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 “Find out who the real enemy is”
One only needs to read our church papers to see that for the most part we are fighting each other. Or if one listens to a lot of our sermons and reads our tracts he may conclude that “the denominations” are the enemy. Or if our argumentative spirit is not satisfied in any other way it is some “straw man” that is the enemy. Then there is the long history of our debates. We started out debating “the sects.” When they would no longer debate us we started debating one another. (p. 69).
Garrett then relates some fascinating stories about N. B. Hardeman, the preacher and debater after whom Freed-Hardeman University is named. Garrett studied under him —
Brother Hardeman, for example, told us in class one day that he believed that his pious Methodist mother died a Christian and that he expected to see her in heaven. “She followed Christ the best she knew how,” he told us.
We preacher boys were not into it enough to ask, “Then, brother Hardeman, all those who are following Christ the best they know how are Christians even if they are mistaken about baptism?” If brother Hardeman could have himself followed through on that and made it clear to us that it is not the Methodists that we were to fight when we departed from the sacred confines of his college, it would have made a difference in the kind of preachers we all became.
I would one day learn that the definition Hardeman gave for a Christian — one who is following Christ the best she knows how — is almost word-for-word the definition Alexander Campbell gave over a century before, and that our pioneers were not confused as to who the enemy is, like we are in the Church of Christ. I came to appreciate that old motto that our pioneers handed down to us, “We are Christians only, but not the only Christians.” But at Freed-Hardeman College I learned it the other way, that we in the Church of Christ are the only Christians — except for brother Hardeman’s mother! All others are the enemy! (pp. 74-75).
Garrett then identifies our true enemy —
We are learning who the real enemy is because he has captured our kids with drugs and poisoned their minds with pornography. He gets them drunk and slaughters them on our highways. He kills millions of them before they are ever born. He wrecks their homes and breaks up their marriages. He gets us into wars that should never have been fought. He blights our minds with ignorance, racism, pride, and all sorts of godless philosophies, from New Ageism and Occultism to scientism or consumerism.
Tragedy around the world makes it clear who the enemy is. There is civil war in Afghanistan, mass starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, and terrorism in South Africa. In Yugoslavia Serbs and Croats are fighting each other, in India it is Muslims and Hindus, and in North Ireland it is Catholics and Protestants. In Third World nations most people live below the poverty line and suffer gross inequities. We all have a common enemy, whom Luther described as “armed with cruel hate,” who is at work the world over seeking to do us in. (pp. 75-76).
And so, dear readers, do we lump those penitent believers in Jesus who worship him with a piano with the enemy? Or with the Kingdom? It’s one or the other. Do they seem much like Satan to you?
I was raised up believing I was somehow unique
Like a snowflake distinct among snowflakes, unique in each way you can see
And now after some thinking, I’d say I’d rather be
A functioning cog in some great machinery serving something beyond me
But I don’t, I don’t know what that will be
I’ll get back to you someday soon you will see
What’s my name, what’s my station, oh, just tell me what I should do
I don’t need to be kind to the armies of night that would do such injustice to you
Or bow down and be grateful and say “sure, take all that you see”
To the men who move only in dimly-lit halls and determine my future for me
And I don’t, I don’t know who to believe
I’ll get back to you someday soon you will see
If I know only one thing, it’s that everything that I see
Of the world outside is so inconceivable often I barely can speak
Yeah I’m tongue-tied and dizzy and I can’t keep it to myself
What good is it to sing helplessness blues, why should I wait for anyone else?
And I know, I know you will keep me on the shelf
I’ll come back to you someday soon myself
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m raw
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
And you would wait tables and soon run the store
Gold hair in the sunlight, my light in the dawn
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
If I had an orchard, I’d work till I’m sore
Someday I’ll be like the man on the screen
It surprises me that the movement started by Stone and Campbell morphed into what it is today. It seems that they had a much more tolerant view of one another’s differences than most do today… One thing for sure…the CoC today isn’t what it was then… When did it change ? When did it become so argumentative ?
In the 1950’s they were growing, converting their kids and their neighbors. Since the 1970’s most of them have been doing neither.Today, conservative churches of Christ are generally dying. A lot of their members are hearing more progressive ideas and some are leaving for more progressive congregations. It’s completely unsurprising that they would be preaching against those progressive ideas in an effort to stop the bleeding.
