We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
In dealing with a survey of former Church of Christ members, Yeakley next addresses the complaint of many that “Churches of Christ do not believe in salvation by grace through faith.”
Yeakley denies it, asserting,
There may be a few Churches of Christ where that position is what one hears, but that is not what most of us believe.
He then argues for a very orthodox and, I believe, sound understanding of grace. Good. But he knows his Bible far better than he knows his denomination.
I’ve personally been attacked by a preacher (in town) for the “grace-unity heresy.” Yep, anyone who dares preach unity and grace is surely a heretic! (This is sarcasm.) But that’s just how perverse some of our preachers are.
Others aren’t quite that absurd, but they still damn over instrumental music, which is about works, not faith. Indeed, when we damn sister congregations over clapping, or women reading scriptures aloud in church, or teenage girls praying aloud in mixed groups, we’re adding those certain works to faith in Jesus as essential requirements to be saved, and thereby become guilty of the sin that Paul condemns in the false teachers in Galatia.
And, frankly, the worst possible response to the complaints we receive from our former members is to deny the facts they’ve lived through and agonized over in their own lives.
Yes, those who voiced these complaints surely experienced exactly what they say, and the proper response is not denial but repentance.
I have not read Yeakley’s book. Frankly, I would rather re-read Thomas Merton and Abraham J. Heshel, which I have been doing over the winter. To those who have not read these gentleman, take a chance.
But it sounds like Yeakley is trying to stop the bleeding by telling those who are still in the CoC, as well as those who left , “Hey, folks, its really not that bad”. But that depends on where a person grew up and, or, lives. No, it may not be that bad if you live in Tuscaloosa, Al, Manhattan, NY or West Islip, NY,. But for many who do not live near healthy congregations like those mentioned, it is that bad; often, far worse.
I have said it before and I will write it again. Growing up in the Memphis area in the ’70’s and ’80’s at four different congregations I never heard a sermon on grace that wasn’t busting Baptist chops until I heard David Chadwell preach on the grace of Christ at the North Lamar Street Church in Oxford, Mississippi in the mid ’80’s. I am very happy to see that what David was preaching has percolated further, but Flavil cannot ignore that the only time many of us ever heard of grace, the Spirit, spiritual gifts or physical expressions of worship – raising hands or kneeling – was as ammunition against our denominational enemies.
I agree with John, you can’t wave these folks off by telling them they misunderstood what was going or or that it didn’t happen in the first place.
I think this is a weakness of my understanding of the progressive position. I have never heard any of our brethren say one is not saved by grace. We do not deserve heaven and I reckon we all understand that. However, faith expresses itself by obedience. Right, Jay? So, I have to know what to obey, it matters if I obey it or not, and I must obey God’s commands as they are given in scripture. The only way I can express faith, or express love, is by obedience to God’s commands. How do I know if I have faith or love? I know by my obedience. If I am not serious about obedience, I am not serious about faith or love. That is my understanding. If I am missing something, what is it?
John , as I often tell my grandsons, “You don’t have to earn my love, it is free, but you do have to earn my respect. “These are my beloved grandsons, in whom I am sometimes well pleased”
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Yes, John, we can agree that faith expresses itself through obedience (and love, good works, prayer, encouragement, Bible study, etc). The question becomes to what are you obedient? Will you be obedient to the legalistic interpretation of scripture that says you must not eat in the building, support orphan homes from the church treasury, or use instruments in worship? And will you insist on the obedience of others to your interpretation of scripture? Or will you acknowledge that justification before God is not by obedience to your interpretation of scripture but by grace through the redemption found in Christ (rom 3.24)? Is it possible for us to acknowledge that “we are not under law”, but grace (rom 6.15) for if we are under law we are not saved by grace.
After all, if we were under law, none of us would be saved. We are under grace. Obviously this is not “new stuff”. What is new to churches of Christ is that someone would actually suggest we practice it by not demanding obedience to guidelines laid down by preachers fifty to one hundred years ago based on their interpretation of law.
