Hello all:
Bobby Ross, editor of the Christian Chronicle, has written an excellent article on the recent debate on unity between Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches that occured at FHU.
While it sounds as if the debate didn’t change very much, it is good to hear that FHU allowed the debate to occur on their campus at all.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
October 25th, 2006 at 19:00
Clarke, I’m glad that you were encouraged by the meeting. I have heard that reaction among several people. Personally, I was saddened and disgusted.
What does Earl Edwards Mean that “It is the position of this University that it will take more than that.” Does he really think he speaks for everyone at Freed Hardeman on this issue. Does the entire campus line behind his views on unity with the Christian church? I know for a fact that he does not speak for everyone on HFU’s campus.Is there no room on Freed’s campus for varying opinions on this issue? Apparently there is not. I have yet to hear any dissenting voices from any faculty or staff member at FHU on this issue.
Also I found Ralph Gilmore’s statement to be more than a bit condecending toward Faust. “Gilmore praised Faust as a devout man and lauded his courage in coming to Freed-Hardeman.” Lauded his courage? Why would he say that he was courageous. Maybe I’m reading things into this but I translate this to say,”Faust, you sure were brave to come here. You knew that we were going to verbally beat you up to teach others not to try to debate this. You knew you were going to take a beating but you were brave enough to take it.” Can you imagine Faust calling Gilmore or Edwards “brave” for visiting his campus?
My father asked me an interesting question after reading this article, “What do you think they were trying to accomplish by having Faust on campus?” I think it’s pretty obvious. They were not interested in having an open minded discussion, they wanted to use this as a platform to communicate a message to their constituents that unity with the Christian church is not acceptable without them giving up the instrument.
October 26th, 2006 at 4:13
I don’t agree with the FHU administration’s position but I trust their motives. I believe they want unity, but they don’t think it is possible unless the instrumental congregations abandon instrumental music. So their options are either to give up on the instrumental groups or to talk with them. Given those choices, talking is the better option IMO. However I think talking would have a better chance at making a difference if both parties came to the table with open minds and willing to look for a new route forward.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:03
I was glad the discussion took place. I was sad that Gilmore could not answer Faust’s question as to why “we” will not give up kitchens and sunday schools for the sake of unity … after all Gilmore wanted to know why Faust would not give up the keyboard for unity. I would like an answer from Gilmore.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
October 26th, 2006 at 10:15
Joel:
The only reason I’m encouraged by it is that they actually allowed for a dialgoue and din’t just blast the independent Christian Church allowing for no response. I’m not very encouraged by the fact that FHU demands that the Christian Church stops using the instrument or that there can be not unity.
Alan:
I wish that FHU would come to the table with an open mind… but I fear FHU will be the last one to do so.
Bobby:
Great point. I’d love to hear the answer as well, but since there isn’t a logical answer, I doubt we’ll get one.
-Clarke
October 27th, 2006 at 7:39
This is a similar discussion that was held at the FHU lectureships a few years ago. When a debate was held specifically on the issue of instrumental music.
Shouldn’t the onus of regaining unity be put onto those that broke fellowship and left?
The critical issue of the time was instrumental music, and there does not seem to be willingness to give it up.
I know Ralph Gilmore. He is one of the most knowledgable people about the bible I’ve ever met. If you have questions go ahead and ask, he will answer.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:28
SOA,
This is from Bobby Ross’ article:
“While describing Faust as his brother in Christ, Gilmore told the crowd, “We are not in fellowship because of one big, obvious thing.”
That one, big obvious thing — the use of instrumental music in worship — dominated the discussion.
But Faust rejected the idea of dividing fellowship over music.
“I may not agree on some points, but because we’re brothers and sisters in Christ, we do have fellowship,” he said.
Gilmore begged Faust to “lay aside the instrument” for the sake of unity.”
It sounds to me like it is the non-instrumental group that is making this a point of fellowship. If anyone is “breaking fellowship” it is the non-instrumental group. What am I missing here?
-j
October 27th, 2006 at 18:17
I guess if you take the opinion you cannot lose fellowship, then there is not a need for any discussions about unity. Now we can just work on restoration.
October 27th, 2006 at 20:33
I think that this all comes down to how you read scripture. If you view fellowship as an either/or propositiion then unity will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. It seems that the traditional COC reading of scripture provides very little room for varying views on many issues. Perhaps there is a way that we can part ways without breaking fellowship, ie Barnabas and Paul over the issue of John Mark. We typically view the term fellowship as an all-or-nothing proposition. I think that that Faust is saying is that we can have some degree of fellowship without having concensus on the instrumental music issue. We come from a Restoration tradition, perhaps we need to restore the idea of parting ways without parting fellowship.