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 …?”
Chapter 13 is entitled “Come to terms with our status as a denomination.”
If the Church of Christ is to be saved for a meaningful ministry in the 21st century it must come to terms with its status as a distinct religious body, to wit, that it is at worst a sect, at best a denomination. This is imperative for one vital reason, self-authenticity. If we are to be a redemptive people in a troubled world we must be an honest people. We can’t play such games as “They are all denominations (or sects), but we are not” and have any viable impact upon a lost world. Ministers in other churches are “denominational preachers” while ours are “gospel preachers.” All other churches are “sectarian churches” while we are “the church.” It is understandable that our neighbors not only see this as arrogant, but it causes them to beg to be excused when it comes to having anything to do with us. (p. 153).
I’ve had many a reader upbraid me for referring to the Churches of Christ as a “denomination.” I always respond by referring them to a dictionary definition of “denomination” and ask them in which dictionary do they find their definition of “denomination.”
You see, to make the claim we’re not a denomination, we pretend that “denomination” means “a subset of the body of all saved people” or, more commonly, “a body of people in doctrinal error.” Well, those definitions aren’t really quite right — although by the first definition, we’re a denomination.
Merriam-Webster defines “denomination” as —
a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices
That would be us. And that’s how nearly all people use “denomination” in every day speech.
However, the Oxford Dictionary defines the word,
-
a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church: the Presbyterian community is the second-largest denomination in the country
-
a branch of any religion: Orthodox Jewish denominations
Now, by the second definition, which is the ordinary use of the word, we are clearly a denomination. It’s the first definition that gets us hung up. You see, what we’re really saying by “We’re not a denomination” is “We’re not in error” or “We’re the only true church.” Thus, we intend to deny that we are merely a branch of the larger Christian church; we are the entirety of the Christian church! We aren’t a denomination — we’re the only people going to heaven!
And so we see the reason it’s so offensive and unscriptural to speak in these terms.
Garrett, always the historian, says,
This line from Alexander Campbell might surprise some of our folk:
We, as a denomination, are as desirous as ever to unite and cooperate with all Christians on the broad and vital principles of the New and everlasting Covenant (Mill. Harb., 1840, p. 556).
We, as a denomination! Alexander Campbell! We might have to withdraw fellowship from him for that! Note also that he not only recognized that there were Christians in “other denominations” but that he was eager to cooperate with them. This shows that our exclusivism of having no fellowship with other churches is of more recent date than Campbell’s time, only the past one hundred years in fact. (pp. 159-160).
Garrett concludes,
“A denomination in protest” is a defensible position. We can even say that we are a denomination because we can’t help being, and that we don’t believe in denominations as the ideal or the final end for the church, and that we will work for that unity that will one day cause denominations “to die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large,” to quote another of our founding documents. (pp. 161-162).
If this be so, then in what sense does the ‘Christian’ world use the term ‘non-denominational’? I have run into so many people who say “i am non denominational’…
do they mean ‘not tied to one particular denomination’ or that the group they attend is not part of a denomination.
Certainly the early church was considered a sect of the Jewish faith (acts 24, Acts 28) but that was a perception of the world toward the church.
I have heard that denominations are bodies with a central leadership. I would agree that one might make an arguement that there is a ‘de facto’ leadership…the ‘Brotherhood’ so to speak. but does that make it so?
Good thoughts though.
Good points, Enterprise.
Jay, if somebody approached you and said that they were looking for a good, Bible believing, NON DENOMINATIONAL church, and saked if that;s what you were (the church overwhich you help oversee), would you be forced to tell them to keep looking? Or, could you honestly say that you ARE NOT a “denominational church”?
Why or why not?
Webster refers to a denomination as a “religious organization”, a term often leapt upon by some of my CoC brothers, who note the absence of any formal CoC hierarchy or any common governance. This reminds me of Will Rogers, who famously said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
Enterprise, the widespread use of the term “non-denominational” is a reflection of the general restructuring of the congregational landscape. Sometimes, people find that their denomination and their congregation have drifted apart, and leave the denomination while remaining congregationally intact. Often, it is simply that a group of people have decided to connect themselves together, and felt no need for a larger extra-local context. They are “non-denominational”, not because they oppose denominations, but simply because they are not part of one.
