We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Chapter 2 is entitled, “Repent of our petty, narrow sectarianism.”
We are at heart a magnanimous people, loving and gracious. Our people do not want to be narrow, bigoted sectarians. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-meaning but misguided leaders of the past who have bamboozled us into believing that if we have any fellowship with a Methodist or a Presbyterian then we endorse or approve of all the errors in those religions. If we call on a Baptist minister to address us or lead a prayer in our assembly, then we compromise the truth and approve of all Baptist doctrine! (p. 32).
Garrett concludes,
It is not enough to do or to say nothing, or simply to preach more on grace and about Christ. We must repent. We have a serious sin to confess. We have been factious and sectarian, dividing among ourselves again and again. We have hurt a lot of people and confused even more, and we have churches full of people who are discouraged. We must become intolerant and disgusted with our own petty, narrow sectarianism. (p. 33).
What would that look that? What would we be like if we become “intolerant and disgusted with our own petty, narrow sectarianism”? How would we change? How would our preaching change? How would our congregations change?
“We are Christians but not the only Christians”. What happened since the 1830’s? http://gracedigest.com/2007/04/08/christians-but-not-the-only-christians/
We’re not even the only “Church of Christ” anymore!!
What would the CoC look like?
It would be a reading people; not snobbish, but truly hungry for life words. It would look for material that helps believers face the day, and walk with and lift up ones neighbor.
Its worhip services would capture the soul. Its singing would be incense of the reality of God in each life; you probably would not even need a director beating time to keep everyone together. The Lord’s Supper would be the experience of feasting on a love that dies to live; and the sermon would certainly be more than the brotherhood favorite commentary or sermon books; it would be heart to heart.
…a dream…and a prayer.
I once commented that I really enjoyed the preaching one morning but that I disagreed somewhat with one particular point the guy was making… An older woman looked at me and said, “Price, you would never get to enjoy a piece of fried catfish if you wanted to avoid ever having to spit out a bone.”
I once asked one of our college kids why the group didn’t engage with some of the other religious groups on campus..Seemed to me that there was personal benefit and peer influence in numbers… He said that the “other groups” occasionally used guitars in their devotionals and that they didn’t feel comfortable with that… I thought it was sad that they would miss out socializing with other college kids who loved the Lord over some “rule.” Then, I realized that they were just copying us… We were creating a new generation of rule followers who do not worship in any setting with others who don’t agree with our rules.. and Traditions… It wold be nice to find a way to fellowship with others who don’t see EVERYTHING as we do…
So, Price, had she never heard of catfish filets? lol sorry, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
We would have to preach through Galatians with the understanding that we are the Judaizers in the letter. We, not other groups, have “taught another gospel.”
The answer would be the same if asked of the Pharisees.
I fear to hear depart from me, I never knew you!
@ Brad…LOL…I think I said something similar and she said that Preachers and Catfish were very similar…Sooner or later you’re gonna find a bone…:)
Jay, the pictures used for a few of your posts remind me of the old chart sermons years ago.
As a little boy during Gospel Meetings I would sit in the pew and watch in awe as the preacher walked to the pulpit with his Bible and his case carrying his charts and proceed to hang the chart to be presented. What knowledge this man must have, I thought to myself.
Now, I’m more impressed with the little ones, all of them, who “…love mercy and walk humbly with their God”.
Jay:
Let’s test Leroy Garrett’s theme a little. So, are you okay with a Catholic Cardinal praying the Rosary among us? (with one papal address as background: “Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.” (Vincenzo Pecci, Octobri Mense, 4).
Recently, I asked the above question to a brother who, during a sermon, labeled any “divisions” as “our fault” and a matter of our ugly sectarianism. Interestingly, his response was simply, “I see your point.” But he was unwilling to say more. Hmmm.
