhoeffer preached have implications for the modern Church, and for the Churches of Christ in particular.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Churches of Christ

Dietrich Bonhoeffer considered himself neither a Biblicist nor a Restorationist.

However, the material covered in this chapter points to at least three areas in which

Bonhoeffer’s theology could strengthen that of the Churches of Christ if his advice were heeded. The three areas are: a return to the practice of confession to include communal confession and a greater emphasis of confession in worship; an acceptance by church members of their own confessional status and their role in ecumenical conversations; and a self-examination resulting in a purging of the self-sufficiency and arrogance that is too frequently displayed by church members. Specific suggestions for how the Churches of

Christ may deepen their understanding of confession will be presented in the final two chapters of this study, but these three themes emphasized by Bonhoeffer justify individual treatment here.

First, although the hermeneutical position and congregational polity of the

Lutheran Church of Bonhoeffer’s pre-war Germany and the Churches of Christ are significantly different, it is remarkable how seamlessly his teaching concerning confession could be integrated into Churches of Christ assemblies. Bonhoeffer’s lament that his churches had forgotten the power of confession could be repeated in countless congregations of the Churches of Christ. His appeal for congregations to make a communal confession would be far easier for a church operating under the power of

118

formal councils than for independent “free” churches such as the Churches of Christ.

However, that appeal is none-the-less valuable in a more limited, congregational setting.

Congregations as a whole can, and should, make confession, even if the leadership of one congregation speaks only for that assembly. A formal period of individual and communal confession would greatly enhance the worship assemblies of the Churches of Christ.

Bonhoeffer’s call for a greater emphasis on confession is solidly rooted in Scripture; therefore, the Biblicist-leaning Churches of Christ should actually welcome a return to a

Scriptural principle that promises deep and lasting results.

Second, there is nothing inherently erroneous about admitting to a core statement of beliefs, even if the beliefs are codified, if, as Bonhoeffer so emphatically declared, those beliefs are secondary to, and always corrected by, Scripture. Many members in the

Churches of Christ already operate under an informal and implicit Confession of Faith; honesty demands they should own that confession. As Bonhoeffer would argue, only when such tacit statements are confessed can they be challenged and corrected by God’s written word. This point has implications for Churches of Christ in an ecumenical context as well. Denying the existence of a confessional status makes it impossible for the members of the Churches of Christ who may be interested in ecumenical conversations to challenge and be challenged by other Christian traditions. Equally, forsaking such

Confessions is no more honest than denying their existence. If members of the Churches of Christ desire a place in the ecumenical conversation, it is incumbent upon those members to own and to defend the Confessions that make the Churches of Christ unique among Christian churches.

119

Finally, neither of the preceding two conclusions would have any value if

Bonhoeffer’s demand for humility is rejected. Even a practice of self-surrender such as confession can become a source of pride, as Bonhoeffer astutely pointed out. Therefore, the goals of any confession, public or private, should be the praise of God and the removal of the arrogance that inhabits so much of human nature. The history of the

Churches of Christ reveals far too many examples of pride, egotism, and conceit. A program of confession will ultimately be more detrimental than helpful if such acts of the sinful flesh are not rooted out.

Summary

Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived in a theological and cultural world greatly removed from the context of the twenty-first century Churches of Christ. The disparity of circumstances would suggest initially that a comparison between Bonhoeffer and a modern heir of the Stone-Campbell Movement would be superficial at best. However, a more nuanced examination of Bonhoeffer’s writings reveals that his theology, especially as it relates to confession, is directly applicable to the culture of the modern Churches of

Christ. Bonhoeffer was a careful Bible scholar, and his theology flows from Scripture.

Bonhoeffer was deeply concerned that the manifestation of the core values of the Church be equal to the public proclamation of those values. Bonhoeffer also called upon the

Church to reject ecclesiastical pride, a prophetic voice that echoed those of Barton Stone and David Lipscomb. Although Bonhoeffer’s teachings may be foreign to the Stone-

Campbell Movement, his confessional theology is a powerful corrective to the

Movement’s neglect of this critical Christian doctrine.

120

PART THREE

PRACTICES AND DISCIPLINES

CHAPTER 6

BECOMING A CHRISTIAN SHAPED BY CONFESSION

Churches of Christ have historically exhibited a deficiency in the practices necessary for a life of confession. This deficiency is explained partially by the goal for which the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement worked. They believed that if they restored the formal structures of the Church, the informal or spiritual aspects of each

Christian and the Church as a whole would follow. Chapter 2 demonstrated that this has not been the case. Furthermore, the lack of a confessional theology is hard to defend either biblically or historically. This section identifies disciplines and practices that are critical for the Churches of Christ to create or restore in order to deepen the role of confession for both individual Christians and congregations. The focus of this chapter will be on the life of the individual Christian. The final chapter will be devoted to congregational practices.

Private Confession in the Community of the Saints

The material presented in the preceding chapters suggests that three disciplines are necessary in order for private confession to be established or renewed within the

Churches of Christ. First, confession demands a recognition of, and submission to, the

122

transcendence of God. Second, confession demands acknowledgment of human sin and brokenness. Finally, private confession demands submission to another human. Each of these disciplines is aided by a number of specific practices. The practices of contemplative Bible reading and meditative prayer are critical for the discipline of submitting to God. The practices of self-examination and fasting are necessary for the discipline of admitting human frailty. Finally, submitting to another requires that a confessor be chosen, someone who is spiritually gifted, wise, and trustworthy.

Entering the Presence of a Transcendent God

As noted in the first two chapters of this study, the Stone-Campbell Movement attempted to locate all doctrines and practices in the direct teaching of Scripture. This has produced mixed results in terms of spiritual development. Positively, the emphasis on reading and applying Scripture kept the Movement close to the Bible and gave it a basis on which to establish its beliefs and to arbitrate theological disagreements. Negatively, an empiricist hermeneutic created a flat view of Scripture. What has been lacking within the literature of the Restoration Movement is a reading of Scripture that depends upon, and subsequently expands, the recognition of an all-powerful, all-loving, and just God. The practices of contemplative reading and meditative prayer are two exercises that can strengthen the typical Stone-Campbell hermeneutic and prepare a path for the rebirth of private confession within the Churches of Christ.

Contemplative Bible Reading

Several terms have been employed to describe the practice of contemplative Bible reading. Perhaps the oldest way to identify it, and the title by which it is gaining a new

123

generation of followers, is lectio divina, or “sacred reading.”1 Richard Peace defined lectio divina as “an approach that builds on serious Bible study but moves to new depths as we open ourselves to God through the Bible.”2 The phrase he used to simplify the

Latin term was “contemplative reading.” Adele Ahlberg Calhoun used the term

“devotional reading,” and pointed out that lectio divina does not replace technical Bible study, but rather it supplements that study: “Lectio divina invites us into God’s presence to listen for his particular, loving word to me at this particular moment in time.”3 Eugene

Peterson used yet a third term, “spiritual reading,” and described the practice in his own inimical style: “Lectio divina is the deliberate and intentional practice of making the transition from a kind of reading that treats and handles, however reverently, Jesus dead to a way of reading that frequents the company of friends who are listening to, accompanying, and following Jesus alive.”4

Briefly described, the process of contemplative Bible reading involves four steps.5

The first is a vocal reading of a brief passage of Scripture. The vocal reading is important as the hearing of the text involves more of the intellect and heart than does a silent reading of the text. The reader notes any word or phrase that catches his or her attention.

Second, the word or phrase is repeated, and the reader meditates carefully on that word or

1Richard Peace, Contemplative Bible Reading: Experiencing God Through Scripture (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), 11.

2Ibid.

3Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, 168.

4Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), 85.

5Peace, Contemplative Bible Reading, 12-13; Calhoun, Handbook, 168-169; Peterson, Eat This Book, 90-91. 124

phrase. The third step is a prayer to God, thanking him for his presence and for the message received through the text. The human will is submitted to God’s will, and the reader petitions God for increased guidance and for the forgiveness of any sins that were exposed during the reading of the text. In the prayer the reader accepts God’s love and rests quietly. Finally, the reader spends a few moments in contemplation, seeking ways in which the message of the text might be physically demonstrated in the life of the reader.

In this process the message of the text is internalized in order to be revealed, not just intellectualized in order to be debated.

While the primary hermeneutic within the Stone-Campbell Movement was designed to discover facts about God and Jesus, and more specifically about the Church, contemplative reading of the Bible is designed to discover God himself. The process of lectio divina does not involve commentaries or word study books and does not fit into a logical construct such as a syllogism. The goal of contemplative reading is to share, as much as possible, the experience of Isaiah as he witnessed the throne room of God:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.” And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”(Is 6:1-8)

Having experienced the reality of the majesty of God, the inevitable result is the confession of human depravity and the need for forgiveness and cleansing. After

125

absolution is granted, the immediate response is to carry God’s message to others. The apostle Paul expressed a similar desire in his letter to the Philippian Christians in relation to joining the life and death of Christ (Phil 3:4-16). Paul did not desire to know facts about Christ, he wanted to know Christ, and by knowing Christ, he wanted to be transformed as if to be one with Christ.

Reading the Bible in this manner changes the dynamic of the reader/text relationship. Instead of standing over the text as one who seeks to control the text, the one who reads the Bible contemplatively seeks to be known by God, and thus to know God better. Contemplative Bible reading does not automatically abolish the hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference, but it does provide a mitigating dynamic that can lessen the extreme legalism that such a hermeneutic all too frequently engenders.

Meditative Prayer

Meditative prayer shares qualities with contemplative Bible reading, but there are notable differences. The purpose of contemplative Bible reading is to hear God’s word spoken and to reflect on how that word can be absorbed into the reader’s life for the ultimate goal of living out the message in the world. The goal of meditative prayer is to respond to God’s invitation to join with him in a shared conversation. This habit is more suited for private devotion.

As with contemplative Bible reading, the heart of meditative prayer is Scripture.6

Once again, the text is not used to buttress an argument or win a debate. God’s word is

6Richard Peace, Meditative Prayer: Entering God’s Presence (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), 44. Thomas Merton, Contemplative Prayer (New York: Image Books/Doubleday Religion, 1996), xxix. 126

read carefully and repeatedly, even to the point that the text is memorized.7 Richard

Foster used a rustic image to suggest that is analogous to a cow chewing her cud, until “the truth being meditated upon passes from the mouth into the mind and down into the heart, where through quiet rumination – regurgitation, if you will – it produces in the person praying a loving, faith-filled response.”8 If a person is used to reading

Scripture for intellectual reasons exclusively, this reading for the purpose of meditative prayer poses problems. However, such problems can be overcome if the reader keeps the ultimate goal of the process clearly in mind.

Meditative prayer, meditation, and memorization of Scripture are the foci of many modern authors.9 Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology of confession and his thoughts on meditative prayer are appropriate here as well. Bonhoeffer addressed the subject of meditation in a letter circulated to former Finkenwalde seminarians, and in that letter he also indirectly addressed the practice of meditative prayer.

Bonhoeffer gave four reasons for meditation.10 First, meditation is necessary because of the nature of the Christian life: “As a Christian, however, it is only through hearing the sermon and through prayerful meditation that I come to know Holy

Scripture.” Second, meditation is necessary because of the nature of the preaching office, and by extension, for any Christian ministry: “In my own ministry, I will be misusing the word if I do not myself meditate on it in prayer . . . I am sinning against my own office if

7Merton, Contemplative Prayer, xxix.

