John Mark Hicks

English version available here.

Dios llamó a Israel para guiar a las naciones y le confió los oráculos de Dios.

Cuando Dios llamó a Abraham, su intención era crear una nación que bendeciera a todas las naciones. En lugar de destruir a la humanidad en la Torre de Babel, Dios optó por comenzar de nuevo con un nuevo Adán. Dios eligió a Abraham, a través de quien creó a Israel, y así, finalmente, eligió a Jesús, el segundo Adán de la raza humana.

Israel como imagen de Dios

Israel existía como un remanente entre las naciones. «Solo a ustedes los he escogido de entre todas las familias de la tierra» (Amós 3:2). El futuro de la humanidad parecía sombrío al final de Génesis 11, pero Dios eligió a Israel como nación entre los pueblos de la tierra para revelar su misericordia y gloria divinas. Con Israel, Dios creó de nuevo, al igual que con Noé y al igual que en el principio con Adán.

Dios invirtió en Israel como una muestra de sabiduría y entendimiento, una manifestación de la gloria y la justicia divinas. La Torá era un testimonio para las naciones, y si Israel vivía según su guía, las naciones lo alabarían: «Ciertamente esta gran nación es un pueblo sabio y entendido» (Deuteronomio 4:6).

Israel fue diseñado como la nueva imagen de Dios en el mundo, un testimonio comunitario del propósito de Dios para toda la creación. Israel debía ser lo que Adán fue en el principio. Fue concebido como un pueblo que representara a Dios en el mundo y un pueblo entre el cual Dios pudiera vivir en comunidad. Israel no existía como un fin en sí mismo, sino como un siervo de las naciones. La «Gran Comisión del Antiguo Testamento» subraya que Israel tenía un propósito misional: la nación era una «luz para las naciones» y estaba designada para «llevar la salvación [de Dios] hasta los confines de la tierra» (Isaías 49:6). Israel existía para bendecir a otras naciones, no simplemente como un medio para el Mesías, sino como testigo del santo amor de Dios por el mundo.

Sin embargo, Israel endureció su corazón (p. ej., 1 Samuel 6:6). En lugar de participar en la misión de Dios, Israel cayó y repitió progresivamente el ciclo de creación y caída a lo largo de su historia (p. ej., Jueces). La humanidad, incluso entre el bendito Israel, quedó atrapada en el poder dominante del mal.

Regalos divinos a Israel

A pesar de que Israel no logró reflejar a Dios como nación, sin embargo, experimentan su misericordiosa presencia en medio de ellos. Dios le dio a Israel dones que no existían en otras naciones del mundo. Esto no significa que Dios fuera desinteresado o negligente con otras naciones (p. ej., Jonás), sino que Dios había elegido a Israel como un instrumento especial de su misericordia para las naciones, con gracias únicas para alentar su misión.

Pablo resume estos dones en Romanos 9:4-5. Vale la pena citar la lista: «Ellos son israelitas, y a ellos pertenecen la adopción, la gloria, los pactos, la promulgación de la ley, el culto y las promesas. A ellos pertenecen los patriarcas, y de su linaje, según la carne, es Cristo, quien es Dios sobre todas las cosas, bendito por los siglos. Amén».

Los dones encarnan la presencia redentora y pactada de Dios en Israel. Son hijos adoptivos del Dios Creador y experimentan la presencia gloriosa del Dios que mora entre ellos. Son el pueblo del pacto de Dios (p. ej., abrahámico, mosaico, davídico) y la Torá los guía en esa relación. Conocen la alegría del culto en el templo con su liturgia levítica, que encarna la presencia de Dios entre el pueblo, y viven con esperanza bajo las promesas de Dios (especialmente la promesa del Mesías). Este es el pueblo de Abraham, Isaac y Jacob. Son el pueblo del pacto de Dios, una nación elegida y santa, creada a imagen de Dios en el mundo.

Pablo concluye su lista de dones con una doxología cristológica. El Mesías ha venido ahora a través de Israel. El Mesías participa de estos dones, pero es más. El ungido de Dios también es alabado como Dios. El Dios que hizo pacto con Israel y habitó entre ellos ha venido en Jesús para redimir al pueblo de sus pecados y abrir las puertas para que los gentiles también experimenten los dones de Dios. Aquellos que antes eran ajenos al pacto ahora están incluidos (Efesios 2:11-12).

El desarrollo de las Escrituras

Aunque Pablo no menciona este don en Romanos 9, ya había señalado que a Israel se le habían confiado “las mismas palabras de Dios” (Romanos 3:2, NVI). Eran los guardianes del registro de las obras poderosas de Dios entre las naciones y en Israel.

La Escritura no cae del cielo. Al contrario, la colección de escritos sagrados llamada “Escritura” (escritos) crece y se desarrolla con el tiempo a lo largo de la historia de Israel. La Escritura se produce como parte del proceso de redención (salvación) y está íntimamente conectada con su condición de nación del pacto.

Dios usó mensajeros del pacto (incluyendo editores durante el proceso de escrituración) para guiar a Israel en su vida como pueblo del pacto de Dios (cf. Jeremías 7:25-26; Nehemías 9:29-30). La Torá proporcionó la historia fundacional del pacto (p. ej., Éxodo) y la instrucción del pacto (p. ej., Deuteronomio). Los profetas llamaron al pueblo a la obediencia fiel al pacto, advirtieron a Israel de sus fracasos y lo animaron con promesas esperanzadoras (Oseas 4:1-3; Miqueas 6:1-8; Isaías 40). Los profetas, entre otros, registraron historias del pacto que dieron testimonio de la historia de la relación de Dios con Israel (p. ej., 1 Crónicas 29:29; 2 Crónicas 33:19). Los cantores y sabios de Israel aportaron liturgia y sabiduría para la vida en Israel (Salmos, Proverbios).

El canon de las Sagradas Escrituras surgió a lo largo de la historia de Israel como una forma de fundamentar a Israel en su pasado, guiarlo en el presente y brindar esperanza para el futuro. Están ligadas a la historia de Israel y a su condición como pueblo del pacto de Dios. Las Escrituras son el don único de Dios a Israel y, a través de Israel, a las naciones.

Estas son las Sagradas Escrituras que Pablo encomendó a Timoteo como capaces de hacerle sabio para la salvación por la fe en Cristo Jesús. Estos son los textos que Pablo describe como inspirados por Dios y útiles para enseñar, para reprender, para corregir y para instruir en la justicia, a fin de que el hombre de Dios sea perfecto, equipado para toda buena obra (2 Timoteo 3:12-17).

La función de las Escrituras

La Escritura, en general, cumple una función de pacto que se expresa a través de diversos géneros y ocasiones. En esencia, la Escritura administra el pacto divino con el pueblo de Dios y, por lo tanto, es normativa para la forma en que el pueblo de Dios vive en pacto con Dios en las diferentes culturas y situaciones en las que vivieron las personas a las que se dirige.

La Escritura da testimonio, interpreta y aplica la obra salvadora de Dios en Israel y, en su momento crucial, en Jesús, al pueblo de Dios. Narra la obra redentora de Dios en Cristo, la interpreta para nosotros y aplica su significado e importancia a sus oyentes originales. Si bien la Escritura fue escrita para quienes la recibieron en el pasado, también fue escrita para los creyentes de los siglos venideros.

La naturaleza de la Escritura es de pacto. Como pueblo del pacto, nos guiamos por el testimonio del pacto de la Escritura. La Escritura no es simplemente una carta de amor ni una constitución legal para la construcción positivista de “reglas”; es un pacto. Como pacto, tiene funciones tanto reguladoras como relacionales. Da testimonio de los actos de amor redentor de Dios y nos llama a una relación con él. Instruye y guía al pueblo de Dios a vivir en comunión con él; nos dice cómo vivir nuestra identidad como imágenes (representantes) de Dios en el mundo. Los autores de las Escrituras, mensajeros del pacto de Dios, interpretan el significado de la obra salvadora de Dios y lo aplican a la vida de sus lectores originales.

Este testimonio, tal como lo tenemos ahora en todo el testimonio profético y apostólico, se arraiga en las obras salvíficas de Dios que inauguran una nueva creación: una que ya existe, pero que aún no existe. Jesús mismo es testigo de la obra salvífica de Dios y la personificación de los principios del pacto que configuran todo servicio a Dios. Jesús, como Dios encarnado, es la imagen de Dios, el verdadero Israel, el verdadero ser humano. Él es el modelo fundamental de nuestra vida ante Dios.