I will offer (again) that “sectarian” is not necessarily a terrible word. Sometimes it represents people who love the Lord and who obey Him by pulling away from religious teaching and action that is deceived. Correct?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Excellent point, Bruce! It is frusterating indeed to hear people like Leroy call for repentance over not accepting / “fellowshiping” our religious neighbors, and yet fail (or flat out refuse) to ever draw a line.
I mean, either tell us when and where the line is, or at least admit that there is no line. And that what a person / church believes absolutely does not matter. But, the “drive by” critiques are just weak and inconsistent.
There is a brother who attends the same congregation as I who likes to talk about how much he “envies the baptists”. For the life of me, I don’t know why he tries so hard to change us into them as opposed to just go ahead and join them himself and live happily ever after.
But yeah, if there is a line anywhere at all in terms of what specific teachings and practices are to be opposed…who gets to be the one to tell us where it lies?
Maybe someone here will step up and attempt to be the one?
Not terribly impressed that anyone could come up with a few examples where the strict application of what you understand Leroy to be saying would be a problem… It would have been nice to see someone suggest a way that it COULD happen rather than be so defensive… But, then I guess when you divide and splinter over how many cups you can use at the Lord’s Supper it’s a difficult habit to break.
Bruce,
Neither I nor Leroy advocate universal salvation. Therefore, the three of us agree that there are boundary lines — found in scripture — that bound who is and who isn’t saved.
Suggesting that there is such a line hardly demonstrates that the Churches of Christ haven’t been sectarian. The dispute isn’t whether there are such lines but where those lines are.
Leroy’s complaint is that many in the Churches of Christ draw that line at the borders of the Church of Christ denomination. Indeed, Thomas Warren published a book asserting that we Christian only — and the only Christians!
Worse yet, many who would deny the salvation of those outside the Churches of Christ further deny the salvation of many — even most — within the Churches of Christ.
As I read Leroy, he would label anyone who draws the boundaries of God’s kingdom on earth at the boundaries of the Churches of Christ denomination — or less — as a sectarian.
Now, to argue against Leroy’s position, therefore, one should be prepared to argue that only those in the Churches of Christ denomination are saved — or that only a few among them are saved.
If you agree with Leroy that the boundaries are larger than the CoC denominational borders, then we should have an entirely different discussion, regarding exactly how wide the boundaries are.
I’ve laid out my views on the boundaries of the Kingdom in great detail here many times. I’ve argued the case from scripture in considerable depth. And I’ve found very, very few willing to even attempt to argue for an equally concrete alternative position. Plenty of people are willing to insist that “error” or “false teaching” damns, but none is willing to assert that all error or all false teaching always damns (of course) and none is willing to state just when error damns and when it does not.
In short, the sectarian, 20th Century Church of Christ position is so indefensible that no one is willing to even state just what the boundaries are — other than “error” — which is a useless teaching unless you’re also willing to state which errors damn and which do not or else to insist that all error of any kind damns.
“As I read Leroy, he would label anyone who draws the boundaries of God’s kingdom on earth at the boundaries of the Churches of Christ denomination — or less — as a sectarian.”
Is that being judgmental, or don’t you have to judge someone before you stamp a label on them?
There are definitely boundaries in the Church of Christ. But, as a new Coc’er I’ve found that you only find them when you go past one of them. It’s very frustrating and I’ve found it tends to make me a bit paranoid. That’s one reason I frequent this website… to help me identify the things I should be paranoid about. Man, I hope nobody reads this…
So then, are you okay with a Catholic Cardinal praying the Rosary among us? (with one papal address as background: “Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother.” (Vincenzo Pecci, Octobri Mense, 4)?
If not, why not? And if not, would Leroy say you too need to repent?
Do we really need to grin and bear such false teachings and practices in order to avoid being considered sectarian and the reason for the death of the church of Christ?
I understand why nobody wants to actually consider Bruce’s question, but it is a fair one to ask…
Hank…no it’s not.. the “question” is a deflection from the issue at hand and that is the churches of Christ have subdivided so much that they aren’t recognizable and because of their sectarian reputation (well earned) they have become insignificant in theological discussions amongst Christians with different signs out front… Here was an opportunity to discuss how we could do better….
