Christian Unity

Fear of the LORD

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:45:00 +0000

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Fear of God is one of the most frequently encountered concepts in the scriptures. From the time Abraham was commended for his fear of God (Gen 22:12) until the multitudes in heaven are commended for their fear of God (Rev 19:5), the theme is repeated over and over. Solomon stated that fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, the very foundation on which understanding is built. It seems that, in the view of Solomon, a person who does not fear God cannot credibly claim even to know God. Fear of God could be called a central theme of the Old Testament.

But, has the fear of the LORD become obsolete?

Many people who self-identify as Christians would say that Jesus brought an end to the need for God's people to fear him. For them, God seems to have changed. They acknowledge that God in the Old Testament demonstrated his wrath, smiting people with wars, disease, and death. But they see God in the New Testament quite differently. Some go so far that they teach God will forgive everyone in the end. Perhaps this is the kind of teaching Paul had in mind when he spoke of people having itching ears. So, believing those myths, those folks see no reason for fearing God.

It is true that John wrote "perfect love drives out fear." But until we reach a state where we sin no more, we cannot help but fear the one who has the power to condemn. Perhaps that is why God's Word repeatedly admonishes us to fear God.

We find it difficult to understand how God's love, grace, and mercy can coexist with his righteous wrath. Every person we know leans toward one side or the other -- either toward generous grace and mercy, or toward strict judgment. We naturally visualize God being like people we've known (often, like our own earthly fathers.) But God is not like anyone you or I ever met. His love and his righteous wrath both exist, and both exceed anything we can imagine. We can't predict what God will do based on what some human might or might not be inclined to do. God will do whatever he pleases. As the prophet Isaiah wrote,

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
Isa 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.

Throughout the Old Testament, we learn that fear of God is intended to motivate us to obey and to avoid sin. A few examples:

Lev 19:11 "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.
Lev 19:12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:13 "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Lev 19:14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

Lev 19:32 "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

Lev 25:17 You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am the LORD your God.

The Israelites were commanded to fear God, and to teach their children to do so. (Deut 6:1-2; 6:24, 10:12-21, 31:12-13). Jehoshaphat appointed judges and commanded them to judge justly, out of fear the LORD. A lack of fear of God led the Israelites to turn away from God. (Jer 5:21-24). That is just a small sampling of the Old Testament cases showing how fear of God led to obedience and blessings, while failure to fear God led to sin and destruction.

But someone will say that Jesus changed all that. Notably, Jesus himself addressed the subject:

Luk 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Jesus apparently anticipated that some would object to the notion of fearing God. To overcome that objection, Jesus reminded us that God has the power to "throw you into hell" -- just about the most frightening prospect that could be mentioned. He was talking about "real" fear, not an unemotional respect.

The early church demonstrated and taught that instruction from Jesus. Acts 9:31, 10:34-35, 2 Cor 7:1, Heb 10:30-31, 1 Pet 2:17.

Paul feared the LORD, and therefore devoted his life to persuading others (2 Cor 5:11).

When we don't fear God, we tend to take sin lightly. We sin knowingly, anticipating that it will be forgiven. We don't see God immediately punishing sinners, so we are more inclined to sin.

Ecc 8:11 When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.
Ecc 8:12 Although a wicked man commits a hundred crimes and still lives a long time, I know that it will go better with God-fearing men, who are reverent before God.
Ecc 8:13 Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.

Isa 57:11 "Whom have you so dreaded and feared
that you have been false to me,
and have neither remembered me
nor pondered this in your hearts?
Is it not because I have long been silent
that you do not fear me?

Fear of God is actually a gift of the Holy Spirit:

Isa 11:2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of power,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD -
Isa 11:3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;

Perhaps there is no other topic in scripture associated with more blessings than is the fear of the LORD. A few examples of the blessings promised to those who fear God: (Isa 33:5-6; Psa 34:7-9; Psa 112:1-3; Psa 103:11-17) And then there is the 128th Psalm:

Psa 128:1 Blessed are all who fear the LORD,
who walk in his ways.
Psa 128:2 You will eat the fruit of your labor;
blessings and prosperity will be yours.
Psa 128:3 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine
within your house;
your sons will be like olive shoots
around your table.
Psa 128:4 Thus is the man blessed
who fears the LORD.
Psa 128:5 May the LORD bless you from Zion
all the days of your life;
may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem,
Psa 128:6 and may you live to see your children's children.
Peace be upon Israel.

Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, and is the source of many blessings. Failure to fear God is the cause of much sin and destruction.

Do we really fear God? If so, I think we would be zealous to get sin out of our lives. We would create wide boundaries for ourselves to keep ourselves as far as possible from committing sin. We would certainly study our Bibles to learn what God has commanded. We would be zealous to obey. We would be concerned for the lost. We would pray humble prayers. We would serve the poor. We would speak up for the cause of the weak and helpless. We would arrive at church on time. We would pay attention to the words in the songs we sing. We would listen attentively to the message preached from the Bible. We would absolutely give rapt attention to the reading of God's Word. We would not quickly forget what was said and done when we returned home from worship. If we fear God, we would not try to justify ourselves. If we fear God, we would not be people-pleasers. If we fear God, we would not speak evil of our brother. If we really fear God, we will not fit in very well in a world where those around us do not fear God.

If we really fear God, we will be greatly blessed. The fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.

Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
Heb 12:29 for our God is a consuming fire.

Ecc 12:13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

Hello World!

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:16:00 +0000

In case you were worried, no, I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. Many things have been going on which have taken my time and attention away from blogging. But let not your hearts be troubled! Just click over to the Grace Conversation, an on-going discussion between progressives and conservatives in churches of Christ. The past couple of days have brought a flurry of posts from the progressive writers, and a promise of more on the near horizon. Jay Guin lists the planned articles on his blog.

Meanwhile, I would appreciate your prayers on behalf of my congregation. Almost weekly for the past six weeks, a different dear brother or sister in our church has gone into the hospital unexpectedly for emergency surgery. Pray that we can have an emergency-free weekend!

Abigail

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:20:00 +0000

This blogger has a new grandchild! Abigail was born June 3 at 2:23 am. Baby, parents, and grandparents are all doing fine!

She is now my second granddaughter. You of course remember Abigail's cousin Evelyn.

In honor of her father's heritage, Abigail has a Korean middle name:

Speaking Evil

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:21:00 +0000

James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

Why do Christians find this passage so difficult to obey?

When James speaks of the Law, he is referring to the Law of Liberty (James 1:25), which Paul calls the Law of the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2) and the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2). That is the law that governs Christians. And the primary command in that Law is to love one another (John 13:34, 1 John 3:11, 1 John 3:23, etc).

When we speak evil of our brother, we are sinning in two ways. First, we are doing harm to one we are supposed to love. Why speak evil "of" our brother, rather than speaking the truth "to" our brother? Second, we are rejecting the Law of Christ, which calls us to treat our brother as we would like to be treated ourselves. In effect we are saying the law of love is just not that important.

It is likely that James was addressing the controversy over whether Jewish rites like holy days and circumcision continued to be binding on Christians. His instruction, then, was to hold our tongues rather than saying critical things to third parties about our brother. James equates speaking evil against a brother with judging him. And he commands that we should leave that up to God.

