Reflections on Tulsa Workshop

It is Monday morning here in the land of Saguaros and Scorpions. The sun is shining, the skies are blue and I am wearing shorts and flip flops. All of which are alien to Tulsa this past week. We had more rain in the couple days I was there than we have in 8 months in Tucson. And then it snowed! Yes snow!!

Yet the Tulsa Workshop was wonderful. I arrived on Wednesday and found out that all the cars in Tulsa had been rented out ... but I still had my room at the Inn!! I attended church with some friends in Bixby and then crashed. Thursday I took in the first of Rick Atchley's "Born Again Identity" which was so good I attended his next classes and got the CDs. John Dobbs on blogging was next. I regret that I did not get to spend as much time with John and a few other friends as I was hoping too. Edward Fudge gave out some wise tips on being Revolutionary People and later Don McLaughlin on ministry to Addicts/Alcoholics in the name of Jesus. Loyd Harris blessed us too.

Friday I was back to hear Rick Atchley's final presentation. Afterwards I was privileged to go to Taco Cabana and get to know him better. It is amazing how God works sometimes. Over a Dr. Pepper and cheese dip God moved. I was able to pick Edward Fudge's mind a little about K. C. Moser and met Randy Hughes who knew Moser too.

I was unable to take in Harold Shank's two part presentation on "Listen to the Heartbeat." But I got them on CD and have devoured both already. I value Shank for many reasons. He calls us to use ALL of God's Scripture to inform our mission in this world and then he actually powerfully models that call in his own preaching. His sermons powerfully demonstrate how important the Hebrew Bible is to our walk and task before Yahweh. If you haven't heard these ... get the CDs HERE.

In Tulsa I hit up McAlister's a wonderful sandwich shop unknown to the desert. Went to Longhorn steak house on Thursday night and Hideaway Pizza for lunch on Friday. I did not make it to Casa Bonita which is nearly a crime.

So much of a workshop, like Tulsa, is the fellowship. I caught up with old friends Victor Knowles, Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Taylor, Suzy Brown and Sherri Griffin. I made new friends like Patrick Mead, Steve Tucker, Trey Morgan, Brad Palmore, Brian Nicklaus (the Blog Prophet) and Red Hot Momma (Amanda Sanders) ... all bloggers. One of the funnest events was the blogger luncheon on Saturday. Snow and outer darkness made it memorable! Theobloggers did a great job hosting though.

Going to convention would not be complete if I did not pick up a book. I only bought one book this year which is not normal but this one book weighs a ton: The Transforming Word One Volume Commentary on the Bible hot off the press from ACU Press. I have been pleased so far with it and plan on writing a review asap for my blog.

Check out this list of blogs on the Tulsa Workshop HERE

It is good to be home but I look forward to Pepperdine ... and next year.

Shalom,
Bobby V

Read More

Tulsa Workshop

Well tomorrow I head out for Tulsa Oklahoma. My "direct" flight takes me from Tucson to Houston to Tulsa. Hope to run into lots of friends. I will hear great singing. I will attend some good classes. Probably pick up a book or two.

C u guys and gals there ...

Read More

Vote for Bloggers

At the annual Tulsa Soul Winning Workshop this year "Theo-bloggers" will be presenting a series of awards to the best and most read blogs among Churches of Christ. I encourage you to follow this link to vote

Vote Theobloggers

http://vote.theobloggers.org


Stoned-Campbell Disciple blog is a top finalist ... considering the company it is in this is humbling and an honor. Thanks to my readers where ever you are.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Walter Scott and the Origins of the Five Finger Gospel

Walter Scott (1796-1861) is without a doubt one of the most influential persons in our Stone-Campbell photo album. Though his DNA flows through our spiritual veins he is often marginalized in our history. The literature on him is small compared to Alexander Campbell. Scott's influence is seen in that it was he that suggested the title to AC's Christian Baptist. He became the evangelist for the Mahoning Baptist Association in 1827 which made him a legend. His pen was prolific sending out his Discourse on the Holy Spirit, The Evangelist (1832-1842 with breaks), The Gospel Restored, The Protestant Unionist, and The Messiahship, The Union of Christians on Christian Principles.

