In last week’s column we
acquainted readers with W. R. Walker by sharing a 1963 article about him
published a few weeks after his death.
Walker preached for almost two
decades in churches in northeast Ohio and, later, for 28 years (1920-48) at
Indianola Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. In between, from approximately
1914 to 1920, he taught at Christian colleges.
Walker also was part of
Standard Publishing for about 40 years. In addition to serving as president
from the 1920s until 1955, Walker was listed as “editorial counselor” within
the pages of Christian Standard from
1945 until his death in 1963 at age 94. In that capacity, Walker wrote a
question and answer column periodically from 1951 to 1961.
Here is how former Christian Standard editor Burris Butler
described Walker when he stood and spoke at Walker’s funeral,
W. R. was a leader and peacemaker among his brethren. He was a peacemaker because he was a strong leader. In his concept peace did not lie in the path of compromise, but in adherence to principles that were right. He knew how to “be angry and sin not.” He loved the fellowship of the saints so much that he hated anything that threatened that fellowship. He was impatient alike with the liberalism that took liberties with the Word of God—that “loosed on earth” what was not “loosed in heaven”—and with the legalism that sought to “bind on earth” what was not “bound in heaven.”
With this in mind, here are
some of the Q&A exchanges from “The Counselor’s Question Box” from 1954.
_ _ _
June
5, 1954
Could
one of the other apostles have betrayed Christ, as well as Judas, or was Judas
chosen for that purpose? Was Satan in Judas all of his life? We have been
having a discussion of these questions in our Bible-school class.
The fame of Judas Iscariot
rests upon his base perfidy. History has left a record on none other so
universally despised. Now and then some preacher adventures into a character
analysis of Judas in which he tries to display his skill in psychoanalysis by
suggesting that Judas was deceived into thinking that his betrayal would be the
means of Jesus’ miraculous extrication from his enemies, thus showing his
divine power and authority! His school of thought is limited.
Speculation as to why Jesus
included him in His chosen list of apostles is useless. We do not know. One
man’s guess is as good as another’s, and both are worthless. . . .
Jesus called Judas a “son of perdition” (John 17:12). What a title to carry into the life beyond! His suicide did not atone for his treachery. We have Jesus’ own example for saying of such: “Good were it for that man if he had never been born.” Why did Jesus call him? It is natural to raise the question, but there are other far more profitable matters for discussion, even in a Bible-school class session.
_ _ _
June 26, 1954
If
a person moves to a town where there is no church after the New Testament
pattern should he become affiliated with a denominational church?
What one should do when deprived
of an opportunity to worship in a church of New Testament pattern is a question
for individual decision and action. Every community has a right to have a
church that is simply a Christian congregation, without denominational control.
Such a group may consist of one family or a small number of fellow Christians.
Meeting houses and local organizations are not essentials in extreme
situations.
Membership in a denominational church involves acceptance of its peculiar doctrines and ecclesiastical supervision. Attendance in such services may be helpful in some measure, but that is quite different from becoming a member of the church, thus perpetuating a cause of division in the body of Christ so scathingly rebuked by Paul in his writings. Refusal of membership is in itself a rebuke to denominationalism. A courteous expression of one’s reluctance to become a member of a denomination is often influential in preparing a community for the organization of a church of the New Testament pattern.
_ _ _
July
3, 1954
I
do not believe the doctrine of “once in grace, always in grace,” but is there a
way in which we know, although we are weak and we sin many times, that we are
saved?
Obedience to Christ as Lord
inducts one into the family of God as a son. Thenceforth he has access to God
as a son, and when in need of forgiveness, through penitent prayer and personal
confession to God, he is assured that God will hear (1 John 1:8-10). The
parable of the prodigal son portrays God as being anxious to receive a penitent
child back into His favor.
Categories of sin—such as
“mortal,” “venial,” “willful,” “omission,” “in ignorance,” etc.—are human
distinctions, not divine. Sin is sin, regardless of the degree of intensity or
circumstances of commission. That does not mean that God does not recognize
such differences, but that so far as we know, He has but one law for
forgiveness. Penitence, confession, restitution, and resolution to live free
from repetition is that law. We know that God knows the heart, and will deal
more lovingly with His erring children than we can understand.
The privilege of forgiveness, however, is quite different from “once in grace, always in grace.” If by “grace” we mean the possibility of obtaining forgiveness, the Christian is always in grace. But having a privilege is very different from an assurance that God will exercise His mercy regardless of our faithfulness to Him.
