We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Garrett’s next chapter is captioned “Have Our Own Vatican II.”
He writes,
In Churches of Christ we need to ask some hard questions about our unchanging practice of male-dominated services, the subjugation of women in ministry, our position on divorce and remarriage, preacher-centered worship, our attitude toward modern biblical research, our polity and various methods of work, worship, and missions. (pp. 60-61).
Garrett continues,
It may surprise you that Roman Catholic authorities at Vatican II supported this resolution: “Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” Sounding more like a Luther or a Campbell than like a Pope, they went on to say in that freedom document, “The exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. …” … If others have been papacy-dominated and church-dominated, we have been elder-dominated, dogma-dominated, tradition-dominated, editor-dominated. (pp. 61-62).
And he adds,
If any church on earth needs to declare to the world that it has often been “hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel” and has violated the principles of the very Book it claims to honor, it is the Churches of Christ. While the Roman Church has pilloried the schismatics we have skinned the sects. While we claim to believe in unity, we are the one church in the community that is known to have nothing to do with any other Christians. (pp. 63-64).
For centuries the Roman Church labeled other Christians as “erring schismatics,” but at Vatican II it went on record as acknowledging all other Christians as true brothers and sisters in Christ. …
We must regard all other Christians as our equals, beginning right now. We must join with them and with each other in a new spirit of dialogue and mutual respect, a new freshness in perspective and interpretation. We must summons the courage to confront the problems of our own history. (pp. 65-66).
It’s a fascinating comparison. I don’t know but a little about the Vatican II council. Some Catholics refused to accept the new teachings, becoming “pre-Vatican II Catholics.” My son used to date a girl of this persuasion. It’s a small sect — maybe fewer than 20 in Alabama. It famously includes Mel Gibson, he of the “Passion of the Christ.”
You know, if you were to read the writings of the new pope, you’d find that his views on justification sound much more like N. T. Wright than the Council of Trent. The Catholics are moving much closer to the evangelical churches in their views on salvation than many imagine. (And, yes, they still venerate Mary and do many other things I wish they wouldn’t do. But we should give credit where credit is due.)
Garrett’s argument is that if the Catholic Church can admit error, correct mistakes, repent of being sectarian, and change its attitudes, so can the Churches of Christ.
But it can’t happen. Not the way it happened in the Catholic Church. After all, they are a hierarchical denomination. If enough bishops vote to make a change happens, the rest must yield to the change.
The Churches of Christ are strictly autonomous. There is no group of men who could gather in a room and approve any change that would bind the rest of the church. We can only talk, write, and hope to persuade.
Of course, if the editors of the most influential conservative periodicals (a mild redundancy, as there are no progressive print periodicals) were to change their tone and teach a truer gospel, though, then things would truly change. Not all at once, but over time. After all, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Reuel Lemmons, then the editor of the Firm Foundation, began teaching more and more progressive views. And over time, the Western Churches become more progressive.
You see, the Firm Foundation was published in Texas and had its greatest influence in the West. The Gospel Advocate continued to teach a more conservative theology, and it had the greatest influence in the Southeast. And as a result, the Southeastern Churches are much more conservative than the Western Churches — on the whole.
The reality is that conservative Churches are highly influenced by print periodicals and by the preaching schools. They often hire preachers from preaching schools, they read the periodicals, and their reading of the scriptures is filtered this way. (And, yes, the progressive Churches of Christ have their own filters, but that doesn’t mean the conservatives should feel pleased to continue to filter the scriptures through their periodicals and their preacher’s preacher school notes.)
Therefore, the quickest, most effective way to change the perspective of the conservative Churches is for the periodicals and schools of preaching to repent of their errors and teach a truer gospel — a gospel that doesn’t damn people over every error of inference. Indeed, they simply need to return to the teachings of Stone and the Campbells. They don’t have to accept Postmodernism, Situation Ethics, liberalism, higher criticism, the new hermeneutics — just the principles that founded the Restoration Movement.
Judging from his remarks here and at Graceconversation I doubt the Gospel Advocate will change much for the next few years at least. As you say, Tidwell will at least talk with those he disagrees with. That’s progress compared to those who only talk at or about those they don’t agree with.
I really don’t think most coc people who are conservatives know how the RM has shifted over the years due to the influence of the editors/preachers you mentioned.