8Richard Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home (New York: HarperOne, 1992), 143.

9Peace, Meditative Prayer, 43-52; Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines, 172-178; Foster, Prayer, 143- 154.

10Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 931-932. 127

I do not daily seek the word in prayer that my Lord would speak to me today.” Third, meditation is necessary because prayer demands discipline. Finally, meditation is necessary because of the “impious haste and disquietude” that endangers not only the life of the pastor, but also that of any Christian.

Bonhoeffer expressed the goal of meditation by focusing on the blessings of

Christ. “The goal is Christ’s community, Christ’s help, and Christ’s guidance for the day through his word. It is thus that you will begin the day strengthened anew in your faith.”11

Here he identified the most significant difference between meditative prayer and other forms of meditation. In meditative prayer the Christian is focused on God and Christ through the self, not focused on the self for purely selfish reasons.

Bonhoeffer answered the question of how to meditate in one of the briefest, yet most elegant, passages written on the subject:

Just as the words of someone dear to you can follow you around the entire day, so also should the word of Scripture resonate in your ears incessantly and work on you. Just as you do not analyze the words of someone dear to you and instead simply accept them as they are spoken to you, so also accept the word of Scripture, pondering it in your heart just as Mary did. And that is all. That is meditation. Do not look for new ideas and connections in the text as for a sermon! Do not ask: How can I pass these words along? But rather: what are they saying to me! Then ponder these words for a long time in your own heart until they completely enter into you and take possession of you.12

This passage illustrates Bonhoeffer’s association of meditation and contemplative Bible reading, but he surrounds both with prayer. “We begin meditation with a prayer for the

Holy Spirit, with a petition for true composure for us and all others whom we know to be meditating. Then we turn to the text. When we conclude our meditation, we want to have

11Ibid.

12Ibid., 933.

128

come so far that we are now able to offer a prayer of thanksgiving from the bottom of our hearts.”13 Meditation and prayer join in one practice: meditative prayer.

Finally, Bonhoeffer addressed the issue of obstacles in the exercise of meditative prayer. He offered advice that is both general, “Do not become impatient with yourself,” and specific, “For example, one might read the same word over and over, write down one’s thoughts, and occasionally learn verses by heart (you will in any case end up learning by heart any text on which you genuinely meditate).”14 Bonhoeffer stressed persistence in prayer itself as the chief method of overcoming obstacles to meditation and prayer: “Basically, the backdrop to all our problems and helplessness is our own trouble with prayer; for too long many of us simply had no real help or guidance. Here nothing can help except to begin again, patiently and faithfully, with the very first exercises involving prayer and meditation.”15 It is reassuring to know that, although Bonhoeffer had little guidance in the practice of meditative prayer, he was able to develop the practice, and was also able to mentor others.

Meditative prayer is the necessary complement to contemplative Bible reading.

The practices share an emphasis on Scripture, but the emphasis of each is slightly different. In contemplative Bible reading the goal is to recognize God’s presence by learning about God’s nature through his written word. In meditative prayer the Christian realizes the presence of God by allowing the words to direct his or her thoughts back to

God in prayer. Contemplative Bible reading is more structured and formal, meditative

13Ibid., 934.

14Ibid., 935.

15Ibid., 935-936. 129

prayer is fluid and changes with the needs and experiences of the individual praying.

Contemplative Bible reading is primarily a private practice, although it can be modified for group settings. Meditative prayer is almost always a private experience. In combination, the two practices unite, so that the individual is drawn closer and closer to the presence of God.

Recognition and Acknowledgment of Human Sin and Brokenness

As the record of Isaiah’s epiphany of God demonstrates, being in the presence of

God changes a person in profound ways. The first of these changes is the person’s self- understanding. While it is impossible, or at least impractical, to depend upon a visionary experience such as Isaiah’s, the practices of contemplative Bible reading and meditative prayer are designed to sharpen a Christian’s perception of God’s presence. Then the reality of human sin and brokenness becomes unbearable. The discipline of recognizing and admitting sinfulness is facilitated by the disciplines of self-examination and fasting.

Self-examination

The practice of self-examination has origins that date to the early years of Israel.

The psalmist of Psalm 32 exposed the folly of attempting to deceive both God and self through the denial of sinfulness. On two separate occasions the apostle Paul commanded the Corinthian Christians to examine themselves, once in regard to the seriousness of partaking in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:28), and once in regard to their basic faithfulness to Christ (2 Cor 13:5). The issue of self-examination is not new for the modern Christian, but the significance of the practice and its relation to confession may be new and disquieting.

130

Ignatius of Loyola is the foremost example of lament and confessionalism during the late middle age of the Church. When modern authors discuss the topics of self- examination, lament, and confession, they are discussing issues related to Ignatian spirituality, whether they concede that relationship or not. Members of the Stone-

Campbell Movement generally do not concede that fact; therefore, it is appropriate at this point to discuss Ignatius’s role in confession more thoroughly.

The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius are a series of practices divided into four

“weeks,” which are designed to draw a person closer to Christ.16 Before Ignatius explained the exercises, he gave instruction in the “Daily Particular Examination of

Conscience” that was to occur three times each day.17 First, upon rising from sleep a person resolves to avoid a particular sin or weakness. At noon an examination is made determining if, when, and how the person failed to keep that resolution. After supper a final examination is made of the entire day’s effort to avoid or overcome that particular sin. Ignatius followed this instruction with a five-point method for making a “General

Examination of Conscience.”18 First, in prayer, a person thanks God for the grace given to him or her; second, further grace is requested in order for the person to see his or her sins; third, a request for God to reveal an account of the person’s life hour by hour for the duration of the period of examination; fourth, a petition for pardon; and finally, a resolution, also provided by God’s grace, to amend the faults that had been revealed.

16The term “week” is approximate rather than specific. An Ignatian retreat in which the Exercises are taught can be as short as an intensive weekend, or as long as 30 days.

17Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, 130. This practice is in regard to a specific sin, see p. 395, editors note 19.

18Ibid., 134-135. This examination is in preparation to receive Holy Communion. See page 395, editor’s note 19. 131

Ignatius then concluded the introductory section with instructions for “General

Confession with Holy Communion.”19 Scholars of Ignatius note that, although self- examination preceded the Christian faith, and even though Christians practiced it long before Ignatius, Ignatius’s emphasis on self-examination and his methods were “unique” and have had a lasting influence on Christian spirituality.20

Following this general introduction to the Spiritual Exercises by way of self- examination, Ignatius devoted the first two exercises for the first week to on sin. Ignatius’s use of the word “meditation,” however, has a connotation similar to the term “meditative prayer” discussed earlier. “Discursive mental prayer (also termed meditation) is predominantly characterized by multiple acts of reasoning, though there are also affections, resolutions, and communion with God. It is especially suitable for beginners (incipientes) in the ‘purgative’ way or stage of growth in the spiritual life.”21

Thus, Ignatius linked the practice of thorough self-examination of human sin with the practice of meditation, or meditative prayer; and he extended those practices to the confession before the reception of the Eucharist. His Spiritual Exercises demonstrate the inter-relationship of these practices, and the fusion of these practices is one reason why his Exercises have been adapted by so many different Christian spiritual traditions.

The part of the Ignatian practice of self-examination that some Christians find challenging, or even objectionable, is the rigorous methodology that he employed and called upon others to adopt. Ignatian self-examination was intentional and carefully

19Ibid., 135.

20Ibid., 395 editor’s note 19 explaining the significance of the Examinations of Conscience.

21Ibid., editor’s General Introduction, p. 62; see also p. 396, editor’s note 27. 132

documented. Ignatius believed that if a person was to make progress toward a close relationship with Jesus, he or she had to be purposeful about the journey. The journey began with an honest and rather severe personal examination of sin within the retreatant’s life. Ignatius put the acknowledgment of sin at the beginning of his exercises, and the practice of self-examination was to continue throughout the Ignatian retreat. Only after the retreatant had confessed his or her sins, had the sins absolved, and made a proper resolution to avoid those sins in the future, could the main work of the retreat begin. The wisdom of the Ignatian process has been proven by its continual use for over 450 years.

An intentional, detailed, and rigorous self-examination is necessary for a life of confession.

Fasting

Fasting is a practice that is rarely taught and practiced among the Churches of

Christ.22 Members of the Churches of Christ are not alone in this regard.23 For members of the Churches of Christ, the reasons for its omission stem from the facts that it was a practice largely connected to the Old Covenant, that no author specifically commands the practice in the New Testament, and examples of Christians fasting are few.24 Foster provided two additional reasons that affect not only members of the Churches of Christ,

22In Darryl Tippens otherwise fruitful study on the Pilgrim Heart, he does not address a single chapter to the practice of fasting.

23Richard Foster noted that he could not find a single book written on the subject of Christian fasting from the years 1861-1954. Foster, Celebration of Discipline, 47.

24Two examples are Acts 13:2-3 and Acts 14:23.

133

but the Christian world in general.25 First, the practice of fasting became associated with the extreme and sometimes bizarre actions of a few ascetics in the Middle Ages. Second, the prevailing culture of the modern western world is that any type of self-denial is a sign of unhealthiness, both physical and mental. Yet fasting is a critical component of becoming aware of one’s own weakness, and neither the relative silence of the New

Testament nor the mistakes of prior generations should preclude fasting from becoming a key part of a disciple’s journey toward a deeper relationship with Christ.

Appropriate response to these concerns demands that the purpose of fasting be fully established. First, fasting is legitimate as a spiritual practice only if its origin and focus are on God. As Richard Foster stated, it must be “God initiated and God ordained.”26 If a person fasts for any reason other than to practice self-denial and to ascertain God’s will the process becomes demonic.27 This means that Christians must not attempt to use the practice to manipulate God or their own conscience. Fasting is a practice to help the worshipper to comprehend the chasm between God’s divine will and human narcissism. For that reason the one who fasts must guard against turning the practice into an act of self-righteousness (Mt 6:16-18). As with any spiritual practice, it is the intent of the heart as well as the actions of the worshipper that make it acceptable or an abomination to God.28

25Foster, Celebration of Discipline, 46.

26Ibid., 54.

27Notice that Satan’s first temptations of Christ came in the context of an extended fast.

28In addition to Isaiah 1:10-17 and Amos 5:21-24 in regard to God’s response to false and feasting, see Zechariah 7:5 and Isaiah 58:5-6 for God’s response to false fasts. 134

Second, the practice of fasting exposes the existence of false in the life of the

Christian. Richard Foster and Adele Ahlberg Calhoun point out in identical language that the act of fasting is revelatory in a negative as well as a positive sense.29 The hidden desires of the heart expose themselves through the process of the denial of customary human comforts. Such comforts are most frequently associated with food, but increasingly it has become necessary to add technology to the list of comforts that call for an occasional fast. A fast involving food reveals how focused the body is on physical sustenance and safety; a fast involving modern technology reveals how focused the mind is on possessions and human interaction. Other idols that expose themselves during times of fasting can include work, education, entertainment, sex, and even religious or spiritual activities if they are performed for selfish reasons (Mt 6:1-4). A full and true fast exposes all falsity in the person including the body, mind, spirit, and emotions.

The practices of self-examination and fasting are necessary for the discipline of recognizing and admitting human sinfulness. Just as contemplative Bible reading and meditative prayer are inter-related, so are the practices of self-examination and fasting.

