New Wineskins is in the process of posting a series of articles about the boundaries of fellowship. I’ve written an article on baptism scheduled to go live tomorrow.
The articles in this issue already posted are listed in the table of contents for the issue. You’ll notice articles by Royce Ogle, Keith Brenton, Gary Holloway, and Scott Simpson already up.
I’m presently engaged in a discussion with Scott Simpson over there, because I just utterly disagree with his thinking.
If you choose to comment on my article or others, you may find it difficult, because a bug in the software sometimes makes it impossible to comment from within Internet Explorer. However, I’ve found the software works from within Chrome or Firefox — both of which are free downloads and excellent web browsers.
Scott Simpson’s article is a prima facie case that my concerns about Progressives devolving into Universalism are well founded.
GATidwell
This is one time I agree with you Greg!
Royce
Greg,
While I hope I’m wrong, at this point in my reading of Scott’s work, I have to say that he gives every indication of being heterodox. I’m not even sure he accepts Jesus as Lord in the New Testament sense. He is not in any sense a part of the progressive Churches of Christ and speaks only for himself.
The Christian confession that “Jesus is Lord” implicitly denies the salvation of those who don’t submit to Jesus – even if they are God fearers. Paul wrote those words in the midst of his discussion regarding the tragedy of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus —
(Rom 11:19-21 ESV) 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Jesus is not A king and A savior and A lord. He is THE king, THE savior, and THE lord. There is no salvation anywhere else.
(Act 4:11-12 ESV) 11 “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
That is one of the essential elements of Christianity — and it’s a non-negotiable. And the history of Christianity — the very best of Christianity — is centered on this fact. The alternative is to dilute Christianity down to the Red Cross and the YMCA — organizations that do good in the name of Jesus but never save a soul. The church cannot be allowed to become like that!
Jay;
EVERYBODY in the church of Christ speaks only for him or herself. But, you seem to just keep moving the goalpost.
I take no pleasure in reminding you that when I recently brought up the issue of Universalism on this blog I was dismissively told it wasn’t so.
Now in the much celebrated return of the flagship publication of the Progressives, New Wineskins, an article is published which clearly shows the end result of what I call “limbo Christianity.” Like the Caribbean game it seems the only question is “How low can you go?”
In the February editorial in GA, I chronicle this sad devolution the Progressives are taking into oblivion.
GATidwell
So sad to me when 1 person’s failure is extended to entire groups. Do “some” progressives fail by going too far into universalism? Of course. Does that mean that the call to truth that the progressive movement heralds is wrong? Of course not.
In the same way, do “some” conservatives fail by going too far into legalism? Of course. Does that mean that the call to truth that the conservative movement heralds is wrong? Of course not.
And, just to defend the Scott Simpson a bit, he states a little more clearly in his comments that there are boundaries, and it is God that draws them. That, I think, is a statement that we can all agree with. Scott Simpson then just is very, very concerned with holding any human interpretation of those boundaries as definitive. Like Jay, I think that that goes too far. It clearly isn’t universalism in ideal (Lordship and Saviorship of Christ is acknowledged as necessary), though his perspective could most assuredly lead to it in practice (since we can’t know there heart, we simply accept all).
Greg, I don’t believe that conservative CoC’s are marked by racial bigotry, but I guarantee if I poke around a little I will find an number of embarrasingly prejudiced brothers in your clan. Should I recant my view of conservative CoC’s as a whole once I find at a dozen brothers who would not want their daughter to marry outside her race?
Some men are estranged from their brothers, not because they have to be, but because they wish to be. They take a perverse pride in isolation, in holding themselves apart from other believers, in treating other disciples of Jesus as the “unclean thing” which they are faithful not to touch. Such men appear to take considerable pleasure in finding the occasional justification to offer for their insularity.
Greg, I have noticed in this case that you appear to be limiting your input into this blog to just such chortling, while declining to engage in discussion which might call some of the bases for your isolation into question. This is disappointing. The forum here is one of the most welcoming that one will find among CoC sites, and features many folks who both speak well, and think before they do. I would gladly discuss your ideas– and have sought articulation of your views previously– but such simple label-pasting as you have offered here is an unworthy substitute.
I think I agree with Jay (on the Wineskins blog) that there is not an either-or choice here. Rather, an overlap of both analogies suits the reality better than one or the other. Of course any analogy can be taken only so far before it begins to be absurd. And absurdity seems in plentiful supply.
I would suggest that there is a boundary of spiritual identity which is not the same as a boundary of fellowship. Identity does have a firm line– one is in Christ or one is not. (BTW, if your pen itches right now to write, “But how can you be sure who is who?” I recommend that you be sure of your own place in Christ and stop expanding your examinations to others.) I agree that we cannot fudge the identity of the church by our own feelings or intentions. But to whom we extend our hand does not establish our own spiritual identity.
Fellowship does not require full agreement! And if there is some biblical minimum agreement level, I can’t find it. If my willingness to associate in friendship with a person depends on his salvation, I am hardly likely to win any of my friends to Christ. And if my association with him ends at the church-house door, what does that mean to him, or to us? Have we recreated the temple, right down to having a designated “court of the Gentiles”, beyond which my seeking friends are unwelcome? Are such people truly welcome at your church, or are they relegated to “visiting infidel” status? How many potlucks can our unbelieving neighbors attend in our fellowship hall before we require them to “get saved or get lost”?
I suspect the parable of the tares in the wheat was given primarily just to tell us to keep our cotton-pickin’ hands off other people until God sorts ’em out.
Scott’s little gravitational model breaks down, as all analogies do, at the edges. But I think it has value and would play with it a bit. There are those people who will be drawn into my own gravitational field, and as a result come closer to God, and soon be “caught” by the power of the Center of my own universe. There are some folks who will come into my field but who will skip away after a brief ride-along, finding not enough commonality to create a bond. And there are some who will be drawn into my orbit and stay at a tenuous distance, perhaps for a long time, before deciding whether to draw near or spin off. To me, we need not build planetary defenses to indentify and protect ourselves from invaders. We, rather, need to encourage those who stand far from the Center. This is not accomplished by pushing them away in some attempt to “purify” our fellowship.
Let’s say an elder has a problem with unbelieving kids who have migrated into the local youth group, who have very different moral standards than ours. Do we send him in like a sheepdog, to cut those promiscuous goats out of the flock? Or does he go in like a shepherd, to explain why we see things as we do, and to seek an understanding relationship with those who do not yet know Jesus?
I have a friend who was not ashamed to be associated with hookers and tax sharks. These associations did not sully his garments at all. And as I recall, it was not the lost, but the religious who called him a glutton and a drunkard for such associations.
Charles, I believe you might need to talk to some “techie” and write the script for a new video game…Grace Invaders… 🙂
I regret the current inconvenience with New Wineskins’ commenting software and hope Microsoft will soon have an update for Internet Explorer to make it easily usable again.
However, I am very glad to provide a thought-provoking piece which has become a point of at least some agreement between Jay, Greg and others who may be at odds on other items.
New Wineskins has always tried to prod readers to think for themselves — to “prove all things,” as the apostle Paul says. This requires writers who are willing to think for themselves, and sometimes the boundaries perceived by some must be crossed in order to find writers willing to express thoughts that challenge.
There would be a mistake, however, in automatically attributing editorial approval of every thought expressed in an article published in New Wineskins. There is some limit to free expression, to be sure, but the intention of publishing is to provide a wider opportunity to think and learn and grow.
Keith, it is nice to see an opportunity within the CoC community to engage and disagree without having to start another church around the corner… Or to sink into name calling and condemnation… Perhaps we need more practice on how to disagree. Seems like Paul had to correct a couple of leading women in that regard in the 4th chapter of Philippians.
Seems that he believed that it was possible to arrive at an “agreement in the Lord.” No mention of starting a new church…
My Gospel Advocate editorial for February was written before the New Wineskins’ Univeralist article. but it addresses my concerns. http://www.gospeladvocate.com/Magazines/GA/GAFebEdit.pdf
GATidwell
Sad to say that you make a correct observation on a the whole, Greg. Many will object and say: “Not I! Surely not me! I’m not that way!” and feel terribly mischaracterized. But you cannot just isolate one issue, because each little bit that is loosened is part of a progress (hence: “progressive”). If you have two points you can draw a line and extrapolate – in this case you not only mentioned two points, but several points. Looking at other churches who took the same road a generation ago we can be quite sure where it leads. This does not mean that all go to the very end of it, which makes the progressive movement (even though pleading for unity) a very diverse group unified only in their new “liberal” approach. I was also quite disturbed by the article of Scott Simpson – but I was more disturbed that so many applauded it.
Alexander
I’m sorry but I have read Scot Simpson’s article twice and just absolutely do not see how anyone can claim his article as an affirmation of universalism. He certainly offers no such conclusion in so many words. The article critiques sectarianism but that is a long way from affirming universalism.
As for that GA article…sad. I thought I might read something of why people can have faith in Jesus or how they can peruse living like Jesus a little more. Instead, more fear-mongoring.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
It is – also if Scott is stepping back from that a bit in the answers to several comments – a plea for a faith without boundaries. In effect this IS universalism. At least a “light” version of it. His approach lacks a lot – most of all scripture. Hints to his own experiences exlplain why, which makes me sympathetic to him as a person – but he should quit teaching the church of Christ until he has come to a better understanding of the scriptural boundaries. the church of Christ is not a place where everyone can say anything, but where the Word of God is spoken with clarity. Scott – and many commentators alike – reveal a mindset that tries to hint to and seek for truth and God’s will by pushing aside the tool we got in order to discern both: Scripture.
He did not like to be called a “universalist”, and maybe he personally isn’t. But the way he wrote and argued is universalist. If he (or others) can’t see this, it’s all the worse. But again, a consequence of the unclear sound that results of putting aside scripture, which seems to be an increasing development among the progressive movement (not only amiong churches of Christ, but among all denominations that are torn apart in a similar way).
Oh, he actually did quote one verse and alluded to two others (yet, completey out of context). The main point was a shaky analogy of boundaries and gravity, that indeed had some value (it was not all wrong!) – but that’s not the way to teach in a church of Christ! We have every means to make clear and decided statements without any postmodern ambiguities – at least in matters like these. This is sickening! And I do share Greg’s concerns fully: Where is this movement (the progressives) heading if they publish and applaud such an essay? This new Wineskin leaks.
Alexander
Price, I love the game title. But scripting this video game might be a challenge, as it would run counter to modern game design. According to my kids, who have considerable expertise in the subject, much of the modern video game is spent gathering and upgrading weapons with which to more effectively blast one’s enemies. I’ve already SEEN that script. 8/
“…but he should quit teaching the church of Christ until he has come to a better understanding of the scriptural boundaries.”
Of all the preachers I know who have had to “quit teaching the CoC” because we would not adhere to all their traditional interpretations of scripture, not one was ever welcomed back. In my experience, that door swings one way.
aBasner,
“…a plea for a faith without boundaries. In effect this IS universalism. At least a “light” version of it.”
No! That is what you say but not what the author has necessarily said. So rather than make an accusation of universalism, raise the question about the potential problems inherent in the centered set theory.
Such a question has been raised before which has led some (including myself) to believe there is a third option. This option I first heard proposed by Monte Cox (Harding University) advocate for. He calls it a “Fuzzy” set which draws upon the directional center movement of the Centered Set while recognizing some boundaries/markers that establish a commitment being made to Christ who is at the center. So it is not as if we must choose between one or the other when it comes to bounded and centered sets.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Fuzzy, blurry … a lot of shades of grey. OF COURSE we like that far better than a clear Yes or No, black and white. Blurring boundaries is just the first step to taking them away. Blurred boundaries leave a lot of space for “individual” application and strengthens individualism. The “third option” is universalism at a slower pace – probably not intended by the one proposing it, but nonetheless. A blurred boundary still is a boundary that can be blurred further until is dissolved.
This is fatal terminolgy, Kerry! Why not complying with “learning to obey ALL that Christ has commanded?” (Mat 28:20) and obeying all the apostles taught (1Th 2:15)? Here we come to terms with direct commands that are not to be negotiated. “Fuzzy” “principles” are a nice way around scriptural commands – and how many of these have been “re-defined” by this “blurry” approach in the last 20-30 years?
BTW I decided to stay on this Blog for further discussion (I just posted something there) – it would be too much for me to switch to and fro all the time.
Alexander
Brothers,
Please don’t misplace any determinations about my article by attributing them to New Wineskins, or anyone else. I think it’s very damaging to take what is said by a single author and blow it into some sort of “broader pattern” happening among some larger group. I speak and write from who I am and what I know. Plain and simple. If you disagree with it, that’s fine. You disagree with me.
Don’t count my little article as a harbinger of anything. Please.
Greg, I appreciate the opportunity to read your article. With all due respect, it starts with an outdated scare story, throws around a lot of labels, makes a lot of assertions, documents nothing and includes no contemporary examples of what are you talking about.
You’re allowed to do that as an editor writing an editorial, of course, but I think your readers deserve something better; something a little more concrete to hang their hats on. Who, specifically, is advocating the things you assert in the second column? Have you spoken to those people? Attempted to confront them in love about error or at least discuss what you disagree about?
Your opening anecdote prompts the question — and doesn’t answer it — why you didn’t stand up and vociferously object to that teacher erasing Christ as the center of faith for that church. You might have been there for such a time as saying that. Is that the pattern of the New Testament? To just walk away and not go back?
Most of what Greg mentioned in the 2nd column has been debated frequently in this Blog. The most terrifying series was on Leroy Garret’s book “How can the churches of Christ be saved” if you want to have a name of one of many loud voices. You can put his name to almost every point on the list Greg presented in the second column (except Unitarianism, which has not been discussed).
At the same time many progressives stand up and say: “That’s not (exactly) how i believe it.” This evolves into a funny game: They insist that you cannot take the view of an individual (as Scott Simpson) and apply it to the whole movement. Yet the “inofficial” publications of the movement publish and even recommend the ideas of the very same authors! In the discussions that asrise of course the diversity of opinions comes to the fore, so that – again – you can “correctly” say: “This brother speaks only for himself.”
Tell me: Does your trumpet give a clear sound? What the heck is uniting the progressive movement, what makes them a movement aside their opposition to the conservative traditions? To me it looks the motto is: “We don’t want to be like them, we want to open up, experience more freedom, be more inclusive.” Opening up alone does not give ANY direction. So within the progressive movement you have men like Jay who really and earnestly strive to go by scripture alone, and others who despise the authority and inerrancy of scripture openly. What a broad spectrum of even hermeneutical approaches! And far broader even the spectrum of opinions! It’s unified ONLY by not wanting to be like the conservatives, but otherwise it is as or even more diverse than the various splits within the conservative wing. The only difference: They don’t damn each other but even REJOICE in their ambiguities! Let me be a little more provocative: Our flesh demands ambiguities, it hates the clear sound of the trumpet. So, from a spirit-flesh standpoint, it is a logical development! Isn’t it necessary therefore to speak up against it? OF COURSE you and all others would deserve a better, more detailed, more differentiated critical documentation than this editorial. But would you really read it through? Or even be open enough to ask the question: “Could it really be that we took a fatal wrong turn?”
Greg’s editorial is an editorial, not a documentation. I share the concerns spelled out 100%. Looking at the New Wineskin Issue, I see it as a strange mix of sound teaching and new, unfounded ideas. This is all the more disturbing as the “New Wineskin” presents itself as a voice of the progressive movement, read by many who identify themselves with it. That’s why I said: The New Wineskin leaks.
Think about it, Keith
Alexander
One more example, Keith:
On the home-page of your website you hava a you-tube link. This video is a grand example of … universalism/inclusivsim. Why? Because it mixes two entirely different things it demands a yes to the one side of the story which is then automatically granted to the second part, where it is not appropriate.
The Yes: Yes, Christ invites all people to His wedding feast – these parables are eschatological, pointing to the weedding feast of the Lamb. All are invited, but not all come. That’s true. But there is something that is omitted, something very important that changes the whole story quite a bit: If one is found not wearing the wedding clothes, he will be sent out again. OK? So why is Christ presented as being “boundlessly inclusive” while He isn’t?
Well, you could point to the fact that He dined with everyone. Yes, He did. That was His ministry on Earth, that He associated with sinners in order to redeem and heal them. That was His outreach, His mission. AND IT SHOULD BE OURS TO. So, again Yes.
BUT there is a NO also: These outreaches are not the same as having the love feast which includes the Lord’s Supper. These meals are exclusive in nature! They have their types in the Passover where only those whoe have been circumcised were allowed to partake. YES, all are invited to be circumcised, but no uncircumcised person could join the meal (for women: No woman who did not willfully join the people of God). Or the Altar: Not all had the right to eat from the meat sacrificed on the Altar. We have to be separated from idolatry. I could give you more examples that clearly state that only Christians in good standing are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper.
Now, what the video does, it eliminates ALL boundaries, omitts even the wedding garment and blends two entirely different things (outreach and the fellowship of the church) into one big inclusive feast. We are quickly ready to give our AMEN after the first 20 seconds, then 5 seconds later again, and so on, and after having said Amen so often we agree with a watered down universalist presentation of the Gospel.
I give you a suggestion: When you post something, look at it through conservative eyes as well. That is, only if you want to convince some of us.
Alexander
aBasner,
For you to say Leroy Garrett is “that teacher erasing Christ as the center of faith for that church.”, is not only wrong but its dishonest, you know better. For you, my respect meter is pegging close to 0 about now.
In a movement where tradition still competes every day with Jesus for preeminence, I thank God for Leroy Garrett and others who keep Jesus, not the church of Christ, at the center.
Keroy is not erasing Christ from the center – I did not say that, Royce. But he is erioding boundaries that Christ and his apostles have set. As many who do this, they firmly and strongly argue for a Christ-centered church – but at a closer look: Their Christ is strangely different from the Bible (see my comment on the video on new Wineskins).
Alexander
I tried to post this at Wineskins and gave up. So I’ve posted it here.
Keith, thank you for this issue of Wineskins! Jay, great article! After reading the article, a question raised its hand in my mind. Do the following promises (in the way we commonly understand their meaning) contradict each other: (1) I promise to save all who believe in Jesus. (2) I promise to save all who believe in Jesus and are baptized as Peter revealed? And let me clarify the question. It is not to be understood in our current space-time reality. It has to be understood in the space-time reality where God is. So stated more clearly, do these promises contradict each other “in truth”? Can both of these promises, the way they are generally understood, be made “in truth”? If God can make such promises in truth, then God would honor both. If they can’t both be made in truth, then God would either honor one of them if it was truth; otherwise God would honor neither.
When Jesus spoke the words Jay quoted in John 3:14-18 (NIV) “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” . . . they were spoken in truth, or said differently, they were spoken in the realm of truth which included what would be revealed by the Spirit to Peter at Pentecost . . . and also what Jesus would reveal to Nicodemus regarding being born again . . . and also the truth which was the basis for the Great Commission . . . and on and on.
