01.02. That Character is a sufficient test of Christian Fellowship.

That Character is a sufficient test of Christian Fellowship.

He taught that it was not so much what a man believed, as it was what he was in life and conduct. It was more than incidental that this pronouncement came from Abner Jones. His character was an embodiment of his teaching. James O’Kelly, the sturdy personality, that towering individual, stood for the right of the one man; he could not be absorbed; his individuality was impressive and convincing, and it was fitting, indeed it was inevitable, that he should speak for the individual. But Abner Jones possessed no such impressive personality. His strength was in his character. He was a brother among brethren; a physician in the sick room; a nurse at the bedside; a pastor in the home; a preacher in the pulpit; a laborer in the field and at his trade; and when he spoke it was with his character, as well as with his tongue. It is indeed significant that the distinctive principles of the Christians had for their expression distinctive types of men. O’Kelly, with a strong, convincing personality, stood for the right of the individual; Jones, the man of character, stood for character as the sufficient test; and Stone, the man of the schools--the book man--for the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Abner Jones never taught, as some would have us think, that there could be Christian character in the absence of the fundamental principles of Christian faith. He did not admit that one could accept or reject Christ, and still have Christian character; neither did he admit that one could accept or reject the doctrines of repentance, faith, prayer, or any other fundamental doctrine of the Bible, and still have Christian character; he never taught that one could believe or disbelieve them and one would be as good as the other. Abner Jones knew, as we all know, that we cannot have a Divine command before us, and say to all men, you can treat that command as you like; if you like it, keep it; if you don’t like it, don’t keep it; it really does not matter; please yourselves, and all will be right in the end. Such teaching never entered the mind of Jones, nor is it to be found anywhere in all his teaching. But in the field of interpretation he maintained a Christian character, he was entitled to fellowship, no matter how widely he might differ from his fellows in intellectual conception of truth. When a man gives proof that his heart is right with God, and his life is right with men, why should there be a divergence that would debar him of fellowship! Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said that he was sensitive in behalf of theologies, but that when theology put its hoof upon a living, palpitating heart, his heart cried out against it. Abner Jones said as much before Mr. Beecher was born, and his followers have been saying it over after him. The fact is that most of the religious controversies are of detail. Christians cannot stand apart, except on matters which do not touch individual Christian character. Individual Christian character, let it be said, is not what a man believes, for devils believed, and remained devils; not what he is on the Sabbath Day, when he is influenced by the sanctuary, the music, the prayers, the sermon, the fellowship and the spirit of worship, but what he is on Sunday, and in the week-days when life is wearing, and working, and weaving for him the garment which he is to wear when he stands to be judged for the deeds done in the body, and it was Jones’ contention, and the contention of all his followers, that such a character should have Christian fellowship despite the mental attitudes he may chance to hold. Not that belief, as elsewhere stated, can be ignored, for what a man believes makes all the difference between life and death, salvation and destruction. A man sincerely believing that there is no precipice before him, when there is one, will not be saved from a broken neck, should he go forward and fall over, but as to the question of that precipice being a thousand feet perpendicular, or sloping after the first five hundred feet, men may dispute about to their hearts’ content.

Doctor Jones knew and taught, as we must know and teach, that there are some things about which opinions are not admissible.

Life is not a matter of opinion. Life is real; life is a fact. But accepting life as a fact, we may then express opinions concerning its development. We may differ in our opinions as to the best way to develop life. We may discuss the time that a child should enter school; what books should be studied, and for what length of time. We may discuss the age at which one should join the church, enter society, engage in business, without in any way disagreeing about the fundamental fact.

Law is not a matter of opinion. Law is a fact. I do not mean a law, this or that law, but law as it enforces itself in nature, in life, and indeed in all things. Knowing that without law the sunrise would be irregular, the seasons uncertain, society insecure and progress impossible, then we may proceed to discuss the various methods, and believe in the multiplied ways by which law is enforced, and none of our beliefs, opinions, or arguments would either change the law, or affect our character.

Health is not a matter of opinion. Health is a fact. When once we are agreed that health is a fact, and of supreme importance, then we may discuss whether we should eat much or little, few or many times a day; whether it is better to drink water hot, or cold, or whether we should drink it at all; whether or not we should retire early, and rise early, or retire late and sleep late.