Rigorous self-examination leads to sorrow and fasting; fasting provides for a more focused period of intensive self-examination. Combined, they prepare for the next step in the process of confession, that of finding and confiding in a safe spiritual director.

Submission to One Another: Using a Spiritual Director

The practices discussed so far in this chapter are frequently associated with monasticism or the extremes of some particular discipline of Christianity. The use of a

29Foster, Prayer, 55; Calhoun, Handbook, 220. 135

spiritual director presents possibly the most extreme of those associations. Unless properly understood, spiritual direction has overtones of control, superiority, and even domination. Such has been the case within Churches of Christ. In order to apply the practice of spiritual direction correctly, it is necessary to understand its processes, as well as the actual duties of the spiritual director.

Gordon T. Smith provided the most succinct explanation of spiritual direction:

“Spiritual direction has a very clear agenda: directing our attention to the presence of

God in our lives.”30 Thomas Merton gave a more extended definition: “It is a continuous process of formation and guidance, in which a Christian is led and encouraged in his special vocation, so that by faithful correspondence to the graces of the Holy Spirit he may attain to the particular end of his vocation and to union with God.”31 A few pages later Merton wrote, “The whole purpose of spiritual direction is to penetrate beneath the surface of a man’s life, to get behind the façade of conventional gestures and attitudes which he presents to the world, and to bring out his inner spiritual freedom, his inmost truth, which is what we call the likeness of Christ in his soul.”32 Several points in these definitions deserve further consideration.

First, as with each of the practices already discussed, the focus of spiritual direction is upon God. The primary mistake made concerning spiritual direction is related to the title, “Spiritual Director.” In spiritual direction God provides the directing, the

30Gordon T. Smith, Spiritual Direction: A Guide to Giving and Receiving Direction (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2014), 11.

31 Thomas Merton, Spiritual Direction and Meditation (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987), 13. It is important to note that Merton was writing primarily to fellow Trappist monks, and so the gender references in his writings are frequently, if not exclusively, male.

32Ibid., 16. 136

human counterpart is a listener and often offers probing questions, but he or she is never a director in the sense of wielding power or authority. Therefore, spiritual direction is the process of being directed by God, for God, in order to return to God. If the emphasis ever shifts from God to the human who fills the role of director, the process ceases to be an appropriate example of spiritual direction and becomes an exercise in spiritual domination.

Second, Merton stressed the role of the Holy Spirit at working to create, or liberate, the likeness of Christ in the life of the individual. The social nature of the is important here. Christians are not called to live in isolation. Just as the Spirit moves in the individual to create the image of Christ, so the purpose of working with a spiritual director is to clarify for the individual how he or she might work in his or her world to share the image of Christ. Spiritual direction involves private reflection with the goal of an informed service to the world.

Merton emphasized, third, that the individual is led, or directed, in his or her own special vocation. In Merton’s specific situation he was writing to Trappist Monks, or to members of other religious orders within the Roman , so the word vocation had a formal connotation for him. However, the concept can be expanded to include all Christians. The apostle Paul wrote that each Christian has a gift, or in

Merton’s term, a vocation (Rom 12:3-8, 1 Cor 12:4-30, Eph 4:1-16). Spiritual direction helps the individual recognize the gift, or vocation, and helps the individual accept and cooperate with God’s empowering Spirit. So, although spiritual direction is focused on

God and is designed to open the individual’s eyes to be aware of how God is working in

137

his or her life, the practical aspect of the direction is that the individuals work out what they learn in ways that they are uniquely gifted to perform.

The most critical aspect of the director/individual relationship is the willingness of the individual to submit to the director’s guidance. A person who is too proud, who is resistant to the concept of direction, or who minimizes the role of the Holy Spirit will not benefit from even the most proficient of directors. This fact explains why seeking and accepting the guidance of a spiritual director can be considered a spiritual discipline. It is a process or practice that is unnatural. It demands intentionality. It requires a measure of spiritual maturity to admit one’s own lack of maturity. In a culture of self-sufficiency, the willingness to submit to spiritual direction is a radical admission of self-insufficiency. As has been noted above, and will be further explained below, all of these reasons have severely limited or even eliminated spiritual direction from the practices of the Churches of Christ.

Redeeming the Role of the Spiritual Director Within the Churches of Christ

In addition to the philosophical and theological reasons for members of the

Churches of Christ to resist the practice of spiritual direction, there is another, institutionally significant, barrier against widespread acceptance of the practice. That barrier is the historical development of a highly structured, personality-driven and hierarchically dominative movement known variously as the Crossroads Movement, the

Boston Movement, the Discipling Movement, and most recently, the International

138

Churches of Christ.33 Before the practice of spiritual direction and the role of a spiritual director can be restored within the Churches of Christ, that Movement and the resulting emotional reactions must be examined.

Admitting an Abusive Past

The movement that became the International Churches of Christ began in the late

1970s in Gainesville, Florida.34 The Crossroads Church of Christ in Gainesville, under the leadership of Chuck Lucas, established an evangelistic ministry on the campus of the

University of Florida. One of Lucas’s converts, Kip McKean, took the methodology that

Lucas had developed and moved to Lexington, Massachusetts, to work with a small congregation there. Eventually some of McKean’s converts moved to the larger city of

Boston. McKean became the leading figure in the movement, and Boston became the

“pillar church” to which all other “discipling” congregations had to submit.35 Using aggressive evangelistic techniques and rigid, inflexible hierarchies of both congregational structure and interpersonal relationships, the movement experienced phenomenal growth, but also significant opposition from Churches of Christ who objected to the abuse of power evident in the “Crossroads” or “Boston” movement.36 The differences between this group and the traditional Churches of Christ in both theology and practice were so glaring

33Howard W. Norton, Don E. Vinzant, and Gene Vinzant, The Discipling Dilemma, ed. Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr., (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1988), 1-2, 10-18. This volume provides a historical, psychological, and theological examination of the people and doctrines of this movement. See also Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 357-363.

34Ibid., 5-9.

35Ibid., 11.

36Ibid., 9-10, 18-21. 139

that in the late 1990s the Boston Church rebranded itself as the International Church of

Christ, and the two groups subsequently have had limited association with each other.

The extreme measures to which the International Church of Christ applied the term “discipling” included instructions on such personal decisions as which schools it was permissible for a member to attend, which courses to take while there, and even whom it was permissible for a member to date and marry.37 The following declaration demonstrates the extent to which members of the Churches of Christ recoiled from such distorted methodology:

Disciples need to be called Christians again. It happened first in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and it needs to happen today. The words “disciple,” “discipling,” and “discipleship” have been so abused that they no longer communicate what they used to. The terms may some day be rescued and used again in the biblical sense. For now, however, other terms used in the New Testament for Christian growth will serve much better.38

The irony that a movement whose vision has been shaped by the “express terms and approved precedents” of the New Testament should reject the usage of biblical terms is astonishing, but is equally revealing. The abuses of the International Churches of Christ and their techniques all but eliminated the possibility for spiritual direction to be practiced within the larger context of the Churches of Christ. In order to achieve a confessional lifestyle a return to the concept of healthy spiritual direction is required.

Correcting False Beliefs

The first step in restoring the concept of spiritual direction within the Churches of

Christ is to emphasize that it is a thoroughly biblical concept. Moses directed Joshua, Eli

37Ibid., 55.

38Ibid., 123. 140

directed Samuel, Elijah directed Elisha, David directed his son Solomon, Jesus directed the twelve apostles, Paul directed Timothy and Titus. Paul gave Timothy a direct command to extend the practice (2 Tim 2:1-2). Women were to receive spiritual guidance in safe relationships with older Christian women (Titus 2:3-5). Few practices could receive as much biblical documentation as that of a more experienced mentor spiritually directing a younger apprentice.

The second step would be to establish a correct understanding of what spiritual direction entails, and the inherent limitations placed upon the Director. Authentic spiritual direction rejects the authoritative, dictatorial approach employed in the

Lucas/McKean methodology. As Gordon Smith stated, “The directee does not in the end respond to or obey the director, but rather with the encouragement and support of the director he or she comes to a greater capacity to walk in obedience to Christ, as faith in

Christ is deepened.”39 Later he added, “So I must make this so very vital point: spiritual direction is a ministry that fosters and encourages personal responsibility. We foster not dependence, but a growing maturity in Christ – the capacity of the directee to respond to

Christ not through another, but on their own terms as they grow into and within an adult faith in Christ.40 Thomas Merton provided this caution:

One must not imagine that one owes strict obedience to the spiritual director. A director is not a superior. Our relation to him is not that of a subject to a divinely constituted juridical authority. It is rather the relation of a friend to an advisor. Hence, the virtue to be exercised in direction is docility rather than obedience, and docility is a matter of prudence. Obedience is a matter of justice. To ignore the

39Smith, Spiritual Direction, 21.

40Ibid., 30.

141

guidance of a director may be imprudent, but it is not a sin against justice or against the vow of obedience.41

The Lucas/McKean model is a perversion of biblical spiritual direction. Once that misunderstanding is cleared away, the practice of authentic spiritual direction can begin.

The positive characteristics of the spiritual director, as well as the one receiving the direction, provide the best protection against the abuses of the Lucas/McKean model.

Gordon Smith provided five traits that characterize a healthy spiritual director.42 First, the director is one who understands the basic theology of the Christian life, especially concerning the Holy Spirit. He or she is acutely aware that he or she is not the source of the direction, but rather the conduit. Second, the director needs to have some knowledge of the history of Christian spirituality in order to draw on the vast wisdom contained in the Christian centuries. Third, the director must be compassionate. Fourth, the director must be gifted in “double listening,” the ability to listen both to the directee and to Christ, who is always present in the conversation. Finally, the director must maintain the highest standard of confidentiality. If these traits are recognized and followed any abuses of power or domination are reduced, if not totally eliminated.

Thomas Merton was less structured in his discussion of the traits of a healthy spiritual director. He did, however, provide some specific details. Of first importance to

Merton was that the director is one who should be spiritually healthy himself, one who devotes time to prayer and meditation, “Since he will never be able to give to others what

41Merton, Spiritual Direction, 48.

42Smith, Spiritual Direction, 82-86.

142

he does not possess himself.”43 Beyond that, Merton stated that a director had to be sympathetic, understanding, patient, humble, and above all, interested in the entirety of the human who was before him.44 Merton’s emphasis on the spirituality of the director highlights another considerable difference between authentic spiritual direction and the abuses of an authoritarian, dictatorial style of control. In authentic spiritual direction the human director is to exemplify the presence of Christ to the directee. This can only be accomplished if the life of the director is itself hidden in the life of Christ.

The characteristics of the directee, or learner, are equally important in the relationship. Gordon Smith listed three requirements:45 first, there must be a desire to grow and mature in all matters of spirituality. Second, there is the need for humility.

Smith draws a distinction between humility and with gullibility or compliance, which are destructive to the relationship. For Smith, humility was a “gracious vulnerability” that welcomes what is provided by the director.46 Third, the entire process should be intentional on the part of the directee. The time spent with the director must be focused, and the insights of the director taken with all seriousness. To offer anything less is to sabotage the relationship.

Thomas Merton mentioned many of the same characteristics, albeit with some distinctions.47 He stressed that the directee be active in the process, not “inert” or

43Merton, Spiritual Direction, 28.