Is the common understanding of the two promises truth? In the space-time reality where God dwells, God is aware of all truth. And when God speaks, he speaks the truth. God cannot contradict himself. Not because he shouldn’t or because he has committed himself not to do so, but because it is impossible for him to do so. This is not a limitation on God. Rather, it is an attribute of the perfection of God.
And so God cannot give promises that contradict other promises and be held to honor such contradictory promises. It is not possible because it isn’t reality. It is impossible for God to make contradictory promises. And so the question remains, “Have we established that the common understanding of these promises do not contradict each other . . . in truth?”
If they don’t contradict each other, then I believe your argument is meritorious! How do you like the sound of that word? But if “the common understanding of these promises” is contradictory in truth . . . in reality, then there can be no expectation that God will honor both contradictory “common understandings” and the article needs revising to represent . . . you guessed it . . . truth and reality. At which point I think we will find ourselves looking to 2 Chronicles chapter 29 . . . as you have already pointed out in previous postings . . . to see God’s nature in handling those who have sincere hearts but who missunderstand.
Either way, we will arrive at the same answer, that God will save those who seek him with sincere hearts (faith). What a comfort for all of us!
Alexander,
I’m not aware of a progressive movement. I don’t carry a card for one. I’m not interested in being part of one. I don’t know anyone heading up such a movement. I don’t recall New Wineskins ever once advertising itself as an outlet for such a movement — though I do recall saying that if there must be a new Restoration Movement, let it focus on restoring souls to Christ rather than restoring the church to century one.
I do have a deep, sincere and unqualified respect for scripture. I have no respect for human claims of perfect interpretation and doctrine of matters that scripture doesn’t even touch. I have a great discomfort with labels being thrown about, and division advocated “for any and every cause” under the pretense of trumpeting unity — but only under one perfect human-originated doctrine. Is scripture insufficient? I don’t believe so. But I believe that by study, meditation, dialogue with others, and requesting the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, we might together find insights into scripture that no single creed could illuminate together.
I do not understand the fascination of some churches and individuals with cobbling together some kind of perfect human creed or doctrine to which all others must bow, and that is why on the New Wineskins pages you will read a variety of points of view. They are intended to provoke thought, as I think I’ve said already above. I don’t understand any perceived need to appear divided and exclusive and judgmental to the world, much of which does not / will not believe because of that perception.
Except in extreme cases like those in scripture where wrong teaching and sinful behavior threatens the heart and reputation of a church, should not our goal be to imitate Christ’s loving and welcoming spirit?
Yet I continue to encounter individuals, churches, publications and lectureships whose primary purpose in life seems to be condemning the saved rather than seeking the lost.
It’s going to be extremely difficult for me to “see things through conservative eyes,” no matter how hard I might try. I have little to no background in it. I would have equal difficulty trying to see through liberal eyes, and for the same reason: because respect for scripture is not negotiable with me.
And as a postscript: I’ve never seen anyone able to read so much into a simple video in my entire life!
Why didn’t you notice it (the tendency in the video)? If you listened to me speaking English you’d undoubtedly notice a hint of a German accent (not very much, though) and my writing quite often contains small grammatical errors. These go by unnoticed for those who like me have English only as a second language. You think and converse with people with an “inclusivistic theology” or who are “at the fringes of orthodoxy”, and therefore the inclusivistic tendency of the video goes by you either unnoticed completely, or it is so natural to you that you don’t even think of questioning it. So I listen with a different set of ears.
I do believe you that you have a deep and sincere respect for the Scripture. But you dance around at the edge of orthodoxy, Keith. You play with exaggerations (“Certainty as a trap” – “I love homosexuals”) that are right on the edge of what is theoretically still within the limits. For you this may be allright, you feel safe and balanced – on this edge. But as I read the comments at your Blog and (sometimes also here) there are many who readily go beyond what you say, simply by extrapolation, at least one once openly confessed to be a universalist, by taking on more (logical) step. And you also seem to slip a bit when you say you don’t have to be concerned about who is lost and who isn’t in the comment-part of “Coming out of the Closet”.
If you deny that there is a “progressive movement” then what is Jay saying when he lists your Blog in a list that he explains as follows:
Don’t play “innocent”, Keith. You know full well what this term/label means, that there is a schism, a split among churches of Christ, and that the discussions about the differences are sometimes quite heated . And your “dancing at the edge” does not help coming closer at all, because statements like the ones quoted, are disturbing to all who hold fast to a more historic understanding of the faith. I still recognize the tendencies to inclusivism/universalism, and I believe you that you don’t see nor intend this. It is a step by step process of eroding boundaries and blurring certainties. I doubt that the split will be healed again, and I see the Progressives heading to where the Episcopalians and Disciples of Christ are today. History is repeating itself.
Alexander
Jay chooses what he places on his blog. I choose what I place on mine. We don’t always agree with each other, but we are still brothers in Christ, Alexander.
I do note that there are plenty of folks who are eager to create labels and can’t wait to use the word “apostasy” in a sentence. Folks who see a heretic behind every tree in the woods and rush to cut and run when there is any difference of opinion. That distorted view of fellowship is of great concern to me, and that’s what this edition of New Wineskins is intended to address.
Clearly your toes feel stepped on, despite any protest in the comments there that you are not threatened.
Did Jesus dance on the edge of orthodoxy? No, sir, He plowed over man’s “orthodoxy” until He had turned up a whole field of fresh, fertile soil to plant the seed, the Word of God, there. I can only pray to have that kind of courage.
If you think His purpose is best served by excluding as many people as possible from the Kingdom by labeling and drawing as many lines as possible and daring others to cross them and accusing and dividing, then that’s your business, brother.
I don’t see things that way, and my business is to be about His, to the best of my ability to perceive it and do so. Do I have an agenda? Yes, and that’s it.
I’ve written another article going live on the twenty-first. I doubt that you will like it. It is about fellowship and judgment. I am no scholar of Greek or New Testament history or preaching, and I could easily have many more knowlegeable people show up and prove to me in the comments that I am full of beans. That’s okay. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, But I will have made an attempt to put a stop to something that I perceive as terribly wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.
I hope you’ll meet me there.
Alexander, when did the idea of “loving homosexuals” place us on the “edge of Christian orthodoxy”? I also love gossips and gangbangers, bigots and burglars, pharisees and forgers, meddlers, murderers and malcontents. I have a Master who does the same.
You accuse Keith of dishonesty, or at least of dissimulation, Alexander. (“Don’t play innocent” is pretty clear, my friend.) I don’t find your accusation well-founded. As you say, it may be that we see things through different eyes. The fact that there are pejorative labels being thrown around the denomination does not require anyone to accept such labels, or to tacitly validate them by speaking in those terms.
I just read a few articles, and I made up my mind and drew my conclusions. I engaged in the comments and in a short debate, and at last I withdrew, because I simply find no common ground with this mind set, not one sqare-inch. That’s alien thinking, a strange language … and that’s why we can’t really communicate.
Yes, Keith is playing games when he denies that there is a progressive movement. Whether he sees himself as a part of it or not, he has the same approach and mindset that is typically “labelled” as progressive, and his Blog is ranked under progressive Blogs. His main authors are “heroes” in the progressive movement … and OF COURSE a movement is a movement and by its very nature is not headed by a single leader or publication. So that was no argument at all.
I did not call him apostate either, but the movement as a whole is a schism, splitting the church of Christ once more. And it’s not about IM, it’s about their whole approach to scripture. And because the movement is very diverse OF COURSE you can name brothers that are upholding the inerrancy of scripture (like Jay) and say: “They are not all that bad” – but that’s not the movement itself (Jay himself often disagrees with parts of hte movement). And from what I have seen and read in the past two years I say it is the same split that divided any denomination today: A split between liberals and conservatives. The hermeneutical differences are the same, the discussions are the same, the alienation is the same. This is not unique to the churches of Christ.
Alexander
One publication shares challenging material from different viewpoints, expects the reader to practice discernment, and doesn’t set up its editorial staff as the arbiters of Christian truth.
One publication only shares pre-chewed material from one viewpoint, assumes the reader is incapable of practicing discernment, and only publishes articles that its editorial staff affirms is the truth from God.
Publication #2 used to be like Publication #1, offering a forum for disagreeing views to be aired and compared publicly. My, how the times have changed.
The Kingdom of God is not a forum for multiple viewpoints, but for God’s Word as inerrenat and absolute truth. Not to be questioned, not to be divided, not to be added to nor taken away from. As it has been delivered to us once and for all.
Eroding boundaries and blurring certainties is not the way to unity, but to more and more alienation. When the Word of God is no longer valid, questionable, and the sceptics rule over those with certain boundaries, I feel definitely NOT at home.
In fact, I prefer publications that are sound and prechewed over publications that spread unfounded material. Not because I cannot deal with unfounded articles, but because of the harm these do to the whole church, the unnecessary debates they produce, the alienation they result in.
Alexander
aBasnar writes: “The Kingdom of God is not a forum for multiple viewpoints… blah, blah, blah.”
Methinks he is unfamiliar with Rom. 14.
Alexander, because of Ephesians 4, I insist that there is only one Body. I do not recognize labels or attempts to divide that Body. I will not.
As fellow believers, we are members of that Body. So you and I, like Euodia and Syntyche, are going to have to figure out how to get along.
I don’t know what things are like in Germany, but in the United States there are no monolithic organizations as you describe with the labels you use. That’s a myth. Even Churches of Christ continue to be divided by people insisting on their own way over instrumental worship, support of children’s homes, how many communion cups to use, whether women can pass communion — and I would estimate another two to three dozen issues. They will not fellowship each other. In the church. On the street. On the Internet. In their publications. Anywhere. One church, one Body, divided. But not in two. In dozens.
So forgive me if I can’t get excited about the categories and labels you’ve chosen.
The world continues to be lost and wandering in sin and moral ignorance, apathy, and/or confusion.
While Jesus weeps over this Jerusalem.
I have a job to do. And so do you.
Lead, follow — or get out of the way.
@ Charles MacLean
You asked:
I think, Greg is a lot wiser than me. AS you probably noticed, i was the only one sidung with him here, arguing for his position voiced in his editorial. The debate that aroused gives you a glimpse of what Greg most likely is not willing to “suffer”. If in the end all “we” say is “Blah, blah, blah”, there is no point in discussing any more, is there? In times like these we seem worlds apart …
See, Greg knows why he does not participate (I assume).
Alexander
Alexander, I am disappointed that you have determined that all that has been said which does not support your view is “blah, blah, blah”. You and I do not always agree, but I generally find you to be more thoughtful than this.
Charles,
I think [think] Alexander used “blah, blah, blah” as a figure of speech to describe how “progressives” hear him [me as well] as a “legalist.” He called what he said “blah,” not what everyone else has said. If I have understood him correctly, he is simply trying to say that sometimes there are so many conversations going on that it seems more like noise than conversation. I know he [and I] strive to cordially yet clearly answer all questions asked of him [and me], but the same courtesy is not always given in return. I hope that helps, charles.
Blah blah was Bobs description of Alexanders comment.
Then I stand corrected. Sorry, Alexander. I shall be more careful.
I heard a number of clear points in the discussion, anything but “blah, blah, blah”. But it does take considerable effort to push through the cloud to get to what the actual talking points are. It is too common for us to make sweeping generalizations which are too broad to be argued cogently, and to insist upon terminology which our interlocutors do not accept as valid. And, yes, we may well do more parsing of language than is useful in actually getting anywhere.
Alexander, I’m sorry you spoke for Greg. I also suspect there are reasons he does not engage. In similar situations, where I see people offer up a “chuck and duck” approach of offering a sermon and this disdaining to discuss it with anyone, I have found some unfortunate reasons:
1. Preacher is not confident in his capacity to defend or explain his point of view
2. Preacher is not comfortable with any real challenge to his reasoning or biblical interpretation. (Pulpits are notorious “transmit only” stations, and tend to atrophy a preacher’s skills in discussion and listening.)
3. Preacher presumes that any notion contrary to his own view is so wrong as to be unworthy of examination
4. Preacher considers those who might question his teaching so far from God as to be unworthy of his entering into discussion with them
5. Preacher suspects flaws in his own argument and wishes not to consider them, for fear of risking his own place, which might depend on this argument
I’m not accusing Greg of any of these things. But when I experience this kind of reticence to enter into discussion with other believers about what one so boldly declares, it leads me to speculate. I would much prefer to hear from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
We’re coming closer, Charles. I chose to voice Greg’s position, and I sensed that this might be the outcome. It’s not the first time that I end up in frustration and notivce that I really have to bite my tongue. I found the following at Olan Hick’s site that sums up my feelings quite well:
The debates between progressives (yes, Keith, they DO exist) and conservatives are not unique to the churches of christ at all. Evangelicalism is devided the same way. Why do you think there is a Lutheran church Missioury Synod or the Eisconsion Evangelical Synod (both in opposition to the ELCA). THe Roma Catholic church is equally divided about the essence and application of Vatican II.
About 7 years ago I engaged in numerous discussions with liberal Lutherans in Austria. What hurts me most in the discussions with progressive coCers is that they use basically the same reasoning and language. The liberal Lutherans however deny alomst each sentence of the Apostolic Creed. The progressives amng us don’t go that far, but ehen language and reasong are the same, I get some ungly feelings in my stomach. These can’t be my brothers, can they? What language are they speaking? What is the basis of their thinking?
This is a different kind of schism. It is not between denominations, but a “cross-denominational”-split (I just coined that term, so maybe you won’t be able to trace it via Google) between liberals and conservatives. You know, I feel I do have a lot more in common with conservative Catholics than with liberal church of Christ people. A whole lot more, in fact – and that’s true across all denominational borders. So maybe this opens a new approach to unity … I like this verse, and it is of great comfort to me:
Whether God counts me among those today or not: I strive to be among them.
Alexander
Blah, blah, blah, might just be the only three words we all can agree on! Of course that would depend on who uttered those words.
LOL
I find the conversation interesting and wish I had time to engage, but don’t. I appreciate the posts and reader comments. I sure wish Greg would quit generalization and engage in conversation though – lobbing bombs into this forum of reasoning is, well, unreasonable.
Alexander, you do realize that most of the Conservatives think CS Lewis is most likely in hell.
The church of Christ of today has those who are collaborating with the enemy and their number seems to be growing. Some details of their thinking may not always be the same but the target is the same, destruction of basic Biblical premises. The Bible tells us why this is. They have embraced a basic concept that they like, according to “the rudiments of the world.” That concept is so dear to them and they like it so well that any concept that contradicts it, even Bible teachings, will meet with hostility. When Paul said we must “Preach the word,” (2 Tim. 4:2) he added, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables.” What they hold is fiction because it is a product of their own taste, not God’s prescription. They cast away their only hope, the decrees of God’s word.
When you try to help them, using the Bible in its appointed way, “for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousess,” they reply with, ”What a mean, ugly spirited person you are to say that!” The sad part is that men of this mind set are being featured on several of our lectureship programs, Pepperdine, Tulsa, and even ACU.
Did anyone else notice the reference of fellow Christians as “the enemy?” I found this part of this debate, that it would even be believed to have needed to have taken place, the most troublesome!
To add my two cents to the discussion on this blog, I just find it most divisive that in protection of our most sacred of cow, our stance on baptism, we oftne say of other Christians that “those people don’t believe in baptism” it’s not true. Every stream of the Christian faith practices water baptism in some form or another. We may believe differently ABOUT baptism, and those differences in view can and ought to be discussed without condemnation and a disowning for disagreement but it is most divisive to say, well you don’t agree with me, then you don’t even believe in baptism at all.
Friends, acquaintances, and brethren;
I have, at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past, addressing a wide range of the issues at hand. I do not, however, feel compelled to repeat at length what is readily available elsewhere from me or from others.
Engaging Progressives on this forum is like trying to nail jello to the wall. When a Progressive goes further than the tribe is willing to defend at the moment (And, as I have often pointed out, what was unmentionable a few years ago is commonplace today) the aberrant teaching is simply defined away. “They do not represent the Progressive churches of Christ.”
Better yet, just obfuscate and claim there is no Progressive movement, in spite of the continual way in which Progressive churches of Christ are described as a distinct entity on this blog.
When all else fails, devolve into infantile monosyllabic bleating, “Blah, Blah, Blah.”
Alexander has ably laid out the matter at hand, and you have given him short shrift. While I appreciate Jay’s personal courtesies to me and will occasionally post as long as I am welcome, I do not intend at this time to extensively debate online.
Best Always,
GATidwell
Actually, no. I found clear statements that fellow Christians are collaborating with the enemy. Well, this puts them in danger of coming under “friendly fire”, like sheep dressing up in wolves clothes can easily be mistaken by watchful shepherds.
This is indeed a serious matter. Many scholars (and their number is growing) are adopting hermeneutical methods that were developed by sceptics. Historical criticism sounds so objective, scientific and up-to-date that thinking Christians often find it hard to resist it. Especially Universities striving for accreditation are forced by the scientific world to at least teach the methods taught in all seminaries. I have heard a speaker from Pepperdine and I noticed right away: That’s liberal (critical) theology. The same with a professor from ACU. Jay frequently mentioned that there are some among the faculties of “our” Christian universities who openly question the inerrancy of scripture. And he is NOT happy with this.
That’s what’s meant with “collaborating with the enemy”: they adopt the premises of a sceptic world and apply it to their hermeneutics. The result is what I pictured (with rather broad strokes) as blurring certainties and eroding boundaries. Suddenly the boundary between who is in and who is out gets replaces by a fuzzy inclusivism (all are welcome at the Lord’s Table for instance); baptism becomes negotiable; women start preaching and get elected as elders; divorce and remarriage seems less and less be taken seriously … Ecumenism replaces scriptural unity.
I was greatly disappointed with the New Wineskin. The articles are (with few exceptions) shallow, not well thought through, lacking essentials and – my impression – also quite provocative towards more conservative minded Christians.
That wolves are dressing up as sheep is a danger we must be aware of. It is only natural that some sheep will join them, because they made their voice so soft and warm (in Grimm’s fairy tale the wolf ate chalk to smoothe his voice). And suddenly dear brothers and sisters are standing on the wrong side of the fence! Believing and uttering doctrines alien to the Kingdom and contrary to God’s Word. When we shout to them: “Come back inside the fence!” They answer: “Tear down this fence! It’s legalism!” Yet, the fence is there for a reason, isn’t it: To keep the wolves out. Hadn’t it been predicted by Paul and Jesus, our Lord, I would be shocked and paralized in disbelief. But now, I know whom I have to resist – which means I also have to speak against the convictions of some brothers. Of course they won’t like it! They experience the fellowship of wolves as freedom and the boundaries of a biblical (traditional) hermeneutics as legalism and bondage.