Albert Barnes says the following on this issue:

Not a few of the harsh judgments which one class of religionists pronounce on others, are in fact judgments on the laws of Christ. We set up our own standards, or our own interpretations, and then we judge others for not complying with them, when in fact they may be acting only as the law of Christianity, properly understood, would allow them to do. They who set up a claim to a right to judge the conduct of others, should be certain that they understand the nature of religion themselves. It may be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that others are as conscientious as we are; and it may commonly be supposed that they who differ from us have some reason for what they do, and may be desirous of glorifying their Lord and Master, and that they may possibly be right. -- Albert Barnes Commentary

Despite the clear biblical instruction in James and elsewhere, Christians are prone to being critical of those who hold different opinions. Haven't we all heard Christians question the sincerity of other Christians with whom they disagree? Haven't we seen Christians treating other Christians with suspicion and disrespect, because they hold a different interpretation of scripture? Haven't we seen Christians avoiding association with other Christians because their practices are different in some way?

Because we think our brother is wrong about something, we feel justified in ignoring the clear instruction of James. So we speak evil of our brother. It should not be so. Let's resolve not to speak evil of our brothers, and not to give audience to that kind of talk. If we have a different opinion, let's keep that between ourselves and God. Our brothers will stand despite the disagreement, because God is able to make them stand.

Relational Unity

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:54:00 +0000

Here is holy ground; here is the gate of heaven. No such prayer was ever heard before or since. It could only be uttered by the Lord and Savior of men, the mighty Intercessor and Mediator, standing between heaven and earth before his wondering disciples. Even he could pray it only once, in the most momentous crisis of history, in full view of the approaching sacrifice for the sins of the world, which occurred only once, though its effect vibrates through the ages. -B. W. Johnson, The Sunday School Helper

...it is the greatest prayer ever prayed on earth and the greatest prayer recorded anywhere in scripture. John 17 is certainly the "holy of holies" of the gospel record, and we must approach this chapter in a spirit of humility and worship. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary

The prayer of Jesus at the end of the the Last Supper is a priceless treasure for Christians. In it we learn what was most important to our Savior on the evening before he went to the cross. Necessarily, we also learn what must be most important to us as his disciples.

Jesus prayed asking that his Father protect the disciples so that they might be one. And he prayed for that oneness so that the world might believe the gospel of Jesus. The oneness of the disciples was of surpassing importance to Jesus on this momentous occasion, and therefore it must also be so for his followers.

So, what kind of oneness did Jesus have in mind?

The entire prayer centers around relationships. First, Jesus referred to the relationship he had with the Father before the world began. He defined eternal life as knowing the Father and his Son. He had come to reveal the Father to the disciples, and he had completed that work. He had lived with them and had protected them. Now he was leaving them, and he was concerned for their continued spiritual safety. He wanted them to share his joy. He wanted them to be set apart from the world, for a sanctified relationship with the Father. Indeed, the Lord's prayer was all about relationships.

Then he spoke of those who would believe because of the apostles' message. Jesus wanted us to be one, in the same way as the apostles, and in the same way as the Son and the Father. He has given us glory so that we can be one. That oneness would cause the world to believe. And it would show the world that the Father has loved his followers. It is all about relationship.

Jesus prayed that his followers could be with him. He wants us to share the experience of his glory -- the glory that came through the relationship of love between the Father and the Son. He wants an eternal relationship of oneness.

Jesus knows the Father. He shared that with the disciples, and they came to know of the Father through Jesus. Jesus wants to continue showing us the Father so the Father's love will be in us, and so Jesus himself will be in us.

Every phrase of Christ's prayer was about relationships. He was praying for a relational unity among his followers -- a unity that transcends whatever intellectual differences might appear among us.

It is a sad fact that Christians today are far from being "one." In fact, the lack of oneness among Christians is a primary complaint leveled against Christianity by outsiders. We should not be surprised that this has been the result of our divisions. Jesus told us in advance that we must be one so that the world would believe. All men would know we are his disciples, if we would simply love one another. But our Christian predecessors throughout the ages have chosen to quarrel and divide rather than to hold onto the relational unity. Christians have disagreed on innumerable questions. When they disagreed, more often not they chose to divide, as if that were their only option. They did not find a way to rely on that relational oneness to hold them together.

Far too often, we just follow in the unfortunate footsteps of our forefathers.

The unity for which Jesus prayed is not all about technical points of doctrine. That doesn't mean doctrine is unimportant. But it does mean we should not base our unity on detailed doctrinal agreement. Jesus said not one word in his prayer about the kinds of things that divide believers today: things like instrumental music (or a cappella music...), qualifications for elders, technical points about divorce and remarriage, kitchens, missionary societies, fund raising techniques, buildings, communion cups, or any other such thing. Those matters are not the basis of unity. Instead, we are called to be one because Jesus is one with his Father, and because the Father and the Son have reached out to save us in the most amazing manner. We are called to a relationship as brothers and sisters, since we have been adopted by the same Father.

We should admit that we might be wrong about disputed points. We are not as perfect as we imagine, doctrinally or otherwise. Our misplaced pride in our exegetical abilities has done immense damage to the church. Our unwarranted trust in our own hearts has blinded us to our own lack of objectivity. We've deceived ourselves, and in the process have snuffed out the belief of outsiders. The world does not believe, because we have not been one. That is a huge problem.

I have resolved to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

It's time we stopped quarreling about all the things we've quarreled about in the past. It's time we held our tongues rather than speaking evil of our brothers. May God help us to do so.

May we be brought to complete unity to let the world know that God sent Jesus and that God loves us even as He has loved his Son. Amen!

Looking Back: Propositions or Laws?

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:37:00 +0000

Thomas Campbell anticipated that the intention of the thirteen propositions might be misconstrued. So in introducing them he wrote:

"Let none imagine that the subjoined propositions are at all intended as an overture towards a new creed, or standard, for the church; or, as in any wise designed to be made a term of communion;–nothing can be farther from our intention."

This clarification applied to all of the thirteen propositions, but in particular to this portion of proposition 11:

Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive church, exhibited in the New Testament; without any additions whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men.

Thomas Campbell did not intend for that principle to become "a new creed, or standard, for the church" nor "a term of communion." For several decades the Reformation Movement followed Campbell's intent by not drawing lines of fellowship over these types of disagreements. But sometime around the middle of the 1800's that changed dramatically. And by 1889, battle lines were drawn, and a new, less noble document was written. In the Sand Creek Address and Declaration, Daniel Sommer wrote:

And now, in closing up this address and declaration, we state that we are impelled from a sense of duty to say, that all such as are guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations to which we have referred, that after being admonished and having had sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren.

Clearly Sommer's Sand Creek Address and Declaration was a reversal of Campbell's Declaration and Address. And the result of that reversal has been more than a century of increasing division in the church.

I think Thomas Campbell had this one right.

Looking Back: Three Great Evils

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Following the propositions, the Address continues for more than thirty pages, explaining the motives of the Association and anticipating objections. Amidst all that, Campbell lists three great evils that had fallen upon the church, which the Association would attempt to correct:

The three evils were:

First, to determine expressly, in the name of the Lord, when the Lord has not expressly determined, appears to us a very great evil.

A subtle twisting of this reverses its intent. Campbell was certainly not advocating the Regulative Principle, the prohibitive nature of silence! And as the following assures us, he was not advocating lines of fellowship over honest disagreements:

A second evil is, not only judging our brother to be absolutely wrong, because he differs from our opinions; but, more especially, our judging him to be a transgressor of the law in so doing: and of course treating him as such, by censuring, or otherwise exposing him to contempt; or, at least, preferring ourselves before him in our own judgment; saying, as it were, stand by, I am holier than thou.