Imagine if the biblical truths you hold most essential were under assault from within. You would do the same thing. It’s a hard time to be a conservative in churches of Christ.
“When did it change ? When did it become so argumentative ?”
When people started pushing their way in, and bringing their arguments with them, instead of joining and belonging to the already established church, they want to change things “buck the establishment” why because as A. Campbell said, they despise the orderly things. They had rather reek havoc on an establishment than start one of their own. No one here will say that the CoC is so far out of bounds they are hell bound, Because if they were to say such a thing, they would have to confess their “works are in vain” and you know about “vain works” . And they can’t go to another church, because they wouldn’t put up with them, they know they can’t start their own, because then it would not be recognized as “The Church of Christ” . So they stay where they are allowed to raise a ruckus, the poor old CoC which is so intolerant, they hate it. But they are the only one who will tolerate them.
Alan… Not sure it’s that difficult to be a conservative…Just tough to require that everybody else think like I do…. I mean, how dare they have their own thought and growth path, right !! 🙂
Laymond… The CoC movement was a move against the “established” church… most “movements” are aren’t they ? What I see from the writings of the men that started the Church of Christ is a much more tolerant attitude toward differences of opinion… Campbell wouldn’t have approved of disfellowship over issues not CLEARLY commanded…but today, CENI has caused division after division…What are we up to now…25 or so different divisions with the CoC ?? It seems that nobody can figure out how best to make others believe in order to be in unity…sad really. I think the CoC has morphed from what it was intended to be but I may be wrong.
Price asks:
“It surprises me that the movement started by Stone and Campbell morphed into what it is today. It seems that they had a much more tolerant view of one another’s differences than most do today… One thing for sure…the CoC today isn’t what it was then… When did it change ? When did it become so argumentative ?”
Not that he is the standard, but why do we insist on believing here that Campbell was cool with the beliefs and practices of other churches? He has made countless statements to the effect that his will was for the Baptist and Pedobaptist churches to disappear. He said over and again that he sought to maitain “a connection” with them (the Baptists and Pedobaptists) in order to teach them what he believed the Bible really taught and to “CENSURE” the views and practices that he considered to be amis
Hear him:
“I and the church with which I am connected are in ‘full communion’ with the Mahoning Baptist Association of Ohio; and through them with the whole Baptist society in the United States; and I do intend to continue in connection with this people so long as they will permit me to say what I believe, to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views and practices.”
Such is A FAR CRY from swapping pulpits and being careful to avoid “scruples”.
No doubt, he considered the Baptists and Pedobaptists to be sects and he wanted them to give up being Baptists and Pedobaptists. Hear him some more:
“I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. This game has been played too long. I labor to see sectarianism abolished, and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation upon which the apostolic church was founded. To bring Baptists and Pedobaptists to this is my supreme aim. But to connect myself with any people who would require me to sacrifice one item of revealed truth, to subscribe any creed of human device, or restrain me from publishing my sentiments as discretion and conscience direct, is now, and I hope ever shall be, the farthest from my desires, the most incompatible with my views.”
We all know which views and practices of the Baptists and Pedobaptists that Campbell considered to be amiss, and that he sought to “censure.”
But, all of this making it sound like Campbell was cool with the Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., and that he felt no need to censure them, is just not true.
Lets be honest here…
My ears aren’t always that clear; this is what I hear laymond saying above:
[“When did it change ? When did it become so argumentative ?”] When different people started coming asking different questions, instead of just assimilating to the status quo. They wanted to see a tired an irrelevant church come alive, to “buck the establishment” like A. Campbell did. They wanted to see a church healed rather than to run off and create one of their own. No one here will say that the CoC is so far out of bounds they are hell bound, because if they did they would completely contradict themselves regarding this plea to encourage one another against the errors on both sides—conservative and progressive. And they can’t go to another church, because they care too much to let those in whom they disagree to wallow as an embattled remnant, a stalwart of truth and piety, otherwise condemned to hear only the echo of their own voice and perspective.
Price reforming and what is going on today is nothing alike, the progressives seem not to like anything about the old body, they want a transplant on it all, and seems they have borrowed their new parts from other churches, not just one church all others it seems. That is the reason they can’t join another church, they don’t agree with them either. They seem not to be satisfied with all of any church, so, that is why I have suggested many times they move on and start one they will be proud of, but that don’t seem to be the solution either, Why? because they don’t agree with each other. They claim to be searching for unity, always start at home, get the searchers unified first.
konastephen, very good example of how some folks read the bible, they see what they want to hear.
