Can I Recommend a Book

During the 1990s one of my favorite contemporary Christian artists was Rich Mullins. Mullins was radical in many ways. He did not simply produce Christian "pop" music. There was serious grist in most of his material, a dangerous undertow. Through his music Mullins challenged conservative Christians to grasp the reality that Christian faith was more than wearing a wrist band (WWJD) or even listening to popular Christian artists. Christianity had to impact the fallen world in the name of Jesus Christ and carve out beach heads for the kingdom. We do this through becoming emissaries of shalom.
Once Mullins confessed his deep concern for American Christianity ... which could just as well describe "restoration" churches too:

"I really struggle with American Christianity. I'm not really sure that people with our cultural disabilities, people who grow up in a culture that worships pleasure, leisure, and affluence, are capable of having souls, or being redeemed." (Rich Mullins in An Arrow Pointing to Heaven)

What Mullins is lamenting is that Christians live in such a way that barely distinguishes them from those who make no profession of faith at all. We are comfortable, affluent and have bowed to the idol of pleasure. Guilty as charged!

On top of this our culture is undergoing a profound change. The question is do we have to become Amish to be "distinct" in the biblical notion of the term (some dangerously misunderstand this notion in its NT context). Can we be "savvy" culturally speaking and still point to the radical call of the kingdom? These are questions that Dick Staub raises in his excellent book The Culturally Savvy Christian (Jossy-Bass 2007).

Staub writes not as a theologian but as one immersed in "pop" culture. Yet he has read, reflected and digested his subject critically and creatively. It is a mistake, Staub argues, to abandon the world and retreat to our monostaries. We need to see ourselves within God's Story (chapter 3 is very good) so that we can mediate God's transforming Presence (chapter 5 is even better). "Theology has to stop explaining the world and start transforming it" he says (p. 91). He holds C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien up as models of how we can engage our culture not only as "aliens" but also as ambassadors and artists.

This engagement is for the sake of the Christian gospel and witness. This witness is at the same time "savvy" but counter-cultural in that it points to values that are alien to those canonized in Amerian mythology.

It goes without saying that Staub believes some things that I may demure from. But that hardly detracts from my liking of this book. To many Christians still think as if we live in the 1950s. That world is gone (if it ever existed at all). I appreciate Staub being a conversation partner to help this preacher to be (hopefully) wise as a serpent but innocent as a dove.

Makes a great Christmas present along with a book or two by your lowly blogger, ;-)

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Snow in the Desert ... at least on the Mountains

While the rest of the country has been getting pummeled with ice and snow ... old man winter has hit the desert with a vengeance, ;-) Well you would think so ... we have had rain. Very unusual here in the desert. But we did get some snow. That is way up on the mountains. I have posted a few photos which hardly do justice to the beautify of it all.











Just in case you wonder about those kinds of things, the snow line is at 6,500 feet.

This is my Father's World ...

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Marcionism & Churches of Christ: What Value, REALLY, is the "Old Testament?" #2 :How Did We Get Here?

Marcion & Churches of Christ: What Value, Really, Is the OT? #2 -- How Did We Get Here?

The Ghost of Marcion

Marcion had a major impact on the church of the second century and his influence yet resides in Christianity both positively and negatively. Born in Sinope in North East Asia Minor, Marcion was a successful ship owner. He confronted the church with heresy on one hand while the Gnostics did on the other. Marcion moved to Rome around A.D. 140 The church in Rome was not impressed with Marcion’s unique solution to the problem of Jesus and the First Covenant and excommunicated him in 144. Undaunted Marcion promoted his theology with zeal and became a major threat to the existence of Christianity. He died sometime around 160.

What Marcion Believed

Marcion was an anti-Semite (which was not uncommon in the Roman Empire). Marcion declared that the God of Israel was not the God of revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ. Being indebted to Gnostic teachings (though Marcion was not a full blown Gnostic) he stated the God of the Hebrews was a Demiurge, an inferior, capricious, vengeful god. Jesus, in his system, was completely separated from his Jewish heritage … especially the Creator God.

Marcion believed that the church of his day had destroyed the pure faith of Jesus and Paul (especially Paul). By recognizing the books of the Jews they were mixing the Gospel with Judaism. But the “Jewish God” had nothing to do with “us” or Jesus. Since the New Testament writings (which had not all come together in the form we recognize today in his day) are filled with quotations from the “Jewish” Bible, Marcion declared them to be unfit. Thus the traditional Gospels were rejected except Luke. All the writings of other NT authors were also rejected because they preserved impure understanding of the true nature of the Gospel. Only Paul’s writings and Luke’s Gospel were accepted. These writings were themselves systematically edited to weed out Paul’s own mistaken references to Israel and his quotations from the “Jewish” Bible.

Consistent with Marcion’s views that the Demiurge created the world he embraced a rigid asceticism that rejected marriage and sexual intimacy. The world made by the Jewish creator god was not quite “spiritual” enough for Marcion. One can see that Song of Songs would be no more acceptable to Marcion than it was to J.W. McGarvey.

The Legacy of Marcion

The Church rightly condemned Marcion. Jesus is a Jew. He came to reveal the God of the Jews. The Father of the Lord Jesus is the Creator God of Israel. The Incarnation is God’s greatest complement to the goodness creation.

The church did more than simply condemn the theology of Marcion. Up until Marcion, and the Gnostic crises, the church had not really made an effort to define the canon of Scripture. THere was plenty of tradition for sure but no official canon.

One of the legacies of Marcion was the effort of the church to define what truly was her literary treasure. First she affirmed the oneness of God revealed in Israel’s scripture and in the life of Jesus the Messiah. Second she affirmed that canonicity of the Bible, that is the "Old Testament". The Old Testament is foundational and essential to the Christian faith. While it is true that during those years the extent of the canon as reflected in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint was not always as finally nuanced as Protestants either claim or would like, the church embraced its Jewish heritage in the “Scriptures.” Third, the church began the discussion of just what was the canon of the New Testament. Though the full extent of the canon would not be settled for quite sometime after Marcion the major elements of the NT were firmly set in place by the end of the second century (this means the Fourfold Gospel, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Acts … there remained questions about Hebrews, Revelation, Wisdom of Solomon [yes the WoS] in some lists, the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and even the Epistles of Ignatius …).

Though Marcion was officially expelled as a heretic his ghost haunts to this day. It was the rejection of all things Old Testament and Jewish was a major factor that led to the horrors of the Holocaust in Germany. Anti-Semitism has flowered in many places down through the years in Christian garb, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so hidden. In our own day we rarely find those who explicitly reject the OT as Marcion did. It is done more piously. The voice of Marcion is heard quite frequently in the oft repeated phrase “but that is the Old Testament” or “Fortunately we are New Testament Christians” or “law and wrath were in the first covenant but now we have a covenant of grace, spirit and the heart.” These statements are rooted, dare I say it, in ignorance. Ignorance of both the Hebrew Bible and the “New Testament.”

In our next blog we will look at Alexander Campbell’s “Sermon on the Law” which tapped into a vein already present in historic Christianity that would bear poisonous fruit in generations restoration Christians.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

P.S. Here is my sermon from last Sunday called "The Coming of a Strange King" from Zechariah 9. I got a little excited and forgot to check the clock ... but we got out on time anyway. I do not hold my sermons as models of how to preach from the Hebrew Bible ... but just showing that we need to get busy doing it.

Read More

Marcionism & Churches of Christ Or What Use REALLY is the "Old Testament?"

Sometimes, I must confess, I feel like putting some disciples in Churches of Christ on the witness stand and have them place their hand on the “book” and say “I promise to believe the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book.”

We in Churches of Christ claim to hold firmly to the Bible as not only inspired but also authoritative. We demand (on most issues anyway) ‘book, chapter and verse.’ A problem frequently arises, however, when either the book, chapter or verse comes from the so-called “Old Testament.” When we speak of the authority of the Bible what is often meant is simply the authority of the Epistles … I speak hyperbolically but it is not far from the mark in reality. Churches of Christ have denied the charge of “not believing in the Old Testament” yet on a practical level one wonders if the charge is completely amiss.

In my next series of blogs, I want to explore two things: First I want to try to understand our hermeneutic and why and how it guts three-fifths of the Bible in shaping our self-understanding as the people of God; Second I do not want to simply be a critic rather I want to point to why the “OT” (Hebrew Bible) is essential to our faith and life in the kingdom of God. Thus I will be looking at some theological matters, deconstructing some exegetical arguments sometimes used to limit the “force” of the “OT” and I will be pointing to applications matters that hopefully some shepherds, deacons, Sunday School teachers … and some preachers will have to deal with and then robustly teach.

This matter has been a passion with me for a long time. Even in college some of my friends labeled me an “Old Testament Christian.” But the impetus for this series is none other than renowned restoration biblical scholar John William McGarvey. For most informed people in Churches of Christ McGarvey needs no introduction.

McGarvey published a small Guide to Bible Study near the end of the 19th century. The book is, in my opinion, largely useless (I know I am being harsh). The notes are lacking and unhelpful. However the book was used by McGarvey in training preachers and church leaders. It was important to JWM to pay careful attention which “dispensation” a book or text is in. McGarvey at times simply does not know what to do with the “Old Testament.” He is bewildered by some of the books. I call attention to his comments on the Song of Songs … which was the straw that broke the camel’s back for these blogs:

“The Song of Songs. The title which this short poem assigns itself is, ‘The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s’ (i.1). If there is any book in the Bible which found a place in it by a mistake or misjudgment of those who put the inspired book together, it must be this; for it is so totally unlike all the rest that it is difficult to see what connection it can have with the general design of the whole. Many interpreters have affected to find in it a parabolic meaning, and even a foreshadowing of the love of the Church of Christ; while others have regarded it as nothing more than a love-song with a very obscure connection of thought. According to either view it has afforded little edification to the great majority of Bible readers; and unless some significance can be found in it hereafter which has not yet been pointed out, it will continue to be but little read, and of but little practical value.” (my italics).