Las Escrituras —desde las Escrituras Hebreas hasta los Evangelios y las Epístolas— dan testimonio de Jesús como nuestro modelo. Él es el mediador del pacto por el cual nos acercamos a Dios y vivimos en comunión con Él.

Dios actuó en Cristo para redimir al mundo y creó una nueva comunidad (que en realidad es una restauración de Israel, como enfatizan Lucas y los Hechos). Esta nueva comunidad fue liderada por los mensajeros del pacto de Dios (los apóstoles). Ellos instruyeron a la iglesia primitiva en el pacto, tanto oralmente como por escrito. Estas enseñanzas, como normas, se basaban en los actos de pacto de Dios en Cristo. La norma (o canon) es la obra de Dios en Jesús; el mundo recién creado mediante la cruz de Jesús (Gálatas 6:14-16). La iglesia se queda con los escritos apostólicos, los escritos de pacto de los apóstoles, que dan testimonio de esta obra de Dios en Jesús. Constituyen documentos de pacto, añadidos al testimonio de pacto de las Escrituras Hebreas, que guían a la iglesia. Contienen tanto el registro de los actos de pacto de Dios como la interpretación de dichos actos por parte de los apóstoles (cf. Efesios 3:1-6).

Además, estos documentos apostólicos son aplicaciones de la obra de Dios en Cristo al pueblo de Dios. Dan testimonio de las obras de Dios, las interpretan y las aplican. Ninguna otra interpretación tiene tanta autoridad como la de los apóstoles. Este es el testimonio de Dios a través de los apóstoles. La iglesia primitiva reconoció la naturaleza fundacional, irrepetible y fija de ese testimonio, ya que testificaba de las obras de Dios en Cristo y su significado para la nueva comunidad fundada en ellas. La iglesia primitiva se vio obligada por estos documentos como la regla de Dios mediante el testimonio apostólico. La iglesia contemporánea está sujeta a estos documentos al igual que la iglesia primitiva, y se interpreta a través de la lente del canon (regla) que es Jesús mismo.

La Escritura, tanto hebrea como griega, es la aplicación práctica de la teología en situaciones específicas. A través de su aplicación, vemos la teología. Ahora, como ministros del pacto, tomamos esa misma teología y la aplicamos a nuestras situaciones presentes. En consecuencia, lo que realmente hacemos no es tanto aplicar la Escritura, sino aplicar la teología que ella enseña. Por lo tanto, la tarea de la «restauración» no es reproducir la práctica histórica de la iglesia primitiva, sino reaplicar su teología en un nuevo contexto: el nuestro. Nuestra tarea es encarnar la vida de Jesús en el presente, tanto como comunidades como individuos de fe; es decir, vivir dentro de la narrativa de la identidad cristiana (pertenencia a Jesús). La Escritura guía a los creyentes a conocer la historia, comprender su significado y encarnarla en el presente.

¿Así que?

Las Escrituras son textos únicos cuyo testimonio es de origen divino. El testimonio y la interpretación de las Escrituras no son, en última instancia, humanos, sino una interpretación divina de las acciones de Dios en la historia. El mensaje de las Escrituras, aunque nos llega en lenguaje humano, escrito por y para humanos, se origina en la mente de Dios y se produce a través de su propio aliento.

Las Escrituras son la norma que rige la fe cristiana. La Escritura es nuestra guía normativa para vivir en una relación de pacto con Dios. Como norma, funciona con autoridad dentro de la comunidad de fe y proporciona un mensaje confiable. Esta norma, sin embargo, no es una palabra aislada, sino una palabra dada en el contexto de las acciones históricas de Dios en Cristo (un canon cristológico) que la iglesia ha confesado desde el principio. (e.g., regula fidei). o “canon de la verdad”

Las Escrituras comunican un verdadero mensaje de salvación. Son un medio de revelación, y a través de ellas aprendemos sobre la obra de Dios en la historia de Israel. Las Escrituras son un testimonio divino de la obra salvadora de Dios, el único lugar donde se encuentra la interpretación de Dios de sus obras salvadoras en Israel y el único lugar donde se encuentran los mensajeros del pacto de Dios aplicando el mensaje de Dios a su pueblo.

“Peace upon Israel!” is how Psalm 125 concludes. This is God’s goal for those who trust in the Lord, whose hearts are oriented toward righteousness, and walk in the paths of God’s goodness. The promise is that God will remove all wickedness and injustice, and those who trust in the Lord will inherit the land.

This goal is ultimately fulfilled in the new heaven and new earth where God will dwell with human as their God and they as his children. Everyone who overcomes evil and serves the Lord will inherit the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:7).

Psalm 125 is a promise for the people of God, Israel. It is not a promise for a nation state but for all those who trust in the Lord and seek to walk in the path of God’s own heart and righteousness.

How do we maintain the unity the Spirit created? We walk in love. This means, in part, that we speak the truth to each other (rather than promoting lies), we manage our holy anger well (rather than sinning in our anger), we share our resources with each other (rather than stealing), we speak graciously for building up (rather than speaking evil), and we treat each other with kindness and forgiveness (rather than harboring bitterness and using abusive language). This is what it means to imitate God and to walk in love; to forgive as God has forgiven us in Christ and to love as Christ has loved us through his self-sacrifice.

This section began in Ephesians 4:17 when Paul reminded his Gentile readers to no longer “walk” (often translated “live”) as they used to walk (or live). The section ends with the imperative to “walk in love” (5:2). In other words, no longer walk as Gentiles immersed in the way of the nations but walk in the love of the God of Israel poured out in the Messiah.

The first half of the section grounded the call to walking in love in the work of God to derobe our old selves and put on a new self through God’s own renewal. God has created us to be, as God intended in Genesis 1, like God–renewed in God’s righteousness and holiness. We are new creatures, and this empowers our capacity to “walk in love.”

Walking in love is fundamentally relational, and it is deeply connected with the one body. How do we live as one community, the body of Christ, in the context of a world filled with evil, abuse, and violence? What sort of community are we to become and be?

Ephesians 4:25 is where the imperatives begin in Ephesians (except for Ephesians 2:12, “remember”). There are a total of forty imperatives through the rest of the book, and thirteen of them are found in Ephesians 4:25-5:2. They are:                   speak truth (4:25); be angry (4:26) but sin not (4:26); don’t let sun go down on wrath (4:26); don’t make room for Devil (4:27); no longer steal (4:28); labor to have something to share (4:28); let no evil talk come out of your mouth (4:29); don’t grieve the Spirit (4:30); put away all bitterness (4:31); be kind to one another (4:32); be imitators of God (5:1); walk in love (5:2).

The imperatives (commands) call us to walk worthy of our calling (Ephesians 4:1) and walk in the good works God has created us to do (Ephesians 2:10) in contrast with how Gentiles had previously walked (Ephesians 2:2). God has created us anew for this purpose: that we might become like God and embody the mystery of the gospel in our own lives.

This is primarily a communal calling in this text. Paul reminds us that “we are members of each other” (Ephesians 4:25). The imperatives are not primarily about individual behavior in isolation but about how we live together in community, just as Ephesians 4:1-3 expects we will keep the unity the Spirit has created. To dissolve this unity and mistreat each other is to grieve the Spirit (Ephesians 4:30).

The text easily falls into five sections:

• Don’t lie but speak truth to each other (4:25)
• Be angry but don’t sin (4:26-27)
• Don’t steal but share with the needy (4:28)
• Avoid corrupt talk but edify each other with words of grace (4:29)
• Avoid bitterness but be kind and forgiving to each other (4:30-31)

The last section–imitating God and Christ–forms the crescendo for the section (Ephesians 5:1-2). We treat each other this way because of how God has treated us in Christ. The Messiah has loved us and forgiveness us, and therefore we are called to walk with each other in that same love, including forgiveness.

Ephesians	Negative	Positive	Rationale
4:25	Put away lies	Speak truth	Members of each other
4:26-27	Sin not	Be angry	No space for the devil
4:28	Don’t steal	Labor and work	To share with the needy
4:29	No evil talk	Edifying speech	To grace those who hear
4:30	Don’t Grieve the Spirit	You are marked	For the day of redemption
4:31-32	Put away bitterness	Kind and forgiving	As God forgave you
5:1		Imitate God	As beloved children
5:2		Walk in love	As Christ loved us

The imperatives are about living in community. Remember that this newly planted congregation–as well as the young congregations in the region–live in hostile conditions. They are neither welcomed by Jews or idolatrous Gentiles (whether emperor worship or the great goddess Artemis). They live in the midst of economic, political, and religious tension. They have become outsiders. Consequently, it is important for the community to hang together in love and deal with internal problems in order to maintain the unity the Spirit has created.