44Ibid., 33-34.

45Smith, Spiritual Direction, 90-92.

46Ibid., 91.

47Merton, Spiritual Direction, 32-33. 143

“passive.” Merton stressed the need for honesty and humility, “We must let the director know that (sic) we really think, what we really feel, and what we really desire, even when those things are not altogether honorable . . . Hence, we should approach direction in a spirit of humility and compunction, ready to manifest things of which we are not proud.”48 Merton’s emphasis throughout his discussion on spiritual direction was that the relationship between director and directee should be open and informal, the type of conversation one would have with an equal, as, on a human level, that is exactly what is transpiring. The direction comes not from the human director, but from God through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The practice of spiritual direction is either foreign or offensive to the majority of members of the Churches of Christ. The principal reason that most members in the modern Churches of Christ reject the practice involves the abuses of the

Crossroads/Boston discipling movement. However, spiritual direction is a biblically sound, historically justified practice that is a necessary component of the life of confession. As with any other spiritual discipline, direction should be treated with respect, but it need not be feared, and certainly not rejected.

Summary

Christian confession involves the adoption of three disciplines. First is the recognition and worship of a transcendent God. This leads to an acknowledgement of both individual and corporate sin. The final discipline is a submission to another disciple who can assist on the journey to a deeper relationship with God and Christ. Each of the

48Ibid., 33. 144

larger disciplines involves the implementation of specific practices. Contemplative Bible reading and meditative prayer are practices that reveal the true nature of God. Those practices are also the methods by which God invites his people to enter into his presence.

Self-examination and fasting reveal the condition of the disciple’s heart, and are necessary for the destruction of the sin that is thereby exposed. The practices of engaging in regular conversations and prayer with a spiritual director provide the guidance, support, and encouragement necessary for continued spiritual growth.

The disciplines of recognizing a transcendent God and of admitting personal sin are classic doctrines taught within the Churches of Christ, but specific instructions as to how to implement those disciplines are lacking. In addition, the hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference has had the unfortunate result of insinuating that humans have a role in salvation and sanctification equal to that of God. By elevating the role of the human intellect and will-power, the corresponding attention to recognizing weakness and sin has been reduced, if not eliminated. Further, the discipline of sharing with a spiritual director has been actively scorned. It is essential that all three disciplines, as well as their related practices, be restored to the faith and practice of the Churches of

Christ if there is to be a renewal in a confessional theology.

145

CHAPTER 7

BECOMING A COMMUNITY SHAPED BY CONFESSION

One weakness of the Stone-Campbell Movement has been a preoccupation with restoring external features of a congregation while ignoring the underlying theological foundations of those features. Issues such as the polity of the congregation, worship styles, and proper name for the Movement have dominated collegial theological discussions. Alexander Campbell, in particular, concentrated on these formal aspects of the Church. This was in stark contrast to contemporaneous reform movements, such as the Anabaptists who focused on the moral reform of the Church, and the Pentecostal movements that were dedicated to experiencing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Renewal of the practice of confession does not seek to minimize the traditional concerns of

Restoration doctrine. However, just as true reformation of the person demands an increased focus on confession, so too does a reform of the congregation.

This chapter suggests that confessional practices of congregations of the Churches of Christ must arise from a behavioral understanding of what it means to be the church, as opposed to the prevailing formal understanding. Following that correction, changes in congregational behavior proceed in two specific directions. The first involves the

146

behavior of the worshipping community, and the second addresses the behavior that a congregation exhibits to their community, and the message that they communicate both explicitly and implicitly. Changing details of worship services, however, cannot change the culture of a congregation. True congregational change requires a change in the most fundamental relationship of the congregation to God. The proposals that follow, then, are not simply to make a worship service more modern or visitor-friendly. They are intended to both foster, and to reflect, a change in the core beliefs of the individual congregation.

A Restored Ecclesiology

As chapter 2 demonstrated, beginning with the writings of Alexander Campbell the ecclesiology of the Churches of Christ has focused on the distinctive formal identification marks of the Church. A unique pattern of conduct developed based on that foundation. Matters of personal morality such as the consumption of alcohol and the use of tobacco products (both condemned) and regular church attendance (strongly encouraged), did receive attention; but so long as the formal criteria were met, little attention was focused on Jesus’s teachings concerning the radical nature of the in- breaking Kingdom of God.

A confessional theology as suggested by the study of Scripture in chapter 3 does not reject those formal distinctions, but it depends upon a thicker view of the nature of the Church.1 Helpful approaches to identifying an authentic church are found in a number of sources, most notably within the Anabaptist, conventional Evangelical, and Neo-

1I am indebted to Glen H. Stassen for the concept of “thickness” in relation to Jesus and the Church. Glen Harold Stassen, A Thicker Jesus: Incarnational Discipleship in a Secular Age (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012).

147

Evangelical movements.2 A significant feature of these approaches to describing Jesus’s

Church is the emphasis on , or right living, as much as on orthodoxy, or right doctrine. Far more than a catalog of approved or unapproved behaviors, however, these approaches focus on fundamental issues of social justice, non-violence, transforming culture, and on having a focused mission.

Apologists and scholars within the Churches of Christ have begun recently to correct previous generations’ over-emphasis on form above function.3 Central to this amended ecclesiology is a desire to restore Jesus’s emphasis on the identification marks of the reign of God. Closely related to this is the other New Testament writers’ reliance upon the nature of Jesus in identifying those who are in fellowship with each other in

Christ (Phil 2:1-11, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Pt 2:4-11). In technical terms, Christology resumes the place of primacy in determining ecclesiology. In this regard, these twenty-first century restorers align themselves much more closely with Barton W. Stone than with

Alexander Campbell. They also echo the thick Christology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As this micro-restoration within the larger Restoration Movement continues, it no doubt will

2 For Anabaptist see David Augsburger, Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006). For evangelical see Ed Stetzer and Thom S. Rainer, Transformational Church: Creating a New Scorecard for Congregations (Nashville: B&H, 2010). For neo-evangelical see Jim Belcher, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009.

3 Most notably, Allen, The Cruciform Church. James W. Thompson has recently completed a three-part examination of discipleship and the nature of the church. These volumes were identified late in the preparation of this study, and I have not had time to fully explore each of these volumes. See James W. Thompson, Pastoral Ministry According to Paul: A Biblical Vision (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), Moral Formation According to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), and The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community Conformed to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014).

148

nurture the following specific practices that must take place in order for the Churches of

Christ to develop an authentic confessional theology.

Confession in the Congregational Community

Guidelines concerning the worship assembly of congregations of Churches of

Christ have focused almost exclusively on defining the actions of worship, which have received the designation of the “five acts of worship.” These include the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, praying, singing, giving, and a special emphasis on the preaching of a scripturally based sermon.4 The preacher and the congregational song leader determine the actual content of the service. The form of the service is somewhat standard, although the sequence of the acts and the content of the song service and sermon can vary significantly from one congregation to another.

The aspect of worship in the Churches of Christ that has received less attention has been the theology underlying the acts of worship.5 One result of this omission has been an absence of teaching regarding the importance of communal confession within the gathered assembly. If the theology of confession as established in chapter 3 were to be adopted, a renewal of the practice of confession would result in the confession and praise of a transcendent God, the admission of human weakness and sinfulness, and the proclamation of forgiveness. A common thread unifying all of these separate aspects would be a more general confession of faith proclaiming God’s plan and his redemptive works as evidenced throughout history. Each of these areas of theological significance

4Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 247-280.

5In this regard, Ferguson’s treatment is exemplary, as he devoted 41 pages of content setting forth a theology of worship before discussing the specific acts of worship. Ibid., 207-247. 149

will be examined in connection to the traditional five acts of worship listed above, with specific suggestions proposed for deepening the practice of confession in each of the acts.

Confession and the Weekly Observance of the Lord’s Supper

Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is one of the cherished practices of the

Stone-Campbell Movement.6 Acts 20:7 provides the rationale for the frequency of the memorial, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 provides the primary meaning for the memorial.

The Lord’s Supper is to be observed every Lord’s Day for the purpose of remembering

Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection. If a congregation is to create a deeper level of confession, this memorial should convey much more theological depth than is currently the case.

First, the Lord’s Supper commemorates the crowning achievement of both the transcendence and the immanence of God. While the nativity of Jesus is a compelling story, it is his death, burial, resurrection, and finally his ascension into heaven that proclaims God’s final victory over the powers of the world (Col 1:15-20, Eph 2:11-22,

Heb 9:11-14, 12:1-2). The Lord’s Supper is not just a solemn recollection of the tragic hours of Jesus’s death, nor is it merely a proclamation of his resurrection. The Lord’s

Supper is the feast by which Christians declare that God the father of Jesus is the ultimate power over the powers of the world, including the most fearful power, that of death (1

Cor 15:56-57). The proclamation of the transcendence of God is a necessary corrective to the mistaken belief, however unintentional, that if a congregation has the correct

6Several traditions have practiced weekly (or more frequent) observance of the Lord’s Supper. Various practitioners of the emerging church have recognized the importance of this practice. See Webber, Ancient-Future Faith, 110-111. 150

emblems and the correct frequency of participation, it has somehow captured the full meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

Second, the weekly remembrance of the Lord’s Supper provides the supreme opportunity for the confession of human weakness and sin. However a person chooses to define the atonement, Jesus’s statement to his disciples that he sacrificed his blood “for the forgiveness of sins” is emphatic (Mt 26:28). Although congregational practices vary widely, many congregations of the Churches of Christ offer an opportunity for individuals to respond and confess personal sins before the offering of the Lord’s Supper.

However, the admission and confession of the broader issue of human weakness and sinfulness is often ignored. The implementation of an intentional, focused admission of human weakness as a part of the participation in the Lord’s Supper would be a significant step toward the restoration of a confessional theology within a congregation.

The forgiveness of both individual and corporate sin is the third component of confession embodied within the Lord’s Supper. Just as the faithful Israelites participated in an annual observance of their defining experience with a redeeming God, so Christians participate in the Lord’s Supper in order to proclaim their redemption (Heb 10:11-18). In this regard, congregations of the Churches of Christ would do well to recover the

“feasting” or “supper” aspect of the Lord’s Supper. Because of acrimonious debates involving issues largely peripheral to the Lord’s Supper, the meal aspect of the memorial has been reduced to the symbolic eating of a tiny piece of unleavened cracker and a sip of grape juice. The concepts of joy and feasting are sacrificed in order to maintain Paul’s injunction that all things be done “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). The renewal of the celebratory aspect of the Lord’s Supper is critical for a positive confessional lifestyle

151

of a congregation.7 This aspect of worship renewal is likely to cause the greatest amount of concern among congregations of Churches of Christ. Those who would seek to transform a congregation’s practice must first learn that congregation’s history regarding the provision of the Lord’s Supper, and then move with great caution and skill to educate the minds and the hearts of the members that change is necessary and desirable for developing a healthier congregation.

The Lord’s Supper remains a vital practice for members of the Churches of Christ to communicate their vision of a unified Church on earth. The love-feast of the first century was established as one of the great unifying features of the early Church. The

Lord’s Supper can once again achieve that goal. For this to occur, the Lord’s Supper must once again become a confession of faith and obedience, a renewal of each member’s commitment to forsake everything and follow his or her lord.