This is McGarvey’s entire interpretation of the Song and it is wholly negative. But this is in line with his evaluation of the OT as a whole.

A number of thoughts come to mind as I reflect on McGarvey’s Marcionism. First is that he has utterly failed to grasp the Song precisely because of the inherited Greek glasses that he reads the Bible through. The Song is an ascetic and neo-gnostic nightmare! The Song, far from being out of sync with the “general design” of the Bible, squares perfectly with a Hebraic worldview. The Song celebrates the created world as a gift of grace. It relishes creation and specifically that part that many in the Christian tradition have found offensive (including McGarvey). The Song echoes Edenic goodness and says that desire, even “erotic” desire is itself good and holy.

Second one wonders if McGarvey had heard of either Rabbi Aqiba or Bernard of Clairvaux? The Rabbi believed that the Song was the “holy of holies” of Scripture and Bernard spent eighteen years reading, “munching,” praying, and preaching the Song … and only making it to the beginning of chapter 3. The Song is part of the Passover liturgy and it most certainly edifies those who open themselves up to the passion with with God calls us to embrace life.

There are many things more to say about the Song and I may return to them. But the Song for now has provided a brief restoration window to how “we” have reacted so negatively to a book of the Bible … even to the point of saying the “inspired” folks made a mistake in including it.

The things we can embrace when our filters refuse to allow our beliefs to be challenged. Did it ever occur to McGarvey that perhaps, just perhaps, rather than the Song being out of place it was his perceived (and prejudiced) pattern for the “design” of the Bible that was the mistake and misjudgment. I am grateful for McGarvey but I think the editors were right and he was wrong.

Let’s embrace the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book … let it rattle our cage and shatter our cherished beliefs.

My friend Frank Bellezzi has posted, this morning (Dec 7) a thoughtful piece called Rehabilitating the Old Testament that is worthy of thought.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

P.S. For those seeking a thoughtful interpretation of the Song then I recommend Carey Ellen Walsh's Exquisite Desire: Religion, The Erotic, and the Song of Songs (Fortress Press 2000).

Walsh's book, like the Song, is not for the faint hearted but if you want some serious insight into the Song then there are few better contemporary writers. This does not mean I endorse all of Walsh's views ... but she takes the Song seriously and it spirituality. I find it refreshing.

Read More

New Wineskins & A Gathered People

New Wineskins magazine has graciously called attention to A Gathered People: Revisioning the Assembly as Transforming Encounter (Leafwood 2007) by John Mark Hicks, Johnny Melton and Bobby Valentine. Greg Taylor, New Wineskins editor, has excerpted large sections of chapter one and published them in the current issue. For those who would like to have a "taste" of the flavor of the book then follow this link

A Gathered People in New Wineskins

I am grateful and humbled by Greg and the editors of New Wineskins for calling attention to our work on the assembly and worship.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Seeking True Unity #6: What Do We Do Now? Mike Baker Approaches the Jury

Opening Distant Voices

“Those with good sense are slow to anger, and it is their glory to overlook an offense” (Pr 19.11, NRSV)

“Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves” (James 4.1, The Message)

“I propose to finish my course without ever, even for one moment, engaging in partisan strife with anybody, about anything.” (T. B. Larimore)

“Men have it, hence, in their power to preserve or to destroy unity, but not to impart it.”

(Robert Richardson)

Hearing the Counselor Out

Brother Mike deserves to be heard. He has labored in the kingdom for many years with congregations in the Southeast. He has a profitable ministry with God’s family in Lewisburg, TN and we pray the Lord blesses him with many more years of sharing the good news of Jesus. His only fault that we can see is that UK fan club ... If he had started out by shouting “Roll Tide” all would be well … Mike’s job, as it appears from the jury box, is to offer closing arguments for the prosecutions case. In a nutshell what I am hearing from my brother is that:

1) Many tried to hold the brotherhood together a hundred years ago but others sought to encourage division

2) Though some things could have been done differently the issues were real and legitimate thus division truly was necessary after all

3) The issues have not changed thus unity today, as desirable as it may be, simply can not be.

4) Those who try to side step the issues are to be opposed even to the point of further division.

This is the essence of what I heard from Mike. If this is inaccurate I am open to correction.

Words of Wisdom from Counselor Mike

As I have reflected on Mike’s closing arguments before the jury, I heard things that made me say “amen” and others that made me squirm. I am sure that he could say the same though of the questions from the jury.  For example, I think Mike forces us to ask a very good and productive question. On page 45 he states “many persons from that era worked diligently to hold the body together while others fought just as hard to drive the wedge deeper.” Is this simply an acute observation or is this a question that addresses the authors and readers alike? I have had to ask myself, “Bobby which one are you? Are you the one who seeks to hold the body together or one who seeks to drive the family into further factionalism?” We all need to search our souls deeply on this one … whether intended or not Mike has confronted us with a question of considerable substance. In this age what is my role: do I stand for unity like T. B. Larimore, T. W. Brents and others or do I demand another outcome.

I was delighted to hear the following words flow from Mike, “Unity of God’s people is a foundational goal, a foundational doctrine of the one body of Christ” (p. 46). How true this is. It seems to me that many do not agree with this statement but rather see unity as something that would be nice but is not essential to the faithful church. But it seems to me that a divided church is a fallen church. Thus I confess, paraphrasing Isaiah, “I am a divided person living among a divided people …” therefore I cling to the promised blessing that salvation comes from the Lord rather than myself or my people.

A Procedure for Embracing the Status Quo?

In spite of Brother Mike’s eloquent words about the foundational nature of unity he seems willing to set this essential doctrine aside for other matters. He seeks to add substance to his case by appealing to some brethren in the Christian Church who will also agree that though unity is desirable it not always attainable or he appeals to some stuff from Oprah Winfrey (pp. 48-49). But is it really a just comparison to compare a denial of the exclusive claims of Jesus as the only way to salvation with claiming that instrumental music should not divide the body of Christ? Is it really?? 

I do doubt that Bob Russell, or Rick Atchley, would have any sympathy for the quoted statement of Oprah Winfrey, “How dare you think that your God and your way is the only way?” Because Russell and Atchley believe that IM is in the realm of opinion rather than doctrine does not mean they are either moral or doctrinal relativists and to imply such surely borders on smoke and mirrors legal maneuvering - and perhaps shear dishonesty! Surely brother Mike knows that the One Cup brothers believe firmly that their position is one of doctrine and not opinion; or that the Non-Institutional Brothers hold the same … I doubt Mike sees himself as a moral or doctrinal relativist simply because he classifies their views as opinion rather than doctrinal … yet he has done exactly (in form and substance) what Atchley and Russell have done with his position. Brother Mike seems to think that unity excludes any kind of diversity. He writes 

“We can certainly agree that it is of paramount importance to worship God, tend to the poor, evangelize the world, encourage and uplift one another, etc. But when doctrinal differences still exist, they prevent us from walking together on those points” (p. 50). “But if we are united with Christ at the cross, we will not, or should not have any doctrinal differences” (p. 51).

I must confess my in ability to see the either validity of these statements from a biblical standpoint or from a purely human point of view! I suppose from the outside I would question what some mean by “doctrine.” It seems that some limit doctrine to ecclesiastical concerns (church organization, worship technicalities, etc). This is probably rooted in our polemical history. But from a biblical point of view I would suggest that caring for the poor and the like are in fact doctrinal concerns … indeed sound doctrine in the Pauline sense. My own book with John Mark Hicks, Kingdom Come, elaborates on this (especially pp. 93-109)

But is it the case that if one is united in the Cross of Jesus that there will never be any doctrinal differences? I doubt this has ever been the case with any living breathing gathering of the people of God in any stage of history. This is not the case in the New Testament itself and it is not the case, I am willing to bet, even among our esteemed ensemble of counselors. The assembly of God at Corinth is Exhibit A for a messed up congregation … yet Paul did not suggest removing a single person save the sexual philanderer! And I know deep in his heart that Mike also knows that the church at Corinth was far worse off than either Richland Hills or Southeast Christian Church. So why can we not do for these brothers what Paul did for the Corinthians? I have never received a straight answer to this question.

Mike’s appeal to Amos 3.3 is an accidental case of proof-texting. This text has been put to use by many for the same purposes as brother Mike so I am not picking on him. But what is that text about in its own context? It is a favorite proof text for those who defend unity by conformity, those who claim that all Christians must believe exactly the same thing on all points in order to have unity is Amos 3.3. They will quote this text only in the King James Version (and that should immediately raise some questions).

Amos 3.3 in the KJV reads: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

The one promoting conformity as the basis of unity will point to this text and say see we cannot walk together (i.e. be united) unless we AGREE! But this is a classic case of proof texting and ignoring the context of the sacred author. Also the King James Version is the only version to render the text this way.

