We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
In chapter 6, Yeakley speaks to the psychology of church. He speaks to the fact that humans have different kinds of personalities, using the Myers-Briggs personality test as an example.
He also addresses the need for differing styles of communication for preachers, because people respond differently to differing styles.
Finally, he critiques the Boston Movement Churches because his psychological studies reveal cult-like trends not found in other Churches.
It’s an interesting chapter, but it doesn’t directly address the problem of “Why They Left” — except, I suppose, for the failure of many Churches to reach out to people unlike themselves.
Churches of Christ tend to attractive certain personality types — the analytical and theoretical. After all, we tend to be very doctrinal. We love debates and discussing scriptural riddles. And that can make us very unappealing to the sensing and feeling personality types.
A thoughtful leadership will look for ways to communicate effectively with a wide range of personalities. Yeakley does a good job of explaining how his own preaching has evolved over the years to speak to a wider audience.
________________
Chapter 7 addresses the loss of many members due to the attitude of the Churches toward divorce and remarriage. And given the very high divorce rate in America, no Church can avoid this topic.
Yeakley presents some thoughtful comments about second marriages —
If God still hates divorce, as he did in Malachi 2:16, requiring that people get another divorce and break up another home would not seem to be what God would want.
Excellent. Yeakley then rejects the old restitution argument — that if you steal a mule you must give it back. Spouses aren’t commercial goods.
He further rejects the view that the second marriage must remain celibate — saying that in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul concedes that not everyone has that gift. Again, amen!
Rather, Yeakley says,
The best that can be done is to choose the option that does the least harm to all who are involved. Some church leaders have been in this situation in their personal evangelism efforts. They have told people that the best option for them would be to stop divorcing, make the most of their present marriage and teach their children not to get into this kind of situation.
This is an astonishing teaching coming from a book published by the Gospel Advocate!
Indeed, Yeakley declares,
I do not believe that people who have divorced according to the laws of the land where they live or customs of their culture are still married to each other in the sight of God. Furthermore, I do not believe that people who are married to each other according to the laws or customs of their culture are really “living in adultery” in the sight of God. I do not find that language or concept in Scripture.
Amen and amen.
Yeakley presents a deeply mature and spiritual view of marriage and divorce and rightly criticizes many of our preachers for doing far more harm than good in their narrow, legalistic views on the subject.
It’s a courageous chapter.
While I applaud the effort by Flavil to address why people leave the CoC, he is out of touch in many ways. The Myers-Briggs test is one of many personality tests and dates back to the 60’s. Personalities aren’t addressed as an issue in the New Testament and rightfully so. What people need to understand is that they are loved. If the members feel that they are loved and believed in, they will thrive regardless of the personalities involved. If we want to wax humanistic then we can try to figure out personality matches but this won’t ever solve the churches real spiritual root problem.
In addition, just as the Myers-Briggs test is passe’, the issue of the International Church of Christ is passe’. Who cares. It isn’t relative to the current CoC problems.
Yeakley’s studies were performed in Boston over 20 years ago. The leader at that time (Kip McKean) has since gone to LA where he was forced out of leadership. He then left this family of churches to start his own separate movement in LA. It would be an injustice to assume anything about these churches today based on that 20 year old study performed in Boston prior to McKean being taken out of leadership.
Amen. This is exactly what I counsel people in that situation.
I personally know several who have left because of the divorce and remarriage issue. Yeakley’s approach on that is similar to my own. I believe most who consider all the Scripture has to say on the matter will adopt this or something close to it as their own approach. I see no justification at all in the Scriptures for telling people they must break up existing families to try to correct a past that cannot be put together again.
I see and talk to many that left and in nearly every case they say they couldn’t live a lie anymore.
They didn’t believe those that worshiped in their chosen COC building was right and all others, including COC that differ on its todays stated positions was going to hell.
Many were waiting or had waited until their COC mothers and fathers passed on to glory so as not to upset them and since most of us of the old teachings are in our 70’s and 80’s so those that are waiting won’t have to wait much longer to leave.
I personally asked my children and gave my blessings on changing if they wanted to and two went to more progressive COC and left the conservatives.