Confession and Congregational Prayer

Congregations of the Churches of Christ are not liturgical in that, except for the preacher’s sermon, and perhaps the song selection, virtually every other aspect of the worship service is unscripted. This is especially true of the prayers that are offered in a communal worship setting. While spontaneous prayers have the advantage of being personal and heart-felt, they share a disadvantage in that those who offer them frequently rely on the memory of previous extemporaneous prayers and well-worn religious expressions. Within Churches of Christ, extemporaneous does not always mean original.

7John Mark Hicks provided the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement one vision of renewal for the Lord’s Supper. John Mark Hicks, Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2002). 152

Informed primarily from passages such as Matthew 6:5-15, Luke 11:1-13 and

Luke 18:1-5, as well as James 5:13, communal prayers within the Churches of Christ tend to be utilitarian, rather than devotional, in nature. The leader expresses a need or identifies a crisis, asks for divine intervention, and whenever possible, offers thanks for blessings received. Except for the introductory address frequently taken from Jesus’s model prayer, only on special occasions does the prayer leader spend much time in adoring, worshipping, or praising a transcendent God. The exuberant praise, the mournful laments, and especially the angry imprecations of the Psalms are noticeably absent. The most effective response to this absence is a concerted effort to reintroduce the language of the Psalms into the worship service of the congregation.8

As described in chapter 3, the psalmists expressed the freedom to reveal every human emotion to God. The most ardent emotion expressed was that of praise, together with the related feelings of love and devotion. The lament Psalms demonstrated, even in the middle of excruciating physical or spiritual pain, that joy and adoration were never far from the heart and lips of the psalmist. If a congregation lacks this central component of confession its prayer life is theologically crippled. Although a leader may offer a prayer for the congregation, the foundational relationship with a transcendent God, upon which prayer depends, is often absent. A return to the practice of praying the Psalms verbally as a part of the worship service is one means of filling this void of praise and honor.

Increased attention to the Psalms would have the additional benefit of demonstrating the necessity of lamenting congregational sins. Whereas the confession of

8“Whenever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure is lost to the Christian Church. With its recovery will come unexpected power.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Prayerbook of the Bible, 162. 153

sins is deemed a healthy practice in theory, the sins under consideration are always sins of the individual. An intentional praying of the Psalms would illustrate that congregations, and indeed even large associations of congregations, can and do sin and need to confess their sins.

Finally, a return to a formal praying of the Psalms within the worship assembly of the congregation would provide a broader and richer vocabulary for the expression of the

Christian’s confession of faith. The psalmist expressed an enduring trust in God regardless of withering opposition, devastating loss, or triumphant victory. As shown in chapter 1, the prevailing philosophical outlook of the Stone-Campbell Movement is triumphal. Christ triumphed over death, the church triumphed over the Greco-Roman world, and Alexander Campbell restored a pure New Testament Church in America. Any confession of faith among Churches of Christ has therefore been celebratory. Praying through the Psalms deepens the proclamation of faith to include situations of confusion, lament, and even imprecation. In the language of the New Testament, praying the Psalms would teach twenty-first century Christians how to proclaim their faith in the midst of exile (1 Peter 1:1) and trial (James 1:2).

Confession and Congregational Singing

All that has been written regarding prayer is also true of the song services in

Churches of Christ. No aspect of worship within the Churches of Christ, with the exception of the Lord’s Supper, has the potential to cause more fear and resistance to change than the song service. As with the Lord’s Supper, the song service has been a source of frequent conflict. The major division that was formally recognized in 1901

154

between the more conservative Churches of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of

Christ was caused primarily, although not exclusively, by of the use of musical instruments in the worship service.9 For this reason congregations must engage the process for renewal intentionally and with appeals both to the intellect and to the heart of every member.

First, the theological foundations for the song service must be clearly articulated and understood. The early Christians encouraged singing, not in response to a command, and not because of previous Jewish examples, but because singing was the most natural expression of a joyous, thankful heart (Eph 5:18-20, Col 3:12-17).10 The apostle Paul recognized that the act of singing provided the most appropriate method to express a wide variety of worship experiences: the expression of praise, thanksgiving, supplication, education, and edification being the most obvious. First century Christians did not sing simply to perform one act of worship, but rather to express many aspects of worship.

Based on the passages from Ephesians and Colossians, as well as the historical evidence of singing in the early church, the majority of Churches of Christ have maintained a rich heritage of a capella congregational singing in the worship service. This is theologically significant regarding confession in that, with the exception of the Lord’s

Supper, no other aspect of the worship service is so totally communal. All members share the lyrics of a song simultaneously. Each member must depend upon the others in the congregation to establish and maintain the proper pitch, tempo, and melody. Thus, the

9Following the lead of several large congregations in with influential, charismatic preachers, a growing number of congregations within the Churches of Christ have been introducing instruments into worship services, although maintaining non-instrumental worship services as well.

10See Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, 79-89; also Inheriting Wisdom, 239-243, for early Christian comments on the song service of the church. 155

song service will be perhaps the premier method of sharing, as well as teaching, the importance of mutual confession.

In order to encourage a more confessional atmosphere within a worship service, congregational leaders should ensure the individuals chosen to lead the worship services do so with the purpose of expressing the central aspects of confession. The majority of songs used in worship services of Churches of Christ are songs that extol salvation in

Christ, hope for an eternal home in heaven, or are designed to encourage a faithful

Christian life.11 If they reflected the content of the Psalms, the greater percentage would focus on the praise of God and Christ, thanksgiving for acts of salvation throughout history, and the confession of sins and gratitude for forgiveness. Congregational leaders need to evaluate, and if necessary, replace songbooks or digital formats that do not have an adequate confessional content. The common practice of selecting a songbook based on popular acclaim does not accomplish this need. Although by far the most controversial and perhaps the most confrontational act of direction, the congregational leaders should consider the option of providing a selection of songs that communicate the qualities of confession listed above. Elders and other congregational leaders do not allow false or misleading content in a sermon or Bible class, so it is incumbent upon these leaders to monitor the content of the song service as well.

11Comparing two hymnals compiled and edited by the same individual provides the following results: in Alton H. Howard, ed., Songs of the Church: 21st Century Edition (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1990), songs of praise to God and Christ accounted for 17% of the 748 songs. Songs devoted to the Christian life accounted for 26% of the songs, and songs with heaven as the subject matter accounted for 18% of the songs. Seven years later in Songs of Faith and Praise, praise for God and Christ increased to 27% of the 1,030 songs, the Christian life dropped to 24%, and songs with heaven as the subject matter dropped to 9%. Alton H. Howard, ed., Songs of Faith and Praise (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1997). 156

Second, leaders within congregations of the Churches of Christ should dedicate resources toward the creation and publication of appropriate new songs, as well as the preservation of older hymns that have demonstrated their value in communicating the various modes of confession. It will be critical for new generations of Christians to be able to express their understanding of the Christian faith in forms that resonate with their peers, while at the same time maintaining the heritage of faith and praise that has nurtured their predecessors. While some seminars and concentrated workshops are available for the education and encouragement of new songwriters, much more is needed.12 Gifted musicians, both young and old, should be identified and encouraged to produce new songs. Song leaders need to incorporate suitable new songs into worship services. Congregational singing does not simply bind the members of a congregation together in worship, it is a practice that binds worshippers to past generations and anticipates generations yet to come.

Confession and Giving

Although not as obvious as participation in the Lord’s Supper or congregational singing, the act of contributing finances, goods, or time has a compelling connection to confession in worship. A biblical theology of giving is built positively upon the blessing of a transcendent and beneficent God (Lev 23:1-44, 26:1-13, Dt 14:22-29, 26:1-15, 1 Cor

16:2), and negatively because the reluctance or refusal to give reveals the idolatrous nature of a person’s heart (Acts 5:1-11). Developing a confessional theology among a

12One example of an individual leading a song leading/songwriting workshop is Jonathan Hinckley, http://churchofchristsing.com/ChurchofChristSing.com/workshops. For a large-scale workshop see the Singing School at Abilene Christian University, http://singingschool.org. 157

community of believers through giving must take both of these emphases into consideration.

First, a Christian’s motivation for giving should be based upon God’s overwhelming benevolence. As the apostle Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians, giving is based on the example of Jesus, as well as the abundance of what one has been given (2 Cor 8:8-15, 9:6-15). Viewed in this manner giving becomes an actual, physical confession of God’s transcendent power. Giving, especially sacrificial giving, is a confession that God has provided the goods that are being contributed (either money, services, or products), and that he will continue to bless the giver in an equal or greater manner (Mal 3:10-12).

Second, the act of giving, whether of money, time, or goods, cuts against the human desire for the accumulation of wealth and power. It is a method of confessing that human acquisitiveness cannot provide that which is absolutely necessary for spiritual fulfillment. Jesus’s warnings in Matthew 6:1-4, and especially in 6:24-34 reveal that even in the act of giving wrong motives can intrude. Therefore, as with each of the other acts of worship, the congregational leadership must intentionally teach and model the concept of confession in the process of giving. A leadership that is obsessed with an idolatrous quest for signs and symbols of congregational prestige is limited in its ability to mentor members into the practice of confessional giving. Whether individual or communal, confessional giving weakens an idolatrous spirit and allows that spirit to be defeated.

When the act of giving takes place in the main assembly, the act of giving is not just an individual confession; it becomes a communal confession that binds the entire congregation to the praise of God’s benevolence and the rejection of idolatrous desires.

158

Certainly giving can be taught as a command, and the examples of giving throughout

Scripture can be taught as a model to be imitated. Just as participating in the Lord’s

Supper should be so much more than quickly eating a piece of a cracker and taking a sip of grape juice, the act of giving should be a purposeful act of worship that energizes and revives a congregation.

Confession and Preaching

The environment of energetic frontier and robust theological debate in which the Stone-Campbell Movement was born led to the development of a distinct type of preaching within Churches of Christ. That preaching was first evangelistic, with a clear call for sinners to repent and be baptized at the end of every worship service. The preaching was also confrontational, in that any person or group who swerved from the interpretations of the preacher, as determined by the hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference, was soundly condemned. Third, the preaching was primarily topical in nature, in that it was deemed necessary to present the “whole counsel of God”

(Acts 20:27) on any subject in every service to ensure the preacher not be guilty of distorting the Scriptures.13 While some preachers in the Churches of Christ have softened this model of preaching in some respects, and others have flatly rejected it, it is still popular in many regions of the United States. Regardless of the setting, the act of preaching is clearly one that deserves renewal through the practice of confession.

13Tom Olbricht, who would become a leader in the movement to replace the tripartite hermeneutic within Churches of Christ, recounts how this model affected him in youth in a fascinating theological autobiography, Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ, see especially Chapter 2, 49-86. 159

As the public proclamation of the word of God in the worship assembly, a sermon should convey a theology of confession as outlined in chapter three. This is not to suggest that a preacher must rehearse each of the points in every sermon. To do so deliberately would be pedantic and as such the sermon would be counterproductive. However, as the basics of a theology of confession are recognized, it becomes obvious that it is impossible to preach from any passage of Scripture without introducing one or more of those concepts. Confession in its most comprehensive sense should be the dominant purpose in preaching. The sermon is the preeminent vehicle for the confession of Christian faith, and the preacher must become the congregation’s principal confessor.