If they were voters, we would call them “independents”.
Garrett’s idea of a “denomination in protest” is, I think, appropriate, although I don’t think it really applies anymore. The CoC today is largely comfortable as a denomination among other denominations; that is, there is little effort made to reduce denominationalism. We would not mind if a local group decides to come around completely to our way of thinking… but that’s about as far as it goes. In the spirit of Jay’s referenced document*, we cannot be a denomination in protest and continue to exist in that paradox for long. We would be like a pacifist army. Eventually, we have to acknowledge that we are not really all that pacifistic… or stack arms.
*Jay, thanks for the reference to the “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery”.
All my life I have heard that “a denomination is a part of the whole, but the church of Christ is the undivided body of Christ.”
First, that is not a definition that is found in any dictionary I have ever consulted. Second, when we say that, people (correctly) hear us saying, “The Church of Christ is the only True Church; all others are not real churches at all.”
Nearly 40 years ago, a man in our congregation maintained that the Church of Christ is a denomination. This scandalized some of the members. I told him that I agreed with him, but that I deplored it while he accepted it. Now, I think I was wrong. I should have accepted that as the present reality while continuing to work toward the ideal in which all will be united in Christ’s one body – a goal to be realized when the Lord returns.
Garrett’s plea is not new. It is the same one Campbell made in 2009 in The Declaration and Address. It is one that Rubel Shelley and Landon Saunders made in the 1970’s – and for which they were figuratively crucified. It is one for which I have contended most of my preaching life, which is now more than 50 years – though I must confess that as time has gone by, I have seen the truth of this position more and more clearly.
God bless you, Jay, for publishing this plea anew.
Jerry
The root evil of denominationalism is what Paul wrote agains in 1st Corinthians. You won’t find a fitting definition in Webster’s or any other dictionary.
Putting a name on our subdivision of Christianity in order to set it apart from the other Chrsitians is denominationalism – “putting a name on it”-ism. Even the name of Christ Himself can be misused in this manner if we – for instance – name ourselves Christian Church in order to not be confused with the Church of Christ. And when we don’t use “assembly of God” because someone else already uses it with whom we totally disagree.
There is a valid reason for insisting on only scriptural names (plural!) for the church that do not exclude other Christians but express unity. The church of Christ in Graz/Styria names herself: “A church of the Lord Jesus Christ” – note the “a”. I like that.
It would be a challenge for most of us to just deny all these different names when we are talking about other congregations. Let’s call them Christians with a “Baptist tradition” – which acknowledges that they are Christians but does not deny their doctrinal oddity 😉 – likewise we are Christians in the tradition of the Restoration Movement, which is not odd at all of course …
This comes close to the famous statement: We are only Christians but not the only Christians.
This does not mean that we give up on Restoration or stop criticizing what is really wrong elsewhere. But we could come to the conclusion that the other congregations in town don’t need to close and join us in order to create unity. But they could (should/must) drop their name and become a simple church of Christ without having to adopt all of our (human) church traditions.
I say it again, just so I am not misunderstood: I would not call pedobaptist churches churches, because I cannot skip Eph 4:5. Leroy Garret and Jay go too far in this respect. But there is genuine unity with all who repented of their sin and got washed in baptism and sealed with the Holy Spirit. That’s all God’s work, and we must neither belittle nor destroy His works.
My vision for unity is nothing less than one church in one city under one leadership according and obedient to the whole Bible. As long as other congregations go for less, the divisions remain, but I won’t let our congregation be less than a model of such unity; so that people who visit us can see a glimpse of the NT church. Not that we are complete yet, but that’s our goal and vision.
As for what we can practice during the days to come: Let’s stop using denominational name-tags, but rather speak of Christians (of this or that tradition/background).
Alexander
Alexander.
I sense you have grown.
Jerry,
Do you go to a “Church of Christ”? If so, were someone to approach you and say that they were interested in visiting a NON DENOMINATIONAL church and inquired of the one of which you are a member, would you be able to honestly tell them that that is what you are are? A member of a “non denominational” church? Or, would you need to tell them that for a “non denominational” church, they would need to keep looking? Pretty curious about that.
Thanks
Alexander ends with:
“As for what we can practice during the days to come: Let’s stop using denominational name-tags, but rather speak of Christians (of this or that tradition/background).”