So, be serious about obedience, but be more serious about grace. You and I will never be obedient. It is impossible. But we can be full of grace by emulating our Lord who is full of grace toward us all. You may ask “what then is grace?”. My dear friend, that question, seriously considered, will bring about far more obedience and unity than we ever attained by asking “what is obedience?”.
My point is that a man I have highly respected is acting like a perfect Stalinist airbrushing out the inconvenient truths of our past so as to make those who left seem unreasonable. I could easily see us (in this same Yeakley vein) a dozen or so years down the road with the consensus on IM being changed and a book being written that said “We never actually taught that folks using IM were hell bound.”
You folks want to have the same arguments on grace v works v whatever and are ignoring the main point here. As a group we have taught some very hard things in our past – and some continue to do so in our present – that Scripture did not support in an effort to lift us above our fellows. Now that we discover that folks are leaving because of that one of our “professionals” is trying to pretend such teachings were not a part of our past.
This is rank dishonesty and does not bring glory to Christ or the Church.
The only honest criticism of Flavil Yeakley is that he sticks with the facts and doesn’t exaggerate them to make a point.
Yes, I have had some bad experiences within the cofC over the years. But, I have had far more positive than negative. I have been taught through example the importance of following scripture, the beauty of hard work in poorer parts of town and the joy of participating in baptisms in developing countries.
When I read my bible, I see it teaching far more of the 1980’s cofC mainstream doctrines than I do those of post modern progressives.
Several years ago I ask the Lord to help me understand what my sins were. The answer came to me to stop judging people’s motives. Apparently Yeakley has never had that conversation. He still judges everyone’s motives.
A good statistician accepts the answers to his survey and acts accordingly. A poor statistician impugns the data and tries to justify his preconceived notions.
It strikes me that for a group that stresses the importance of repentance, I hear precious little of it for the decades spent preaching thousands of sermons teaching this poisonous and unbiblical doctrine which excludes everyone from the “New Testament Church” except those who agree with us on every doctrinal particular. When will CoC believers start taking to the pulpits to publicly repent for THAT particular sin?
I am reminded of Nehemiah’s willingness to repent, to take responsibility for the sins of not only his own generation, but of his nation and of his own ancestors. And he had been in exile for 20 years. By contrast, these days I hear a lot of parsing and lawyering (sorry, Jay) where we say things like: “Well, I never said that exact thing personally from the pulpit,” or “If there is a person who attends an Independent Christian church, but who really believes just like us, he might be saved, maybe,” or “We don’t really believe we are the only true Christians, it’s just a misunderstanding on the part of thousands of people in our communities who have been listening to us for a hundred years.” Or most disingenuous and cowardly of all, we backtrack by saying, “Well, God is the judge, not me,” and continue to refuse to accept other believers without admitting why we are doing so. We preach hard to the choir until we are confronted about this demonic doctrine, at which time we shrug our shoulders in a sudden attack of amnesia and say, “Well, God is the judge.”
There’s a whole lot of sackcloth going unused, seems to me. And a whole lot of Christians who our fathers damned every Sunday to whom we owe a sincere and public apology.
Rich are you saying I am not honest?
This thread is not about the relative strengths of the progressive or conservative movements but about why people are leaving. It is about numbers and what they mean not “who” is right.
Mr. Yeakley states that the CoC does not teach (has not taught) that we are the only ones going to heaven – is this true or false?
Mr. Yeakley states that we have not taught a graceless salvation – is this true or false?
Mr. Yeakley’s numbers are sound, but with this book he seems to be trying to explain them away. He has stepped out of the statisticians role and into the role of propangandist.
Infer that I am a liar all you want, but the facts are the facts.
“But that’s just how perverse some of our preachers are”
This is part of why I asked in an earlier post if Yeakley had any statistics on preacher salaries and rates of retention of people. High-paid preachers can chase away people just as well as low-paid preachers, but I suspect (maybe I wish) that more gracious preachers, more well spoken preachers, more loving preachers are in greater demand and thus receive more compensation.
