The “Gospel Advocate” Creed

Lately the Gospel Advocate’s insistence on establishing a new creed for the Churches of Christ has really started to bother me. I mean, it’s just so very wrong to claim to stand in the shoes of the founders of the Restoration Movement all the while trying to impose a creed—in exact contradiction to what they stood for.

Restoration background

Nowadays, a creed is simply a statement of belief. But as the word was used nearly 200 years ago, “creed” meant a statement of doctrinal belief by which you define who is in the church and who is not. For example, in a famous story, Alexander Campbell was not allowed to take communion at his home Presbyterian church until he’d affirmed that he agreed with that church’s creed. Campbell said he agreed with the creed insofar as it agreed with scripture, was given a token that would admit him to communion, but then, rejecting the entire concept, tossed the token in the plate and left, refusing to accept communion on such terms. Al Maxey tells the story well. http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx148.htm.

Today, when we quote the Campbells, saying we have “no creed but Christ and no book but the Bible,” we should understand that they meant that anyone who is in Christ should be considered a part of the church—as opposed to requiring a church member to agree to the denomination’s creed as a condition to receiving communion. You could agree with, say, the Westminster Confession on all points but one, but if you disagreed on that point, you were denied communion and considered an infidel.

Alexander Campbell wrote,

Faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, and obedience to him as our Lawgiver and King, the ONLY TEST of Christian character, and the ONLY BOND of Christian union, communion, and co-operation, irrespective of all creeds, opinions, commandments, and traditions of men.[1]

Now, Campbell’s point was not that creeds are bad because creeds are in error—

Our opposition to creeds arose from a conviction, that whether the opinions in them were true or false, they were hostile to the union, peace, harmony, purity, and joy of Christians; and adverse to the conversion of the world to Jesus Christ.[2]

Some have said we have no creed but the Bible, meaning by this that we have no creed except our interpretation of the Bible—as though there were some profound difference between a written creed and an unwritten creed. Obviously, there is none. Rather, Campbell taught that we should replace creeds with faith in Jesus, not faith in our understanding of divorce and remarriage or our understanding of the role of women in the church.

Thomas Campbell, Alexander’s faith, taught the same thing in his “Declaration and Address,” generally considered the founding document of the Restoration Movement and frequently quoted by even the most conservative writers—including Daniel Sommer in his “Address and Declaration” and H. Leo Boles in his “The Way of Unity between ‘Christian Church’ And Churches Of Christ.”[3]

Thomas Campbell wrote,

8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge: but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice; and of the way of salvation thro’ Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in, and obedience to him, in all things according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his church.

The Campbells came to their understanding of baptism some years later. Hence, except for baptism, Proposition 8 of the “Declaration and Address” is simply the plan of salvation as we’ve traditionally taught it. To be saved you must be aware of your lost condition, confess faith in Jesus, and consent to be obedient to him—hear, believe, repent, and confess.

9. That all that are enabled, thro’ grace, to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and father, temples of the same spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.

However, Proposition 9 is dramatically different from our traditional teaching. Here, Campbell urges that everyone who meets the standards stated in Proposition 8 should be considered a fellow Christian and “subjects of the same grace” and “joint heirs of the same inheritance.” In other words, Campbell contends that the standard by which we first become saved is the same standard by which we stay saved. “Hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized” defines not only who is first saved but who goes to heaven, provided, of course, they remain true to their faith and repentance.

This is also precisely what the Bible teaches. I demonstrate this in Do We Teach Another Gospel? and in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace, which you can buy at http://web.ovc.edu/bookstore/holysp.shtml or download for free at The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace.

The Gospel Advocate’s different approach

However, the Gospel Advocate takes an entirely different approach. The editors and authors certainly agree with Proposition 8 (plus baptism, of course), but they strongly disagree with Proposition 9. They teach instead, that although I can be saved without knowing a lot of theology—just faith, penitence, and baptism—I won’t stay saved unless I become quite the expert in theological matters. One mistake in a point of doctrine considered important that these men, and I’m damned in my sins, regardless of how innocent my mistake may be.

For example, in the March 2006 issue, Kerry Anderson, president of the Gospel Advocate Company, writes that “issues like worship [and] roles of men and women” are salvation issues. Hence, if my congregation has any worship practice that Br. Anderson disagrees with, he must consider me lost—beyond the reach of the grace Jesus died to give.