END ALEXANDER
Do you really find that to be helpful in any way? To me, that is just semantics. So I can’t say, “he is a Baptist” but I can say “he is a Christian — of the Baptist persuasion”??
This just reaffirms the old line: “The problem with Christianity is the Christians.” A distinction like that just seems silly to me.
Furthermore, to come full circle, the only reason it does make sense is if you are still stuck in the paradigm of “The COC is the RIGHT/CORRECT church”…therefore, calling someone a “Baptist” is treating them as un-saved.
Lastly, it is unfair when we refer to all of Christendom as “the church of Christ.” …Since we just happen to carry that as the denominational name on our banner. Let’s start referring to Christendom as “the assembly of God”! That is a perfectly scriptural name. We won’t do that, of course, because our selfishness won’t allow us to concede our higher ground. And denominationalism continues.
Hank,
When someone asks me a question such as the one you propose, I would honestly say, “That is what we strive to be – but I recognize that sometimes we do not succeed.”
Part of the problem here is that most of us do not seem to understand just what a denomination is. The easiest definition to understand is that a denomination denominates. In other words, it names something that is distinctive from other objects.
“That is a tree” denominates something different from the statement, “that is a car.” Of course, you can also denominate grades of differences in trees: “That is an oak tree.”
When we are truly undenominational, we will quit having “names” for the church. It will just be the church or Christians, or the body of Christ, etc. These are descriptions, not names. It is when we want to denominate ourselves as different from some other church that we become what we usually think of as “a denomination.”
I must be evil… for some time now when I I have seen these posts my only gut response has been that I somehow no longer care whether the denomination survives or not. God will get His work done anyway and use whomever He chooses to get it done. They will be just as flawed as we (and all who have gone before us) and it will still be up to the Spirit to make His will pain by what ever means He chooses. The only hope is that Jesus will finally come and break this cycle (oddly enough the same cycle of the OT).
So good that Jesus came to save men and women and not organizations.
Thanks, Jerry.
I agree with all that you just said except for the last statement which was:
“It is when we want to denominate ourselves as different from some other church that we become what we usually think of as “a denomination”.”
Isn’t that what every “non denominational” chuch is trying to do? Namely, stand and function apart from and independent of denominational churches? Surely, no self respecting non denominational church would say that they are connected and associated with the Baptists or any other actual denomination – which is why they style themselves as “non denominational”
Where I disagree with Jay and Leroy here, is over their claim that we ought to repent and publically declare that we ARE a denomination. If any of “our” churches are, we/they should repent of BEING a denomination and change whatever it is that makes us/them one in the first place! Why is being a denomination such a good idea?
Wouldn’t it be much wiser to encourage churches/congregations to NOT BE “denominational” rather than to be one?
I for sure don’t believe that the most God pleasing thing to do is for us to “repent” and act as though we are no different than the Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, and the other denominations. I believe we should be different than them. (And by “we” I don’t neccessarily mean coc’s, but whatever Christians and churches there are that wish to be most pleasing to God).
For members of the CoC to recognize that they are part of a denomination is simply admitting what is true. We can debate the undesirability of “denominations” all we want, but it is intellectually dishonest to think we are not part of that lot.
I wonder about all this criticism of the drawing of such titular distinctions coming from the CoC– who eschews such symbolic separation, and practices the real thing instead. Indeed, there are three separate little CoC’s within a half mile radius in my small town alone. Having the same title on the signboard does not unify them one iota. These are people who are part of the body of Christ, and who have built themselves three little local religion clubs in which to practice their traditions unencumbered by disagreement. Those who don’t agree on every jot and tittle start their own club.
Upon reflection, perhaps the CoC is not a denomination, in the common sense of the word– as a denomination suggests some sort of connection among a number of local groups. What we have over here in my neighborhood are three denominations of one congregation apiece. They share nothing, except in theory.
Hank,
If you check the Yellow Pages for your hometown, I suspect you’ll find your congregation is listed under “Church of Christ” not “Nondenominational,” although most towns have a few churches under Nondenominational.
If you’re asking whether the Churches of Christ are a denomination, the answer is a clear “yes.” I agree with Garrett that this is not a good thing, but the solution isn’t to damn all other churches and claim to be the entirety of God’s kingdom.
