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

Seeking True Unity #3: Can’t We all Just Be Christians? The Restoration Plea? – Counselor Phil Sanders

Can’t We all Just Be Christians? The Restoration Plea? – Counselor Phil Sanders

I have kept up the "courtroom" image in this post. I have attempted to maintain a lighthearted yet serious tone ... 

A Preliminary Distant Voice on Unity - Thomas Campbell

“[D]ivision among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antichristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is antinatural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and every evil work.” (Thomas Campbell, Declaration and Address, Proposition 10).

A Summary of the Prosecution’s Case

The Counselor bringing the case today is Phil Sanders. Phil is a godly man with a passion for the Lord and has a zeal for what he believes. He has a lively ministry with the Concord Road Church of Christ in the Nashville area. He has pressed the issues for the prosecution before especially through his book Adrift published by the Gospel Advocate Company.

Counselor Phil approaches the jury with a powerful opening metaphor. It is the image of a dish (i.e. the church) that has been dropped and shattered. The implication is, or so it would seem, that not only is the church divided but possibly was even lost (or destroyed). Restorationists put the pick up the pieces and meticulously put the dish back together again. That is by “returning to the truth found in the New Testament.”

We learn, the counselor argues, that early leaders of the restoration movement were weary of all the “bad-mouthing and exclusiveness of the denominations” (p. 17). These men were convinced that hope for “unity” could only rest on “following the truth of God’s word.” Our counselor quotes one early leader, Thomas Campbell, to the affect that only what is “expressly taught and enjoined” could be used as a term of communion (p.18). 

The New Testament warns about perverting the truth of the Gospel. A series of references to Acts 20.29-30; 1 Tim 4.1-3; 2 Tim 3.1-13; 2 Tim 4.1-5; and 2 Pet 2.1-3 are called into the witness stand for the jury to hear. Each of these texts are powerful indeed.

Then we learn that not long after the first century that the simplicity of NT Christianity was perverted in spite of the warnings. “Century by century the church moved further away … It no longer followed God’s pattern in the New Testament but became something very different” (p. 19, my emphasis. Recall the dish/church that ceased being the church).

The counselor asks us to reflect upon the question of patternism. He claims that many suggest there is no pattern at all! For them “sprinkling is as good as immersion because the heart is all that matters” (p. 22). Some suggest that we can celebrate the Supper on a day other than Sunday. But there is a pattern and the pattern is fixed and appeals to Romans 16.17-18 (I think the counselor meant 6.17-18); 2 Thess 2.15; and 2 Tim 1.13 are called to prove this idea.

In his closing argument we learn, just as the opening illustration implied, that restoration as our counselor seems to understand it is not really a unity effort after all. Rather it is evangelism. “The work of restoration, then, is actually soul-winning” (p. 23). This is the logical outcome of his view. Those “out there” are not Christians in the first place and unity will happen when, and if, they happen to accept the prosecution’s case.

Observations and Questions from the Jury … the Judge has been Gracious

As I sat in the jury box hearing the arguments from Counselor Sanders I heard concern, as I did from Steve Higgenbotham, for biblical authority. In many ways Phil continues the thought of Steve that biblical authority is the “central issue” in unity. This as I pointed out before is simply an unproved and indeed unbiblical assumption. And as I pointed out to Counselor Steve this discussion and the attendant case would simply be impossible apart from a shared conviction for the authority of Scripture. Indeed it is nearly inconceivable that this case would make it to court in many a religious body. I point out the obvious because sometimes the obvious is overlooked and/or denied outright. At the very least it may be implied that only one side (i.e. the prosecution) truly respects Scripture. This is, of course, special pleading.

Firsts: Images, Metaphors & Ironies. My questions about the prosecutions case began with the opening metaphor. I agree that the church fell far below what God intended it to be. Yet I do not believe that Christianity is like Humpty Dumpty, who had a great fall and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men were not able to put him back together again. What if the church is really more like Israel in the Hebrew Bible … indeed I believe the story of the church is simply the continuation of the story of Israel. Many lessons can be gained through understanding the story of the church through the story of Israel. There was no “golden age” when the People of God had it all together either in the Torah, the Prophets nor Acts or Epistles. Israel was stiff-necked and rebellious since the moment Moses laid eyes on her and the same is true of the people we read in the NT. As bad as Israel got she was still God’s people. One wonders if the nadir of the Hebrew Bible is Judges or Hosea … or could it be that those are the high points because we see that when Israel was at her worst Yahweh was at his best. If Israel did not cease to be the people of God then chances are the dish may have become dirty but it was not shattered. The cement that holds the People of God together is not their covenant keeping but the faithfulness of the Lord. Most of the NT exists precisely because the early church was not pristine. The churches in Corinth, Galatia, Jerusalem were rife with moral problems, prejudice, false teaching and the like. Yet even the Corinthians are hailed as “saints” and the “church of God.” I dare say, again, that the Corinthians had far more serious issues than either Woodmont Hills or Richland Hills.