In its literary context Amos 3.3 is a prophetic defense by Amos of his preaching. In vv. 3-6, which are linked poetically, there is a series of things usually associated together in the experience of ancient Israelites. Travelers don’t go together unless they “know” each other; a Lion does not roar without a target (3.4); birds are not snared without a trap (3.5); and city folk tremble at the sound of the trumpet (3.6). As surely as these things are linked inseparably; so Yahweh’s judgment does not come without the voice of his prophet first (3.7).

Amos 3.3 has absolutely nothing to do with doctrinal uniformity. It has to do with travelers on ancient caravan routes in Israel. This is plainly apparent in the context -- and from any modern translation. The RSV translates, “Do two walk together unless they have an appointment?” The TEV renders the Hebrew text, “Do two men start traveling together without arranging to meet?” The REB “Do two people travel together unless they have agreed to do so?” The Tanakh translates “Can two walk together without having met?” These create a different impression than those who proof text this verse for their doctrine of uniformity.

The word in the KJV translated as “agreed’ is the Hebrew yada. This word is a word of relationships, not abstract thought. The word literally means “to know.” Will folks walk or travel together unless they know each other? It is the same kind of “knowing” that Adam and Eve shared … relationship. When one sees two traveling on the highway it is a fair assumption that they know each other.

Amos is using a series of common, everyday events in Israel to show that certain things just come in pairs - they are inseparable. God has moved to punish his people, but first he sends his prophet (that is Amos). Amos is declaring he must preach just as surely as two friends travel together or a lion roars in hunt of its prey. On to other things. So can we be united to Christ and the Cross and still not see “eye to eye?” Absolutely! The Story of Jewish and Gentile disciples in the Book of Acts clearly shows this to be the case.

Unity in Diversity: Book Union, Head Union, Water Union, Fire Union

Diversity is built into nearly every page of the NT. It is not a threat to the people of God. Unity is in fact a foundational doctrine the flows directly from the Gospel itself. The Gospel is a message of reconciliation: God to his world, God to his People, God’s People to each other. Division in whatever form is a mark of the old way of death rather than the new way of life. Christ came to abolish the “dividing wall” between humans …

Not only is diversity knitted into the fabric of the NT it is part of the DNA of the Stone-Campbell Movement. I have highlighted that truth in every response to the prosecution. Our forefathers knew that it was impossible for us to agree on all things … even doctrinal things. They had the wisdom and spiritual foresight to see that biblical unity did not consist cookie cutter Christians. The Freedom to Think automatically ruled such a stance out (and still does)!!

Barton Stone was one of those who asked the question brother Mike forced upon us earlier: he could either attempt to promote unity or side with division. He chose the former. By 1833, Stone had laid his soul on the line for the unity of the People of God. He had led the union of his followers with those of Campbell. He was fiery in what he held was truth and gracious and humble with those who dissented from his interpretations of the one true word. Through exposure to the Word, and through life, Stone saw that unity on a set of doctrines would never happen. Some proposed other kinds of unity.

Some suggested that “book union” was the way to go. They rally to their written creeds and suggest signing off on it and unity can take place. But creeds let us off the hook of thinking for ourselves and no one can agree to everything in the “creed book.” Others suggested that unity is found in what Stone called “head union". This approach has the value that it points folks back to the Bible. When everyone agrees on what the Bible teaches then unity will take place. But Stone writes that now believers substituted unwritten creeds for the previous written ones. “Each one believes his opinion of certain texts to be the very spirit and meaning of the texts—and that this opinion was absolutely essential to salvation.” Opinions are simply disguised creedal statements! Some further advocate what Stone called “water union.” Water union promoted the point of view that union can only be had with those who have agreement on and experienced a certain taught view of baptism (only those immersed expressly with the understanding of “for the remission of sins). But Stone suggests, ironically, that such a unity is “easily dissolved.”

The only kind of unity that Scripture knows, according to Stone, is “the union of fire.” Fire union is that created and founded by the Holy Spirit of the Almighty God. “Fire effects a perfect union—so does the spirit [sic] of burning, the spirit of Jesus.” Where can we find this unity? “This spirit is obtained through faith, not in a human form or set of opinions, whether written or not written, but in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of sinners; and by cheerful obedience to his known commands … This spirit leads us to love God and his children … This is the very union for which Jesus prayed.” (Barton W. Stone, “The Retrospect,” Christian Messenger 7 [October 1833], 314-316). It is precisely because Stone did not believe that all must agree in order to be united that he was able to unite with Alexander Campbell.

Baby Steps Toward Unity

I am delighted by all the discussion of unity lately (that is much better than silence). I do not believe unity is unattainable simply because I happen to believe that all Christians are already unified in Christ Jesus. Our problem is trying to divide what God by his grace has brought together. Here are a few "baby steps," if you will, toward maintaining what God has created:

There are ways to stand as a promoter of unity within the body rather than standing for the status quo of division. Personal growth is certainly one way. I have grown and changed my mind on a number of theological matters. My relationship to our loving Abba or his family has not changed by that growth (or decline depending on one’s point of view). For example I once was taught and believed that Christians are not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I think this is clearly a doctrinal matter. But through study, and God’s grace, I came to see new light on this subject. On the other side I was once a fairly rabid pro-American nationalist. God and the United States were on the same page in my book. But over the years I have, again through study and the grace of God, come to embrace a position that might be called pacifistic. My love for, and my fellowship with, those who have not embraced my journey on these and other issues has not altered an iota. Thus if I change my mind about something that I once thought was doctrine but now I see it as a matter of opinion … or at least not a doctrine that should alienate brothers given the theological importance of unity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ … simply means an embrace of growth not relativism.

I believe another step toward unity to let the Bible set our agenda rather than polemical concerns. By this I mean truly letting what is most important in the story of the Bible be what is most important for us. There is a “spine” to the Bible just like there is in my body. That spine holds my body together … just so in the biblical narrative. One does not have to guess at what Scripture asserts is “most important” for it declares it explicitly. While I am grateful for my tonsils they are hardly my heart. I loose nothing if I loose my “appendix” but I certainly do if I loose my lung or heart. Certainly there is an analogy to Scripture. Perhaps three questions could be asked that could help us all focus on what is truly at the “heart” of the Bible (and thus our life as the body of Christ): 

1) What things are mentioned most often in Scripture?

2) What is explicitly highlighted as most important?

3) What things keep showing up at the center of a biblical writer's message?

If we did this would we not be letting God himself set our agenda? Perhaps our faithfulness as his people would then be seen by how closely we actually mirror what is discovered through those questions … perhaps repentance and reformation would be called for … even as we celebrate His faithfulness to his fallen and divided people.

Let me close with a few practical “Baby Steps” that can facilitate unity in our congregations and in the wider family of God.

1) Our congregational prayers should include regular prayers for the unity of the local church, as well as the church universal;

2) Emphasis should be placed in demonstrating that the Communion is in fact a "sacrament of unity" -- unity with God and unity with each other. These two simple things can heighten our awareness of the importance of unity in God's plan;

3) Unity can be stressed by promoting "gospel meetings" (etc) of congregations that you may or may not particularly like or agree with;

4) Shepherds and ministers can model a "spirit of unity" among the flock by their gentleness and Christ-like spirit on so called controversial subjects and persons and;

5) finally have a Sunday class or Wednesday on a book such as Leonard Allen's Distant Voices or Doug Foster/Gary Holloway's Renewing God’s People to get a little unifying history in our blood.

These are "baby steps" but I do believe they can be of help. There are many more baby steps ... not the least simply confessing that division is in fact contrary to the will of God and that we thus stand in need of repentance for tolerating it. This is sound doctrine ...

May our father, Mike’s and mine, bless us as we seek to honor him. I recall those opening words of Robert Richardson, “Men have it, hence, in their power to preserve or to destroy unity, but not to impart it.”

"Accept life with humility and patience, making allowances for each other because you love each other. Make it your aim to be at one in the Spirit, and you will inevitably be at peace with one another ..." (Eph 4.2f, Phillips)

Where do we stand …

See Seeking True Unity Part 1 HERE
See Seeking True Unity Part 2 HERE
See Seeking True Unity Part 3 HERE
See Seeking True Unity Part 4 HERE
See Seeking True Unity Part 5 HERE

Shalom,

Bobby Valentine

Read More

Questions for the Prophets

I have begun a "mini" series at Palo Verde called "Questions for the Prophets. I intend to ask some questions of Amos, Hosea, and a few others. This past Sunday I shared my "long" sermon called What Ticks God Off? The lesson is from the prophet Amos who is as tough as nails. The text was 2.6-16.

If you want to hear a sermon by Stoned Campbell on John 3.16 called simply "For God So Loved ..." it is even shorter.

At any rate I am asked from time to time if any of my lessons are on line so here are a couple of examples.

Here is a link to an article in Time about Evangelicals and Divorce that you might find interesting. I recommend Rubel Shelly's book, Divorce & Remarriage: A Redemptive Theology as worthy of serious reflection.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
PaLO VErde Church of Christ

Read More

Kingdom Come Exposed: Unknown Tongue of Theobabble

Today is Halloween. And as is fitting for the spirit of the day my good friend Lee Freeman has sent me a treat (or was it a trick?). He gets a little paper in the mail called Christianity Then & Now that is published here in Arizona. I have never seen the paper before but I was able to find it online. The editor of the paper is John Waddey who I believe was at one time associated with East Tennessee School of Preaching (but I am not sure about this). At anyrate the reason Lee forwarded this to me was because of the article "Speaking in the Unknown Tongue of Theobabble" which mentions John Mark Hicks and myself as authors of Kingdom Come. Let me quote from the opening paragraphs to get the flavor.