Farming is not a matter of opinion. Farming is a fact. The soil must be cultivated, or life would perish from the earth. Farming must be done according to seed and season. Even though a farmer should believe with all sincerity that seed planted without preparing the ground would be as good as seed sown in well prepared ground, or that one month of the year was just as favorable as another for planting seed, and would act accordingly, he would find himself with barren fields and empty barns. But, having settled that farming is a fact, and is governed by law, he may differ from his neighbor as to whether or not turnips have greater food value than potatoes, or whether white corn is better than yellow, without affecting his harvest, or changing his character. His belief would influence his course as a farmer but would not change his personal virtues. His truthfulness, honesty, uprightness, and indeed all other personal virtues would remain unchanged. His rating as a farmer would be in the fact that he farmed, that his fields produced grain and his orchards fruit, and not upon any belief that he might have about relative values of seed, or the kind of machinery to be used. All these principles hold good in matters or religion, as well as in the ones mentioned. Let it be settled that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus Christ is God’s son, that he came into the world to save men, that sin must be forgiven, or the soul suffer, that repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ puts the life into proper relationship to the Divine government, and other fundamentals about which there is not, and never has been, disagreement, and believers may have opinions ad infinitum. The mischief is that we attach far too much importance to things that are mere matters of opinion, and the result is that we have sectarian and denominational bigotry on all sides; one little bigot trying to slay another little bigot, and to make out that he holds in his own little head, and carries in his own little heart infinite truth and eternal justice. We have all too long been running up and down the lists of men’s opinions, examining their beliefs to see what ones we could adopt, when we should have been inquiring about the central purpose of their life. When Doctor Jones found a man who was fundamentally right in the central purpose of his life, he hastened to invite his fellowship, and he asked, even demanded, fellowship on the same basis, and that has been the fundamental plea of the Christians from his day until now, and may God forbid that it shall ever be otherwise. When men differ in opinion, see truth from different angles, they give evidence of life, a sign of vitality, and the assurance of progress. When a man says there is no God, he puts himself outside the realm of opinion. When a man says there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as honesty, no such thing as virtue, no such thing as the sanctity and purity of the home, he puts himself outside the realm of opinion. With such a man there is no discussion, nor argument; no exchange of thought, for there is nothing to discuss, no point to argue, and no thought to exchange, and with such men neither Jones nor his followers had fellowship. To the end of time men will differ in their thinking. Truth is infinite. All facts break up into countless forms as soon as men begin to investigate them, and men describe, and interpret what they see. Abner Jones contended that it was wrong to impose the duty of seeing all things in the same light, and from the same angle, and that intellectual tests would not answer where truth was infinite and the human mind finite. And why, I ask, denounce two men of equally good character, but who chance to see truth from different angles, and within different limitations. We must know men by their fruits, but their fruitage must be in service, and not in doctrine. Christian character is in life, not in doctrine; in service, not in commandments; in heart, not in intellect; in love, not in syllogisms. Abner Jones, for himself, saw certain forms of obedience, and certain interpretations of truth, so clear and distinct that he could not think, nor speak independent of them, but he never taught that they should be tests of Christian faith for others. They were to him a means to an end, and hence his fellowship was based upon Christian character. He believed and taught that a man is not a man because he thinks aright, but because he acts aright. He contended that a man who repented of his sins and accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior possessed the fundamental and necessary elements of Christian faith, and from that point on his attitude toward God, and his conduct toward men, was a sufficient basis for Christian fellowship, no matter how widely he might chance to differ from others in matters of doctrine and commandments. He little cared whether his neighbor went to this church, or to that one, provided he was a true worshipper while there, and afterward he would graciously and effectively wait upon his Lord in loving personal service to His children. To him it was far more important to visit the sick in the name of the Lord, than it was to wait upon Him in proclaiming a doctrine, or yielding obedience to an ordinance. Were Doctor Jones living today, he would not be a stranger to the emphasis we are now laying upon service, for he taught it, and he lived it, through all his years, beginning with his freedom from ecclesiastical domination.

It was urged then, as it is now, that the test was not specific enough for so vital a matter; that by it any one could be admitted to church fellowship, no matter what he believed. But, as explained elsewhere, that was not true, but it is true that no matter what one believes, ones acceptance or rejection is based upon what one is in life and character and not upon what one chances to believe about certain theological doctrines. Goodness is the only orthodoxy that God cares anything about, and every man who lives the Christ life is accepted of him. There were then, and there are now, those who ask questions about facts and feasts, about moons and modes, about days and doctrines, mechanical scholars, mechanical Christians, technical legalists, who must always go to priest or book to know what they must believe and do. Such ones fast by rule, and go to church by rote, they read their Bibles by measurement, and their prayers by seasons. Jones could not bind himself to fast on certain days, or do any other thing according to code or decree. He believed and taught that the man who determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified was entirely orthodox. Today no man of immoral character would be admitted to church membership, though he believed, accepted and endorsed all the doctrinal requirements of the church. The character test is quite largely the one that holds first place in business, as well as in the church. A great American banker testified before a congressional committee that banks loaned money on character security, rather than on property; that no matter how much property a man might have, if he did not have a good character, he could not borrow money. When asked if that was the way he loaned money he answered, "Yes; I have drawn my check for a million dollars to men who had no property at all." The Vice-President of a large and prosperous Loan and Savings Association said to the writer: "There is a moral value which has a rating: we take a character risk as well as a property risk, but we never take a property risk alone." This principle is the basis of partnerships for trade or manufacture. Men of large estate in committing their affairs to agents or managers are guided by the same principle, for if a man is not truthful, trustworthy, honest and discreet, no matter how much he may know, he has neither part nor lot in a business organization of character and standing. More and more character and not creed is becoming the basis of fellowship in the domain of the church. Within the month (March, 1921) the writer had a letter from a Christian woman, a licentiate member in a Christian Conference, telling him that she had been teaching in the Sunday-school of a strictly orthodox church, and that when the pastor was told that she did not believe all the doctrines of the denomination, he expressed great surprise and disapproval that she had been teaching. The purpose of her letter to the writer was for advice. She was advised to remain true to her conviction of truth, and not to appear in a false light, to pass for something she was not. She was reminded that the test of fellowship in the Christian Church was not doctrinal, but character, and that she had better resign, and be true, than to teach and be false. She prepared her resignation, and handed it to the pastor of the church, reminding him of the situation. He would not accept the resignation. He very frankly said to her, "Your character and your service are both acceptable to me and my church. You keep on teaching the Bible and we will say nothing about the doctrine."