Thirdly, he absolutely was not advocating putting people out of the church for their differing views on various matters:

A third and still more dreadful evil is, when we not only, in this kind of way, judge and set at nought our brother; but, moreover, proceed as a church, acting and judging in the name of Christ; not only to determine that our brother is wrong, because he differs from our determinations: but also in connexion with this, proceed so far as to determine the merits of the cause by rejecting him, or casting him out of the church, as unworthy of a place in her communion;--and thus, as far as in our power, cutting him off from the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps the movement would have fared better if these principles had not been buried in the last 30 pages of the lengthy address!

Looking Back: The Address

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Having established the Association, the document turns immediately to the Address, in which a more complete explanation of their motives and goals is presented.

Campbell's address opens with a lament of the evils of division, and the imperative to work for remedy. He particularly reminds readers of the responsibility of Christian leaders to work for unity. And he points out the increased responsibility of those who enjoy the freedom of religion available in America. Nowhere in the world is there a greater opportunity to remedy the division of believers. To whom much is given, much will be required.

He reasons that our divisions are not over "great doctrines of faith and holiness", but over the opinions and inventions of men. He appeals to us to give those things up "that our breaches might thus be healed."

Then he announces his invitation to all believers:

"To this we call, we invite, our brethren, of all denominations"

He reminds the reader of the goal, and urges believers to take action:

"Are we not all praying for that happy event, when there shall be but one fold, as there is but one chief shepherd. What! shall we pray for a thing, and not strive to obtain it!!"

In summary, he writes:

"Oh! that ministers and people would but consider, that there are no divisions in the grave; nor in that world which lies beyond it: there our divisions must come to an end! we must all unite there!-- Would to God, we could find in our hearts to put an end to our short-lived divisions here; that so we might leave a blessing behind us; even a happy and united church. What gratification, what utility, in the meantime, can our divisions afford either to ministers or people? Should they be perpetuated, 'till the day of judgment, would they convert one sinner from the error of his ways, or save a soul from death? Have they any tendency to hide the multitude of sins that are so dishonorable to God, and hurtful to his people? Do they not rather irritate and produce them? How innumerable and highly aggravated are the sins they have produced, and are at this day, producing, both amongst professors and profane."

Then he introduces the centerpiece of the document, the famous set of thirteen propositions for unity. On these propositions he hoped to initiate a new unity among all believers.

"As the first fruits of our efforts for this blessed purpose we respectfully present to their consideration the following propositions..."

Campbell anticipated the potential for the intention of these propositions to be misconstrued. So he wrote:

"Let none imagine that the subjoined propositions are at all intended as an overture towards a new creed, or standard, for the church; or, as in any wise designed to be made a term of communion;–nothing can be farther from our intention."

I have previously commented on the thirteen propositions which followed, so I refer readers to those articles. Following the thirteen propositions, as the address continues, Campbell made it perfectly clear that he was not trying to dictate terms to all believers. Instead he was trying to start a dialogue that would lead to unity.

"From the nature and construction of these propositions, it will evidently appear, that they are laid in a designed subserviency to the declared end of our association... It remains with our brethren, now to say, how far they go towards answering this intention.... If evidently defective in either of these respects, let them be corrected and amended, till they become sufficiently evident, adequate, and unexceptionable. In the mean time let them be examined with rigor..."

It is a shame that his proposals have been misappropriated by others to divide rather than to unite. Maybe by re-examining them we can correct our course and accomplish the godly purposes for which they were originally written.

Looking Back: The Association

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:05:00 +0000

The Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell not only made a proposal for how Christian unity might be achieved. It also set up an organization to promote and implement that proposal.

Following the introduction which explained the reasons for their actions, the document contains nine resolutions agreed upon by the signers. These resolutions defined the methods by which they agreed to promote and spread their vision of unity based on the scriptures alone.

Resolution (I) established the Christian Association of Washington, "for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men."
Resolution (II) set up the funding necessary to support their efforts, including funds to provide Bibles to the poor.
Resolution (III) bound all the members to work to create similar organizations of like-minded Christians wherever they may be found.
Resolution (IV) clarifies that the new organization is not considered a church, but an affiliation of "voluntary advocates" for their shared convictions.
Resolution (V) defines the type of ministers they would support -- namely, those who support and practice the core principles defined in the document, "without attempting to inculcate anything...for which there cannot be expressly produced a thus saith the Lord either in express terms, or by approved precedent."
Resolution (VI) set up a committee of twenty-one persons to oversee and carry out the business of the Association.
Resolution (VI) set up the periodic meetings of the Association.
Resolution (VIII) specified that every meeting would be opened with a sermon, the reading of the "constitution and address", and a collection of funds for the Association.
Resolution (IX) committed the Association to provide financial support to ministers whose work complies with the principles of the Association.

What I find most interesting about the Association is their commitment to work and to provide funds for establishing like-minded organizations and supporting ministers who practiced according to the convictions of the Association. They not only talked about unity; they did something about it.

Looking Back: Thomas Campbell

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:50:00 +0000

Thomas Campbell was born in Northern Ireland in 1763, and was raised in the Church of England. He studied at the University of Glasgow and at the Divinity School at Whitburn. Upon graduation he began preaching in the Presbyterian Church, known in that day as the"Church of the Secession" since it was formed in reaction against the state-sponsored Church of England. Health difficulties prompted him to seek a change of climate, and he moved to America in 1807, where he began preaching for the Presbyterian church in Washington, Pa.

In that place and time, Presbyterians were sharply divided over various doctrinal disputes, so much so that certain groups of Presbyterians would have no fellowship with each other. Campbell disapproved of the division, and attempted to bring various groups together to share communion. For doing so, he was brought to trial by the presbytery, where he was censured for his actions. As a result, Campbell withdrew from the Presbyterian synod, and began preaching for Christian believers from varying denominational backgrounds. Together with these believers, Campbell formed the Christian Association of Washington. One of their first activities was to develop a statement of purpose and direction for the group. Thus was born the Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington. Campbell's university education being a rare commodity in the New World, he naturally took the role of primary author.

From the very introduction, it is plain that the Association wanted a change from the sectarian spirit that prevailed in the surrounding religious world. A hundred words into the document, Campbell had already laid out the need for autonomy and for the authority of scripture alone. Then he asserted the right and responsibility of each individual to learn and follow the scriptures, free from the judgment of other men, and free from the rule of human opinions. He lamented the "bitter jarrings and janglings of a party spirit" and pleaded instead for a way of peace, guided by the scriptures alone. He wrote:

Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from farther contentions about such things; returning to, and holding fast by, the original standard...

Thus Campbell arrived at the central thesis of the Restoration Movement. Their original motivation was to "cease from farther contentions about such things." Campbell and his friends were tired of the quarrelling. They longed to be at peace in the church. They hoped to accomplish this by returning to scripture, and by regarding the opinions and inventions of men as having no authority. The goal was not to win theological arguments. It was not to purify the church through division. Instead it was an appeal for peace.

Two hundred years later, churches of Christ are known for something quite different from that. We have an uncanny resemblance to the very Presbyterians Campbell left, those whose sectarian spirit he found so offensive, those with their separate factions who refused one another fellowship, and those with their "bitter jarrings and janglings of a party spirit."

The noble experiment was never completed, and its goals were not reached. But that doesn't make the experiment any less noble. And it doesn't make those goals any less worthy. On the contrary, we need to make every effort to maintain unity in the church, in the bond of peace. We should try again, and again, and again, until either we get it right or the Lord returns.

Looking Back

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:57:00 +0000

This summer will we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration and Address by Thomas Campbell, the document which marked the beginning of the Restoration Movement. In commemoration I will be posting a few articles commenting on the document and the subsequent history of the resulting movement. It seems appropriate to begin that series by quoting from the introduction of the document, where the causes and motivation for the actions to be taken were announced.

