Progressive Churches of Christ: The Unresolved Tension, Part 1

progressiveReader tb submitted this excellent, thoughtful comment:

Thank you for your thought-provoking comments. Being somewhere between comfortable to political range myself, I might suggest some revision of your categories.

There is a larger group of churches than you perhaps realize that is not still hanging onto the traditional banners, who are reevaluating steps of salvation within the light of grace/faith, and who don’t see GA or FHU as the bulwark of the brotherhood. The Holy Spirit is an active part of our congregational preaching/ teaching and slowly becoming a part of inner-member dialogue. We do not use instruments, have group-led worship, or women in formal leadership roles — although many women have taken on informal roles in some areas.

I serve under an eldership that is ethnically and doctrinally diverse. We actively seek to increase inter-congregational unity and build relationships between non-institutional (which we have found a new generation that is not fighting for their teachings and is open to building unity), predominantly African-American, and progressive congregations.

The point being, while we don’t have every characteristic of a progressive congregation, nor would we consider ourselves one, there is more variety within churches that are sometimes considered “conservative.”

I would argue that a “new mainstream” is developing that cannot be categorized by the negativities that have often plagued conservative-leaning and radical right churches in the past. The reason I say this, is that there are a number of growing churches (mostly east of the Mississippi) that I am familiar with that cannot fit into these categories. These churches may not incorporate progressive practices relating to worship or women, but you will find that the doctrinal vibe is less dogmatic and aiming more-so to truly “speak the truth with love.”

(Very slightly edited to ease reading on the Internet.)

I think tb is exactly right in his comment. Exactly. Churches exactly as he describes them are evolving across the country, typically developing out of much more conservative Churches as Baby Boomers step into leadership, supported by younger generations who may have never heard a lesson on a cappella music or the Five Acts of Worship. The Holy Spirit is alive and active in such Churches, and very good things are happening.

However, there’s a problem. You can see it in these comments:

We do not use instruments, have group-led worship, or women in formal leadership roles — although many women have taken on informal roles in some areas.

Why not use instruments? Is that a doctrinal commitment? I doubt it. I suspect that this church is largely made up of Christians who grew up in a Church of Christ, and those my age and older (60+) are most comfortable singing a cappella and the younger members are happy enough with the a cappella service.

But being exclusively a cappella is a handicap in terms of evangelism because it forces you to explain something that makes no sense to those who didn’t grow up in the Churches. As my salesmen clients tell me, when you’re explaining, you’re losing. You’d far rather expend your energies explaining Jesus than a cappella music. And most Church leadership teams know this, and so those who choose to be exclusively a cappella do so for the sake of a segment of the membership despite how much it impairs evangelism.

Why not have a praise team? I have learned from experience at many churches and lectureships that the song service is better with a praise team. It just is. Why not do it? Again, clearly not for doctrinal reasons. This is surely a decision made to please those members even older than me.

We actively seek to increase inter-congregational unity and build relationships between non-institutional (which we have found a new generation that is not fighting for their teachings and is open to building unity), predominantly African-American, and progressive congregations.

I’m all for inter-congregational unity, and I agree that the non-institutional Churches of Christ are becoming less legalistic than many institutional Churches. But why is “unity” limited to other Churches of Christ? Are we still of the mindset that the rest are all damned? And if not, why draw lines at the name?

A few years ago, a friend was kind enough to point out to me the challenges such Churches will face in the future — and forewarned is forearmed.

I don’t know, and maybe this is unfair,  but I suspect that by being a better kind of Church of Christ, this congregation has experienced growth due to attracting most of the Church of Christ members who move into town as well as transfers from other Churches in town. The transfers are thrilled with their new congregation. Good things are happening.

At present, there is a “market” (for want of a better term) for Churches that allow Church of Christ members to transition from legalistic teaching to grace while remaining a Church of Christ member. Such Churches teach a truer gospel but continue to bear Church of Christ identity markers: a cappella music, the denominational name, weekly communion, limited female roles, isolation from “the denominations,” perhaps even Sunday night services. Those who place membership get to remain loyal Church of Christ members while enjoying a better quality of teaching, increased freedom in worship, and better programs for children and teens.

Such a Church is necessarily tolerant of legalism in its members. After all, many of its members are transferring from extremely legalistic congregations. Transfers will need time to learn grace and leave behind their old attitudes. As a result, the preaching is generally very positive, with very few sermons speaking ill of legalism. It’s assumed that, over time, members will read their Bibles and listen to their teachers and learn to lay their legalism aside. And some will. And some won’t.

For a while, such a Church may do very well, grow, and prosper. But it will have some serious problems lurking just beneath the surface:

1. The Church will not be very evangelistic. By and large, the leadership and members enjoy growth by attracting members transferring from other Churches of Christ, and the members see this as indicative of good spiritual health. Hence, evangelistic teaching and emphasis is set aside, as the members and leaders take pride in growth by swelling, that is, outcompeting other Churches of Christ in town for Church of Christ transfers.