The imperative to speak truth to one’s neighbor comes from Zechariah 8:16. The “neighbor” in the text is the community of Israel which has been restored as a remnant of God’s people. This is not a call to love all people (though that is a truth to remember) but a more specific demand for honesty within the church community. This is indicated by the reason given: because we are members of one another.

Living in community, there is sometimes a reason to be angry, and many times those reasons are good ones. When we have been abused, lied to, or betrayed, anger is a natural and godly response. However, anger must not control us; it must not dominate our actions. The sundown metaphor is not about timing but about obsession (it comes from Psalm 4:4). When we feed anger and cultivate, it will develop into bitterness, rage, and malicious talk (which Paul addresses in Ephesians 4:31). Anger in opposition to injustice and unrighteousness is a good emotion, and it can produce good fruits. However, if the anger turns to bitterness and dominates us, then it will destroy us and the community in which we live.

Living in community means we do not steal from each other or treat each other dishonestly. Even in the New Testament we can see congregations mistreating each other (like the widows in Acts 6:1-2, or the Corinthian hesitation to share wealth with the poor saints in Jerusalem in 2 Corinthians 8-9, or the cheating by Annanias and Saphira in Acts 5). Rather, the community is called to generosity through working for their living. The motive of work is not only for its own good (our vocations can serve humanity), or even to support our family (though that is an imperative in 1 Timothy 5), but to have funds to share with the needy in the community.

Living in community often means we have arguments, even shouting matches, that turn into rage and malicious or abusive talk. We have all seen this happen in families and churches, much less in national politics. A healthy community can talk with each other without developing bitterness or rage, without using abusive language. The focus of a Christian community is to edify each other and speak with grace to each other (Ephesians 4:29). We seek to develop healthy relationships in kindness and forgiveness. Therefore, we avoid bitterness and its fruits (which are named in almost a degenerative cycle in Ephesians 4:31-32) and pursue kindness and forgiveness, just as Christ has forgiven us.

The last line in Ephesians 4:32 leads directly to Ephesians 5:1, which reminds us of the ground upon which we live in community. We live this way because we are new creatures in Christ who were created to imitate the Father. We are the children of God.

Consequently, we walk in love, and we are moved toward this and enabled to do this because of what God has done in Christ. The Messiah has loved us and given himself for us so that we might the children of God. Consequently, we walk in love, not because we are under threat but because we are loved!

New Heaven and New Earth: Revelation 21:1-7 and 22:1-5

Imagine no pain, mourning, or death. It ain’t easy; I’ve tried.

Imagine no chaos, brokenness, or struggle. Yeah, it ain’t easy; it sounds like fantasy.

Sometimes the floods, both metaphorical and real, overwhelm us. Tornadoes, heavy rain, and lightning threaten us, and sometimes they destroy us. This chaos, both natural and personal, distracts us and, at times, wrecks us.

The world is filled with violence. It grieves us and angers us

Yet, the story of God’s work climaxes in a world where there is no more chaos, no more death, and no more crying. A time when there are no more tears.

The promise can seem like a pipedream, but we faithfully and continually confess it. It is our Easter confession. This hope is grounded in the maker of heaven and earth, the architect of Easter, and the author of the restoration of all things.

We are co-heirs with the resurrected Messiah. What belongs to him, he will share with us. His resurrection creates a new world; it initiates a new creation. It is the beginning of a new heaven and new earth. This is the meaning of Easter.

The voice of the one who is seated on the throne says, “Those who overcome these things”—all the chaos, violence, evil, and brokenness in the world—“will inherit all these things,” that is, the new heaven and new earth. There, in a renewed and glorious Garden of Eden, we will see the face of God, and there will be no more curse. The whole creation is blessed because now the dwelling of God is with humanity, and, God promises, “I will be their God and they will be my children.”

At the same time, that expectant hope—as glorious and certain as it is—seems so distant. “Real life” intrudes on this hope and depresses it.

Nevertheless, Easter shows up not only once a year but in our daily experiences. We see moments when God wins daily. There we are not only reminded of an Easter past, but a coming Cosmic Easter.

Easter shows up in the daily experiences of kindness, gratitude, mercy, and compassion.

Easter interrupts the chaos when people rally to support the grieving, the oppressed, and the hungry.

Easter breaks through when light shines into darkness, when forgiveness trumps vengeance, and when generosity shares resources.

On Easter Sunday, we are reminded that death will not win. We carry this confession in our hearts even when darkness covers us. Yet, we are hopeful because we not only know there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but we also notice that light when it breaks into our lives every day.

The light is always shining. Easter is always true. And death will not win.

Stone-Campbell Study Group: Stone-Campbell Journal Conference 2025

Also available in PDF here.

In what I regard as a seminal article written almost forty years ago, Richard L. Harrison, Jr., raised the question “Who, indeed, are the Disciples?” as the new denomination sought to define itself in relation to other Christian traditions.[1] Though he focused on early Disciple sacramental theology, his analysis provides significant markers for the whole movement. He concluded that Disciple sacramental theology is indebted to Catholic, Reformed, and Free Church traditions. The place and function of the sacraments were Catholic “in nature,” their meaning was “generally Reformed” (following Calvin rather than Zwingli), and their liturgical celebration was “decidedly” Free Church.[2] The result is a “distinctive” mixture that is not identified with any of the three traditions.[3] Harrison saw this a valuable part of Disciples identity; it contributes to their raison d’existence. Though their sacramental theology might be categorized as generally Reformed because none of these elements are in “fundamental conflict with the broad picture of the Reformed tradition,” through their distinctive sacramental theology the Disciples “proclaim by their very nature the unity and diversity of God’s church.”[4] However, some might regard it as an eclectic and piece-meal stitching together of a nonsensical tertium quid.

In this essay, I extend Harrison’s insight to the theology and practice of Churches of Christ as an expression of the American Restoration Movement, and I expand the picture he offers. Specifically, I propose a five-fold typology that seeks a more comprehensive picture of how Churches of Christ are situated in the history of the Christian tradition. I do not mean to say that these elements are not also applicable to the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement or that they are not applicable to the two other major streams of the movement. There is, no doubt, overlap and even a core belongs to all the streams. However, my interest is particularly Churches of Christ given both my assignment and my social location. Even more specifically, I will identify the DNA of Churches of Christ as what emerged from 1889-1939 where their identity was formed and solidified in distinction from the Disciples of Christ.

With Harrison, I affirm the Catholic and Reformed indebtedness, and I adjust the language of “Free church” to “Anabaptist” as I think we are more indebted to Anabaptists than we are New England Congregationalists (though they did, of course, have a strong impact). To Harrison’s analysis, I add two other categories. We might call both “evangelical,” but this is where confusion arises, especially when we consider there is a third category that we might also call “Evangelical.” This confusion is distracting and disruptive. So, it is necessary to offer some explanation.

Above, I associated the term “evangelical” with three different groups, though these groups may overlap. First, evangelical refers to the narration of the gospel story as in something akin to the Apostles’ Creed or the second and third century versions of the Rule of Faith. These are, as Campbell called them, the “gospel facts.” It is an evangelical core; it is the story of God creating the world, sending the Son, and rescuing us by the Spirit for the sake of reconciliation and communion in a new heaven and new earth. Matthew Bates’ recent book, Beyond the Salvation Wars, has argued that all Christians traditions, particularly the ones that affirm the Nicene Creed, are evangelical in this sense. “The genuine gospel,” he writes, “has never been entirely absent during the last two thousand years of Christian history.” [5] They all proclaim and sing the gospel story.

Second, evangelical refers to those who, based on a strong biblicism, place crucicentrism and conversion at the heart of their faith. They are evangelistic and revivalistic. They affirm the importance of a personal conversion narrative (much like among Churches of Christ we tell our baptismal stories). These are the evangelicals Jamey Gorman describes in his book, Among the Early Evangelicals: The Transatlantic Origins of the Stone-Campbell Movement.[6] The Stone-Campbell Movement arose out of this evangelical mixture in the wake of the First and Second Great Awakenings, and its roots reach back to missionary and evangelical projects in the British Isles. This group of evangelicals would embrace the evangelicalism of the first group, but not everyone in that first group would identify with the revivalism of this second group (e.g., Roman Catholic).

