Sometimes I reflect on growing up in the church and what we were taught….and then I reflect on what being a Christian is really about.
How did the real meaning of what it means to be a Christian get lost in some Churches of Christ? Campbell and Stone worried much more about being a real Christian than in having every last detail right..so how did it happen? Lipscomb and Harding, the separatists that they were, were very worried about being true Christians….so Sand Creek wasn’t the turning point as far as it all goes….how did it happen?
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:14
Hi Clarke,
Carl Ketcherside wrote in the Mission Messenger that Sand Creek was the turning point:
In my analysis of the rise of factionalism I have come to believe that the philosophy embodied in the Sand Creek Declaration laid the foundation for the subsequent disintegration of the restoration movement.
I don’t think Lipscomb and Harding were to blame. A couple of other journal editors do have some responsibility for the division: Daniel Sommer of the Octographic Review, and Austin McGary of the Firm Foundation. I think these and other like-minded men were zealous for the wrong things. From their positions of influence as editors of these journals, they led the movement into division.
There were certainly other like-minded voices. As early as 1868, in the Millenial Harbinger, J W McGarvey wrote:
The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament.
Those sound to me like the kind of words that could stir up division, though in his later writings McGarvey seemed to be inclined to avoid division if possible.
April 2nd, 2007 at 19:46
The loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is for warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament.
Alan says “Those sound to me like the kind of words that could stir up division”
Not all division is the same, Alan. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” indicating that division that leads to doctrinal error is wrong. But Jesus Himself says in Matthew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” indicating that those who follow Him will indeed cause division, but will cause division that leads to the truth. Division is unavoidable. When John says in 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us” what does he mean? Did these antichrists (for that is the subject) leave on their own? Without pressure? Of course not. They left because they were driven out. “But that’s division and division is bad.” If all division is bad, then Jesus is bad, for he came to bring a sword (division) as He Himself testifies.
April 2nd, 2007 at 20:22
Now if the loudest call that comes from heaven to the men of this generation is NOT for warfare to exterminate everything not expressly or by necessary implication authorized in the New Testament, then why not re-institute infant baptism? Why not kiss the pope’s toe and his hand too? Why not worship Mary? Why not offer pigs in sacrifice to God? Why not worship angels? Why not have temple prostitutes at the church door? If McGarvey was wrong about heaven calling for war against un-scriptural practices, then we might as well be Catholic, or in fact we might as well go even further and worship Zeus. If you are going to turn a blind eye to one un-scriptual practice, soon you will turn the other eye blind to another. That’s how the Catholic Church came about, after all. First the plurality of elders goes for a single bishop, then you put in transubstantiation, then comes Mary’s ever-virginity, then you’re praying to her, then you’ve got rosaries, then you’ve got a pope, now your kissing the popes toe. You see the same type of progression in liberal churches of Christ: cups in communion, then sunday-school, then women sunday-school teachers, then women preachers, then they go Max Lucado and throw baptism out. It’s history, and history repeats itself when liberalism grows like a cancer in the minds of the youth. And I’m only 24, so don’t call me an old fogie.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:50
JK,
I don’t agree that every doctrinal error is justification for division. If that is true, then I doubt there could be a congregation anywhere with more than one member.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:00
i agree every single detail can’t be grounds for division. but at the same time, it’s bare sense to see that some level of agreement is necessary to have any sort of spiritual connection at all. i fully admit it’s ridiculously hard to square in my mind exactly where that line of tolerable vs. intolerable lies. i honestly don’t wish to exclude people if i don’t need to. but sometimes, i think, how can i shake this person’s hand and treat him like everything’s A-OK when i genuinely, sincerely believe what he believes and teaches others will harm his soul and theirs? Yet, like you said, how small a corner will i paint myself into?
April 3rd, 2007 at 17:55
I would draw the line this way:
(1) Anything that alters what God has revealed as necessary to salvation.
(2) Anything that alters baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or that has a probability of eventually leading there.
(3) Anything that equates to blasphemy. (on this we certainly have an example, 1 Tim 1:20)
Anything that doesn’t fit in these three categories, will not be a practice anyway, but only a personal opinion, like what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was or some such. If someone wants to believe the ark of the old covenant was radioactive, so be it. But if they want to alter the Lord’s Supper as if it were their supper or water down the scriptural view of justification or change baptism then they are a heretic.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:42
I agree. So, going back to the McGarvey quote… In order for me to agree with his statement, there would need to be some limiting phrases restricting the breadth of application. We don’t need to conduct “warfare, stern, relentless, merciless, exterminating, against…” things like missionary societies, hand clapping, kitchens, etc. If people think those are doctrinal errors, I think Paul’s advice to Timothy would be a better approach:
2Ti 2:24-26 And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Maybe we should even follow Paul’s instructions on the weightier matters. He doesn’t seem to be condoning what McGarvey was calling for.