Price, forums like these are challenging because we don’t usually really know the ones with whom we are speaking (writing). To me, it seems as though a lot of people nowadays who do a lot of talking/writing about the “death of the church of christ” are the same who want to see “it” go ahead and die. They speak of the bulk of its members as being “bamboozled” and how “divisive” and “in need of repentace” they are. You know as well as I do how venemous and rude many even here are toward those who still believe the way and grandparents did. Even you, in your most recent post go back and forth in saying “they” and then “we”, when speaking of the same people.
And the question is a valid one. For, if in order to bring forth fruits worthy of repenance they err..we must welcome, accept, and embrace the teachings and teachers of other denominations, then what does that mean exactly. What about the Catholic Cardinal?
I have a feeling that the situation raised by Bruce is a little “too” wrong for the comforts of most here. Hence, the refusal to answer it. The question places squarely between the horns of a dilemna, for obvious reasons.
But if they (we) are to go ahead and repent of our “petty and narrow sectarianism” as Leroy suggests, then to what extent do we accept and embrace the beliefs and teachings we honestly believe to be wrong?
How is that not a fair and legit question?
Hank, you have a point but let’s first look inward…Is there anything that we (all Christians regardless of the sign out front) to eliminate hostilities with one another? Is enough common ground that we don’t have to keep referring to those that don’t believe like our individual congregation as “them” or “those denominations.” That’s the starting point in any conflict…What can I do…right ??
It is my contention that if we began to focus on what we have in agreement then as things come up that we disagree on, then we can go to scripture and try our very best to determine if it’s enough of a divisive issue to separate the bonds of unity…or is it something that we might give some leeway to and allow the person to mature in their faith (even ourselves) WITHOUT having to go into our individual camps and throw stones at one another…
So, yes it’s a fair question..however it was based on an extreme point of contention which was my real objection and it was indeed a deflection. But, what if we first decided inwardly to stop the Hatfield and McCoy type of outreach and began to embrace each other as lover’s of Christ and worked harmoniously WITH each other toward a more mature faith?? Is that really too much for Jesus to ask us to do ?? I don’t think so… Imagine for a moment that ALL churches of Christ could get along… Isn’t that a good place to start ? I just don’t see the necessity to have soooo many fractions in the body of Christ… As Al Maxey says, we don’t have to be twins to be brothers….
Hank, as Price said, you are deflecting the issue at hand. I hate to play your game, but I’ll indulge you for a moment so that we can get off of this tangent and get back to the main point. To the Catholic Cardinal who wanted to pray the Rosary and the Mediatrix prayer you mentioned, I would first try to understand where he is coming from, being slow to label him as a False Teacher before having thoroughly understood him. Not all Catholics believe the same things. After all, I would want the same grace extended to me, right? But I guess you’ve already decided that he’s a False Teacher. I hope people don’t dismiss you as quickly as you dismissed this Catholic Cardinal.
Second, it’s important to remember that many Catholics who pray the Rosary and your Mediatrix prayer affirm that there is only One Mediator, Jesus Christ, and that Mary was as much in need of a Mediator as the rest of us. By saying that no one can come to Christ except through his mother, many Catholics are making a profound point about salvation history that you would actually agree with if you listened carefuly–namely, that without Mary’s total willingness to suffer and submit to God by birthing and raising Jesus Christ, we would have no Jesus Christ the Savior. In that sense, it would be great for us to reflect on all the historical people who were an indispensable part of God’s purposes. Without the obedience and sacrifices of Abraham, Moses, David, and others, Jesus Christ would not have been born. God worked THROUGH them to bring about salvation (hence, their role as “mediators”). Indeed, many Early Church Fathers, Catholics, and Church of Christ-ers uncontroversially interpret 1 Timothy 2:15 to mean that we are “saved through [Mary’s] child-bearing.” The Mediatrix prayer is honoring Mary’s submissive role in God’s enormous plans.
