Gospel Advocate denounces unity in January 2006 Issue
Hello all:
I am currently reading The Gospel Advocate’s January 2006 edition.
I was excited when I opened up the mailbox and saw “The 1906 Division” on the front cover of the magazine. However, my excitment soon turned to disappointment as I opened it up and read the editorial by Neil W. Anderson entitled “Unity, good or bad?” I was especially surprised that Anderson stated that unity with the Independent Christian Churches would be to return “to the bonadge of human creeds by merging with thsoe who do not share in the precious faith of the scriptures.” WOW.
Statements like Anderson’s, with all due respect to him, show a lack of understanding of what divides us. The last time I checked, the Independents were less creedal than we are… we are the ones who published “A Christian Affirmation, 2005,” and not they….
I guess I should say that the stance that they have taken doesn’t totally surprise me, but I was hoping that if they tackled this issue at all this year that they would take a slightly more balanced approach and not just call the return to unity an evil thing. I expect writing like this from the Firm Foundation, not the Gospel Advocate.
I think I might just have to write a letter to the editor on this one.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
January 11th, 2006 at 23:57
What really seperates us in the Churches of Christ from our brothers and sisters in the Independant Christian Churches? The fact that those more conservative brothers in the CoC think unity would be bad due to the reason stated in that article means there must be a lengthy list, right? It cant be just the musical instrument issue? Tell me that’s not it. If it is, we are the guilty ones of division that the bible stands against and what we believe the denominations are guilty of. Write that letter man, and share it with us…….if you would be so kind.
January 12th, 2006 at 5:32
I recently read a paper by David Lipscomb on the subject that evoked the same disapointed response in me.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dlipscomb/cufo/CUFO00A.HTM
He lapses into a discussion of the silence of the scriptures, taking the position that what is not explicitly authorized, is therefore prohibited. I believe that rule is internally inconsistent. If we are not authorized to do anything not authorized in scripture (by command, example, or necessary inference) , then we are not authorized to apply that rule because it is not found in scripture in any of those forms. It is purely the result of flawed human reasoning.
January 12th, 2006 at 9:25
J.P.
I don’t want to lie to you. Instrumental music is what stands between the Independent Christian Churches and our own fellowship in the churches of Christ.
I wish I could tell you that there is more, but there really is not. The only other place I could point to and say that the Independents are more liberal is with the role of women. However, I can’t say that what I’ve seen them do anything unscriptural with the role of women, just things that take me out of my comfort zone (I’m pretty conservative when it comes to this issue).
Unfortunatly, our more conservative brothers are holding to the position that instrumental music is a sin, when I don’t think that view is defensable or scriptural. If instrumental music is a damnable sin, so are individual communion cups. If that is the case, we are all in a lot of trouble. You can continue to add to that list…. Sunday School, you can throw that out, paid preachers as well….those are all issues that our even more conservative brothers and sisters claim are unscriptural and are a violation of the silence provision. We need to figure out which side we are on…it is okay to be expedient, or is silence truly prohibitive? If it truly is prohibitive, we had all better repent for not drinking from the single Communion chalice.
-Clarke
January 12th, 2006 at 10:04
Hello all:
I should mention that I sent a copy of this post last night to the Gospel Advocate’s Editorial email address, as well as to all of the people that wrote articles about the 1906 Division in the GA. We’ll see if any respond.
I will be working on my letter to the editor soon.
-Clarke
January 13th, 2006 at 11:41
Clarke,
I too have perused the Gospel Advocate January 2006 issue and it is difficult to swallow.
To boil the source of division down to instrumental music can be misleading. There are two elements which seem to be in play. 1. Explicit direction from the Bible (conservative) or implicit silence (permissive). 2. The concept of expediency, to which Alexander Campbell was rather fond of leaning on. If it spreads the gospel and does not conflict with explicit commands, it should be acceptable to God. Campbell’s position would (limitedly) support mission societies, para-church organizations, etc…
I do appreciate the Gospel Advocate’s desire to thwart capricious change within our fellowship. More of us (me included) should be on guard against sloppy Bible exegesis and hermeneutics. Patient, prayerful, thoughtful consideration should be given before advancing ideas which can lead to apostasy.
Ultimately I believe our generation of converts will be able to affect some change in the attitudes of our congregations. Generation X’ers (postmodern thinkers like me) are now being appointed deacons and evangelists. They are able to influence the direction of their churches, hopefully toward better dialog. I think they will have a 3rd approach to scripture, somewhere between conservative and permissive. Conservative with a touch of reason and inference.
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
RestorationUnity.com
January 17th, 2006 at 16:16
Hey Clarke, Wanted to let you and your readers know that we’ve updated the Christian Chronicle Web site at http://www.christianchronicle.org with a special package related to the 1906 split/2006 centennial events. I’d invite you and your readers to check it out.
Bobby
January 18th, 2006 at 22:12
Bobby:
Thanks for the heads up. I read the articles…great job, as usual. I enjoy reading the Christian Chronicle.
Rich Little is a little too liberal for me in the second article, but the interview with five or so people was very interesting. Do you talk much with Mark Taylor on a regular basis? Also, any paper copies left of this issue?
-Clarke
January 19th, 2006 at 21:29
Clarke,
Glad you liked the articles.
I actually haven’t ever talked with Mark Taylor. Lynn McMillon arranged that interview.
Yes, I can send you a paper copy or a few extras if you want more (just tell me how many). Are you on the mailing list? If not, I can add you for free — and anybody else who reads your blog and would like to receive it. Just e-mail me at bobby.ross@christianchronicle.org with your address.
Thanks,
Bobby
January 20th, 2006 at 8:23
Bobby:
Thanks for the generous offer. I’ll send you an email soon.
-Clarke
July 13th, 2006 at 7:14
Just now came across these comments. Have a couple of my own. First, would someone please tell me how one can having meaningful fellowship with those one cannot worship with? Those who insist on the instrument in the assembly are essentially asking for us vocal onlys to violate conscience (at least). Second, the “rule of exclusion” is an attempt to get human doctrines out of the faith and practice of the church. All religious faith and practice should be grounded in the Divine word, not in the human. I think that is a principle found in the gospel. Just because there is ambiguity in the attempt does not mean that that the ideal is wrong. Third, unity/fellowship is essentially congregational–not possible nor necessarily desirable over multiple congregations. Charitably. — FC