Are they enemies, therefore? No. But they stand on the wrong side and fight for the wrong cause. In this they tear Christ’s Church apart – across all denominations (this is not peculiar to the churches of Christ). The same battle rages among Evangelicals and Catholics alike.
Alexander
In short, Alexander is all about equaling the Gospel with our own teachings about the Gospel (which is the essence of “doctrine”), then judging those who don’t conform. This is, of course, as waste of time, a diversion, and a heresy.
Tidwell’s problem is that he all about dividing over “doctrine” and appointing himself the decider of who’s in and out. His further problem is that he’s been this way since at least his days as a Lipscomb undergraduate when he would insist identifying himself as a member of the “First Estate” even while working as an “apprentice minister” at the West End Church of Christ, Nashville.
Re. Alexander and Tidwell, an old friend once told me “it’s one thing to keep beating the same dead horse, quite another to keep running over the same dead dog.”
Brothers, just last Sunday we had a man come to services that was in BAD shape, so much so he couldn’t be baptized.
Our preacher didn’t preach a sermon but instead announced this as he was rolled to the front, many surrounded him, touching him, and his confession was taken. Then ALL the church was asked to get down on their knees, they did, and together prayed for him to our merciful God.
What a service.
I know how the conservatives would see this as I’ve heard it all my life, but, how about you here on this site?
AJ… for a church who believes in the salvific nature of baptism, I think what you described was one of the humble and heartfelt expressions I’ve heard of recently. Good for you guys !!
Greg…wimpy response.. Kind of tough to preach the those not in the choir, huh?
Jay…who gets to decide who is “conservative” and who is “liberal” or “progressive”…Which division of the CoC (some say there are more than 50 divisions) was anointed as the “one” to provide a benchmark? I see those that removed musical instruments from worship without specific authorization as progressives.. Was it “progressives” or “liberals” that let the black man come to church? Which one allows support for children’s homes, or women to vote/wear pants? It all sounds like a family feud that’s gotten out of hand.. Are we better off having leaders in the CoC like Greg who continue this assualt against one another or leaders who try and end the feud? I know a LOT of folks in the CoC that are sick and tired of the “conservative” attitudes..
“Bleat and retreat” again from Greg. The Progressives are unworthy of his steel, it appears. Come down, my brother, come down from your lofty all-talk-and-no-response pulpit and eat with us sinners for a while. Alexander’s been willing to discuss this subject, and while we disagree, I appreciate his candor and honesty. But his skirts are not wide enough for you.
I recall Jesus engaging the Pharisees; you preach from the water’s edge and then swiftly row away to avoid answering questions about your words. Paul engaged both the Jews and the Greeks– as well as fractious Christians– in their own environments, and was ready to give an answer to them, day after day, both about spiritual reality and human reasoning in his teaching. And he showed a good understanding of what THEY believed as well. Apparently this is not an “approved example”, so no one need follow it here.
I’m not sure whether it is worth the effort, Bob, but I might as well try. Do you really believe what you say? What you say is: “The Gospel is self-explanatory, we don’t need any teachings about the gospel.” In essence that is what you say, because what you maintain applies to ALL teachings about the gospel, not only the one I stand for.
So what really is the point in your position? It obviously boils down to that each individual shall solely trust in the Spirit to understand the Gospel. Well, in case you don’t know BCV for such a statement you might built your case on 1Jo 2:20. Yet the context is a definition of Christ in opposition to false teachers. This is again a teaching/doctrine of the Gospel again became necessary because of false teaching that crept into the church.
The same Spirit willed to appoint teachers in His church (Eph 4:11). OK, then let the teachers explain the Gospel to us – would you answer them the same way when they teach something you(r flesh) just don’t want to swallow? I miss the Berean attitude in your posts, Bob (OK, you may not be familiar with that phrase: go to Acts 17:11). You don’t weigh my statements according to scripture, but rather in a way that gives me NOT ONE opportunity to understand your (op)position. You don’t explain your view, you just throw rocks at a “heretic” that obviously deserves to be stoned.
Hey, who is judgemental here? I appeal to a standard, a doctrine of the Gospel that can be traced back historically to the very first generations of Christians. If I am wrong, then PROVE me wrong, Bob. Your responses s0 far are on a level where Salomo would put me aside and say:
Think about it, Bob!
Alexander
Price, Thanks!
Good or bad, I have had the opportunity to see men wanting to obey by being baptized but prevented and then die and it gives one a different perspective.
We all laugh to keep from crying since in Alabama we can stand anywhere and point in any direction and there will be a COC just a short distance away, many times within sight, that differs with us.
Its like the Cherokees teach the 7 places or directions we can be: North, South, East, West, Up, Down, and “Right Here”.
That is sadly how we in the COC see ourselves, all others in every direction are either more conservative or more progressive but “right here” is the only one just right.
We were far more together in the COC even in things that were mistaken before we all got more educated.
Rex,
Regarding the “fuzzy set” analogy, I argued some time ago in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace that those who are saved fit into either of two categories, “sure” and “unsure” (or “in jeopardy”). Peter wrote,
(2Pe 1:5-11 NIVO) 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Obviously, Christians can be in a sure state. And if we must “do these things” to get there, we can also be in an unsure state. In other words, if we’re growing in the Christian virtues, our salvtion is assured because we’re clearly being drawn toward the gravitational center.
But we aren’t growing, we are headed in the wrong direction — which might ultimately lead to damnation. And those whose election is unsure can even become so hardened that they are beyond being able to repent (Heb 6:4-6) and so their rebellion will have led to their falling away (Heb 10:26 ff).
We cannot know for certain who has crossed the line between unsure and fallen away, but we know how to treat such people. We love them and urge them to repent. We might even disfellowship them to shock them into repentance.
So, in this sense, there is a certain fuzziness. But this fuzziness between unsure and fallen is of little practical consequence. Since we don’t know who has become too hardened to repent, we treat both the same.
Regarding who has become saved, I see far less fuzziness. The text requires us to confess our faith, and confession becomes the test until the evidence demonstrates the convert to have confessed falsely. And this is how real people act in the real world. We treat those who claim to be Christians as Christian unless and until we discover them to be liars. Whatever fuzziness there is does not compel a dramatic change in how we deal with converts.
Brent,
Promises can only contradict if they lead to inconsistent results. If I tell my son “Bring me a loaf of bread and I’ll give you a dollar” and I say “Bring me a loaf of bread and jar of jelly and I’ll give you a dollar,” what happens if he brings the bread but not the jelly? He gets a dollar, or else I broke my first promise.
Does honoring the first promise violate the second? No, because it’s a promise. You see, a promise does not necessarily imply the negation, that is, it doesn’t say what happens if the conditions of the promise aren’t met.
If I tell a worker, work for me 8 hours and I’ll pay you 1 denarius, does that keep me from paying a denarius if he arrives late and only works 1 hour? Plainly, no.
(Mat 20:10-15 ESV) 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
Adam,
We have another “Adam” who posts here. Can you pick another pseudonym to avoid confusion? Until you pick something different, I’m going to change your name to “Adam2.”
I don’t think I got an answer to my question from Greg.
I was also hoping he could provide names and e-mail addresses of folks from either of these so-called movements, and of course, any organizational titles they might have in those movements.
New Wineskins can always use more writers.
Alexander,
(Laughing) I hope you’re not a smoker, because you’re going to set on fire too many strawmen for anyone to keep up with the fire hose.
After reading all of the comments… and Scott Simpson’s essay, I will point back to the original issue here — a subtle form of Universalism.
For my two cents Lisa Miller’s recent essay in Newsweek is on target: “We Are all Hindus Now.” She argues convincingly that many “Christians” in the U.S. have abandoned the Bible as what builds their view of God. They prefer a more “mystical” approach. I have heard the same from most of a class of college students of late who are in a university associated with churches of Christ. So, I think it is easy to argue that Scott is being sensitive to current religious thought — and likely represents much of a young generation that is reading Scripture less and depending more on popular religion, including the latest religious novel.
I will also note that John MacArther has argued convincingly in The Truth War that what Scott illustrates is broader than “Progressive” (or whatever) and it is broader than churches of Christ. It is penetrating Evangelicals as well. And judging from a 2009 survey by the Barna Group, it is where the U.S. is heading at speed. As one example, consider the confusion that riddles The Shack. Belief in Jesus, but no appreciation for the Jesus who responded to Satan by saying, “It is written.” Indeed, the writers of the The Shack make it clear that they do not even believe in Satan (p. 136). Goodbye, Matthew 4….
So, my question to Scott: If our “boundaries” of truth (and fellowship) do not reflect and depend on the teachings of the risen Christ through His apostles, then what is the alternative you are proposing? You seem to lay siege to hearing the Scriptures. However, how can we know who Jesus is unless we listen to His Word? And you argue, “If we’d have had faith in God, we might not have been so scared to entertain real questions.” I will suggest that much of the U.S. frequently asks the WRONG question — the result of Satan’s influence. The one we should be asking: Is he risen? And if He is, then we bow to Him and we listen to Him. We read His word and it guides us to avoid confusion in a dark world. And as we listen… we will find that He answers questions before we even ask them… because we are but children. And children need boundaries — even children of light, per the apostle to the Gentiles (Ephesians 4:17-5:21).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Well, Bob, it obviously was not worth the effort …
Alexander,
In the Church of Christ fellowship, the traditional view held has been that if you are not “one of us” then you are not a true Christian and are lost with the rest of the world. The context of this forum is, as much time has been spent, on determining who is “in” and who is “out” and the New Wineskins article seems to suggest that the CofC boundaries are most narrow [which they really are]. Then this article comes out about collaborating with the enemy, which, you must understand, that in the CofC, those Baptists and Methodists and Catholics and all others we deem “false Christians” are our perceived arch enemies. I thought that was what it was referring to.
With that being said, on to other portions of your response, I must ask, why are you so afraid of our boundaries being expanded? At the very least, we as Christians, filled with the love of Christ, ought to at least hope that what we call “Universalism” might be true! Why use such labels as “liberal” to distinguish yourself from others? Could it be that there are others who would likewise label you the same way? I tell you there are, in fact, there are those on here who would give you that label if you were not “CofC” [which, if a fundamental KJV only Baptist, is “liberal” then what does that make us?] You are a “liberal” in the Church of Christ if you hand-clap or have a praise-team. Why are you so afraid to open yourself up to a fresh approach to Scripture? Admitting you were wrong about something does not mean that you were lost. That’s why so many in the Church of Christ fellowship hold on to their rigid systems of doctrine and exclusivism, because to admit they were wrong in their minds is to admit they are lost and they have jumped through too many perceived hoops to admit that. It’s pride, really.
We have a walk with God, relationship with God, not religion. This faith we have isn’t a fort we must defend at all costs, but it’s a journey, a stream. Have you not read the fresh spin put on Old Testament passages of Scripture in the New. Read the O.T. passages again as used in the New Testament and you will find that they were not always used as used in the Old Testament, like for instance the “Immanuel” Prophecy taken in the New Testament to apply to Jesus, meaning, God with us. There is far more room than we think and there is much need for what IKissed Dating Goodbye author and pastor Joshua Harris once referred to as “humble orthodoxy.” Why are you and others so worried about people’s legitimate questions concerning what we call “the inerrancy of Scripture?” They would not be the first to question some passages or books. Martin Luther questioned the divine inspiration of James, Jude and Revelation, among other books of the Bible. Others who are pedastaled today by many “evangelicals” likewise held positions that people like, Rob Bell, today are proposing [i.e. C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce seems to suggest that Hell is more like the Catholic notions of Purgatory and also suggests Rob Bell’s spin of what we call “Universalism” , but C.S. Lewis is applauded by most evangelicals today, while Rob Bell is flippantly bid “farewell”- that is hypocrisy that kind that Jesus railed on the Pharisees for!]
Why do you and so many others fear change? There maybe some things that NEED to be changed? This mindset that we in the Church of Christ denomination [yes, I just went there] are the only ones going to Heaven [and not even all of us] NEEDS to change. The quenching of the Holy Spirit within most Christian circles NEEDS to change. The limits we place on God NEEDS to change! The sectarianism, name calling [i.e. “liberal-conservative” and yes, even legalistic] NEEDS to change! All of this time spent on presumming on who’s in and who’s out, that NEEDS to change! The sexism that exists in the church today NEEDS to change! Dogmatism must go! Idolatrous American nationalism NEEDS to GO! It has NO PLACE in the Kingdom of God! Cold Religion must GO! LOVE must prevail above all! I thank God for people who aren’t afraid to attack status quo because God is against status quo! I am a high school history teacher, and I can’t help but think what if Martin Luther King Jr. decided that so not to offend anyone or step on toes or put too much on people that the Civil Rights movement could wait? MLK Jr. would have been waiting a long time for everyone to be on board [including the North] but no he refused to cater to the rigidity around them. Change is the only constant and Jesus was very much against status quo in His day! The idea that we have to keep things exactly as they were in this whole other time and place is in fact anti-faith but is religion. Our faith is constantly in motion, it is moving, it is changing and evolving because God is at work with us and is perfecting us and even afterwards in Hereafter, our world will continue to expand as we in our perfected state go from glory to glory in God! Again, C.S. Lewis The Great Divorce quite literally depicts the expansion of Heaven.
Why complicate things, Alexander, faith isn’t as complicated as our seminarians make it out to be. I once wrote on here that that kind of intellectualism more often than not is a BARRIER to our faith and turns Christian faith into mere “religion.” The more we learn to love God and love others, the more inclusive we will be and YES, the less most of what we debate on here will matter save loving God and loving people!
Again I ask, what are you so afraid of? Contrary to popular Church of Christ belief His people have existed throughout all time since Jesus, however imperfect they may have been, a remnant existed, contrary to this popular notion that there was the first century, then a great apostasy for 17 centuries, and then the American Restoration Movement came and made it all right again that I’ve heard all of my life. God’s big enough to stand by His word that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His rule and reign! Why are you afraid? Isn’t that liberating? God doesn’t need us to defend Him! Just love God and love others brother, everything else falls into place. It’s really as simple as that!
Bruce lightly makes a conflation which begs to be addressed. Bruce refers to “our boundaries of truth (and fellowship)”. These are not the same thing. We are not born full-grown, and we all fall short of knowing “all truth”. We are still on the way. If we set our boundaries of fellowship on our current understanding of truth, we establish a moving set of our own devising, excluding people who have not come as far as we (“the immature”) and have not run off without us (“the flaky and mystical”). We carve out a hole somewhere along the road and clamber down into it with everyone who happens to be in arm’s reach at the moment. We call this “fellowship”.
Then, when someone comes along and comments on our poor hole and our limited connections in the Body, that hole becomes “truth”. This, in turn, leads to the old dynamic of crabs-in-a-bucket wherein we strive to keep one another in the hole, lest one of our few peers go either forward or back without us.
Personally, I have fellowship with many believers whom I find to be wrong on any number of things which I believe to be biblical truth. Most of my CoC friends fit that description. And I fit their fellowship under the same picture. It can be said with confidence that if you can’t love someone who is wrong… well, there is nobody else to choose from.
Dear Adam
The article of Olan Hicks does not call Baptists or other denominations the enemy, and it is not a statement in the context of “We are the only church”. It is a warning cry against a strange approach to scripture, introduced by contemporary midsets (in other words: worldly philosopies). This “new hermeneutics” is as unable to think in clear, absolute terms as is our post-modern society. My ever-so-ofen “summary” of the whole issue of New Wineskins is: It blurrs certainties and erodes boundaries.
Not one of the authors dared to say: Here is a clear boundary. Some use “faith” as a boundary, but yet others question how we are able to discern faith in others … which is in fact practically a universalist approach. Keith and I had a little side discussion on open vs closed communion – in which he obviously did not recognize the boundaries set forth in scripture that make a clear and visisble distinction between those who are inside and those who are outside of God’s covenant(s) (this applies to both OT and NT). This issue is a thological/hermeneutical catastrophe!
See, Adam, this is interesting. The Baptists do at least baptize – and the early restoration movement cooperated to a large degree with Baptists (Redstone Baptist Association, Mahoning Baptist Association). Even though they understood Baptism differently, they agreed on the connection of faith and baptism.
In the discussions with those who extend the boundaries to those not even baptized, I always reply that Baptism is of one the the 7 “ones” that constitue scriptural unity. I will not and cannot accept an approach to unity that cuts out an essential portion of God’s covenant. in this I see that these brothers have completely lost sight of the boundaries of God’s covenant. Which is greatly irritating …
I am not afraid – but that’s a common way of speaking with those who oppose. Those who are against too much immigration are called “xenophobic”, those who oppose gay-“rights” are called “homophobic”. But normally they are not “phobic” (= afraid) but have some reasons. But being treated as “phobics” they are sent to the psychiatrist and their arguments are silenced as “neurotic expressions of fear”.
You should have asked: “What is wrong with expanding our boundaries?” And then we have to make clear of what we are speaking. We are NOT discussing Instrumental Music or clapping in worship. That’s not the point there at all. These are not fellowship issues to me, but nonetheless we should seek for the truth diligently and not follow our emotions or hearsay. So, please, don’t mix them in here.
One of the topics discussed is baptism. And as I said above: without baptism Christian unity is NOT complete. This is clear in Eph 4:4-6 – and since you cannot debate it away, all they do (at New Wineskins, at least until yesterday) is ignore this text and argument as if it were not there. Then they speak of fellowship, without even defining what fellowship means! Keith proposed this question, yet only few answered and proposed defintions of fellowship.
You see, when we speak of fellowship, we have to know what we are talking about: Socializing, eating together, cooperating in chariy, in mission, admission to the Lord’s table? There are huge differences in these areas of fellowship. Some are open to all, some are covenantal in nature and require the unity of the Spirit expressed in the 7 “ones” (such as the Lord’s Supper).
So where is the mistake?
a) Not defining fellowship
b) not recognizing the covenantal boundaries of the church
c) some even deny that there are boundaries
This “New Wineskins” is leaking terribly!
I can’t speak for all, but I did not discuss whether those who are unbaptized are saved or lost. The topic is “fellowship”, and I say they are outside the boundaries of covenantal fellowship.
So, in the end we speak of two very different concept of unity:
a) One based on mutual tolerance (= ecumenism)
b) The other based on the terms of God’s covenant
The first one requires that we tear down boundaries (or “erode”) in order to claim unity. This is very problematic, because we change scripture that way. This reductionalist view of “being saved by faith (only)” is debated here quite often, and it is so obvious that it does not work. Because readily some say, “faith works” (or true faith works), and then the works should be seen as evidence of faith, which – if we are consistent – makes not difference to “obedient faith saves” (which the other side claims). Anyway, this “faith (only)”-approach serves as basis to renegotiate the necessity of baptism.