I stumbled upon this:
“We were once a powerful evangelistic movement. Now, we are forever searching for new ways to manage our decline. Endless studies and reports and commissions and re-structuring and new slogans (Open hearts, open minds, open doors) have ensued over the years. None of these well intentioned initiatives have halted – or even really understood – the nature of this decline.”
This is not from Yeakley or anyone in the Churches of Christ. It is from
http://timothytennent.com/2012/04/18/general-conference-and-the-future-of-the-united-methodist-church/
and is about the future of the United Methodist Church. We are not alone or something like that.
John wrote:
Obedience to what? To our inferences and assumptions about what God wants? Or to what God actually says? Things like:
When clear teaching that is repeated over and over (such as these statements above) are ignored while simultaneously preaching as essentials some things based on inferences and assumptions – we are not serious about obeying God.
We need to look at ourselves and accept the fact that we are guilty of treating these commands as somehow of lesser importance than, say, instrumental music or clapping during worship. How do we do that, you ask? How many churches do you know who have shunned other churches – or members of their own congregations – because they hold some doctrine that is not commonly accepted? Now how many do you know who shun preachers who boast of “preaching it hard” or of “getting rid of a problem by running it off”?
You don’t know of anyone like that? I’m glad you don’t! But I have come across so many of these in my lifetime. And to my shame, I have at times sat where those still sit.
A brother of mine once said, “in 50 years the only people who wont be using the instrument are the same ones who wont eat in the building.” I wonder, has our definition of a “mainstream” c of C changed over the past 200 years? Well most certainly OUR definition of a center of the road congregation has changed. But has The Lord changed? Is it time for a new Declaration and Address? Do we need a new Last Will and Testament of the ____________ congreation? In our search for faithfullness and obedience have we lost sight of Love and Grace?
Jesus said people will know us by our love for one another as He has loved us.
Is that what people think of when they think of the Church of Christ? Or do they think, “Those are the people who think they’re the only ones going to heaven”?
And, the reason they think that is that many who are in our pews really do believe that (except they are not even so sure that they themselves are going!).
And the reason the people in the pews believe that is that this is what they have been taught in classes, from the pulpits, and by the example of others.
I remember a film strip series I used many times in home Bible studies. In one lesson, a husband and wife are discussing their situation: “We understand that we need to be baptized to be saved – but where should we thing worship?” This, of course, introduces a series of things about the New Testament church (some of which can be found in the New Testament; some of which are based more on assumption and inference). Then the great announcement: “Where is there such a church? IT IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.” Of course, the things taught about the church are things in which the Church of Christ is distinctive.
So from the beginning of our evangelistic endeavor we promote the idea that WE are the ONES and that others were somehow lacking. From that beginning, we go on to promote the idea that we are right and others are wrong – and somehow, our people get the idea that we are the only ones going to heaven.
We do this, with many teachers and preachers talking more about THE CHURCH than about THE LORD who dies for us.
And we’re wondering why many people are leaving? Many have left this kind of teaching behind by correcting how they teach. Others have left it behind by leaving the place where they saw it being taught. If we do not have many more of the former, we WILL have many more of the latter.
(Rant ended.)
Rich, I too have had many positive experiences while in the CoC. My CoC parents brought me to Jesus. I had the chance to preach and teach and evangelize and baptize both here and abroad while serving in the CoC. I have been blessed by many godly people who are in the CoC.
But none of this excuses a historic (and current) demonic doctrine which shuts the door of the kingdom in people’s faces. Nor does it mitigate at all the damage it has done and continues to do. Sometimes, when we find our actions or opinions to be indefensible, we hope to redirect the conversation, rather than to simply repent.
We need to obey this, among other things.
http://johnxbrown.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/a-gentle-religion/
John, that is an excellent posting on your blog. I like it very much. Most times when I hear people say, “But we need to obey His commandments,” this is not what they are talking about. They are, in my experience, talking about inferences built on top of assumptions about things of which God has not spoken – while they ignore the things of which you wrote in your blog.
