We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
In chapter 11, Yeakley addresses the role of women. Seven of the 325 responses were from women who left over the issue.
Yeakley criticizes those who wouldn’t allow a woman to pray aloud in the presence of men in a private setting, such as a small group setting.
Yeakley is a complementarian rather than an egalitarian, that is, he sees men as spiritual servant-leaders in a marriage.
In church affairs, Yeakley also sees a principle of male spiritual leadership. However, he argues strenuously against any notion of the inferiority of women.
He further argues that the means by which male spiritual leadership is worked out in church life depends on the local culture.
The challenge for Christians is to understand what things are matters of culture, custom, tradition or opinion. Diversity must be allowed in those areas. The fundamental Bible principles, however, must not be denied.
I’ve covered my own views on the role of women elsewhere, and a proper discussion would take quite a large number of posts.
While I’m more of an egalitarian than a complementarian myself, I respect the complementarian viewpoint when it recognizes that many of the “rules” people find in the Bible are culturally conditioned — as Yeakley does.
In contrast to Yeakley’s complementarian views would be the “paternalistic” view, which sees women as too gullible to be decision makers or leaders. Yeakley would have none of that!
If the Churches of Christ would adopt Yeakley’s views, it would be a major step forward.
______________
Chapter 12 — the final chapter — deals with closing the back door. How do we keep members from leaving?
First, Yeakley points out the necessity of assimilating new converts and other new members. If they aren’t quickly included in the full life of the church — its ministries and fellowship — they’ll soon leave.
Second, in those parts of the country where Churches of Christ are perceived as thinking they are the only ones going to heaven, he urges Churches to proactively demonstrate the contrary view, such as by adopting the old Restoration Movement slogan —
We do not claim to be the only Christians, but we are trying to be Christians only.
I couldn’t agree more, but the words will ring hollow unless accompanied by action. If the Church refuses any joint service projects or worship events outside the Churches of Christ, then no one will take the slogan seriously. Actions speak much louder than words.
Regarding the accusation that the Churches are graceless, he suggests —
Instead of always praying, “God, please forgive us for all our many sins” — sometimes say something like, “Thank you, God, that you have already forgiven us.”
Excellent!
Regarding the Holy Spirit, Yeakley suggests,
It might be best to avoid saying, “The age of miracles is over, and God will not work miracles today.” … We should not limit what God can do.
Regarding personal evangelism, Yeakley counsels against a salesman approach or teaching approach. Rather, his research shows the best results come from —
where the preachers and personal evangelism workers accept a non-manipulative dialogue model of evangelism in which evangelism is like a conversation with friends.
He further urges a Christ-centered approach rather than a doctrine-centered approach.
He emphasizes the necessity of helping new members make friends in church. Indeed, he’s brutally honest in noting how very inwardly focused our congregations can be and how very hard it can be for newcomers to feel a part of the church.
He also urges that the leadership help new members find opportunities for service within their new church, as retention rates are the highest among those with friends and defined roles in their congregations.
Finally, Yeakley admits,
It may seem to some who read this book that I have projected my personal beliefs and preferences onto the whole church. If that is what you think, you may be right. Such projecting is a very natural human tendency.
Indeed.
_________________
I see this book as a transitional effort. That is, the numbers are finally being taken seriously. A net loss of members and signs of accelerating losses yet to come should lead to serious self-examination.
In recent years, similar bad-news statistics were met with denial and rationalization. Now, at last, we’re beginning to admit that there’s a real problem.
Unquestionably, despite the book’s imperfections, if the Churches of Christ were to adopt the attitudes and suggestions in the book, they’d take great strides toward ending their decline. And yet, the book doesn’t go nearly far enough.
It’s kind of an odd mix, really. At times, Yeakley frankly criticizes what needs to be criticized — our lack of friendliness toward visitors, our failure to assimilate new members — but then he denies that some of our most serious problems are problems at all.
He seems most willing to admit fault in non-doctrinal contexts and the least willing to do so when dealing with the doctrinal issues pointed out by those who left, such as our refusal to admit the salvation of anyone outside the Churches of Christ and our failure to truly teach salvation by faith.
I would urge that the better response to some of these questions is a serious re-examination of our doctrines and, in many cases, repentance.
And so while the book doesn’t go nearly far enough, it does lead in a very good direction. In fact, if the book reflects a change in the editorial positions of the Gospel Advocate, this would be quite a revolutionary work indeed.
Agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions Jay.
Yeakley says the best results come from ‘where the preachers and personal evangelism workers accept a non-manipulative dialogue model of evangelism in which evangelism is like a conversation with friends.”
>>>
I will agree with Jay that Yeakley offers a “transitional” position in his book. Sometimes between an insular culture and and a broader community, sometimes between error and truth, sometimes between old traditions and modified old traditions. The quote above struck me, and I hope people understand that it is indeed also “transitional”. Yeakley describes clergy and “personal evangelism workers” employing a dialogue model which is like a conversation with friends. Now if we can just get to the reality that evangelism IS a conversation between a believer and his friends.
A man once boasted that his wife considered him a model husband. His friend was not impressed. “Hmph,” he said, “look in the dictionary.” The man looked up the word “model” and found it defined as “a small replica of the real thing”.
Here’s to the real thing…
Evangelism is a conversation about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. Yes, it’s about Christ. But you’re not selling Christ, and you’re not converting Christ. You’re trying to convert the person sitting in front of you. You’re helping them to become reconciled to God. That starts from realizing they are not currently reconciled to God. They cannot be reconciled without coming face to face with their own sin, and repenting of it. And in the process they must decide to make Jesus Lord of their life. So, yes, that’s Christ-centered, but a significant part of the conversation is about sin, righteousness, and judgment as they apply to that individual’s life.
Alan,
***Jesus saves us from sin.
***Jesus is our righteousness.
***Jesus is our judge.
You cannot talk about sin, righteousness, and judgment to come in a meaningful way without talking about Jesus. The point is that we must have Jesus, not the church, as the main focus of our preaching and lead the friend into a love relationship with Jesus in which he will also recognize Jesus as Lord.
Jerry,
You nailed it. Alan appears to be reflecting the traditional Boston Movement/ICOC theology where it’s the responsibility of the individual Christian/Disciple to convert (“make a disciple”) and the Holy Spirit is not part of the process.
Kip McKean himself has said:
You are correct Jerry. Our message is to be Christ, his person and his work for sinners.
Repentance is certainly a part of one’s coming to Christ but repentance doesn’t save, only Christ saves. The great conflict in our churches of all brands as I see it is this. Will we have a Christ-centered doctrine of salvation or a man-centered one. Repentance, confession, faith, and yes even baptism are all a part of God’s redemptive purpose but they are not the end, they are a means to the end who is Christ Jesus our Lord. Why on earth do we not preach him more?
Someone wrote “They cannot be reconciled without coming face to face with their own sin, and repenting of it. And in the process they must decide to make Jesus Lord of their life.”
This is the crux of the problem..a misunderstanding of the Gospel.
I never thought I would in my lifetime hear this Jesus love being preached.
So different from God, The Son, and the Holy Bible.
If the church will adopt this teaching of Christ ya’ll are saying, it will start growing again!
Acts 7:59: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
If calling on Jesus was good enough for Stephen its good enough for us. Hopefully Paul standing there heard and learned something from Stephen too.
We get so silly asking and arguing if we can sing and pray to Jesus. Stephen did.
Personally I enjoy to “Have a little talk with Jesus” How about you?
On an ex-CoC site, someone mentioned that Jesus “dying for our sins” was not part of the Pentecost message. I notice that it was also not part of Peter’s message to Cornelius before he received the Holy Spirit. Not this it is not true or important, but it caused me to review these messages, both of which centered on WHO Jesus is. We tend to focus on “here’s what He did for you and here is how you must act in response”.
I’m reminded of how blind we are to our own assumptions by David Hogan, who tells the story of a missionary in Central America coming across a tribe of Indians deep in the jungle. He brought them some welcome food, found one fellow who spoke a little Spanish, and opened his presentation of the Gospel by asking, “Have you found Jesus?” To which they replied, “No, but if you’ll tell us what he looks like, we’ll help you look for him.”
Reconciliation is not accomplished by “facing your sin”, it is accomplished by believing in Jesus. God is not reconciling men to himself through repentance, but through Christ.
Paul said, “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”
This sticks in our craw to the point of refusing to believe it. I NEVER heard this last phrase preached in all the years I spent in the CoC. In fact, the first time I ever heard it actually preached– and by someone who believed it — it almost killed me. It was, in my mind, literally too good to be true. Our whole Gospel presentation is too often based on the idea of God counting men’s sins against them, and how we can get God to stop it.