2.The leaders of the Church will be unwilling to frankly address instrumental music, fellowship of other denominations, and the role of women from the pulpit. The leaders know that if the preacher preaches plainly that instrumental music is no sin that many members will see such a sermon as a precursor to adding instruments to the service, and no amount of explaining will persuade the members otherwise.

3. There will come a time when the church stops growing through swelling. And there will come a time when the Spirit pushes the members to want to be truly evangelistic. A lack of baptisms will evidence an inward spirit. And at some point, the leadership will decide to change the name or to add an instrumental service or to have a joint service with a non-Church of Christ congregation. At that point, the congregation will have plainly announced that it is not going to have a traditional Church of Christ identity, and many of the members will be upset — even outraged — despite perhaps decades of teaching on grace and evangelism.

And at some point, the tension between what makes the Church of Christ members happy and what is effective for evangelism will have to be resolved, either by choosing to please the most legalistic, most sectarian members, or by making the hard choices that will allow the congregation to reach more of the lost. And when that happens, many wonderful people, who are vital volunteers and givers and regular in their attendance, will leave — because they can’t bear to be a member of a church that isn’t a sectarian Church of Christ.

This may be because they can’t face their parents at Thanksgiving, who believe churches with instrumental music are damned. Or it may be because their best friends are Church of Christ members in other congregations who will reject them if they attend a joint communion service with the Baptists. Make no mistake: we are social creatures and friendship and family means a lot to us. And some of us will pick friends and family over the Kingdom no matter how many sermon series are preached on being missional and sacrificing for the sake of the Kingdom.

The tension between tradition Church of Christ identity markers and what is evangelistically effective has to be resolved one way or the other — and most elderships will eventually choose faithfulness to the Great Commission, realizing that there comes a time when a church has to grow up and become what Jesus charges the church to be.

How the transition is handled makes all the difference in the world. Hint: a 10-part sermon series on evangelism and mission will not overcome a lifetime commitment to a Church of Christ identity.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink.My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Progressive Churches of Christ, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Progressive Churches of Christ: The Unresolved Tension, Part 1

  1. Johnny says:

    I have a friend in the ministry, who has been approached by a group who are willing to support him with $60k a year for 5 years to do a church plant. The church plant will be a community church with no label of any sort on the door. They have reached the conclusion that their “denomination” is dieing, but that the Church must move forward reaching the lost. They are placing the Great Commission above tradition. They themselves are not leaving their congregations but they see the most effective way to reach the lost to be in a new church plant without the trappings of tradition hindering the gospel.

  2. tb says:

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. Appreciate your thoughts and feedback, but wanted to provide a little more information about the congregation and respond to some of your points.

    The Baby Boomer generation is quite absent from our congregation and may of our younger generations have heard lessons on a capella music. Not using instrumental music is a doctrinal commitment. Our congregation does not entirely consist of those who grew up in a church of Christ. We have some with Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and unchurched backgrounds.

    Our commitment to a capella music is a doctrinal commitment. It is not to appease certain audiences or demographics in the congregation. Our focus indeed is Christ and not doctrine for the sake of doctrine. We also have not found the need for a praise team due to our building acoustics and excellent congregational singing.

    As far as other churches, we regard those who are individually immersed for salvation as brothers or sisters but generally view them as straying from God’s intent for worship. There are some cases where we have accepted baptisms from the Christian church and one case of a Baptist being immersed for forgiveness of sins. The matter is with individuals and not groups or churches a whole.

    Most of our recent growth has been evangelistic. 1/3 has been walk-ins from the community who became Christians, 1/3 were restored and accepted (one being immersed in a Baptist church), and 1/3 moved here for family. There is at least one other that is a community walk-in that we hope and pray will become a Christian soon. Legalism has been at a minimum in this congregation in my experience. Most transfers in the past were due to other reasons.

    Finally (1) the church is shifting gears and is becoming evangelistic. We are pushing hard not to be a “transfer grabber” but look into our immediate community. Certainly some members feel this way, but the leadership does not.

    (2) All three of these issues: instrumental music, fellowship with other denominations, and role of women have been addressed from the pulpit in the last few months.

    (3) Indeed this is the case even now. We are at a point where all of our growth must necessarily be evangelistic or else the congregation will begin to decline because of deaths and the young members may leave. The leadership here would probably not change the name or add instruments as a “last resort” to save members at this congregation. Reactively implementing changes to keep numbers up, in whatever direction, are generally not signs of healthy leadership.

    Like you, I want to see the “Church of Christers” mindset vanish. It’s damaging to the church and I am glad we can dialogue on such pressing issues here.