Speaking in the Unknown Tongue of Theobabble

In Corinth, misinformed and misguided brethren insisted on speaking in the assembly of the church in a tongue unknown to their hearers (I Cor 14:2,9). Paul insisted that he would rather speak five words understood by his audience than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue (I Cor. 14:19).

Among the fellowship of change agents at work among churches of Christ are highly educated theologians who prefer to speak in a strange tongue spoken and understood by only a select few who inhabit seminaries or who were educated there. It is the exotic language of theobabble [sic].

In their recent book, Kingdom Come, Dr. John Mark Hicks, Professor of Theology at David Lipscomb University, and Bobby Valentine, a Master of Divinity, illustrate the use of theobabble. Below are some classic examples of this exotic language:

"Their vision was antagonistic toward modernity in significant ways-especially the inbreaking kingdom of God" (p. 16).

"Living in the shadows of the second coming meant that God was profoundly active in this world to redeem and restore it. God takes the initiative to repair the 'vandalism of shalom' in creation" (p. 32) ...

"There are many methods and resources for contemplative Bible reading ... but one of the most classic and ancient is the Benedictine method of lectio divina (divine reading)(p. 89)." ...

"Unlike many modern westerners, the Old Testament sees humanity as a psychosomatic unity" (p. 133).

" ... the Jesus story begins with a 'pentad of prayers.'"(p. 134)

There is much more of this lectio divina to be interpreted in light of the eschaton, but this illustrates my point.

The authors' theological peers read such fluffy, opaque phrases and congratulate them on their scholarship. Their students read them, awed at the brilliance of a professor who uses such spectacular, incomprehensible terms. The man and woman in the pew who hears or reads them, scratches his/her head and wonders what in the world are the authors trying to say? They ask, 'What language is he speaking?' To accept the conclusions drawn from such theobabble is as dangerous as the signing of a binding legal contract without reading and comprehending the fine print thereof. JHW." (Christianity Then & Now {October 2007}, 2)

The only parts omitted here of this "review" are a few more illustrative quotes for theobabble. I have to be honest beloved blog readers, when I read this I thought to myself that if I was one of John's regular readers I would be insulted! Does he imagine that the people in the pew are so ignorant that they can not use vocabulary beyond elementary school?

I have no doubt that Kingdom Come is not a perfect book. But if these quotes are the weakest link in the book then I must confess that John Mark and I did a better job than I had previously imagined. Since Lee is a good sport he also sent page 3 of the October issue of Christianity Then & Now. On that page John Waddey recommends an old book by Harold Lindsell called The New Paganism. In light of his attack upon KC what he quotes from this volume is most interesting.

"[Lindsell] reminds us that 'the public education processes at all levels, function in full accord with the pagan Weltanschauung and [sic] Zeitgeist ..."

Ok, I am scratching my head on this one. Then John quotes Lindsell as saying "It is at the higher collegiate and seminary levels where the major problems exist." What a prejudicial statement.

Returning to Kingdom Come. In the previous two congregations I have served (Southside in Milwaukee and PV here in Tucson) the saints have had no problem reading and understanding the book. Wayne and Bruce, fine elders if there ever were any, I guess speak theobabble too. May be it is not because they were educated in a seminary but because they let their minds grow.

I looked up each illustrative quote cited by John and I believe the meaning of each one is clear in its setting. Shalom is a biblical word brother Waddey, not only is it biblical it is incredibly important, and everybody knows what "vandalism" is. Where a truly new term is introduced, like lectio divina, it is defined and explained. But you know what, I grew up in a congregation where neither the preacher nor anyone else had a clue what Greek was but eis, psallo and baptizo were thrown around a lot and no one ever rebuked the preacher for theobabble.

I took the time to look at a few of John's other reviews online and have noticed a similar pattern exhibited in this one. There is zero substance in this piece. One would hope for a substantive critique but alas we got a hatchet job ... I guess in that sense it is really a trick then, :-)

I wish Brother Waddey well but I would rather see a good critical review like that of Gardner Hall's. I have kept Gardner's, I put John's in the recycle bin.

Shalom ... I mean peace,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Arizona Moon Rise ...

Arizona Moon Rise ...

I took these pictures from our backyard last friday as the Sun was setting in the west and the moon was rising in the east. The mountains are the Rincon's. As fall approaches here in the desert it has been getting terribly cold, :-) For example yesterday it was 95 degrees and for Halloween they are predicting it will be 86 ... But seriously in the wee hours it has been getting into the upper 60 and in the mountains probably in the 50s by 5 am!!!



A wide angle view of the moon rising with the houses catching the final rays of the sun ...



A close up view of the moon coming over the Rincons ...

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Seeking True Unity #5 : Same Song, Different Century: An Interaction with Jeff A. Jenkins

Preliminary Distant Voices

“I regard the Sunday School as an innovation. I can’t see it in any other light.”
- N. L. Clark, “Editorial Notes,” FF 23 {29 Jan 1907}, 4

“Where, oh where is the Bible authority for Sunday School?”

- N. L. Clark, “Debate with Whiteside,” FF 22 {13 Nov 1906}, 4

A Summary of the Prosecution’s Case

It has been pointed out in prior installments that I have been using a courtroom metaphor that derives its existence from the book Seeking True Unity. The metaphor is a good one and I mean no disrespect through its use at all.

We have heard from several members of the panel for the prosecution so far but we hear from Jeff Jenkins now for the first time. Brother Jeff informs us that worship is “now one of the most controversial issues in the church of our day” (p. 37). At the heart of the worship wars is none other than instrumental music.

Jeff approaches the jury box and he asks a very good question “Does God regulate our worship to Him?” After responding to Mike Cope (p.38) who opined that IM does not matter to God, Jeff asserts that it matters a great deal because God has in fact regulated worship. Indeed Jeff says, “Before we make the bold assertion that it doesn’t matter how we worship God we should carefully consider the biblical material” (p. 39). This is an interesting statement for I have never heard anyone claim that it does not matter how we worship God, including from Cope! Jeff appeals to Cain (Genesis 3) and Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10) to show that “obedience matters to God” (p. 39). I agree obedience matters to God.

Then Jeff informs the jury that “thousands of wonderful, loving, highly educated brethren” could not be guilty of “shoddy hermeneutics” on matters of biblical interpretation (especially on IM). He then lists these men and says “These men are hardly the kind of men who would build their teachings on ‘shoddy hermeneutics!’” (p. 40).

According to Jeff there are, apparently, some who are trying to convince those in Churches of Christ that our music is “peculiar to churches of Christ.” (Again I have never heard or read such a claim). No he says. Rather a cappella is not a tradition but instrumental music is “definitely an addition.” Jeff concludes his presentation by stating it is of paramount importance of how we interpret the Bible. We must worship not only from a “right heart, we must also worship as He has commanded” to which our brother cites John 4.24 (p. 41).

Deliberating with the Jury

In many ways I am deeply sympathetic with the prosecution on this matter. I have wrestled with the instrumental music issue off and on for years. I agree with Jeff that our lives—our worship—is regulated by God. Life and Assembly are overshadowed by the Lord God of the Universe. Of this I have no doubt. I also agree that worship is a hot topic and I have even published a book, along with John Mark Hicks and Johnny Melton, on the subject called A Gathered People: Revisioning the Assembly as Transforming Encounter (2007). The fact is I have no desire to introduce instrumental music in my local congregation. I love Darryl Tippens recent small booklet That’s Why We Sing: Reclaiming the Wonders of Congregational Singing (2007). You can order this for 3 dollars at 1.877.816.4455 toll free. Thousands of these were handed out at the Pepperdine Lectures. A cappella music, when well done, stirs my soul. It can be harnessed and used powerfully in the assembly to glorify God and edify the saints.

Yet I remain unconvinced that instrumental music should divide the family of God. Worship has always, not just recently, been a subject of heated debate. In our own history for the last 125 years there has been nearly constant warfare over what the assembly can and cannot do.
  
Mack Lynn states that the total number of Churches of Christ in the U.S. stands slightly above 13,000. About 3,400 or one-fourth of these congregations are distinguished by some doctrinal issue which keeps them separated (or Distinct!) from the larger group. The issues change with the times, major issues that have divided us in the past include:

1875-1890 Rebaptism, card-playing, dancing, going to the theater, reading fiction, and going to baseball games

1890-1910 instrumental music, blue laws (Sabbath question), use of tobacco, pacifism, role of women, role of the Holy Spirit

1910-1940 premillennialism, use of prepared Sunday school literature (i.e. Gospel Advocate Quarterly), congregational autonomy

1940-1960 non-institutionalism, non-class, kitchens in the church building, one-cup, Holy Spirit, and mutual edification

1960-1985 bible translations, Holy Spirit, pacifism, marriage, divorce and remarriage

1985-1999 authority of elders, rebaptism, hermeneutics, women's role, worship styles

The opening quotes above by N. L. Clark are directed to the Sunday School issue. This issue actually split our fellowship. In 1925 R. F. Duckworth published an exclusive list in the Apostolic Way of churches because “congregations were being imposed by Sunday-School preachers coming into their midst claiming to be sound, and while there, sowing the seed of discord” (quoted in Ronny Wade, The Sun Will Shine Again Someday, 44). These brothers believe the work and worship of the church is also “regulated.” In fact they look at “us” and say we have done exactly as the Christian Church as done: failed to interpret Scripture properly at best and rejected biblical authority at worst! 

