My favorite conservative preacher and newly minted editor of the Gospel Advocate, Gregory Alan Tidwell, wrote,
I take no joy in our estranged fellowship, rather I am grieved not to have someone of your ability and character working on (what is in my view) the right side.
Greg,
I appreciate the compliment. Let me share with you why I’m on the side I’m on.
I’m a third-generation Church of Christ elder. I grew up “liberal” because, in my home town, all the other Churches were “anti” — as we said it back then (and not nicely). And they called me and my congregation “liberal.” I’ve had that tag hung on me since I was three!
In fact, some non-institutional church preachers damned us — although we were very much a conservative church, teaching adult Sunday school from the Gospel Advocate quarterlies. And yet most of my friends growing up were the sons of non-institutional preachers or elders or the children of our own preacher, who would always be very conservative — just not non-institutional.
So my roots are very conservative, having heard the most conservative arguments from the local preachers and their children and having attended many of their services with my friends.
There were no “progressive” Churches of Christ back then. I’d never heard of Leroy Garrett or Carl Ketcherside or K. C. Moser until after I’d finished at Lipscomb. I learned “Apostolic Church” from Batsell Barrett Baxter and debate from Marlin Connelly. But I learned Romans and the Holy Spirit from Harvey Floyd — and my eyes were opened — not all the way, but he showed me a glimpse of something much better.
The traditional arguments had never really added up for me. The perfectionism in our sermons didn’t match up with my reading of the Bible. The insistence on damning over the most picayune doctrinal disagreements didn’t match the grace we extended for a lack of evangelism or benevolence or even an ungracious heart.
I grew up arguing for CENI, the Regulative Principle, and such. I was truly quite the expert. I was the oldest son and oldest grandson of two of our elders, and I argued heartily for the official position of the church.
But I came to reject those positions for the scriptural reasons I’ve articulated here. I came to my view in conversations with my family and friends and congregation. I haven’t suffered the tragic separation from family and friends so many others have had to contend with. I’ve been blessed to be part of a church family that, since 1975, has allowed me to freely explore God’s word, to teach what I find, and to explore the heart and mind of God together. I’ve enjoyed a blessed existence in very many ways.
But I’ve seen division, split families, and unspeakable emotional pain within neighboring Churches of Christ — long before there was any such thing as a progressive movement. The church where I grew up was the product of a split over the non-institutional issue — and the pain was palpable even 15 years later when I graduated from high school in 1972.
I knew even as a teenager that something was seriously wrong with the Churches of Christ. The church we split from suffered another split when I was in high school. The children of the preacher were, as always, friends of mine. And so I suffered with them.
In a nearby town, the church of my preacher’s brother split (over his daughter winning a beauty contest), and both families suffered greatly. The girl was a cousin of the preacher’s daughter — and both were friends of mine. It was an ugly, horrible experience for her and her family.
Indeed, here in Tuscaloosa, for reasons quite independent of the conservative/progressive split, there have been three church splits since I moved to town. And there have been a number a major “migrations” from one congregation to another over disputes that have little to do with the conservative/progressive split.
Therefore, my change of heart came about, due not to the influence of any progressive thought leaders, but the influence of those who split churches for reasons that are utterly anti-gospel. You can’t live through so much un-Christian behavior in church leadership and not conclude that something is deeply mistaken in how we view our religion.
Thus, long before I became aware of any of the thought leaders that helped create the progressive movement, I was teaching much of the material you read here — years before Rubel Shelly wrote I Just Want to Be a Christian
If you want to find my intellectual roots, you’ll find they go back to Romans and the many verses on the Holy Spirit that I studied during law school. My wife was a practicing CPA at the time, and so she was always working during my breaks. I took the time away from school to explore what I’d been introduced to at Lipscomb. This led to the notes that, some time later, became The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace.
One of the first adult Bible classes I ever taught (around 1980) was on the Restoration Movement. My church had a great library for researching this material — and I discovered that the founders of the Movement had thought very much along the same lines as me! I read The Search For The Ancient Order: A History Of The Restoration Movement 1849-1906
And so I was teaching a unity, grace-based, faith in Jesus centered religion a long time ago, because of the influence of Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and — most importantly — Paul the Apostle.
In my studies, I did come across Monroe Hawley’s Redigging the Wells
(After I spoke at the ACU lectureship a few years ago, Br. Ketcherside’s son-in-law was so pleased with my teaching that he gave me several of his books — which I cherish. That was a highlight of my teaching career.)
In college, I was a B. C. Goodpasture fan. I was blessed to hear him speak twice while at Lipscomb. He was quite elderly at the time, but he was an incredible preacher and a man of great intellect — head and shoulders over the other preachers in town. My friends and I made a point to hear him at every opportunity.