The problem is: Baptism is not negotiable! It is there as a requirement to salvation, to forgiveness of sin, to be joined to the church – it is one of 7 “ones” that constitute spiritual unity (= scriptural definition of fellowship). Some Doctrines also serve as boundary marker, such as that there is only one mediator between God and Man (1Ti 2:5) – well, this also does make fellowship with Catholics difficult. Not only that they are unbaptized, now even cooperation in evangelism is extremly doubtful, because the message is very different – we can cooperate in other areas (being a united voice against abortion, for instance); but this is far from being “in fellowship”. I spare you other examples (there are quite a few).
The only way – let me repat – the ONLY way by which such an approach to unity can be justified is by abandoning a hermeneutic that still respects vocabulary, grammer and semantics. In other words: liberal theology and mysticism. And THIS, Adam, comes right from our arch-enemy.
No, it’s leading into bondage and destruction. It splits churches down the middle across all denomination, because the samme issues (different details) are debated among all denominations: Liberals vs conservatives. It’s a cross-denominational split, Adam.
So, this was too long already, and I did not cover all you said – but think about it: This all is based of wrong assumptions, a wrong hermeneutic, a spirit of this age.
Alexander
Oh, and a must read on the New Wineskins is the article of Carmen Beaubeaux.
A quotation:
At first I thought this New Wineskins is just terrible. But now the words I’m looking for aren’t even in my dictionary. This article is boundlessly boundless, the whole universe seems to tight!
So where does this lead? A brother wrote to me:
Alexander
Jay,
You wrote “I’m not even sure he accepts Jesus as Lord in the New Testament sense.”
I know it has been several days since you wrote this, but this is very strong language and I have been wondering what you meant ever since I read it. I was hoping you would clarify what you mean. Are saying that you doubt Scott is a saved follower of Christ, a Christian, based on what he wrote on New Wineskins?
Friends;
Obliquely connected to our discussion is the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture.
I appreciate Jay’s concern he wrote about Scott, “I’m not even sure he accepts Jesus as Lord in the New Testament sense.” But that is just the logical outcome of saying it is OK to reject the inspiration and authority of Scripture. If you reject God’s word you will reject God’s Son.
(I make this point in a different way on my blog http://gatidwell.blogspot.com/2012/02/leader-as-guide.html)
It is not a short step from Abilene’s embrace of medieval Catholic mysticism to universalism. (Shouldn’t Randy Harris describing himself as a Pantheist have tipped you off?) Jay doesn’t like the logical outcome of his open-ended approach. Remember, as W. S. Gilbert wrote, “When everybody’s somebody, then no one’s anybody.” If no one is really lost, then it doesn’t mean anything to be saved.
Look into the abyss and know it is just a downward spiral into oblivion.
Come back. Come back to a faith in God who speaks in Scripture. While, in our human frailty we do not see perfectly, the word of God is perfect.
Do not cast your lot in with the disbelieving Progressives. Be a man of faith. Accept the eternal truth of Scripture with all of the difficult application that entails.
God’s grace is not permissiveness.
You have seen in Scott’s Universalism, the outcome of the lack of faith Progressives promote.
Please, come back.
If you lose Jesus Christ, you will have lost everything.
I write because I care.
GATidwell
Pretty arrogant there Greg… I don’t see thinking outside your stale, broken box as falling into anything but rather stepping up out of something dead… God has me securely in the palm of His hand and I am free to examine the scriptures to see if what you are saying is correct without fear and condemnation…. You seem determined to condemn.. I find that incredibly sad and unfortunate and just more of the same…but I’m sure the job pays well…
“Do not cast your lot in with the disbelieving Progressives”….Wow! So, I’m wondering Greg, with which one of those chairs Rick Atchley preaches about do I cast my lot? Lot’s of chairs out there in CofC land so you need to tell us which ones are “disbelieving Progressive” chairs so we won’t make another mistake.
As one of those disbelieving progressives, may I make a request? Since those of you who are conservatives actually hold all truth and know exactly what the ancient boundaries are why not enlighten us poor souls. Mr. Tidwell you wrote in your last comment “…because I care”. You see, my problem is that I’ve been reading the Bible far longer than most of you guys have been alive and I completely missed the pattern for the NT church. And I can’t find the boundaries that so clearly inform you guys who is saved and who is not and who is about to “lose Jesus Christ”.
There is little doubt that a well known conservative like G.A. Tidwell knows all the boundaries of fellowship and exactly how a church service should unfold and I suppose I should believe that he has found what God forbids and what God approves in what the Bible doesn’t say and has made the perfect subjective conclusions so that not only he but everyone else should abide with those conclusions.
Now, because I am a reasonable man, I don’t expect other conservatives to agree with your boundaries or the way a local congregation should operate. There are far too many factions among the most conservative brothers to expect that. But I think it will be helpful to many of us to see in print just what the truth of God is.
One final question, just because I’m the curious sort. You have said clearly that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, and sufficient. Is Jesus Christ sufficient? Was his sacrifice of himself enough to completely reconcile sinners to God. Some conservatives don’t think so, how about you?
Brother Greg,
If there is ever a time that you have concerns about the content of New Wineskins, please feel free to contact me at the e-mail address to which my name is linked above, or the e-mail address at the top of every page of the Web site.
If you haven’t read my article “The Fellowship of the Saints” there (http://www.wineskins.org/filter.asp?SID=2&fi_key=350&co_key=2453), you may not understand how strongly I feel that brothers in Christ should go to each other when one feels that the other has sinned, or that one might have something against the other. I will, of course, send you the same invitation at your e-mail address [email protected], which was a little challenging to find, but I managed.
Thank you for your interest in the publication. I hope you will continue to pray for it and for me and the other contributors as surely as I will for you and yours.
We are, after all, of one Body and one Spirit — and whatever labels you may wish to attach to whatever divisions and factions you choose to recognize — we all serve one Lord.
As your brother in Christ, may I ask a favor? Would you read the comment that you posted above this one and imagine for a moment what it would feel like to receive such a comment from me your contributors and about your publication — which, admittedly, has much wider circulation and financial base and reach than New Wineskins may ever hope to have? How would you see yourself responding?
I have been more pleased than I can describe at the generally irenic response of our writers to the comments on the site. I didn’t coach them on this. I think it simply represents their nature to be loving and open to fellow members of the Body and to those who are seeking Christ as well.
Yours in Him,
– Keith Brenton
New Wineskins WebServant
Greg wrote,
I would agree with you that some prefer their opinions to the scriptures — but I would suggest that the problem exists among both conservatives and progressives. Among progressives, that sinful attitude is reflected in the overly broad expansion of grace with the very real risk of a resulting lack of evangelistic zeal. Among conservatives, that sinful attitude is reflected in judgmentalism, that is, the willingness to damn a brother for error and sin that is in fact covered by grace.
The left extreme refuses to evangelize the damned. The right extreme insists on evangelizing the saved.
There are ditches on both sides of the way.
Scott seems to have very little concern with what the Bible says, so sure he is of his convictions. It’s a very dangerous place to be. But then, it’s not just a few fringe progressives who do this.
To be quite clear, when the folks at Contending for the Faith damn Phil Sanders for accepting an actual (not representative) indwelling of the Spirit, they make the same mistake. They assume to be true what they wish to be true. But we all make mistakes in our logic. That’s not the sin of which I speak. That sin is in refusing to submit one’s views to the test of Scripture. And I equate a refusal to submit to the will of God as revealed in scripture as rejecting the Lordship of Jesus in the New Testament sense. That is, it takes more than mere disagreement with me. It requires a refusal to even submit to the scriptures. When we stop basing doctrine on the scriptures, we are in deep, deep trouble.
(1Jo 4:6 ESV) 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
You can err in your doctrinal understanding and still listen to the apostles, but you can’t refuse to submit your teachings to the test of the scriptures for validation.
As I’ve said many times, the great error of the 20th Century Churches of Christ is its failure to articulate a scripture-based reason that error X damns while error Y does not. It’s a huge theological gap that’s just as wrong as Scott’s insistence that we re-define the boundaries of the kingdom based on vague references to what God surely wants.
I can respect those who disagree with me about what the Bible says. I think I’ve proven that. What I disrespect is presenting as doctrine positions that have no biblical support accompanied with a refusal to seriously discuss the issue in light of the scriptures.
Again, there’s a ditch on both sides of the way.
Your RSS feed doesn’t work, by the way. I find no way to subscribe using RSS or email. (WordPress is much superior to Blogspot.)
I’ve heard Randy speak many times. I can’t imagine that he describes himself as a pantheist in the literal sense. What is your source?
Let’s see, what might Jay’s “open-ended approach” be? Well, I insist on faith in Jesus as a requirement to be saved. So does Greg. We differ in that I think God will not damn over a flawed baptism. Greg disagrees. I’m pretty much in line with Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell — who were no universalists.
This view of Greg’s is a respectable one (although I strongly disagree) because it can be defended from scripture. It’s not just what he hopes to be true. It comes from serious study. I respect the view.
But just because I would include all with true faith in Jesus, I’m hardly arguing for an open-ended viewpoint. In fact, in my view, it’s a tragic truth that many millions have been and will be lost.
My views are not remotely universalist. Not even close. Nor do they lead in that direction.
I must say that the old “logical consequences” argument so commonly made in Church of Christ rhetoric almost always proves fallacious — that is, illogical — when viewed closely. The logical consequence of my views is not universalism. That is pure wishful thinking. And not a fair conclusion to draw at all.
Excuse me? I’ve been arguing for faith in Jesus! I’ve been insisting on a scripture-based soteriology. This is just horribly overblown rhetoric.
Again, “disbelieving”? Are you serious? In a series on the necessity of faith in Jesus to our salvation? Really? Have I argued against the eternal truth of scripture? No, I’ve argued from the eternal truth of scripture. Again, it’s the tired old argument so often found in Church of Christ literature that disagreement with the author equals disagreement with the scriptures — supposedly justifying labeling all opponents as “liberal.” It’s an invalid, untrue argument.
We need to learn to respect (not agree with, but respect) views build solidly on scripture that disagree with our own.
I agree with that with all my heart! But neither is God’s grace legalism.
Again, here I am arguing for the necessity of faith in Jesus, and you accuse me of the opposite view. It’s not right.
I utterly agree that we need to flee from universalism, but I also want my readers to flee from legalism. There is a great place to be in between — plainly taught in the scriptures. It’s called “grace” and its given to those with faith in Jesus. And no one else.
Jay;
Randy Harris uses the term “Pantheist” to describe himself in __ Soul Work: Confessions of a Stand Up Theologian__.
GATidwell
Keith;
Two brief points:
When you publish articles on the internet (or in print, for that matter) you are inviting public comment. You should not be surprised that I disagree publicly with what you are saying publicly. I am firmly convinced if people believe the universalism you are promoting they stand in danger of losing their souls. Jay and others sincerely believe the Universalism you are peddling represents the misguided notions of a few outlying Progressives while I believe the problem is systemic in the Progressive agenda. The matter still stands that a fair reading of New Wineskins raises the issue of Universalism.
Second, you sent me a private letter in which you piously criticized me for making my disagreements with New Wineskins public. Imagine my surprise to see this letter publicly posted in this forum. I have no problem with what you wrote, but rather enjoy your hypocrisy in posting it on the internet.
Best Always,
GATidwell
I was simply trying to reach you in the most effective way possible, as I had no guarantee of the accuracy of the e-mail address I found. You do frequent this blog frim time to time.
The text of my correspondence to you was identical to the post above (except for the sentence about e-mailing you); readers here can discern for themselves whether I criticized or invited.
As you know, it’s easy for a reader to confront an editor who publishes an article that they disagree with; it is much more challenging to lovingly engage the author of that article to discuss and teach and learn and get acquainted.
A phrase in my predecessor Greg Taylor’s “About Us” page — “without sectarian bias” is one that I take seriously, and intend to provide a forum where ideas can be discussed and thought provoked. That may mean publishing articles that I don’t necessarily agree with, but those articles provide a starting place for discussion.
I believe people will lose their souls if they do not provide and take opportunities to express love for each other by their willingness to discuss issues of scripture, doctrine and application – not to mention sin. If error is present, should it not be dealt with in that way? Rather than simply tossing an accusation or two and walking away?
(Finally, I’m not peddling anything. Access to New Wineskins is free. I’ve accepted one paid ad and have several others running as a courtesy until I can get some reliable numbers by which to solicit more. It’s not a priority with me, as I am doing what I can to keep the costs of the ministry low.)
Keith;
I am glad we are clear. We can say whatever we want to say to and about one another publicly over the internet, just so long as we send a courtesy copy to the person we are speaking about to their email address. I understand the rules you work under. I just think you are a cry-baby.
I just do not publish things publicly of which I am embarrassed when people see and either agree or disagree. Many of my writings have been reviewed in this forum, and I am thankful for the exchange.
I will reiterate, you wrote a letter to me asking that I never criticize you publicly, which you in turn published publicly. You have behaved hypocritically.
You claim the right to say anything and everything for the sake of open discussion. If I, however, have a disagreement with what you have said, you believe I should keep it quiet. Come on. If you have the right to openly publish Universalist pablum , I have the right to openly say it is Universalist pablum.
I can understand that you are embarrassed by the heresy you are publishing in New Wineskins.
I would be too.
The answer is: If you don’t want it discussed, don’t put it on the internet! When you do publish, don’t be a cry-baby and complain when someone says that Universalist heresy is Universalist heresy.
Looking forward to your next edition. Your publication is proving all I have said about Progressive churches of Christ is true.
GATidwell
Wow; maybe we should just keep meeting right here, brother!
I’ll always know where to come when I feel the need to be insulted, accused, or labeled! 🙂
Still waiting for evidence to establish your ongoing assertion of universalism in this article, brother Greg. Have you contacted the author to see if this was her intention?
Keith;
This is not an accusation, it is just a statement of fact.
You hypocritically sent a private email to me, piously asking me not to publicly disagree with you, and then publicly posted this letter on the internet.
You can claim you did not do this, but anyone looking at this thread can see that you did.
You can somehow claim that you are privileged to act one way while demanding others to act otherwise, but that is hypocritical by definition.
Man up Keith. You want to say whatever you want, whenever you want to whomever you want, but you want anyone who disagrees with you to shut up.
Again, I am enjoying the way your hypocrisy is embarrassing the Progressives.
GATidwell
Need a page reference…
“Randy Harris uses the term “Pantheist” to describe himself in __ Soul Work: Confessions of a Stand Up Theologian__.”
If I am sinning by hypocrisy, Greg, what kind of person enjoys watching a brother do that?
Keith…easy answer to your question to Greg ….one who is more filled with Pride than Love.
One cannot hear if they do not listen to the heart of the one speaking. Someone isn’t listening. But I have to admit, this exchange is better than Downton Abbey!
Brother Greg, most anyone looking at this thread of comments could see by the tense of the word “will” that I posted the comment here first, then sent it to you as an e-mail.
It was my correspondence to share as I desired; I can understand that you might be offended if I had posted your private words to me without your permission. But I posted mine.
I did inform you of my e-mail addresses should you desire to contact me. I continue to believe that privately is the way Christ would have us initiate our attempts to reconcile our differences. But that horse left the barn when you began with your comments about the publication. The opportunity for this series of exchanges was already lost.
Yet you accuse me of hypocrisy, brother.
Reference on Pantheism.
first, the book by Randy Harris is “God Work….”; (“Soul Work….” is another book by Harris.)
Randy Harris writes of himself, “I’m a postmodern, mystic, pantheist. Happily situated in Churches of Christ. And I am going nowhere. You can be a postmodern, mystic, pantheist and be perfectly happy in this tradition.” (p. 95)
Keith, if you are referring to Carmen’s article (the only female author in this New Wineskins), of course we could investigate her intentions. But please, don’t ignore the obvious. Let me sum up the basic structure of her article (as I did in a mail to you):
Now for some quotes from her essay:
Statements like these reveal an attitude of: “I am perfectly capable of finding my own way without any one telling me.” Not very Christian, rather quite rebellious. Now, what kind of heaven is she hoping to find?
Universalism, by definition, is the claim that ALL go to heaven. Well, what do you read in this paragraph, Keith?
First, let’ discuss the obvious! It also is obvious that introductory notes such as yours leave it completely open whether the editor agrees or disagrees with her.
For me still unclear and unanswered: Do you really want us to embrace at least part of this universalistic reasoning to be more appealing to persons like Carmen? Is that the point? Your style of writing is shorouded in ambiguity, so that we cannot say you want us to think like Carmen, but you very well do sort of recommend her approach as “beautiful” and “challenging”. This is crooked language, Keith.
You may ask for her intentions, Keith. I asked for your intentions. Answer: It should make people like me think. Well, I thought a bit, but you did not like the answer I came up with – but this I wrote to you already. Sadly, you were not willing to selfcritically pause for a moment to reflect on it.
But maybe one day, you’ll step back a few steps and look at it from a greater perspective, including the perspectives of more conservative readers. You’ll probably realize then that such articles, and the whole issue “Who’s in and who’s out” is not designed to create unity but to further alienate and divide. In this you are an example of “a brother who collaborates with the enemy” (quoting Olan Hick’s).
Alexander
Alexander, I trust the readers of New Wineskinss to think for themselves, and be able to weigh truth for themselves — and among themselves if they’re willing to discuss it.
There are plenty of other publications where folks can be spoon-fed doctrines that are purported to be “sound” and “correct” so that they don’t have to think about it and they can feel good about believing all the “right” things.
I don’t think you or Greg really have an argument with me that’s any different from the one you’d have with previous editors of the magazine.
http://www.wineskins.org/page.asp?SID=2&Page=18
So it’s a pretty old argument, and I think I’m done with it.
I’m still waiting for Greg to tell me in which chair to sit. He made and impassioned plea to “come back” but I need to know where “back” is located or if there really is a “back”. He makes it sound like coming back is easy to accomplish but the CofC has always made it clear that if you sit in the wrong chair, you go to hell so chair selection is obviously very important and even in the broad sense of the CofC there are many, many chairs. And of of these chairs are defended as being the “right” chair.
I am begining to believe that Mr. Tidwell perhaps doesn’t know any better than I which is the right chair. Or maybe he just is happy sitting in his own chair and likes to pretend the other chairs don’t exist or that the differences between the chairs is of minor regard. Except, that is, for the chair labled “IM”. Better not sit in that chair… ever!
Keith, you put it this way:
Carmen says:
Essentially this is the same message. And maybe that’s the reason why you don’t really disagree with her essay.
In the essence you say: We don’t need teachers, because we have our own wits. So, Eph 4:11 was written when the Holy Spirit was a bit absent minded, I suppose. Keith, you are way off base! You say: It’s good to put some poisenous mushrooms on the children’s plate as well, because they need to learn how to sort that out.
Alexander
Doug–
So far, Greg has shown a marked reluctance to enter into a discussion on HIS words. He does not, however, mind discussing things written by others. This seems inconsistent. I have observed that for some preachers, years of monologue finds them reticent to enter into dialogue about their own declamations. This long-term pattern of speaking unchallenged seems to erode both the ability and the willingness to address possible flaws in one’s thinking. I would not hold my breath, Doug.