Jerry do you know what the quote means that people so love to quote ? “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you judge, you shall be judged.” It doesn’t mean that Christians should not use the good sense God gave then to correct those who are in need of it.
It simply means don’t condemn another for the very thing you, yourself are doing. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Charles,
Demonic Doctrine ? Really ? To exactly what are you reffering? If something is “demonic” then it must be sinful. If something is sinful than it will endanger a soul, and if a brother is sinning then he needs correction lest he loose his soul. Help me out here brother, I do not need to live in fear of eternal hell fire
Condemning or judging others is never our business, but God’s. But striving for a better und more consistent application and understanding of the scriptures should be part of our walk with God. Therefore we will also hold to some “inferential truths/applications” that we consider as perfectly scriptural without being aware that we could come to better applications of the same commands. That’s natural, commendable rather than condemnable.
It does not help at all to call those who strive for obedience “legalistic” or being caught by the “Galatian heresy”. Jay wrote:
What was the Galatian heresy? An overscrupulous attempt to apply what is written in the Sermon on the Mount? Or what is written in Paul’s letters? No. It was the insistance that all Christians still needed to be circumcised and be bound by the Mosaic Law. This and nothing else is the Galatian heresey, which has been dealt with finally in Acts 15, but prevailed throughout the lifetime of Paul (as can be ssen in nearly all of his letters). You cannot label the earnest desire to apply the command (e.g.) than women shall be silent in churches (as you gave an example on this) as “Galatian heresy”. Maybe the application is not to the point, but we speak of an application of a NT-command. I’d rather accuse those who loosen this “one of the least” of Christ’s commands as “lawless ones” (since these are Christ’s words). But that’s not helpful either.
Even more inferential is the question of instrumental music. But it is as far from the “Galatian heresy” as can be! It’s rather the insistance on instruments based on the regulations of the OT that is closer to the Galatian heresy, because then typological elements of OT worship are brought into the New Covenant where they don’t belong. But let’s not discuss that again. Just a side remark.
But I see that churches of Christ are sometimes stuck in their traditions, which means: They don’t strive for a better understanding or application, but consider themselves to be arrived at the best possible understanding already. To be conservative means to conserve a certain status quo. This is absolutely wrong when we speak of spiritual growth, because we cannot conserve a certain level of “spirituality” and stop growing in our understandig, wisdom, application, love, unity, holiness, …
But we need to be unltraconservative when it comes to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. We cannot add nor take away from scripture. And this again leads to a very careful examination of how to believe and how to live. Obedience, as John correctly pointed out, plays a central role in this. Belittling this quest as “legalistic” or as “Galatian heresy” (as happens frequently in this Blog) misses the point.
If some leave the churches of Christ, in search of a grace/faith only Gospel, they leave for a wrong reason. Because there is no such Gospel.
That churches of Christ are in decline is BTW a sign of the times. Secularization is very delayed in the US. In Europe you’d be shocked to know that e.g. less than 1% of Austria’s Population are baptized and commited Christians. In the US you are used to be influential, and being in decline also means to loose influence on society – yet I think society has a greater influence on the church when the church tries to be influential. Try to be distinct and separate – this again would mean: Strive for the most accurate and most consistent application of God’s Word. This will draw the right people to the fellowship and drive out those who look for something else – don’t worry about numbers!
Alexander
Thank you, Jerry.
Phil, sorry not to be more specific. This historic CoC doctrine which says that only those who agree with us in all religious particulars are truly believers, and the rest of those who claim Christ are damned — yes, that IS a demonic doctrine. It was demonic when it centered on circumcision and the Law, and it is demonic when it centers on baptism and IM. Same spirit, different expression. It has produced enough bushels of fruit– repeated division, spiritless stagnation, loveless judgment, fear of judgment, and pride — to be easily identified as what it is.
Now if, as a believer in Jesus, you find yourself in fear of hell fire for sinning– in deed or in understanding– someone has given you a gospel which is at least badly bent, if not altogether bogus. Our Father does not destroy his children when they do wrong, he disciplines them. We may fear the rod, but not the gallows. I am concerned about believers who still walk in fear of eternal damnation– that what they “believe” about their place in Christ is at odds with what the scriptures tell us.