Third, Evangelical (notice the capitalization) as a late 20^th and early 21^st century movement refers to a group whose activism is thoroughly political. It seeks institutional and political power to reverse the moral failings of the nation in a way akin to some form of Christian Nationalism (a current version of which is the Apostolic Reformation movement in the US). Whether we begin with theonomic perspectives, dominion theology, or Falwell’s Moral Majority in the 1970s, this mix of Fundamentalism and social activism has come to dominant or, at least, hold significant sway over much of the conservative landscape of the American church.[7] This group may include people from the first and second groups (e.g., there are MAGA Catholics) while people in the first and second groups are not necessarily Evangelical in this third sense. In contrast, historically, Churches of Christ have embraced a cultural separatism of sorts that promoted an alternative community in contrast to institutional and cultural powers.[8]

Against this backdrop, I offer this five-fold typology for locating the Churches of Christ within the Christian Tradition.

• Evangelical Gospel
• Catholic Tradition (East and West)
• Reformed Tradition
• Anabaptist Tradition
• Evangelical Revivalism

What is missing from this typology is contemporary Evangelicalism which is characterized by a desire for political power. This is not part of the DNA of Churches of Christ who are more indebted to the kingdom politics of David Lipscomb than to Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. To whatever extent Churches of Christ buy into MAGA politics and Christian Nationalism, it is out of step with the historical trajectory of its mothers and fathers. To whatever degree Churches of Christ embrace this cultural agenda they are no longer faithful to their own roots and represent a radical break from that tradition. Many congregations and individuals within Churches of Christ, however, are moving in that direction.

As I explain this typology, it is important to remember that while Churches of Christ may trace their family of origins through this lens and the best of Churches of Christ are seen through it, dysfunction is also part of our history. In other words, whatever good we may see in our roots and their faithful expression, our history is complicated by dysfunction through misinterpretation, misguided emphases, and ideological agendas. In other words, Churches of Christ are not perfect.

1.  Evangelical Gospel.  Early Disciples and Churches of Christ shared the common faith of the historic church. While they did not embrace creedal formulations, they affirmed the faith narrated, for example, in the Apostles’ Creed. As Campbell put it, that creed, unlike “modern creeds” which are a “synopsis of opinions,” is “a brief narrative of facts, of all the great gospel facts.” [9] Campbell believed that “[e]very society in Christendom admits the same faith or builds on all the same grand evangelical facts.”[10] These gospel facts are the basis for a “common Christianity,” an evangelical core that everyone within the Christian tradition confesses.[11]  This lies at the root of what Robert Richardson called a “SIMPLE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.”[12] This is the language we find in the 1809 Declaration and Address. The Christian Association of Washington was created “for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men.”[13] Alexander Campbell pleaded for all Christians to unite upon this simple evangelical Christianity and to make their “the rule of union” that whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union.”[14] Dysfunction arose when the gospel was identified more with the commands than the facts of God’s redemptive work or even with the New Testament as a whole rather than its basic message. These miscues are not uncommon in the history of Churches of Christ.

2. Catholic Tradition (East and West).  Brad East’s recent article in Restoration Quarterly argues that catholicity—in the sense of both East and West—is part of the DNA of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Essentially, “catholic” refers to a high ecclesiology in which the church is central to soteriology and God’s mission, baptismal sacramentalism, and the assembled liturgical community (including its mystical importance [where we meet God] and weekly communion with the risen Christ).[15] This is similar to Campbell’s three positive ordinances of Christianity: Baptism, Lord’s Day, and Lord’s Supper,[16] which Harrison also noted.[17] Further it looks to the “early church” as a “paradigm of moral, spiritual and sacramental faithfulness.” As East asserts, “the church simply is Christianity as God instituted on earth.”[18] I think this is essentially correct, and in this sense Churches of Christ are deeply embedded within a world of sacramental imagination, though we would never call it that. Dysfunction arose when the sacramental imagination was limited to baptism, and even more so when baptism was regarded as primarily a test of loyalty rather than a divine work. A further dysfunction arose when we began to regard “our” congregations as co-extensive with the body of Christ.

3. Reformed Tradition. According to Harrison, the Reformed tradition was probably the most dominant influence upon the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement. This is not too surprising since both Stone and the Campbells were trained and lived in Presbyterian congregations. Those roots are deep, and we may observe its impact from several different angles. First, the Campbells employed a Reformed hermeneutic (seen in Zwingli, Calvin, and the Puritans) called the regulative principle by which, according to the Westminster Confession, God prescribed “the acceptable way of worshipping the true God” which God “instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men . . . or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture” (XXI.1). The Reformed hermeneutic assumed an ecclesial pattern in the New Testament and discerned it by using explicit statements or deducing others from Scripture by “good and necessary consequence” (I.6). Alexander Campbell began his series on “order” within the restoration of the ancient order with two presuppositions: (1) “there is a divine authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies” and (2) “the christian worship in Christian assemblies is uniformly the same.”[19] The apostles provided the “constitution and law of the primitive church,” and so “shall [it] be the constitution and law of the restored church.”[20] The Churches of Christ embraced a pattern hermeneutic that used command, example, and inference as its method of discernment. Dysfunction arose when patternism became a rigid exclusivism such that it turned into ecclesial perfectionism.

Another dimension of Reformed influence is seen in the polity and liturgy of the early Disciples. Harrison recognizes the liturgical elements, but we can expand beyond sacramental administration. The sobering atmosphere of the assembly and the practices of singing, exhorting, teaching, and communing essentially reproduced what one would find in early American Presbyterianism or Puritan dissenter congregations (with the explicit addition of weekly communion). More importantly, the organization of congregations under the leadership of elders and deacons was typical of the Reformed tradition. Dysfunction arose when leadership became authoritarian, and the order of worship became specifically prescribed and rigidly exclusive.

4. Anabaptist Tradition. While the “free church” influence of New England congregationalism is present (especially in Stone), the Anabaptist tradition appears more influential (especially upon Churches of Christ). I see this, most evidently, in four ways. First, Anabaptist communities are congregational in character, though they vary in how radical this is. Typically, as in New England congregationalism, there were also often extra-congregational organizations and structures. At the heart of the Anabaptist vision, however, is the voluntary nature of the congregation, that is, a regenerated community that gathered for mutual discipline and worship. Second, as voluntary communities, they emphasized discipleship through the imitation of Jesus and obedience to the Lordship of Christ. Church discipline was practiced with a seriousness among early Disciples and early Churches of Christ that mirrored the “ban” in Anabaptist communities. Third, believer’s baptism, as among the Anabaptists (and Baptists of early 19^th century America), was standard practice among early Disciples. However, the meaning of the sacrament was more Reformed or even Catholic than among the Anabaptists. Fourth, the sense of cultural isolation and association with the poor was shared with the Anabaptist tradition (though this was not universal among Disciples, especially Alexander Campbell himself). However, it was predominantly true in the South, especially post-Civil War, and thus it is a key element of the formation of the identity of Churches of Christ. Dysfunction arose with the loss of cultural separatism (e.g., the embrace of Christian Nationalism) and with a radical congregationalism that hindered cooperation among congregations.

5. Evangelical Revivalism. The Stone-Campbell Movement was birthed in the fires of evangelical revivalism. Cane Ridge and the Washington Association were soaked in it. Cane Ridge was an expression of the Second Great Awakening which saw unity in revivalistic preaching and the work of the Spirit. The Declaration and Address was an American expression of British evangelical zeal that sought unity for the sake of mission. Both Stone and Campbell intended to lay aside denominationalism by uniting upon the New Testament alone so that the church might unite in mission for the sake of the world. While Stone’s fiery and spirited revivalism ultimately gave way to Campbell’s rational version—the mourner’s bench was replaced by believer’s baptism, this revivalism produced a conversion narrative recognized by the community of believers. That narrative was personal and necessary for incorporation into the body. Dysfunction arose when the tradition became more concerned about revivalism than discipleship.

A significant byproduct of this sort of evangelicalism (along with Anabaptist tendencies) within the Stone-Campbell Movement, especially Churches of Christ, has been the practice of the priesthood of all believers. This invites every disciple to participate in the mission of God and use their gifts in service to God. This entailed a non-sacerdotalism, that is, no disciple had special or unique priestly or clerical privileges in the community. Every believer (only male, at least in its origin) may baptize and lead the congregation in worship through prayer, reading, exhortation, singing, and communion. Everyone is fully invested with priestly privileges though they may not all share the same gifts.