Walter Scott was more than an evangelist, he was a theologian. He was a poet in love with the Lord Jesus. He was, it seems to me, torn between two worlds, Enlightenment rationalism and his emotions. I like to call him an Emotive Rationalist. Scott was baptized by George Forrester, a Haldanean preacher, in 1819. In 1821 visiting a "Scotch Baptist" church in New York City he came into contact with Henry Errett's booklet On Baptism that played a key role in his (and Campbell's) theological development. He would serve as the first president of the first college in the Stone Campbell Movement, Bacon College {named for the Philosopher Francis Bacon}.

In 1827, Scott accompanied Alexander Campbell to the annual meeting of the Mahoning Baptist Association. At this meeting Campbell nominated Scott to be the evangelist for this association for the coming year. Thus at the age of 31 Scott embarked on an adventure that would alter the SCM. On November 18, Scott preached near New Lisbon, Ohio and William Amend was the first person to respond to the "Ancient Gospel."

Scott believed that Jesus the Messiah was the Golden Oracle of the Christian faith. Jesus was to be lifted up and people called to respond to him. Jesus the Messiah was the creed of Christianity. Faith in him was the requirement of entrance and the term of fellowship for Christianity. In a nutshell the Ancient Gospel, was according to Scott, arranged into Six Items:

Faith
Repentance
Baptism

Remission of Sins
Gift of the Holy Spirit
Eternal Life

This two fold division is important (more about this in a moment). Scott was immensely successful. So successful that a worried Alexander Campbell asked his father to visit with Scott and listen to him preach. Within a year Scott would baptize a thousand people with his new order of salvation. For the rest of his life he averaged around a thousand baptisms a year, which translates into about thirty thousand folks confessing the Messiah in response to his preaching. Scott cut through the confusion and agony of many seekers who never received an assurance that they had been "elected" by God to his Family. We could simply believe the creed in Scott's preaching. It was a fresh wind blowing on the Western Reserve. It is one of our greatest gifts to the wider Christian world.

As with all schemes however mutation often takes place over the course of history. Scott's formulation never looses sight that Christ is the object of our faith, adoration and love. Scott's formulation tells what God has done, is doing and will do in the future. We have respond in Faith to the Golden Oracle. We repent of our sin to God. We in our Faith are baptized in the name of the Messiah. As a result God Forgives/Remits our sin. God grants the gift of himself in the person of the Holy Spirit. And God seals us to his for Eternity.

As others adopted Scott's method the Ancient Gospel markedly shifted emphasis however. As my friend Jeremy Folding once said what we have now is the Five Finger Discount! The formulation is as follows in most 20th century Churches of Christ and even today:

Hear
Believe
Repent
Confess
Be Baptized for the Remission of Sins

Even a cursory glance shows this is a radical "departure" from the original formulation. It is a human centered formula. In Scott the emphasis is on what God does in response to faith in the Messiah. The Holy Spirit and Eternal life (critical gifts of grace in Scott) simply disappear altogether. Remission of sins has been converted from a divine gift to being part of a command to be obeyed. This is more than a subtle shift in Scott's Ancient Gospel.

Walter Scott was not oblivious to this diminishment of his formulation. Some focused in on baptism "for the remission" and it became the Golden Oracle rather than Jesus the Messiah. An incipient legalism was creeping in and clouding the vision, or so Scott believed. It had been "watered" down.. In 1844 he writes to Jacob Creath, Jr these words

"Our main thought at that time [1827] was to push back the christian [sic] profession on to its original basis--the Messiah. We did this, and the people were received to the remission of sins on the primitive faith of Jesus as the Son of God. But although this was the actual and practical restoration of the central truth in our religion to its proper place in the christian system, many failed nevertheless to see it, and were carried away wholly by the easier and more popular generalization of faith, repentance, baptism, &c., till, in fact, they do not know their own principles when they are advocated." [1]

Hearing, Believing, Repenting, Confessing, being baptized should not be misconstrued as the Golden Oracle or the gospel. Scott pointed us first to the WHO of our faith and never let his hearers forget what God had done, is doing and will do for us. Remission is the gift of God not some command we can humanly fulfill. The Spirit is essential to our lives and the eternal hope ... how did we loose sight of it all?