April 4th, 2007 at 19:29
Well, missionary societies unlike hand clapping and kitchens would break #2 “Anything that alters baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or that has a probability of eventually leading there.” We all know that missionary societies will eventually lead to changing either baptism or the Lord’s Supper because they are para church organization whose goal is to bring in numbers not to establish proper observance of the sacraments.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:24
I share a similar view with jk and Alan, although I would be more cautious in extrapolating the end result of some matters of opinion (mission societies). In the bible, the main reason for division was differing theology - “Who is God?” The second reason was - “How do I know Him?”
The theological difference can be seen in people (i.e. Gnostic) portraying God / Jesus in an inaccurate way - Jesus was not flesh, Jesus is merely a powerful angel, God tolerates sin, etc… This can be seen in our modern era with many teaching God will not punish, Jesus will not ultimately judge, there is a God of the O.T. and a dissimilar God of the N.T. or He is tolerant of sin.
The first error tends to lead to the second error. However we understand who God is leads us to how to relate to him. If you believe God is permissive and tolerant, your salvation doctrine will reflect that and tend not to have commitment attached to it. i.e. Praying Jesus it your heart as Saviour (not Lord) reflects a theology portraying God as needing our love and without life changing authority.
I believe division will occur if theology and / or salvation doctrine are dissimilar. Conversely, I believe unity is possible if we stick to Who is God, and How do I know Him.
Everything else: Hand Clapping, Kitchens, Head Coverings, Sabbaths, etc… will fall out of the “conviction” category and into the “opinion” column. I hope the only two conviction I have are answers to: “Who is God?” and “How do I get to know Him?”
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
April 5th, 2007 at 7:28
JK,
Suppose you know of a dozen or so congregations who have deep conviction that baptism is necessary for forgiveness of sins. Further, suppose that those congregations want to form a missionary society to start churches that teach their conviction on that subject. Would someone be justified in withdrawing fellowship from those congregations because they formed a missionary society? I don’t think so.
April 5th, 2007 at 14:48
Well, I’m not sure of all the dynamix involved in starting a missionary society. I don’t see anything wrong with a group of congregations participating together in the word of spreading the gospel. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that “missionary society” probably indicates hiring a staff from outside to do the work they should be doing, but I must confess my actual ignorance on the subject.
April 7th, 2007 at 17:54
I see this problem from the view that our traditionalist understanding of inspired writings tends to dominate rather than free people.
When the Bible is no longer used as a tool pass down from man but rather as a weapon deliveried by God teaching becomes the source conflict.
When we are honest about how we got the Bible and remove ourselves from the fables of wishful thinking we are all on equal plain of faith.
Did the church of Christ put the Bible together opps let me guess God used the Catholics to do that then sent them to hell. Hmmmm
April 9th, 2007 at 9:04
Hello all:
My apologies for being an absentee landlord…
Alan:
I don’t blame Lipscomb or Harding at all…they were products of their time, as pious as they were.
JK:
Like Phil stated, Paul is talking about Gnosticism in Romans, not instrumental music or multiple communion cups.
I challenge you to prove from the bible that God intended to set out a pattern for worship that we would find in scripture.
God was capable of having a biblical author write out a complete description of Christian worship, but he did not. To find our “five acts of worship” you must rely on examples and inferences… many of which are only “necessary” to prove your assumptions.
The assumptions that you make regarding communion cups and missionary societies is just as unbiblical as prayer to Mary or unity under the Bishop of Rome.
To state that missionary societies “will eventually lead to changing either baptism or the Lord’s Supper because they are para church organization whose goal is to bring in numbers not to establish proper observance of the sacraments,” is quite a stretch.
Part of our duties as Christians is to spread the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with bringing in numbers. We also have a duty to teach those that we bring to God…finally…how do we properly observe the “sacraments”? Isn’t this a term not found in scripture? If you are attempting to make the case that one “unbiblical” thing will keep us from properly observing another “unbiblical” thing, whats the problem?
-Clarke
April 9th, 2007 at 19:03
“God was capable of having a biblical author write out a complete description of Christian worship, but he did not.”
You are the one saying we should not stick to the “5 times of worship” that we can read of in the New Testament, but above you accuse me of having some parallel with “prayer to Mary.” Would not prayer to Mary rather fit your position? You believe we can add forms and means of worship–could we not add prayer to Mary as a new form of worshiping God? If we stick with the “5 items of worship” (as you call them) then we will not do so, but if we follow your new-fangled theory, we very well may end up there.