The church is not an organization like Standard Oil that will simply disappear when the board ceases to operate. The church of God is not reduced to organization in the New Testament. In fact there is surprisingly little in the NT that is actually concerned about that kind of stuff. I do not say there is NO concern just that it is not a major theme in the NT.

One wonders, if there are any kinds of parallels in the story of Israel and the Story of the Church, that simply a change in governmental structures can cause God’s church to be something “different?” I am no fan of the monarchical bishop, but I know enough about early church history to know that the rise of the bishop did not come out of a “departure” from apostolic faith but rather as a defense of the faith against Gnosticism. Ignatius certainly loved the Lord Jesus enough to die in the ring for him and yet he believed the bishop was of critical importance in preserving the faith … Ignatius’ motives certainly seem to have been higher than Israel’s when they demanded a change in government simply because they wanted to “be like the nations.” Yet did a change of government mean Israel was no longer Israel? Did God like the change? No! Did he cast off his people because of it? No!

Since I bring up Ignatius another point comes to mind. What New Testament did Ignatius have that he was supposed to “have left the truth” contained therein? He knew the “OT” by heart seemingly but the writings of the NT it would seem he knew only a handful of them. The NT, as we know it today, did not exist in his day. This is a major problem that is all to easily brushed aside by the prosecuting counsel. 

It is ironic that Counselor Phil should appeal to the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement. It is true that they were weary of narrowness, “bad-mouthing and exclusiveness.” That word “exclusiveness” coming from Phil is interesting indeed. Some information briefs sent to the court indicate that the prosecution holds to a position that is far more “exclusive” than what those early “church leaders” so loudly protested. Indeed one of those leaders, Alexander Campbell, came under fire for not being exclusive enough. Defending himself he writes in the Christian Baptist,

“This plan of making our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the ‘elect few’ who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism …To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle, to associate with a few units, tens or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical nunnery” (To an Independent Baptist, Christian Baptist 3 [May 1, 1826], 204)

I know that AC is not inspired … but if the prosecution can quote “early church leaders” then so can the questioning jury. Truly, in light of the entire speech of Counselor Sanders one has to wonder if much progress has been made from the narrow exclusiveness that those early leaders so valiantly protested?

There are further ironies in the prosecutions case. Counselor Sanders quotes Thomas Campbell in saying that only “what is expressly taught” on Christians can be enjoined as a test of fellowship (p. 18). Has it dawned on anyone else in the jury that the issue that brought this case to trial does not meet this criteria. The argument against instrumental music does not rest on any expressly taught truth rather it is based on silence and historical inference. Indeed not only does this Thomas Campbell say that only what is expressly taught can be held as a test of fellowship, Counselor Sanders overlooks what he says just three propositions down in the Declaration & Address

“{A}lthough inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection … for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.” (Proposition 6).

These “early church leaders” who protested so mightily against narrow sectarian “exclusivism” found that exclusive attitude largely rooted in inferences that were used to exclude family members from fellowship. Now Counselor Phil and company are doing exactly what these leaders protested (and if Phil is to be believed Campbell and company were right in that protest … thus in the spirit of those leaders I will continue their protest when Phil does exactly what those denominational exclusivists did in 1809.)

But is it not so easy to fall into the sectarian trap? I do not claim to have escaped it. I find the demon of sectarianism rising in my own consciousness far more than I am pleased with … Thank God for the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in crucifying this demon to the cross of Christ!! But the trap is easy to slip into. Among the various baits that are used in this trap is one that appeals, ironically, to both our sense of loyalty to the biblical text and to our pride of understanding … we begin to believe in our own infallibility. Thus what is born is a “Pope” in the belly. He attacks both the quest for truth and the freedom to pursue it under the guise that all has been mastered already. Barton Stone, an “early church leader” was so concerned about this that when he started his Christian Messenger in November 1826 the first article to confront the reader addressed it.

“We must be fully persuaded, that all uninspired men are fallible, and therefore liable to err … Luther, in a coarse manner, said that every man was born with a Pope in his belly. By which I suppose he meant, that every man deemed himself infallible … If the present generation remain under the influence of this principle, the consequences must be that the spirit of free inquiry will die – our liberty lie prostrated at the feet of ecclesiastical demagogues” (Christian Messenger 1 [November 1826], 2)

When I survey the doctrinal war zone of the Churches of Christ it looks like the wasteland of Verdun … congregations alienated, bodies of brethren who rather exchange “gospel bullets” than the kiss of peace, armies exhausted from the bloodshed, no one a victor … except the Prince of Demons. The issues range from cups to singing groups to orphan homes to, in this case, instrumental music. And I see each group, seemingly, acting as if they have a Pope in the belly … every one is mistaken except them!!! Everyone is in need of repentance … except them. Shades of Jonah.