Perhaps we should think afresh what is the creed of Christianity ... Christ, not baptism ... and just how we present the ancient message of Faith.


[1]Union, Protestant Unionist (25 September 1844), p. 292.

Read More

Skillet: Whispers in the Dark

One my girls fav Christian rock bands. I like this song a lot. A good one for a late friday nite.

Read More

S. R. Cassius: A CofC Booker T. Washington

I first began to come across writings of a mysterious S.R. Cassius in the late 1990s when doing research on a term paper at Harding Graduate School. I was caught off guard by this man's bold and even daring pen. I began amassing a file on him and then discovered later my friend Edward Robinson, now at ACU, was doing a dissertation on him. Robinson has since published two volumes on Cassius: To Save My Race From Abuse: The Life of Samuel Robert Cassius and To Lift up My Race: The Essential Writings of Samuel Robert Cassius. I had most of the writings in the collection except the exceedingly rare Third Birth of a Nation ...

One hundred years ago the only voice agitating the "race issue" among Churches of Christ was Samuel Robert Cassius (1853-1931). Called the "Booker T. Washington of Oklahoma" by Fred Rowe [1], Cassius was really a mixture of Washington, Frederick Douglass and the radicalism of W.E.B. DuBois. Cassius was born a slave, became "contraband" in Washington D.C., learned how to read, and met five Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield. He named one of his sons for his hero: Lincoln (Amos Lincoln Cassius was a well know evangelist among Black Churches of Christ in the 20th century). He began the Tohee Industrial School in 1899, modeled after Washington's Tuskeegee Institute, as the first school for African-Americans in Churches of Christ.

While many thought the Instrument, the Society, or the "Woman" question was the major hurdle of the church at the edge of the century. Not so with Cassius. He declared in bold language that it was the "race issue." He wrote passionately in any journal that dared to print his articles. The Christian Leader, published out of Ohio, was open to his contributions. He said, "the race problem is the paramount issue of the day and only the church can settle it" [2]

Cassius wrote bitterly about ruthless lynchings taking place every year -- many by so called "Christians." He was an outspoken critic of the doctrine that the black race was inferior to the white race. But Cassius was denied pulpits to preach and journals in which to write. Yet, he refused to be defeated. He believed the bottom line was anti-Christian race hatred plagued the brotherhood despite our claims to have restored NT Christianity. The problem was one of

"full of race prejudice and hatred, inbred by three hundred years of schooling of a purely one-sided nature . . . I may arouse passions that will cause my people to be hung, shot and burned under every tree in the South, or I may start a wave of sympathy that will roll over the land which will make such common things impossible for these to occur again."[3]

I find it unnerving that Cassius mentions the possibility of violence against blacks for his views being published in a brotherhood paper. Later Cassius responds explicitly to the superiority question:

"If there is superiority in race give us an example of it by being better morally, physically and intellectually; and if God loves whites more than us, prove it by loving Him more and doing His will better than any other. Then and not until then will I concede that you are better than I am" [4]

The majority, however, followed the prevailing winds of the time: blacks have no souls, that they are decedents of Cain or that they have the so-called "Curse of Ham."

J.D. Tant summed up the views of the majority. Tant had taken an evangelistic tour of Kansas in 1898 and reported his adventure in the Gospel Advocate. He writes of his sheer amazement of how well blacks were treated in that state.