Alexander, would it kill you to imagine what it might be like if heaven included a lot of people you didn’t expect to be there?
If so, then the article is poisonous to you.
Go chew on something else for a while!
I don’t think Greg wants to defend his “come back” statement. And, why would he when “coming back” only returns the CofC to a state of dis-unity that Jesus prayed would never exist. No, I think the future is to go forward. To be in unity with scripture and all who profess faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Those who keep to the “chairs” tradition will slowly wither and die, it’s already happening. It’s pretty obvious to me. There is a reason why the Independent Christian Church continues togrow while the CofC shrinks and at the foundation of the reason is the CofC’s reluctance to give up their reliance of the Regulative Principle of Worship and CENI-S.
Alexander,
Since you and I have worshipped in other Church traditions than the CofC tradition, I am wondering if you never met other people in those other traditions who had the mark of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their life? I think that may be what Keith is trying to illustrate. I don’t appreciate CofC people who describe themselves as pantheistic either (and I have not checked that out yet) and I don’t think I would have published Carmen’s article if I was Keith but he seems to be trying to get people’s attention to the idea that heaven might be occupied by people other than from the CofC. He might have done it differently (with a firecracker rather than a stick of dynamite?) but their are some good things on his website and I’ll read his website like I eat fish… eat the meat and spit out the bones. In short, he does not have an obligation to publish something that everyone in the CofC says “Amen!” to…
I haven’t read “Soul Work” yet, but I’ve read “God Work” and it’s a pretty funny — as well as thought-provoking — book.
I guess you might not like it if you don’t have a funny bone or don’t like your thoughts provoked.
Anyone else see a possibility that Randy might have been pulling our legs a little? Or that a quick e-mail to him might have cleared up any concerns?
I think that most of the brothers who wrote the articles on fellowship in the latest issue of NW should be READING articles on fellowship more than they should be writing them. For real, most of them don’t even know for sure how and/or when a sinner is added to the church.
Hank,
I know the answer to that one, the Lord adds them to the Church. That was the answer you were looking for, right?
@ Doug
Yes, I did and I still do. What irritates me in the New Wineskins, and esp. in Carmen’s article is that this issue tends to go way beyond this truth. I even recognize true and faithful Christians among Roman Catholics. The issue I raise is whether we can have full (covenantal) fellowship as long as they are not baptized and separated from Babylon. Somehow, in the discussions on New Wineskins my input (mind the covenant!) is constantly being ignored. Yet, it is a vital one, demanding tht all sven aspects of spiitual unity (acc to Eph 4:4-6) must be there to have full fellowship.
Also a great weakness in this issue is that “fellowship” is nowhere defined. In the attempt to be as inclusive as possible everything that might present a boundary is put aside as irrelevant to the question “Who’s in and who’s out”. I do read Keith like this, when he says in the comments to Carmen’s article:
In plain language this means:
I mainly pick on his publishing Carmen’s article. Most other articles were terribly weak as well, mising the point of “who’s in and who’s out” by confusing fellowship among the saints with followship/outreach to everyone, and general “love your neighbor”. No definition of church, no boundary-examples of our new Covenant were even remotely hinted to in these articles. And while it was correct to point out the various divisions aming churches of Christ (the chairs), these divisions were not used in order to present the scriptural boundaries of fellowship, but to promote an boundless Christianity – and to ridicule those who insist on definitions.
And Carmen’s article has the message: There are many doors to Heaven, even for Mormons, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims (those she expressly mentioned) with the invitation to share in their religios expressions as well, mainly: their “oral tradition” and “rituals” – I think she has an allergy to books that tell her black and white what to believe and what to do. And Keith – it seems to me – shares in the same allergy; how else shall I understand his words?
Yes, I am one of these despsable narrow minded die-hard fundamentalist who wrap their heads around their Bibles. Keith, you are so full of respect and brotherly love, I am astonished!
Alexander
Doug,
We ALL know that that it is God who adds sinners to the church.
But, what the writers in NW seem to NOT know, is WHEN God adds sinners to the church.
Even though the Bible is crystal clear in teaching that sinners are added to the church when they by faith, genuinely repent and are baptized…the “progressive” writers in NE refuse to admit that because to do so would imply that those who have not repented and been baptized are outside of the church.
And, part of being a good progressive seems to necessitate accepting as Christians anybody who says that they are as much, even if they have never been baptized in Christ.
In fact, it appears that many progressives even believe that sinners can be saved outside of the church (so long as the sinner never knows there is a church).
How about you Doug? Do you agree with the Bible that God adds sinners to the church WHEN they by faith are baptized into Christ? Or is it way more complicated and confusing than that with you too?
I’m disagreeing with something, yet I am promoting it. You can’t have it both ways, Alexander.
Look, I thought somebody would put the two plus the two together from my comments above and call me on it, but let me just put the four out there:
New Wineskins should be a forum for a number of points of view, a place where believers (and non-believers!) can discuss items we’re not agreed upon.
If I am willing to publish an article I’m not in full agreement with on one side of the spectrum, don’t you think I should be willing to consider submissions on the opposite side of the spectrum?
I’ve already encouraged one chap who posts comments avidly here to submit his thoughts in an upcoming issue. I’ve told him in advance that I’m not interested in anything that throws a lot of labels around, and I didn’t get the impression that he was happy about it, but I am still hoping he will do so. He has some things to say on the topic, and from what I’ve read here, some good reasons for saying them.
Alexander, I don’t know anyone here who denies Christ as the Way. That’s a pretty serious charge.
It ignores the possibility that God can impute the salvific power of His Son’s blood to whomever He wishes (“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”) without guaranteeing that gift to everyone.
You are not a despicable person, and your Bible is not something that will let you only wrap your head around it. It will engage your heart, soul and strength as well. You know that.
I’ve made the ridiculously difficult commitment to give up judging people for Lent. I’ve probably already messed up on that commitment a few times, but it’s giving me the opportunity to focus on it and be intentional — hopefully to the Lord’s glory — until it becomes habitual.
If I can do at least try to do that, would you do me the favor for just a couple of weeks of trying to see the good in people, rather than judging and assuming evil?
The February edition of New Wineskins is closed out and I won’t be publishing anything new for the next few days, so I’m going to make it as easy for you as I can!
Hank,
I am a member and worship at a Church that practices the taking of a new converts confession of faith in Jesus as the Son of God and baptism by immersion. That position is consistent with my reading of scripture. Beyond that, I am perfectly contented to let God be God and I expect Him to add whomever He wishes to the Church. I sense something mysterious in the workings of God that perhaps one day, I’ll understand. But right now, I’m still seeing through smoked glass dimly and I fully expect to die in that same state unless Jesus returns before then. I’m okay with that but it seems some in the CofC want God to make full disclosure of His dealings. I don’t believe that God is ready to grant full disclosure so why do we need to make a big fuss about knowing things beyond what Jesus and His Apostles have told us? It is pretty clear to me that pursuit of knowledge beyond what scripture clarifies is foolish but some seemed unhappy with that and want to know the exact mind of God. When one preacher get one thing from scripture and another gets something else, it may get my attention but it will not make me feel obliged to salute either position. The CofC as a whole seems to want everyone to choose sides and restricts fellowship based on the side-choosing. I see no need for doing that.
Doug, are you talking about determining whether or not one is a member of the church when you say:
“I sense something mysterious in the workings of God that perhaps one day, I’ll understand. But right now, I’m still seeing through smoked glass dimly and I fully expect to die in that same state unless Jesus returns before then. I’m okay with that but it seems some in the CofC want God to make full disclosure of His dealings.”
Again, are you claiming that God HAS NOT made a “full disclosure of his dealings” regarding how (and when) a sinner becomes a member of the church, the body of the saved? Because, I really don’t think God has left the whole process some hard to figure out, smoky glass mystery. If you are not talking about how/when a sinner becomes a Christian, the to what are you referring exactly?
You add:
“I don’t believe that God is ready to grant full disclosure so why do we need to make a big fuss about knowing things beyond what Jesus and His Apostles have told us?”
With all due respect, what are you talking about? What is it that you don’t believe God is ready to make a “full disclosure” about? Are you talking about how a sinner goes from being lost to a saved member of the body of Christ? Do you deny that God has made a full disclosure about that? If you are speaking of something else, then what is it?
You then write:
“The CofC as a whole seems to want everyone to choose sides and restricts fellowship based on the side-choosing. I see no need for doing that.”
“Choose sides” over what? Over how a sinner becomes a Christian? Is there not a clear and specific truth concerning that? If you are speaking of something else, then what?! What is so confusing and hard to pick the right “side” in terms of How a sinner becomes a Christian?
Basically Doug, what are you claiming to be not fully disclosed and mysterious? If not who it is that is a member of the church, then what??
Keith asked: “Alexander, would it kill you to imagine what it might be like if heaven included a lot of people you didn’t expect to be there?”
Alexander replied: “Would it kill you to deny Christ as the only way to salvation, Keith (Acts 4:12)? This is what Carmen openly does in her article. And you are promotong this – there you ae – heresy.”
Alexander, this reponse makes it appear that you are unwilling to consider the possibility that someone might be saved that you did not expect to be saved, for you only expect those who are in Christ to be saved. Did I get that part right? If so, here’s the rub: such a response seems to require that you know exactly who is –and who is not– in Christ, thus you could not be surprised that a particular person was in heaven next to you. I would suggest that the traditional exclusionary beliefs of the CoC actually FEED this “heresy” to which you object. A young CoC believer hears his wiser elders intimate (or say outright) that this religious group or that religious group are not really Christian at all. Then he meets people in that group and finds them to be placing their faith in Christ, just as he does. SO… he reasons thusly: “My denomination is wrongly excluding the Catholics and the Adventists from the kingdom of God. I wonder who else they are wrongly excluding?” This is not theory. It happened with me.
I agree that salvation is only through Christ, but I think the larger problem for the CoC is not that they would be surprised to see a Muslim in heaven, but that many of them would be equally surprised to see a Presbyterian or a Catholic there.
Hank,
Have you ever known anyone who was baptized by the right people in the right place and the right things were said but, they were not saved?
Royce asks:
“Have you ever known anyone who was baptized by the right people in the right place and the right things were said but, they were not saved?”
Could you explain what you mean by “the right people”, “the right place” and “the right things were said”?
If you are asking whether a person can seemingly be baptized according to the teachings of the Bible (the instructions of God), and yet never be saved, I would say yeah, that could happen. If the sinner did not have a sincere faith in Christ and trust in God, I do not believe his baptism would save at all because Jesus said “he that believes AND is baptized” would be saved. I am sure there have been scores of people who were immersed but only did so to please others, get a girl, impress his parents, etc, and were never added to the church. Of course, only God (and the individual) would really know for sure.
But allow me to turn the question back to you, Royce. Have you ever known people who were added to the church by God before and without ever being baptized into Christ?
Basically, there can be people who have been “baptized” who were never added to the church…. but people cannot be added to the church without ever being baptized. At least, not according to the Bible.
Seriously, this really isn’t some smoky, unclear, partially revealed mystery of God. It really isn’t…
Doug said: “I don’t believe that God is ready to grant full disclosure so why do we need to make a big fuss about knowing things beyond what Jesus and His Apostles have told us? It is pretty clear to me that pursuit of knowledge beyond what scripture clarifies is foolish but some seemed unhappy with that and want to know the exact mind of God. ”
>>>>
I think the first statement may well be true, but the reasoning which follows seems to me to be skewed. First of all, we are not promised just “Jesus and His Apostles”, but that the Holy Spirit himself is tasked with taking what is of Jesus and making it known to us. Heaven knows having writings from first century authors has not “clarified” any number of things wherein we still need illumination. We desperately need to know the mind of God. To shut the window and to suggest that “I have a bible, it is foolish to concern myself with anything else” seems to reject God’s intention to reveal Himself by the Spirit. Or at least to slap a lid on such revelation at some indeterminate point in the ancient past. The earliest writings of the apostles were not the END of divine revelation, but just one more part of it. Subsequent writers added to it. John wrote the Revelation long after most of the other canonical writings were complete. Paul began AFTER Peter did. Divine revelation did not end with John, or Athanasius or the councils of Hippo or Carthage or Trent. We still need to hear the voice of our shepherd.
While I understand how discouraging it is to get into these circles of repeated argument and speculation, this is no reason to stop seeking and listening for the Shepherd’s voice. His voice may not be found in most of these human speculations, but it is not lost because of them.
It is one thing to admit that God has not told us everything yet. It is another to become satisfied with that state of affairs and stop listening.
Hank,
Two names immediately come to mind in answer to your question, “Have you ever known people who were added to the church by God before and without ever being baptized into Christ?”. Thomas and Alexander Campbell are such cases, that is unless you believe that two of the most prominent men in founding the Restoration Movement were a couple of lost men. Both of the Campbells, and Barton Stone adopted immersion as what was then called “faith-baptism” (a rejection of infant baptism) many years after then had become Christians and popular preachers.
Of course, if you are consistent, you must believe that the three were lost men until they were immersed. Really? Three unsaved men founded the movement you hold dear?
Hank,
You might be interested in what some good men had to say about immersion and the boundaries of the Christian faith. By the way, I agree with each of them. We have drifted far away from that kind of Christian charity into a bog of legalism in my opinion.
http://wp.me/p2PSx-3w
Royce, it doesn’t matter to me what any good men say about immersion…it only matters what the Bible says. And even the Campbell’s wouldn’t ever have been added to the church if they weren’t ever baptized into Christ. The Bible is just plain clear about that. You’re mistaken in thinking I hold some kind of allegiance to them that would make me think they were members of the church before and without being baptized into Christ. I hold no such allegiance.
Nice try.
The book of God still teaches that one is not a member of the church until they are baptized into Christ. Whether you agree or not, it teaches what it teaches.
And frankly, I still say that how and when a sinner becomes a Christian is not some dark and dim mystery unrevealed by God. People just need to believe what he says. But obviously, you don’t have to.
Royce, I was thinking about the idea of “adding to the church.” What did Peter say when he saw that Cornelius and his entire household had received the Holy Spirit “as they had in the beginning” clearly indicating that God had saved them.. He said, “who was I to refuse God.” It does seem that baptism is somehow connected with “adding to the church” but it’s also very clear, as you indicated by example, that God can move into a person’s and by His Grace through their faith, save them..
I do find it curious that many today are not following Peter’s example and suggesting that the obvious spiritual fruit which is indicative of the favor and indwelling of the Spirit just isn’t enough. That person has to jump through the various “hoops” of the “only true church” or else that church who has all the right answers will indeed “refuse God.” Interesting further still that the “one true church” that the Campbell’s and Stone played such a key role in would reject him outright if he taught today what he taught back then.. His concept of unity obviously would not be tolerated by the radical elements of the CoC… We’ve come a long way…just not sure to where.
Standing by and defending the fact that the Bible teaches that penitent sinners are added to the church upon believing AND being baptized does not mean “we” are making them “jump through hoops’ or any such thing. It only means we are trying to preach the truth of what the book of God actually teaches.
If one has not been baptized into Christ, he is not a member of the church.
Plain and simple…
Hank,
All I am saying is that I am perfectly content to let God be God. He is God and you and I are not. You seem to think that people can understand God’s will only through scripture. The fact is that 20 generations of Christians lived and died without the benefit of what we call the Bible and yet they knew God. Today we read the bible, learn from it and follow it but don’t attempt to constrain God to what is found between Genesis and Revelations because He is more than that, much more than that. He goes where He wants to go and does what He wants to do and you and I can’t contain Him by saying “I don’t read that in the bible anywhere”. The fact is that God is Love, He is Just, He is Holy, He is many things and He is not only what is written down on paper. If you try to live only by words, you have missed the gospel because God lives today in people, not in words.
Hank, ideally that would be true…Cornelius, saved as he was, certainly submitted to baptism to be admitted to the church. Which is the exact “pattern” I believe exists..Grace through Faith = Saved…Baptism=admission to the Church… But, you know as well as anyone on this blog that the various sects within the CoC and all the other various faith heritages have a boat load of other stuff they throw in to make sure you “belong” or else they send you on your way… My way or the highway seems to be a pitiful example of how to make a disciple.
Also, there seems to be a hidden arrogance that would put some regulation on how one enters the church…Peter seemed to think that if he DIDN’T add a person who was obviously saved, he was refusing to cooperate with God.. Maybe it’s just me but there seems to be some difference between recognizing a move of God in a person’s life and acknowledging it welcoming him into the church through baptism versus knowing all the special handshakes and code words necessary to get into our special club by doing all the right things that our sect has decided upon…probably just me.
Actually, one might turn around the situation and wonder aloud if we are rejecting God’s will by discontinuing our fellowship with someone that God has saved… Is that rejecting God? Does it not seem just the slightest bit arrogant to suggest that a man whom God has saved doesn’t belong in”our” church?
Doug writes:
“You seem to think that people can understand God’s will only through scripture.”
Yeah, I do. I admit that the only things I know as absolute truth are ONLY the things I find in scripture.
I admit that I believe that the scripture is the final say-so.
Having said that, to all who believe that they can know spiritual truths outside of and beyond the scriptures…. please leave me out of it.
I was under the impression that on even this site, that the scriptures were the final authority. I thought that that everyone here believed that whatever the scriptures said was it, and that we weren’t to challenge as much….
In the Bible, baptism was reserved for believers only (those who trusted Christ. The Greek word translated “faith” and “believe” in most places in the New Testament meant “trust, as in a trusting dependence”). Phillip’s statement to the Ethiopian official who asked about baptism was, “If you believe with all your heart you may”. What he was to believe was Christ and his work as described in Isaiah 53, the passage he read from.
Except for infant baptism (which I don’t agree with..) historic water baptism has been “believers baptism”, meaning the person being baptized upon a confession of trusting Christ. Jesus said to “make disciples” and baptize “them” (disciples). Hank believes lost sinners are disciples and that the Christian church should baptize only lost people. The question is are those sinners to have faith in baptism, or in Christ. If they have faith in Jesus they are saved upon having faith.
Every believer (Christian) should be baptized as soon as possible, and in my view it should be as public as possible. People who hear the good news and do not believe are lost and I don’t plan to tell even one in that category they should be baptized. Those who hear the good news and believe it are saved by faith and only they are candidates for baptism. Now this is not true of course if Jesus can’t be trusted. He said over and over again that those who believe on him have eternal life.
You see, baptism isn’t the only goal post for legalists. For many, you also must be in a church with the correct name, you must sing only a cappella on Sunday morning, you must have communion every Sunday morning, and the list is virtually endless, all “salvation issues..”.