Hank, the most striking thing about what you quoted from Campbell was his declaration that his church was in “full communion” with the different organization although he perhaps was in “full disagreement” over some issues that they held separately… How different it was in those days, huh?
It also seems that there was an expectation of polite and courteous discourse where each one was expected to listen to the others point of view. And, no matter how long the debate might continue, there seems to be, in Campbell’s own words, no reason to NOT be in full communion… If we’re being honest…
Laymond…you seem to me to be painting with a large brush… but I suppose your experience is your experience…
“…progressives seem not to like anything about the old body, they want a transplant on it all, and seems they have borrowed their new parts from other churches, not just one church all others it seems. That is the reason they can’t join another church, they don’t agree with them either. They seem not to be satisfied with all of any church, so, that is why I have suggested many times they move on and start one they will be proud of, but that don’t seem to be the solution either, Why? because they don’t agree with each other.”
Indeed!
Just like the multidenominational “church” my father in law attends in Mexico where they all believe (or are at least accepting of) every wind of doctrine. When I asked him what they actually teach regarding subjects like baptism, he proudly answered, “we don’t teach any doctrine.” Which means of course, they don’t teach any teachings.
Try and imagine how any other approach would work though. Let’s see, “Baptism is when a, I mean its where a, its for whe purpose of, um… its to, oh, just nevermind….”
But they have no problem with having their Lebian Pastor bless and lay hands on everybody’s pets and motorcycles.
And let whoever is without sin judge that church and mock their “unity”
* Lesbian (not Lebian)
Price, that’s fine that he considerd himself “in full communion” with them. He was all over the place and back and forth on many things as he and others tried to escape from the fog of their jacked up religious backgrounds.
My point however, was that at every turn he sought TO CENSURE all of the views and practices of the Baptists and Pedobaptists that according to him were amiss.
And yet people here are making it out to be where AC “accepted” their views and practices and didn’t call them sinful. Which just was not the case.
I’m at work on my cell (sales) but if you care, I can copy and paste as many quotes as you care to read wherein AC absolutely blows people out of the water with bitter sarcasm because they believed like the baptists and pedobtists.
He may have been “polite” a time or two as well… but he is not the guy you progressives are wanting to emulate. That’s the point I’m trying to make here
Hank, here is another church that accepted any and all
positions.
. What startling message does Jesus give about the condition of the angel of the church? Why is this condition unacceptable? Revelation 3:15, 16.
“Halfhearted Christians are worse than infidels; for their deceptive words and noncommittal position lead many astray. The infidel shows his colors. The lukewarm Christian deceives both parties. He is neither a good worldling nor a good Christian. Satan uses him to do a work that no one else can do.”—The SDA Bible Commentary [E. G. White Comments], vol. 7, p. 963.
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I believe Jesus is saying you must stand strong for what you believe. IMO some in the church today are trying to walk on top of the fence not committed to either side.
A dear friend who has just move to a new state and has been looking for a church home sent me this today…
“My husband met with the elders several weeks ago about placing membership. Initially they were good with the whole thing but asked to meet with him again. He sat down with them on Sunday night and was told that we were errant Christians for having attended the Christian church in the state we moved from and that we needed to renounce that. None of us can serve in any capacity in the church even our 13 year old son who was just along for the ride.” These are phenomenal people who would be an asset to any local congregation – who have a love and commitment to restoration movement churches and who without hesitation chose to attend an IM church in their last locale because there was not a non-IM church in their rural area that had young children attending. I have encouraged her to flee the pit vipers and their whitewashed tomb….
@Price – “When did it change ? When did it become so argumentative ?”
One of the bellwethers of this change was discussed just the other day – The Lunenburg Letter illustrates the thinking quite clearly it seems to me. Campbell did indeed decry sectarianism and did wish to see Baptists and Pedobaptists disappear as sectarian bodies – into the Body of Christ. Yet he also did, as presented in the Lunenburg discussions, find Christians within other doctrinal constructs than his own.