  3. Joe B says:

    Please forgive my skepticism but I used to live east of Mississippi not too far east just Vicksburg MS. But traveled into Al, TN, GA and the Carolinas regularly. We tried to help a small church turnaround in Vicksburg unsuccessfully. It closed down a year after we left. I heard this similar claim many times and would always stop to check it out where ever I was if I could. One specifically was in the north suburbs of Atlanta. Once the layers were really pulled off it just wasn’t the case. The people they said came from the community a brand new converts to Christianity were really just people who had stopped going to church somewhere else and really came from a Christian background already. Then the delusion that they had studied themselves out of legalism was also present. They thought that since they were not participating in the public castigation of others that they were no longer legalistic but the truth was their theology had really not changed. Their paradigm of evangelism had really not changed even though an intense effort with the old paradigm had increased. Lastly they still did not see the need for “living out and incarnational’ faith of the gospel. I explained what this looks like in another post so I won’t re-post it here. One of the biggest problems of a legalistic theology is that it gives the idea that if you are legally correct in all doctrines and forms that everything else will take of itself. So people go their entire lives without any significant personal spiritual transformation. This alludes to the difference we see in the early Christians living out their faith incarnationally and our present congregations not so much if any at all.
    If what you describe is truly happening in the congregation you speak of that is great. But I would suggest that it is still a ticking time bomb. The reason I say that is not because I want anyone to fail but that legalistic theology is a recipe for disaster period even if it seems there is peace and no real problems. It eventually kills people’s spirit and paints a picture of God’s nature that is mostly one of a judge that is concerned with religious laws and less of one who is primarily a Redeemer.

  4. Jay points out quite cogently the challenges that CoC’s and their leaders are facing. But the degree to which some leaders see their dilemma as insoluble is reflected in Johnny’s post. It suggests that some leaders are so convinced that their churches need a fresh start that they are willing to pay $300K to hire someone to come in and provide it. But they cannot bring themselves to participate in it personally. The personal cost is simply too great. This may say more about the future of the CoC than most of the opinions I hear.

  5. Alabama John says:

    One thing that is missing above all others that would stop all this arguing BS is hard times.

    When folks of all the different beliefs get in situations about losing their or their loved ones lives, the feeding of their loved ones and losing their homes, they pray to God for help and don’t care whether you are Baptist, Presbyterian, Holiness, COC, Catholic or whatever, all are welcomed..

    Go visit a VA hospital or childrens hospital and see what I’m saying in action everyday. You will sure be welcomed. Boosts your faith in people to see the joining together of a whole floor of workers, visitors, whoever is around, praying with the kin, visitors, parents when a child is dying. Talk about sincere heartfelt, pouring out, prayers.

    Men, women, all on their knees holding hands and pleading to God. Forget titles and affiliations.

    We are seeing more of this and will see more as things worsen.

    So many philosophers of ours need to get out more among the real world to see sincere actions.

  6. BD says:

    Wow… what a timely post given the recent conversations my family has been having about our church future. We’re currently attending what (under Joe Beam’s proposed definitions) I would call a “political” church, which practically means we’re paralyzed when it comes time to make a decision about our mission or collective identity.

    Your post raises another issue, though, that I’ve been struggling with mightily. You make the statement that “some of us will pick friends and family over the Kingdom” no matter how much we understand the need to sacrifice for the Kingdom. It’s certainly the case in my family that we’ve made compromises in our church decisions in order to preserve family relationships, so I’ll admit your comment stung a bit.

    But—and here’s where I think you overstate your case—when it comes to purely surface issues like music, aren’t those exactly the kinds of compromises Romans 14 and similar passages call for us to make? It’s not as if we’re choosing worldly priorities over Kingdom ones—our families are Christians too, and if in these matters we believe them to be our “weaker” brothers and sisters because their consciences are offended by certain external practices, then why shouldn’t that be a valid and even necessary consideration in making decisions about church or individual activities?

    I agree that this is a fraught area for many Christians from a Church of Christ background who have moved in a more progressive direction theologically, and these tensions have been the cause of many heart-wrenching discussions and decisions for me and my immediate family. I just disagree that the “kingdom versus family” tension is as easily resolved as you seem to be saying it is.

  7. Mark says:

    I guess the question becomes one of in whom or what do you have more faith? God and Jesus (Messiah) or the non-denominational denomination the cofC?

    This will make a lot of difference.

  8. John says:

    There may be more merit to SOME cofC distinctives than our “progressive” brothers would allow. Jay, you speak sometimes as though the discussion is concluded — little room for discussion, get on with the changes.

    Has some cofC heritages practiced legalism, even though giving “lip service” to grace? Yes, but never all. Behind and before the “regulative principle” have been those with a “high view” (for lack of a better term) of apostolic authority and early church practice. This was the result of dedicated men of faith and submission. Were they ALWAYS right? Likely not, but I do NOT question their sincerity, nor do I question Jays’ sincerity.

    The tension will always continue as men of faith “struggle” to understand and apply the WORD.
    I knew (since moved away from the area) Dave Scott — direct descendant of RM Walter Scott. He was part of a mutual edification, one cup, KJV group. He would meet with our congregation in the evening and on Wednesdays. I shared with him the “Notes from the Translators to the Readers” and some other things as well re: Lord’s Supper. The decision to “change” an understanding or practice was always HIS. For me to urge, coerce, mandate a change that would violate his conscience and spiritual submission (which was VERY real, no doubts) would not have been Christ-like on my part.

    What is labeled “political” in these posts may have a much deeper spiritual concern among the leadership. Romans 14 is so much more than about meat and days.