"Negro equality runs high here. Negroes ride in the same coach, go to the same school, eat at the same table with white people, and sometimes sleep in the beds of their white neighbors; all of which I am glad to say, is NOT tolerated in 'heathen' Texas." [5]

But America, nor the Church, was transforming into a place of equality among the races. Novels like The Clansman and the film The Birth of a Nation deeply trouble Cassius. So by 1920 Cassius had embraced a separatism between the races. Thus in his Third Birth of A Nation, a response to the film, he does not back down an iota from but argues that blacks could only ever experience freedom and equality if they were separate whites.

Cassius addressed many concerns besides race though. He even weighed in on the "rebaptism" issue. He writes ...

"I take this stand that if a person has heard the gospel preached and has believed it, and has obeyed the command and been baptized, simply because they get into the wrong crowd when they start out in the new life is no reason that they should be baptized again ... we should not make rebaptism a test of fellowship but should gladly accept them in the name of the Lord" [6]

++++++

I added this portion after the initial post of this piece. I wanted to say something of Cassius opinion of David Lipscomb.

When David Lipscomb died in 1917, Cassius eulogized Lipscomb giving us valuable insight into how this man was viewed by African American Christians. He writes,

"I never saw Brother Lipscomb but once; but he knew me and tried to draw from me the possibility of a writer, but I failed so completely ... It was perhaps that failure to make good on that book, 'The Negro a Beast,' that awoke in me a desire to be ready at all times to give a reasonable reason for any thought on those things that affected me, my race, or my religion ... [Lipscomb] regarded the negro as a man, and a negro Christian as a brother ... In his death the colored disciples have lost one of their best friends." [7]

++++++

It is unfortunate that Cassius is practically unknown in our collective memories. He was a fascinating individual and his story deserves to be recalled. There are lessons to be learned from this father in our family photo album. What are we blind to simply because it has "always been so?"

[1]quoted in Cassius, "The Tohee Industrial School" Christian Leader 13 (15 August, 1899), 13.

[2] Cassius, "The Race Problem," Christian Leader (10 March 1903), 9.

[3] Cassius, "The Race Problem" Christian Leader (1 October 1901), 12.

[4] Cassius, "A Trip to the Golden State," Christian Leader (19 August 1902), 5.

[5] J. D. Tant, "In Kansas," Gospel Advocate (5 February 1898), 71.

[6] Cassius, "Among the Colored Disciples," Christian Leader 28 (6 October 1914), 13

[7] Cassius, "A Colored Brother's Tribute," Gospel Advocate 59 (6 December 1917), 1189.

Read More

Rebaptism Reviewed ... David Lipscomb

What follows below is a reproduction of David Lipscomb's article "Rebaptism Reviewed." The article is a response to "Brother Chism" who defended rebaptism. This is one of Lipscomb's fullest discussions of the subject. He takes us on a tour of the examples of baptism in the Book of Acts following a thorough examination of Acts 2.38 and the Great Commission. I think this article is significant enough to simply reproduce it in toto and Lipscomb explain the rational (exegetical and theological) for rejecting rebaptism.


Rebaptism Reviewed
David Lipscomb
Gospel Advocate, December 12, 1907, pp. 992- 793

I am glad to have this article from Brother Chism. He presents the points in a clear and tangible form so they can be understood. I believe the question ought to and can be settled with all who desire to follow the will of the Lord and are willing to study and abide by his teachings.

Some object to the name “rebaptism.” It is a reimmersion. The twelve at Ephesus were rebaptized, I believe persons ought to be rebaptized sometimes, and I call it “rebaptism.” I am glad of Brother Chism’s article because it places the practice on a ground that does not savor of infidelity. I feel shocked when professed Christians ask where the Bible says we must be baptized to obey God. It shows how little they know the Bible or how ready they are to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the Bible to sustain a pet theory or a party.