For someone seeking a nondenominational church, I’d ask them “why?” You see, some churches are nondenominational because they’ve taken autonomy to the point of isolation from other congregations. This is not holy at all. Some are not branded with a denominational name but are actually part of a denomination. There are very few that are truly unassociated with any denomination and that continue in fellowship with the rest of the Body of Christ in that town.
I suspect most people looking for a nondenominational church are looking for a church that teaches the Bible and not from a creed. In that sense, my congregation is certainly nondenominational.
In short, I’d ask them what they are looking for and then answer their question honestly. If they are looking for something that I believe to be contrary to God’s will, I’d gently explain my concern to them.
Enterprise and Charles,
“Non-denominational” is sadly largely a marketing gimmick. There are countless Baptist and Methodist Churches that avoid the denominational name and present themselves as nondenominational.
There are some truly independent churches that have no denominational ties. Some are excellent churches and some are small, isolated, and ineffective.
“Non-denominational” does not necessarily make a church a particularly good one, but it does often mean the church is careful to be open to all sorts of people. The term often indicates a level of hospitality and openmindedness. But every church is different. Sometimes it means the church got kicked out its denomination for good reason.
Hank,
It’s been a while, but I posted some time ago on how not to be a denomination. It’s dishonest to claim we’re not a denomination. But I entirely agree that we should strive to no longer be a denomination. /2010/06/the-future-of-the-progressive-churches-of-christ-a-model-for-the-post-denominational-world/
But it’s no easy task. You have to discern just what it is that’s wrong with being a denomination. We likely won’t agree, but before we discuss “How to be non-denominational” we have to ask why?
And the reason I’d give is because denominations divide the body of Christ and so weaken our ability to do kingdom work.
If the answer is “because the denominations are going to hell,” then we are starting from too far apart to come to the same conclusion.
“…whatever Christians and churches there are that wish to be most pleasing to God…”
Seems like what Jesus told the sons of thunder might have some bearing on this…
@JMF
It seems to me you did not really read my post. I did not question their salvation in anay way, and I put us into the same boat as “Christians from the Restoration Movement background”.
Neglecting our differences is no help at all, but understanding our differences as a matter of hiostory and tradition might be – as long as we are all striving for being only scriptural in our beliefs and practices (what at least most Christians profess to be).
Alexander
The fear that most in the CoC experience with the thought of accepting its denominational status is that of no longer being UNIQUE. The fear of being like everyone else, or even being a “nothing” paralyzes thought and spiritual hunger.
We even see this among others in conservative denominations, such as Baptist, Pentecostal, etc; the idea of turning their back on the pride that is part of their heritage is terrifying. Theirs may not be the acceptance of being a denomination, as much as it is accepting a humility that cannot exist in the self rightousness in which they have grown up.
In either case, it is not until an individual can face God each day with the honest prayer “Have thine own way Lord” even if it means becoming a “nothing”, that he or she can look around at others and genuinely see Christ as larger than themselves.
In my experience most who attend and profess to me a member say the Church of Christ is not a denomination because that is the acceptable and approved answer.
Whether its so or not only leads to debates, hard feelings, hard looks, and doubts about your strength in “The Faith.”
Being classified and thus treated as a weak brother or sister is not pleasant.
Jay, you make a good point about the use of the term “non-denominational”. I have found maybe half of clubs using this term are simply rebranded. Or, more often, they have minor variations from their denominational traditions. (e.g.; the “Body of Christ” groups in the Texas Panhandle are CoC’s with musical instruments and women allowed to read scripture at services.) But most of the time, in my experience, these quasi-denominational clubs merely obscure their denomination rather than deny it outright.. They use a neutral name so as not to put off people who might not try out a church of their denomination. I found this out firsthand at a start-up “community” church, when the pastor called me on the carpet privately for answering questions people had about speaking in tongues. What he would not say from the pulpit, he said over coffee, “This is a Southern Baptist Church and it always will be a Southern Baptist Church!” When I asked why he didn’t tell people this up front, he said, “It might keep them from coming in the first place.” I bit my tongue before “bait and switch” came out of my mouth.