  9. Jay Guin says:

    John,

    I defined “political” as the church leadership feeling unable to be honest with the church about what the Bible teaches.

    I didn’t define “legalistic” and probably should have. I’ve probably not been entirely consistent, but what I generally mean by the word is adding obedience to specific commands to faith in Jesus as a condition of salvation or continued salvation. That is, if you think IM damns even those who believe IM to be allowed by God’s word, then to me, you’re a legalist because you add a work to faith as a requirement to be saved. Whether it’s holy days, kosher foods, circumcision, or a cappella music, faith in Jesus saves, not faith + obedience to certainly favorite rules. I think that’s the lesson of Galatians, and it’s one of the great sins of the Churches of Christ.

    While I would disagree with someone teaching that the Bible prohibits instrumental music, that by itself is not legalism. But when we not only teach the IM is wrong but damns, then we’ve added a cappella singing to faith as a requirement to be saved. Not a good thing.

    Given that there are many denominations that baptize by immersion for remission of sins, if we only treat the Churches of Christ are saved, we’re not just requiring baptism but more — membership in our denomination? — as a requirement to be saved. So that’s legalistic.

    By “sectarian” I mean any claim that only our denomination (or sect) is saved. Again, this is a a classic Church of Christ failing.

  10. Jay Guin says:

    BD,

    Thanks for your comment. You asked,

    “But—and here’s where I think you overstate your case—when it comes to purely surface issues like music, aren’t those exactly the kinds of compromises Romans 14 and similar passages call for us to make? ”

    Yes and no. Yes, for the sake of the weak, we may well elect to be a cappella. But, no, that does NOT mean that we omit what we believe about music in our teaching. The job of elders includes helping the weak become strong. Being weak is no license to escape sound doctrinal teaching.

    The hard question is what to do when a cappella becomes a barrier to evangelism. Now, it might never happen — but I think in most churches, that day comes. Then you have to go to two services. You can’t refuse to reach out to the lost for the sake of the weak, nor may you let the weak remain weak at the cost of seeking the lost. But you may — and should — certainly allow the weak to worship in dignity and consistent with their scruples while still reaching out to the lost.

  11. tb says:

    Jay,

    Is it fair to say that a cappella music will become an insurmountable barrier to evangelism and that the ONLY way to reach them? Is Christ so insufficient that he needs IM in order to reach the lost? I doubt you mean this, and I could be mistakenly reading too much into what you’re saying.

    If God’s message of salvation through his Son working through his people in the Spirit not enough, and requires more, then are we teaching Christ or seeking to appease others (cf. 2 Tim 4:3ff)? Do we go so far to say Christ + IM is necessary for salvation because without IM there’s a barrier to Christ?

  12. Jay Guin says:

    Joe B said,

    “They thought that since they were not participating in the public castigation of others that they were no longer legalistic but the truth was their theology had really not changed.”

    Well said. Repackaged legalism is still legalism.

  13. John says:

    I would agree the “faith in Christ” (expressed in believer baptism) + opionable matters = salvation is legalism — not a good thing.

    But who gets to decide who is weak? The “progressives” proclaim themselves (excuse the generality) to be the strong, leading the way to a new, vibrant spirituality. The “conservatives” (generality again) proclaim themselves to be the strong, standing firm on the “word, not going beyond, marking those who cause division (sometimes in a most unloving way)”. Some pose (deceptively so at times) as the weak to insist on their own way.

    And often each says, in the words of that great theologian, my then five year old grand daughter, “It’s easy, Grandpa, just do what I want!

    Are we REALLY that much different than a five year old girl?

  14. tb says:

    Jay, if a cappella does become a barrier to evangelism and churches go forward with IM: Does God’s message of salvation through His Son by the Spirit become insufficient for salvation? Does it then become Christ + IM = salvation? Is this not an inverse legalism in itself that is appealing to itching ears on the other side (2 Tim 4:3). The pendulum can swing both ways so to speak.

    John, you make a good point about “weak v. strong.” Is it fair for us to be the judge of that? Some issues like alcohol may explicitly fall into this category (Rom 14:21), but whether IM does or doesn’t isn’t defined in the NT.

  15. Jay Guin says:

    tb,

    Those who worship with an instrument do not deny the salvation of those who worship a cappella. However, many who worship a cappella deny the salvation of those who worship with instruments. It’s not symmetric. The legalism is not in singing with or without instruments but in denying the salvation of those who disagree on the topic.

  16. Jay Guin says:

    John,

    Show me a church that converts the lost to Jesus despite being a cappella, and you’ll get no complaint from me about their song service — unless they damn those who use instruments. But if they do, they won’t convert very many.

    Nonetheless, it’s my view that a cappella is so associated with an attitude that damns all others and with our very judgmental, very wrong CENI hermeneutic that few Churches can be exclusively a cappella and not appear to be legalistic. We cannot escape our history easily — especially a church that refuses to cooperate and commune with other denominations. Again, why not? It’s hard not to appear sectarian when you act sectarian.