Third, in subsequent dialogue, I would talk to the Catholic Cardinal about (what I think is) his overemphasis on Mary. I would tell him that, while stressing the importance of Mary is great, doing it as much as he does may have dangerously negative consequences—namely that it distracts people from the only true source of salvation, the person Jesus Christ. I would point out that, historically, great theologians even within his own tradition have worried that an overemphasis on Mary has caused lots of problems, one particular problem being that it has alienated other Christians who don’t share the same doctrinal views on Mary.
Fourth, I would treat legalistic Church of Christ-ers the exact same way. I mean it. Go back and read the previous paragraph, and substitute “Catholic Cardinal” with “sectarian” and “Mary” with “water baptism,” and you have word-for-word how I would treat a CoC sectarian. And while an unreasonably high emphasis on Mary is dangerous, I worry that sectarianism is even more dangerous. You see, like Paul in Galatians, I’m deeply worried about the fate of the sectarian.
But hey, you’ve already decided that the Catholic Cardinal is out and that you won’t grin and bear his false teaching. I guess it’s easier to agree-to-disagree with expositors of false teachings when said expositor is your conservative CoC friend (because your friend’s false teachings are “minor” issues, right?). And that’s the problem that Garrett is trying to highlight. So let’s get back to the topic.
If you get down and dirty trying to bring Christ to a lost world you will hear many offensive things said in their prayers.
I once had a man while praying say thanks for Paul who was one brave M____F_____ and that sure made all of us think!
Of course if you only are around the squeaky clean you wouldn’t hear anything offensive except a word or phrase just a little off your stated beliefs.
Cardinal? Who cares!
At least they were praying is the real thought!
ao,
1) Congratulations on having the most vague screen name in the history of the internet! 🙂
2) That was a very well-stated and thoughtful post. You win Post Of The Day.
3) I’m glad you pointed that out about Mary — I’d heard that point before, but it was a great reminder of why Catholics do that. Very good stuff.
Well, y’all can welcome cardinals worshiping Mary and allow people to drop f-bombs in their prayers if you think those are good ideas in terms of unifying the church. Go for it…
But, surely you can understand why most of us here would disagree (I hope).
Too, I wonder if you are just as frusterated with the Catholics who wouldn’t allow mainstream coc evangelists to address their congregations?
Or, with the baptists who print and pass out tracts titled, “Acts 2:38 – Satan’s Favorite Verse”. Are they sectarian and in need of rentance too? Or, is it only the coc’s who stand up for and defend their beliefs who are bamboozled and guilty of division?
At any rate, if the only way of avioding “sectarianism” is to embrace every wind of doctrine… I’d rather be guilty.
Jay:
Yes, I do understand what you have highlighted. And I understand what brother Garrett is passionately speaking about.
But your essay in blue does not answer the question I posed. It sidestepped it articulately. I was not taking up the topic of universal salvation. Isn’t brother Garrett arguing that we should announce that many beyond our boundaries are “okay” spiritually? And therefore invite them to lead a prayer (and teach), etc? So, how about the Catholic Cardinal (who was sprinkled just like the Methodist and Presbyterian)? Does his praying the Rosary disavow his “right” to pray in our assembly or no?
Brother Garrett’s emphasis appears to ignore some very large issues in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. And that is what I am highlighting. As further examples, I am assuming you know that a significant (and growing) number of Episcopal priests have “thrown away” the resurrection of Jesus (similar to Bultmann 60 years ago). Further, one Presbyterian synod has proposed Wiccan-like ritual and prayers. Shall I go on with applying one aspect of brother Garrett’s thesis about inviting folks to lead us in prayer? It is these kinds of monumental movements in American religion that offer a challenge to brother Garrett’s emphasis. Or do you think not?