But often, these denominations are sort of religious aggregates. In the first non-denominational group where I was a member, the elders were former Methodist, Baptist, Oneness Pentecostal, Assembly of God, and Word of Faith. When I became an elder there, it added ex-CoC to the mix. Made for interesting elders’ meetings at times.
With the exception of the bait-and-switch folks, I don’t have a real criticism of any of these folks calling themselves non-denomnational. They are merely trying to head off the question. Rather like those of us who refer to ourselves as “generic Christians”– sort of tongue-in-cheek, but not really.
“Neglecting our differences is no help at all, but understanding our differences as a matter of hiostory and tradition might be…”
I think this is true only in the context of seeing our club as part of the church in our city. Only if we presume and insist that we are ONE already, can the traditional differences find their appropriate places in the dialog. Otherwise, these tend to become more polite explanations for remaining isolated from other believers.
In the “church in the city” context, our traditional differences will likely be handled differently. Traditions span from a midrange (neutral and inoffensive) to hostile and damaging. Toward the other end of that spectrum we find traditions “positive but not too significant” and “positive and important enough to be encouraged to all”.
This is quite different from the the current tradition spectrum which tends to range from “ours, and correct” to “ours and optional” to “theirs and unimportant” to “theirs, which should stop at once”.
I myself have used the word to non-denominational to describe a congregational style of church polity. I believe now that congregational would be a better term than non-denominational. Though I detest denominationalism I also detest dishonesty so if we are a denomination in dictionary terms than it is what it is.
We have chosen the wrong hill to die on, again and again, and the result is that we are becoming irrelevant.
What we do for a few minutes on Sunday and how we do it, if or not we are a domination, and on and on…. Meanwhile a watching world that needs to see the unconditional love of Christ and compassion for the broken and confused, see people they would as soon avoid.
Until we get first things first our place in history will not be admirable.
“Meanwhile a watching world that needs to see the unconditional love of Christ and compassion for the broken and confused, see people they would as soon avoid.”
NIV Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
NIV Gal 1:10
Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Royce are we supposed to adjust the message to please men, now?
Laymond, there is the offense of the cross, which we must bear and not shy away from, and the offense of ourselves, which we should not require others to bear. Too often we have taken up our own shield with Jesus’ name hastily painted upon it and have misappropriated His aegis for our own traditions. Then, when our traditions were challenged, we claimed that these were not ours at all, but Christ’s command. We even have the gall to tread upon those for whom Jesus died… in Jesus’ name.
Royce correctly notes that we have again and again chosen the wrong hills to die on, hills other than “Christ and him crucified”. We have shed buckets of blood on Mount Immersion, Hermeneutic Heights, Acapella Peak, Denomination Ridge, and Autonomy Hill. Meanwhile, in the valley of the shadow of death, Jesus calls us to feed the hungry, deliver the oppressed, heal the broken and to lay down our lives for one another.
Royce,
If God is going to save whoever HE chooses to save, before and without “one bit of obedience” from man (as you have stated before)….what does it even matter what anybody does or doesn’t do on Sunday (or any other day)?
Don’t you believe and keep writing here that God is going to save (or not save) whoever he chooses to regardless of what we do? That’s what you have said here over and over again. And once God does send his Spirit into a lost sinner to save and forever change him, won’t he just naturally obey and please God? Just seems weird to me that you would spend so much time here trying to get others here to do or not do (or stop doing) certain things when you yourself believe that what WE do or do not do has no bearing on our salvation. Kinda confusing…
Charles,
I love to hear you talk!
Especially when I understand it !
^^^^ What Alabama John said!
You are a gifted writer, Charles!! That was great.
Just curious Hank…What do you do with all of those verses that have words like “chosen”, “elect”, “predestined” and the like? In my view there are two choices. You can ignore them or you can believe them.
I think you mischaracterize what I have said in regard to obedience. I don’t believe God counts a person not guilty on the basis of how well he lives, how careful he is to keep track of every sin and confess and repent of every one without fail. We are counted righteous on the basis of Jesus’ obedience. (..”by the obedience of one man many will be made righteous”)
This text in Ephesians 2 sums the obedience question up well.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10
Our salvation is “not a result of works”, how could it be more clear? However, we are made for (created in Christ..) good works. God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
A disobedient Christian, one whose lifestyle is a pattern of sin is foreign to the Bible. If you read 1st John carefully (all 5 chapters completely and prayerfully you will see that Jesus himself is eternal life and we are saved because we have him and we love God, love others, hate sin, see it the way God sees it, and can know without doubt that we are saved.