Can’t let this cheap shot pass; Alexander wrote:
“Even more inferential is the question of instrumental music. But it is as far from the “Galatian heresy” as can be! It’s rather the insistance on instruments based on the regulations of the OT that is closer to the Galatian heresy, because then typological elements of OT worship are brought into the New Covenant where they don’t belong. But let’s not discuss that again. Just a side remark.”
Utter nonsense; no-one here is arguing to impose the instrument; nor has anyone in the fellowship argued as such. The point is that the use of acapella or not was not an issue in the New Testament literature, and, therefore, it’s not a “salvation theme” now as argued in the pages of rightist fellowship publications. Trying to twist the old Church of Christ judgmentalism as some sort of truly lame accusation of legalism against those opposed to it is mere sophistry.
I suspect that while Mr. Basnar never seems to be at a loss for words, he is nonetheless running out of things to say.
Well, Bob (or shall I call you Mr Brandon?), some do insist on IM based on the OT. I did not say that this comes from the progressive churches, but I did not make this up. And since you to picked out this statement to pick on me, let me ask you directly: Did you really understand what my point was in the whole essay I wrote?
Mr Basnar
Well, Bob (or shall I call you Mr Brandon?), some do insist on IM based on the OT.
>>>
I find this interesting, Alexander, and frankly, a bit hard to believe– if I understand correctly what you mean by “insist on IM”. Are you saying that some Christian tribe out there insists that UNaccompanied singing damns the worshipper, in the same way as the CoC has historically claimed that accompanied singing damns the worshipper? That is the contraposition you appear to be setting forth, and I find it incredible, so would you please tell me exactly to what group this “some” actually refers?
If, OTOH, your phrase “some do insist on IM” simply means that “some insist that they are free to use IM”, then that would be the vast majority view, not just the view of “some”. This is the position even among the Orthodox, who traditionally do not use IM in their services.
Most of us feel free to use IM, but not based on some argument about the worship practices of the pre-Messianic Jews. We are free because we are free, and as it is neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit who has created this artificial restriction, we feel no obligation to honor it nor to validate our decision not to honor it.
If a brother offers me an interpretation of scripture which purportedly bans us from attending a church meeting on Wednesday night on the grounds that there is no record that anybody in scripture every attended a church meeting on Wednesday night, expect me to ignore that ban as well, and not to trouble myself overmuch about his opinion on the matter.
Maybe he refers to the argument made by some that if IM is commanded (as it was in the OT), then everyone must play an instrument. Of course, that argument holds about as much water as a holey, rusty pail for it were true, why did Nehemiah and Ezra have groups of singers and groups of instrumentalists when the rebuilt temple was dedicated?
Charles, I am not speaking about DAMNING others – that’s not the point at all. But there are some who are convinced, that NT worship MUST or at least SHOULD be instrumental BASED on the OT (I#ve read this even in this Blog somewhere). That as my connection to the “Galatian Heresy”, which means taking the Law or parts of it into the New Covenant, sticking to types and shadows – such as circumcision. I brought this only to point out that the label “Galatian heresy” to a simetiomes too strict and/or inferential practice of NT (!) commands is totally misapplied. And I certainly did not want to wade into the IM debate again … well, strange enough Jay seems to feel the need to point to IM in every new post of this series.
Alexander
“But there are some who are convinced, that NT worship MUST or at least SHOULD be instrumental BASED on the OT.”
>>>
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, who asks yet again, “Who is this ‘some’?” Are we effectively spending time discussing a teaching that is dividing the Body, or just tilting at a mildly-annoying one-man windmill?
I know a guy who says all Christians must or at least should be vegans. As this POV does not seem to be sweeping the church, and his living on beans doesn’t hurt anybody, I don’t argue with him.
I did a Goggle search on “instruments must be used in worship” and got no hits. It instead transferred a lot of Church of Christ “Should instruments be used in worship” to me… tons of that, of course.