DECLARATION AND ADDRESS
OF THE CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
OF
WASHINGTON

AT a meeting held at Buffaloe, August 17, 1809, consisting of persons of different religious denominations; most of them in an unsettled state as to a fixed gospel ministry; it was unanimously agreed upon, the considerations, and for the purposes herein after declared, to form themselves into a religious association, titled as above--which they accordingly did, and appointed twenty-one of their number to meet and confer together; and, with the assistance of Mr. Thomas Campbell, minister of the gospel, to determine upon the proper means to carry into effect the important ends of their association: the result of which conference was the following declaration and address, agreed upon and ordered to be printed at the expence and for the benefit of the society. September 7, 1809

FROM the series of events which have taken place in the churches for many years past, especially in this western country, as well as from what we know in general of the present state of things in the christian world; we are persuaded that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act for ourselves; to see with our own eyes, and to take all our measures directly and immediately from the Divine Standard; to this alone we feel ourselves divinely bound to be conformed; as by this alone we must be judged. We are also persuaded that as no man can be judged for his brother, so no man can judge for his brother: but that every man must be allowed to judge for himself, as every man must bear his own judgment;--must give account of himself to God--We are also of opinion that as the divine word is equally binding upon all so all lie under an equal obligation to be bound by it, and it alone; and not by any human interpretation of it: and that therefore no man has a right to judge his brother, except in so far as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law. That every such judgment is an express violation of the law of Christ, a daring usurpation of his throne, and a gross intrusion upon the rights and liberties of his subjects. We are therefore of opinion that we should beware of such things; that we should keep at the utmost distance from every thing of this nature; and, that, knowing the judgment of God against them that commit such things; we should neither do the same ourselves, nor have pleasure in them that do them. Moreover, being well aware, from sad experience, of the heinous nature, and pernicious tendency of religious controversy among christians; tired and sick of the bitter jarrings and janglings of a party spirit, we would desire to be at rest; and, were it possible, we would also desire to adopt and recommend such measures, as would give rest to our brethren throughout all the churches;--as would restore unity, peace, and purity, to the whole church of God. This desirable rest, however, we utterly despair either to find for ourselves, or to be able to recommend to our brethren, by continuing amidst the diversity and rancour of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions: nor, indeed, can we reasonably expect to find it any where, but in Christ and his simple word; which is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our brethren would be, that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from farther contentions about such things; returning to, and holding fast by, the original standard; taking the divine word alone for our rule: The Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide, to lead us into all truth; and Christ alone as exhibited in the word for our salvation--that, by so doing, we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

In the next few articles I will highlight some of the key points in the document and comment on how their intentions have worked out to this point.

Worship in the New Testament Church

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:52:00 +0000

John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

God seeks worshipers. As Jesus told the woman at the well, true worshipers of God worship in spirit and truth. Obviously Christians today need to strive to be that kind of worshipers. But what did Jesus mean by that?

Churches of Christ have traditionally taught five (and only five) authorized "acts of worship" which must be performed in the Sunday "worship service." A typical explanation of that doctrine is available on the web site of the Knollwood Church of Christ.

The traditionally approved five acts include teaching, contribution, communion, praying, and singing. Based on the hermeneutic of Command, Example, and Necessary Inference (CENI), together with the Regulative Principle (prohibitive silence), these churches hold that all five acts must be present in every Sunday assembly, and that no other activities are authorized. According to the strict application of this doctrine, introduction of other activities to the "worship service" (instrumental music, dramatic presentations, videos, interpretive dance...) constitutes apostasy.

This is obviously a relevant topic for those who long for Christian unity. Did Jesus mean for us to break fellowship over those variations in Sunday worship?

To answer that question, we first need to understand what Jesus meant by "worship." In John 4:24 the Greek word for "worship is προσκυνέω (proskuneo). This word occurs 60 times in 52 different verses in the New Testament, so we have plenty of examples from which to understand the meaning of the word.

Let's take a tour through Matthew to see how προσκυνέω is used. The three wise men in Matt 2 sought to find the baby Jesus so they could προσκυνέω. Satan tried to tempt Jesus to προσκυνέω him in the desert. The same word is used for what the leper did when he ran up to Jesus as he descended after the sermon on the mount, and for what Jarius did when he came to Jesus on behalf of his daughter. προσκυνέω was the reaction of the disciples in the boat who saw Jesus walk on the water. The Canaanite woman προσκυνέω when she asked Jesus for the crumbs falling from the children's table. The unmerciful servant in the parable προσκυνέω when he begged his master to forgive his debt. The mother of the sons of Zebedee προσκυνέω before asking for the favor for her sons. And after Jesus rose from the dead, we are told of two occasions where his disciples προσκυνέω him.

What is evident about all these examples is that none of them involved corporate worship-- that is, the kind of worship done together in an assembly of believers. In random places and times where people in need encountered Jesus, they προσκυνέω. Similar examples can be found in the other gospels.

The woman at the well asked about where people should worship God. Jesus answered that it is not where we worship, but how, that matters to God.

The word προσκυνέω occurs several times in Acts, but is not used in reference to a Christian assembly. Once (Acts 24:11) Paul said that he had come to Jerusalem to προσκυνέω, but remember that he had been seeking to arrive in Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, a Jewish religious festival (Acts 20:16)

προσκυνέω is used in the letters only three times. In 1 Cor 14:25 it refers to what an unbeliever would do (falling face down) when convicted by prophecies exposing his heart. The other two occurences are in Hebrews -- one referring to angels worshiping God, and the other referring to Jacob worshiping as he blessed his grandsons.

So there is no use of to προσκυνέω in either Acts or the letters referring to the Sunday assembly of Christians.

Similarly, the numerous uses of προσκυνέω in Revelation do not refer to Christian assembly. Instead, it is used in the context of worship in heaven by angels, and by elders. προσκυνέω is also used to identify worship of the beast and idols, as well as a couple of occasions where John fell down to worship the angel bringing him the message.

In short, προσκυνέω is never used in scripture to refer to an assembly of Christians. Nor is it used to describe what Christians do when they assemble. There is no basis for the conclusion that, in his comments to the woman at the well, Jesus had in mind the assembly of Christians.

There are at least seven other Greek words that are translated "worship" in one or more of the English translations of the New Testamant. A similar survey of these words would bring us to the same conclusion: that none of these words refers to the "acts" that are performed in a Christian assembly.

There really is not a lot of detail in scripture about how (nor when) to conduct an assembly of Christians. (1 Corinthians 14 provides the most complete set in a single place of the data points we have available.) People have gone to great lengths to fill in the gaps between the data points, coming to various conclusions. That is understandable and probably inevitable. The problem is not that we imagine different explanations for the data we have been provided. Rather, the problem occurs when someone insists that everyone else accept his explanation as the only valid one... and starts dividing the church over such issues. Some people are entirely too confident in their own understanding, and as a result are dividing Christians.

God wants worshipers who worship in spirit and in truth. Most of our disputes are over the "truth" part. A great place to study what "truth" means in the New Testament is the three part series that Jay Guin recently posted.

God seeks worshipers who come to him on the basis of the core Gospel: the death, burial, and resurrection of his Son as an atonement for our sins. That is the only way for a sinful man to come to God! May God have mercy on me, a sinner! When we come to God on that basis, we come with the right spirit and on the right basis of truth. That is the kind of worshipers God seeks.

Series on CENI

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:25:00 +0000

Jay Guin has begun a series on the hermeneutic known as Command, Example, and Necessary Inference (CENI) over at oneinjesus.info. CENI, in conjunction with the Regulative Principle (prohibitive silence), are the defining principles of church of Christ doctrine. I've previously blogged on the subject of CENI. I'm looking forward to what Jay has to share on the subject.