In the August 2006 issue, Jimmy Jividen declared certain men “on the road to apostasy [damnation]” because they “ignore the gender and qualifications of elders and deacons” In short, if I disagree with Br. Jividen’s interpretation of whether a woman may be a deacon, I’m damned.

I think women may be deacons. I think the scriptural and historical evidence is actually pretty strong. Buried Talents. It’s not absolutely conclusive, however. Br. Jividen disagrees with me. There’s evidence on his side as well, but neither is his evidence conclusive. Nonetheless, he considers me apostate for being wrong.

Ironically, the list of Restoration leaders who agree with me is quite long. The evidence is summarized in J. Stephen Sandifer’s excellent Deacons: Male and Female? (Houston: Keystone Publ. 1989) beginning at page 119. The following men supported the ordination of female deacons: Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Robert Milligan, Tolbert Fanning, W. K. Pendleton, Moses Lard, J. M. Barnes, E. G. Sewell, David Lipscomb, J. C. McQuiddy, C. R. Nicol, B. W. Johnson, Winkler, G. C. Brewer (considered Phoebe to have probably been a deacon), J. Ridley Stroop, J. D. Thomas, J. W. Roberts (“evidence seems strong”), James Bales, and many more.

By Br. Jividen’s logic, the men who edited the Gospel Advocate the longest, Lipscomb and Sewell, whose articles are being republished even today by the Gospel Advocate, are apostate!

In the January 2007 issue, Aubrey Johnson urges elders to divide ministerial candidates between “sheep” and “wolves.” He cites Jude 3-11 and describes these wolves as liars, ungodly, disruptive, self-important, unfaithful, divisive insurgents. He then tells elders how to tell who is a wolf and who is a sheep. He suggests a series of questions, some quite appropriate, and some astonishing.

Now, there’s nothing at all wrong with an eldership insisting that the church’s ministers teach the Bible as understood by the elders. Even if the elders consider a minister forgiven for his error, elders should not put a man in a pulpit to teach what they consider error. However, the point of the article is that these men are not only wrong, but they are also “godless” men for whom “blackest darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 13, describing “wolves”).

So, who are these evil men? Well, they are ministers of the gospel who believe the Lord’s Supper may be taken on days in addition to Sunday, ministers who limit the authority of the elders to moral authority, rather than positional authority, or youth ministers who allow girls to lead songs or prayers in private, mixed-group settings.

Well, Jesus took his supper on a Thursday night. The early church “broke bread” daily (compare Acts 2:46 with 20:7). But Br. Johnson concludes that anyone with such a point of view is outside the church entirely, ungodly, and outside the faith.

As David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell taught that elders have only moral authority, they become very notable examples of faithless, ungodly wolves.

And if 1 Tim. 2:11-15 only prohibits a woman from teaching a man in a public setting, as demonstrated by the fact that Priscilla taught Apollos in private, why doesn’t the public setting limitation also apply to song leading or prayers?

Now, I give these very typical examples to demonstrate how very destructive this approach to grace is. Once it’s admitted that we can pick some teachings in addition to faith, repentance, and baptism as so important that we can deny salvation to those who disagree with us, there’s no limit to how narrow and petty we can become. I mean, the Gospel Advocate is damning Christians for daring to agree with Lipscomb and Sewell—whom the Gospel Advocate lauds as heroes of the faith!

I have asked some of these men where they intend to draw the line. Is every single truth taught in scripture a salvation issue? Or just some truths? If it’s just some truths, what’s the Biblical standard for determining which truths are salvation issues and which are not? I’ve yet to receive a straight answer.

I agree that failure to repent can damn (Heb. 10:26-27). I agree that losing one’s faith damns (1 John 4:2-3). I don’t agree that agreeing with some preacher’s opinion on who may be a deacon is essential to my salvation.

The Gospel Advocate is not by any stretch a Restoration Movement periodical. You can’t damn people for agreeing with Lipscomb and contradict the founding principles of the Movement and credibly make such a claim. Much more importantly, this tendency to arbitrarily pick emotional issues and declare them salvation issues is utterly contrary to the New Testament.

[1] Preface to the second edition of the Christian System (1839) (emphasis in the original).

[2] Ibid.

[3]; These famous documents justify division based on grossly distorted interpretations of Thomas Campbell’s work.