Doctrinal disagreements prevent our being subsumed into the one church of the New Testament. That was what Campbell clearly saw and tried to alleviate. He recognized the difficulties involved and tried to articulate a common ground that would allow such to occur. C. S. Lewis addressed the same topic in “Mere Christianity”, attempting to set forth core principles on which the majority of Christians could/do agree. But then, many of our heritage would consider Lewis a heretic.
I grew up being taught that it’s somehow important whether one accepts the millineal versus premillenail versus amellineal interpretations of prophecy. That is merely one example – there are many other points of doctrine on which we may take a stand against “error”. But error is a part of the human condition. It’s not possible that any of us is capable of perfectly understanding the Bible. I expect to find out some day which of these apparently contridactory positions is closest to the truth. BUt I no longer worry too much about it, having somehow contented myself to wait and see.
In the meantime, we need to read Romans 14 & 15 again, especially 14:4, and accept what Paul tells us there. Certain differences are inevitable and we must be willing to accomodate those differences as we work in the common cause. As set forth in today’s posting, the real enemy is not flesh and blood – Ephesians 6 makes that quite clear. It’s a shame we aren’t willing to forgo internal strife in order to address the larger battle.
Emmett…well said…
Hank… how’s that blowing each other out of the water thing working for you ?? Isn’t the CoC now splintered into over TWO DOZEN different ships trying to blast each other out of the water ?? Now pray tell why anyone would want to have the CoC direct them in their theology if they can’t even manage their own household… It seems that a requirement of the Eldership is that they should have control of their own household before being considered to have authority over a group… Also…
I couldn’t tell if you agreed with Campbell or not…I have quite a collection of various quotes from him myself and while he was certainly passionate, I still read above that he was in full communion… It seems that he and C.S. Lewis had similar thoughts but perhaps we should declare war on everybody who doesn’t agree with our opinion…oh, yeah, we’ve tried that already….didn’t work. Should we expect it to change ? Hardly.
Laymond –
Sorry, but as a progressive I have to object.
Your insight is correct – progressives aren’t happy with any church, and they don’t agree with each other.
However, the mistake is in thinking that in order to be a part of a church you must agree with all of its stances and each other. That just isn’t how it works.
I would suggest it is that very mentality that has lead historically to the proliferation of the denominations. Instead of maintaining relation with those with whom we disagree, we separate because it is “easier” – more comfortable, more enjoyable, etc.
We in the church mistake uniformity with unity, and we think when Christ says we should be one he means we should be alike. That is just error, and the current state of the church catholic bears that truth out visibly and condemnnigly.
Confession time – I think there is much in my church that is wrong – sinfully wrong. But, in humility, I recognize that that is no different from my own life. My prayer is that, over a lifetime, as I walk with my church, the places where I am right will influence my church, and the places where my church is right will influence me, and together, over the decades, we both reflect who and what Christ is in a fuller way than we ever could if we sought “uniformity”.
That mutual respect that leads to mutual growth can only – I repeat – can only – take place in a setting of diversity.
The question, then, is how much diversity can we tolerate without witholding acceptance and the love of Christ? That is, I think, the most important question facing any group of believers the world over.
Peace, brother
Price,
Lol! As far as whether or not I agree with AC, would depend on whatever it was he said (and which time he said it).
And for the record, I did not say that I agreed with his blowing of people “out of the water”, in fact I probably don’t – although it does make for interesting reading (and I understand how frusterated he must have gotten with people refusing to believe certain simple truths).
But again, my point concerning AC is that Leroy, Jay, and the majority here need to not point to AC as the example for all to follow if in fact Leroy, Jay, and the majority here are agaisnt, “censuring all of the views and practices of the baptists and poedobaptists that are amiss”. Because, that is what AC was all about. Whether or not he considered himself to be “in full fellowship” with them – he staedy reproved, critizized, condemned, and warned them about many of their views and practices. That much is fact.
Adam said,
“That mutual respect that leads to mutual growth can only – I repeat – can only – take place in a setting of diversity.
The question, then, is how much diversity can we tolerate without withholding acceptance and the love of Christ? That is, I think, the most important question facing any group of believers the world over.”
Well first of all I would never be caught guilty of trying to withhold the “love of Christ” from anyone or thing. But my acceptance of the belief that one who willingly avoids baptism is accepted by Jesus into the church, that is a giant leap for me. but I certainly would not avoid folks of that persuasion. I strongly believe that one’s salvation is strictly between that person, and his God.