It helped that we did before them.
Yeakley’s chapter 7 is rational, and courageous among the conservative CoC. It also expresses a simple, reasonable conclusion that most Protestant churches came to decades ago. What’s next, letting our kids drink flouridated water?
My Brother Charles,
you wrote: “It also expresses a simple, reasonable conclusion that most Protestant churches came to decades ago.”
So what does that say about the whole MDR issue decades BEFORE “most Protestant churches” came to the conclusion that they were too conservative on the issue? Were Protestant Churches WRONG when they taught and towed a conservative line concerning MDR?
(parenthetically, why should it matter WHAT most Protestant Churches teach?”)
Sometimes I fear that we are looking at the MDR issue through a 21st century lens. Are you telling me that centuries of God fearing, truth seeking, individuals were ALL misguided and legalistic on this topic? I am of the opinion that MDR doctrine was not really a huge issue in the church until Divorce became a larger issue amongst our brothers and sisters. Just because it is difficult and hard to accept does not make it wrong.
I wonder if we will be having a similar conversation in 50 years or so about the legitimacy of homosexual unions. Many Protestant Churches and an increasing number of governments have already weighed in on that one too. Will the Lord’s Body be eventually forced by public opinion to bend there as well?
attempting to speak the truth in love….phil
I and my family were disfellowshipped in the middle 80’s for contesting Dave Miller’s attempt to braking up present marriages in the church. Later, after attending another church that did not see that position as scriptural, Dave attempted to disfellowship that congregation because they accepted us. A third congregation counseled with all three, the disfellowshipping church, the church that accepted us and with us. As a result we were allowed to be restored without being required to change our beliefs, of course we stayed at the accepting church. The families were not broken up, and after finishing schooling Dave moved on and later became Director of The Brown Trail School of Preaching. Twenty Four years later a take over by a few of the young men in that congregation where we were attending that could not be resolved demanded that I move on. We went back to the original congregation and it seemed that all was well, until a visiting preacher asked me to lead some songs. We found out that they had forgotten about the restoration, and Dave had taken all records with him. My mother found the bulletin that announced the event, and we were accepted. Well it wasn’t very long until I thought this church should have Elders, hasn’t had any for over 30 years, so I wrote a document to the preacher stating such and he didn’t answer. Gave the same doc to to of the leading men of the congregation, then received a very unchristian type of email from preacher, I was teaching false doctrine. Five sermons followed which lacked a lot of scriptural teaching about Elders and Elders responsibilities, I contested some of the errors and the hammer fell again. The sermons were taped and I was given a copy by the preacher, I have them turned into text and made a windows movie of them so many can read and listen, I hope that someday others that listen to them would either show me where I was in error in my written rebuttal or contact the preacher, both of us cannot be correct, and still both of us might need to directed more carefully in the scriptures. The local Christians that I know that know about the issue will not communicate with either of us. Me because I am taboo and him because they know the preacher and don’t want to incur his wrath. Sorry to unload this on you, but sometimes we all have to vent otherwise the pressures can destroy us.
Phil Adams Jr
I see that you seem to believe that there was not many divorces during the time of the early church. Notice, this communication between Jesus and his chosen disciples.
(Mat 19:4 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
(Mat 19:5 KJV) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(Mat 19:6 KJV) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Mat 19:7 KJV) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(Mat 19:8 KJV) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(Mat 19:9 KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(Mat 19:10 KJV) His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
(Mat 19:11 KJV) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
(Mat 19:12 KJV) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
After the message from Jesus about marriage to one wife. Notice the message from the disciples. Their communication expresses that they did not believe that anyone could live their life with (as Jesus pointed out) only having been married to one wife. This is not a discussion of multiple wives, it was about one wife at a time, divorced and remarried. Their concept indicates that was normal. Married to only one wife for life was not in their vocabulary. Jesus did not try to communicate to them that he knew men that that were in their acquaintance that had only married once in their lifetime. I believe that this communication is powerful evidence that divorce was probably more prevalent then than now. Even today if an individual made a comment such as Jesus made that men should marry only once in their life time (except for fornication, or death of the mate) I believe that anyone could say they know many families that are living in first marriages. Because of their lack of belief that any man could live up to that standard, their next statement was verse 10,”If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Jesus then explained in the following verses that there were only a few men that could live up to their statement, he identified them as men that either had no desire or had the capabilities to totally control their desires from within themselves. Notice, carefully Jesus did not place external obligations upon anyone that did not have the internal abilities to restrain themselves. There is not a place in The New Testament that men were given a command to divorce a wife because he had married outside of the rules that Jesus had given, and neither is there a place where any man or woman was given instructions that they could not marry, or placed into the opposite concept was bound by God’s law to remain single for their lifetime.