Was that an underwater or safety “goggle” search Doug?:-)
Alexander the only time I recall anyone here making the argument that IM should be commanded because of the OT was as a device pointing out the proper conclusion following CENI. Somewhat similar to my favorite “holy kiss” hobby horse. An argument not intended as an actual “this must be bound” doctrine but more of an “If you insist on CENI as a required hermeneutic then you can’t possibly miss this outcome” talking point.
From my experience, being reared in the CofC, salvation by grace was always taught. But, it seems that the thinking was that grace was receiving a job whereby you could work your way to heaven. I was fifty before I studied Romans on my own and decided that it was not heresy to believe that salvation itself really is a gift to those who believe.
We are becoming very Baptist at a fast rate.
It is so refreshing to read COC menbers discussing this and not condemning.
I have left the COC I was brought up in for real worship.
How great it feels to not think all you have ever known that were good folks are burning in hell awaiting your appearance.
Wonder why so many have left, I can’t tell you how good it is to be away from the conservative COC and the negativeness.
The two greatest commandments start with loving God but, who can really love a God like we have taught?
Fear, YES, but love a God that puts some of Himself inside each and lets the devil win big by having 99.9% of humanity burning in hell while the devil laughs at being such a BIG winner in this eternal contest.
Something with loving a God like that and how good it has been to get away from that and really start to see God differently and really do love God down deep for the first time.
Not to even mention having a relationship with the Holy Spirit and I mean the person, not just the bible He left us when He retired!
Todd,
Please accept my apologies. When I first read your post, I didn’t know what you were talking about. Then, I reread my post and see my poor choice of words.
I think we both honestly disagree with each other, but I had no intentions of implying any character flaws.
@ Todd
I’m not sure who it was, but he made the case from a prophecy in Jeremiah that instrumental worship was to be restored in the New Covenant, which – in effect – makes it a MUST. I tried to point out to him that it is wrong to use typoligical language literally.
Alexander
Just to close the thought:
It’s about the so called “Galatian Heresy”. My point was and is, that this label ONLY applies to making all or parts of the Mosaic Law binding for Christians. A too scrupulous, too strict or merely inferential application of NT-commands is something entirely different.
First, we are called to observe all that Christ has commanded (personally or through His apostles) – we are to learn to do that, to be more accurate; so it is a matter of growth in understanding, love, wisdom, holiness. Therefore we cannot expect “perfect obedience” from anyone, but a disciple’s attitude.
Second: Zealous disciples will sometimes go beyond the intentions of certain commands, which is also part of the process of learning. We should not – therefore – scoff at them as “legalists”, but appreciate their seriousness and learn from them what is commendable.
Third: This is the problematic one. If some disciples consider themselves to have reached the goal, to observe everything perfectly, they become “pharisaic” – this is the leaven Christ warned us not to take. Pharisees make themselves the standard for all to follow instead of Christ.
A few definitions:
Legalism is not a Biblical term – we are warned not to be lawless. To fight against legalism often goes hand in hand with the misconception that Christians are not under any law; but we are under the Law of Christ, who is a real King on a real Throne with a clear vision and will for us, spelled out in imperatives (commands, laws).
Galatian Heresy – refers only to the “Judaizers” among the Early church and those who try something similar. The special priesthood in Roman Catholicism would fit this label for instance.
Pharisaism – Those who sit themselves on the throne, making themselves the standard, who define the commands of christ beyond its meaning while at the same time cunningly explaining other commands in away that makes them obsolete. This attitude is not limited to the conservative wing of the churches of Christ, BTW.
Back to the original question: Why did they leave?
I think, because Evangelicals promise a salvation without works. Obeying Christ is not always fun, and some commands are a test of our faith. So if someone offers a theology that loosens certain portions of the New Testament while at the same time giving us perfect assurance of our salvation, it is completely understandable that many become willing to leave a church which they view as legalistic or pharisaic (which might be the case, but more often is just an accusation based on polemics).