For more than 50 years now, every person I’ve shared Christ with who told me they were trusting him I’ve either baptized or told them to be baptized. I think only a few in that time might not have, I have no way of know for sure. Some of them might have lied to me and fooled me. But I didn’t knowingly advise an unbeliever to be baptized. I think it’s a good plan to just do what Jesus said and let him sort them out. At best, just as Jesus taught, in our local churches there will believers and make believers, tares mixed in with the wheat. And there will be wolves in sheep’s clothing claiming to be “brothers” who only want what’s best for us.
You can count on this 100% of the time. If a guy talks more about any other Bible subject than about Jesus and his work for sinners he should be avoided. A preacher who talks more about the Holy Spirit than about Jesus is wrong. One who talks about his church or his denomination (or lack of…) more than about Jesus is suspect. And one who talks all the time about baptism and singing and gives Jesus only a casual mention is a fake and not to be trusted.
The apostles preached Christ and his death and resurrection. They taught believers to know him more, to grow in grace, and to look for his return. Every church or person who majors on a minor at the expense of Jesus Christ is wrong.
Royce,
Say all you want about me or anything else but when we both go to bed tonight… the book of God STILL teaches that ONLY those sinners who have been baptized into Christ are Christians.
There are NO members of the church who have not been baptized into Christ.
There just aren’t …..
Royce:
I saw this:
“Every believer (Christian) should be baptized as soon as possible, and in my view it should be as public as possible.” And then I read, “You see, baptism isn’t the only goal post for legalists.” Those two statements close together made me think, Royce are you putting up a legalist goal post? 🙂
Yes, I know that is not what you are seeking to say. However, throughout this weblog (oops “blog,” Royce; I am sure such differences matter a lot! You know, we need to put legalism into action everywhere we can. Right?), what I see is the same kind of skirting some key questions that Evangelicals have been doing for a long, long time. For example, what is baptism? Is it actually participating in Jesus’ death and resurrection, per Paul in Romans 6? Or is it no more than a symbol of actually participating in such? And if it is an actual participation… then what does that say about those who do NOT participate in Jesus’ death and resurrection?
Just wanted to chime in to suggest that some of you continue to make no sense of Romans 6. Even F.F. Bruce was candid enough in his Romans commentary to note that much of the believing world just will NOT look at what Paul is saying. (Tyndale Commentaries, Romans, p. 136; he noted that Paul is being clear: no such thing as an unbaptized Christian! Go read his comment. He is pointed with much of the U.S. and Europe.) Oh, there I go, challenging the Evangelical (and progressive, or whatever) conclusions here.
Maybe it would make more sense for Jay to open up a review of Everett Ferguson’s new book on baptism. fyi: I am aware that the ENTIRE coming issue of the Journal of Early Christianity is DEVOTED to the book. Hmmm.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
An yet, in most of our history those that were saved were not Christians since Jesus had not been born.
But, on the other hand they were led by night and also day by different things and both were said to be Jesus doing it as a different being or disguise if you will.
Would we say those back then actually following Jesus (God) would be followers of a pillar of fire or Jesus?
Would we say they were followers of a Cloud or Jesus?
I would say they were following Jesus way before He was born. Having Jesus as a guide for people is not just a New Testament thing. He’s been around a long time and been called by many names. Christian is only one.
So, folks can and have taken different routes and still be following Jesus. How many peoples did Jesus appear to in other forms that is not written in the Bible is anyones guess. The Bible has a purpose and it fulfills that purpose for the people that are aware of it. It is not an answer to all our questions about God, the Godhead, and all their doings. That’s why to think any of us have or can know it all and argue about it is ridiculous.
WE’ll find those answers out, maybe, in the new life and in the new body. Or, we may be so busy happily doing what is asked of us in the new life what was important here may just be forgotten.
Hank,
Scripture is wonderful for a person’s mind but that can only take a person so far. If that person desires to really know God, to really become a Jesus person, that is the Holy Spirits job because God is spirit not flesh. We become like God by the Spirit, not the mind. Furthermore, trying to become like God by using our mind can be a very trying experience. The more we try to do that the more we will be aware of our failure (Romans 7 &8). I speak from experience on this matter. I am not arguing against Scripture or the authority of scripture, I am arguing for the role of the Spirit. Scrpture teaches me that when Jesus sets a person free He does it through the Spirit and not simply through words and knowledge. I have known quite a few people who were converted, confessed Christ and were baptized. But, they never allowed the Spirit to do His work within them. You probably know these people too. They are the people who do not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. Are they saved? I hope so. Are they truly free? I won’t judge them but I think they could have much, much more. It’s a tough job to try to live a holy life when you are doing it on your own.
Have you really read and understood carmens article? Buddhists and Muslims in heaven because of the big S, the many different doors to heaven? Come on, Keith, that’s straight forward!
If the point had been that Cathiolics or Presbyterians can be found in heaven, I had not reachted that strongly, because I DO make a distinction between salvation and convenant fellowshiop on earth – yet leavinng alvation outseide the covenant fellowship entirely up to God. But Carmen’s article is not about this qzuestion. But she is stating, hapoing, iomagining that ALL religions led to the same heaven.
And you say, that’s a wonderful and challenging thought. Keith, either you did not grasp what she wrote, or you shere in her vision. I see no other option, but I am not the one to say which is true. Judge yourself.
Alexander
Alexander
Doug,
How many other truths have you been taught by the spirit that are not actually taught in the Bible?
Or is the teaching that there are members of the church who have NOT been baptized into
Sorry, hit “submit” by accident.
I was just wondering whether the idea that there are non-baptized members of the church the only teaching you learned from the spirit that is not taught in the Bible?
Or, have you been given other non Biblical teachings from the spirit as well? Just curious…
Keith:
On the subject of “Christian universalism,” I am aware that the Phoenix Affirmations make a curious announcement. Somehow people who believe in Jesus as THE CHRIST also believe Jesus is one of the Ways to God. Right? That is part of what is at the heart of the current “Progressive Movement” among Evangelicals/et.al. in the U.S. It is a theology that ignores Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:32 and John 14:6, but does not agree that it does. And not going to wade in further re the growing movement, but wanted to highlight.
And that is what Carmen’s article proposes. Jesus is one of the ways to God. So, I think I understand that you are saying that Jesus is the Way (as does the Progressive Movement among Evangelicals and others). But I do want to know if you agree with Carmen. Are you following U.S. Progressive Theology at this point? Do you believe that He is the Christ, but not the only way to God?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yes, of course Jesus is the only way to God. I can’t speak for anyone else but I did read Keith’s disclaimer. And, I don’t recall him endorsing Carmen’s article any place else.
It would be wrong for me to say every conservative is also a legalist and not following Christ and the apostles teaching. It is also wrong to paint, with a very large brush, progressives as not believing Jesus is THE ONLY way to God. I believe that every single person who eventually is in the number of the saved in eternity future will be there solely because of the worth and work of Jesus Christ. It is by Him, the Son of God, that sinners come to God.
Most of the people who read a church of Christ blog think of a “progressive” as people like Leroy Garrett, Edward Fudge, Rick Atchley, Max Lucado, or Al Maxey. I would put these individuals Christology up against any conservative any day of the week. They are not liberals in the classic meaning of the word regarding theology. It is because of their high view of Jesus and his work that they have stopped adding to the gospel and have ceased putting up imaginary boundaries that are unscriptural or ascriptural.
I don’t know every progressive Restoration preacher. I do know many of them and not one I know is wrong about Jesus and what he accomplished for sinners by reconciling them to God with his self sacrifice for sins.
Royce:
I appreciate your email and your seeking to NOT paint with broad brush strokes. Thank you. And yes I am aware that the “Progressive Movement” in the broad U.S. religious sense seems to have not generally impacted churches of Christ or Independent Christian churches… until now.
However, I am aware of an elder within a church of Christ who was unwilling to declare that Jesus is the ONLY way to God. Carmen’s article is but one illustration of how people “bend their theology” dependent on who they are around a lot. It is a powerful postmodern conclusion that we “not judge” — and that means not judge Hindus and Muslims either. Right? That is what is at the heart of all of this. A growing number are extending the “do not judge” phrase beyond Jesus’ message and into the universalist space. And that leads them to where Carmen stands and what she writes. So, the more the U.S. becomes a religious melting pot, the more we will be urged to not judge other religions. None of us wants to say to a friend who is a Muslim or Hindu that, if asked, no he/she has no hope of being with God after death.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Hank,
You and I are on different wavelengths and it appears we aren’t connecting. First, let me ask you to clarify your question on “non-baptized members of the church”. Do you really mean “non-baptized” to be “non-immersed” members of the Church? You see you keep asking questions about “non-biblical teachings” given by the Spirit and about things that I have “learned” directly from the Spirit. I would say that I have received nothing “non-biblical” from the Spirit and that He doesn’t instill “new” knowledge in my brain.
But what the Spirit does is take what I have read and learned from scripture and makes living those words non-burdensome. So when I read that I shouldn’t judge, that means I don’t have to declare that a Christian who was not baptized by immersion is a non-Christian and going to hell. I can tell him of my beliefs and remain in fellowship with him. If a person is open to the leading of the Spirit, they will not evangelize because of the scriptual words they have read or learned or out of a sense of duty but because the Spirit has internalized that learning until they see those in prison to sin just like themselves and realize that what they do for sinful people or poor people or hurting people… they do to and for Jesus. In short, the Spirit changes what we read and learn from scripture into our very lifestyle and gives us love, joy, peace, forebearance, kindness, goodness, fatithfulness, gentleness and selfcontrol while doing that. It’s one thing to read it and another all together to live it and to live it with the joy of the Lord. If you have ever led worship, you would know what I’m talking about because it is discernable on the faces of the worshippers and that’s not being judgemental… it’s just being observant. If a Christian wants to keep a checklist of everything they have read and learned and use that checklist to prove to themselves that they are within God’s will… well, that’s one way to live. But, the way that I believe God wants us to live is more natural than that and it requires a death of our born with spirit and a rebirth in the God’s Spirit.
Bruce, my contention continues to be that we should judge sin, not people, and then reach out to people who sin in order to draw them closer to God through Christ.
In my article at NW, I have tried to describe why it is not a postmodern maxim, but a teaching of Christ.
Doug:
I asked Jay the question in a different webchain, but thought I would replicate the question here for you. How does Paul say that we are made alive with Christ, in Colossians 2:9-15?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Didn’t mean to ignore the original question, but I hit “submit” early. (Consarn iPhone.)
Yes, Jesus is THE Way, not the best way among many alternatives, not the way I’ve chosen but you choose your own, but THE one and only Way.
Keith:
Yes, I know. But you also sidestepped a question that was drenching the first century and now finds its way more and more into our day of “do not judge.” If a person decides that they will NOT declare that Jesus is the Christ — and the Way, the truth and the life and they ask you what does that mean to you as you talk with them, what will you say?
Will you say to them, “Well then you are separated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18) or will you say “Only God knows” or some such? The U.S. religious melting pot is pressuring in exactly the way your Wineskins essay and decisions illustrate.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Keith:
To confirm did not see your addendum comment as I was responding. So then makes me wonder why you published Carmen’s article. No response requested; you have done what you have done, and will not “push” further in the area of “Christian universalism.”
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Doug,
Baptism is immersion. That is what the word God chose to use. When God said one is baptized into Christ, he said we are immersed into Christ because that is the very definition of the word he used. Sprinkled is not immersed and therefore sprinkled is not baptized. If you don’t believe me, you can check for yourself. Or, maybe you can even ask the spirit next time he moves and leads you. Seeing how he is the one who actually chose the word.
Accordingly, I satnd by the statement that – there are NO non-baptized members of the church. Because, the Bible plainly teaches that God adds sinners to the church as they are baptized into Christ. (Which means immersed into Christ)
Now, if you believe in the existence of non-baptized (which means immersed) Christians, just know that the Bible nowhere teaches that. If you got it from the spirit, I doubt that it was from the 3rd person of the Godhead.
Doug,
I want to apologize for the comment about asking the spirit yourself. It was uncalled for and wrong on my part. It was immature and I should not have made it.
I will work on being less sarcastic, brother.
Bruce, I feel like I’ve answered the question of “why” I published the article so often that I should be able to sell CDs of myself narrating the answer.
New Wineskins is a forum for people who think for themselves. If the de facto editor (me) is not willing to listen to the thoughts of people who think for themselves and let others who think for themselves comment there, then no one will be willing to submit what they’re thinking for themselves there — which might challenge, bless, benefit, or possibly infuriate others. But we will be thinking together, and hopefully arriving at the truth that way.
To me, the bigger question is why didn’t people who disagreed with (or felt they might have misunderstood) the article ask the author right there in the comments on the page or through her e-mail address? I know it’s more convenient to assume heresy and blame it on me for publishing the article, but did we get to what she meant and why?
No, we have our assumptions. And they might be wrong.
And let me please address a problem of wrong information, since I’ve had difficulty trying to post it the last couple of days. Above, it is maintained that Randy Harris says he is a pantheist. This is inaccurate. On page 95 of “God Work,” he says: “I’m a postmodern, mystic, panENtheist. Happily situated in Churches of Christ. And I am going nowhere. You can be a postmodern, mystic, panENtheist and be perfectly happy in this tradition.” (Capitalization of the syllable is mine for the sake of clarity.)
There’s a world of difference between pantheism – the belief that nature is God – and panentheism – the belief that God is IN and BEYOND nature. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you like; when I included the links was what put my previous comments in the trash before, I think. I might be a panentheist and not know it, since I have researched it precious little and thought about it even less.
We need to verify our sources and make sure our information is accurate. We need to assume less and ask more. We need to stop judging others altogether and keep loving them without qualification.
Agreed?
Keith, Carmen is a very able writer (profesionally so). Her thoughts were all but difficult to follow or to understand. I summed them up above, and you somehow seem to push my summary aside for the sake of leaving open what she meant. What she meant was and is clear, there are no assumptions necessary. Otherwise I would have to cast away language and all means of communication and become a Trappist monk. Keith, why don’t you just simply admit what she wrote? Here, slowly again, as for first graders:
OK, according to Carmen:
heaven is maybe like a ………………………………….
Whom will me meet there (hint: look at the words in bold)?
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
Maybe you know it:
Who do these characters/representative of various religions/worldviews think Jesus is?
……………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………..
And what did Jesus confirm as the right answer?
(For this you may take a look at your Bibke, Keith: Mat 16:16-17)
…………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………….
OK, did you get what Carmen said? Is – according to Carmen – Jesus the only way to heaven? This is a multiple choice question:
a) No b) No c) No d) Yes
Let’s take a look at Carmen’s next sentences (immediately following) to better understand her reasoning:
You know your Bible, don’t you? The promise “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, does it mean: What ever we make of heaven? Or is this twisting the scriptures? Don’t be evasive, Keith, because according to your own profile (Gravatar) you “won’t settle for an evasive answer.”
Carmen twists scriptures with a purpose:
The plural of keys gives her a starting point to assume that there “could be” many doors to heaven. Very wisely she does not say, that’s how it is. Yet if you read the last quote I gave, that’s what she thinks Jesus actually meant (“What if Jesus is right?”). And then she takes the promise that applied to Peter and the church (see also Mat 18:18) and misinterprets it to make it say: “Heaven – like Earth – is what you make of it.”
I am writing slowly like writing to a person of a very slow mind, Keith, and I am well aware that is not doing you justice in any sense. But you give me the impression that I did not read and did not get her message. You push and push me to take a different look at this essay to make it sound completely different than how it was spelled. I read my Bible at face value, Keith, and I do read articles at face value.
What Carmen wrote is clearly and plainly stated: Heaven is what we make of it. Every religion leads there through their own doors. Carmen has been deceived by the same serpent that brought us into all this trouble we’re in. And you, Keith, you gave Satan a platform to promote his lies. If you were in our church, we’d urge you to remove this article from the web. This is not a game, it’s a spiritual war!
Pleeeeeeeease! Think about it, brother!
Alexander
Aalexander,
You are right, and Satan IS behind all of this watering down, twisting, and denying of the truth.
Would that be me, Hank?
Congratulations, Alexander; you’ve shot at the messenger several times now and still missed the point:
If you thought Carmen was wrong and sinning, why did you not go to her?
Look, this is the question nobody likes to hear. I don’t like to hear it. I like to avoid it, too.
But the fact remains that this edition of New Wineskins was about fellowship, and it explored the issue with a number of points of view, all from within Churches if Christ, and it asked the question, “Who’s In, Who’s Out, Who Decides?” And we all voted on it by responding to or ignoring the authors we chose to draw lines around. We judged, in short, and we voted with our feet. We either walked toward or we walked away.
Royce wrote……..
“For more than 50 years now, every person I’ve shared Christ with who told me they were trusting him I’ve either baptized or told them to be baptized. I think only a few in that time might not have, I have no way of know for sure. Some of them might have lied to me and fooled me. But I didn’t knowingly advise an unbeliever to be baptized. I think it’s a good plan to just do what Jesus said and let him sort them out. At best, just as Jesus taught, in our local churches there will believers and make believers, tares mixed in with the wheat. And there will be wolves in sheep’s clothing claiming to be “brothers” who only want what’s best for us.
You can count on this 100% of the time. If a guy talks more about any other Bible subject than about Jesus and his work for sinners he should be avoided. A preacher who talks more about the Holy Spirit than about Jesus is wrong. One who talks about his church or his denomination (or lack of…) more than about Jesus is suspect. And one who talks all the time about baptism and singing and gives Jesus only a casual mention is a fake and not to be trusted.
The apostles preached Christ and his death and resurrection. They taught believers to know him more, to grow in grace, and to look for his return. Every church or person who majors on a minor at the expense of Jesus Christ is wrong.”
Royce . . . I agree with you! We need to grow disciples . . . to plant the seed and watch to see if they believe. We need to teach about JESUS. I really like this!!
And if they believe, we should teach them to commit to living their lives as Jesus lived his . . . to take on his “yoke” . . . to walk in his ways . . . and to follow Jesus to the water where the forgiveness of sins is freely given, where the gift of the Holy Spirit is freely given, and be added . . . by the Lord . . . to his church.
You see I believe we should teach believers . . . so that they can be saved.
I cannot teach someone that they are right with God before repentance. And I cannot teach someone that they are right with God before meeting Jesus in the water.
They will not have perfect repentance. They will not have a perfect baptism. But if their heart is right . . . the Father will view it as perfect . . . and be just as pleased as he was with Jesus. Cause Jesus got it right.
Keith:
I did not raise a question about Randy and know you may “bunched up” some posts into one essay to me. If so, okay.
Do you see Paul as improperly “judging” when he writes that there are people who are “separated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18)?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Hank,
Apology accepted. I am wondering if you ever have had occasion to work in Christian ministry with anyone other than CofC people? If you have spent all of your ministy time within the CofC, I would understand the casual manner in which you dismiss those who have been non-immersed. I’d recommend that you do some ministry with some of these “unbaptized, non-church member” people and see if the Spirit tells you anything? I would say that your last post “Satan IS behind all of this watering down, twisting, and denying of the truth.” gives a glimpse into your mindset. I would ask you who is behind all of the division and downright hatred of each other that exists wholly within the CofC today and then affirm if that is the mark of a Spirit led Body of Christ? I learned from scripture that Satan was the accuser of the brethern, not another member of the Church.