Brother Chism justifies the rebaptism practice on the ground that “for the remission of sins” is in the sentence, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is part of the command, and this seems to be the chief ground on which he bases the practice. I believe “into” is preferable to “for,” but he seems to prefer “for.” But if “eis” or “for” here is a part of the command, what becomes of the argument that it means “in order to obtain,” that Brother Chism and others make on the design of baptism with the sects? If it is a reward for obedience to the command, it cannot be a part of the command. That argument or his position is all wrong. It cannot be at once a part of the command and a reward for obedience to the command. Webster defines “for:” “the antecedent cause or occasion of an action; the motive or inducement leading to an action.” It cannot be the antecedent cause of an action and the action itself. It cannot be the promise as a result of the obedience and the obedience itself. It is a promise to lead to obedience, and not the obedience itself. I believe it should be “into” indicating a result flowing from the act, so only indirectly a motive leading to it. There is certainly nothing in the sentence that demands it should be part of the command.

If there is uncertainty about it, let us test in another safe way. Let us interpret it by other similar scriptures. Take Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted from the presence of the Lord.” No one would say “that your sins may be blotted out” is a part of the command. It is a result to which obedience to the command leads. It is the same as “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38. “That your sins may be blotted out,” or remitted, or forgiven, mean the same. The forgiveness is the act of God, and man cannot obey or do God’s part in any work. He can only “repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ;” and leave God to forgive his sins when has complied with God’s requirements.

These suggestions are a full reply to Brother Chism’s points. But I examine further. He says the command, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is the exact equivalent of the commission given by the Lord. This is wrong. It is the application of that general law to one special case, and it is a mistake to interpret and restrict the general law by one special application of it. Numbers of our rebaptist friends ignore the commission altogether and find the law only in this application of it. (Acts 2:28). God first gave the law and then the application of it. Brother Chism reverses God’s order, passes by the general law, begins with one special application of it, and then restricts the law to this one application. This is as if a lawyer were to find a man tried for stealing a horse. The general law against stealing is applied by the court to this one of horse stealing, and the lawyer ever afterwards restricts the law against stealing to this one case and insists that the law is not violated unless a horse is stolen. Brother Chism finds the first application of the law was to sinners guilty of the blood of the Son of God, and in their guilt they ask if pardon is possible, and they are told: “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and your sins shall be remitted.” To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized as Christ directs – “into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” for in them remission of sins, which they so earnestly sought, would be found. But is that the only blessing that is to be found in these names that can or should move men to seek God?

But Acts 2:38 is the commission applied to that particular case. Mark (16:15,16) says: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” Is “shall be saved” a part of the command in this case? Is it an obligation imposed upon man? Does not the obligation on man end with being baptized, and is not his being saved the work of God? Is it not a promise to man to encourage him, in his weakness and infirmity, to believe and be baptized? Brother Chism will not contradict this. Does not “be saved” correspond exactly to “for [or into”] the remission of sins?” (Acts 2:38) There is no command in remission of sins to men, but a promise of what God will do.

The commission by Matthew is: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” This is applied in Acts 2:38 to the condition of those present. The people were taught, believed, were commanded to be baptized in the name of Christ, into the remission of sins. To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” because that is the only baptism Christ authorized. When they are baptized into these names, they are baptized into the remission of sins. Into these names, embracing remission of sins in common with all spiritual blessings, are results flowing from the obedience and constitute no part of obedience. These different promises mean the same and cannot be a part of the obedience.

I think Brother Chism must agree to these points so far, and own “for remission” is a promise to lead to obedience. It is not the only promise. Other promises in Christ may lead as well as this one.

We both agree that remission of sins is a motive to lead to obedience. He seems to think it is the only motive, or at least the leading and essential motive to lead to baptism, and without this as the leading and controlling motive the baptism is not acceptable to God. I do not believe this. I believe there is one motive that in all service to God, without which no service is acceptable to him. That is, we must do the service in the name of Jesus, the Lord. “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Gal. 3:17) All Jesus did in heaven and on earth was done to please his Father. Nothing can be done in his name that is not controlled by the same desire. The law was: Be baptized “into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is frequently expressed by “in” or “into” “the name of the Lord Jesus.” To be in one of these names or persons is to be in all. In Christ are many blessings: no human being can know all. God has revealed a few that appeal to our conditions here. Some blessings appeal to one person, another to another, owing to the conditions of the persons. Acts 2:38 is not the only application of this commission to the conditions of man.