Grace Conversation continues

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:59:00 +0000

Jay and Todd have been prolific in the past few days, posting eight articles at Grace Conversation challenging various aspects of the conservative position. Jay supplemented those posts with a three part series on his own blog where he provides a more in-depth study of how the term "truth" is used in the New Testament.

The conversation is reaching some of the key biblical texts that define the differences between the two sides. These are posts that should make a lot of folks think.

That's plenty of reading material for you today, without me trying to add to the mix. Please read with an open Bible and an open mind.

I'd love to hear what you think.

I Dreamed a Dream

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:13:00 +0000

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I'm living,
So different now from what it seemed...
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed...
--- from "I Dreamed a Dream", Les Miserables

What was it about Susan Boyle's performance (available at youtube) last week on "Britain's Got Talent", that captured the attention of the entire world?

Surely it was not just her vocal talent that has drawn over 60 million viewers to the various You Tube videos of her performance in a single week's time. Although she did perform superbly, there are many other great singers in the world whose performances were not viewed 60 million times this week. Something else is behind the phenomenal interest in Ms. Boyle's performance.

Neither was it the magnetism of her personality, nor her commanding stage presence, nor her appearance that has made her an overnight celebrity. Rather, she appeared unpolished and unsophisticated in demeanor. In fact she was quite ordinary.

That ordinariness was key to the impact of Susan's story. People were drawn by the totally unexpected wonderfulness that emerged from such an ordinary person. Susan's story is one of redemption, of sudden and unexpected victory in a seemingly impossible circumstance. Millions of people saw her stunning performance and were overcome with emotion and tears of inspiration and joy. Where did that emotion come from?

Most of us started our adult lives with dreams of becoming somebody, dreams of doing something significant, dreams of making a difference. Somewhere along the line, a lot of those dreams have died. As Susan's song says, "Now life has killed the dream I dreamed." We are a world full of broken dreams. Millions upon millions of us long for a turnaround in our lives. We are starved for redemption. We want to matter. We want Susan's story to become our story. We want to be somebody.

We were meant to be somebody. We were created in the image of God. But we corrupted that image and fell to a hopelessly lost state. We became dead in our sins. But then God intervened:

Eph 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
Eph 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.

Though we were dead in sins -- the ultimate impossible situation -- God has made it possible for us to be redeemed. He has made us be somebody in Christ!

As Christians, we have a story so much bigger than Susan's. Our cheering crowds are not in a studio audience. Instead they are that great crowd of witnesses, of faithful children of God from the past.

Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

Those witnesses are joined by thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, praising God for what He has done in our lives.

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

We will not be singing for the Queen at Buckingham Palace. Instead we will meet God, and will live with him in heaven forever:

Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes--who are they, and where did they come from?"
Rev 7:14 I answered, "Sir, you know."
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore,
"they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
Rev 7:16 Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.
The sun will not beat upon them,
nor any scorching heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

If the world only knew what God has done for us, our story would bring tears to their eyes, just as Susan's story has. People would long for our story to be their story. Unfortunately even as Christians we don't realize the magnitude of the story into which we've been invited. It has become too routine for us to really appreciate it. We are somebody, but we have forgotten who we are. We have forgotten whose we are!

We need to understand better what God has done for us. Then we can really appreciate the greatest story ever told, a story into which we have been miraculously invited. And perhaps then more and more people will be drawn into that redemption story.

Editing to add: The Susan Boyle videos on YouTube have set an internet record for the most views in a week. That's powerful evidence of the hunger of people worldwide for a story of redemption.

Grace Conversation: A Progress Report

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:23:00 +0000

Today I want to give an update on the proceedings of the Grace Conversation between conservatives and progressives in churches of Christ. The stated purpose of this effort is to conduct "a conversation regarding the disagreements that separate the conservative and progressive branches of the churches of Christ." I previously blogged in anticipation of this conversation.

To date there have been seven articles posted addressing the topic of the conversation (as well as a few other posts with more of an administrative focus.)

Phil Sanders opened the conversation with a broad survey of the conservative position, attempting to prove the proposition that "The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that doctrinal error can lead to eternal damnation." Phil cited numerous scriptures in support of that proposition. As it turns out, that proposition as stated is not in dispute between the two sides. Chalk up one point of agreement! Of course the differences arise in the specific instances where that principle is applied.

Todd Deaver responded with an article raising the question, "Are All Doctrinal Errors Fatal?" He acknowledged that doctrinal error can lead to condemnation. But he challenged the view that every doctrinal error leads to condemation, since that would mean perfection is required in order to be saved. Once again, there seems to be agreement on this point at a high level, although when we descend into details the differences emerge.

Gregory Tidwell followed with an article resisting the request for a clear statement of what errors lead to condemnation, on the grounds that living by such a checklist is no more satisfactory in a relationship with God than it would be in a marriage. He also made the point that "sincerity does not change error into truth."

Greg followed that article with another post arguing that the question "Are all doctrinal errors fatal?" is too broad. In the article he stated that while all doctrinal error has the potential to condemn, not all doctrinal error actually condemns.

Jay Guin entered the discussion with an article attempting to define the question more narrowly. He seeks a discussion of which doctrinal errors would cost a person his salvation "even if the Christian commits the error after prayerful study of God’s word, honestly believing that he is acting in accordance with God’s will." Jay proposed several reasons why a person might validly need the answer to that question. In Jay's view, the question is not about finding the minimum requirements to meet in order to be saved, but to know how to make a variety of decisions about relationships inside and outside the church. Jay pressed for a scriptural answer from the conservatives supporting their standard for drawing lines of fellowship.

Gregory Tidwell responded with an article challenging the progressives for becoming legalists by asking for a definition of which doctrinal errors condemn. He argued for a "relational accountability" to seek and to follow God's will, rather than a legalistic set of rules or principles. He presumes that seeking such a list implies a permissive attitude that does not strive for perfect obedience. Instead of demanding a clear rule for determining what doctrinal errors lead to condemnation, he called us to use "sanctified common sense."

Jay responded citing numerous examples from Greg's past writings where he identified certain doctrinal errors as constituting apostasy. Jay challenged Greg to show from the scriptures that these doctrinal errors cause one to be sent to hell. Jay asks, "Why this list?" He pleads, "I don’t want a list of damning errors. I just want to know how I can tell – from the Bible – whether the lists being taught as God’s truth in our brotherhood publications are true. It’s a fair and very necessary question."

So, as you can see, a lively yet respectful dialog has begun among the four participants. But in addition there has been lively discussion in the comments from readers of the conversation.

At this early stage of the discussion, it is evident that progressives are pressing for a clear statement of how conservatives determine which doctrinal errors condemn, and conservatives are strongly resisting making such a statement.

Please drop by the ongoing conversation, and read the articles for yourself. And feel free to participate in the comments!

Grace Conversation Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:39:00 +0000

The conversation between conservatives and progressives at graceconversation.com has begun. Phil Sanders has posted his first article for the conservative side, titled Proposition One: Doctrinal error can lead to eternal damnation. Please drop by and comment if you feel so moved.

Articles will be posted at more or less random times by the four participants, so subscribing to the RSS feed or following the conversation on Google Reader might make it easier to keep up. If you leave a comment, be sure to check the box to receive email alerts about new comments so you can follow the conversation there too.