And so I graduated from Lipscomb an avid reader of the Gospel Advocate. My church had several subscriptions and issued them to the members via the tract rack. I read them all.
But some authors wrote as though the greatest heretic ever born was Carl Ketcherside. They accused their opponents of “Ketcherside-ism” — a supposedly damnable heresy.
After Br. Goodpasture’s death, Guy N. Woods became editor, and the Gospel Advocate became devoted to the “word only” or “representative indwelling” view. And I found the articles not only unpersuasive, but plainly wrong. The logic was flawed, and key scriptures were ignored or misconstrued.
I stopped reading the Gospel Advocate about the time I finished law school, because I found it just made me angry. Good men were slandered, and the personal indwelling was no longer even a tolerated view for reasons that just didn’t match up to a careful reading of the Scriptures.
And so you see my influences. The biggest influence was seeing the heart of the conservative Churches of Christ evidenced by a perceived need to split over and over again, the freedom with which honest seekers of God’s truth were slandered, the pain many members suffered at the hands of divisive church leaders, and the ability of obviously wrong doctrine to be pounded as though obvious truth — with no voices in opposition allowed to be heard. It was plainly unhealthy.
Meanwhile, I had come to experience an inexpressible joy at God’s grace. When I taught classes on grace, students would leave in literal tears of joy, having found confidence and joy in Christ for the very first time. I knew I was going in the right direction. I could see the fruit of both approaches.
Passages such as the following finally began to make perfect sense:
(Rom 14:17 ESV) 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Here’s my theory for why we were as we were. You become like what you worship. If you worship a God who is quick to judge, damn, and separate himself from those in error, you behave the same way. In your mind, quick, harsh judgments make you holy because that’s how you perceive God to be.
But if you worship a God of grace and love, you become a person of grace and love. You become more patient with error, realizing that “there but for the grace of God go I.” You are free to see yourself as you really are — a sinner saved only by grace. And so you see other sinners in church as they are — sinners who are saved by grace.
And that’s the early part of my spiritual journey — and why I no longer teach on behalf of the conservative point of view. I bear no animosity. I got over that a long time ago. Rather, I feel the overwhelming desire to do something about the problem. I can’t bear to abandon a people I love so much. I want others to experience the joy of salvation that I’ve found.
Amen.
Thank you, Jay. My story would be similar. I was zealous for the law, including CENI and RP. My epiphany came when I followed the logic in JD Thomas’ book and tried to prove from the Greek that the Lord’s Supper had to be taken every Sunday, a CENI derived requirement that had the best support. Not just line up some verses that I already knew the meaning of into a traditional argument. Prove from the Greek by using real scholars. No opinions of someone else or commentaries. I couldn’t do it. That changed everything. My scriptural basis for why I was right and anyone who disagreed was wrong instantly vanished.
May I suggest that anyone who holds an interpretation of scripture that elevates your view above someone else’s so that fellowship in Jesus is prevented or “estranged,” that you take the responsibility for your own attitudes and prove your interpretations from the Greek of the NT. Not ECF, not Armenian, not Alexander Campbell, not anyone’s commentary or anyone else’s opinion. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Before you have to answer to God for holding a view that separates the body of Christ, or even “estranges” parts of it, prove your view from the Greek. Not JD Thomas’ Greek or JW McGarvey’s opinion or anyone else’s. Not past issues from the Firm Foundation or Gospel Advocate. You. Prove. Greek. If you can’t do it, how can you hold your interpretations above the Lord Jesus Christ’s prayer of the unity of believers? That’s not being conservative. That is idolatrous.
My search for what is wrong by conclusion of lack of growth and division lead me to a study of the “love feast” of Jude. I determined that “community” was lacking. This coupled with experiences with the Holy Spirit brought me to realize many false doctrines promoted by tradition and misguided goals.
I have told many that I have often wanted to start over. They ask, “where would you go?” I repeat, no, not go, but rather just start over.
I wrestle with the thought daily. I love my congregation and the church as God would have it and Jesus instituted. I just don’t see one out there. And if I were to plant another; it too would be flawed by human attempt. The question of restoration via reformation is a constant.
Thank you for your insights. May God bless you in your walk.
Following truth where it will take us always cost us something. It cost Paul his Pharisee status and perks. More recently it cost K.C. Mosier his career when he argued the man and not the plan. I think that is why we hold on to some of our convictions tightly, not because they are true, but because we know what it would cost us to change. Think of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19. To acknoweledge the truth that he did not follow all of the commandments- Jesus left coveting out of his commandments list to see if he would get it- would cost him tremendously. I am not saying that is behind everyone’s motives to not change, or even anyone connected with this discussion. I am just supporting what Jay has said in this post- to follow the truth is not without cost.