_ _ _
July 31, 1954
Is
stewardship more important than baptism, according to New Testament teaching?
Neither baptism nor
stewardship outrank the other in the Christian life. Both are obligations laid
on us by Christ. It is never safe to make invidious comparisons relating to the
importance of Christian duties.
In baptism we are obeying a
command which visibly separates us from the disobedient world. We are “baptized
into Christ,” thus becoming a member of His body.
In stewardship, we reveal the extent to which we acknowledge His ownership of us. A steward does not own the property he administers. Christian stewardship includes far more than faithful use of one’s money. That is but one phase. The Christian steward “first gives himself to the Lord” (2 Corinthians 8:5). Then nothing Christ may need is withheld, whether use of time, talent, opportunity, teaching, or other avenue of service [that] presents itself. The New Testament teaches stewardship of life, of personality, but does not categorize one particular duty as paramount to others.
_ _ _
September 4, 1954
Please
discuss the Scriptural method of selecting elders. One school of thought claims
that they should be appointed using Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23 as proof texts;
another group holds that they should be elected by the congregation.
. . . The New Testament,
carefully read and interpreted, certainly condemns the arbitrary and
presumptuous “appointing of elders” by any one.
Self-styled “evangelists” have
introduced dissension and division in a number of churches by meddling in the
internal affairs of the administrative procedure. They loudly proclaim their
loyalty to the New Testament doctrines. However, they ignore Paul’s rebukes to
“them which cause divisions” (Romans 16:17). The church splitter is a heretic, as defined in the New
Testament. He is to be avoided. Somewhere there is a so-called “Bible” college
which teaches its young preachers that they are “evangelists,” and as such have
the same kind of authority Paul gave to Titus in Crete. Such arrogant
presumption is equaled only by the claims of the papacy. Let us look at
Scriptural teaching on this. In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) Jesus gave
authority to the apostles to “teach”—a very different assignment from that of
administration. There is not a hint anywhere that the apostles interfered in
local procedural practices. When asked to administer relief, they definitely
refused, insisting that the local church select its committee for that purpose
(Acts 6:1-6). The “laying on of hands” by the apostles merely signified their
approval of the church’s choice.
They expressly stated their
duty was to “minister the Word”—teach the facts of the gospel. Today’s
ministers would do well to study their Scriptural assignment. If loyal, they
would do less meddling in local church administration.
In both passages mentioned in
the question above, the word “appoint” suggests an orderly procedure in
ratification of a choice already made by the local church. That group only had
“authority” to select its leaders.
Paul’s assignment to Titus was
a special one. A newly organized church, ignorant of proper methods of
performing its work, needed instruction. Titus was left to give it. He is not
even called an “evangelist.” A scriptural “evangelist” is a proclaimer of the
good news of the gospel. When he has faithfully performed that duty, he can
leave the duty of selecting its officers to the church. Absolutely no authority
inheres in “evangelists.”
Now, as to the best method of
selection of elders, etc., the only essential factor in the case is that it be
done by the congregation. One church permits its elders to be a close
corporation, allowing them to “appoint” their own successors! Fundamentally,
that is the same as Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference between a
local and “universal” hierarchy is geographical.
Each congregation has both the right and responsibility of choosing its own officials. Let it do this with caution, prayer, and attention to the doctrinal belief of the men it selects. A local church is completely autonymous in its government. When it surrenders that right to any one outside its own membership, whether “evangelist,” “Committee on the Ministry,” a state or national society, it accepts the principle of hierarchical control. Churches should stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ has set them free.
_ _ _
December 11, 1954
Does
the International Convention of the Disciples of Christ call itself a religious
denomination?
Yes, the officials of the
International Convention have accepted a denominational status. Not all who, as
“disciples of Christ,” attend the convention, however, accept that segmented
designation. A considerable per cent, how large is only conjectural, considers
themselves undenominational Christians. To be accepted in such organizations as
“World Council of Churches of Christ,” et
al, “Disciples of Christ” must concede that they are sectarians. Only
sectarian bodies are eligible. Individual members of the body of Christ are
treated as “outside the pale.”
_ _ _
While but a small sample from a life’s work, W.R. Walker’s writings from 1954 seem to support Burris Butler’s description of him from this article’s introduction.
—Jim
Nieman, managing editor, Christian
Standard
0 Comments