Bruce,
I read Colossians 2:9-15 to say we are born anew (Made Alive) when we are baptized. And there we will stay, as babies, unless we nurture the Spirit placed within us at baptism. Many within the CofC think that nurturing the Spirit means showing up a the Church building 3 times a week and knowing enough scripture to proof text someone into dumping their current denominational connection. What do you think?
Doug, it depends on whatever it is you teach.
Do you teach that sinners may be added the the church (the body of the saved) who have not yet been immersed (baptized) into Christ?
If you do, then yeah – I would say that Satan is behind your teaching.
I meant Keith, not Doug, in my last comment. Sorry
Doug,
Have you done any ministry alongside of Mormons? There typically demonstrate much love, joy peace, patience, kindness, self-control, etc. But, it doesn’t mean that they are then members of the church.
And yeah, Satan is behind the division and whatever hatred there is amongst brethren just as much as he is behind all false teachers. No doubt about it.
Still, the Bible knows nothing of un-baptized members of the church. Rather, the book is clear in teaching that sinners are added to the body of the saved once they are baptized (immersed) .
Doug:
I appreciate your response. You should know that quite a few people visiting this weblog do not have the view of “made alive” that you have expressed.
And yes, Paul makes clear in the Ephesians letter the crucialness of the Spirit’s work in renewing us. So yes, we need more than “three trips to a building” to grow spiritually. I could go on, but I think that is enough.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
The Bible knows nothing of unbaptized believers, true. The Bible also knows nothing of baptizing lost people who are by Bible definition “unbelievers” either. The Bible teaches “believers baptism” and the same Bible teaches believers (those who trust and depend on Jesus..) have everlasting life.
I want people who are immersed to have 100% of their faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and 0% in baptism or anything else done by human hands. If we polled our congregations and simply asked “What is your assurance you are going to heaven?” wonder what the answer would be? Would “I have been baptized.” be a suitable answer? Those whose faith is in church membership, their personal faithfulness, baptism, and a host of other things are in grave danger. Faith in Christ is what the Bible calls for.
Bruce, I don’t see Ephesians 4 as substantially different frim any other passage about separating out sin from the assembly … the first steps are to go to the person(s) sinning, go in a pair or group if three if they will not listen, then bring the matter before the assembly to separate them out — and if the charge is sufficiently severe, “turn them over to Satan.” I have only an inkling if what that means, but I think it refers to praying that God will permit the Accuser to make things much tougher on them than simply being outside of fellowship, in order to prompt penitence. I note that Ephesians 4:19 indicates the severity of the sins involved there: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.”
If they were teaching as well as living that “greed is good,” and so were the other things they did, they were approaching the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit – calling His good evil and calling evil good. That kind of sin calls for extreme measures.
And, no, you had nothing to do with the charge about Randy Harris, far above where I think you joined this conversation.
Now, I’m looking forward to a lively weekend from my family and a break from all the questions sbout my beliefs and motivations and character.
For a while there, I was thinking of converting from Christianity to Masochism so I could enjoy visiting this thread more. 🙂
Royce:
Let me share that your last paragraph is good, brother — based on your understanding of baptism. One of the best summaries of where we should be that I have read on this weblog. Yes, I suspect some churches of Christ still see baptism as “of human hands” as do some/many Evangelicals.
And I will offer that is why we desperately need to see baptism as God’s actions — not ours. That is why we need to focus on messages such as Titus 3:5ff. and Colossians 2:9-15 (Col. 2:13 is a linguistic parallel with Ephesians 2:5 I have recently discovered — did not know). We are made alive with Christ in Baptism. It is God’s action! Baptism is about Jesus’ actions — his death and resurrection… and our faith in those actions. That is why Romans 6 should grab and hold us.
Will let you mull.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Paul said, “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.”
Which is, being interpreted, “Holding not the proper doctrine on baptism or musical instruments so as to disagree with us.” At least that seems to be the application I am reading around here. Sigh.
Charles:
You do realize, don’t you, that you have pressed your conclusions about baptism as much as anyone on this weblog. Not to mention Jay’s much writing in this area of Christian teaching. Right? So, are you “fed up” (or whatever you want to call it) with Jay as much as with those of us who take issue from the Scriptures with your conclusions and his? Or is your “sigh” only because we seem to have a “legalistic” understanding of baptism (which I do NOT — READ MY POST).
Baptism into Christ is about faith in Christ — including believing that I am participating in His death and resurrection. Isn’t that what Romans 6 is saying?
And how does Ephesians 4:17ff. tie to the baptism discussion? Hmmm?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
It was a long, long time ago, but I do remember that it was human hands that put me under the water in the North Fork River in Western North Carolina. It was the spring of 1961. In the previous winter my cousin’s husband sat with me at his kitchen table and told me the good news about Jesus. I was already under deep conviction and the story was indeed good news! That was on a Saturday. The next day I attended the local church and after the sermon I was the first down the isle to confess my faith in Christ.
Most country churches there in the mountains did not have a baptistery. So I had to wait until the spring thaw to be baptized. Since I didn’t have anyone to tell me I wasn’t saved I immediately started to tell others about Jesus. The day I was baptized one of my friends with whom I had shared the good news was also baptized.
My mother attended a vacation Bible school in a Presbyterian church in the hills of N.C. not long after she had her 8th birthday. It was there, in that Bible school that a godly woman taught my mother what Jesus had done for her and there she trusted Christ. Not many months before her death she told me how disappointed she was that her parents and church leaders made her wait until she was 12 years old to be immersed. For 74 years my mother, like both her parents, walked with God. She led I suppose hundreds to Christ. For the last 50+ years of her life she was blind and yet because she was known as a woman who knew God and had regular supernatural answers to prayers, many people, especially young people, would come to her with their concerns and problems. It must have been scores of times that I would call her and she would tell of some boy she had told about Jesus years before, or some young woman, and for whom she had prayed daily who had called and told her he or she had been saved and wanted to thank her for telling them about Jesus. Over and over the story was repeated, she was the most faithful witness for Christ I ever knew.
This 8 year old girl started to pray and believe just like her mamma and papa did and her prayers were regularly answered, before she was baptized. Mother was one of 8 children and 3 of her brothers became preachers, everyone a soul winner, every one known for getting prayers answered so that people would come for miles away to get them to pray for someone very sick and about to die. I doubt if these people had ever heard of a church of Christ but they knew Christ well.
I believe with my all my heart that Alexander Campbell and his father Thomas Campbell were just as saved when they were Presbyterians, and then Baptists, as when they finally started to call their churches churches of Christ. Everyone can believe what he wants and teach what he thinks is right. I reserve that right too. So anyone who tries to get me off the truth about Jesus and faith in him for salvation is whistling up a dead tree.
The reason in our coc churches there are so many “salvation issues” is that so many people, preachers and elders, don’t have a clue what happened when Jesus died, was buried and raised from the dead. Shocking to me I have had some men admit that no, they don’t think Jesus is enough to save a soul. It is a truly sad state of affairs.
I say to anyone who thinks they have a monopoly on God and that only their brand is saved that they are deceived and should repent of their sectarian mindset. “Whosoever” is very broad and everyone who puts their whole trust in Jesus will receive what Jesus promised, eternal life.
I only wish that more church of Christ folks believed like the founders of the Restoration Movement. Say what you will, say it ’til you are blue in the face, I know Jesus, am certain of my salvation which rests wholly in him and I am accepted only upon him and his work and nothing else.
The reason I gave to you in my first private mail to you:
And I well remember you answer that it should serve me to make me think about it. this was BTW an evasive answer …
Besides, there is something like “editorial responsibility”. So the editor is to be addressed first for having published a contribution. A disappointed customer also addresses the customer service and not the worker who made the mistake.
Alexander
@ Royce
You made an essential and very true statement above: Everyone who speaks more on any other subject than our Lord Jesus Christ should be viewed with suspicion. I totally agrre, and it is good and healthy also for me to remember this – especially when being in the midst of a controversy.
Thank you
Alexander
BTW: @ all: What had a tremendous balancing effect on me duringthe last week was a video-devostion by F LaGard smith (an author whom I appreciate very much):
Here’s the link: Snowfalls
Hank,
No, no ministry with Mormons or Hindus or Moslems for that matter. But, I figure you already knew that. You seem willing to throw in extremes to prove your point. I hope you are wrong in your position on baptism but I imagine that your position extends beyond excluding unimmersed Christians . Who else is excluded, Hank? Are the only saved people sitting in the kind of CofC that practices what you preach? I’m going to end the way I started commenting on this subject…it’s the Lord who is adding people to His Church. We won’t know who is out and who is in until the final roll call. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that there are 3 things that will amaze us about heaven… Who is there, Who is not there and that we are there.
So, Alexander, judging someone not to be a Christian absolves you of any responsibility to go to them?
Evasive, to me, would be avoiding one’s duty through love to another.
You have no difficulty coming to me with your objections. Why is it difficult to approach Carmen? Bruce Morton has made an attempt. A fellow named Brian made an attempt, and she responded.
Royce:
Thank you for sharing your experiences and roots; it reaches the heart of so much that you have written. I suspect your essay gets to the heart of much of a nation’s feelings and struggles as well. And it surfaces every time people open the Scriptures and read Colossians 2:9-15 (particularly 2:13), Romans 6:1-6, and similar texts. The apostles are clear, but their writings can clash with our strong feelings about the supernatural.
And in some cases those clashes are now spreading beyond baptism. They are now spreading into lifestyle choices and sexuality and they are spreading into belief in other religions.
Reason for prayer and for leaning completely on the Lord and on His Word.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce,
That was beautiful and the story of my fathers NC Cherokee Reservation family exactly. My Mothers family was the city (Birmingham) COC and taught against his beliefs as long as they were married. They came to a truce which lasted for 70 years. Jesus was his main belief, faith and love, and the Bible and Paul was hers.
All us children were brought up in the strictest of COC churches and we had to play down love for Jesus as that was more of a denomination thinking and frowned upon. Quoting scripture was far more rewarded and selected ones especially.
WE are so excited at our old age to find a COC that is now teaching both equally and not just singing songs about Jesus, but teaching of his love and encouraging others to believe and feel it in their hearts. More and more are beginning to do so and that is great news.
Interesting that our young folks saw through this fast and have left. In most churches today its by far old folks.
I chose first to address the editor, Keith. And so far the editor proved to be a person unwilling to admit any responsibility. As long as you qualify Carmen’s vision as “beautiful” and “challenging”, I question YOUR orthodoxy and judgment, Keith.
Alexander
Alabama John,
On my mothers side of our family the heritage of faith goes way back to England and before that to Germany in the 1200’s. I come from a long line of people who loved the Lord and served him faithfully.
It’s as if some people have never considered the facts of history. Some people insist that they can trace their Church of Christ roots all the way back to Pentecost. The truth is local churches with the name “Church of Christ” had a beginning in America at about 1830. History doesn’t record any church in the world using the name “Church of Christ before that time. They continued their history of first being Presbyterians, then Baptists, then Disciples, then churches of Christ by splitting over instruments being used to accompany singing about 1906.
The great universal (catholic) body of Christ, the “church” was alive and well centuries before there was a group of churches called “churches of Christ”. The split over music was only the beginning of what would become one of the most fractured Christian denominations in history. Due to a body of theology that leaned heavily on salvation by works there were, and are today, scores of splits over what could be done and couldn’t be done without loosing one’s salvation. It continues today.
Now, in 2012, those people who have begun to shake of the legalism of the past and preach Christ, love people in tangible ways, and ignore their critics are branded apostates. No, they have not left Jesus, they have not abandoned the faith, they have only abandoned legalism and sectarianism and for that they are shunned.
The trends are very telling. It seems to me that in the next 40 to 50 years as churches filled with people like me, old and gray, die off, so will most of the fire breathing Campbellites. They will be largely reduced to a few pages of history. It is very sad that a movement for the most part has abandoned the hope, ideals, and theology of it’s founders. They have exchanged the idea “Christians only but not the only Christians” for “Christians and the only Christians” even declaring in print and online and in fiery speeches in lectureships, that even many of their own are damned and going to hell.
I’ll have no part of that brand of religion.
Royce,
One of the saddest was how we were taught as children that all the people we knew and cared about from the local barber who held prayer each day when his shop was full of us children and grown ups to our basketball and other sport coaches and even our teachers back then that had prayer and the pledge of allegiance before each day started were all going to hell.
So sad to go to a funeral of someone you loved and respected and hear they were lost and burning in hell.
Our past tells on us and makes us so opposed to that teaching and thinking today far above the younger folks as we have seen the destruction and lives it has broken and even those among us withdrawn from lose all hope of heaven.
And lets not even get into marriage and divorce issues !
How many must be rejoicing at the turning away from that legalism that made us so alone in this world we are seeing today.
God bless you and all those old folks leaving that thinking that will see and enjoy, even if its only for a short time, the joy of being close to Jesus before they see Him face to face.
Keith wrote,
In my case, I’ve not been able to log into that page to post a comment. In three different browsers, the comment feature would not come up for me until today. I suspect that others have had the same problem.
Carmen did not reply to Bruce’s question to her, which seemed entirely reasonable —
I would like to know her answer.
Brian Gregory also asked some good questions, which have also gone unanswered. She responded but didn’t answer the questions.
In short, all readers who have attempted to ask appropriate questions to better understand her thoughts have not been responded to. I see no dialogue or interest in dialogue from Ms. Beaubeaux. She can hardly complain that she’s been misunderstood when she avoids questions aimed at seeking a better understanding.
And that means I have to come to Alexander’s defense. Why be expected to pose questions to someone who does not answer?
Keith,
Thanks for the information on Randy Harris. I knew it was absurd for Greg Tidwell to accuse Randy of Pantheism, but didn’t have access to the book referenced.
Jay, you asked “Why be expected to pose questions to someone who does not answer?” I can’t say that I expect anyone to, or should. I appreciate that you and Bruce have been willing to do so.
Sometimes we just do things because they’re the right things to do. To me this is one of them.
Glad to be able to put the statement about Randy Harris to rest, at least on this thread. Things like that tend to develop a life of their own.
Well, here it is two years later and this is the first time I have seen these posts. Interesting to see the interest – not so much about my article but around my motivation to write Big S Heaven. Inquiring minds want to know and you are not alone! I would also like to understand you and your questions more clearly too as I begin research for my book BIG S HEAVEN. Alexander, Jay and others: I am happy to engage in conversation with you, but I’m not entirely certain you will find this comment after so much time has passed. Please email me at [email protected] and let me know that you found this reply. To know more about me you can visit carmenbeaubeaux.com where you will see that am only a humble writer and voiceover artist 🙂
Fascinating that the complaints about my article Big S Heaven seem to be more about me than the content of the article. I mean, what can be wrong about going to meetings of other faiths to gather information about … anything? Culture? Theology? The color of the carpet? … Isn’t that what we are encouraged to do at every turn of the mic at church? Invite our friends? Do we think less of them when they come to visit us? I grew up in the church of Christ. I was one of the three times a week members and was teaching the 5 year-old Sunday School class when I was twelve years old – all by myself. Over the years I have taught 5th grade Sunday School for decades and my husband and I taught new Christians together for decades. We owned a Christian book store that specialized in Church of Christ materials and literature and it was also open to the public. We did this for seventeen years, full time. I have also been a speaker at Church of Christ women’s events, seminars and a lecturer at both the lectureships at ACU and Pepperdine. I am a military brat. I attended 22 schools between the 1st and 12th grades, lived in 13 different towns in 7 different states as well as overseas – but mama always managed to get us to church 3 times a week. I was also a girl scout all the way into the cadets and earned the highest award and was invited to Switzerland to attend Our Chalet. Shoot, I was even Miss National City, Miss San Diego and first runner up for Miss California. So hang onto that Whore of Babylon award, boys, I’m just not cut out for it. Okay, so if it’s not me personally, it must be the article. Is it that I endorse spiritual enlightenment? I mean, I do feel spiritually enlightened when I attend Catholic church. Most of my Catholic friends are puzzled by that, but there ya go. I just love it. I am also spiritually enlightened when I watch tens of thousands of muslims surrounding the Kaaba on television … when I see Jews praying at the Kotel … when I watch a Hindu burial … a Greek Orthodox baptism. My article is about worship and enlightenment. Most people find their form of worship to be both exhilarating and mundane and even irritating at various times thoughout their lives. I believe that stepping out and seeing for oneself how god moves through all religion – as Paul and Jesus taught – helps to revive one’s sense of the sacred. When I explore other faiths I also learn that most of what I’ve been taught about them is untrue. I think that is something we can all agree about – I mean, as members of the Church of Christ aren’t we continually confronted with bad, false, incorrect or incomplete information about our movement? It’s the same for everyone. We are not alone in this. So, just to cover the bases – we can conclude 1) I am a Christian 2) it’s ok to explore other faiths. 3) disappointment in one’s own faith – or aspects of it – is just a part of being human. Check, check,check. So now the only thing we have left that I discussed in the article is the heaven thing. You know dogs are going to be there don’t you? You would throw Mother Theresa out of heaven? Ghandi? Jerry Fallwell? Haven’t ya’ll ever discussed this in other forums before?!!! Haven’t there been many, many articles about this? Of course there has. And haven’t they all ended the same way? Of course they have. Who are we to tell God who can go to heaven? I mean … really guys. Don’t you have churches to run and men’s meetings to call and house visits to make?
If you thought Carmen was wrong and sinning, why did you not go to her?
The reason I gave to you in my first private mail to you:
You see, I almost answered Carmen directly, and then I deleted it a few moments later, because I thought: This would be unfair. Carmen’s text is published while (OBVIOUSLY) she is not even a Christian. Shall she be held responsible for her ignorance? Or shall the editor be addressed instead? I choose the latter, Keith. …
See, if anyone would start debating Carmen’s article like the other articles, it might be devastating to her soul, because I am sure she would read it and be interested in our comments, yet any criticism would be necessarily a full blow emotionally, because there was not ONE SYLLABLE a bible-believing Christian could sign. So, what also quite likely may happen: No one will answer, or only “polite” answers will be posted, leaving and confirming the all-the-way negative impression this issue of the New Wineskins laves with all conservative minded Christians, yet not helping Carmen either.
Posting Carmen’s article creates a NO-WIN situation, Keith. More people will turn away disgusted. Carmen won’t get a response that would help her coming closer to Christ in this Blog – unless someone addresses her privately (since you posted her e-mail-address as well), But this also can be something rather destructive, because when someone publishes something of this nature, he or she is expecting praise or understanding for it, and not rebuke and correction. It does not serve her and it does not serve New Wineskins either, it does not serve unity and understanding between the wings of our movement either. So whom does it serve, Keith?