    There are ways to escape the legalistic tag, but it requires not acting like a traditional Church of Christ. You can’t both follow the traditional behavior of our Churches and not appear to others as being guilty of the attitudes associated with our denomination.

    We are fooling ourselves if we think we can hang a “Church of Christ” label on our buildings, refuse to associate with others, reject the instrument, and be accepted as gracious and gospel oriented. We’ve spent a century building a reputation, and we cannot escape the reputation just by hoping for better.

  17. tb says:

    (sorry for the double post, couldn’t see the expanded comments)

    Jay, yes I understand what you mean there. My question was more about your statement: when a cappella becomes a barrier.

    Hypothetically speaking, the implication is that is that a cappella worship becomes a barrier to the evangelism—proclamation of the Gospel either by word or action.

    Thus, in order for there not to be a barrier to people coming to Christ/being effectively evangelized: churches will need to add IM services. Therefore, this suggests that IM will become an essential component of Gospel outreach, else we won’t grow as the body of Christ.

    This also brings up questions of where and under what circumstances does the IM evangelism takes place: the assembly or in personal lives? And further, I wonder are we talking about converting people to Christ or a church/worship assembly?

  18. John says:

    Perhaps coming from churches in the NW (Washington/Oregon) I have not experienced the extremes Jay so often points out. I recall being told we (students at Columbia Christian) we not allowed to go to hear Carl Ketcherside (we did so anyway). My heritage in cofC is over 100 years, and now over 60, I have heard many men of faith, and read even more.extensively.

    I remain convinced that there are good reasons not directly related to CENI to remain with the a cappela host of history.

    Paul PROVED in Damascus that Jesus was the Christ. My progressive brothers have yet to prove their case. Why does it take book after book, pages upon pages of “reasoning” to obtain a teaching of a few apostolic words? The simplest explanation is usually the best.

    Do I see a lack of understanding of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Have we spent too much time and thought on truth, and not enough on Spirit? Yes. But should we reject / diminish / minimize / ignore truth? I think not. Let us spent an equal century on understanding what it means to worship in spirit.

    Do I think IM damns all who use it? No, but would / could I be damned for violating my conscience? Yes, for whatever is not of faith is sin.

    Could I wish certain passages of scripture were not there (death for adultery / homosexuality / disobedient to parents)? Yes,

    Do I get to choose which passages don’t mean what they clearly say? Not by any means

  19. In Rom 14, those who ate meat considered vegetarians as weak – and vice versa. It doesn’t matter which is the “weak” brother. Each is to be willing to accept the other as Christ has accepted each of them without passing judgment on another man’s servant. Our insistence on perfect agreement on certain sacrosanct doctrines that are inferred from, not explicitly taught by Scripture has led to anathematizing each other instead of accepting each other. And many times this is as true of the “progressives” as it is of the “conservatives” who make these things salvation issues. It’s just that the judging comes out a little differently as the “progressive” looks at the other as being hopelessly enmeshed in legalism and writes him off, while the conservative just condemns the other to hell and writes him off.

  20. Dwight says:

    IM will become a barrier because it has been built up to become so to define who is right and who is wrong with that in between. Our preacher, as preachers do, preaches against IM a lot. When we have interns they do at least one sermon on IM, probably at his bequest. He has preached so much on it that he is vested in it. To change is not impossible, but rather unthinkable, even if he was confronted with very good arguments. How do you turn from something to something else that you have spent years telling others is wrong? The answer-you don’t.
    I used to believe as he does just a year ago, but now think differently, but I do not preach and have not built up a public argument.
    What turned me? Giving a lesson on following God’s commands and not putting things we want to where God says nothing. God is not vague.
    This doesn’t work on everyone, because not everyone will question and challenge their past beliefs, when they think they are right without question. You cannot be wrong when you are always right and others are wrong.
    Interestingly there are many in our congregation that do not believe that IM is sinful, but won’t make a fuss, because they strive for peace or at least don’t want to upset people.
    So what I do is work behind the scenes in talking to people to where discussion becomes a way to introduce thoughts. I write and let others read and think.

  21. John says:

    Jerry,
    Well said.

    Our course “I AM THE STRONG, ” every one else is the weak. 🙁 We cannot / should not / would not EVER admit to a spiritual weakness. Such a humiliating statement would get in the way or our spiritual pride (NEVER acknowledged as such) disguised as “walking in truth” or “walking in freedom”.

    In a conversation with an Apostolic Faith arch bishop many years ago, he stated that the “icon” around his neck (a beautiful embellished cross with a purple gem insert) was a compromise to “better identify with those who are used to icons” but meant nothing in itself. Being young and not very diplomatic, I asked “Is that not somewhat deceptive?” (Apostolic Faith immerses for / into remission and is charismatic). Can we become similarly deceptive if we knowingly and willingly compromise our understanding of Biblical truth in our desire to “bring them in from the fields of sin”?

    I still remember the last lesson from J.C. Bunn (from Kansas, worked and preached with missionary zeal in the Northwest) I heard at the Northwest congregation in Seattle WA where he said regarding those who wanted to sing “Don’t fence Me In” that we are indeed fenced in by the love of God who has left us His word revealed in Jesus Christ and through His apostles.