So, I’d say, we shall strive to be more like disciples (not masters), willing seek Christ’s will in everything and learning to obey everything He has commanded. Don’t be intimidated when someone says: “You go too far” or “That’s too extreme” or even “Legalistic”. Let’s follow His lead according to His word without adding nor taking away, with the freedom to err and to fail, but not with a freedom to ignore or explain away.
I am convinced to the core of my heart that a church with such an attitude will be attractive for all who seek God with a pure heart.
Alexander
Alexander,
I cannot agree with your definitions, especially of the Galatian Heresy. Why would that refer only to Judaisers who drag requirements of the Old Covenant into the New as requirements for salvation? Why would it not include any who add essentials for salvation to those actually stated in the New Covenant?
Your definition of Phariseeism is good – and that is precisely what I see in the practice of many in the churches of Christ in America. I cannot speak for the churches in Austria. It is because so many, especially of the youth, recognize the shallowness of such discipleship that they are leaving. Some only leave a particular congregation that seems to congratulate itself on how they are the true church when they do not demonstrate love for one another nor concern for the attitudinal commands that are so often repeated in the epistles. Instead they focus on the “marks of the church” (all having their own lists of marks that differ in details), condemning those who disagree with them. Others leave for a “Community Church” or a congregation in the conservative Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. Some leave all organized religion.
This divisive attitude, in my experience, is driving many away from service to the Lord who prayed that we all be one in Him as He and the Father are one in each other.
Is this the only reason people are leaving? Of course not. Some are leaving because they had no faith of their own. They only had their parents faith. Then when they get out of their parent’s home, they leave. These were only there on sufferance in the first place.
Most of those who comment on this blog are not looking for cheap grace. Most are looking for more serious discipleship that focuses more on becoming like Jesus than in being faithful to the traditions of the past, especially the traditions of the past 125 years in the churches of Christ.
I speak specifically about the traditions that have grown out of the attitudes expressed in the Sand Creek Address and Declaration. This declaration, adopted in 1889 by a meeting of several churches at Sand Creek, Indiana, announced they would no longer accept as Christian brethren any who practiced several different things that were based on inferences and assumptions rather than on specific statements of the Scripture.
It is not even certain as to what specifics were included in the original of that document. It spoke of several things such as Christian Colleges, Located Preachers, Rummage Sales to raise money, etc. Some versions of it include IM; others do not. It was likely there. No matter. From that point on, those who followed that mindset each adopted their own lists of things they require for fellowship – and the church has splintered. Less than 20 years later, the US Census officially recognized two different churches based mostly on IM.
IM was debated prior to 1889 – but while recognizing each other as brothers in the Lord. Sand Creek drew a line in the sand (no pun intended) and said that if you do not agree with us on this, we can no longer accept you as brethren. The attitude that led to this persisted and spread to other things – so that the splinter group splintered. Today, there are literally dozens of slivers that will not accept one another.
It is this that is driving many to wash their hands of the entire thing.
Fortunately, among the “main stream” of the church of Christ, there is broad agreement on most things. However, even in the main stream there are too many who have the attitude that we are right and every one else is wrong.
That is the attitude in the churches I grew up in. That is the attitude still present today – and I am 72 years old and have been among these churches all of my life. More than that, I am a graduate of 4 of their schools: high school, junior college, four-year college, and a school of preaching. I also hold a degree from a conservative Christian Church school. I believe my experience among them is comprehensive enough to know whereof I speak, as I have been in ministry of one kind or another for more than 50 years among the non-instrumental, “main-line” churches.
Many other commentators on this blog apparently have similar backgrounds. Together we are struggling to free ourselves of the taint and stain of the Pharisees, with which we grew up. But because we are trying to free ourselves of it, we are under fire from others who are happy to remain in the Sand Creek tradition.
(Rant ended.) But I doubt that this will close the thought. Too many brothers have similar thoughts that differ in details.
You can read the Sand Creek Address and Declaration here. You can read the initial response to it from the Gospel Advocate here.