My Brother Larry,
My point was not to argue one way or the other with a BCV but rather to ask the question why the MDR “problem” seems to have become a matter of contention amongst the brotherhood in the past 40 years or so and amongst protestant churches in the past 100 years.
There is an interesting anecdote, or it may even be urban legend. Gus Nichols was once given a written question during the FHU Q&A period that read “Brother Nichols what is your interpretation of Matthew 19:9 ?” As the story goes, Brother Nichols wadded the paper up and said “Matthew 19:9 does not need interpretation, it needs following.”
On a second note,
Your experience with a congregation that sought to influence another is sadly not unique. Many times we tend to forget the independant nature of individual congregations. I hope that faith, hope and love will prevail.
always trying to speak the truth in love…. phil
One of my elders and I were discussing the changes in how we look at MDR on our field trip last Friday. Twenty years ago – although the strain was already showing – MDR was an issue primarily about how to deal with “supposed” converts “out there” and since we weren’t overly evangelistic anyway we could pretty much come up with anything we wanted. Now it is a real life/ real time issue within our walls and if we are doing real evangelism we must have an answer that not only makes Biblical sense, but it practically workable.
The best we have been able to come up with as general rules are:
1. Stop having sex if you aren’t married.
2. If you are married stay faithful to the marriage you now have.
3. If you aren’t married and want to be married look for a Christian to marry.
4. Keep your committments to prior relationships – child support, alimony, visitation, abstain from needless litigation. (We try to fill the Biblical role in mediating these issues, but that is difficult and time consuming to say the least and fraught with danger as well.)
5. Forget feelings and focus on what is right. Consider how your actions impact your children and families and your relationship with Christ.
And even then we are faced with problems that have only been resolved in the face of the threat of disfellowshipment.
Our culture is saturated with everything that is un-Jesus: materialism, sexuality, hatred, violence, false spirituality. The only antidote is a total focus on Jesus and His teachings and making them 100% accessible and applicable to daily life. The good news is that this is exactly the type of culture in which the apostles lived and worked and so the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are more relevent than they have been in 1900 years!
Though we disagree as to degree, Alexander’s advice on this point is sound – we must live and disciple our disciples to live totally against the grain of our “modern” world.
Phil asked me, “Are you telling me that centuries of God fearing, truth seeking, individuals were ALL misguided and legalistic on this topic?”
>>>
Phil, please don’t presume that all believers have always believed your way until a few decades back. On any topic. Overgeneralization makes one’s arguments meaningless.
But my answer to your overgeneralized question is, “Yes, and on other topics as well.” How about the papacy? Or the enslavement of Africans and their children? Or the treatment of women and children as chattels? Or killing the Arab infidels in the name of God? Or believers supporting the killing of different infidels (Korean and Vietnamese, this time) because they were Communists? Or the beating and torturing of Quakers and Freethinkers by “God-fearing” early American local governments in an effort to keep “heresy” out of their communities and colonies? Mercy, we have a grand history of being wrong en masse. And often wrong while signing God’s name to our error.
“If enough people believe it, they must be right” simply does not work, no matter which side of whatever argument one stands upon.
Larry, I am so sorry for your experience. Every time I hear a story like this, there is something in my head which presumes, “Well, that’s about as bad as it gets.” Then someone comes along and trumps it. It seems our capacity for folly at the expense of God’s children is essentially unlimited. For my brothers whom I love, I offer my sincere apology for treating you in such an ungodly manner.