Elderlink Atlanta 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:37:00 +0000

This past Friday and Saturday I attended the Elderlink program at North Atlanta Church of Christ. I previously attended in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Elderlink is a program of Abilene Christian University, with a mission "to equip, encourage, and link those who lead and serve as elders in churches of Christ." While officially a ministry of ACU, it is strongly supported by David Libscomb University, and this year's program included several speakers from Lipscomb.

The theme of this year's program was spiritual formation. I admit that the term "spiritual formation" makes me twitch just a bit. It just sounds too ecumenical for my tastes. But I also recognize that the Christian life has to be concerned with spiritual growth. I can assure you that what was discussed at this conference was not a watered down ecumenical version of spiritual life.

Randy Harris opened the conference with a challenging picture. Imagine that you are in the pit of despair, lying in fetal position on the floor, feeling spiritually devastated about your life, about the sin that has ensnared you and threatens to ruin your life. You wonder whether you can possibly recover from the spiritual disaster you've brought upon yourself. As you lie there with your eyes closed, slowly you open them. Who would you want to see there to help you?

As a shepherd, strive to be the person that this spiritually destitute person wants to see -- someone who is trustworthy, who is gentle but firm, who knows how to help a hurting soul and has demonstrated that over and over.

He challenged us to be the person who takes a spiritually hollow, shallow, and lifeless person, and walks alongside them to a better place.

In 1 Kings 18, Elijah found the Israelites wavering between two opinions, with divided loyalties. Would they follow the LORD, or would they follow Baal? Elijah dramatically challenged them about their Baal worship, and God demonstrated his power. As a result, those who previously were wavering between two opinions suddenly started slaughtering priests of Baal -- quite a dangerous thing to do, since these were the very priests who served the vengeful queen Jezebel.

As a shepherd, strive to be the kind of leader who turns people from a state of divided loyalties to one of "slaughtering priests of Baal."

Saturday there were several sessions focused on meditation, silence, and prayer. The general idea was that we need to take time to be silent (no TV, no radio, nothing but us and God). We need that silence, and we need to teach our congregations how to be still and know that the LORD is God (Psalm 46:10)

There was also a panel discussion led by the ministers and elders of a congregation in Indiana. This congregation is doing some remarkable things to serve the poor, working together with other churches in the area (including independent Christian churches). They have a food pantry that serves 400 people every month (in a congregation half that size). An outsider's donation led to the establishment of a thrift store which serves the poor directly, and provides profits to fund the food pantry and other efforts. Their youth program includes significant numbers of teens from the community, and they make a point of accepting these teens without being judgmental about their less than perfect habits. In all these things, they make it a point to serve the community and to make a difference in it.

In the closeout speech, Randy Harris asked what would be the characteristics an informed outsider would expect to see in people who truly follow Jesus. He proposed the following list:

They would be the least angry, calmest people in the world, because Christians know how the story will turn out in the end.

Mat 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

We live in an angry world. What if Christians refused to get angry? What if we turned the other cheek?

They would care less and less about material things.

Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

They would be less tribal than the rest of the world. Jesus loved sinners, Samaritans, fishermen... in short, all people. His followers would be the same.

Randy's closing challenge was for leaders to be authentic. What the church needs from its leaders, more than anything else, is for its leaders to be better followers of Jesus. Are there passages we cannot preach with full conviction, because we are not living them out ourselves? More realistically, how many passages can we find that we are fully obeying? We can't lead others where we aren't going ourselves.

I've just hit a few highlights of the weekend, and I haven't done justice to the quality and depth of the presentations. Once again, Elderlink hit the nail on the head. I appreciate the high caliber of spiritual leaders they bring each year to teach and inspire a room full of elders. I appreciate the chance to fellowship with elders from many places. Many of these elders take off time from work, drive from multiple states and stay in hotels to attend this event. I cannot imagine why elders in easy driving distance would pass up the opportunity to benefit from such a rich program of spiritual nourishment. It was time well spent.

Grace Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:30:00 +0000

We need to talk.

Conservatives and progressives in churches of Christ need to work out some things about the boundaries of fellowship. Despite the biblical pleas for Christians to be united, to love one another, and to accept one another without passing judgment, the churches of Christ are known more for their divisions than for their unity and love. We have drawn lines of fellowship in so many arcane areas that most of us have lost count. That needs to change. And changing has to start with respectful conversation.

Thank God, such a conversation is about to begin.

In about a week or so, Jay Guin, Todd Deaver, Phil Sanders, and Greg Tidwell will begin "a conversation regarding the disagreements that separate the conservative and progressive branches of the churches of Christ." The conversation will be held at graceconversation.com.

Jay Guin is an elder of the University Church of Christ in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He is also known for his widely read blog, oneinjesus.info, where he blogs from the progressive viewpoint. He has posted his announcement of the upcoming discussion here.

Todd Deaver is the minister for the Oliver Springs Church of Christ and author of a book titled Facing Our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ. Todd blogs about this topic at Bridging the Grace Divide, where he has posted an announcement of the upcoming conversation.

Phil Sanders is a frequent columnist for the Gospel Advocate. He served for years as the minister of the Concord Road Church of Christ in the Nashville area, before joining In Search of the Lord's Way, a Christian media ministry. Phil blogs at Philanswers.

Greg Tidwell is also a columnist for the Gospel Advocate as well as for some other church of Christ publications. He has served for 25 years as the minister for the church of Christ which meets at Fishinger and Kenny Roads in Columbus, Ohio.

Of course none of these men can speak for all "conservative" churches of Christ, nor for all "progressive" churches of Christ. But a conversation has to start somewhere, and this is an excellent place to start.

How can you and I help?

1) Pray! Please pray for a constructive conversation characterized by mutual understanding and respect. And pray that the conversation will lead to greater unity and love among Christians in the conservative and progressive congregations.

2) Link to graceconversation.com. That will improve the search engine rankings, which will help more people to see the conversation.

3) Comment respectfully! Constructive, godly, comments from many people make the conversation more meaningful. Be sure to "clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience" (Col 3:12) as you formulate your comments. But please comment!

It is good that this conversation is being planned. Many thanks to the four men who have agreed to participate in it. May God grant these four men, and their readers, the wisdom and patience to make a positive difference in the church that Jesus purchased with his blood.

Repeating Historical Mistakes

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:35:00 +0000

Today's churches of Christ are making the same mistakes as preceding generations.

Thomas Campbell admonished the church in his day for its tendency toward exclusivity. They debated aggressively and treated their opponents dismissively. Apparently their desire to prove themselves right trumped the biblical command to accept one another without passing judgment over disputable matters. Campbell called them to stop trying to produce "theological orthodoxy" which leads to "partyism." Instead, he called them to focus on the core principles of Christianity:

Now these are precisely seven, viz.--The knowledge of God--of man--of sin--of the Saviour--of his salvation--of the means of enjoying it--and of its blissful effects and consequences.

By focusing on these seven topics, and insisting only on what is explicitly stated in scripture, Campbell believed that the Restoration Movement would be much more likely to accomplish the original goal to take down the walls between believers.

Beginning in the late 19th century and continuing through the present day, churches of Christ have chosen a different path. Most have consistently pursued "theological orthodoxy," following a policy of purifying the doctrine of the church through division. Brotherhood journals and public debates have been the weapons of choice in these wars between brothers. Division after division has resulted. As a result, instead of reaching the lost, these churches are in decline.