We are obliged to believe not just parts of the Bible but all of it in my view. One part does not cancel out another part. The correct view then is one that reconciles two seemingly opposing views so that we can believe both are true and embrace both. We don’t get to choose sides, there is only one side and that is God’s.
An example is in Peter’s address in Acts 2. He accused the hearers of murdering Jesus. He was correct, they did and they were guilty of his blood. But, in back of that was the the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. So, one brother can say truthfully “Wicked men murdered Jesus”. And another can say “God planned Jesus’ death and orchestrated it all.” Both would be true. The same thing is true of “free will” and God’s choice. Both are true and I believe both.
Third option: you can understand them or misunderstand them. Since Augustin and later esp. Calvin these terms are defined in ways i doubt God ever intended them to be understood.
Alexander
P.S. I should be fair to give you my understanding:
I disagree with “individual” or arbitrary election. But in the election “in Christ”. For one this is the wording in Eph 1:
Let me give you an illustration from Malachi:
The Election of the individual israelite was not an “individual election”, but God chose Jacob, and all of Jacob’s descendands are included in this election and participate of the blessing.
It’s the same with Christ: He is the Lamb chosen before creation! All who repent and believe in Him, partake of this election and blessing. It’s not an individual election: “God chose Royce, but did not choose Alexander” – because if we understand it this way, we are forced to accept “double-election”, aren’t we?
But read what Peter says:
We become elect at the time we respond to the Gospel. And through our walk with Christ we have to ensure our election through obedience and spiritual growth:
Election in the calvinistic (mis)understanding would not allow this. either you are elected or not (then you are elected for damnation); but you could do nothing to make your election sure! But if our election is a result of our faith in the Lamb that has been elected, then growth in our faith and love tworad Him strenghtens this election. Which on the other hand hints to the flipside: We can lose our election, such as many Israelites were broke off the Olive Tree because of their disbelief.
So: Being elected IN CHRIST requires of us to REMAIN in Christ. If we don’t do that, we will be fruitless and cut off the vine and burned.
Alexander
Royce, you wrote:
“I don’t believe God counts a person not guilty on the basis of how well he lives…..”
We know you don’t believe that. To you, “how a person actually lives” has absolutelt nothing to do with his salvation. In fact, according to your own words, God saves whoever he feels like saving “before and without one bit of obedience” from man.
You believe that “how well a person lives” only matter to legalists who want to take the credit of salvation from God. You believe that once God saves a person without him ever needing to obey even one solitary command, that that saved person will forever ne saved regardless of what sins he commits thereafter. That it would be impossible for him to ever be unsaved again.
You believe that whoever God wants to be saved will be saved regardless of what any man or men believe or do. Which is why I really don’t understand why you keep trying to influence what other people believe or do?! In the end, God is going to save whoever he wants saved, regardless…
I don’t believe God counts a person not guilty on the basis of how well he lives, how careful he is to keep track of every sin and confess and repent of every one without fail. We are counted righteous on the basis of Jesus’ obedience. (..”by the obediencRoyce, you wrote:
“I don’t believe God counts a person not guilty on the basis of how well he lives…..”
We know you don’t believe that. To you, “how a person actually lives” has absolutelt nothing to do with his salvation. In fact, according to your own words, God saves whoever he feels like saving “before and without one bit of obedience” from man.
You believe that “how well a person lives” only matter to legalists who want to take the credit of salvation from God. You believe that once God saves a person without him ever needing to obey even one solitary command, that that saved person will forever ne saved regardless of what sins he commits thereafter. That it would be impossible for him to ever be unsaved again.
You believe that whoever God wants to be saved will be saved regardless of what any man or men believe or do. Which is why I really don’t understand why you keep trying to influence what other people believe or do?! In the end, God is going to save whoever he wants saved, regardless…
abasnar, on November 4th, 2011 at 1:56 pm Said:
and I say I agree, with what he said, and amen.