I like Todd’s approach, in general. Mainly, I would note that this approach seems to be intended to keep people in fellowship by teaching them how to live godly lives, as opposed to the old methodology which was to show people how they were doing wrong so we could disassociate ourselves from them unless and until they did things exactly as we told them to.
Many who see us departing the old porous arguments about MDR insist that for us to do so is to introduce sexual licentiousness into the church. Todd’s list of “rules” shows this to be false. I think the biggest difference I see is whether we want to hold the unbeliever outside until he gets his act together and THEN put our arms around him– OR if we are willing to take a sinner into our loving arms and get all dirty while we tell him about Jesus, who is really this man’s only hope of real and permanent change.
Some are willing to be directly and personally involved while the Holy Spirit washes the sins and bad habits and bad thinking off a newfound believer. Others want that babe in Christ to stand in the yard while we hose him down until he’s clean enough to let in the house.
I wonder if a notorious gossip or busybody were to come to Jesus, we would not extend him full fellowship until he stopped his sinful lifestyle? Again, we seem to have a select group of “mortal sins” which we want kept outside the door, while folks with more venial sins can work on theirs in the house. And I think I have finally found the key to this unofficial list of mortal and venial sins:
A venial sin is one which I can see myself or my friends possibly falling into. A mortal sin, OTOH, is something I and my friends would never do.
My Brother Charles,
There is an inherent difficulty with “Blog postings”. The written word is not nearly as communicative and the spoken. Text may be better at delivering technical information such as assembly plans for a BBQ grill, but a printed recipe can never really tell you how good the brisket smells.
That having been said (uh… written) I was not attempting to over generalize. I was asking the question to foster some thought. I wonder WHY the protestant churches have changed their minds on MDR. I wonder WHY the Church of Christ is following suit albeit lagging behind 50 years or so. My proposed answer was the same to both. The “softening” of MDR teachings seems to this writer at least to come in response to social pressures and NOT a fuller, more Christ centered understanding of the Scriptures.
I then framed this concept in term of a teaching that we (most churches of Christ) still seem to be behind the social curve on. Do you foresee us having this same debate about homosexuality in the future?
Thanks for the encouragement Charles. Our approach is intended to get them in and hold them close while Jesus and the Spirit clean them up. The difficult bit is that deeply imbedded habits of sin don’t change overnight or sometimes overmonth/year and a faithful discipler has to be willing to take the “long” view and keep walking with the new believer – even keeping faith when the young disciple drops out for a while. (2 Tim. 2:8-13)
Phil,
“Do you foresee us having this same debate about homosexuality in the future?”
I do see us having a similar discussion (debate?) about loving those in sin (divorce, homosexuality, drunkards, gossips, slanderers, arguers, etc.).
If we don’t love and welcome them, how will they learn about the love of Jesus and want to change their lives to be more like him. If we judge them and drive them away where will they find the good news they need? Our job is to love them like Jesus loves us, and in so doing will show them what Jesus is like. Some respond, some don’t, our charge is to love.
My Brother Orion,
I completely agree with everything you have written. Love is the most (only?) truly effective gift that we possess. However, but and although, do you see our “love of the lost” becoming morphed into acceptance of sin? The Lord’s doors are always open. He never shyed away from being with those who really needed him and neither should we. The MDR question in the brotherhood now is not really one of welcoming the hurting and those whose lives are tragically broken by sin. Has it not become one of legitimizing or sanctifying sinful behavior?
The MDR debate has centered on the definition of sin as it applies to adulterous unions. Are we beginning to call evil good and good evil? Does God change His definition of adultery just because we find it difficult or inconvenient or have we had the wrong idea all along?
always trying to speak the truth in love…… phil
Many dodge the Matt 19:9 question as it used fornication for the woman and adultery for the man and both as we teach was for sexual infidelity with someone other than their spouse whether it was a woman or a man.. Why the difference? To toss the question in a waste basket with a smart ass answer is a dodge and not an admired tactic.
Yes, I see all of you agreeing on welcoming those not so clean into your fellowship and not standing apart from the unclean.
Thank God I see this happening in my life time among the COC folks. I didn’t think I would.