But today, a new generation is questioning that direction. We have an opportunity to abandon a religion of quarreling and controversy, and to return to the kind of sound doctrine that Paul taught Timothy:

1Ti 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
1Ti 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
1Ti 1:5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.
1Ti 1:7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
1Ti 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
1Ti 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
1Ti 1:10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
1Ti 1:11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Doctrinal quarrels produce controversy and consume the energy that should go into the work God called us to do. Instead we should be working to eliminate the behaviors (sins) that are contrary to sound doctrine, both in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Paul continued in chapter 2, talking about prayer, godliness, holiness, modest dress, the role of women, elders and deacons. Then he wrote:

1Ti 3:14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that,
1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

These things he was writing about all pertain to how we conduct our lives as Christians -- tht is, how to live godly lives. That is what Paul meant by "sound doctrine."

Then in chapter 4, Paul called out the false teachers who were forbidding people to marry and ordering them to abstain from certain foods. Those who added rules and restrictions not from God were following deceiving spirits and things taught by demons! So Paul urged Timothy:

1Ti 4:6 If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.
1Ti 4:7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

Paul then gave Timothy instruction about benevolence to widows, his relationship to elders, and attitudes toward money.

All of these issues revolved around godliness and holiness. Paul wanted Timothy to lead the church in such a way that the people would learn to live godly and holy lives. The issue wasn't intellectual, but experiential. They needed to live a certain way, and it was the job of Timothy and the elders and other leaders to train the church in that kind of living.

Why do churches spend so much energy quarreling about words? Have we solved all of the issues of godliness and holiness in our members' lives? Are their marriages all healthy? Are the children godly? Are all of our members managing their finances in a godly way? Are our members all living exemplary lives? Are we bringing sinners to repentance and into the grace of Christ? Are we helping the poor? Are we visiting those sick or in prison? I suspect there are many things we need to be doing that are more important than questions about communion cups, pianos, kitchens, or whatever else we've been preoccupied with. How are we doing on those more important matters? I think that is what Thomas Campbell was saying to the church in his day. And I think it is the same counsel Jesus would give to the church today.

Let's stop straining out gnats and swallowing camels. There is important work to be done.

Return of March Madness

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:11:00 +0000

Since we are in the midst of March Madness, I thought I'd resurrect this blog post from a couple of years ago. The NCAA basketball tournament really can teach us something important about biblical hermeneutics -- something that is of central importance in the currently ongoing debates about fellowship and disfellowship among Christians.

Maybe we really can't be as sure as we pretend to be about our understandings of scripture.

Thomas Campbell's Reflections

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:24:00 +0000

Twenty seven years had passed since Thomas Campbell had penned the Declaration and Address of 1809, launching a noble movement to bring to an end the ungodly divisions among Christian believers. There had been many victories and many defeats along the way. Having devoted so much of his life to bringing about unity, what lessons would the elder Campbell share with those coming afterward? What course corrections would he urge? What are the lessons learned, which might help the later generations to achieve the goal?

Looking back over the progress in those years, Thomas Campbell wrote an article summarizing his observations, which was published in his son Alexander's journal, Millennial Harbinger, in May of 1836. In that article he revealed what he believed to be the most important mistakes being made in the Restoration Movement of his day:

Now, upon a serious review of the past, according to the extent of my information, it appears, that the progress of the reformation has been much retarded for want of a competent knowledge, on the part of the advocates, respecting the thing precisely intended; and, of the actual condition and disposition of the people in relation to it.

It seems that the movement was going off track. It's advocates were already deviating from the original intent:

As to the nature and object of the proposed reformation, it is clearly and definitely expressed in the following proposition, viz.--"'The restoration of primitive apostolic christianity in letter and spirit--in principle and practice;"--and has been so stated from our commencement.

It seems that the movement had already bogged down into intellectual debates over a myriad of doctrinal differences. Rather than resolving issues and creating unity, these debates were hardening positions and intensifying the divisions that were present. They were doing more harm than good to the cause of unity.

Campbell wrote to call the movement back to the seven core principles of scripture on which he believed unity should be based:

Now these are precisely seven, viz.--The knowledge of God--of man--of sin--of the Saviour--of his salvation--of the means of enjoying it--and of its blissful effects and consequences.

Campbell was urging those working for unity to stop debating peripheral matters, and to return to the kind of basic teaching which actually changes people's lives. Mere intellectual debating of differences for the purpose of establishing orthodoxy was accomplishing nothing of lasting value:

Whereas, were we to refute all the errors in Buck's Theological Dictionary by the common method of theological argumentation, we might, indeed, by so doing, make orthodox systematics; but not one real practical christian. And why? Because, in this way of arguing, the mind is turned away from itself, to sit as a judge in the case pending, so that the point at issue becomes an abstract truth, addressed purely to the understanding--not to the heart, as directly and immediately affecting the hearer himself; but merely to his judgment, to determine who is right. And, also, because that faith, the sole principle of pure christianity, and of all christian enjoyment, consists not in receiving the deductions of human reasoning, but only in the belief of the express testimony of God.

At its most basic level, Christianity is about sin, repentance, forgiveness, and living a godly life. Campbell reasoned that seeking to establish theological orthodoxy through debate accomplishes none of those things. Instead, it only leads to "partyism," creating more controversy than it resolves.

If, then, we would produce theological orthodoxy, let us detect and expose the errors of every party that occurs, and thus furnish fuel for the fire of controversy which is the very element of partyism, without which it cannot exist. But if we would starve out partyism, and nourish christianity, let us preach the word in its proper order and connexion, for the express purpose for which it is given;--not, indeed, to make wise to disputation--but to salvation, thoroughly furnished to all good works.

Campbell lamented the way the scriptures were being used as a source of proof-texts to justify the existing divisions between believers:

That, after all the enormous labor and expense for preparing and maintaining a learned ministry, there is not to be found, this day, throughout all the sects, a single teacher, nor yet a single congregation under the tuition of such, that ever attempted or intended to teach, or to learn, the Bible, as a book, for the purpose of its being understood as a whole; but rather as a text or proof book, for the purpose of teaching, and learning, a party system!!!

He argued that, in answer to those who hold different doctrine, we should simply present the scriptures alone, without additional commentary, and leave it at that:

What should we do if personally attacked upon some principle of our christian profession? I answer, We should state and defend it by, and according to, the express testimony of the Holy Scriptures: that is, produce the divine declarations concerning it; and, if their meaning was disputed, then have recourse to the context, and to such other passages as went to determine the meaning of the phrases or terms in question. And having thus given the concurrent evidence of the divine testimony upon the subject, we have no more to say.

His own experience showed that this approach works:

The writer can truly say so from his own experience during the last five years of his public labors--that, during said period, having, for the most part, confined himself to the scripture development of these all-important practical topics, according to the humble measure of his attainments, he has experienced no direct opposition to the matter of his teaching,--no, not even upon baptism itself; though, perhaps, no scripture term is more universally abused, both by Romanists, and Protestants of every sect, save one.

Campbell called Christians to acknowledge a single premise on which unity could be built:

The all-sufficiency, and alone-sufficiency, of the Holy Scriptures, without comment or paraphrase, to make the believer wise to salvation, thoroughly furnished to all good works...

He believed that, in responding to controversies, by constraining our answers to the scriptures alone, we could eliminate controvsery, since all acknowledged that the scriptures are true.

Let this correct regular way of proceeding be but duly observed, and it will exclude a host of controversies; and conduce more to the reformation of the professing world, than did all the theological polemics since the days of Origen. These, indeed, could neither make nor edify christians; for nothing can do this, but the direct influence of the word, in its proper connexion, as has been already shown. Let us, therefore, "preach the word."

Finally, he called on Christians to ignore differences of opinion which were not directly relevant to the seven core principles:

Besides, there are many opinions true, that are irrelevant; and whether true or false, if irrelevant, the person is left in the undisturbed possession of them, without injury either to himself or the good cause; and this, we see, was the Apostle's method in such cases, even where he declares the opinions false: see Rom. 14th and 15th chs.