Alexander, that was an excellent explanation! Really, God wants EVERY person to go to heaven and whoever instead goes to hell, will have only themselves to blame. Its not as though God did not “choose” them and therefore must go to hell regardless of any desire otherwise…
Thanks your work here…
Unity of the SPIRIT, it seems to me cannot be achieved by UNIFORMITY. Uniformity carries the idea of everyone believing the same thing of everything. This has never been the case in the church. Since the church is composed of humans, we have differences. People may not voice them for one reason of another, but the differences, and opinions are there.
Just sitting here thinking aboiut this and it just seems the unity of the Spirit must have as it’s base, a growing understanding of God’s grace. Just think of all the things we have differed over for the past 50 years.
Maybe we just don’t know what to do with differences. Maybe some feel challenged, threatened. Inevitably, differences surface. We will either deal with them or chase away those who differ by saying, “We think you won’t be happy here.” Understanding and growing in grace will help.
For example: a chain and a rubber band
The chain has no ‘give’ to it.
The rubber band will stretch. It however, cannot stretch endlessly before it breaks. However, it does have a certain amount of ‘give’.
Maybe in God’s eyes, there are people who are saved, that we consider lost. They have done what the Bible teaches but worship with people who use the instrument or use one cup or perhaps with a sign outside that simply says, “Central, where Christians meet”. Immagine what grace can do for the church. What does the church need to do to be saved? Of course the church is the saved. But to keep from destroying itself…. maybe a better understanding and application of grace will help.
Good words, Jack. But it is that moment of stretching that shows what we are. Some cannot stretch, for they believe that to go beyond what they already know would be catastrophic. And some fellowships honor these long-forged chains by refusing to allow others to stretch.
But stretching itself is not easy. I am reminded of Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof”. Twice, he is pressed and he stretches beyond his traditions, and even beyond his better judgment. A third time he is pressed, only to find that this is NOT a place where he can stretch. His angst is clear in that one line: “On the other hand… there is no other hand!”
But most of the time, we cannot discover these lines of demarcation in advance. We must let someone else stretch us and continue to embrace them in that painful process. God will reveal what is ours and can be stretched and what is his and must be defended. The difference often surprises us.
Say, Charles, culd it be that your view of things is shaped by your bad experiences? The picture you draw of the churches of Christ is absolutely not how I came to know, experience and love them. We in Vienna are probably about the most consercvative and radical group in .. OK … our immediate neighborhood. But we strive to live up to every word of our blessed King.
I miss that attitude in your posts. You are – as a number of other “progressives” – not really “proggressive” but “complaining”; maybe the “complaining church of Christ” is another schism, but I doubt it is a healthy one.
Think about it.
Alexander
Ah, the old “but WE are not like that” defense. It’s like the doctor finding healthy people in the midst of a cholera epidemic and presenting them to the media saying, “What cholera? We don’t have a cholera problem. Look here, do these folks look like they have cholera?”
Alexander, I am glad that your experience in the CoC is a blessing. In point of fact, the CoC schism in which I grew up and preached was not nearly so aggressively exclusive and was more grace-oriented than the mainstream congregations I know. I continue to talk with preachers from my old group and I find them to be by-and-large much more “progressive” than most of their denomination. My testimony does not reflect nearly as much personal carnage as many others have testified to in my presence. All that said, brushing off my comments as mere “complaining” is just whistling past the graveyard. Such a dismissive posture serves no purpose. I disagree with Jay on some things, but one thing that I appreciate is that while defending his denomination generally, he is willing to acknowledge systemic problems, even if they are not issues in his own congregation. This is Garrett’s position: he cares about his denomination and wants to see it reformed into a healthy expression of Christ. He is concerned that the combination of disorders from which it currently suffers could well be fatal.
If you haven’t staked yourself out on these “hills to die on” which I identified, then I commend you for that. The same goes for your congregation, if they have outgrown those old battle-fronts. My criticism of such things is of course general and not universal. But it would seem to me to be more useful if the more mature congregations of your denomination strove to help bring along your hardliners to a better understanding than to distance yourselves from them by saying, “Hey, MY congregation is not like that!”
I live in a part of the US where racial prejudice is still quite problematic. What should I do? Satisfy myself with declaring that I am not like those other rednecks; that I, for one, am racially unbiased? Or admit that the problem still exists in my own community and engage my own more-bigoted peers to try to change it? Or I suppose I could sit back and dismiss our critics as “complainers”.