On the progressive side, Al Maxie and Edward Fudge continue to be a force for good. Both are committed Bible men who seem to try to allow the Bible, and only the Bible, set the agenda for what they believe. Many people are discovering grace and truth and are finding it in Jesus and not in what they do or don’t do.
And, I’ll add Jay Guin to the list of men who are awakening people to Bible truth. Thanks for doing what you do and for being willing to take the heat.
Royce
What Royce said…:) Al Maxey is awesome…would put Jay right up there if he didn’t have to holler out Roll Tide all the time..
Also, Garrett is totally accurate about the impression the Church of Christ has left on the rest of churches with different names… It’s not so much that they believe differently…it’s that they damn you to hell at every opportunity… The Contentious for the Faith Crowd will volunteer to do it for you if you don’t have the time…That’s the impact and the only people that don’t realize it or don’t care are the people who have locked the doors to unity…
If you ask me that’s putting your light under a bushel…
Jay,
Based on the comments on previous entries in this series, some folks are going to blow a gasket when they read this. Keep up the good work…I don’t often comment, but I read every day and am encouraged by your dedication.
Dialog between the different camps of the COC is very difficult.
So many conservatives are more progressive in private but fear speaking out will get them withdrawn from. That ruins your reputation and opportunity to teach.
It will take a younger set of members to promote change.
Younger folks, all I know, read and believe like Jay Guin and Al Maxey but many will stay where they are until their parents die off and I am speaking about younger including many in the 40-60 year old age group..
The past exaggerations or falsehoods told to conservative members here in the Southeast about “Liberal” brethren in other areas are laughed at now.
There are so many deep-red flags, I am utterly shocked, Jay! Utterly shocked!
Yeah, lets embrace “modern biblical research” (= historical criticism) which allows us to depart from every command of Christ! This is not of God, Jay! Please, DO wake up!
We had this discussion on women in minstry, and I say it again: You (Leroy or any other “progressive”) are not recognized, if you don’t submit to 1Co 14:34-37 as a command of the Lord. For my part I am not excited about having such debates in our churches, but all I see is schism after schism after schism by innovation after innovation and departure after departure!
After this paragraph, I am absolutely done with this book, Jay. Absolutely. BTW observing what Vatican II has done to the RCC I prophesy to you that books like Leroy’s will tear asunder the Restoration Movement once again. This does not serve unity, and therefore it contradicts the whole purpose of this Blog.
Alexander
There is no doubt in my mind that “modern biblical research” has been, over the past century or two, grossly flawed by the Darwinian biases of the culture at large. So-called textual criticism seems to have been nothing more than a means of discarding those portions of the text that were deemed problematic for one reason or another. There does seem to be a shift back towards respect for the text in recent years, for which I am thankful.
I am not a tradition bound c of C (or C of C) dogmatist. For years I have seen some of the absurdities involved in discussions such as the above parenthesized example. There are many. Todd Deaver’s dissertation did not, as I recall, reveal any issues that I have not been familiar with, most of which have been difficult for me to understand. In my youth, I remember my father counseling me against studying at a preacher’s school, insisting that my own study of scripture should be sufficient to the task. I have since regarded that advice as some of his best wisdom, and he was, I think, an unusually wise Christian man.
But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. My observation has been that historically reactions against perceived apostasy (too strong a term? some seem to feel that “error” = apostasy) have tended towards an opposite extreme – and extremes tend to be problematic. It is not necessary that we embrace doctrinal error in order to rectify other errors. It is also not necessary that we denounce doctrinal error in the unloving, combative, contentious manner that some have done. In fact, if we are unwilling to accept doctrinal error, does that not imply that we think we are 100 percent doctrinally correct? I wonder how likely that is to be so? Let’s read Romans 14 and 15 again…
“Younger folks, all I know, read and believe like Jay Guin and Al Maxey but many will stay where they are until their parents die off..”
Nice! Way to stay classy, AJ
I like the theory of a wholistic paradigm shift in the churches of Christ, I’m just not sure how realistic it is.
And I agree with John, the tough questions will probably not find popularity until a younger generation takes leadership within our churches. Unfortunately, this will not happen for a while. Or it will never happen because we are losing those younger generations to either other churches or they’re just simply leaving faith all together.
And if they’re like me they see the conversations mentioned by Garrett as either moot (because we’ve already decided about women’s roles, preacher centered services) or simply not as important as say feeding the poor or fighting against global injustices. I just want to tell people about Jesus and help them find faith, not get distracted by less important matters. Of course, those are my thoughts and I’m assuming I think like many in my generations.