    If we could experience more love (by this all men will know. . .) we would have less acrimony toward one another, and might even find a way to ” give preference to one another”. Such passages get in the way of insisting on “same as old” and “out with the old” >>

    So the tension will continue until . . . . someone will . . . “show a better way.” May the Lord haste such a day, and wisdom for all to recognize such a day.

  22. Jay Guin says:

    John wrote,

    “we not allowed to go to hear Carl Ketcherside (we did so anyway).”

    I am jealous. I’m a big Ketcherside fan. Read all his stuff. Wish I had had a chance to hear him in person.

  23. Jay Guin says:

    tb asked,

    “Hypothetically speaking, the implication is that is that a cappella worship becomes a barrier to the evangelism—proclamation of the Gospel either by word or action.”

    Yes, but the problem is more subtle than the mere fact that we have a form of music that doesn’t speak to most people. We have to have a reason we can articulate for our insistence on a cappella music. “It’s a tradition” is no answer, because even traditions have reasons. More acceptable would be “It’s a tradition and we like it so we’re not going to change it.” Really, then would it be okay for my small group to sing to a guitar? Since that’s the tradition my small group likes and this is about what people like? right?

    Our insistence on AC music derives from the Regulative PRinciple (silence is a prohibition), which is both wrong and unattractive. If we argue Regulative Principle to visitors or new converts, we come across as a little nuts. It makes no sense.

    Worse yet, many people outside the Churches know that we damn those who use IM. And when we INSIST on being AC, it’s hard not to give the impression that we actually consider this important to God – which hurts our credibility.

    A church with two services, one IM and one AC, can easily explain that the AC is for the sake of tradition but is not a salvation or doctrinal issue — and that is very believable in that context. It’s not believable when you refuse to have instruments under any circumstance == when your preacher is afraid to address the topic from the pulpit. Clearly, SOME members consider the Bible to actually teach such a thing.

    We fail to realize how very odd this appears to those who didn’t grow up this way.

  24. Jay Guin says:

    TB,

    Let me argue the case from another angle:

    1. My church surveyed our members and asked whether the a cappella question interfered with their efforts to convert the lost. Of those who were actually trying to convert the lost, 1/2 said the AC issue was a significant barrier. A 50% rate is a serious detriment.

    2. I met with the leaders of a CoC church planting organization. They were talking about their various plants, and I ask whether they allowed plants to use IM. They said some did and some didn’t, largely dependent on the scruples of the funding congregation. I asked whether AC or IM plants did better than the other. They thought about it and realized that all their most successful plants allowed IM. ALL. Why?

    3. I know of professionally conducted surveys of the public regarding the Churches of Christ. The name and the worship style both poll large negative associations. For a fact.

    4. There are far more Christian Churches with more than 2,000 members than Churches of Christ. Why? The only real difference is the worship style — and the doctrine that drives the difference in worship style.

    So all that says we should be instrumental, but not that being instrumental will cure all that ails us. So what says we should ignore the evidence and be AC — other than demands of members of the church who believe God insists on AC music? What is the case for staying the same?

  25. tb says:

    Jay,

    The argumentum ex silentio and Regulatory principle, I think, is the weakest method of arguing for AC. I think there’s merit in looking at NT practices on the surface and noting the lack of mention of worship instruments, but it’s not a 100% case in that matter either.

    What I do think remains valid is the historical argument and I don’t think it’s a long-shot either to convince others. Many Reformed, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc make arguments from history, the Fathers, and church councils so it’s not unjust to take this route.

    Andrew B. McGowan, Anglican professor at Berkley at Yale, in a recent work called “Ancient Christian Worship (Baker Academic, 2014) analyzed early practices in Judaism and Christianity. He wrote on p. 115.

    “It’s worth noting that, as practice in both early Christianity and the forms of Judaism located in synagogues emerges into clearer view, vocal music is in evidence far more than instrumental,” ‘

    (also cf. Foley, Foundations of Christian Music, 37–50).

    He notes that mention of instruments is generally restricted to allegory or metaphor or in a Temple context (whether in Jerusalem or the angelic temple above). The early fathers did discuss instruments, but it’s again unclear whether there was a normative practice of them.

    I think there’s also an argument to be based from the imago Dei. I’ve not seen this fully developed, but it’s akin to of “singing from the heart” (Eph 5:19). Man, as God’s creation, and Christians, as God’s new creation, are capable of the production of music without assistance of mechanical entities. Instruments are a human creation, and yes one may argue that “we should use every means necessary to please God” but perhaps “human ways” don’t exactly please God, but his created instruments—made in his image—do?