Well not having read Leroy Garrett’s book, and not planning to I guess I should wish Leroy success on sales and leave it there, so I think I will. 🙂
The only time I’ve been accused of being a CofC progressive is when I questioned a Elder about “nothing”. At least that’s the way I looked at it. After all, Silence is Nothing… Right? How a group of people trying to please God can get so twisted around the flagpole over Nothing… i.e., Silence is absolutely amazing. Here’s a newsflash for you, the rest of the religious world doesn’t know or care about this little CofC quirk that we like to divide over. And, I think they’ve got it right!
Adam,
Great post, I was reminded of a couple quotes that I suspect encapsulate the root cause of much of the conservative vs. progressive tension when discussing new ideas and rethinking deep-seated traditions and convictions.
“We approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world.…It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has moulded us.” –J.I. Packer
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” – George Bernard Shaw
Without question, rethinking our long held beliefs is difficult and challenging, but the process is so constructive, healthy, and refreshing. With that said, those of us with a more progressive (using Jay’s definition) perspective towards our faith related practices, that continue to have dialogue with conservative CoC members, will likely need to focus on the challenge of long-term patience (I come from 3 generations). Since the day the Church began there has always been a multiplicity of Christian groups/sects that believed they had the corner on truth, fallen into the snare of legalism, and eventually sincerely believed other believers, with different faith practices, were rebellious and only “seeing what they wanted to hear”. But over time “progressives” in the group would begin asking questions, deep rooted dogma would be challenged, and the inevitable change would begin. It’s the same cycle that exists in every group of people bound by a common belief system. The resistance to letting go of deep rooted dogma is always significant and rarely ends well. It certainly got Jesus tortured and crucified. Most committed to their legalist dogma will not change regardless of any dialogue. A sign from heaven wouldn’t change their belief system. It just takes time. But, as always, God is working through the change(s) and will use it to bring freedom and good news to those who had been enslaved by tradition and as always to those in the world searching. And of course the change cycle will continue…and hopefully those of use open to challenged beliefs and change will continue to be open as our beliefs are challenged in the future (likely first by our children…of course)
Good comments! However, I see the same thing here that I saw at GraceConversation a couple of years ago. Much of what is being said is not responsive to what the other is saying, for many seem to be talking past each other.
Jerry,
At least regarding my response, I have to agree, and maybe more importantly, my post was not directly related to Jay’s thoughts and related post. Thanks for the reminder to stay on track.
Cycling Dude and other readers,
“CyclingDude” is the new nom de plume, pseudonym, and handle for Doug, the reader who is not the original (and irreplaceable) Doug, whom I temporarily and unimaginatively renamed “Doug2.” I’ve gone back replaced “Doug2” with “CyclingDude” throughout.
Jay,
I think Doug2 got the best of that deal… if I had only known that I could be CyclingDude…that’s kinda way cool.
Doug
Laymond,
You said: “I strongly believe that one’s salvation is strictly between that person, and his God.” . Why laymond, I think you might be a closet progressive.
Doug
Yesterday on Al Maxeys post there was a post from a brother in Alabama. He said:
In the two counties in NE Alabama near him there are 98 churches of Christ.
As far as I know they all consider themselves conservative. They are products of splits and divisions over interpretations that mattered to them, not growth in members or in the Lord.
If they are like those here in North Central Alabama
they won’t attend each others meetings to listen to another brother in the COC for the most part, nor associate in any joint effort to save souls..
Only collect anything for those hurt by the storm damages that are of the same belief as their own congregation.
That is in his case, 98 preachers teaching their flock is the only one going to heaven as the others are wrong.
They might not put it that way unless you press but usually just call them erring brethren until you ask just what does that mean.
I doubt many of you have seen division and hurting Christs Church in that magnitude. We see it and live it everyday.
This madness has got to stop!
I predict in the short future, the progressives will call themselves by another name to disassociate with this unbelievable error and call it by what it really is, SIN.
Alabama John,
Thanks. It’s tragic how much harm has been done to the cause of Christ by our insistence on dividing over minutiae of doctrine. I recently discussed this in a Bible class, and the students told stories of Churches of Christ that damned sister congregations over whether a fellowship hall was attached to the church building by a breezeway. Indeed, Churches disputed over how much separation was necessary for the fellowship hall to be a separate building from the church building!