Deliberating on Hermeneutics

I do not believe the Bible, or the NT, is a “love letter” from God. This lingo originated in an analogy first used by Mike Armour and Randy Fentor to emphasize both the occasional nature of the epistles and the love dimension of them. This analogy has never had a major following though some to the right “love” to play on it for all its worth. But in many ways it is a better analogy than that of a constitution or case law. 

I believe the Scriptures are covenantal documents. In the canonical arrangement accepted by the church there is a plot, or overriding story, or narrative to these documents. One might say scripture is more like a drama divided up into “Six Acts.” Those Acts are Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, church, New Creation. These “Acts” witness to the mighty acts of God throughout as of primary concern. The people shaped by the acts, and goal of God, is told throughout and shapes life and assembly. Jesus emerges as the living embodiment of the Word of God and values of the Kingdom … he is our pattern for life before God (see A Gathered People for more detailed discussion of this, pp. 152ff). There is in fact a pattern but it is not what is frequently argued about … John says the Word became flesh … he did not say the word was “written.” 

I think the term “shoddy hermeneutics” is inflammatory and not helpful for the conversation. But I do think that there have been some arguments that are not quite satisfactory that are used to disprove instrumental music. Gopher wood is one such argument. 

Gopher wood is a classic argument used in our debates with our playing brethren. It is even appealed to previously in Seeking True Unity (p.13). It is claimed that God gave a specific command and if Noah used another kind of wood he would likely die. In fact Thomas B. Warren claims that since God “specified” gopher wood that if “he [Noah] had used some other kind of wood he would not have been saved” (When is an ‘Example’ Binding?, p. 115, his emphasis). This is mistaken hermeneutics at best! There is not a shred of evidence that “gopher” wood was a specific type of wood. In fact you will not even find “gopher” in any modern translation. Way back in 1835, Alexander Campbell himself pointed out how erroneous the KJV is in Genesis 6.14. Campbell used this as one of his proofs that the KJV was full of mistranslations. Campbell suggested rendering the term as “make yourself an ark of cypress wood” (“Mistranslations, No. 3, Millennial Harbinger {April 1835}, 150). The NIV follows Campbell’s suggestion. The term refers to a wide variety of resinous wood. The LXX translated the term simply as “squared timber” or “wood cut into lumber.” Many theological mountains, including the fate of Noah, have been hung on a grossly abused text.

Leviticus 10 is another text that is simply abused. It is appealed to by Jeff himself. I grew up on Nadab and Abihu. I even made it through Bible college without ever actually having studied the entire text! The rest of the chapter did not and does not serve the prosecutions case at all. But the second half of the chapter show Eleazar and Ithamar violating a real “specific” command. They were told what to do and how to do it and there would be no variation. But they did violate the specific commands and were not burned up like their brothers. Did God violate his own rule? If all that was involved in the the first half of the text was some technical violation then explaining the rest of the text becomes exceedingly difficult. Or is something else going on in the text as a whole. God is not a God of technical precision, nor of precision obedience, and Lev 10.11-20 proves it beyond a doubt. It seems that v.8 provides the needed insight into what is going on in the text. Moses did not suddenly, and arbitrarily, in the midst of tragedy decide it was a good opportunity to speak of the evils of whiskey. The word of Moses has direct relevance to the tragic death of Nadab and Abihu. They had the audacity to show up in the holy Presence of Yahweh and offer their unholy drunken worship in front to the entire assembly. God dealt with that arrogance swiftly. But the disobedience of Eleazar and Ithamar is a completely and totally different matter. God accepted their sacrifice and covered their sin with his grace because their hearts were completely different.

I would suggest that Jeff has also misinterpreted John 4.24. This is a crucial text as he rightly points out but he buys into the polemical use of that text rather than let the Gospel of John tell us what it means. We have a lengthy discussion of this text in A Gathered People, pp. 133-136. The interpretation of this text needs to be governed by two iron-clad rules, context and context! Historical and Literary. The question in context is which temple should be worshipped in (Gk, en). Readers of the Gospel are informed in chapter 2.19-22 that Jesus himself is declared to be the "temple" of God. Jesus is the new temple according to the Gospel. In this new temple worshippers will worship in (en) Spirit and truth. The contrast is between temples, it is not between physical, fleshy, immaterial and inward. Jesus is not saying that Israel did not worship in according to the “truth.” Jews worshipped according to the “Book” just as surely as Jeff, Phil and Mike imagine themselves to worship by the “Book.” Rather the emphasis is type and anti-type. In the new temple of Jesus worship transcends the “shadows” and ushers us into the reality of the very thrown of God (in the language of Hebrews). To worship in Spirit is to do so in and through the agency of the Spirit of God. There is no example in the Gospel of John where “spirit” means sincerity! Except for three places where the context clearly means the person of Jesus, every other occurrence means the Holy Spirit (1.32,33; 3.5,6,34; 6.63; 7.39; 14.17,26; 15.26; 16.13; 20.22). “Spirit” means “Holy Spirit” in John 4.24 (see Raymond Brown, Gospel According to John: Anchor Bible, 1.180-181; Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1.615-616; and many more). The Holy Spirit is our “link” to the new temple of Jesus. 

The word “truth” in John 4.24 does not mean “according to the command” or “by the book.” The term occurs 55x in the Gospel and consistently takes on a typological meaning. For example law came by Moses but truth by Jesus (1.17), the snake was lifted in the wilderness as Jesus would be on the cross (3.14). The context of John 4 is NOT truth (i.e. biblical revelation/ideas) vs. falsehood (i.e. unscriptural ideas) but shadow versus reality. To worship the Father in Spirit and truth is to praise the Father in his new temple in the power of the Spirit. We worship, as we wrote, “the Father in a Triune way—we worship the Father in the Spirit (eschatologically) and in the Son (the true temple)” (A Gathered People, p. 136)

This does not mean that God is not interested in proper worship but it does mean that these texts are not about what they have been asked to support by the prosecution. So I agree with my beloved brother Jeff that how we interpret the Scripture is of critical importance. So important that we need to let our polemical use be subjected to some rather close scrutiny. 

Some Final Reflections

First, saying that numerous respected brethren could not use faulty hermeneutics does not prove a single thing. The brethren on the other side point to an equally large number of brothers who have advanced degrees, prayed and studied and came to the exact opposite conclusion on instrumental music. They probably don’t like being told that they have build their case on “shoddy hermeneutics” any more than brother Jeff does. 

Second. as I pointed out to brother Phil (who never gave a reasoned reply) if Paul and the church in Jerusalem could worship in the Temple including participating in the sacrificial rituals (along with music!) then I have a hard time believing Paul would loose any sleep over instrumental music (see Acts 21). Further, and this has been stated many times, if God is dead set against instruments then why does he allow them in the throne room.

Third. This is directly related to the last statement. If, as I believe to be the case, that the Holy Spirit does carry us into the very throne room of God during our worship then in some sense we DO worship with instruments. We join the great universal church that surrounds the throne of God and we join them in their praise of the Holy One of Israel. 

Fourth, The rational given for excluding my brothers on the other side of the keyboard from fellowship is the exact same rationale that Duckworth and many others have used to exclude both Jeff and myself. Jeff will protest by saying that those brethren have bound their opinions and fail to discern expedients and aids. But it is dubious at best to draw theology from an idea that Scripture is also “silent” as the grave on. There is not an iota in the text about discerning the difference between aides and additions.

Fifth, I am a Christian first and then a member of the Stone-Campbell movement. That heritage is not canonical but God has worked in it just the same. And that history, especially the union of Stone with the Christian Connexion, the welcoming of the Dunkards congregations associated with Joseph Hostetler, the right hand extended to Alyette Raines and the miracle of Stone and Campbell coming together gives me reason to believe there is insufficient grounds given for with holding my hand from one whom the Lord Jesus Christ has brought into the family and is attempting to live in covenant and obeys his will to the best of their ability … how could I do otherwise?

Sixth, in light of the problems at Corinth … far more severe than Richland Hills or Southeast Christian Church … I can only follow the great apostle’s example and thank God every time I think of them. I can only rejoice in the “grace” that has been given to them in Christ Jesus. And I can only extend my hand to those who are of the “Church of God.” This is what Paul did. Why can’t we?

"The nearer we come to Christ's cross, the nearer we come to each other. How can our divisions and our enmities be maintained in the sight of his bitter suffering and death? How, in the light of Christ's 'open heart,' can we remain closed and be fearful about the church? And how can we, grasped by the outstretched arms of the suffering God upon the cross, clench our fists or with unrelenting fingers hold fast to our separateness?" (Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion for Life, 84-85)

See Seeking True Unity #1 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #2 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #3 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #4 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #6 HERE

Shalom,

Bobby Valentine

Read More

Reflections on the Moser Ministry Conference

I just returned from Lubbock Christian University in Lubbock, Texas. Prior to this I had never been to Lubbock but I had learned it is a nice town.

I arrived in Lubbock on Saturday night. My good friend John Mark Hicks and I stayed up late reviewing significant developments in the life and theological thought of K. C. Moser. On Sunday we gathered with the family at the Monterey Church. Later that evening we decided to support the family at Southside Church of Christ which was hosting its annual lectureship. We picked up a few books to digest and then heard brothers Burt Jones and Keith Mosher speak on various facets of the work of Satan. I don't think these brothers would come see us so we decided to see them.