“The assumptions that you make regarding communion cups and missionary societies is just as unbiblical as prayer to Mary or unity under the Bishop of Rome.”
If a missionary society means that several congregations get together and join in using their own manpower and funds to spread the gospel, then I’m all for it. But if a missionary society means hiring a staff from outside the church to do the church’s job, then it obviously will lead to the spread of false doctrine. I used to work as a customer service rep for SBC, and I guarantee you I adlibed a whole lot when I felt their wording was goofy or just plain wrong. You hire pseudochristians to spread the gospel for you and the result is pseudochristians.
As to cups, Jesus plainly said of the bread “this is my body” and of the cup “this cup is the New Testament by my blood” and of the contents of the cup “this is my blood.” In that he distinguished the cup from the contents making the contents represent his blood but the cup represent the New Testament, he indeed indicated that we are to use one cup to represent the one New Testament for which he died. Jesus died to establish one testament, not 50, not 100, and not 2000.
April 9th, 2007 at 21:33
I would say that nothing that Jesus say was very plain. In fact he admits it. Even more the writers and the copyist didn’t always know what Jesus was talking about and wrote in a few educated guesses. Isn’t true when one speaks of the cup it is a metonym. Much like saying Washington represents US government. However in this day personal interpretation trumps all in terms of salvations . We can choose what anything means at anytime either through enlightenment or by denial. Sometimes it maturity and other times it a step into our final isolation.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:01
jk,
Thanks for reaffirming my choice of pulling up the spiritual shades that were covering my eyes. It was then that God introduced me to grace.
Hi, legalism? how are you, let me introduce you to a new friend of mine, this friend is extremely close to God, unlike you, please say hello to grace.
April 10th, 2007 at 17:47
“Isn’t true when one speaks of the cup it is a metonym. Much like saying Washington represents US government.”
Sometimes metonymy is used and sometimes not. Every time someone says Washington they don’t mean the President, but sometimes literally mean Washington. Now when Paul says “as oft as we drink this cup” he is using metonymy of the cup for the contents, but when Jesus says “this cup is the New Testament” having already said “this [contents] is my blood” he is NOT using metonymy. Seeing he already said the contents represented his blood, it is ludicrous to believe him to be referring to the contents again when saying “this cup is the New Testament.” This time it is not metonymy, because if it were it would result in the liquid representing both blood and the New Testament, and what propriety is there in liquid representing the New Testament? Rather, the container represents the New Testament because the blood of Christ (represented by the liquid) is containing within the New Testament (represented by the cup) thus showing that you CANNOT receive the blood of Christ OUTSIDE the New Testament. (BTW, I don’t agree that Jesus isn’t plain. It is self-seeking doctrines that make him hard to comprehend, not himself.)
April 10th, 2007 at 17:51
“Hi, legalism? how are you, let me introduce you to a new friend of mine, this friend is extremely close to God, unlike you, please say hello to grace.”
Legalism is saying you have to keep the Law of Moses to be saved, not rightly interpreting the New Testament. Jesus Himself said in the parable of the wise and foolish builders that those who hear his saying and do not do them will be destroyed, so this lax attitude towards Christ’s commandments that they are optional because legalism is bad is a lie from Satan. The apostle John says in 1 John 2:4 “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Oh, John, how legalistic of you!!! Haven’t you ever heard of grace, John???
April 11th, 2007 at 17:01
Sometimes metonymy is used and sometimes not.
This in itself to me speaks of complexity. Jesus uses the cup to mean one thing and Paul used it to mean something else. The cup =’s the blood =’s the new testament. I gather you mean a new covenant, a promise! Not the scriptures.
The process of scripture becoming a Bible does not speak of common reading. We know the New Testament was written in “scriptou continua” figuring out as an example “godisnowhere” as Greek text could have two meanings god is no where or god is now here.
Our trust and faith in the churches of Christ as hopefully the right church is a view denominated out of pure opinion its man made. What is the difference between an assumption and a opinion anyway? Is an educated guess far superior to a strong feeling inside? Corralling around the Lords supper and Baptism as a distinctive observation is a theology based on historical tradition and protestant roots. It’s a bias.
But understanding grace (perhaps more from a feeling inside) than the from scripture those biases like other denominations put us all on equal footing with God. This is true because there is no perfect church, no perfect translation, and no perfect interpretation.
April 11th, 2007 at 19:39
Mark says “figuring out as an example “godisnowhere” as Greek text could have two meanings god is no where or god is now here.”