And I well remember you answer that it should serve me to make me think about it. this was BTW an evasive answer …
Besides, there is something like “editorial responsibility”. So the editor is to be addressed first for having published a contribution. A disappointed customer also addresses the customer service and not the worker who made the mistake.
Alexander
For a guy with a name like Alexander, one would expect a bit more courage. Allow me to set your anxious and OBVIOUSLY troubled mind at ease, Alex and report that I am not at all emotionally damaged that you didn’t like my article. You will be consoled, I’m sure, to know that I am, in fact, thrilled that you didn’t like my article. Because you see Al, you are not my audience.
Here, for OBVIOIUSLY no one’s pleasure but my own is the article that has caused so much grief to these valiant warriors of the faith. Consider it a reference guide. I would provide the link, but BIG S HEAVEN is no longer in the Wineskins archive. Fancy that. I would never have known about this smoky back room discussion – that happened what, 2 years ago? – if I had not been researching for my upcoming devotional guide by the same title. Invite me next time, guys – you won’t be disappointed. I make an awesome peach cobbler.
BIG S HEAVEN
by Carmen Beaubeaux
Church is great.
I love the architecture, the altars, the vestments, the candles; the slant of morning light through colored glass. I even love the clumsy and awkward accoutrement: the parking lots, the sign that says too much in too little space, the over-the-top nice lady passing out bulletins laced with jaunty cartoon illustrations; the donuts, the coffee, the red punch, the slideshows; the nurseries full of hour-orphans as parents turn holy hands to other deities.
And, I love the people. The “young singles” engaged in at least three simultaneous life-changing, cornea-spelunking conversations – behind them, the widows in sensible shoes nod politely to one another as they punt demure sideways glances across the aisle – sniffing distance from the Aqua Velva’d widowers who met up at McDonalds for Sunday breakfast.
Even the annoying things are worth the two-inch toast of artificially colored grape drink: Here’s to the choir music that makes me look forward to severe hearing loss. Here’s to the high-formula golden-voiced pray-ers who drop “thee” and “thou” cluster bombs (Oh, Lord God, thou art the Alpha and Omega and we worship thee with humility …) to terrorize their lowly opponents, the guerilla pray-ers, who fire out rapid successions of the word “just” (Lord-Daddy-Jesus, we just come before you in just such humility and with just so much love …) A church without a prayer war is just such a bore.
Don’t put down your metaphorically raised between heaven and earth tee-nine-see glass of imitation Jesus Juice yet: Here’s to all the awful sermons by those professional spiritual masters who burden the congregants with the emotional weight of their ongoing self-analysis. I once knew a preacher who – to illustrate how God must sometimes do unpleasant things such as the stoning deaths of infants – told his childhood story about sneaking into the shed behind the house to see his father in the act of drowning a litter of unwanted puppies in a bucket of water. Preaching-therapy … There’s nothing like it to fill up the roster for nursery duty.
No one should be expected to observe any religion – especially one’s own – as perfect. One naturally recognizes and embraces the sacred and ridicules everything else on the ride home after worship. And I don’t feel guilty about that exercise at all. I take the attitude that submission is reserved for God and all else is merely subjugation – something Shadrack, Meshak, Abednego and Jesus were clearly against.
Anyway – as you might have already guessed – I’m the kind of person who generates a blowback effect when told what not to do. Fifty years of sermons against the excesses of “Cafeteria Religion” only made me an enthusiastic advocate of cafeteria religion. When I’m having a catholic moment, I grab Thomas Merton or Chardin, a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread and head to the park. When I feel the need for that old-time religion I pack my Torah in a handbag and go to D.Z. Akins for a bowl of matzo ball soup and a pumpernickel bagel. And, for those Islam moments, I loves me some afternoon-delight Rumi along with kebab and lentils at the Indo-European Market. Church has the potluck thing right, but it could use more spice. For a feasting and religion combo you can’t find better than a Portuguese festa (pronounced fesh-ta)! I have plans to visit Portuguese Heaven in that Great Beyond and have a big ol’ bowl of sopas in the sky with linguiça.
Okay. It’s not all about the food … if it were, I’d have had bypass surgery before now. No, there’s more. It’s the stories. I love the oral traditions that shore up the foundations of faith movements. Even the Mormon stories get to me. I want to hear about everyone’s expulsions so I can understand that no one holds the corner on fear, rejection, abandonment, persecution, punishment and death; I want to know about all the rituals so I can understand what makes God bend this way and that through the space-time continuum just to breathe on the surface of my heart’s deep and pitiful longing; and I want to do all the rituals (that don’t hurt), mostly the water stuff (as long as the CIA isn’t involved) because it predates even Christianity. Jesus must have had his reasons for not chucking baptism out with the Pharisaic priesthood; And, I want to lift my better-than-average church lady soprano to sing about hope … about a place far away where no one gets sick and dies and babies don’t get burnt up in meth lab accidents. You know it’s there. I know it’s there. My friend who died and was revived by the cardio team really, really knows it’s there. C’mon if we were honest with each other we’d say, “Let’s do heaven, okay?” because in this economy it’s more a sure thing than lunch.
Jesus said a few things. For me, the wisest thing Jesus ever said was “S” in Matthew 16:19. He said to Peter, “I will give you the keyS of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” So, if there’s more than one key to heaven there must be multiple doors. Whether Jesus meant there’s one door to heaven and many keyholes? or many doors to heaven, each with its own key? or if heaven is like a condominium resort in Hawaii (please-oh-please-oh-please-oh-please!) any way you figure it we’ll all be neighbors. Maybe a Buddhist monk will go next door to borrow a cup of sugar from a festa queen with linguica on her breath? Or maybe a Muslim extremist will be greeted to his reward by seventy-two Handmaids of The Sacred Heart of Jesus waiting to tutor him in the art of self-sacrifice? Or maybe Jerry Falwell is sharing a corner south-east facing condo with a Quranic Sufi?
What if Jesus is right? What if Heaven – like Earth – is what you make of it? … “whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” … Jesus also said, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to Life and those who find it are few.” I’ve done the reading and apparently Jesus seems to know more about heaven than any other religious leader, so do whatever you think is right, but I’m following Jesus’ S to Heaven and I hope to meet you along the way.
The universal longing for heaven is common ground for people of all faiths. Our spiritual communities are the closest thing we have here on earth to All The Heavens where we will meet in that Sweet By ‘N By. Might as well start now. Attend a Passover or a festa. Celebrate Eid. Visit a Mormon Temple. Haul your canary to The Feast of Saint Frances for a blessing. What could happen? When I was a kid we were vilified for sending Christmas cards with religious symbols on them, and now it’s almost common for Churches of Christ to throw pageants. This isn’t about working out your angst over an over-zealous fundamentalist upbringing. It’s about following Jesus as he progresses to the cross leaving behind him a street littered with the remnants of the social and institutional impediments to personal growth and a spirituality that can be described as anything but “polite.”
No pressure, though. Take it slow. Think about it. If the motives are unselfish, the work will be genuine. That’s the key.
And, no kidding. Let’s do heaven, okay?
Carmen, I don’t see how bragging about winning beauty contests somehow gives your perspective validity. People who provide a laundry list of credentials to bolster their point lose credibility.
Proverbs 27:2. Let another praise you and not your own mouth.
Carmen,
To enter Heaven and find more there than we expected would be wonderful.
God can do whatever he wants and it will be OK by me. Wouldn’t be the first time he has surprised us with his love, mercy and grace.
I can’t imagine anyone going to God complaining.
Skip, Seth, Frank 44 or whoever you are … 🙂 Have a nice day.
The Great Commission is still valid, (Matthew 28:19-20) “Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always.”
The Good News isn’t bad news, even though it means that people are lost without it. If they aren’t lost, then it’s really ugly news, it’s narrow mindedness gone to seed. It is mean-spirited to teach another that they are lost and they need Jesus in order to be saved, if it simply isn’t so. If there is any other approach to eternal life than through Jesus, then the great commission isn’t really so great. It just means, I believe my way( to Heaven) is better than your way. And that smacks of pride.
However, if there is a God who gave HIs only Son to suffer on a cross for the sins of the whole world, then to have opportunity to share this good news with other nations(faiths)and refuse to do it for the sake of not wanting to be “judgmental” as to the condition of someone else who doesn’t know God’s Son, or has never even heard the Story before, is to be disobedient to the Lord’s wishes. I, like others, want Heaven to be filled with as wide an array of believers as possible. That’s God’s desire and it should be ours, too. While,” I’m OK, you’re OK”, certainly increases the boundaries of Heaven, I find no such teaching in the Book. I find there is one faith, and one hope, not many.
Alabama John – I don’t understand why people would be so vehemently – even savagely protective of heaven – a place that is left entirely to our imaginations. I call it Tupperware Syndrome – when some people, in order to preserve a thing that once served their spiritual hunger – they insulate it and vacuum pack it to preserve it’s freshness and can’t see that the contents have become unpalatable and spoiled with time. What they perceive is purity is really just emptiness that comes from avoiding expansion … allowing their souls to breathe. I love this thought by Thomas Merton:
The Emptiness and the Purity~
“When we are alone on a starlit night, when by chance we see the migrating birds in autumn descending on a grove of junipers to rest and eat; when we see children in a moment when they are really children, when we know love in our own hearts; or when, like the Japanese poet, Basho, we hear an old frog land in a quiet pond with a solitary splash – at such times the awakening, the turning inside out of all values, the “newness,” the emptiness and the purity of vision that make themselves evident, all these provide a glimpse of the cosmic dance.”
– Carmen
Monty – What you said in your post plus what I said in my article is compatible. Is it not? You can look at the article that I posted last night and see that it isn’t about evangelism. It is about heaven and embracing heaven as a universal way to reach out. I have written other articles about evangelism.
Skip, Seth, Frank 44 or Whoever you are – The reason I posted my background was a desperate act of friendship. A way to say “this is who I am” in order to deflect injury. If you care to do a search, you will find this is the only place on the internet where that bio appears. I posted it because – for the first time in my life – I felt the need to defend my reputation as a good person, an honorable person. An act of self-protection – similar to how a woman will shout out to her masked male attackers: I’m a mother! Please don’t hurt me!
This whole thing reminds me of when my husband and I had our Christian book store. One day, a Sanhedrin of elders met in the diner across the street for breakfast, then walked over to our store and presented us with an offer to sign an article that would be printed in the paper against a church in the area – to sign it with our business name – or, they would blacklist us and our business. The church they wanted us publicly decry was our largest account and were very nice people. Knowing that it would likely mortally wound our business, my husband – a very wise man – asked the elders why other businesses – particularly, their own businesses were not on the list.
The moral of the story is that men – even good men – are ruthless when they’re on the attack. They serve no one but themselves – because witch hunts are just a whole lot of fun.
Carmen,
I certainly welcome your thoughts on any subject and will respect your thoughts and respect you. However, I fail to see how being in several beauty pageants adds any weight to your reputation as a good and honorable person. No one knows my reputation in these blogs and I am not sure how that makes much of a difference. You could have a horrible reputation and make great points. You could have a great reputation and make bad points. So why don’t we leave reputations out and simply focus on the discussion at hand.
Skip, Seth, Frank 44 or Whoever you are – Of course no one knows your reputation on these blogs because you are very careful to not reveal it. I, on the other hand, am an open book. An honest, open and forthright contributor here.
Tell me this Skip, Seth, Frank 44 or Whoever you are, why – of all the milestones in the bio – are you so focused on the beauty pageant stuff?
It makes you look weird, you know …
http://en.gravatar.com/Skip
Creepy
As a man married to a beautiful 72 year old woman I understand how it can be a negative to some folks. It also can be a good attention getter when trying to get some to pay attention to you and what you are saying.
Personally I was impressed with all the teaching and other good deeds done listed in your bio.
Being good looking is not a negative and neither in Alabama is making a great peach cobbler.
Hard to find someone that qualifys for both. You got my attention!!!
Carmen,
For what it is worth, the gravatar you site is not me. It is someone else’s.
All,
I remind you of the policy of this site that we avoid ad hominem arguments. See /site-rules/
Let’s see if the discussion with Carmen can go forward without being personal. No need to apologize or discuss who started it. Let’s just go forward limiting the discussion to her post and teaching and not her — and also not about the other commenters. (I will delete future comments that I deem personal criticisms or otherwise ad hominem — and replies to them.)
It’s a shame that the Wineskins comment engine broke two years ago when this was a fresh topic. The discussion would have been better had there and then. This actually began as just a post to refer readers over to Wineskins. The Scott Simpson article discussion moved over here when the commenting software at Wineskins broke. Scott actually participated in the discussion here. It was a fascinating moment when we had the editors in chief of Wineskins and the Gospel Advocate discussing Scott’s article, with Scott participating.
Unfortunately, the comments to the archived Wineskins articles were lost (not just Carmen’s article — all the archived articles lost their comments). My understanding is that they cannot be recovered. For a while there, we were afraid of losing the articles themselves, but fortunately, with a lot of hard work by Matt Dabbs and Brad Palmore, they’ve been preserved.
Carmen,
The original article is posted in the Wineskins archives at http://archives.wineskins.org/article/big-s-heaven-feb-2012/. It’s listed in the table of contents. But it may not have been up when you looked for it. Getting the archives moved from the old software/server to the new has been a huge undertaking, and the old articles had to be moved piecemeal.
We should all thank Matt Dabbs especially for his dedication. He did the re-coding while changing jobs and moving from Florida to California. (And the issue I edited was slow to move as well, but I’m just glad it didn’t get lost in the transition entirely.)
Obviously, somehow in the mix, you did not get the word that your article was being discussed over here. I apologize for that. I did not initiate that conversation, but once someone moved the discussion in your direction, you should have been told.
Carmen,
I never knew that bragging about my reputation on these blogs was a requirement. I previously mentioned that the gravatar mistakenly cited is not mine.
I think the weight of our arguments should not be vested in our “reputation” but based upon how our point stacks up with scripture. This is a Christian blog with Christians debating Christian topics.
“Being good looking is not a negative and neither in Alabama is making a great peach cobbler.”
Well, that’s cause I’m from Alabama, John 🙂 Born in Bessemer, Daddy from Clay County and Mama from Mississippi. Big family. The girls are all good-looking and the boys all play football and hunt … very American – except that we all prefer peach cobbler over apple pie. My family goes way back in Alabama – hill people.
“Personally I was impressed with all the teaching and other good deeds done listed in your bio.”
That’s funny, John, because I was too 😀 It’s kind of wild to look back on your life and see all the stuff you’ve done and realize that from the distance of time it actually sounds kind of interesting! At the time I wasn’t impressed though and probably didn’t seize the day as I should have. Nevertheless all has turned out to be marvelous. Life is good, God is better 🙂
[ad hominem assertions deleted; commenter placed on moderation]
With 57 years of perspective on the church I’ve been observing the evolution of a crude form of misogyny over the years. Fear and distrust of women is at all all time high in the church of Christ. A developing theology of women emerged in the 60’s but was set back in reaction to the feminist movement, and then the politics of abortion consumed what was left of a movement toward egalitarianism. And with the decline of the middle class, nostalgic fantasies about the good old days tend to dominate and silence any progressive attempt at meaningful discussion.
I remember in my teens when girls and boys took turns giving devotionals and praying at the teen meetings – women baptizing their friends – I can’t even imagine that happening today. My mother was the church treasurer and very active in charity work until a wimp stepped in and made corrections.
There’s no consoling these guys. I suppose they’ll just have to die before a new day can dawn. At least there’s a place in heaven for them though 😀
Heaven is the great equalizer.
… and peach cobbler.
Never underestimate peach cobbler.
xo, John
So much for “no ad hominem”…
Carmen,
There was a study done on the top ten most scriptural Bible cities in America or something close to that as I have lost the paper. Chattanooga, Tennesse was first and Birmingham, Alabama was second. I belive I’m right that all ten were in the South.
Many that post on here just might of never experienced what we down here have and that could be the cause for much of the misunderstandings.
Some one mentioned Gus Nichols from close to where I live and he as a very good man but taught far more liberalism than most in Alabama could stand. His teaching caused many splits that exist today in the South. Good or bad?
Where my wife and one son attend many things done would not be allowed in the local churches of Christ and their teaching would be we who are members there are all bound for hell. Our family is split over it as are many families. Our preachers church of Christ family will not attend, or “darken the door” of the church of Christ where he preaches.
The church of Christ is changing and that is a blessing to some, and teaching from the devil and hell for most others at this time in this area.
Funny to see so many things we did as children, girls praying, baptising one another, and serving the Lords supper until we obtained the age of accountability, are now being allowed among the grownups.
We are having one H…… time watching it unfold. (Heavenly)
John
Carmen,
Your comment has been redacted per site policy and my prior warning. And because site policy has been ignored, you have been placed on moderation. That means that your comments will not appear until I approve them. This does not mean that you must agree with me, only that your comments must adhere to site policies, including especially that they not be ad hominem. I am happy to discuss offline at jfguin(at)comcast(dot)net.
A J said “There was a study done on the top ten most scriptural Bible cities in America or something close to that as I have lost the paper. Chattanooga, Tennessee was first and Birmingham, Alabama was second. ”
John, what does “scriptural Bible cities” mean, like Sodom, and Gomorrah, or like Bethlehem, and Jerusalem .Please expound.
Laymond here is the article to which AJ referred. You can draw your own conclusions as to what they mean.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.most.and.least.religious.states.in.the.us.mississippi.comes.out.top.vermont.is.bottom/35696.htm
Thanks Johnny,
there was more to this site than this and it did show Chattanooga number one and Birmingham number two in scriptural, ever how they put it. Maybe you can find the rest of it for laymond.
laymond, I thought it meant we go to scripture for answers more than folks in other places but Chattanooga does that more.
Where do you live so we can see where you stand? LOL
Remember the originatlr of this site is not too far from Birmingham and it does rub off!!!
I, too, would be interested in what was actually being measured in this survey. Number of church signs with scripture references on them? Number of those “This is God speaking” black billboards? Number of churches with the word “Bible” in the name? Number of evangelical seminaries? Number of bible verse bumper stickers per thousand inhabitants?
I took it to mean the people on that list have a scripture for things they do more than others. Someone will find it and we’ll get your opinions.
When I read it, I thought of the heated debates we used to go to, honestly more for the entertainment and seeing other churches being demolished. Of course the other side was thinking the same thing.
Both sides brought out bedsheets to hang on the walls with scriptures all over them in beautiful printing and colors.
Never saw anyone admit they were wrong. Example: Acts 2:38, used equally by both in debates, we stressed the “be baptized” in bigger, bolder letters on our sheet and the holiness stressed in equally bigger, bolder letters on their sheet “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.
Both participants in their eyes were scripturally more right than the other and used an equal amount of scriptures to prove it.
The point to me is, in the literally hundreds of churches around here you will seldom see a person entering one without a Bible in their hands.