Campbell's plea echoes the pastoral epistles of Paul, who taught that quarreling is unproductive:

1Tim 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
1Tim 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

2Tim 2:14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

2Tim 2:23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
2Tim 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

Campbell wrote these reflections 173 years ago. Yet the movement continued to ply its trade through polemics. The conversations of the movement continued to focus on doctrinal debate, striving to overcome objections through sheer force of argument. And unity among believers remains an elusive goal.

Maybe it is time to try Thomas Campbell's way.

What Jesus Said About Children

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:29:00 +0000

Our congregation has chosen as its theme for 2009, "Jesus is Lord!" In keeping with that theme, we have been teaching a series of classes we are calling the "Red Letter Series," studying things Jesus taught on various topics. Today I want to focus on some things Jesus said about children.

Godly Qualities of Children

Mat 21:14 The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them.
Mat 21:15 But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
Mat 21:16 "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'?"

Jesus had entered Jerusalem to palm branches and Hosanna's earlier in the same chapter. Throngs of adults with children crowded to road as he rode into town on a colt, shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David!" Later, in the temple, the children continued the refrain. Perhaps the adults were just a little too inhibited by supposed propriety, pride, or fear of the Jewish leaders. But the children had no such inhibitions. They praised Jesus from their uncomplicated, sincere, and humble hearts. As Christians saved by the blood of Jesus, we should praise him like those children.

In our congregation, all children above 3 years old join their adults for the worship service. They have the opportunity to observe their parents singing to God, praying, taking communion, and listening to the sermon with rapt attention (and taking notes!) What a great opportunity this is for the children to learn about worship from the adults! And what a shame it would be if those children saw their parents, or the other adults, with halfhearted attention to the worship service! We adults should worship with our whole hearts, like the children shouting "Hosanna!" When we do less than that, we are leading the children astray.

Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
Mat 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them.
Mat 18:3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus held up the example of a small child, calling his disciples to have the same kind of humility. Small children know they need their parents. They have no illusion of self-sufficiency. They completely trust their parents for food, shelter, and safety. Jesus pointed to the humility of a particular child -- one who came when Jesus called him, and who stood in their midst obediently while Jesus used him as an object lesson. He called them to humble themselves like "this child."

Not everything about children is to be imitated. Paul identified to the Corinthian church another characteristic of children we should imitate:

1Co 14:20 Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

We should be like infants regarding evil. Small children have an innocence that most adults sadly lack. Things that used to shock us adults no longer shock us. We see things on television today that would not have been tolerated thirty years ago. We hear language that once we found offensive, which too many of us accept as normal today. We need to return to the innocence of children, to purify our hearts, and to be shocked once again when sin is paraded in front of us.

Interactions with children

Mat 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Most of us have have heard the above passage so many times that it no longer takes our breath away. But those who first heard Jesus issue this warning must have gone home talking about it. Jesus chose dramatic terms to warn us not to cause children to sin. Suffice it to say, a person thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck has no hope of returning to the surface. Are we causing children to sin? Jesus wants us to think about that question.

Why is it such a big deal to cause a child to sin? Maybe because a young child still has a chance to get off to a right start in life. Adults need to protect that opportunity, and to guide the child in the right way. Instead, some parents allow their children to watch the most worldly television shows, to be bombarded by advertising which produces greedy addiction to materialism. They allow their children's character to be corrupted by bad companions (1 Cor 15:33). They allow them to wear immodest clothes. They leave their children to spend all day under the influence of worldly values, drifting ever farther from God. In doing so the parents contribute to their children's sin, and may come under the warning above.

The church of Jesus, and particularly the parents among us, need to get radical about being separate from contemporary culture. If we don't do more than we are right now, we will lose the battle for our children's souls.

Mat 18:10 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Mat 19:13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
Mat 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Mat 19:15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Jesus clearly demonstrated that he felt the children were worth his time, and he insisted they are worth ours as well. He received them, prayed for them, and laid his hands on them. He was indignant when his disciples interfered. It is never a good thing to do what makes Jesus indignant!

I wonder what Jesus prayed on behalf of each child as he placed his hands on them. Perhaps his prayer for them was the same as his prayer for all of us in John 17:

Joh 17:15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

Jesus gave these children his heart as well as his time. He wanted them protected from the evil one. Whether we are parents or not, we need to follow the example of Jesus with the children in our midst. We need to greet the children in the fellowship. We need to take time during the week to be their mentors, to take a child out for a hamburger, to show that we value them and to share our lives with them. We need to be willing to teach their Bible classes.

Jesus' mission of saving the world did not mean he was too busy for the children. On the contrary, they were an important part of his mission. We should follow his example, and use every resource available to share with them our love for God, and to protect them from the evil one. Let's make it our mission to bring the next generation to God!

Not the Only Christians?

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:42:00 +0000

The Christian Standard currently is running a fascinating article (reprinted from 1985) titled Not the Only Christians. The author, Robert O. Fife, wrestles with the paradox faced by those of us (myself included) who believe the biblical purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The paradox we face is that we see powerful evidence of the working of God in the lives of unbaptized believers -- people who profoundly love God and give their lives (sometimes even literally) to His cause.

Fife makes an interesting distinction between what is essential to man and what is essential to God. He writes:

In the sense that the purpose of baptism is to bring us to the Savior, baptism is essential to man. It is a divinely given condition of the everlasting covenant mediated through the blood of Jesus and enunciated on Pentecost. We are not the initiators, but the recipients of that covenant. Therefore, we are subject to it, and bound by it. For this reason we may say that baptism is essential to man.

But does this mean that a believer’s baptism is essential to God? Can we correctly assume that because baptism is an essential covenant command to which we are subject, it is an essential covenant limitation to which God is subject?

What does Scripture say is essential to God? One quality of the being of God is God’s faithfulness. “Great is thy faithfulness,” declares the prophet (Lamentations 3:23). “God is faithful,” says the apostle (1 Corinthians 1:9). The ancient Christian hymn sang, “If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). God will keep his covenant promise, for he is faithful. And it is his covenant commands and promises we are charged to proclaim.

Another attribute of the divine essence is gracious sovereignty. Hear the Word of God: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15). God is not limited to the covenant conditions (as are we), for God is the gracious Lord of the covenant. Indeed, Jesus had to remind the Nazarenes that God’s mercy had extended beyond the commands and promises of his covenant with Israel. Profoundly offended, the Nazarenes attempted to throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:25-30).

But this does not permit us who are subjects of the covenant to neglect the commands and promises we are commissioned to proclaim. Nor does it permit us to say to unimmersed believers that they need not be immersed. Thankfully, it is for us to confess that God “will have mercy” on whom he has mercy. God has even had mercy on us.

That pretty much sums up my view on the subject. We have no standing to make promises on God's behalf that go beyond what He has said. And we have no standing to tell God whom he can and cannot forgive. He will keep every one of his promises. But in those promises, God has left himself plenty of room to forgive others if he so chooses. It is highly presumptuous of man to insist that God will not forgive the penitent unimmersed. The truth is that we just don't know for sure. Our task is to present the promises God has made -- and not to try to limit God.

Baptism in Restoration Movement History

noreply@blogger.com (Alan) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:41:00 +0000

Over at Stoned-Campbell Disciple, Bobby has posted some interesting articles about how our Restoration Movement ancestors viewed baptism, including James Harding, J. W. McGarvey, and Alexander Campbell. Bobby himself asks, "Where does the slippery slope end?" He promises another article soon on where Walter Scott fits into this picture. Worthwhile reading that will make you think!