Take the case of the Samaritans. They had been wicked: the Jews despised them and refused to let them worship with them; but despite their surroundings, they were willing to obey God. The heart of the Almighty is very tender toward those unfortunately situated but willing to obey him. Those who fail to see this are ill fitted to understand and obey God. God sent his servant to the Samaritans. “When they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” In the name of Jesus remission of sins was enjoyed but in his name and kingdom are many other precious blessings.

Then there is the Ethiopian eunuch. He was a God-fearing man. He hade come several hundred miles to worship God according to his appointments. He was studying God’s word. God was so well pleased with him that he sent his servant to teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. He preached Jesus to him. He asked and was baptized into Christ. I do not think “for remission of sins” was made prominent in this conversion, because he was serving God according to the best light he had and was guilty of no great sin.

Then Cornelius was a Gentile, a good man according to the light he had. He worshiped God. Peter said he feared God and worked righteousness; that commended him to the favor of God, who sent his angel to him. His alms and his prayers were treasured as a memorial before God. Peter told him he was out of Christ, out of God, and he was “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Was much stress laid on “the remission of sins” in this case? He was baptized in the name of Christ, to obey God. Brother Chism, if you had been there, could you have objected to receiving Cornelius unless “remission of sins” was the present and controlling motive in his baptism? The very same Peter that told the bloody handed murderers to be baptized “for remission of sins” tells Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and said nothing of remission of sins. Why the difference?

Then those at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-7) They were serving God according to the best light they had, had been baptized into John’s baptism, “for the remission of sins.” They had not learned that John’s baptism had been superseded by baptism into the name of Christ. When they heard these things, “they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.”

No emphasis was laid on “for remission” in these cases, but great emphasis on “into the name of the Lord Jesus,” as prescribed by the commission. The law was applied to suit the condition of the person. The apostles did not believe that stealing a horse was the only stealing that could be done nor that remission of sins is the only motive to lead men to obey God. Why are not all these applications of the case as much for our instruction as Acts 2:38? Why is not the command to be baptized into Christ, into the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, as much the command of God as “for remission of sins?” Why is it not as important that men understand baptism is into Christ as to understand it is for the remission of sins? If we follow the Bible up, we find that in the writings to the churches and to Christians the emphasis is laid on having been baptized into Christ, having put on Christ, and living, dying and being raised in Christ.

There are now cases corresponding in state to these cases of conversion in Acts. I could mention many. The girl mentioned by Brother Holt that had likely, like Timothy, known the Scriptures from a child, wished to obey Christ, but not oppressed with the guilt of sin, she had not studied that point. Would the Father reject her because she wanted to follow Christ in her innocency [sic] and her youth?

While man is to love and trust God because God is good and blesses those that do his will, the idea that we must know what we are to get for and in each service, and that our service is acceptable only as we understand and render the obedience for the blessings we are to get, is repulsive to God. Abraham was the great model of faith for all future generations of the world. He followed God from his father’s home not knowing whither he went or what he would receive. In the service that was most pleasing to God, the offering of his son as a sacrifice, which secured the promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Abraham obeyed without a promise whether any blessing would be received. The obedience seemed to defeat the promise that God would of his son make a mighty nation. The anti-type of Abraham’s offering of his son was God offered his only Son to die for the world. This is continually held up as the great example given to man to follow. It places the truth beyond all controversy that God is pleased with the service that is rendered him at great sacrifice, from love of him, without any promise of blessing. Job said: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” That is the service God loves. We have other thoughts along this line we wish to offer.

D. L.

Read More