These five historic Christian traditions are particularly important for shaping and identifying the distinctive nature of the Stone-Campbell tradition, particularly Churches of Christ.

So, who are we? That was the original question Harrison raised. We are a community that confesses the evangelical (gospel) message under the guidancew of Scripture. We affirm the soteriological and missional significance of the church, and we affirm not only the prominence of its sacraments but their efficacy by the Spirit of God. We read Scripture closely and attend to its details (though the nature of the patternism envisioned may vary considerably among congregations), and we organize our independent congregations under the lay leadership of elders and deacons. These communities are voluntary, regenerated, and committed to communal life together as the primary means by which God addresses the world and its powers. The church is itself a missionary community as it seeks to proclaim the gospel of Christ and invite people to participate in God’s life through the community. We are a community of disciples shaped by sacramental means of grace, guided by Scripture, dedicated to transformation and discipleship, and committed to mission. Unfortunately, the Churches of Christ, due in part to their rationalistic embrace of a patternistic hermeneutic, became exclusivist and separated themselves from the rest of the Christian tradition itself.

Are we, that is, Churches of Christ, evangelicals? I pose the question considering our DNA, whether from the early Disciples or from the Hardeman Tabernacle Sermons in 1922-1923. Yes and No. Yes, in the sense that we confess the gospel facts. Yes, in the sense that we embrace a missional, even revivalistic, agenda. But, no, in the sense that we participate in the current cultural movement toward Christian nationalism and political power. However, many congregations of Churches of Christ are now embracing some of this nationalism and thirst for political power. To that extent, they represent a divergence from the historic identity of Churches of Christ.

---

[1] Richard L. Harrison, Jr., “Early Disciples Sacramental Theology: Catholic, Reformed, and Free,” Mid-Stream 24, no. 3 (July 1985): 255. Reprinted in Classic Themes of Disciples Theology: Rethinking the Traditional Affirmations of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), ed. Kenneth Lawrence (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University, 1986), 49-100.

[2] Harisson, “Early Disciples,” 285.

[3] Harrison, “Early Disciples,” 286.

[4] Harrison, “Early Disciples,” 290.

[5] Matthew W. Bates, Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2025), 18.

[6] James L. Gorman, Among the Early Evangelicals: The Transatlantic Origins of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Abilene, TX: Abilene University Press, 2017), 17-18.

[7] See Tim Alberta, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism (San Francisco: Harper, 2023).

[8] See John Mark Hicks, ed., Resisting Babel: Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2020).

[9] Alexander Campbell, “Reply to Barnabas,” Millennial Harbinger 3, no. 12 (December 1832): 602.

[10] Alexander Campbell, A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice on the Action, Subject, Design and Administrator of Christian Baptism: also, on the Character of Spiritual Influence in Conversion and Sanctification, and on the Expediency and Tendency of Ecclesiastic Creeds, as Terms of Union and Communion (Lexington, KY: A. T. Skillman & Son, 1844), 835.

[11] Alexander Campbell, “Education,” Millennial Harbinger 1.6 (2nd series; June 1837): 258.

[12] Robert Richardson, The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation, Urged by A. Campbell and Others, Briefly Stated and Explained. 2d ed. (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1853), 6–7.

[13] Declaration and Address, p. 4.

[14] Alexander Campbell, “Union of Christians—No. I.,” Millennial Harbinger 3.5 (2nd series; May 1839) 212.

[15] Brad East, “Churches of Christ: Once Catholic, Now Evangelical,” Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024): 135-136.

[16] See my “Stone-Campbell Sacramental Theology,” Restoration Quarterly 50, no. 1 (2008) 35-48.

[17] Harrison, “Early Disciples,” 258.

[18] Brad East, “Churches of Christ,” 136.

[19] Alexander Campbell, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. V. Order of Worship,” Christian Baptist 2, no. 12 (July 4, 1825): 164.

[20] Alexander Campbell, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. IV.,” Christian Baptist 2, no. 11 (June 6, 1825): 158.

Click to access Alexander-Campbell-on-the-Nicene-Creed.pdf

Essay on Alexander Campbell’s Rejection of Creeds on the 1700^th Anniversary of the Nicene Creed

Theology Study Group: Stone-Campbell Journal Conference 2025

In a 2024 essay in the Restoration Quarterly, Brad East lamented the loss of catholicity, particularly soteriological ecclesiology and effectual sacramentality, among Churches of Christ within the past fifty years. One recourse, Brad suggested, was to embrace a creedal tradition with a magisterial interpretation of Scripture, or, as he put it, “authoritative documents and authoritative leaders.”[1] There is a grave need, according to East, for an authoritative “Rule of Faith” and “the authority of bishops” in conjunction with Scripture.[2] Without both, as I summarized East’s position, the American Restoration Movement was “doomed from the start,” and while it “may have had a good run,” its “insufficient catholicism killed it.”[3]

Brad spied a “substantive disagreement” with my response to his essay. He is correct. He suggests that if the first four ecumenical creeds are “optional for any local congregation to accept or reject as they see fit, then even their acceptance is an act of self-contradiction.” This is because “tradition without teeth is no tradition at all” since tradition “works only if it commands assent.” If a congregation’s elders come to reject what earlier elders had accepted about the Trinity or Nicaea, how is the “conciliar confession of the Trinity operative, much less authoritative, in” a community?[4] It must be binding on the community over the long haul and norm what the community believes.

I suggest, however, though we embrace the Nicene creed as a healthy tradition, even a true confession of the Triune God, that we hold it as a secondary expression of the primary authority which is Scripture. In other words, the truth of Nicaea depends on the meaning of Scripture and not upon the transmission of tradition or the communal voice of the assembled leaders of the church (the whole church was gathered atNicaea). This perspective coheres with the essence of the Protestant tradition (e.g., Calvin), though it moves away from the classic non-creedal stance of my Stone-Campbell ancestors.

I will explore this suggestion in this brief essay. First, I will unpack Alexander Campbell’s understanding of creeds, particularly the Nicene creed. Second, I will offer some perspectives on the use or non-use of the Nicene creed in our congregations where this strong anti-creedal bias persists as it does among Churches of Christ.

How did Campbell nuance his view of creeds and their function in the church? On the one hand, Campbell did not object to the use of creeds as statements of faith or as summaries of the gospel. For example, Campbell was quite comfortable with the Apostles’ Creed. “I believe every word of it,” he wrote, because “it is not, like all modern creeds, a synopsis of opinions, but a brief narrative of facts, of all the great gospel facts.”[5] Seemingly, he did not have a problem with the Rule of Faith present in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others in the second and third centuries. It was “generally” the “same topics found in the apostles’ creed.” They were summaries or “synopsis of prominent facts, of which the document called the apostles’ creed is a fair specimen.”[6]

On the other hand, Campbell objected to confessional creeds—ones that do more than recite the great gospel facts—when used as tests of communion or bonds of union because they were but a “synopsis of opinions.” In his debate with N. L. Rice, he provided this definition: “A creed or confession of faith is an ecclesiastic document—the mind and will of some synod or council possessing authority—as a term of communion, by which persons and opinions are to be tested, approbated, or reprobated.” These creeds “became the constitution of churches.”[7] Consequently, creeds functioned as denominational boundaries, and their statements moved from catholic facts to denominational opinions. The multiplicity of creeds expressed the multiplicity of denominations due to the multiplicity of opinions. “Sects,” Campbell believed, “are all founded on opinions, and not of faith” since “every society in Christendom admits the same faith, or builds on the same grand evangelical facts,” but an opinion is only, at best, a “probable inference.”[8] Such confessional creeds, then, became statements of opinion rather than facts and speculative theories rather than narrations of God’s work in Christ by the Spirit.