It has been some time since I have participated in this blog. Jay’s writings have been very helpful to me along with those of others mentioned above. I have met Jay a couple of times at Elderlink in Atlanta. I even had the opportunity a couple of years ago to spend a wonderful afternoon with Leroy Garrett at his home.
At this point in my journey, however, I have lost interest in such questions as how to find unity with the Christian Church. The reason it is no longer compelling to me is because of how it likely resonates in the minds of most in the Church of Christ.
Another great preacher I’ve had the pleasure to meet is Fred Craddock. I have been to Cherry Log, listened to him speak, and met members of the Disciples congregation where he lives. I believe I can accurately submit here that the question of unity between the Christian Church (which includes the Disciples of Christ) does not mean the same thing to them that it does to members of the Church of Christ.
My concern is that as long as we focus our efforts to mend the fence with the other factions of the Restoration Movement, we will still, intentionally or not, be maintaining the fence between us and the rest of Christianity. We will still be enabling the legalists among us to harbor phrases such as “so-called Christians” and “religious friends.”
Unity within the Restoration Movement may sound “progressive.” I suggest, though, that it takes precious energy away from the objective Jesus prayed for, that we “all” might be one.
The Disciples tore down the fence that helped separate all of us a long time ago. Why don’t we?
And that folks is the heart of the matter.
Jay,I can relate to all you are saying, I know most if not all here consider me as a “conservative christian” I can’t remember when I had a conservative thought.
I am an adventurer in life, and a bible believer in spirit. I have held membership in both prominent CoC here in town, and have been to neither in over a year. The smaller of the two we attended for years, until a verbal fight occurred from the pulpit with a leader in the pews. (our grandchildren were present) needless to say it was over leadership. We have not been back, (we have been invited back) although they seem to have their dispute settled after loosing half of the congregation, to the larger church. So why do we not attend the larger church.? Church building and finances- we had attended that church years before when they were in a tizzy about building a new building the minister was an older gentleman, who led the drive to get the money to build, sure enough when the new building was up, he was replaced. They had a very hard time selling the old building, because it was a giant building in itself, come to find out the building was not the problem, it was the location (depressed part of town) they finally found someone with deep pockets, you may have heard of them “The Mormon Church” as soon as the sale was final things changed, the fight for members was on we left.
Job 15:34 For the congregation of hypocrites [shall be] desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery.
We worship at home, we give though other charities. If you are looking for salvation through Jesus Christ, look in the bible. If you are looking for the perfect congregation, quit looking.
Just curious …
For me these are two pairs of shoes: There are postions and arguments which back up these positions. In the course of reading your story, you seem top blend these two.
While I disagree with some of the traditional arguments I basically came to the same positions conservative churches of Christ hold to. I use a different set of arguments to back them up.
But can we really say: Because the argument is wrong the position is wrong as well? In fact many – very many! – positions the churches of christ hold fast to today are VERY similar to the position sof the ECF in the 2nd century. Just the reasons, the arguments are different; and while I think the ECF had the better reasons, I still appreciate most convictions of the churches of Christ as in line with the historic faith.
Alexander
Aslan is on the move…
Jay – I find myself stuck in the animosity phase – towards the conservative CoC. This animosity is the result of many years of enduring condemnation of any group who dare interpret various doctrinal issues differently from the accepted interpretations. The final straw came when I was preparing to teach a Sunday morning class on the Holy Spirit. The week before I was to kick off the class, the elders asked to meet with me and informed me that (1) they did not want the H.S. class taught at this time and (2) when it was taught in the future, they did not want me to teach it. The reason for their stance on both points was that they had been told I was going to teach from your book “The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace”. Even though none of the elders had then or has since read this trans-formative work of yours, they knew just enough about it to know that you have been labeled by some as a “change agent”. Thus ended my 16 year relationship with a group of people who I love dearly. I heard a Progressive preacher say once that people who have a great knowledge of the bible but no understanding of God’s grace often are just mean. I’ve had it with meanness in the name of faith.
Rob, thank you for a great post. As a believer literally “born and bred” in the CoC who left that denomination long ago, I find myself pulling out my remaining hair over the intramural “unity” discussions by my brothers in the CoC preaching fraternity– for exactly the reason you reveal here.