The sessions at LCU were quite good. Brandon Fredenburg critiqued Moser's interpretation of Romans from the standpoint of contemporary scholarship ... especially the so-called "new" perspective on Paul. I think he did a good job. Rubel Shelly's presentations were important. For the first time, that I am aware of, he shared from his own perspective how grace has changed his life and ministry ... starting ironically from being fired from a church in Mississippi (I was not aware that Rubel and I had that shared blot!!) and John Mark's presentations were lively and provocative too. These presentations can be ordered from the College of Biblical Studies at Lubbock Christian University. I think you can get all of them for 25 dollars.

I got to visit with Fran and Dub Winkles again. And Fran even brought me K. C.'s Bible. I was up late reading his notes in the margins, title pages and ends of books. John Mark ended up using some in his second presentation they we so good. Fran then, God is good, let me take that Bible to study in more detail. What a treasure. It was purchased in 1941 and rebound in 1962. Here I am, nearly literally, reading over the shoulder of Moser as he reads and writes in his own Bible. I am soaking it in ... and John Mark and I visited Moser's grave with his grand daughter.

It was enjoyable from my point of view. I enjoy meeting people (and I met a number of folks with Moser). On Tuesday a number of us had lunch at On the Border for some fine Mexican Food. Since John Mark, Rubel Shelly and I were all in the same hotel ... and I was the only one with a car ... I shuttled us around. I let them both know that I was not comfortable being confined in a single vehicle with two of the biggest heretics in the world ... I was praying that no Jobian lightening storm would come take us out, :-)

The drive from Tucson to Lubbock was interesting. I went through Roswell and was looking for the strange lights and aliens. There is a small "village" in the mountains with Apache murals all over the side of the road (beautiful too). Then it gets FLAT!

On my way home I stopped in Alamagordo for dinner at Wendy's. I called info (not easy to do out in the middle of no where) and tried to contact Al Maxey who lives there. I had a good trip. But it is good to be back home. Here are a few photos marking the journey ...








Aliens are alive and well in Roswell ... as the Cover-Up Cafe can testify!!



Heading west on US 380 in New Mexico ... nothing as far as the eye can see! I went a full 30 minutes and did not even see another car!!



Sunset coming into Alamagordo, NM ...



The grave of K. C. and Ardis Moser, appropriately enough in the "Apostle's Garden."

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Seeking True Unity #4: Counselor Mike Greene Presents “How Did We Get Where We Are? A Brief History of Unity and Division …”

Preliminary Distant Voice on Unity - Barton W. Stone

“In those days there were but a few terms of communion among Christians. All were admitted to fellowship who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and obeyed him; and their obedience was considered the best evidence of their faith … If opinions of truth were to be made terms of fellowship, it is much questioned whether any two men on earth could so perfectly agree in all points, as ever to unite; there could be no union or fellowship on earth” (Barton W. Stone, “Objections to Christian Union Calmly Considered,” Christian Messenger 1 {December 1826}, 27)

Summary of the Prosecutions’ Case

We in the jury have heard from two highly trained experts in the law so we know what to expect with Counselor Mike. Mike has a completely different approach than either Steve or Phil. While Phil had appealed to “early leaders,” Mike devotes his presentation to presenting his version of the entire  historical record. He opens by acknowledging that the Churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ all spring from the same seed in the early 19^th century. He asks an important question “How was unity achieved? And more importantly, what happened to that unity.” (p. 25). He briefly notes the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery and the Declaration and Address of Thomas Campbell. He notes that Campbell was brought before the synod on heresy charges (he does not tell us what that was).

The counselor tells us that the Reformers (Campbell’s group) and the “Christians” (Stone’s group) were united to the praise of God. Counselor Greene makes this interesting statement: “There was little difference except Campbell’s emphasis on baptism for remission of sins which teaching Stone accepted but which he did not emphasize as did Campbell. Whatever faults Stone might have seen in Campbell his love for his fellow worker would hide forever” (p. 30). We will return to this statement, but for the moment we can only give thanks to God for the witness to Stone’s ministry of reconciliation testified to by Greene. This was a living demonstration, our Counselor insists, that “unity based on the Word was possible” and not simply pious rhetoric (p. 30).

This union on the word of God was destroyed, we jury members hear, because many left the original grounds of that union (the word) by importing innovations. The first of these was the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849 (our counselor informs us that Alexander Campbell was not present but was elected President anyway). Further innovation (i.e. departure from the pattern - Phil's shattered plate) happened when L. L. Pinkerton introduced the melodeon at the Midway Christian Church. Mike hints that Slavery and the Civil War may have “exacerbated” the situation (p. 33). The counselor tells us that in the end those who proclaim “the pure gospel of Christ” (i.e. the Churches of Christ) have outstripped the “missionary society laden Christian Churches” (p. 34).

The Thinking Jury Members Reflections on this Version of History

On several levels I have struggled with how to appropriately respond to Mike’s case. He has bit off a very large bite but he is constrained by space. The case is both admirable for its brevity in stating its interpretation of events in the 19^th century but it is also incredibly flawed on many grounds … is this because the prosecution spins the history or is this because of the extreme limits of the chapter? By “spin” I want to be clear that I do not imply that the prosecution would ever knowingly distort the facts, I do however realize that the Counselor and his team have a version of that great 19^th century story that is formed and shaped by the tradition they are apart of.

Firsts. Let me begin with the counselor’s last Matlock moment (the bad guys have been shown to be wrong all along because “we” are now “bigger” than them in spite of that accursed mission society). Here we loose some technical precision that at least one of the prosecuting lawyers demands. The counselor begins the chapter by acknowledging there are three branches to the shattered family of God connected with the Stone-Campbell Movement. When we end those distinctions seem to be lost. The Disciples of Christ have pursued a path of theological liberalism that in many ways is astonishing. They are nearly dead as a denomination. The Independent Christian Church however has in no way followed that theologically liberal path. In fact, theologically, many in the Christian (Independents) Churches are more conservative than in Churches of Christ and have always been so. They have close ties to fundamentalism and (with few exceptions) “we” have not. One more note here at the end. The Churches of Christ have not outstripped the Independents in growth, in fact the independents are exploding. They have over a hundred churches with 1000+ members … most of those have appeared in the last 15 to 20 years. Bob Russell’s church is the second or third largest church in America … and an Independent Christian minister, Gene Apple, has recently been hired by the Willow Creek Church to replace the retiring Bill Hybels.

Seconds. Unity & Diversity in the Stone-Campbell Movement. What I intend on doing in this section is present an alternative reading of the “how” unity was achieved in the Stone-Campbell Movement through this method I will critique the Counselor’s interpretation. Like Greene’s presentation, this is of necessity short.

What became the American Churches of Christ had their beginnings in an incredible ecumenical event sometimes called “the American Pentecost.” Cane Ridge was an amazing event. There were, according to Barton Stone, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptists preachers side by side. There were white and black ministers proclaiming the love of God. There were men and women exhorters involved too. Stone comments that despite this diversity of perspective there was unity in the message ...

 “The doctrine preached by all was simple, and nearly the same … All urged faith in the gospel, and obedience to it, as the way of life … The spirit of partyism, party distinctions, were apparently forgotten … The spirit of love, peace, and union, were revived. You might have seen the various sects engaged in the same spirit, praying, praising, and communing together, and the preachers in the lead. Happy days! joyful seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord” (Barton Stone, “History of the Christian Church, No. 1” Christian Messenger 1 {February 1827}, 77)

The DNA seeds for Stone’s celebration of the demise of division and unity around the simply evangelical message comes from many directions. The previous work of James O’Kelly and Rice Haggard (with whom Stone would unite in the Christian Connection). O’Kelly published the “Five Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church” which read:

1) The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church

2) The name Christian to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names

3) The Holy Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments our only creed, and sufficient rule of faith and practice

4) Christian character, or vital piety, the only test of church fellowship and membership

5) The right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, the privilege and duty of all.

Cane Ridge was seen as dangerous by the Presbyterians. Stone and several others were disciplined for what amounted to being to open in fellowship. An Apology renouncing the authority of that presbytery hit the shelves in January 1804. The Last Will and Testament which appeared later that same year reflects all this background. It states its wish to “die and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large” … Stone recognizes that larger Body because of Cane Ridge. The LW & T is a plea for freedom and unity at its core. Stone insists he has, like O’kelly, has the right to think for himself. Because of Cane Ridge he can plea “”We will, that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less” (Item #7). Stone never, not at Cane Ridge, not with the Christian Connection, not with Alexander Campbell, ever made unity based on doctrine the ground for fellowship. The ground of unity was the simple gospel of Jesus Christ. The test of fellowship was stated clearly by O’kelly in Principle #4

Thomas & Alexander Campbell also had a run in with what Counselor Phil called the “exclusiveness of the denominations” that “shamed the name of the Lord” (p. 17). Thomas came to the USA from Ireland. He was here only shortly before he found himself in hot water so to speak. Counselor Greene tells us he was brought up on charges of “heresy” (p. 27) but he fails to specify what that heresy was. Thomas was asked to preach and serve communion to the Anti-Burghers in Cannamaugh north of Pittsburgh. He brought along a young, but strict, preacher named William Wilson. Thomas did offer communion (i.e. fellowship) with the Anti-Burghers but he also invited all Presbyterians to attend. Wilson reported Campbell to the Synod and on Oct 27, 1807 he was charged with “heresy” … he was to “liberal.” He was rebuked and finally censured. At this point Thomas, like Stone, renounced the tyranny of the synod and wrote one of the great works of Christian history, The Declaration & Address. The D&A, like the LW&T must be seen against its setting. It is a defense of fellowship and liberty of conscience in the Christian faith. The voice of Thomas explodes against intolerance from the first:

“[W]e are persuaded that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act, for ourselves”

This unchristian habit of sitting in judgment he passionately protests:

“[N]o 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”

What powerful language. It was “evil” and “accursed” divisions that cause many Christians to even miss the “Lord’s Supper, that great ordinance of unity and love” and turn it into, as did the synod, as a way of dividing the precious Body of Christ. Such behavior and attitudes perverted the Lord’s “Gospel of Peace.” Like Stone he called for unity in the “common cause of simple evangelical Christianity.” What about all those areas of disagreement? Thomas rejects the binding of inferences outright. He says “We dare not, therefore, patronize the rejection of God’s dear children, because they may not be able to see alike in matters of human inference – of private opinion.” He declares “An agreement in the expressly revealed will of God is the adequate and firm foundation of this unity.” Thomas know exactly where the root of most division comes.