But our Counselor is correct, our early church leaders protested this kind of stuff. And rightly so. I join their protest.

Seconds: Questions About those Texts? In truth these texts do not, not one of them, suggest that instrumental music is wrong. I believe every one of them. But they are being forced into a service that Paul and Peter did not write them for. First Timothy 4.1-3 speaks of abstainers (of marriage and food). This is known as asceticism. Other things usually went along with that false position. Again it is ironic that Phil is the abstainer in this case (of IM). How this text addresses, either for or against, IM is a stretch … except where some make laws of prohibition that God did not make. Second Timothy 3 is another one that after it is read one wonders what Phil is saying about Atchley. Indeed more than likely this text is talking about the same folks described in 1 Tim 4. Can Phil demonstrate that Rick is a “lover of money” or abusive? or a “lover of pleasure”? that his is unforgiving? unholy? This is extreme even for the prosecution. I submit to my fellow jurors that this text has been hijacked. Indeed I think the rest of the texts basically have been lifted out of context and misapplied. It is bad methodology to make a doctrine out of our inference, then declare that disloyalty to our inference is actually disloyalty to God. Then we find texts that address false teaching for sure (but usually we are not left to inference in identifying that false teaching) and creatively apply it to our inference. That is great prosecution but bad theology . But it is always helpful to your case when you can paint your opponent (i.e. brother!!) in the worst possible light.

Thirds: Unity, Truths & The Truth. What I am about to suggest from the jury box is likely to be the most controversial thing so far. I have already suggested it when asking Counselor Higgenbotham some questions. His partner, Phil, has suggested repeatedly that the church Jesus built “could never approve of unifying the truth with error, because Jesus would never approve of unifying with error” (p. 20).

At first sight this sounds logical and spiritual and correct. And I am deeply inclined to it myself. But as I reflected on the story of Jesus in the Gospels and the church recorded in the pages of the NT, I began to have doubts about its accuracy. One wonders for example if Jesus had gracious fellowship with the Twelve walking around Galilee? Were these men free from doctrinal error? Did they have the right conception of what “messiah” meant? Did they have dreams of militaristic glory for the kingdom? After all the Gospels are replete with stories of how “quick” these disciples were and Jesus never bemoaned how thick headed they were! If Jesus never had fellowship with error one wonders what Judas was doing at the Passover/Last Supper? Was this not an “act of worship”? Clearly Sanders statement is in need of qualification for the Twelve had serious religious errors flowing through their brains.

What about Paul? Did he ever fellowship those in doctrinal error? The answer to this is obvious for anyone that reads his letters. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly “we” in Churches of Christ are to pull the fellowship plug especially in light of 1 Corinthians … whose relevance is often simply dismissed. Yet I cannot get over the error that Paul did in fact fellowship. Look at what is contained in this letter:

1) They had division and partyism (baptism played a key role in this schism)
2) They had "issues" with Paul's authority and apostleship
3) They not only had sexual perversion but openly approved of it as a sign of superior wisdom
4) They had lawsuits in public court destroying the unity and witness of the Body
5) They had problems regarding sexuality, marriage and asceticism
6) They had folks who still had not accepted the doctrine of monotheism (cf. 8.7)
7) They had doctrinal issues regarding worship: problems with the Lord's Supper
8) They had huge issues over spiritual gifts and the worship assembly
9) They even had folks who denied the resurrection!
10) They seem to have had a great lack of love for one another

Did Paul fellowship error?? Yes he did! That does not mean he approved it or endorsed it. But there is no way to get around that he was in fellowship with the Corinthians. If the prosecution could say of Rick or Bob Russell what Paul did of the Corinthians what a different world we would live in! Here is Paul’s language for this messed up church: “To the church of God . . . to those SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus . . ." Paul then says "I ALWAYS thank God for you because of his grace given you in Jesus . . ." Those are some remarkable words from Paul. Paul does not give thanks because the Corinthians got everything right or anything right. He thanks God for the grace that has been given them.