To be clear I think you know I am not about the task of only “tossing out” hindrance. I do indeed believe in talking with others, listening to them, and loving. Indeed, recently a lady I work with came to my office and announced after reading a publication I wrote that she wanted to be immersed into Christ (her roots are Methodist).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
AO:
Without addressing all of your essay, let me highlight that you have missed the point of Vincenzo Pecci (Leo XIII) in Octobri Mense. The encyclical is available at vatican.va if you are interested in reading it. Mary as the Queen of Heaven holds a place in Catholic doctrine and salvation that you have incorrectly described. Individual Catholics have a responsibility to embrace the encyclical — and all others.
But your post has highlighted well just what issues flood America. Is any belief evil, deceived? Any theology wrong? And if not, then churches of Christ are going to seem to be rude, ugly sectarians — even when they are striving to kindly teach what the apostles taught.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alabama John, JMF:
Your posts in this chain have at last illuminated me regarding who you are. As to “Cardinal, who cares?”…
I do not know how many voices out there share my conclusions, but I care. I have read Vincenzo Pecci’s encyclicals about Mary. I know what the Papacy has taught and required Catholicism to believe. Does it matter what the apostles taught as the messengers of the risen Lord? It does to me.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Hi Bruce,
In quoting the RCC Cardinal (or any/every Pope) you go to an extreme example. Are you quite happy with every quote one could come up with from a dyed in the wool of CoCer – say for example, anything one might choose to quote from Foy E. Wallace Jr?
Not to defend the RCC as I am not keen at all to do that, but every denomination has at least a few embarrassing characters doesn’t it?
Hesed,
Randall
HANK (H): “Well, y’all can welcome cardinals worshiping Mary and allow people to drop f-bombs in their prayers if you think those are good ideas in terms of unifying the church. Go for it…”
Rhetorical slight of hand—no one said anything about worshiping Mary. It’s also not the first time you’ve thrown that statement around carelessly on this blog. And Jay dealt with that excellently the last time you tried it. I’ve noticed a pattern with your comments. When Jay makes a post that criticizes sectarianism within our Churches of Christ and looks for a better way, you respond by saying that Catholics worship Mary and Baptists are mean. I mean, I knew you were a patternist, but I didn’t know that this was your pattern. =)
H: “But, surely you can understand why most of us here would disagree (I hope).”
I think it would be easier for us to understand each other if we actually addressed the issue rather than deflecting the discussion into criticisms of other groups.
H: “Too, I wonder if you are just as frusterated with the Catholics who wouldn’t allow mainstream coc evangelists to address their congregations??”
Yes, I am frustrated by it. And I make that clear to my friends who are Catholic. What does that have to do with solving sectarianism within Churches of Christ?
H: “Or, with the baptists who print and pass out tracts titled, ‘Acts 2:38 – Satan’s Favorite Verse’. Are they sectarian and in need of rentance too?”
I’m not sure if that’s sectarianism. It’s mean. Or at least a hindrance to dialogue (those rhetorical slights of hand can be frustrating, huh?). If I ever met a Baptist who said that, I would tell them that. As for repentance, I would ask them to repent of using tracts and encourage them to enter the 21st century. =) Regardless, what does that have to do with solving sectarianism within Churches of Christ?
H: “Or, is it only the coc’s who stand up for and defend their beliefs who are bamboozled and guilty of division?”
Rhetorical slight of hand—yet another thing no one said. Pointing out the alleged problems of others does little to fix our own problems. Although, I hear it makes the Pharisee feel better about himself when he prays to God.
H: “At any rate, if the only way of avioding ‘sectarianism’ is to embrace every wind of doctrine… I’d rather be guilty.”
Rhetorical slight of hand. Thanks for the dichotomy. So I guess it’s either you’re with Hank or you’re with “cunning, crafty, deceitfully scheming men.”
JMF: Haha, thanks! And if my name is the vaguest, than surely you’re name is second place–it’s only one letter more descriptive than mine. =)
When attending a group study and someone or several want to lead a prayer, I will bow my head and pray with them.