Two things appear to the writer to be true. One is that Christian character is a safe and equitable test, for by it men are accepted at their full value, neither receiving a premium for certain beliefs, nor suffering a discount for others. The second is that a doctrinal test for church membership reduces the standard to the approval of an ecclesiastical court, and no such court is divinely authorized. We are to call no man master, for one is our Master even the Lord Jesus Christ.

Abner Jones, having assured himself of the ground of his faith, started out with great enthusiasm and high hope to preach it to others. It was to him so reasonable, so Biblical, that he never doubted its acceptance by others, but in this he was sadly disappointed. It was not long until he, and his followers, were excluded from the Baptist churches, and having none of their own, they were without places or worship. Henry Wendall, a member of Doctor Stillman’s church, hired a hall in Boston, at his own charges, paying for it at the rate of $150.00 per annum, and a Mr. Cole, of Charlestown, opened the upper story of his dwelling for Conference meetings, seating it at his own expense, The audiences that gathered in these places for worship were large and orderly, and yet they were disturbed by the rabble, to the extent of storming the house. Especially was this true in Boston, where the interruption became so distressing that the congregation made appeal to the town authorities for protection. The petition was sent to the "Selectmen of the town of Boston." The document is quite elaborate and bears date of September 16, 1804. It recites the disturbance, and the means that had been taken to prevent it. After the usual formula of address common to that day the petition says in part:

"It is now more than four months since we have met in this place, as above mentioned. We had not long occupied, before some young men--by their appearance from 14 to 18 years of age--began to disturb us by talking loud in meeting, stamping and scraping on the floor with their feet, laughing out loud, whistling and caterwauling, running up and down stairs eight or ten at a time, striking on the stair-casing with their staves, and yelling in a most ridiculous manner, with language most obscene and insulting. Ladies have been treated in such an insolent manner by them, that they dare not pass that way, even in the early part of the evening, without protection. We have had our lights frequently blown out, our lamps in the entry knocked down and broken, every evening on which we meet, unless we watch them. We have several times had our door locked, in order to prevent our coming out when we wished. Segars have been smoked in time of meeting repeatedly. It is common to have our house stoned in time of worship. We believe in one instance that as many as about twenty stones or brickbats have been thrown against the house in time of one meeting, together with a number of loud, tumultuous huzzas. Loud, do we say? Yes, so loud that they have been heard on Charlestown Training Field. The gate at the entrance of our yard has been torn down repeatedly while we have been worshipping. When people go out of worship, they cannot walk peaceably, but have often been insulted in the most shameful manner. Firing squibs at the house and into the yard, has of late become common. As near as we can judge, not far from twenty were blown off in one evening. Fire, flying in such a manner around a house, at such a dry season as this, is truly alarming. Many more things might be named by us, but we forbear. And now, gentlemen, as you stand in the characters of fathers and guardians of the town, we request that you would in some manner, as you in your wisdom shall think best, use your influence to stop such tumultuous and disgraceful conduct. We feel firmly attached to the government of our country, as well as being desirous of our own peace, and in the violation of either gives us pain.

We entreat you, gentlemen, to act by the golden rule, and in this case do as you would wish to be done by. We are very sensible that many unfavorable stories are reported about our manner of worship, and many things which are entirely false. We endeavor to regulate our form of worship as nearly according to the Scripture rule as possible; we will not set ourselves up as being perfect, but liable to err as well as others. We assure you we mean to be governed by the laws of our land, if we conduct otherwise the law is open."

Despite all these interferences, handicaps and discouragements, the man kept on, and the Lord was with him and abundantly blessed his labors. It will be of interest to know that the first church he organized was at Lyndon, Vt., in 1801. This was before his ordination to the ministry. The second church was organized in the autumn of 1802, at Hanover, N. H., and the third during the winter of 1803, at Piermont, in the same state. The first meeting-house erected under his labors was at Salem, Massachusetts. It was situated on English Street, was twenty by forty feet, and bore the name Christian Tabernacle.

Abner Jones died May 29, 1841.