    Survey results:

    Again I wonder what we’re trying to lead people towards when we evangelize if AC becomes an issue. The Gospel should be able to stand alone without the need to discuss what I call “insider issues” of worship and community life. We should be asking people to “come to Jesus” first, the community comes secondary (“come to church”). As noted in prior discussions, legalistic churches have difficulty just talking about Jesus because they feel that conversion to church doctrine must be immediate as well. Jesus can always come first, teaching the “meat” can come second with time and prayer. The AC church I attend does not evangelize by shoving doctrine first, but with God’s love and grace through Jesus. If they’ve been to services and have history with Christianity, they may ask about AC and IM, but really the issue on the table remains whether to accept Christ or not

    That’s not to be said that worship cannot be a place that evangelism happens, but if worship becomes the only place evangelism happens then it removes personal responsibility to evangelize and puts pressure on staff and worship leaders and then it lets the outside crowd, not Christ or God, determine what occurs in worship because we’re playing to the outside world for the sake numbers.

    And not to devalue your numbers and surveys, but they aren’t always a good indicator of healthy church. I hear “number-motivated” arguments from people all the time: “let’s merge with X congregation so we can have youth” or “let’s get back to the 50s or bus ministries because it brought numbers.” While these may have merit for growth, maybe it can be accomplished in better ways.

    Also regarding numbers, Lakewood (Joel Osteen) has 40k+ members, but the draw is the prosperity Gospel, not Jesus’ gospel. If we tickle ears, people will come.

  26. John says:

    There have been groups in history who would not vocalize at all — understanding that “making melody in your hearts” prohibited the voice. Say what you will about that.

    There have been many comments in the debates on IM (and from the ECF) regarding the human body and voice as being the “organ,” maintaining that “if” psallw includes the harp [at the Hellenistic and Byzantine Greek usage{likely not}](twanging of a bow) that is is the heart that is the instrument being struck.

    However, I do not think Jay intends for this forum to become a continuing debate on the (de)merits of IM or women’s role. Not likely the best place.

    Jay Guin says:

    tb wrote,

    The argumentum ex silentio and Regulatory principle, I think, is the weakest method of arguing for AC. I think there’s merit in looking at NT practices on the surface and noting the lack of mention of worship instruments, but it’s not a 100% case in that matter either.

    I agree that the Regulatory Principle does not persuade.

    What I do think remains valid is the historical argument and I don’t think it’s a long-shot either to convince others. Many Reformed, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc make arguments from history, the Fathers, and church councils so it’s not unjust to take this route.

    Yes, the arguments for infant baptism and a monarchical bishop over the elders are based on the Fathers. Are you saying that these are good arguments? Or that the fact the Anglicans etc. make bad arguments allows us to do the same?

    This entire line of reasoning rejects sola scriptura and “We are silent where the Bible is silent.” We should not supplement the scriptures with the writings of uninspired early Christian leaders.

    I am constantly amazed at how we’ll adopt the Fathers are having the same authority as the scriptures on AC music, and then ignore their teachings on countless other subjects. Just how do we decide when to treat them as inspired and when not?

    Andrew B. McGowan, Anglican professor at Berkley at Yale, in a recent work called “Ancient Christian Worship (Baker Academic, 2014) analyzed early practices in Judaism and Christianity. He wrote on p. 115.

    “It’s worth noting that, as practice in both early Christianity and the forms of Judaism located in synagogues emerges into clearer view, vocal music is in evidence far more than instrumental,” ‘

    (also cf. Foley, Foundations of Christian Music, 37–50).

    “Far more than” is not the same as “instead of.” McGowan obviously is not saying that the record is devoid of evidence of IM. In fact, the very early Odes of Solomon clearly reference instrumental worship. This document, found after most of the historical arguments had been made into tracts, is dated as early as 100 AD — long before the various anti-IM writings found in some Fathers. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/odes.html

    Most recent scholars on the synagogue find little evidence of congregational singing in the synagogues pre-AD 70. While the Temple stood, the synagogues were primarily places of Torah study and prayer. The reading of the Torah may have been chanted. No one is sure how ancient the practice is, but the chanting would have been by the reader, not the congregation.

    The Jews of the First Century did sing to God, but it doesn’t appear to have been a standard synagogue practice — making the synagogues irrelevant to the IM/AC controversy.

    If synagogue practice is somehow binding on us, why don’t we chant? Why not read the scriptures from the Moses seat? Why not meet on Saturdays? I’ve never seen the logic of attempting to bind the practices of a man-made institution on the church. (McGowan rejects the notion that Christian music was based on the synagogue.)

    The Fathers also insisted on unison singing. Everett Ferguson argues that the church should sing in unison rather than four-part harmony because of his desire to follow the Fathers regarding congregational singing. So why obey their teaching regarding instruments but not unison singing?

    No, citing the Fathers as authority, creates an unending stream of problems and unanswerable questions. We need to stick with the scriptures.

    He notes that mention of instruments is generally restricted to allegory or metaphor or in a Temple context (whether in Jerusalem or the angelic temple above). The early fathers did discuss instruments, but it’s again unclear whether there was a normative practice of them.

    Everett Ferguson says that earlier ECF argument against IM is found in Clement of Alexandria, around 200 AD — roughly 150 years after most of the NT was written – and he is speaking of IM in banquets, not the assembly, and most in the CoC would allow IM in a banquet!