If creeds remain a statement of the “evangelical facts,” they are useful summaries for the community of faith. But when they are a compendium of metaphysical opinions that function as tests of communion and boundaries of fellowship, they are divisive, or as the debate proposition put it, “necessarily heretical and schismatical.”[9]

Scripture, according to Campbell, is sufficient for the confession of the “evangelical facts.” The language of Scripture is all that is necessary. More specifically, Campbell identified “two grand principles” that testify to the “simplicity of [the] divine constitution of remedial mercy.” They are expressed in Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” The “two ideas expressed concern the person of the Messiah and his office,” and this confession “is the whole revelation of the mystery of the Christian constitution—the full confession of the Christian faith.” It is “the rock” or “foundation” upon which there can “be unity of faith, of affection, and co-operation; but never, never till then. Every other foundation is sand.”[10]

Campbell believed Ephesians 4:4-6 is an appropriate summary because we make this confession when we are baptized and embody the seven ones that constitute the unity of believers: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one spirit, one hope, and one God and Father.”[11] When baptizing a person, Campbell only asks, “do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God?” If they answer yes, he baptizes him. If he denies that Jesus died for his sins or was not raised from the dead, then he does not receive him because he does not believe “the gospel facts in their proper meaning.” [“Proper meaning” raises interesting questions about the sufficiency of the confession itself, however.] Yet, if one makes the good confession, and “so long as [one] loves and honors the Messiah, by keeping his precepts, so long I love and honor” that one as a Christian sibling. “But if any one equivocates on any of these questions of fact, we simply say, he disbelieves the testimony of God.”[12]

How, then, did Campbell view the Nicene Creed? He identified at least three problems with the creed. First, it functioned as a test of communion beyond the language of Scripture. The Creed of the Synod of Nicaea in 325 CE anathematized whoever disagreed with their confession of the nature of the Son. If the Son is “true God from true God, begotten, not made, homoousios with the Father,” then to say the there was a time when the Son was not, or that he came into existence from nothing, or that he is a different substance from the Father, or a mutable creature subject to change, is to deny the faith of “the catholic and apostolic church.” Such a one, the Creed affirms, is “accursed and separated from the church.”[13] As such, according to Campbell, it functioned as “the constitution and test of the true Catholic church, and the divine measure of all orthodoxy.”[14] This entailed separation from the communion table. The creed, with its metaphysical language extraneous to Scripture, became a boundary for table fellowship and was thereby divisive.

Second, it employed metaphysical language. “The difference between Alexander and Arius,” according to Campbell, “arose from the neglect or disregard of the doctrinal statements and facts as revealed in the word of God on the subject of the nature and character of Christ, and by indulging in metaphysical speculations, aided by Clement’s natural religion, without regard to the word.” In Campbell’s view, “both sides of the Arian controversy in the fourth century were wrong, and yet both in some degree were right.” Arians were wrong in denying the glory of Christ though correct in attributing sonship to his incarnation, but Alexander was wrong in attributing sonship to the eternal nature of the Logos though correct in affirming the full deity of the Son. Yet, they both dared “to investigate a subject of such awful import as the modus of divine existence” and “presume[d] to go further in the discovery of God than [God] has revealed.” The disputes ignited a flurry of “technical phraseology” that “produced a scrupulous and systematic cast of diction which is altogether inconsistent with the noble freedom displayed by the inspired penmen.”[15]

Third, it was a conflation of ecclesial and political power. This combination laid the foundation for tyranny and persecution that has played out repeatedly in the history of Christianity. “Each side of the Arian controversy,” for example, “when in power, persecuted the other with the most ruthless sanguinary violence.” But if the original protagonists had “been let alone to enjoy their speculations, with a moderate attention to the word of God,” Campbell speculates, “their differences of opinion would either have done no harm, would have been healed, or would have died with them.”[16] Instead, Constantine gathered the Eastern bishops to “legislate the Arians into the church or out of the empire.”  Ecclesial and political power used the occasion for its own interests. In this sense, the Nicene symbol became the “prototype of all heretical [divisive] creeds,” which tended to the “corruption of the church” and its use of political power.[17] The creed, then, institutionalized a particular way of affirming the dignity and office of Jesus of Nazareth. The boundary became not only theological but political and institutional.

Campbell’s perspective still pre-dominated the early Stone-Campbell Movement and then especially Churches of Christ. The liturgical practices and theological reflection of Churches of Christ gave no significant role to the creed and its language. For example, the early conservative reformer Benjamin Franklin rejected both Unitarianism and Trinitarianism in favor of a simple confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  He cared nothing for the “theories about the Trinity” since “they wrote about a matter which they confessed they could not understand, explained a matter which they confessed could not be explained, and yet required men to believe their theories, on pain of damnation!”[18]

Biblical language was the test for acceptance in the new movement.  The confession that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God was sufficient.  Campbell writes:  “If [a Unitarian or Trinitarian] will ascribe to Jesus all Bible attributes, names, works, and worship, we will not fight with him about scholastic words.”[19]  The “very soul, body and spirit of the gospel…is in the proper answer to the question, What think ye of Christ?” Christian union is found in the “declaration of our faith in the person, mission, and character of Jesus Christ.” [20]  Thus, union rested on the fact that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God.  In the context of swirling Trinitarian and Christological debates, Campbell called for the simplicity of biblical language.

This is how Campbell became relatively comfortable with Stone’s apparent Unitarian and Arian theology. In his debate with Campbell, the Presbyterian Rice pressed the situation with Stone whom he characterized as a “prominent preacher in the same church” as Campbell. Stone taught, according to Rice, that the Son was not eternal but “an exalted creature.” Consequently, there was an “infinite difference between [Campbell’s] faith and that of Mr. Stone.”[21]

In response, Campbell offered two primary perspectives. First, while the Westminster divines of 1648 would “certainly have either cut off his head or hanged him,” the movement has pursued a more “salutary and redeeming policy” of bearing with Stone’s opinions even as, Campbell acknowledges, he did not “approve of all Barton W. Stone has written or said.” Yet, Jesus came to save rather than destroy, he preferred to “save some of those speculators” in expectation that the word of God would prevail. According to Campbell, the speculations of thirty years ago are no longer remembered.[22] And this would have been the case with Arius and Alexander if ecclesial and political power mixed with metaphysical speculation had not sought to force a resolution to the conflict.

Second, after the union of the Stone (“Christians”) and Campbell (“Disciples”) movements in 1832, Campbell believed that the “Christians” had left their opinions behind and had come to affirm the substance of his Christological test.[23]  While Stone had earlier flirted with Arianism,[24] he indicated that uniting with the Reformers meant that he laid aside all his former speculations and spoke only in the “words of inspiration.”[25] Stone acknowledged his debt to Campbell for “expressing the faith of the gospel in the words of revelation.”[26] In his last decade, his Christological statements are replete with biblical phrases without extended speculation as to their ultimate ontology.[27]

Given Campbell’s qualms about creeds and the Nicene Creed in particular, how do his heirs within Churches of Christ respond? Many remain in fundamental agreement with Campbell about the non-use of creeds as a test of communion, and, therefore, they will not embrace the original intent of the Nicene creed itself to draw a line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (or heresy) or to fence the table based on the confession of the creed.

Perhaps four considerations are pertinent. First, at present, I do not see the practice of reciting the Nicene Creed in most liturgies in Churches of Christ as a feasible option. It certainly cannot be used, as Campbell himself argued, to fence the table and divide the body of Christ. It is neither a test of communion nor a bond of union. Indeed, the language itself is unfamiliar to most people in Churches of Christ. Consequently, its introduction into the liturgy—sacred space for Churches of Christ—is not generally an option. It is too human, too authoritative, and too divisive for that space. It does not and perhaps cannot function as a norm for faith among Churches of Christ. Its introduction would be disorienting.

Second, I think the Apostles’ Creed or the ancient Rule of Faith is more amenable to Churches of Christ. This is for the same reason Campbell saw value in both. These confessions of faith are focused on the narrated facts of the gospel. They are framed by the economic Trinity rather than the immanent Trinity. It is more in tune with the language of the apostles to speak of the Father sending the Son in the power of the Spirit than it is to speak of the Son as homoousios with the Father or true God from true God. The narrative of evangelical facts is what Churches of Christ have sung for decades, and this is familiar language from both hymns and Scripture. Narrative summaries like the Rule of Faith or the Apostles’ Creed rooted in the early centuries and baptismal liturgies are much more acceptable to Churches of Christ than the apparent metaphysics of the Nicene Creed.