Even at a football event or swim meet, rodeo, soup kitchen, prison, etc. regardless of who is leading.
Cardinal, ignorant person cursing in prayer or not.
To avoid the lost because they do things wrong or in study state their views you object to and disagree with you is to not seek out the lost because that is going to happen. Christ even had that among His own apostles. Patience is needed and being slow to speak and correct as it may take a while before they realize your superior intellect and mastery of the scriptures.
To only discuss finer points with good folks like on this site or someone you work with where all is comfortable is good, and easy.
As for Mary, I don’t worship her like the catholics, but sure do admire her and look forward to meeting her one day in that God chose her out of all the women on earth to give birth to His son. Now, that’s special.
. For that, she is sure special to me. What an honor bestowed on her.
Out of fear of being like the catholics don’t take that away from her. We don’t do that to Noah or Abraham do we and their story is taught in all denominations.
Many things we in the COC do and don’t do is only because THEY do or don’t do it. How we don’t want to be like THEM, whoever THEM is.
For that reason, THEY and THEM influence us way too much in our thinking.
OK…Here’s an example…Instead of condemning and casting shame to all those that don’t pray as you would have them…. go to scripture (Rom 8) and marinate in this for a moment….
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because* the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Looks like to me that we ALL need help in the prayer department…And instead of God condemning us for our inability to know what to pray for, he intercedes for us with Himself…
Perhaps we should follow the example of God Himself and work with the people in love. And as was suggested perhaps engage them in dialogue to find out who they are and where their heart is…instead of lumping them into one group to regularly condemn as THEM !! Or, in the words of Jesus…He who is without guilt, cast the first stone…
There is a clear line for fellowship: the 7 ones in Eph 4:3-6, one of them being the One Baptism.
I therefore cannot accept fellowship that is based on ignoring this major issue. The infant-baptizers put themselves out of the unity of the Spirit, and it is up to them to repent from this in order to be unified with us in Christ.
Alexander
As to the RCC Cardinal …
One Problem I see ist that those with a “relativistic approach” imagine that the RCC is as relativistic about their beliefs as they are themselves. Bruce has studied their doctrines in detail – and I also have spend about two years studying Mariolatry from the original sources of the RCC which resulted in a 300 pages work (unpublished, German). I can present Mariolatry in a very appealing way, and I had a dovout Catholic read my work for exactly this perpose: “Am I misrepresenting RCC doctrine?” And he confirmed to me that I correctly understood and described the teachings of the RCC on Mary.
As to the naivety of some writers above:
All dogmas concerning Mary are put in a way that those who disagree with them are completely fallen away from God’s Grace.
What are these dogmas about? Just two examples:
Immaculate conception: May was born conceived by their parents in a ways that she was free from Adam’s sin – therefore she also led a sinless life.
Ascension:After Mary died she was taken up to heaven and crowned as Queen of Heaven by the Father and the Son.
Think about it: Whom does the Bible stress as having lived a sinful life? Christ!
Whom does the Bible present to us as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, taken up to HGeaven and seated at the right hand of God? Christ!
What does the Bible say about the resurrection? All saints will be resurrected together at the last trumpet.
What about Iconography (aside from the second commandment)? We always see Mary with her Crown holding a Baby-Jesus – this reduces our Christ to an eternal Infant! What a mockery!!!
All of this is deeply Satanic, because it turns our head away from Christ to Mary and calls that the one and only true faith. Who does not agree with these and all the other dogmas is condemned.
Your problem, ao, JMF et al is, that you obviously never really dug into the writings and the mindset of the RCC. And you project your own liberality into the RCC as if there also anything would go. The only reason for that is a lack of discipline in the RCC (which indeed is not necessary for Satan, since he wants the masses to be deceived), but the teachings and expectations of the Vatican are crystal clear.