“[T]he bitter root of almost all our divisions, namely, the imposing of our private opinions upon each other as articles of faith or duty … as if they were the express law of Christ.” 

Just as O’Kelly and Stone, Campbell makes faith in Christ and Christian character the “original” criterion for Christian unity,

“A manifest attachment to our Lord Jesus Christ in faith, holiness, and charity, was the original criterion of Christian character, the distinguishing badge of our holy profession, the foundation and cement of Christian unity.”

Thomas Campbell’s D & A is an incredible document. It is a disgrace that it is largely unknown and perhaps even rejected by most preachers and members today … but its message is loud and clear.

It is evident from the primary sources of the Stone-Campbell Movement that these men ever dreamed of seeking unity on the basis of doctrine or even the Bible but rather upon the message of Jesus Christ and profession of that faith in our lives.

Counselor Mike is correct, I think, that in many ways the Stone folk and Campbell folk were alike. They had a passion for unity. They both rejected creeds as a basis for fellowship. They both called for the Bible to be the book of rule and faith. They both pointed to the message of Jesus as the gospel. These are obvious formal similarities.

Yet at the same time, contrary to what the counselor suggests there was more than a “little difference” between these two groups. It is most interesting that Greene says that Stone found the “truth” on the “atonement, baptism, and salvation” (p.27). Alexander Campbell did not think Stone had the truth on these areas. Indeed one might say that there were certain formal similarities between Stone and Campbell but that there were deep and substantive theological/doctrinal differences. The short list includes:

1) What to call “ourselves”

2) Work of the Holy Spirit in conversion

3) Importance of baptism and using it as a test of fellowship

4) Frequency of the Lord’s Supper

5) Church government

6) Doctrine of atonement

7) Doctrine of Trinity

8) Numerous other matters

These differences between Stone and Campbell are nothing to sneeze at. But the two movements let the Holy Spirit work a miracle through them and united. Even after the union Stone and Campbell disagreed, mightily, over the proper name (i.e. Christian/Disciple), the nature of divine existence, the doctrine of atonement but they were united. Both Thomas and Alexander thought Stone to be completely wrong on the Trinity and Atonement but were willing to fellowship Stone anyway. Alexander had a “Christological” test, “I regard no man as a believer in Jesus as Messiah, who denies that he is a divine person, the only begotten of God; or who refuses to worship him” (“Mr. Broaddus,” MH 4 {Jan 1833}, 9). But Stone was worthy of fellowship because he did worship Jesus and would used biblical language rather than opinions of what the Bible said.

Counselor Mike asked a brilliant question! “How could unity be established” between Stone and Campbell. Did they demand doctrinal unity? They did not! The positions of Stone and Campbell in the D&A and other writings let us know exactly how and why they could unite. They united on the Gospel of Peace. I do not have to infer this rather it stated explicitly by those involved (note Thomas Campbell above). I will be quoting from John A. Williams, Life of Elder John Smith whom the counselor refers to on p. 31. Williams notes that

“Some Reformers still looked upon the Christians as Arians; and some Christians were adverse to the union, in the belief that the Reformers denied the influence of the Spirit, and attached undo importance to baptism … While all did not hold in the same sense that baptism was for the remission of sins, they all agreed it was a divine ordinance, which could not safely be set aside or neglected” (p. 369).

But on that glorious day when the Reformers and Christians united in their diversity “Raccoon” John Smith stood up and said,

“God has but one people on the earth … There are certain abstruse or speculative matters—such as the mode of Divine Existence, and the Ground and Nature of Atonement … “I have the more cheerfully resolved on this course, because the Gospel is a system of facts, commands, and promises, and no deduction or inference from them, however logical or true, forms any part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No heaven is promised to those who hold them, and no hell is threatened to those who deny them. They do not constitute, singly or together, any item of the ancient and apostolic gospel. While there is but one faith, there may be ten thousand opinions; and hence, if Christians are ever to be one, they must be one in faith and not in opinion.” (p. 371-372, my emphasis)

It was in light of this great speech that Barton W. Stone extended his hand and said “I have no objection to the ground laid down by him as the true scriptural basis of union among the people of God” (p. 373).

I seriously doubt that Barton Stone would be welcome in a large number of Churches of Christ today. And for that matter Alexander Campbell probably would not be either. Yet that glorious unity Counselor Mike celebrates and laments its loss was in fact a unity on the Gospel amidst tremendous doctrinal diversity!

The example of 1832 was previously set by both Stone and Campbell though in their ministries. These great Reformers demonstrated in deed, and not just words, that they were willing to “swim the channel” and “climb the steepest hill” for the sake of the right hand of a brother in the Lord!! They were willing to even give up an arm for the sake of a brother’s fellowship. Two examples:

In 1825, Alexander Campbell took time out of his “Restoration of the Ancient Order” Series to respond to the queries of Joseph Hostetler who was “Dunkard” or German Baptist. Hostetler was a leader of a group of congregations in the Midwest. They practiced these items:

1) they practiced trine immersion (face forward into the water)
2) they practiced the Lord's Supper in the context of a love feast
3) they washed feet as a required ordinance
4) they took the Lord's Supper only once or twice a year (and only at night else it would not be the "supper")
5) they practiced the holy kiss (and other matters)

Hostetler praises Campbell but thinks he is inconsistent on these matters. Campbell writes:

“DEAR BROTHER [sic] – For such I recognize you, notwithstanding the varieties of opinion which you express on some topics, on which we might never agree. But if we should not, as not unity of opinion, but unity of faith, is the only true bond of Christian union, I will esteem and love you, as I do every man, of whatever name, who believes sincerely that Jesus is the Messiah, and hopes in his salvation …” (Campbell, “Restoration of the Ancient Order, No. XI, Christian Baptist, Burnett edition, p. 223)

The Dunkards united with the “us” in 1827 a mere two years later. They did not give up their distinct beliefs any more than Stone and Campbell did when they formally united in 1831. You can read more of this “forgotten” union here at the Stoned-Campbell Disciple blog (i.e.Union of 1827).

Another example is that of Alyette Raines. Thomas Campbell met Raines on the Western Reserve while preaching in 1828. Raines had previously heard Walter Scott too. Raines was a “restorationist” (the old word for “universalist”). He believed, and preached, that all people would eventually be “restored” to God. He encountered the preaching of Scott and Thomas and accepted their formulation but retained his universalist views. Raines was a controversial “convert” to the Movement. At the next meeting the Brethren wanted proof that Raines had rejected his opinions before they would accept him. But he had not given them up. Thomas Campbell stood at the meeting and read from Romans 14. He then made this statement 

“Brother Raines and I have been together for the past several months, and we have mutually unbosomed ourselves to each other. I am a Calvinist, and he is a Restorationist, and although I am a Calvinist, I would put my right arm into the fire and have it burnt off before I raise a hand against him.” 

From this we learn that not only was Raines a universalist but that TC was a Calvinist! It is the attitude that is demonstrated by Stone and the Campbells that made the union of 1831 possible. It was not because it was a perfect agreement on doctrine. It was the unity of God’s People based on the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

Alexander Campbell claimed to follow the apostolic example of Paul in his fellowship with those he believed to be in doctrinal error.  He writes clearly and boldly
 
"I frankly and boldly declare to them, as Paul did to the Corinthians, the things in which I praise them, and the things in which I praise them not. And I know of no way, of no course, that any christian can pursue consistently with the whole new testament, consistently with his serving God and his own generation, but this one. Therefore I advocate it and practice it. 

I have tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight, that like the Indian's tree, I leaned a little the other way. And however much I may be slandered now as seeking 'popularity' or a popular course, I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I would neither pray nor sing songs of praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth." ("To an Independent Baptist," Christian Baptist, May 1826, p.238, Burnett Edition).

This is the spirit that enabled Unity between Campbell and Stone. This is the spirit that enabled unity to be the heritage of the Churches of Christ.  This is not the spirit that our Counselor suggests to the witness on the stand. 

Thirds. So what happened to that incredible unity of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Counselor Mike says that “innovations” that is departures from the pattern was the reason for division. That is hard to accept in face of the story of the movement thus so far. I believe that the Movement began to undergo a profound change in the late 1830s and 1840s that bore unholy fruit.