And issues such as how close a breezeway may come to a building are treated as matters of faith over which division is required!
Wanna be CyclingDude2? It’s available … 😉
Laymond,
“Willingly avoids baptism”? That’s not the question.
Penitence is a condition of salvation. Conscious rebellion against the known will of God is obviously impenitence. Someone who refuses baptism when he knows God requires it is not penitent.
But when we are speaking of our relationships with congregations of other denominations, we can hardly believably contend that they all willingly avoid baptism! Indeed, I’m pretty sure they think they’ve been baptized as the Bible teaches.
Avivi,
Thanks so much for your comment.
Laymond wrote,
Please do not exaggerate the views you wish to criticize. It’s easy to defeat an argument you invent. No one here is arguing for the position you just stated.
Rev 3:15-16 is often misunderstood. Laodicea was located between two cities, one famous for its hot springs and the other famous for its cool mountain waters. Laodicea had brackish, vile water.
The point of hot water in the First Century was its medicinal value. As an arthritis sufferer, I understand. People traveled from great distances to enjoy the healing hot waters.
The point of cold water, of course, was that there was no refrigeration. In a hot climate, cold water refreshed and invigorated.
“Lukewarm” water, therefore, is water that neither heals nor refreshes.
The passage begins “I know your works”! This is not about doctrine but ethics. The question the passage puts to all congregations is whether they are places of healing and refreshing. Not all churches are.
In contemporary terms, are you accomplishing the mission with what God has given you? Do you serve your community? Do you make your neighborhood or town a better place?
It’s an important reminder about priorities.
CyclingDude was named that for some reason.
I wonder if he has ever heard of an Ellsworth Epithany?
Jay, it might do some good to post a list of the unbelievable differences that have caused splits in hopes having that list in front of them would point out the ridiculousness and maybe shame and embarrass our brothers and sisters into some patience with one another.
We are much rougher on one another than on any denomination folks.
Jay if you bothered to notice I was responding to Hank, even called him by name.
Hank, on August 30th, 2011 at 9:36 am Said: “Just like the multidenominational “church” my father in law attends in Mexico where they all believe (or are at least accepting of) every wind of doctrine.”
laymond, on August 30th, 2011 at 9:58 am Said:
Hank, here is another church that accepted any and all
positions.
(addressed Hank, by name responding to Hank’s comment)
Jay I suppose the statement you objected to comes from. The SDA Bible Commentary [E. G. White Comments], vol. 7, p. 963.
I believe I noted that also.
Then Jay accused me of building a “straw man” and exaggerating about it. Exaggerating, is one of those “polite” ways of accusing you of lying.
Jay “No one here is arguing for the position you just stated.”
And I can’t seem to find where I accused anyone of doing that.
Jay,
Thanks for the admin work, sorry for the hassle.
Doug,
Let’s face it…Compared to Doug, CyclingDude is lame and second-class…but I guess its a small price to pay to be part of a great conversation.
Alabama John,
I’m a Trek fan but you hit the sport (passion, love, obsession…) right on. I have seen a few Ellsworth’s on the trail…
Lymond,
You said:
but I certainly would not avoid folks of that persuasion
when talking of those with what you would call an invalid (improper, etc – you chose the word) baptism. My hope – my desire – is that you will continue not just to “not avoid” them, but to open your life to them, including your house and your church, as a way to enter into a relational space through which the beauty of Christ’s truth can shine.
Using CylcingDude’s idea of patience, from both the progressive and the conservative side, change will come to both sides over time if we but recognize in humility the dangerous pitfalls that either path presents.
As an intellectual, anti-social progressive prone to abstraction, I need concrete, traditional thinking in my life to keep me balanced – calling me continually to God’s word and to God’s community. If I just spent time with those like me, I would fall into true heresy – confusing my way with Christ’s way.
Maintain the beliefs, communicate the beliefs, but listen just as much. Christ’s truth exists in a space beyond either perspective, and only by our “oneness”, by walking the path of Christ together, do we find our best hope of bringing God’s kingdom to reality.
Peace.
“Why laymond, I think you might be a closet progressive.”
Doug
I doubt I would fit snugly in either closet 🙂
Just labeling ourselves progressives and conservatives is divisive. We are not changing our ways, just creating a different name for this particular split..