Now, we can and shall have friendly relations with Roman Catholics. But we cannot have unity with the Roman Catholic Church. Mark this difference! And we should not call Catholics saved unless they have been baptized into Christ – which again does not mean that Christ would damn them if they sincerly have believed but never heard of baptism (where there is no knowledge of law, there is no judgment). But we who (at least claim to) know better are responsible for showing them the Gospel.
Alexander
Hey guys,
To me it getting back to the original question. What would that look like?
I think if all the brotherhood publications published something saying “Hey we have been kind of harsh on this issue of fellowship in the past and are going to work on it”, might be a good start.
When I was a child my parents not only allowed but encouraged us to participate with other Christian denominations. We served meals to the homeless with the Baptists, visited the terminally ill with AIDS with the Catholics, served the abandoned women’s shelter at the Methodist church and so on. Looking back we were always exposed to a prayer or bible study here and there by these other religious groups. But the spiritual formation that occurred by joining with these other Christians in the cause of Christ was life changing. Oh yeah and the church of Christ we went to was not doing any of the servicing or ministering activities mentioned above. I don’t mind helping Catholics take care of unwanted babies and march against abortion, they do more of it than anyone else. But that does not mean I accept or endorse any of their ideas which I would deem heretical. Nor does it mean that they must accept or endorse any of my ideas that they may deem heretical. Get the picture. I think that serving a lost and broken world together, which is something we all (all denominations) seem to agree on is the first place we can strive ahead for unity.
Good thoughts Joe. I too, would have no problem serving meals with the Baptist, serving women’s shelter with the Methodists, or Marching with the Catholics against abortion. And, just because I marched with the Catholics against abortion does not mean I have spiritual fellowship with them.
But, what Jay has quoted from Leroy is deeper than that.
You see, he is not merely talking about being good neighbors alongside our religious friends. Rather he speaks of inviting a …”Baptist minister to address us or lead a prayer in our assembly,…(p. 32).” THAT, is a different animal.
What’s more, is I would be even more shocked to hear of any real Baptist church inviting a traditional coc minister to address one of their congregations. The only way either would be possible would be if the Baptist promised not to invite lost sinners to pray “the sinner’s prayer”, or if we swore not to teach what the Bible says about baptism.
But, what I really wonder, is whether or not Leroy believes the real Baptists, Methodists and Catholics who defend their particular doctrines are JUST AS in need of repentance as we are in Churches of Christ who due the same.
Or, are we the only ones who “have a serious sin to confess.”
Does he believe that the other denominations (who would not invite me to “address their assemblies”), are being equally “factious and sectarian”? Does he believe that they too “have hurt a lot of people and confused even more”? And does he believe that they also “must become intolerant and disgusted with (their) own petty, narrow sectarianism.”
Or, does he believe that they can keep on protecting their flocks from opposing doctrines and/or practices and that the will of God is for US to loosen up and welcome whatever it is they feel like teaching our people?
I mean, why make seem as though the problem is all ours?
Exactly
We must make a difference between frienmdship and cooperation on one hand and unity in the full maning of the word on the other hand.
Leroy spekas about unity, about ending sectarianism.
And he speaks of tolerance, not of truth.
So the main sin he is addressing is convictions concerning scriptural doctrines. If we’d let go of them, the road would be open to a lot of hugs and kisses …
Alexander
Were some in the Corinthian church doing proxy baptisms for those who had died without being baptized? Maybe I’m wrong, but that is the way I have always interpreted I Cor 15:29-30. I have read {I don’t remember where} that this practice among some Christians continued for another 100-200 years. I know that some cannot agree with my interpretation of “baptisms for the dead”, because Paul made no effort to deal with this serious error concerning baptism. My thoughts again. Perhaps Paul thought that unity in this divided church was more important than correcting a superstitious error that did not strike at the heart of the message about Christ or kill faith in him. Denying the resurrection did kill faith. Baptizing for the dead didn’t.
I am not comparing baptisms for the dead to adoration of Mary. I am just saying that Paul seemed to have let this error slide for the sake of unity.