Whoa, whoa. Alexander, slow down. What is going on with you?
First, it is unfair to equate Garret’s request to ‘ask some hard questions about […] our attitude toward modern biblical research” as an all out encouragement toward ‘higher criticism’ (whatever you take that to mean). You seem to me to be trying to be slanderous.
Alexander, while I understand your frustration, I don’t understand your arguments. You want us to “submit to 1Co 14:34-37 as a command of the Lord.” Please first read Al Maxey’s latest reflection: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx499.htm
While I am probably just as conservative as you are in my understanding of the differences between male and female, and while I want to do everything I can to obey the Lord, I will not make some silly stand on 1Co 14:34-37 without first considering all of the underlying traditional presuppositions—that is, I refuse to label an injustice to women and the church as ‘a command from the Lord’ just because I’ve been duped into asking all the wrong questions…
but many will stay where they are until their parents die off..”
Or other old folks. The contempt shown by many(not all) progressives towards their elders has always shocked me. Wringing their hands in anticipation of the day when these dinosaurs bite the dust and they can lead everyone toward enlightment. I find that comment disgusting AJ. I have changed my views over of the years on several things but wishing the demise of those to who I owe so much is beyond the pale. You can deny that’s what you meant AJ but I’ve seen it expressed too many times by others.
Well, I was charging at the enemy – not Leroy or Jay, BTW.
Had I not experienced the background of such seemingly “hard questions” I had not responded that strongly. But in my experience asking such questions means answering them. We had a brother preaching at our congregation. Once he spoke on Zachaeus and he opened his sermon with the question “What was the special situation in the church that made Luke include/tell this event/story in his Gospel?” I bet 90% of our church did not realize where such questions come from – but that’s one of the methods of “higher criticism” (called “Sitz im Leben” in German; supposing that the written Gospels were mainly a reaction to troubles and struggles in the church). Well I asked him, whether my observation was correct – and we was surprized that anyone noticed … A few months later he spoke on 1Ti 2:12 (only briefly in the course of a larger topic) explaining it away in one of the modern ways. I then asked him, where he learned his theology: It was some church of Christ preacher school in Colorado.
A little later I read an essay by Doug Foster (ACU) on reconciliation, which also did away with the submission of women in a quite novel way. I wrote to him, but never got a response. Anway this article was recommended to us by a brother in a church of Christ in Germany.
I see a battle going on, Konastephen, that is terrifying. I have come to distrust even church of Christ universites and preacher schools and actulally side with the “non institutional churches of Christ” in this matter. I can’t help, but the enemy got a foothold there, and I see hardly anyone who stands up against him.
You know probably, that I don’t follow the strict interpretation on silence in 1Co 14:34 based on 1Co 11:2-16. But I take both texts very seriously and I see a certain amount of freedom and certain clear limitations on the role of women in the church. But what I have learned from the progressive churches is that they explain away virtually all limitations and allow women to be elders and preachers. This was in fact one of the clear implications in the above quoted examples.
As for Al Maxey’s article, with which I can largely agree: Revealing however are statements like the following:
The point is that Paul nowhere in these texts (1Co 11:2-16; 1Co 14:34-38; 1Ti 2:12-15) refers to cultural norms. This is one ofthe misleading techniques I completely reject, because we should first and formost follow Paul’s (and the Spirit’s) reasons for these “restrictions” not push them aside and come up with some cultural theories. While he maintains a moderate position, his approach is nonetheles influenced by “higher criticism”.
And not to mention the discussions on this topic in this Blog earlier this year. I really really have deep respects for words like:
It is NOT ME who is saying this. It is a very stern and serious rebuke that we have to deal with.
As I said at the beginning of my reply: I put Leroy’s statement in the context of the developments within the progressive Churches of Christ as far as I am aware of. This made me extremly alert, because it is not about “asking” questions, but about trying to persuade the church to answer them in a certain way. And here I see the enemy at work (not Leroy, not Jay). Up and at him!
Alexander
Hank & gt,
Alabama John is right. Death is a fact, and death must happen before new life can begin. We see it in nature; we see it in the spirit; we see it as time takes one generation to bring in the next. Countless are the Christians who, in much pain, in spite of how hard they tried, could not open up with their true beliefs until parents and old friends passed away.
Maybe you did not like the way AJ phrased it. But who among us have not been blunt or straight forward when speaking of things religious that we take very seriously? Besides, I grew up in a very conservative CoC world, and it was common to hear family and friends ridicule those who had become progressive.