In addition to proclaiming the word of God, the preacher must also model the act of confession from the pulpit and in his personal life.14 This is not to suggest that the preacher display a voyeuristic venting of all of his greatest moral failings and deepest spiritual doubts. Neither is it to suggest that the preacher is the only one who has this responsibility, as within the Churches of Christ the congregational elders have the primary role of shepherding, or pastoring, the congregation. However, if a preacher is unable to address his own joy and thanksgiving, as well as his doubts and fears, in the most intimate of worship settings, it will be impossible for his congregation to move toward a fully confessional lifestyle. As a mentor and model of Christian discipleship, the preacher must demonstrate appropriate styles of confession both publically and privately.

The practice of confession is crucial to each of the acts of worship that Churches of Christ believe to be essential for the health of a congregation. However, a full theology

14Although some congregations within the Churches of Christ have moved to an egalitarian position, the overwhelming majority of Churches of Christ would be described as complementarian, with males serving as the primary preaching minister. 160

of confession in those acts of worship has not been developed. Members of the Churches of Christ have viewed confession as an individual response to an evangelistic sermon, or perhaps as the result of a guilty conscience. The understanding that an entire congregation must confess as a community is an unfamiliar one. A restoration of the concept of confession must include the entire congregation. The worship assembly would be an expression of adoration and praise to God, as well as a confession of human brokenness and the proclamation divine forgiveness.

Confession in the Community of the Congregation

The increased role of confession in the life of the individual will be difficult for most members of the Churches of Christ to accept. The necessity for personal confession has been a marginal topic in Bible classes and sermons. The heightened requirement of confession within the community of believers would be even more difficult to accept, especially concerning communal guilt, as the possibility that an entire congregation can be at fault runs directly counter to the culture of restorationist attitudes. The idea that a congregation of the Churches of Christ must make confession within the community in which it exists, will be the most difficult, and yet potentially the most beneficial breakthrough, in terms of congregational health.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Model of Corporate Self-Examination and Confession

As a brief introduction to this section, it is necessary to return to Dietrich

Bonhoeffer’s acceptance of, and even proclamation of, the guilt of the Confessing Church in Germany. As adamant as Bonhoeffer was concerning the reality that there was only one true Church, and that the Confessing Church in Germany was a part of that Church,

161

he was equally adamant that the Confessing Church was guilty of scandalous sins and needed to confess those sins publically. In his unfinished Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrote, “The church is today the community of people who, grasped by the power of Christ’s grace, acknowledge, confess, and take upon themselves not only their personal sins, but also the

Western world’s falling away from Jesus Christ as guilt toward Jesus Christ.”15

Bonhoeffer examined such sins through the lens of the Ten Commandments, identifying each failure of the Church to obey God with the dramatic phrase “the Church confesses.”16 The radical nature of Bonhoeffer’s accusations should not be overlooked.

He did not simply accuse the Church of being neglectful or lazy; he accused the Church of violence, murder, and apostasy. Bonhoeffer’s words are no less scandalous today than they were in the 1940s.

Bonhoeffer was similarly adamant that the Confessing Church shared in the guilt of a divided Christendom. In 1935 he wrote:

The Confessing Church is the church that lives not from its purity but from its impurity – the church of sinners, the church of penitence and grace, the church capable of living only through Christ, only through grace, only through faith. As such a church, as one engaged in daily penitence, it is a church that confesses its own guilt in the discord of Christendom and that at every moment remains wholly dependent on the gift of God’s grace.17

It is important to remember that for Bonhoeffer there was only one Church – Christ’s

Church. Yet, because the Church was divided, the Confessing Church of which he was a member shared in the guilt of the division. The implications of Bonhoeffer’s analyses for

15Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 135. This is the essence of Bonhoeffer’s concept of stellvertretung, or “vicarious representative action” that he introduced in his doctoral dissertation Sanctorum Communio and continued to develop throughout his lifetime.

16Ibid., 138-140. See also Life Together and Prayerbook, 114-115.

17Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde, 411. 162

the modern Church of Christ, should it dare to accept them, are enormous, and are admittedly daunting.

First, if a congregation of the Churches of Christ is to demonstrate a confessional attitude, it should begin by honestly evaluating its history in the community in which it exists. Dietrich Bonhoeffer used the Ten Commandments as a guide, and that text would be an equally beneficial starting place for modern congregations. However, other passages of Scripture, particularly from the New Testament, would provide valid guidelines for such a procedure. For example, a congregation could use the Beatitudes in

Matthew 5:3-12 as a measure to identify how well the congregation has defended the poor and persecuted, and if they have resisted the powerful. Jesus’s woes against the

Pharisees in Matthew 23:1-36 and his parable of the judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 are equally challenging a people who have made peace with the world and have rejected

God’s concern for the poor and defenseless. The apostle Paul’s lists of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and Colossians 3:5-10 provide examples of condemned behaviors, and Galatians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:12-17 provide the contrasting positive behaviors. The point is that in order for a congregation to be able to confess its sins, it must follow Bonhoeffer’s example and measure itself against Scripture, rather than against a similar sized congregation in a similar sized community with a similar theological outlook.

Next, a congregation of the Churches of Christ must honestly evaluate and confess its participation in situations that have ended in division, especially in events that have damaged the name of Christ and his Church in the community. For this exercise it will be necessary to gather information from the citizens of the community to determine

163

the opinion of the citizens to the congregation. The goal of this exercise is not to determine which person, side or congregation involved in a division is deemed to be correct, but rather to determine how the community views the particular congregation in relation to issues of divisiveness and a spirit of confrontation. A congregation known chiefly for a pugnacious character will not soon be known as a place of righteousness and forgiveness.

The actual form of confession proposed here will have to vary by congregation and by community.18 Congregations in larger communities might have to consider using some form of public media to reach the community. Congregations in smaller communities might involve participation in local community events in which a majority of the citizens would be present, or that eventually would be informed of the confession.

Every congregation could create a service of confession, during which confession of past sins could be made to individuals or representative members of those groups injured. The critical issue is not how past sins are confessed, but that the past sins are acknowledged and a firm commitment to overcome past wrongs is communicated clearly.

Any congregation that projects a condemning attitude toward groups it deems as inferior, and attempts to isolate itself from any engagement with the world, represents the worst example of a sectarian spirit. The self-examination required to create or restore a confessional attitude within a congregation should seek to transform this negative opinion. However, Richard Hughes noted that there is a positive connotation to the word

18Perhaps the most radical would be following the example of the Christians at Reed College as described in Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, 113-127, in which the students set up a booth to confess the sins of the church to a wildly secular college population. 164

“sectarian,”19 and that positive connotation as an ideal is worth emulating. A congregation that seeks to be a confessing congregation should be ruthless in its self- evaluation. It must both identify and acknowledge its past and present failures. From that evaluation it must move forward with a commitment to remedy the wrongs if possible, and to avoid making the same errors in the future.

Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb: A Model of Apocalyptic Counter-Culture and Confession

Most of the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement has been written through the perspective of Alexander Campbell. Campbell possessed the advantages of wealth and a commanding intellect. However, Barton W. Stone and David Lipscomb presented a vision of restoration that, while similar to that of Campbell in many respects, varied significantly from Campbell’s ideal.20 As noted in chapters 1 and 2, Stone did not accept

Campbell’s utopian view of society. Stone’s outlook has been described as apocalyptic, meaning that he viewed his contemporary culture in a pessimistic manner.21 His experience with the revival at Cane Ridge caused him to be deeply impressed with the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. Stone was an avowed restorationist, but whereas

Campbell believed that he could usher in the new millennium with his own actions, Stone simply wanted to prepare the Church to receive God when God chose to initiate the new millennium.

19Hughes, Reclaiming A Heritage, 6-7. Hughes defines that usage as “The church versus the values of the world.”

20Tracing the influence and calling for a renewal of Stone and Lipscomb’s vision has been the focus of Richard Hughes in particular. See Reclaiming a Heritage and a much longer treatise, Reviving the Ancient Faith.

21Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 92-93. 165

Both Stone and Lipscomb cared deeply for the poor. As a Tennessean, Lipscomb witnessed the ravages of the Civil War and worked tirelessly to aid those most devastated by the conflict. Neither Stone nor Lipscomb could make the type of triumphal declarations made by most Northern Disciples of Christ/Christian Church leaders following the war. After the war Lipscomb worked to generate aid for the southern churches, especially focusing on the destitute.22

If the Churches of Christ are to become a confessional church, they must reclaim

Stone’s apocalyptic, counter-cultural worldview. The acrimonious doctrinal battles over pre-millennialism and the work of the Holy Spirit, combined with an American culture that by the end of World War I utterly despised pacifism, set the stage for the rejection of that vision. The deep spirituality and overt counter-cultural ideals of Stone and Lipscomb were simply too unpopular to survive.23 However, Jesus called his disciples to accept such a culture of exile and personal rejection and the New Testament authors repeated his challenge (Mt 5-7, Heb 13:7-14, 1 Pt 1:1).

A return to the apocalyptic worldview of Stone and Lipscomb would exhibit several characteristics, each of which would be considered radical in light of the modern understanding of conservative Christian ethics. Lipscomb in particular taught that

Christians should abstain from all political service, including the practice of serving on a jury, voting, and above all else, serving in the military.24 He based these conclusions on the reality that a transcendent God is in control, and that human governments exist

22Ibid., 119-134.

23Ibid., 149, 166-167.

24Lipscomb, Civil Government, 141-142, 145-146, 66-68. 166

primarily because of human rebellion against God. Participation in any form of government was a rejection of God’s authority. According to Lipscomb, refusing to bow to governmental control is the ultimate confession that Jesus is Lord, and that Christians owe their allegiance to God and to no other power.

A return to an apocalyptic vision would also involve a deep and enduring interest in the poor and outcast members of society. Mary’s great song of rejoicing would become the formative anthem for this vision. In sending Jesus to the earth, God did overturn the power structures that enslave humans. In Lipscomb’s opinion, this is another reason why

Christians cannot support human government, no matter how benign that government might appear. It is the responsibility of God’s Church to care for the poor, the sick, and the destitute. Any abdication of that responsibility is a failure to confess God’s transcendence, his immanent presence through the continuing body of Jesus, and to confess humanity’s dependence upon God’s continual benevolence.

A return to the apocalyptic worldview of Stone and Lipscomb would force the modern heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement to re-orient their vision from focusing entirely upon recreating the first-century Church, to creating a Church formed by a vision of the future coming of Jesus.25 In this regard Dietrich Bonhoeffer essentially echoed

Lipscomb when he discussed penultimate and ultimate things.26 According to

Bonhoeffer, all that precedes the coming of Christ is penultimate, and the coming of

25Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 128.

26Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 146-170.

167

Christ is ultimate.27 Writing as if he were addressing Churches of Christ specifically,

Bonhoeffer declared, “The hungry person needs bread, the homeless person needs shelter, the one deprived of rights needs justice, the lonely person needs community, the undisciplined one needs order, and the slave needs freedom.”28 He then continued by saying,

Preparing the way for Christ cannot be simply a matter of creating certain desired and conducive conditions, such as creating a program of social reform . . . Only a spiritual preparation of the way will be followed by the gracious coming of the Lord. This means that visible deeds, which must be done to make people ready to receive Jesus Christ, must be deeds of humility before the coming Lord, which means deeds of repentance. Preparation of the way means repentance (Matt. 3:1ff). But repentance means concrete changing of one’s ways.29

In this way Bonhoeffer fused two concerns which were so important to Stone and

Lipscomb: the reality that the Church must exemplify Christ’s concern for the poor, and also the idea that the purpose of such actions is to get people ready to receive Christ when he comes. Above all, Bonhoeffer taught that Christ alone ultimately prepares the path by which Christ comes.30 No matter how fervent the movement may be, no human effort can be a harbinger of the millennium.