At the end of the day, if one CoC camp decides to make nice and offer fellowship to the other camp, I am still on the outside. I will be identified in theory as a brother, but not in practical reality. The charismatic group with which I meet locally would still not be considered for fellowship by the CoC down the block. The elders would still not invite the Baptist preacher next door into their pulpit on a Sunday, nor join non-CoC’s in joint Sunday services. This is not because these CoC preachers would really object so much personally, but that they fear eroding their own base of financial and attendance support if they introduced such an innovation as unity with the WHOLE body of Christ.
Greg speaks of being “estranged” from Jay. (I’ll use them, without permission, to represent the conservative and progressive wings of the CoC. ) I would offer that all it takes to end an estrangement is for one to receive another. But the term estrangement is intended to sound mutual, an agreed state. In this case, the refusal to offer full fellowship seems to be unilateral. In this case, I do not see any “estrangement” on the progressives’ part. The door on that end of the hallway seems to be open. The conservatives, OTOH, appear to have closed their door and posted upon it requirements for entry that neither the progressives nor most other believers can meet. So, the barrier remains at the conservative end of the hall.
I heard something similar the other day. A man mentioned in passing that, “My wife and I have divorced.” I know good and well that he had left her for another woman and filed divorce papers after he left town with his mistress. But he did not want to admit, “I left my wife and divorced her.” He wanted it to sound as though it was a bi-lateral issue, when the whole thing was his doing. He sounded like the mugger who speaks about the old lady he robbed, saying, “We were involved in a robbery.”
In the interest of clarity, I think Greg might more accurately say, “I am sorry our views require us to refuse fellowship with you.” This might seem to be splitting hairs, but I would suggest that we are obligated to start speaking the truth about ourselves as flatly and directly as we feel so free to speak about others.
Too often, we describe ourselves as the “miguided youth” while our partner in robbing the liquor store is the “dangerous juvenile delinquent”. I am a big fan of polite tone, but when we become the major benefactors of our own soft language, it means less to me.
Charles: well put.
The only one here confessing to being estranged (or breaking fellowship?) is Greg, and, presumably, he speaks for himself and not the elders of the Fishinger and Kenny congregation in Columbus, Ohio.
Thank you, Rob and Charles for your comments on a more global perspective.
It is an indication of the finite size of the CoC universe when it such a huge deal for those who hold the traditional CoC CENI-derived doctrine to just reduce their condemning rhetoric which has been used to maintain a separation between their ‘purity’ and that of other Restoration groups, such as CC and DOC. While acceptance of CC and DOC into CoC fellowship would certainly be huge by a local perspective, on the universal scale it is nothing. It’s like people arguing whether or not God gave authorization for man to fly while being oblivious to those spaceships overhead orbiting the sphere of the earth. (They could be invading aliens.)
Jesus didn’t pray in John 17 for the CoC to be in unity with the DOC. It is unity of all believers, and “believers” is according to God’s definition, not ours. God doesn’t check our membership directories to figure that out. We will be known as belonging to Christ by our love one for another. Those who can’t choose to live in the unity of the Spirit in the political freedom we enjoy today will learn unity by a different method — it’s called dying together. How many more times do God’s people have to cycle through this lesson? Can we not read the scripture?
Unity of the Spirit is not defined as unity of the CENI. Too much of the CoC CENI-protected doctrine is insignificant and inconsequential to the magnitude of the real battle going on in the spiritual realms with consequences for our children and grandchildren to pay. Leaving a growing national fiscal debt for future generations to pay is nothing compared to the spiritual debt Christians are generating by arguing with one another instead of fulfilling the mission left by Jesus to His church. When will we wake up?
All of the above comments point to the hurt and divisiveness generated by CENI and the Silence that Prohibits. If these approaches to Scripture generate so much strife and confusion, is it not at least possible that the approaches themselves are flawed? Of course, the Churches of Christ are not alone in using these approaches.
When we become dogmatically divisive over highly opinionated readings of God’s Word, we directly violate the teachings of Romans 14. To use Romans 16:17 as justification for “marking” those who disagree with us is a terrible misuse of the passage. Do we never stop to think that Romans 14 is among the doctrine that we have received? Read in view of chapter 14, Romans 16:17 says we should mark those who cause division over disputable matters. In this, it would parallel Titus 3:10 where we are to have nothing to do with the contentious man after the first and second admonitions.
Jay,
The tradition of which I am a part has a glorious past, but a present reality which keeps me on the edge of bolting every four years. In contrast to you, I am representative of a fairly conservative brand within this tradition.
Over the years I have read your blog, you have been an example to me of an attitude I have too often failed to demonstrate toward others with whom I have deep disagreement regarding the way in which scripture is to be interpreted. Thank you, again, for your candor and your humility.
Mike