What foolishness and absurdity! Greek is a fully inflected language, which prohibits such lunacy. Nouns, pronouns, adjectives have case which show their function in a sentence. Vocative, nominative, genitive, dative. Things that English as a syntactic language does not have. English relies on word order to determine meaning and Greek on declension (i.e. noun case).
Mark continues “Our trust and faith in the churches of Christ as hopefully the right church is a view denominated out of pure opinion its man made.”
With such a pathetic view of the Scriptures as you have expressed above and such an uninformed misunderstanding of the very nature of language, I wouldn’t expect any better view out of you. To a person like you, the Bible is a meaningless nothing that no one could ever understand. Why then do you even try? Why even pretend to be a Christian when you hold the word of God in such contempt? Just admit that you are an atheist and cease to trouble God’s elect.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:27
Hey jk, not to get into an argument, but have you ever thought of throwing out some compassion for those that may disagree with you? Your accusations and finger pointing is troubling. The definition you gave for legalism is one sided, continue your research.
I love our tribe, the Churches of Christ. But listening to your spin, I see why people run.
May grace be with you.
April 12th, 2007 at 17:25
if they don’t even believe that the Bible can be understood then they need to leave because they aren’t Christians to be sure. All the compassion in the world is in the gospel and lying and changing the gospel is not compassion. I will not follow your pernicious advice and softsoap God’s word because that would be hatred of my fellow man.
April 12th, 2007 at 18:06
So, its that simple, fallible man can fully grasp Gods written Word hence the 20,000+ denominations that exist and the fractions we have in our own fellowship
April 12th, 2007 at 18:28
He didn’t write it in Godese but in human language, so yes, and duh to the question as to whether we can understand God’s word. The 20,000+ denominations are caused by people like you who refuse to understand God’s word because they’d rather (for example) go and kill people and ignore “put thy sword in its sheath for all who take up the sword shall die by the sword” and “recompense not evil for evil” and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” and “we wrestle not against flesh and blood.”
April 12th, 2007 at 20:36
Manzi
For me it is impossible to understand why a God would come to earth to let man kill him. And that through such acts we might have a home in heaven. Yet I believe it! Its because man witnessed it and wrote it down. What should I expect to see in such writings perfection or humanity? A flawed Bible proves God existence?
20,000 denomination proves to me Christ is Omni present and unifies the parts of the body to himself? It is a good thing. But it also proves again the difficulty in following Jesus. Here’s an example what day did Jesus partake of the Lord’s supper?
And another example: These are the signs for those who accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in a new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison it will not hurt them; they will place there hands upon the sick and they will heal them. Gospel of Mark
Here is an easy question for JK do you do those things? And if you don’t how could you be a believer? I don’t think Greek grammar rules will help on this. What we will have to read is a confession of being partial Preterist .
April 12th, 2007 at 22:05
“The 20,000+ denominations are caused by people like you who refuse to understand God’s word because they’d rather (for example) go and kill people and ignore “put thy sword in its sheath for all who take up the sword shall die by the sword” and “recompense not evil for evil” and “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” and “we wrestle not against flesh and blood.”
Boy o boy. Wow.
April 13th, 2007 at 18:29
JP, you’ve got nothing to say against it because you know it’s true. And Mark, you say “I don’t think Greek grammar rules will help on this.” You made the claim that in Greek we could encounter a statement like “godisnowwhere” and it could either mean “God is now here” or “God is nowhere” and it is impossible for us to know which is the intended meaning. This is ludicrous. Allow me to illustrate. If we changed English from a plain ole syntactic language to an inflected language like Greek, we can clearly see the folly here. Let’s say that for our inflected English the subject of the sentence must end in -us and the object of the verb must end in -am and that the adjectives or adverbs modifying the object must also end in -am. In such an inflected form of English, “God is now here” would become “Godus is nowam heream” and without spaces “godusisnowamheream” whereas the phrase “God is nowhere” would be “Godus is nowheream” and without spaces “godusisnowheream.” Thus, in an inflected language the two statements are clearly different even without spaces: “godusisnowamheream” and “godusisnowheream.” Therefore, in order to bring the spaces back and make sense of the statements, we look at the case of the words. In this example, we know that the subject must in in -us and therefore we put a space after “godus” and we know that -am is the end of an adjective, adverb or object, so we put spaces after -am, and thus we get back “godus is nowam heream” and “godus is nowheream” bot statements distinctly different in meaning and clearly separate. This is why your view of the Bible is nothing more than a lie from Satan. It was not written in the manner you erroneously claim, and only an atheist would state that it was.