Phil, I think the “why” you are seeking is probably a case of both good and bad. In some places, I’m quite ready to believe that such changes in doctrine come from human pressure more than any sort of divine understanding. That same, “we can’t all be wrong” assumption gone awry, I suppose. It may not be all that different from when Moses “allowed” divorce because it was expedient among a hard-hearted people. I certainly can’t argue that this does not happen today.
But I think I can hear a different spirit in others who have made similar doctrinal changes, but because of a growing and maturing understanding of the scripture, and from continuing enlightenment of those scriptures by the Spirit of God.
Oh, and I do wholeheartedly agree about the limitations of this format. Forgive me if I was too sharp in my response. As it happens when two groups change their views on divorce for different reasons, sometimes I also misconstrue the intent of others.
However, but and although, do you see our “love of the lost” becoming morphed into acceptance of sin?
>>
This is a legitimate question, but I think it is only legitimate when we turn it on ourselves. Are WE changing our standards of sin when WE embrace the lost? Or are WE simply extending the same kind of grace that is being extended to us? It’s a good question, and a fair one. But not when we start applying it to other people. The entire question turns on the intent of the heart, and we have no abilities in that regard. Heaven knows we hardly know our own hearts, let alone those of others.
Charles,
Is the purpose to save those in error, sometimes bad error or look good to those that would judge us by staying clear?
In the end, who are we really wanting to impress?
I know which by far gives the most satisfaction.
20 years ago, when Flavil presented his findings on Boston, he presented some very helpful info. Particularly, he used the Myers-Briggs to show how Churches of Christ typically used evangelism methods that appealed to introverts: take this correspondence course, study in the privacy of your own home. We then tried to get those introverts to go out and reach others… didn’t work.
Boston was using methods (i.e., group Bible studies) that appealed to extroverts. However, there was also pressure on introverts and extroverts alike to behave as extroverts. That was the harmful part.
Don’t know if that’s in the new book or not.
Tim, I believe that is why the Great Commission uses a very “laid back” idea of
“go.” Not a command for everybody everywhere to get up and go somewhere else but a command for each one – as they go about their lives and according to their own giftedness- to be doing this, making disciples.
Alan wrote:
Here’s a link to Yeakley’s original report on the Boston Movement, The Discipling Dilemma, published in 1988.
To be fair, Kip McKean wasn’t removed from being the head of the ICOC, including head of the discipling pyramid until 2002, so Yeakley’s findings are still valid up to at least the end of 2002. And yes, this applies to any of us who were members up until at least the end of 2002, including you. When I left in 2006, I took a Myers-Briggs test and was categorized as an ENFJ. I took another test a year later in 2007 and was categorized as an INTJ. Since then, I still get categorized as an INTJ. (Kip, the group norm, is an ESFJ.)
I think it would be very interesting if the current ICOC took this same test again. It would help to exonerate their name if they were classified with the normal denominational churches instead of the cults.
You are making unfounded assumptions. I’ve been consistently INFJ since long before I encountered the ICOC. The influence of Kip’s personality was not nearly as pervasive outside of Boston as you seem to believe.
Aside from that, it’s been 22 years since Kip left Boston, and around twelve years since he was removed from leadership in LA. A lot has changed since then.
Alan wrote:
Then why did Boston assimilate (almost) all of the Crossroads churches after Chuck Lucas stepped down? Why did strict congregational autonomy break down? Why did the leaders started to teach and preach in the exact same style as Kip? You seem to think that Kip had an insignificant influence on you. However you were in the same discipling hierarchy as he was (and as I was) and I’m assuming that you were a leader in the ICOC when Kip was in charge as well.
Although no formal study was done, it’s practically indisputable that Kip continued to practice the same things from Los Angeles from 1989-2002. Otherwise, why was he forced out of leadership and why did Henry write the letter?
Xray, I’m not going to engage you in a debate on this. It’s between you and Jay whether he wants you to air your decades-old grievances on his blog, but I won’t be participating in that.
You rushed to defend the ICOC first, Alan. Why bring it up unless someone asked a question about it or said something negative about it?