Ann wrote,
I think you’re misunderstanding the mission and purpose of the Chronicle. I’ve always seen it as a neutral, reporting source (although of course there are those from many sides who would disagree). I don’t think it’s their job or responsibility to reconcile the CoC. No publication could ever do that, or probably no organization, either.
Nick wrote,
I agree that reconciliation is not within the STATED mission and purpose of the Chronicle. That being said, sometimes God has different plans for us. When one and only one publication has the ear of all interested parties, then God has given that publication power. With power comes responsibility, and not being part of the solution makes you part of the problem.
Nick,
Thanks. I was typing up my own response, but you said it better than me. So this is a lot shorter than the last draft.
To the leaders of our institutions that still have the ears of both sides of the split:
I believe the reason so little effort is being expended on reconciliation (by anyone) is defeatism. We don’t think the problem can be fixed. It’s an understandable position. After all, none of the previous splits in the Churches of Christ have been healed.
And yet, for far too long we’ve tried to solve our spiritual problems through better rule keeping and purer legalism. Of course our previous efforts to heal divisions have failed! It’s been battles between interpretations of “expedients” versus “additions” and over which examples are binding and which are just, well, you know, examples.
But we’ve never tried grace, forgiveness, acceptance, and a love that won’t give up. And those will work because those are the means through which God works. We can’t bring reconciliation. It’s true. But God can, but only by his own means. And God chooses to work through us — at least those of us he’s given that opportunity.
God is able to heal this division. God wants to heal this division. Therefore, if it’s not being healed, it’s our fault — and we’ll pay a high price for it.
(Mat 5:9) Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
(Rom 14:17-19) For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
(2 Cor 13:11) Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.
(Eph 4:2-3) Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
(Col 3:14-15) And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
(Heb 12:14) Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
(James 3:17-18) But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
I don’t see any choice at all. We can’t abandon our brothers or treat the split as inevitable. Do that, and we deny ourselves the blessings that come with being peacemakers! I mean, the New Testament can hardly mention peace or unity without offering a blessing to peacemakers. It’s a special blessing to have peace as a mission.
And yet our leaders are running from it. I’ve talked to many of them about this. I’ve traveled many miles to ask for their participation in this mission. And do you know what everyone says? “It’s not my mission.”
Well, then, whose mission is it? Who get to be “sons of God”? “pleasing to God”? to be with “the God of love and peace”? to have the “peace of Christ”? to receive “a harvest of righteousness”?
I mean, if we believed it, we’d have leaders begging to get in on it. It’s tragic that we have so little faith.
When was the last time we heard a good sermon on becoming a peace maker? When was the last time you heard a sermon becoming all things to all people? I was in my early twenties when read some of these verses for the first time. Why because they like many others didn't fit into our theology so we ignored them, marginalized them or simply explained them away.
"I mean, if we believed it, we’d have leaders begging to get in on it. It’s tragic that we have so little faith." This is simply something that has been choked to death by our legalism it doesn't fit in our theology of doctrinal perfection. Some leaders on the extreme right to moderate middle have already saod of you don't do these things in this way then you are not of us and we don't recognize you. That is exactly what Alan Highers said in the Christian Chronicle last year.
I have to throw out a few thoughts.
As has been stated elsewhere on this website and on many others, attempts at reconciliation have been made. Some of the pessimism about the outcome is looking more and more like realism, and perhaps even necessity. I am more and more convinced – by things written here, elsewhere and my own studies – that we must pursue a new course to fulfill God's dreams for the Church.
Will you lose your salvation by disagreeing with me – no. Might I if I don't do what I feel lead by the Spirit to do? Perhaps.
But what is rising up from the other side of these issues is the hardening position that if we are not in agreement with them we have forsaken the faith and are lost. If the only way to be "one" with these brothers and sisters is to surrender the work God is doing through us how can we possibly accomodate them?
Many of the changes we are making are not being done to make ourselves feel good. They are not "us." Some are painful, unpleasant and run counter to a lifetime of indoctrination. We are making these changes because we are convinced that we must change to become "all things to all men." We cannot otherwise fulfill our mission in our community in this generation. Do we compromise on that?
Is that unity?
Very good thought Todd. Most people are unaware that an entire generation is passing us by while we fuss and fume and fight about every little detail and this constant debating severely discredits our witness to the lost and unchurched in our communities.
Todd,
I entirely agree that the path to unity is not found in compromise or accommodation. I no more want to give up my freedom in Christ to be missional and worship freely than those more conservative than me want to give up their freedom to use multiple cups or hire a preacher.
Until now, every one of our fights has been over whether a particular practice is an expedient or addition, faith or opinion. This made unity impossible unless both sides followed nearly identical practices.
But now the issue is whether any of those distinctions matter at all. Now we are asking for a change that will end the fighting.
If we were to seek unity by changing our practices, well, we'd be teaching the wrong lesson. The point isn't unity at any price, but unity given us by God through grace. No other unity works and no other unity is worth having.
This is a tough sell — but I know thousands who've been persuaded. I know many who want to be persuaded but who've never been exposed to the teaching that makes this all possible.
I've been greatly blessed in my life by having open-minded parents, great training at Lipscomb, and an encouraging eldership as an adult. But very few have had such blessings.
Therefore, I feel compelled to make sure that as many as possible are exposed to the doctrine of grace. If they reject it, that's their choice. I just don't want to face my Maker not having shared what I've been given.
And I truly believe that if the teaching can be gotten into the hands of the membership, most will be persuaded. Not all. But many.