One text needs further looking at though because it highlights this idea of unity on biblical authority. Though most simply read over chapter 8 as an ancient and arcane discussion about idols that is to miss the point greatly. Idols are literally nothing in biblical theology! It is interesting that Paul sets up a contrast between “knowledge” and “love” (v.1) clearly anticipating chapter 13. It just so happens that in chapter 8 the “knowledge that puffs up” is correct biblical Truth! But there are folks within the Corinthian church that have not fully made the transition from a pagan worldview to one built upon “truth” and “knowledge.” Paul even says, paraphrasing the Shema (Deut 6.4), that “for us” there is truly one God. The issue is not simply food but idolatry and monotheism (cf. Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians, pp.190-196). These folks in Corinth thought (and acted upon that belief), incorrectly, that the idols was in fact something.

Paul makes this crystal clear in v.7 “But not everyone knows this.” What is that is not know in the context of that sentence? It can only be that biblical truth, testified throughout the “Old Testament” that there was only one God.

This is a most interesting case in Corinth. Paul could have easily produced dozens of texts (Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, etc) to establish unity on biblical authority and the “truth” of only one God. But he did not do this. This is not some minor truth either … this is what might be called “major.” But Paul recognized something that the prosecution has utterly failed to recognize. Truth is always true but not all truth is equally important. Error is always error but not all error is equally important. There is a pecking order even in the Bible … even in the NT. In the case of 1 Corinthians 8 Paul clearly takes the side of the one who is in demonstrable biblical error. Why does he do this? Because for Paul there was an Ultimate Truth and he states it in v.11 

“So this weak brother (i.e. WRONG brother/in error brother!) for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge (i.e. correct biblical truth!!).

Paul does not accuse these brothers of outright idolatry but he does say they did not fully accept one of the basic truths of the Bible. It is also clear that Paul does not agree with these brothers, he knows they are wrong. And this is far greater than instrumental music! Paul had no trouble excising the immoral brother … So Why is that Paul did not simply boot these clearly in the wrong brothers from the church? Why did he not simply tell them to embrace the “truth” and “get over it.” Why is it that he actually rebukes those who are biblically correct? The reason for this is because for Paul was a Truth that trumped all others. Paul did not have unity with these weak brothers on the basis of the “centrality of biblical authority.” Paul had unity with them because of the “centrality” of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and their faith in him. This was the basis of unity and fellowship.

Alex Wilson, a member of one of those cast of “portions” of the Family of God commented “How Can We Be Saved If Our Doctrines are Wrong?” “Legalism nearly always results in sectarianism and strife. Our bitter bickering and blacklisting were rooted in the feeling that salvation depends on being doctrinally correct! How could God save a person who believed wrong doctrines?!” (Wilson’s Essay is located Here). But I agree with Paul and Monroe Hawley who said “This I know! God is a God of grace, and if I am saved, it will not be because of my perfect obedience, but because of his grace in which I am redeemed in spite of my lack of knowledge or my imperfect actions” (Is Christ Divided? pp. 96-97). This is the very reason Paul can write as he did in 1 Cor 8. Knowledge, even correct biblical truth, can puff up. But love builds up.

 

Final Words

I think Phil’s illustration of the dish highlights the weakness of his entire position. Let me switch metaphors to illustrate. The prosecutions theology might be called the balloon theory of theology. Balloons are inherently fragile entities. Tension along the surface of the balloon is fairly equal. Because of this these balloons are easily threatened. Balloons inflated with gas blows apart when punctured by a single pin - at any point on its surface! The balloon cannot endure even the tiniest of ruptures anywhere. When pricked the entire balloon explodes with considerable force destroying itself. In the same way when ones theology makes inference the same weight as anything else it does not surprise that one “departure” from that pattern blows the entire structure apart. As one once put it, one digression from the “pattern” “makes one an apostate from our ranks.” No wonder the dish was destroyed! But since balloons are so inherently fragile perhaps this explains why some, like the prosecutions lawyers, are so out to put protective “hedges” around the balloon.

“I blush for my fellows, who uphold the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all Christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ …”(Barton W. Stone, “Remarks,” Christian Messenger [August 1835], 180).

I believe in the “restoration plea.” I believe that God is far more concerned about our being resident aliens in this age than playing or not playing. I have no, and I mean no, desire to worship with an instrument. I don’t seek it and I don’t want it. But I recognize it is not a test of fellowship and that I and others do unite on the Ultimate Truth … the one who said he was THE truth … I cannot explain 1 Corinthians 8 any other way.

J. N. Armstrong asked W.E. Brightwell if could have fellowship with a person who offered animal sacrifices? Paul did it, apparently the early church did it, James suggested it to Paul ... question for Phil, "Did Paul worship with instruments when he offered that sacrifice in the temple? Could you fellowship the apostle Paul?"

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

From one seeker to another in the quest for greater understanding and unity,

Bobby Valentine

Read More