Third, while I personally have no problem with the recitation of the Nicene Creed—or the Apostles’ Creed or the Rule of Faith in some form, I suggest a more inclusive approach among Churches of Christ is to embrace a fuller practice of reading Scripture in our assemblies in ways other than a prelude to the sermon.  If we habitually read summary texts or proto-creed texts, and/or employed benedictions and calls to worship derived from Scripture, this would serve a similar function to reciting the Apostles’ Creed or a Rule of Faith. The church could easily read texts like Nehemiah 9, Acts 10:38-43, Romans 1:3-5, 1. Corinthians 15:3-8, Ephesians 1:3-14, or Titus 3:3-8 that narrate the story of God or evangelical facts in Scripture. A consistent diet of rotating texts that summarize the narrative and proclaim the gospel has the potential to shape the community in ways like the Apostles’ Creed or the Rule of Faith, perhaps better than either. Moreover, I would encourage the use of hymns that express the theological depth of the Nicene creed in poetic language.

Fourth, teachers and leaders need to introduce their congregations to the proto-creeds in the New Testament, the Apostles’ Creed, the Rule of Faith, and the Nicene Creed. Before introducing them into their liturgy, the community needs to become acquainted with the history, meaning, and significance of these expressions of ancient faith. Not only would this be an opportunity for theological growth in understanding the faith, but it would also connect the present faith community with the ancient Great Tradition shared by all Christian communities across the world.

---

[1] Brad East, “Churches of Christ: Once Catholic, Now Evangelical,” Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024): 138.

[2] East, “Churches of Christ,” 136-137.

[3] John Mark Hicks, “Churches of Christ: Always Evangelical, Still Catholic,” Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024): 157.

[4] Brad East, “Response to Responses,” Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024): 169.

[5] Alexander Campbell, “Reply to Barnabas,” Millennial Harbinger 3, no. 12 (December 1832): 602.

[6] Alexander Campbell, A Debate Between Rev. A. Campbell and Rev. N. L. Rice on the Action, Subject, Design and Administrator of Christian Baptism: also, on the Character of Spiritual Influence in Conversion and Sanctification, and on the Expediency and Tendency of Ecclesiastic Creeds, as Terms of Union and Communion (Lexington, KY: A. T. Skillman & Son, 1844), 760.

[7] Campbell, Debate, 762.

[8] Campbell, Debate, 835.

[9] Campbell, Debate, 759.

[10] Campbell, Debate, 822-3.

[11] Campbell, Debate, 836. Also, Campbell, Debate, 833: “When any man discovers this rock, and is willing to build on it alone; whenever he sees its firmness, its strength, and is willing to place himself upon it for time and for eternity, and on it alone, I say to him—Give me your hand, brother, you must come out and pass through the ceremony of naturalization; you must be born of water as well as of the Spirit, and enter into the new and everlasting covenant; you must assume the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

[12] Campbell, Debate, 811.

[13] “The Creed of the Synod of Nicaea (June 19, 325),” in The Trinitarian Controversy, trans. and ed. By William G. Rusch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 49.

[14] Alexander Campbell, “Christian Union—No. III,” Christian Baptist 3, no. 3 (October 3, 1825): 189.

[15] Campbell, “Christian Union—No. III,” 190.

[16] Campbell, “Christian Union—No. III,” 190. See also Campbell, Debate, 809.

[17] Campbell, Debate, 766-7.

[18]Benjamin Franklin, “Matters of Disagreement,” in Gospel Preacher (Cincinnati, OH: G. W. Rice, 1877), 2:246.  See also his “What Must Men Believe to be Saved?,” Gospel Preacher (Cincinnati, OH: Franklin & Rice, 1869), 1:39-40:  “If a man believes with his heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he has true faith, divine faith, saving faith and there is no other faith through which man can be justified before God.”

[19]Campbell, “Millennium.—No. II,” Millennial Harbinger 1, no. 4 (April 1830): 147.

[20]Campbell, “Union Among Christians,” Millennial Harbinger 3, 3^rd series, no. 4 (April 1846): 222.

[21] Rice, Debate, 829; cf. also p. 853. Alexander Campbell, “Unitarianism as Connected with Christian Union—No. III,” Millennial Harbinger 3, 3^rd series, no. 8 (August 1846): 451, used “Trinitarianism” to describe his own position though he reminded his readers that he was “no advocate of scholastic Trinitarianism.”  

[22] Campbell, Debate, 864-5.

[23]Campbell, “Mr. Broaddus,” Millennial Harbinger 4, no. 1 (January 1833): 9:  “As far as my acquaintance with all the brethren extends, North, South, East, or West, (whatever their former opinions I know not,) they all accord in rendering the same honor in thought, word, and deed to the Son, as they do to the Father who sent him.”

[24]Stone, “The Editor’s remarks on brother H. Cyrus’ letter, No. 2,” Christian Messenger 9, no. 7 (July 1835): 163:  “Arius asserted that Jesus Christ was a created intelligence of the highest order, and Athanasius contended he was begotten, not made…and to this [Athanasius, JMH] have I subscribed long ago, as the most probable.  See my letters to Doc. Blythe.  I acknowledge that much speculation has been used on both sides of the long vexatious question.  I, like many others, have indulged in it; but convinced of its inutility, and bad effects in society, have for several years back relinquished these speculations, and have confined myself to the language of scripture in my public teaching.”  Stone, “Queries,” Christian Messenger 7, no. 5 (May 1833): 139, felt “disposed to use scriptural terms, when speaking on this subject, and therefore call Jesus the Son of God, the only begotten, &c.  I can see nothing in scripture to justify the idea of the Son of God being created, the idea appears too low.”

[25]John Augustus Williams, Life of Elder John Smith; with some account of the Rise and Progress of the Current Reformation (Cincinnati, OH:  R. W. Carroll and Co., 1870), 455. 

[26]Stone, “Reply to Brother John Curd’s Letter,” Christian Messenger 8, no. 8 (August 1834): 239.

[27]For example, Stone, “Letter IV:  To       a Presbyterian Preacher,” Christian Messenger 2, no. 8 (August 1828): 247:  “The doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, and not the living God himself–that he existed a distinct intelligent being from the Father in heaven before creation, and by whom God created all things–that this being was sent into the world by the Father, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him–that he was made flesh and dwelt among us,–that he suffered, died and ascended up where he was before–This doctrine we cannot but believe.”

How should we walk? And how can we walk? (Ephesians 4:17-24)

Disciples of Jesus, those who learned about the Messiah, are to walk worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:1). These first generation Gentile believers are called to no longer walk as they used to walk as people alienated from God, but to walk in the truth of Jesus the Messiah. They walk in the way of Jesus, not because they have the resources within themselves to do so, but because they have been created by God to be like God in authentic righteousness and holiness. We are able to walk because we have been new created to walk in the good works which God has prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10).

“Walk” is a key metaphor in Ephesians, though the literal word is obscured by most translations. Many translators believe “live” is a helpful dynamic translation for “walk,” and it does communicate the point. At the same time, it is important to recognize how Paul repeats this metaphor throughout Ephesians.

The metaphor implies a contrast. Walk this way, but not that way. There are two ways.

On the one hand, in their former lives as Gentiles alienated from God, they walked according the powers that are work among the disobedient (Ephesians 2:2) and they walked in the way of the nations like Gentiles (Ephesians 4:17). On the other hand, the Gentiles are now, as part of Israel’s commonwealth, are invited to walk in the good works that God has created us to do (Ephesians 2:10) and to walk worthy of the calling to which they have been called (Ephesians 4:1). There are two paths in which we might walk. There is the “way of the nations” (Jeremiah 10:2) and there is “the Way” of Jesus (Acts 24:22).

The ”two ways” motif is found through the narrative of Scripture.

• In the Garden of Gard, there were two ways: tree of life and the other tree.
• In Deuteronomy 30:19, there is way of blessedness and the way of cursedness.
• In Proverbs 9, there is way of wisdom and the way of foolishness.
• In the Psalm 81:13 and Psalm 82:5, we with walk in the ways of God or in darkness.
• In Psalm 1, there is the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked.
• In Matthew 7, Jesus tells the parable of the wise and foolish builder.
• In James 3, there is a wisdom that comes from above and one from below.
• In Revelation, worship God or worship the beast.

Paul employs the same strategy in Ephesians 4:17-24. He contrasts two ways. There is the way of the Gentiles, and there is the way of the Messiah. There is the way of the nations, and there is the way of the Torah.

The description of the Gentiles is Ephesians 4:17-19 is classic Jewish rhetoric. It is like Romans 1:18-32. The Gentiles, as a generalization, were soaked in ignorance, stubbornness, sexual immorality, and greed.