I did not read AJ wringing his hands, wishing the demise of anyone. The subject of this particular post by Jay has brought different, spirited reactions. Lets give ourselves a break.
women vs men
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Gen 17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah [shall] her name [be].
Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be [a mother] of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed;—–
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Where in scripture are men and women called to do the same thing, ever!
If there is only one thing we have to get right to become a Christian, why did he give so many examples.
Laymond,
Acts 2:16-18. Men and women doing the same thing.
Where are these women in our churches? Did they die away with the sign gifts as some claim. Did they go away with the close of the cannon of Scripture as many claim?
Or, are they teaching the gospel as missionaries, teaching hundreds of women in ladies gatherings, writing books read by thousands of both men and women? Are they radio and TV preachers?
I’m asking. Joel first, then Peter said they were coming. So where are they?
Wow, there is some real famly fighting in these discussions. I say that to the praise of all of you – you act like family. Personally, I’m getting dizzy moving between baptism parts 1 – 6, but in sum I rejoice at some excellent views on God’s willl.
Price,
It looks like the Tide is going to be pretty good this year. I expect to be hollering quite a lot!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/819332-alabama-football-just-how-good-is-this-alabama-defense-this-season
Aaron,
Thanks. 🙂
Alabama John wrote,
Exactly.
John,
Thanks. I know Alabama John, and he does not wish anyone dead.
Alexander,
I have to agree with konastephen. It’s presumptious to equate “our attitude toward modern biblical research” to theological modernism. Since you are not an American, you likely don’t realize how many Churches of Christ view things.
If you were to read the curriculums of many preaching schools, you’d see that the materials are largely regurgitations of teachings from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, using texts by Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles, and J. W. McGarvey. Here’s a link to the course catalog for the Memphis School of Preaching — which is quite influential in these parts. http://www.msop.org/catalog.pdf
Their commentaries are largely 100 years old — as though nothing has been learned about Greek and First Century culture since 1900 that might be of benefit to their students.
The result is to isolate our preachers from the thinking of the larger evangelical community, denying them the blessings of reading NT Wright, Hauerwas, C.S. Lewis, FF Bruce, etc.
Royce I see many women prophets on the tube, why would we need them in the pulpit?
gt,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dancing around a subject is not my strong point.
I don’t wish anyone dead, especially the old ones, cause they are ME!
I probably know more old ones than most of you posting and we have prayed together and they have prayed for me far more than I have prayed for them and that is my shame.
How many I know that are waiting for their parents or others they respect, men and women (some are elders) to pass to change churches. They will not do it before out of respect and I sure respect that!
Alabama John,
I know there are many people who are just as you say. I have had several people contact me by email and private messages on FB to agree with something I said here who will not do it here for fear of being scolded by someone.
Let’s face it, many conservatives rule with a strong arm so to speak, they are not very tolerant of people who disagree with anything they say. That’s not exactly a display of the fruits of the Spirit is it?
Royce,
No, its not .
Withdrawing is still done here although I will say not as much as it used to be. Wonder how many posters here have seen it done?
Many would rather be horsewhipped than withdrawn from. I know the Bible says to do it, but, most that are supposedly strong on obeying CENI do not today.
Keep disagreeing in class like folks do on this board and you are right, see how long before you are asked to leave.
Finally, hallelujah, some are opening up and really discussing and studying the Bible, not just repeating the “keep me out of trouble and in good graces” line.
God is not going to give a written exam.
Thanks for all of ya’lls thoughts!
Royce and Ala. John,
There’s a reason so many comment here anonymously.
BTW I am familiar with CS Lewis (as essayist more than a theologian), FF Bruce and NT Wright …
But think with me a little: It is not about fully accepting “higher criticism”, but about adopting its methods where it suits out purposes. And this I observe among church of Christ preacher schools and universities; where I read and heard it was ACU and Pepperdine – yes I live in Austria, but due to internet the Atlantic Ocean is no longer a barrier.