What was that change? It was the rise of the very thing that Stone and Campbell reacted against … exclusive sectarianism. Both Stone and Campbell demonstrate an awareness of this tendency. Campbell penned an article called simply the “Crises” in 1835, at nearly the same time Stone simply published some “Remarks” in his Christian Messenger. AC’s piece is lengthy. He cites laments the growth of cancer among the “churches” associated with him and Stone. There is a growing delight in fighting and a corresponding decline in love. There is a growth of a “dogmatical, unfeeling, and snarling temper” that is eating at the heart of a growing number (The Crises, MH 6 {December 1835}, 595-600).

Stone for his part confesses that a group of “anti-sectarian sectarians” have infiltrated “us.” These anti-sectarian sectarians cause Stone to “blush for my fellows who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship.” The folks are doing more “mischief” than all the “skeptics in the world. In fact they make skeptics” (Stone, “Remarks,” Christian Messenger {August 1835}, 180)

What might some of the extreme sectarian attitudes be that Campbell and Stone publicly lament over. First, is the rise of that narrow exclusivism that Phil reminded the jury those “early leaders” so justly protested. Second was the rise of extreme views regarding fellow followers of Christ. Third was the rise of a publication that had far more impact than it deserved.

John Thomas introduced the “rebaptism” heresy to the Stone-Campbell Movement in 1835. With this view, totally alien to the principles of the restoration movement, suddenly everyone (including some folks in the restoration churches themselves) were suddenly not Christians at all because they were not baptized “correctly” or “exactly.” 

The rise of the “Word-Only” view of the indwelling Holy Spirit began to infiltrate our ranks. Some preachers began to promote a view that non-Christians (those not baptized “correctly”) could not even pray! In 1837 Arthur Crihfield began that infamous journal called The Heretic Detector. He states in his Preface that he was set to expose real heretics through the “sword of the Spirit” and “make an impression not easily obliterated or forgotten” (“New Arrangement—Prospectus, &c.” Heretic Detector 1 {July 1837}, 169-70). This journal promoted radical extremism. Walter Scott explicitly condemned writings in the HD. When Crihfield promoted his doctrine on “alien prayer” he even concludes that it is wrong for a Christian to pray for the these aliens is sinful. Scott said he was ignorant in the extreme and insisted he explain Jesus’ prayer for the “aliens” from the cross (Scott, “To the Heretic Detector,” The Evangelist 6 {August 1838}, 186).

Other strange noises proceeded from The Heretic Detector for the first time. A highly sectarian view of the church emerged from the HD. Alexander Campbell had a concern for a united and even pure church. His famous series “A Restoration of the Ancient Order” however was not conceived as bringing back a “church” that had ceased to exist but rather an attempt on getting to a point that all could agree. But when Spencer Clack charged that Campbell was simply forging a new creed that without assent to there could be no unity, the Reformer demurred clearly and quickly. He declared “I have never made them (i.e. his understanding of the Ancient Order), hinted that they should be, or used them as a test of christian character or terms of communion” (“Reply to Spencer Clack,” CB, Burnett Edition, p. 370).

Such a generous attitude was lost on Crihfield. For the first time, that I am aware of, it was claimed that we were the “one true church.” Thus at the end of the 1830s there was a shift in understanding ourselves as a movement within the Body to being the totality of the Body! John Howard, Crihfield’s cohort, supplied for the first time a list of the “identifying marks of the true Church of Christ.” He listed six marks: called “Church of Christ” or “Christian Church,” no creed but the Bible, admits only those who have faith, repented, confessed and been immersed; organized as independent congregations; elders and deacons and deaconesses!!; worships by preaching, praying and breaking bread. Thus the Heretic Detector really embraced a position similar to the Prosecution … restoration is not a plea for unity but a plea for evangelism! Howard and Crihfield understood clearly they had “unchristianized” everyone but their own group.

Thus I maintain that by the end of the 1830s a sectarian spirit had invaded the disciples in the Stone-Campbell Movement. It was this sectarian spirit that ultimately lead to our demise as a unity movement.

Diversity was inherent in the movement from the beginning. Having diversity, among SOME, by the late 1830s and 40s was seen as a dangerous thing. It is interesting that the Missionary Society never divided the SCM prior to the Civil War. Some disagreed with it but it was not a term of fellowship. Slavery however by the mid-1850s was a highly volatile subject. For the sake of brevity, I maintain that the Civil War (as much as any “doctrinal” issue) divided the Movement. Here are a few juicy quotes:

“Should we ever meet them {northern disciples} in the flesh, can we fraternize with them as brethren? How can the servants of the Lord of this section {i.e. the South} ever strike hands with the men who now seek their life’s blood?” (Tolbert Fanning, “Ministers of Peace in the World’s Conflicts,” Gospel Advocate 7 {Nov 1861}, 348)

Most of the disciples, Southern and Northern, believed strongly in the “right” of their section. This was true of those who were pacifists and non-pacifists (Errett, Fanning, Franklin, etc).

 

At the conclusion of the War Fanning called for a general convention (interestingly enough!) of southern disciples! Fanning made it bitterly clear that northern disciples were not invited nor welcome and he explained that he doubted “the propriety of a hasty reconstruction” with northerners (Tolbert Fanning, “A General Consultation Meeting Suggested,” Gospel Advocate {April 17, 1866}, 243-244, his emphasis). After the Civil War, Fanning never again would say that “we” are one people.

 

I know it is not kosher to admit that something as unholy as a war could destroy a sense of brotherhood .. . and this is really unpopular among those who claim that only the Bible shapes and motivates their theology. But the Civil War shattered us as a people … and interestingly enough that group that gave Crihfield a hearing was in the upper South! (I have attached a map that graphically demonstrates WHERE the CofCs are located and the Disciples and it is amazing the correlation between where “we” are and where the Disciples are even to this day. Conservative historian Bill J. Humble wrote a magisterial article on the “Influence of the Civil War” in Restoration Quarterly back on the 100^th anniversary of that bloody conflict (1965). He concluded:

“The Civil War had so shattered the sense of brotherhood between northern and southern Christians that they could never again be called “one people” in any meaningful sense.”

Humble does not say the War did this alone but that sectional bitterness did in fact shatter our oneness. Other issues hindered by that legalism brought in by the Heretic Detector produced an atmosphere where tolerance was almost unheard of. The Heretic Detector was reincarnated in the Firm Foundation of Austin McGary. David Lipscomb and his Nashville Bible School certainly took part in the feelings of bitterness about reconstruction but also greatly resisted the narrowness of that other point of view. By the end of the 19^th century another fly was added to the ointment … theological liberalism in the 1890s. The works of George Longman, R. C. and R. L. Cave, Edward S. Ames and a host of others went far beyond missions and instrumental music to suggesting that Jesus was never raised from the dead. That was all Lipscomb could swallow.

Final Words. The movement begun by Stone and Campbell did not find its success in pleas for doctrinal conformity. Rather Stone and Campbell understood the concept of grace-based unity and fellowship. Without that unity with Hostetler, Raines or Stone and Campbell would never have happened. They all loved the Bible. They demanded loyalty to the Bible. But they did not demand loyalty to their understanding of the Bible. This is stated explicitly and demonstrated in reality. They believed that 1 John 1.7 was true and that it covered sin—all sin. Including “missing the mark” doctrinally.  

Alexander Campbell roots his actions and attitudes explicitly on the example of the Apostle Paul. He states that if Paul could fellowship the Corinthians then surely he could Stone and others like him.

One of Campbell’s associates, Charles Louis Loos suggested that many in our movement had lost their way and became what he called “doctrine-defenders.” A “common tendency is to glory in doctrines” he said. In fact this is the most common kind of religious error. But we “truly call it idolatry and apostasy; for men’s hearts, by it, stray away from Him as the only true object of our devotion. It makes the heart vain, intolerant, and impious. How often doe we see men rudely, and almost impiously, carry on a carnal warfare among men, not out of love for Christ and humanity, not glorying and rejoicing, like Paul, in a crucified Redeemer, but in a doctrine, having nothing but this doctrine and its triumps in their eyes … With them the favorite doctrine, and not Christ, is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.” 

Finally Loos bursts

“”Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ. We are not converted to doctrines but to God. We do not believe in doctrines, but in Christ. We are not baptized into them, trust in them, glory in them, but in Christ Jesus the Lord.” (Loos, “Glorying in the Cross Only” in Biographies and Sermons of Pioneer Preachers, ed. W.T. Moore and reprinted by B.C. Goodpasture, pp. 461, 462, his emphasis).

It may be the case that the prosecution wants nothing to do with the principles of the reformation as confessed by Stone, Campbell, Loos and others. They held dearly to the Bible. They wrote about their understanding and called folks to “see if it was so.” We should do the same. But at the same time they had a generous and loving … Spirit disposition … that allowed them to confess unity in Christ while disagreeing on a host of “doctrines.” Because it was not then and it is not now any doctrine that saves either the prosecution or the jury. Grace flowing from God to us unites us both to him and to each other. Sectarian attitudes however claim that we are in fact the one true church.

My apologies to Mike for the length of this response but it actually the shortened version. I wanted to deal with the Civil War and liberalism in more detail … but another day. For now I close with the anthem written by Barton Stone and published in The Christian-Hymn Book of 1829

"Come, My Christian Friends"

"Come, my Christian friends and brethren, Bound for Canaan's happy land, Come, unite and walk together, Christ our leader gives command. Lay aside your party spirit, Wound your Christian Friends no more, All the name of Christ inherit, Zion's peace again restore.

See Seeking True Unity #1 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #2 HERE 
See Seeking True Unity #3 HERE
See Seeking True Unity #5 HERE

Shalom,

Bobby Valentine

Read More