One of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological detractors falsely accused Bonhoeffer of leading a restorationist church. Helmut Röβler wrote to Bonhoeffer in 1934, “In its approach the Confessing Church is a church of restoration, which means that historically

27Ibid., 161-164. It must be noted that for Bonhoeffer, the “coming of Christ” can occur at any time, and is not exclusively a reference to the second, or final, coming of Jesus at the end of time.

28Ibid., 163.

29Ibid., 164-165.

30Ibid., 167.

168

it is already dead because it is closed rather than open toward the future.”31 Although the accusation against Bonhoeffer was baseless, the content of the accusation remains a valid challenge to the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement, a movement that is clearly restorationist. If the Churches of Christ are dead to their history, if they are closed rather than open to the future, then they cannot be confessional. The restoration of a confessional theology, exemplified and amplified by confessional practices, would allow the Churches of Christ to overcome Röβler’s accusation and enable them to become both apostolic and apocalyptic.

Summary

In order to develop fully a confessional theology the Churches of Christ must focus on the theological center that identifies the essence of the Church. Issues of polity, worship practices, and the name of the Church all have a measure of significance, and none are insignificant, but throughout the post-Pentecost writings of the New Testament the overwhelming emphasis is on the transcendence of God (theology), the Lordship of

Christ (obedient, humble service), and the behavior of God’s redeemed people (ethics and morality). The restoration of a fully confessional theology would have direct implications on the worship practices of the Churches of Christ. This chapter has proposed how each of the five practices that are stressed within the worship services of the Churches of

Christ would be reformed, not in a manner so as to make them more “seeker-friendly” or culturally relevant, but rather to communicate the heart of the gospel message.

31Bonhoeffer, London, 269. 169

A restoration of a confessional theology within the Churches of Christ would have its most visible impact in the manner in which local congregations relate to their communities. The greatest challenge that most congregational leaders face is to confront their past offenses, to admit that a congregation did violate God’s purpose for his people, and to make public confession of the sins committed. In matters of doctrine, a confessional theology would have implications for ecumenical conversations as well.

Heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement should promote and defend classic restoration convictions with the honesty that derives from valid theological inquiry, and the humility that derives from accepting such convictions may need correction. Finally, a restored commitment to confession would be affirmed visibly through an increased involvement by the congregation within the community, in whatever manner the congregational leaders feel is appropriate and beneficial for the welfare of that community.

170

CONCLUSION

The Churches of Christ have a rich heritage of theological and ecclesiological discovery.1 The vision of Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and others to unite the disparate factions of Christianity had its genesis in Jesus’s final prayer for his disciples.

The claim to follow the Bible only gave the congregations of the Churches of Christ a single resource of appeal for instruction and resolution of disputes. In seeking to return to apostolic Christianity, the Stone-Campbell Movement foreshadowed the emerging church movement of the late twentieth-century by almost two hundred years. Therefore, one reaction to this study might be that it has been too negative in its critique of the leaders, philosophical foundations, and practical developments of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

This study critiqued the failure of the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement to develop a confessional theology because only after a weakness has been identified can it be remedied. It stands as a confession of the lack of confession among Churches of

Christ. It is presented to challenge individuals and congregations to evaluate their past and present behavior and to make biblically sound and theologically appropriate changes.

What follows is a brief review of the key themes presented above, and a call for additional study and development.

First, members of the Churches of Christ must admit that they have been taught incompletely concerning certain issues, and incorrectly regarding others. This is to admit a truth, and is not a condemnation of a specific group or of a generation of educators and preachers. There has been a failure to adequately teach the history of the Church and the

1Eloquently identified by Hughes, Reclaiming a Heritage, 1-9. 171

history of the Stone-Campbell Movement in particular. The lack of historical awareness is most apparent in the unwillingness to recognize the philosophical foundations of the nineteenth-century Stone-Campbell leaders. There has been a failure to develop a confessional theology in general, and a failure to recognize the importance of

Confessions of Faith and the individual and communal confession of sin.

A confessional theology is a theology that communicates its own failings.

Confession praises God’s perfection, and simultaneously acknowledges human weakness.

No movement of human origin has ever been perfect, and the history of Christ’s Church on earth is a history of recurring regression and revival. A confessional theology owns all of the successes and failures of God’s Church and endeavors to become stronger through learning from all of them. A confessional theology is conscious of the past, but always looks to the future. A confessional theology is firm in a conviction that as long as the

Church exists, God will work through it to redeem human failure.

Next, a systemic change of an individual, congregation, or group of congregations can occur only by changing the core beliefs of that individual, congregation, or group of congregations. For the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement this means that individuals or congregations will be unable achieve spiritual renewal by modifying worship or leadership styles simply to accommodate a postmodern culture. Faced with a declining membership, many congregations of the Churches of Christ are abandoning centuries-old practices in the hope that such modifications will encourage growth, or at least stem the number of defections. Regardless of whether the membership numbers stabilize, incidental changes cannot affect spiritual growth. Permanent renewal can only occur at the level of the heart.

172

A confessional theology addresses this fact by continually analyzing human behavior against the standard of God’s will as revealed in the narratives, poems, commands, and judgments recorded in the Bible. A confessional theology does not exclude the incidental elements of ecclesiology but it is a theology focused on the nature of God. A confessional theology interprets matters of church worship and leadership as derivative aspects of how God has chosen to bless, discipline, and ultimately redeem his people. Every component of a confessional theology, from the reading of Scripture to the practice of using a spiritual director, is designed to draw the disciple deeper into the heart of God.

Third, while it would be more reasonable in terms of the canon of Scripture to establish a theology of confession beginning with the book of Genesis, and traditionally it has been the practice of the Stone-Campbell Movement to focus on the books of Acts-

Revelation, it is more theologically appropriate to begin with the book of Psalms. The

Psalms encourage, teach, and demonstrate the entire range of confession, including praise, thanksgiving, lament, acknowledgment of sin and even imprecation. The Psalms provide the rich vocabulary of words and themes that are necessary to develop a confessional theology. The fact that the Stone-Campbell Movement has struggled with the practice of confession is one indication that the Movement has neglected to integrate the Psalms into its core beliefs and practices.

Next, Christians must consider God’s entire history with his Church in order to be fully faithful to his present and future direction. While it is true that doctrinal heresies and practical errors have been introduced into the Church, the existence of those heresies and errors does not justify the rejection of centuries of theological discovery and reflection.

173

The writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer were selected for this study because of the proximity of his historical setting to the contemporary situation, and because of his penetrating insights into the nature of the Church. Many other theologians, both ancient and modern, could be selected with equal relevance. Modern Christians can learn much about their current situation by closely examining the wisdom presented by past disciples. The

Church neglects that wisdom only to its own detriment.

While it is true that practices cannot change the core beliefs of an individual or congregation, if those core beliefs do change, the behaviors will also change. Some of the practices described in Chapters 6 and 7 are designed to promote a confessional lifestyle, while others follow as a result of the creation of a confessional theology. A fuller understanding of the nature of God generates a confessional attitude, and the physical act of confession leads to a greater understanding of the nature of God and humankind. True confession continually draws the disciple into a broader and deeper relationship with

God.

The question as to whether congregations of the Churches of Christ will actually adopt the conclusions suggested by this study must be admitted. Genuine reasons for optimism exist. First, confession is a wholly biblical principle. Although many congregations of the Churches of Christ must recover and emphasize the practices of confession, this study promotes no innovation or invention. Second, “a restoration of the ancient order of things” is in the DNA of the Churches of Christ. Once it has been demonstrated that the practices of confession are indeed among the most ancient of spiritual disciplines, adoption of similar practices, though perhaps unfamiliar and difficult at first, can be accepted. Third, though the philosophical changes of Postmodernism are

174

pregnant with the possibility of theological error, they also provide the hopeful opportunity to eliminate unhealthy traditions. If the practices suggested in this study are indeed biblically and theologically sound, no legitimate arguments should be raised against them.

Admittedly, there are reasons to suggest that many, especially among the most conservative congregations of the Churches of Christ, will not accept the conclusions of this study. The first is the nature of that conservatism. Attitudes hardened through decades of acrimonious debate and unyielding resistance to any wind of change are not likely to soften easily. An institutional pride of being unique among Christian churches is related to that conservatism. A healthy resistance to theologically shallow attempts to duplicate the numerical growth of other churches can have a detrimental effect of reducing the possibility of adopting healthy, although unfamiliar, practices. A third reason to suggest some resistance to the changes suggested by this study is found in

Flavil Yeakley’s groundbreaking work on personality types reported in the book, The

Discipling Dilemma.2 The question of personality centers on whether there is an aspect of the ecclesiology within the Churches of Christ that attracts individuals who are resistant to the practices of confession. In his study, Yeakley rejected the suggestion that a single, monolithic personality type defines the average member of the Churches of Christ, outside of those in the Boston Discipling movement he surveyed. That study was motivated by an entirely different question, however, and the possibility of personality type affecting the behavior of confession remains an open one.

2Norton, Vinzant and Vinzant, The Discipling Dilemma, 23-39.

175

This study of confession in the Churches of Christ has created additional questions that deserve further examination. As an example, the present study is the product of a white male born in the early 1960s and raised in a number of traditional, southern congregations of the Churches of Christ. A question arises as to the validity of the conclusions reached in this study as they relate to congregations of African, Asian, or

Latin American members of the Churches of Christ, and to congregations of the Churches of Christ outside the regions where the Stone-Campbell Movement is numerically the strongest. A similar study conducted by a member of a tradition not related to the

Churches of Christ would be valuable. Some Christian traditions are overtly confessional, others less so. The characteristics that the traditions share or diverge from each other offer avenues of study that would be valuable to explore.

As a final confession, a theology of confession is not the solution for every problem confronting congregations of the Churches of Christ. A temptation for any religious leader is to over-simplify complex theological, philosophical, and sociological issues. Developing a confessional theology is a necessary step for heirs of the Stone-

Campbell Movement, but that step alone will not resolve the debates over doctrinal matters, nor will it provide simple solutions to vexing questions of practice. Those debates and practical difficulties will be resolved only after a more complete submission to the Holy Spirit, which is itself a hopeful result of a confessional theology.

The twenty-first-century Churches of Christ share a unique opportunity and problem. The opportunity is to present the vision of men such as Elias Smith, Abner

Jones, Barton W. Stone, and Thomas and Alexander Campbell to a culture where the reality of a divided church is for many a stumbling block to accepting the gospel of

176

Christ. The problem is that for over two centuries the vision of a restored and united

Church has been distorted. It has been distorted primarily because the heirs of the Stone-

Campbell Movement lack a clear, focused and intentional theology of confession. A disposition toward arrogance, numerous acrimonious divisions, and a crippling identity crisis are all symptoms of this lack of a confessional theology.