What I quoted from Al Maxey is but one example for how the methods of “higher criticism” creep in. What is this method? It is by introducing historical speculations as a means for (finally, at last correctly!) understanding the Scripture. I say speculations, because quite often what I found out – esp. on the man-women issue – what can be found in commenatries are historical myths rather than facts, quotes of some ancient writers taken out of their context or even from a completely different time period. A good example i what is commonly said about Corinth: A highly immoral city with a lot of temple prostitution (Aphrodite’s temple was one of the largest temples in Corinth) – and all kind of conclusions are drawn from this regarding the headcovering (i.e. explaining it away). The fact is that all of this was true … only until around 140 BC when the Roman’s destroyed the city; after it was rebuilt under Julius Caesar it became a fairl Roman city with a strong Latin speaking backgound and morally and culturally very different from what has been before. And – thinbk about it: Roman men always covered their heads in prayer! So this situation does not help at all to explain away what we don’t want to have from the NT in our time and culture.
Yet, what this method also does is brutally ignoring the reasons scripture Itself gives for its teachings – in this case Gen 2 and 3! We went through all of this in detail this year, and you did not undetrstand it; mainly – i suppose – because you also bought into this mindset of “higher criticism” while not adopting all of its conclusions. You only work with its tools when it suits your purpose (and this you did in the discussion; and this can be seen in Al Maxey’s article; this I heard from a brother at our own church; this I read on the Internet …).
I have decided to not give this way of thinking any foothold in my theology. his summer I read a fantastic book by J.I. Packer: “God has spoken” on the inspiration and inerrancy of the scritures. It was refreshing and comforting to see someone stand up against the enemy.
Alexander
I hate to use the term ‘higher criticism’ since it means so many different things to different people, and more often than not is merely a pejorative term for something else that were against—however, Alexander, it seems that here you are using higher criticism against ‘higher criticism’. I hope we see that this is good. The truth of the matter should win out. Put differently, knowing the ‘sitz im leben’ of a particular writer or group of readers ought not necessarily lead to explaining away a particularly thorny part of scripture. And if some do do this, then we should use higher criticism, or whatever else, to stultify their bad exegesis.
It’s been my experience that “higher criticism” is just a euphemism for humans placing themselves above the previous 1800 to 2000 years of generally accepted textual interpretations in order to arrive at a “new” understanding of the old texts. I have to wonder what may have been discovered now, roughly 2000 years later, that has not been known earlier. I understand that genuine discoveries exist in archaeology. But in very few instances do these new discoveries do anything but bolster the long accepted interpretations. Is is reasonable, in general, to think that scholars 2000 years removed from the events will somehow have a clearer understanding of the contexts than those who lived during and immediately after them? I think not…
Alexander,
You place “higher criticism” in quotation marks, as though you are quoting Garrett — but you are quoting your own mischaracterization of his words. The phrase appears nowhere in his book. However, later in the book, Garrett praises McGarvey because —
Garrett, Leroy (2010-10-29). What Must the Church of Christ Do To Be Saved? (pp. 84-85). SCM e-Prints. Kindle Edition.
In short, you are not fairly characterizing Garrett’s teachings.
Moreover, your complaint about Al Maxey has nothing to do with higher criticism (or Garrett) but with the use of history to interpret the scriptures — which we all agree is appropriate and we all agree that bad history is not appropriate. But making a historical error (if Al proves to be in error) in the historical background of Corinth has nothing to do with higher criticism. http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter1/hague.php
Rather, higher criticism might question whether Paul wrote 1 Corinthians at all and speculate as to how the text might have evolved over the years. And higher criticism often (not always) questions the apostolic origins of New Testament texts. Garrett is not an advocate for higher criticism.
It has to do with higher criticism in concept, Jay: Namely: Trying to find out the cultural reasons for a scriptural teaching while pushing aside the scriptural reasons.
It is the same as why the Christians “made up” the resurrection, because – as some say – because they were influenced by the cult of Mithras, and others: by Dionysos …
Or as why certain events/stories are compiled in the Gospel: there must have been a special need in the church that should have been answered by it (Sitz im Leben).
It’s about a method, Jay. And I can undertstand that many don’t realize where this method comes from and where – in the end – it leads. But I suppose ALL Christian Universities who want their Masters of Divity have accredited by the academic society at large, MUST study according to THEIR methods. Thus they adopt part of the method and part of the mindset, while most students are completely unaware of it. I find this everywhere by now!
The end result are strange changes in the church. Innovations and new explanations unheard of in the past 1950 years. This is especially true for all these new theories about the man-woman-issue. In fact, these new methods get readily applied whenever we want to get rid of a scripture without sounding unscriptural – just more “scholarly”.
BTW I used “higher criticism” in quotation marks because someone else did, and I kept it this way. This makes it look a little ironic, what it is.
Alexander