But, and this is the turn in the text, “That is not the way you learned from Christ!” You were not taught or discipled by Christ to walk in the way of the Gentiles. The verb “learn” is the same root as the noun Matthew uses for the disciples of Jesus; they are learners (Matthew 5:1. His disciples followed him. “Take my yoke upon you,” Jesus said, “and learn from me” (Matthew 11:29). Jesus is the truth of God, and we must learn from him.

In other words, we have learned to walk a different way. That way will be described in 4:25-5:2 with some specificity. At this point, Paul describes the basis of our ability to walk in a different way and the purpose for such a life.

The fundament teaching is describe with three infinitives (Ephesians 4:22-24):

• Put away your former way of life (ἀναστροφὴν), the old person or self.
• Be renewed in the spirit of your minds
• Put on or clothe yourself with the new person

There may be a baptismal allusion here because the practice of immersion in water involved a taking off of one’s clothes and putting on new clothes, and the waters of baptism are a means by which God renews or regenerates (John 3:5; Titus 3:5). But that point is not explicit even though it may lie in the background as all the believers in Ephesus had experience baptism (implicit from Ephesians 4:5).

The first and third infinitives are in the aorist (past) tense. Since the infinitives are dependent upon the verb “learn” in Ephesians 4:21, it is likely that these verbs refer to their conversion, that is, a moment in the past when they learned of Christ. They were converted, or, if a baptismal context, when they were baptized.

Renewal is in the present tense which perhaps indicates that renewal is always a present reality. It may have begun when they learned of Christ, but it continues in the present. Believers are always experiencing renewal or being “filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18).

This declothing, renewal, and reclothing is a divine act of creation. We were created to live a different way of life. We are created, like in the beginning in Genesis 1:26-28, to be “like God” as we were made in the image of God. Now, God has created a new people—one new human (Ephesians 2:15)—to become the likeness of God in the world, to represent God in the world. Moreover, this also entails participation in the life of God (Ephesians 4:19)—once we were alienated from that life, but now we participate in it.

The ultimate point is ethical—as new creatures, we live a different kind of life. We live in the way of the Jewish Messiah, the way of the Torah, and the way of God rather than in the way of the nations. It is a contrast between the two ways to live life. This chart in DeSilva, Commentary on Ephesians, p. 228 is a good illustration of the contrast in 4:22-24.

Old Person	New Person
Take Off	Put On
The One Being Ruined	The One Being Created
In Line with the Desires	In Line with God
Of Deceit	Of Truth

There are two ways. We were created for walk in one, and to walk in the other is to subvert the truth of God who created us from the beginning to be divine icons or images of God’s own life.

Now, in Ephesians 4:26-6:9, Paul will begin to explain what walking in the likeness of God looks like. What does it look like for those who were once alienated from God but now participate in the life of God to walk like God? The invitation act like God fills the rest of the letter.

Psalm 123 finds pilgrims standing in the gates of Jerusalem and looking up to the God who is enthroned in the heavens and between the Cherubim of the ark of the covenant. The only petition is: “be gracious to us” (a word used three times in the space of four words). It is a communal prayer for people who have been mistreated by the wealthy, powerful, and arrogant. When we find ourselves in times of trouble, we cry, “mercy” and “grace” to the God of Israel who promises to bless us, keep us, and be gracious to us in Aaronic Blessing of Numbers 6. This prayer should be on our lips constantly, especially in the context of current events.

If if had not been that God was on our side . . . (Psalm 124). Paul probably had this Psalm in the back of his mind when he asked, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” The pilgrims on their ascent to the temple of God, confess: God is for us, even is humanity is against us; the Covenant God (Yahweh) will not give us up, and our helper is the Creator of heaven and earth.

If God is for us, nothing can separate us from God’s love.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss Psalm 124, which is the fifth Psalm of Ascents.

Unity is not only a given but a process. Paul calls us to maintain the unity the Spirit has created (Ephesians 4:3), but then calls us to grow up into unity (Ephesians 4:13). In other words, God has created unity, and we are one! But this unity is not always visible or realized in our lives and communities. Unity is not only something the Spirit creates as a foundation, but it is a process by which we grow into the full measure of the Messiah. Leaders equip us for this process, and each member of the body is gifted to participate in the process. As people foundation on the unity of the Spirit (the 7 ones of Ephesians 4:4-6), we are no longer infants tossed about by deceiving winds but we speak and do the truth (that foundation) in love until the whole body matures into the likeness of the Messiah.

Unity (Eph 4:1-6): the unity (ἑνότητα) of the Spirit

1. Relational: Mutual Forbearance in Love (Eph 4:1-3; ἐν ἀγάπῃ)
   1. Oneness: The Mystery of Christ (Eph 4:4-6)

Diversity (4:7-16): growing into the maturity of the faith

1. The Exalted Christ Gives Gifts (Eph 4:7-11)
   1. The Function of Gifts in Love: Maturation (Eph 4:12-16; ἐν ἀγάπῃ)

Functioning almost like an inclusio, “each one” in Eph 4:7 (ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ) and Eph 4:16 (ἑνὸς ἑκάστου) highlights how every part of the body is gifted to participate in the maturation of the one body in love (αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ).

The Mystery of Christ (Ephesians 4:8-10)

The Messianic Centerpiece:  A Theological Reading of Ps 68 (Eph 4:8-10).

The text describes an ascent and a descent, and after the ascent, there is the distribution of gifts. The topic is Christological, that is, this is the pattern of the Messiah’s activity for the salvation of the world.

• The Son descended to become incarnate: God become flesh.
• The incarnate Son as Messiah died on the cross
• The incarnate Son as Messiah descended into the realm of the dead.
• The incarnate Son as Messiah was resurrected from the dead.
• The incarnate Son as Messiah was exalted to the right hand of God.
• The incarnate Son as Messiah gave gifts to people for the mission of the church.

Psalm 68 celebrates God’s victory over enemies, the march through the wilderness to Sinai, the trek to Israel’s inheritance, and then enthronement in Zion where Yahweh resides and receives the processional praise and honor due to the divine king (in which women participate and announce the good news; 68:11, 25). From this exalted position in the sanctuary, where the “kingdoms of the earth” offer praise, the God of Israel distributes blessings and gifts (“gives power and strength to his people,” 68:35; cf. Psalm 67:1, 6-7).

Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts (δόματα) to his people (ἀνθρώποις)”.

      a. Psalm 68 celebrates the movement of Israel from Egypt (v. 7) to Sinai (v. 8) and then to Canaan (vv. 9-14) whereupon God ascends the throne on Zion in Jerusalem (vv. 15-18). Paul uses Psalm 68 to describe the ascension and enthronement of Jesus in Ephesians 4:8. Jesus rose from the grave, ascended to the throne, and gave gifts to the church (people, ἀνθρώποις) through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

b.  Psalm 68:25 places women in the liturgical procession of singers and musicians to the temple. Like Miriam, young women played tambourines as part of the procession. They visibly participated in Israel’s public worship in the assembled congregation.

c.  Psalm 68:11 reads: “The Lord gives the command; great is the company of those who bore the tidings” (KJV). In the Septuagint “bore the tidings” is the same word as in the New Testament for “preaching the gospel” (εὐαγγελιζομένοις) or evangelists.

d.  Significantly, in Hebrew, the word is feminine. Psalm 68 envisions a great company of women who declare the good news (ASV, ESV, NIV). In the light of Paul’s application of Psalm 68 to the ascension of Christ, we hear an echo of the gifting of women to preach the gospel when God poured out the Spirit and gifted the church with a variety of functions. This included prophets and evangelists (εὐαγγελιστάς; proclaimers of the gospel) in Ephesians 4:11.

The Gifts (Ephesians 4:11):

                  “the apostles, and” (δὲ),

                        “the prophets, and” (δὲ)

                                    “the evangelists, and” (δὲ)

                                                “the pastors [shepherds] and (καὶ) teachers.”

Purpose (Ephesians 4:12-13):

to equip the saints for (εἰς) the work of ministry, for (εἰς) building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity (ἑνότητα) of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity (εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον), to the measure of the full stature of Christ (εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

Result (Ephesians 4:14-16):

We must no longer be children (νήπιοι, infants), tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine (διδασκαλίας), by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love (ἀληθεύοντες δὲ ἐν ἀγάπῃ), we must grow up (αὐξήσωμεν) in every way into (εἰς) him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is supported, as each part (ἑκάστου μέρους) is working properly, promotes the body’s growth (αὔξησιν) in building itself up (εἰς οἰκοδομὴν) in love.