“It was, in my mind, literally too good to be true. ”
And this is why many stumble on the Gospel….it’s seem too good to be true.
Paul wrote extensively about God reconciling man (NOT the other way around). His letter to the Romans is a good place to start if you want to know more.
Jerry wrote:
We’re saying the same thing. You don’t convert people to the church. You reconcile them to God through Jesus. My point is that the message isn’t just “Jesus saves.” It’s also “Jesus is Lord.” I don’t know of anyone who leaves out the first part of the message. I think the second is the missing ingredient in most churches today.
“You reconcile them to God through Jesus”
Oy vey!
GOD does the reconciling. The words are the same, but the meaning is just the opposite of the truth.
Nancy wrote:
Well of course. Surely you don’t think I believe otherwise. I guess I should be more precise in my words, but I think people know what I meant.
God makes his appeal through us. We are his co-workers.
“We are his co-workers.”
(heavy sigh)
Nancy, Paul called Timothy God’s co-worker
Do you think Timothy is the only one?
I am a woman and I don’t want to lead, pray in public, pass the plate, hand out Communion, or anything like that. This wasn’t why I left, but it does touch on an issue this whole blog hasn’t touched on, so I guess the book didn’t touch on it either.
How do I put this…there is a snide, mean streak at the heart of many in the COC that was just gratuitous about women, and often also about other races, poor people, etc. Right now I’ll focus on women.
So often there were these gratuitous mean-spirited and demeaning asides aimed at women who weren’t trying to lead or usurp or anything. Constant little “jokes” that were so tired. I believe it goes to the socioeconomic stratum and culture the COC largely drew from. These “jokes” are so tired. You don’t hear that sort of thing as much in a congregation with more educated people, not that I mean to be a snob about it. I remember a congregation I attended in a college town where there were a lot of women graduate students who knew their Bibles and they wore dresses, were soft-spoken, and as feminine as you please…and this sort of smack talk didn’t go on. How refreshing. That was a loving congregation. The women weren’t trying to usurp, but they were educated and got credit for it, instead of jokes about “telemarketers call hoping they’ll get a woman on the phone HA HA HA knee slap!” <– heard from the pulpit all the time in more country congregations.
What I'm trying to say in part is that the culture of the COC is stuck in the 50's and often it is an unloving atmosphere. I won't excuse the women. How many times have I heard the same tired jokes and phrases about "She's trying to get her hooks into him?" UGH. I'm an educated career woman even though I am deferential to a fault to males. The atmosphere in the COC, unfortunately, just was overwhelmingly old-fashioned and not in a good way.
This carried over to the young people too. I think one thing that may have been going on was that the guys were brought up that we COC "lifers" were "supposed" to be their dating pool, and they didn't like our mousy looks and ways. Also, there is a tradition of some emotionally cold and forbidding mothers in the COC and I think the guys may have disliked the COC women for reasons along those lines. I really think there's something to that…the harsh childrearing practices in many COC families. Maybe some of the women-hate in the COC goes back to their mothers and the childrearing practices. And by women-hate, I don't mean not letting women preach. I mean the constant gratuitous little put-downs, to women who weren't trying to usurp. I bet if a woman really looked threatening and usurpy the guys would run and hide. Anyway, I like and respect men, in a lot of ways, but I reached a point where I was just tired of feeling hated all the time and hating myself.
I went off into a lot of different subjects, but back to my original point: There seemed to be a core of derision, dislike, and revulsion toward the women of the COC from the guys, above and beyond any women trying to "usurp" or anything. There was a constant stream of gratuitous put-downs (supposed to be funny) that were older than my grandfather. The women, too, had such old-fashioned views on other women. Where I go now, the women are just as feminine, just as family-oriented, and just as respectful of their husbands, but you don't hear dumb jokes and cliches out of the 1920's about how stupid women are supposed to be, or from the women, catty remarks about Sister Bessie is trying to get her hooks into the new widower HAHAHA. This is so tired! But the COC culture is 50 years behind the times. You can tell by the assumptions and remarks people make. Of course, this has nothing to do with Jesus or salvation. But it is so dreary and tiring and disheartening.
I think it goes to the socioeconomic group and Southern lower middle class culture the COC draws from. I don't mean to be a snob about it–where I go the people are middle class, too, but much more respectful toward each other and not so (I'm sorry but countrified) in their attitudes.