Richard Baxter, my hero in moderate non-conformity, wrote in 1680:
“I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church, and hath been visible where ever the Christian Religion and Church hath been visible: But must you know what Sect or Party I am of? I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christians by the name of a Party, because they take up with Meer Christanity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties..."
That's right, C.S. Lewis did not originate "Mere Christianity," and one of the few things you can safely say about both Jack and Alexander Campbell is that they both honored Richard Baxter, who was also the source of "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" (except that Baxter got it from Rupertus Meldinus in Latin, but never mind).
Campbell had a number of Baxter's works in his hexagonal study; I've never been able to prove Thomas had read Baxter before "Declaration and Address" but it sure sounds like it. The dilemma for Baxter, especially in his turbulent old age, was that the Crown & Mitre demanded preachers to take a side, or else, and Baxter would not take an episcopal throne (history indicates he was offered Hereford's bishopric) nor would he affirm an absolute break in the Savoy Conferences, an example that another subsequent reader of Baxter would follow, as John Wesley died a priest of the Church of England, never truly leaving it.
But Thomas said in 1809: "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion amongst Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament. Nor ought any thing to be admitted as of Divine obligation, in the Church constitution and management, 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."
I think what Father Thomas is trying to do here is go back before all the splits & schisms, and seek a return to Eden, a renaissance of Christian unity as it was in post-Pentecost Jerusalem, and say "do what you will, but do not bar from communion or require for worship anything not in Acts or thereabouts." Of course, he immediately qualifies himself back from a primitivist precipice by saying unless a thing is "enjoined... either in express terms or by approved precedent." The problem there is that the Pope and magisterium in Rome, or the soon to arise Joseph Smith, Jr., would all say they are operating their version of Christian belief & practice within approved precedent.
The devil is the detail of approval. Who approves? An individual alone? A congregation in isolation? A Presbyterian synod covened? A Baptist association in assembly? Or does it require the affirmation of an angelic approval, such presence witnessed by at least two other elders in good standing?
Today, there's the question of who constitutes approved precedent. Is "published by Chalice Press" adequate to call something Disciples orthodoxy? And does a resolution out of General Assembly constitute a precedent of any sort, or just an advisory opinion? The most consequential actions recognized within our communion, the withdrawal of standing or removal of a listing from the Yearbook (peace be upon it), are still either congregational (a congregation can submit basic paperwork with legal validation to become withdrawn) or regional (ordination and ministerial standing are almost entirely regional, and variable across the thirty middle judicatories of our tradition, while GA action has given regions specifically the ability to remove congregations, still not a GMP authority). An appeal to precedent made in a congregational meeting might have some weight as a decision to disfellowship; I'm not so sure at a regional council or assembly.
So the authority to interpret what is mere in our Christianity as practiced by Disciples is still almost entirely congregational as to covenant relationships (to enter or to break them), and regional as to enforcement (to grant or to withdraw a status). We have a history of not liking the term "autonomous" when talking about our corporate life, but congregational autonomy is the key reality people face when learning "our ways" as ministers new to the Disciples of Christ. That autonomy should, in the light of our history and tradition, always be tightly bound by at the very least, Biblical precedent (if not covenantal obligation as is regularly asked of us by our leaders), but my experience is that Disciples' congregational autonomy is understood in an American cultural context far more than in a New Testament framework, let alone a Restorationist model.
Thanks for this Loren. The adjectives also reflect an overly politicized culture as well as one that is driven by marketing.
Richard Baxter, my hero in moderate non-conformity, wrote in 1680:
“I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church, and hath been visible where ever the Christian Religion and Church hath been visible: But must you know what Sect or Party I am of? I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christians by the name of a Party, because they take up with Meer Christanity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties..."
That's right, C.S. Lewis did not originate "Mere Christianity," and one of the few things you can safely say about both Jack and Alexander Campbell is that they both honored Richard Baxter, who was also the source of "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" (except that Baxter got it from Rupertus Meldinus in Latin, but never mind).
Campbell had a number of Baxter's works in his hexagonal study; I've never been able to prove Thomas had read Baxter before "Declaration and Address" but it sure sounds like it. The dilemma for Baxter, especially in his turbulent old age, was that the Crown & Mitre demanded preachers to take a side, or else, and Baxter would not take an episcopal throne (history indicates he was offered Hereford's bishopric) nor would he affirm an absolute break in the Savoy Conferences, an example that another subsequent reader of Baxter would follow, as John Wesley died a priest of the Church of England, never truly leaving it.
But Thomas said in 1809: "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion amongst Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament. Nor ought any thing to be admitted as of Divine obligation, in the Church constitution and management, 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."
I think what Father Thomas is trying to do here is go back before all the splits & schisms, and seek a return to Eden, a renaissance of Christian unity as it was in post-Pentecost Jerusalem, and say "do what you will, but do not bar from communion or require for worship anything not in Acts or thereabouts." Of course, he immediately qualifies himself back from a primitivist precipice by saying unless a thing is "enjoined... either in express terms or by approved precedent." The problem there is that the Pope and magisterium in Rome, or the soon to arise Joseph Smith, Jr., would all say they are operating their version of Christian belief & practice within approved precedent.
The devil is the detail of approval. Who approves? An individual alone? A congregation in isolation? A Presbyterian synod covened? A Baptist association in assembly? Or does it require the affirmation of an angelic approval, such presence witnessed by at least two other elders in good standing?
Today, there's the question of who constitutes approved precedent. Is "published by Chalice Press" adequate to call something Disciples orthodoxy? And does a resolution out of General Assembly constitute a precedent of any sort, or just an advisory opinion? The most consequential actions recognized within our communion, the withdrawal of standing or removal of a listing from the Yearbook (peace be upon it), are still either congregational (a congregation can submit basic paperwork with legal validation to become withdrawn) or regional (ordination and ministerial standing are almost entirely regional, and variable across the thirty middle judicatories of our tradition, while GA action has given regions specifically the ability to remove congregations, still not a GMP authority). An appeal to precedent made in a congregational meeting might have some weight as a decision to disfellowship; I'm not so sure at a regional council or assembly.
So the authority to interpret what is mere in our Christianity as practiced by Disciples is still almost entirely congregational as to covenant relationships (to enter or to break them), and regional as to enforcement (to grant or to withdraw a status). We have a history of not liking the term "autonomous" when talking about our corporate life, but congregational autonomy is the key reality people face when learning "our ways" as ministers new to the Disciples of Christ. That autonomy should, in the light of our history and tradition, always be tightly bound by at the very least, Biblical precedent (if not covenantal obligation as is regularly asked of us by our leaders), but my experience is that Disciples' congregational autonomy is understood in an American cultural context far more than in a New Testament framework, let alone a Restorationist model.
Jeff I so appreciate that your comment is likely as long as my own post and certainly more academic.
Offering the long view on labels and authority and how each shape the kinds of Christian communities we form . . . not to say verbose, I trust!