As the Stone-Campbell Movement enters its third century, it has perhaps entered into the time of its most crucial test. On one extreme of a philosophical continuum are members of the Churches of Christ who are reactionary and fearful. They feel the only way forward is a return to a golden era when their traditionalism was virtually unchallenged. On the other extreme of the continuum are members who are committed to making the church culturally relevant. They believe the only way forward is to abandon or modify all the traditions of the Churches of Christ in the hope that they might salvage some small vestige of pure Christianity. The biblical answer is to avoid both extremes, to reject both the reactionary and the impetuous, and to escape their equally idolatrous solutions. Those who hold the extreme positions are guilty of the persistent sin of elevating human rationality to the place reserved for God alone. Both extremes reject a theology of confession.

Confession is a grace given by God to humans so that they can live their lives rejoicing in his presence and sustained by his forgiveness. A life lived in the absence of confession is a life lived in the absence of God. The absence of confession is a spiritually crushing burden. Churches of Christ have labored under that burden for too long. We can bear it no longer.

177

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, C. Leonard. The Cruciform Church: Becoming a Cross-Shaped People in a Secular World. Rev. ed. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2006.

______. Things Unseen: Churches of Christ in (and After) the Modern Age. Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood Publishers, 2004.

Allen, C. Leonard, and Richard T. Hughes. Discovering Our Roots: The Ancestry of Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988.

Allen, C. Leonard, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed. The Worldly Church: A Call for Biblical Renewal. 2nd ed. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1991.

Anderson, Ray. An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Aronis, Alex. Developing Intimacy with God: An Eight-Week Prayer Guide Based on Ignatius’ “Spiritual Exercises.” Makati City, Philippines: Union Church of Manila Philippines Foundation, 2002.

Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Vernon J. Bourke. Vol. 10 of The Fathers of the Church. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc. 1953.

Augsburger, David. Dissident Discipleship: A Spirituality of Self-Surrender, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.

Bauerschmidt, John C. “The Godly Discipline of the Primitive Church.” Anglican Theological Review 94 no. 4 (Fall 2012): 685-694.

Belcher, Jim. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2009.

Benedict. The Rule of St. Benedict. Translated by Anthony C. Meisel and M. L. del Mastro. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Translated by Victoria J. Barnett. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Barcelona, Berlin, New York: 1928-1931. Edited by Clifford Green. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 10 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

178

______. Berlin: 1932-1933. Edited by Larry L. Rasmussen. Translated by Isabel Best and David Higgins. Vol. 12 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.

______. Discipleship. Edited by Geffrey B. Kelly and John D. Godsey. Translated by Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss. Vol. 4 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

______. Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work: 1931-1932. Edited by Victoria J. Barnett and Michael B. Lukens. Translated by Anne Schmidt-Lange, Isabel Best, Nicolas Humphrey and Marion Pauck. Vol. 11 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

______. Ethics. Edited by Clifford Green. Translated by Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 6 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

______. Life Together and Prayerbook of the Bible. Edited by Geffrey B. Kelley. Translated by Daniel Bloesch and James H. Burtness. Vol. 5 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

______. London: 1933-1935. Edited by Keith Clements. Translated by Isabel Best. Vol. 13 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

______. Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church. Edited by Clifford J. Green. Translated by Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens. Vol. 1 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

______. Theological Education at Finkenwalde: 1935-1937. Edited by H. Gaylon Barker and Mark S. Brocker. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Vol. 14 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.

______. Theological Education Underground: 1937-1940. Edited by Victoria J. Barnett. Translated by Victoria J. Barnett, Claudia D. Bergmann, Peter Frick, and Scott A. Moore. Vol. 15 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Brother Lawrence. The Practice of the Presence of God. Edited by Harold J. Chadwick. Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1999.

Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

______. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

179

Bullock, C. Hassell. Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Burke, Spencer. Making Sense of Church: Eavesdropping on Emerging Conversations About God, Community, and Culture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Calhoun, Adele Ahlberg. Spiritual Disciplines Handbook: Practices That Transform Us. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion 1541 edition. Translated by Elsie Anne McKee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009.

Campbell, Alexander. “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things No. 1.” Christian Baptist 2, no. 7 (Feb. 7, 1825): 132-136.

______. “Any Christians Among Protestant Parties?” Millennial Harbinger New Series, 1, no. 9 (September 1837): 411-414.

______. The Christian System in Reference to the Union of Christians and Restoration of Primitive Christianity as Plead by the Current Reformation. 2nd ed. 1839. Reprint, St. Louis: Christian Publishing Co., n.d.

______. “The Lord’s Prayer.” Millennial Harbinger Series 5:1 no. 1 (January 1858): 42.

______. “The Third Epistle of Peter, to the Preachers and Rulers of Congregations – A Looking Glass for the Clergy.” Christian Baptist 2 no. 12 (July 4, 1825): 243- 247.

______. “Sermon on the Law.” Millennial Harbinger Series. 3:3 no. 9 (September 1846): 493-521.

Campbell, Thomas. Declaration and Address. 1809. Reprint, St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1978.

Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and its Implications. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Celsor, Scott. “The Old Testament in the Foundation of Alexander Campbell’s Worldview.” Restoration Quarterly 44 no. 4 (4th Quarter, 2002): 213-231.

Childers, Jeff W., Douglas A. Foster, and Jack R. Reese. The Crux of the Matter: Crisis, Tradition, and the Future of Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002.

Cloud of Unknowing. Edited by James Walsh, S.J. Mahwah, NJ, 1981.

180

Cukrowski, Kenneth L., Mark W. Hamilton, and James W. Thompson. God’s Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002.

Dudrey, Russ. “Restorationist Hermeneutics Among the Churches of Christ: Why Are We at an Impasse?” Restoration Quarterly 30 no. 1 (1st Quarter 1988): 17-42.

Ferguson, Everett. “Alexander Campbell’s ‘Sermon on the Law’ A Historical and Theological Examination.” Restoration Quarterly 29 no. 2 (2nd Quarter, 1987): 71-85.

______. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

______. Early Christians Speak: Faith and Life in the First Three Centuries. 3rd ed. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1999.

______. Inheriting Wisdom: Readings for Today from Ancient Christian Writers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Fitch, David E. The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.

Foster, Richard. Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home. New York: Harper One, 1992.

______. Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth. New York: HarperCollins, 1978.

Fulford, Hugh. “Did Alexander Campbell Start the Church of Christ?” Gospel Advocate 123 no. 19 (Oct. 1, 1981): 596-597.

Garrett, Leroy. The Stone Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches. Joplin: College Press, 1981.

Getcha, Job. “Confession and Spiritual Development in the Orthodox Church: Some Modern Questions to a Very Ancient Practice.” St. Vladimir’s Quarterly 51 nos. 2-3 (2007) 203-220.

Gibbs, Eddie, and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Times. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.

181

Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. The Churches of Christ in the 20th Century: Homer Hailey’s Personal Journey of Faith. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000.

______. Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866. Vol. 1 of A Social History of the Disciples of Christ. Nashville: The Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966.

______. Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900. Vol. 2 of A Social History of the Disciples of Christ. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2003.

Haynes, Stephen R. The Bonhoeffer Legacy: Post-Holocaust Perspectives. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Hicks, John Mark. Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2002.

Holloway, Gary, and Douglas A. Foster. Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2006.

Howard, Alton H., ed. Songs of the Church: 21st Century Edition. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1990.

______. Songs of Faith and Praise. West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 1997.

Hughes, Richard T. Reclaiming a Heritage: Reflections on the Heart, Soul and Future of Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2002.

______. Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2008.

Hughes, Richard T., and C. Leonard Allen. Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2008.

Hughes, Richard T., and R. L. Roberts. The Churches of Christ. Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 2005.

Ignatius. Spiritual Exercises and Selected Works. Edited by George E. Ganss, S.J. Mahwah, NJ, 1991.

Jarrel, W.A. “The Gospel in Water” or Campbellism Being an Exposition and Refutation of Campbellism, and an Exposition and Vindication of the Gospel and the New Testament Church. St. Louis: National Baptist Publishing, 1886.

182

Jones, Tony. The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Leclercq, Jean. “Confession and the Praise of God.” Worship 42 no. 3 (March 1968): 169-176.

Lewis, C.S. Reflections on the Psalms. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1958.

Lipscomb, David. Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation to It. 1889. Reprint, Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1957.

Lucas, Ernest C. A Guide to the Psalms and Wisdom Literature. Vol. 3 of Exploring the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Luther, Martin. “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” Translated by A.T.W. Steinhauser, rev. by Frederick C. Ahrens and Abdel Ross Wentz. In Word and Sacrament II. Vol. 36 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Abdel Ross Wentz. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959: 3-126.

______. “Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses.” Translated by Carl W. Folkemer. In Career of the Reformer I. Vol. 31 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Harold J. Grimm. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957: 77-252.

______. “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics.” Translated by Frederick C. Ahrens. In Word and Sacrament II. Vol. 36 of Luther’s Works. Edited by Abdel Ross Wentz. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959: 354-361.

Marsh, Charles. Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.

McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

______. A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Merton, Thomas. Contemplative Prayer. New York: Image Books/Doubleday Religion, 1996.

183

______. Spiritual Direction and Meditation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1987.

Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

Miller, Donald. Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2003.

Norton, Howard W., Don E. Vinzant, and Gene Vinzant. The Discipling Dilemma. Edited by Flavil Yeakley, Jr. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1988.

Olbricht, Thomas H. Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1996.

______. “The Theology of the Church in Churches of Christ.” Restoration Quarterly 50 no. 1 (1st Quarter, 2008): 15-34.

Peace, Richard. Contemplative Bible Reading: Experiencing God Through Scripture. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998.

______. Meditative Prayer: Entering God’s Presence. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998.

Peterson, Eugene. Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006.

Royster, Carl H., compiler. Churches of Christ in the United States. Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009.

Schlingensiepen, Ferdinand. Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance. Translated by Isabel Best. New York: T and T Clark, 2010.

Schnittjer, Gary Edward. The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Scott, Walter. “Circular Letter.” The Evangelist 1 no. 1 (Jan. 2, 1832): 17-19.

______. The Gospel Restored: A Discourse of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, In Which the Facts, Principles, Duties, and Priviliges of Christianity Are Arranged, Defined, Discussed, And The Gospel In Its Various Parts Shewn To Be Adapted To The Nature And Necessities of Man In His Present Condition. 1836. Reprint, Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club, 1949.

184

Smith, Gordon T. Spiritual Direction: A Guide to Giving and Receiving Direction. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Smith, R. Scott. Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church. Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers, 2005.

Stassen, Glen Harold. A Thicker Jesus: Incarnational Discipleship in a Secular Age. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

Stetzer, Ed and Thom S. Rainer. Transformational Church: Creating a New Scorecard for Congregations. Nashville: B&H, 2010.

Stone, Barton W., Robert Marshall, John Dunlavy, Richard M’Nemar, John Thompson, and . Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. 1804. Reprint, St. Louis: Mission Messenger, 1978.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

______. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-Culture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Tippens, Darryl. Pilgrim Heart: The Way of Jesus in Everyday Life. Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2006.

Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980.

Thompson, James W. The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community Conformed to Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.

______. Moral Formation According to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

______. Pastoral Ministry According to Paul: A Biblical Vision. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Warren, Thomas B. The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1986.

Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.

185

West, Earl Irvin. The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement 1849-1865. Vol. 1. Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1974.

Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

White, Heath. Postmodernism 101: A First Course for the Curious Christian. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.

Willard, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York: HarperOne, 1997.

Wilhoit, James C. Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered: Growing in Christ through Community. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

186