    The reason Clement gives for rejecting IM is the association of IM with the military. He considered military service immoral. If we must accept his conclusions, surely we must accept his reasons — and yet few in the CoC would argue that IM is wrong because the US Marine Corps Band uses instruments!

    I think there’s also an argument to be based from the imago Dei. I’ve not seen this fully developed, but it’s akin to of “singing from the heart” (Eph 5:19). Man, as God’s creation, and Christians, as God’s new creation, are capable of the production of music without assistance of mechanical entities. Instruments are a human creation, and yes one may argue that “we should use every means necessary to please God” but perhaps “human ways” don’t exactly please God, but his created instruments—made in his image—do?

    I’ve seen this argument made by others. I think it fails for several reasons. First, yes, instruments are a human creation, but so are our hymns. So are our auditoriums. So are our pews. So are the communion trays, the bread, and the grape juice.

    Second, Paul deals with this very question in Colossians —

    (Col 2:20-3:1 ESV) If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations– 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)– according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

    The Colossian Christians insisted that they should abstain from those things that “perish as they are used” — that is, temporal or earthly things. The Colossians said that their temporary nature means Christians should stay away. Paul said that such rules are self-imposed and have “no value.” He rejected the entire line of reasoning and APPROVED the use of those things that “perish with using” that is, that are manmade.

    Third, Eph 5:19 is a quotation from the Psalms by Paul, a Jewish rabbi —

    (Psa 108:1-4 ESV) My heart is steadfast, O God! I will sing and make melody with all my being! 2 Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! 3 I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations. 4 For your steadfast love is great above the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.

    Eph 5:19 is taken from Psa 108:1 (the NT and LXX Greek are plainly parallel). And yet David can say, by inspiration, that he sings and makes melody “with all my being” while playing a harp and a lyre. There is no contradiction between using instruments and worshipping with one’s own being.

    The idea that instruments, being physical things, are unholy is ultimately Gnostic and not Judeo-Christian.

    Survey results:

    Again I wonder what we’re trying to lead people towards when we evangelize if AC becomes an issue.

    I agree. Neither AC nor IM should be an issue for either the convert or the evangelist. If it’s an issue, it’s because the church made it into an issue.

    The Gospel should be able to stand alone without the need to discuss what I call “insider issues” of worship and community life.

    Actually, we err, I believe, when we teach the gospel separate from insider issues. The gospel is not just that we are forgiven. It’s also an invitation to enter the Kingdom and serve Jesus as Lord. And we cannot hide his demands.

    No, the solution isn’t to conceal God’s demands regarding worship from our converts. It’s to have an understanding of worship that is more gospel-centered. The test of true worship is not IM vs. AC. It’s whether we submit to Jesus as Lord. It’s whether we yield to the leadership of the Spirit. It’s about the gospel being realized in us as worship shapes us into the form of the God we worship. And so good gospel teaching should fit very nicely with instruction about worship. They should be two sides of the same coin.

    The problem we in the CoC have is our tendency to separate the rules of worship from the gospel, as though these are very different things. They are not.

    In fact, the fact that the “rules” regarding worship seem foreign to the gospel should warn us that we’ve imposed rules God does not impose.

    We should be asking people to “come to Jesus” first, the community comes secondary (“come to church”). As noted in prior discussions, legalistic churches have difficulty just talking about Jesus because they feel that conversion to church doctrine must be immediate as well. Jesus can always come first, teaching the “meat” can come second with time and prayer. The AC church I attend does not evangelize by shoving doctrine first, but with God’s love and grace through Jesus. If they’ve been to services and have history with Christianity, they may ask about AC and IM, but really the issue on the table remains whether to accept Christ or not

    Again, it’s a false dichotomy. WE err when we insist that there is the vast body of “doctrine” independent of the gospel. As I covered in the recent incomplete series on 1 Corinthians, when Paul is confronted with different doctrinal questions, he responds over and over by explaining how the gospel responds to the problem at hand.

    The assembly, sexual ethics, how we deal with sin in the congregation, etc. are all outworkings of the gospel well understood.

    That’s not to be said that worship cannot be a place that evangelism happens, but if worship becomes the only place evangelism happens then it removes personal responsibility to evangelize and puts pressure on staff and worship leaders and then it lets the outside crowd, not Christ or God, determine what occurs in worship because we’re playing to the outside world for the sake numbers.

    I entirely agree. But do we really want to have assemblies that make it harder to convert the lost? Shouldn’t they at least help?

    (1Co 14:24-25 ESV) 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

    The assembly should lead unbelievers to fall on their faces in worship of God — even though that is not the primary purpose of the assembly. Notice that Paul cautions the congregation against practices in the assembly that would make the church look bad to a visitor.

    (1Co 14:23 ESV) 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

    We can’t ignore the impact of how we behave in church on the unbelievers who visit. And we should expect visitors to be there. Yes, the assembly is primarily about the church itself and God, but the impact on the believer matters so much so that God was sure to include some passages on that very topic in the NT.

    And not to devalue your numbers and surveys, but they aren’t always a good indicator of healthy church.

    While I received some of this information in confidence, I can say that the surveys were taken by some of the healthiest congregations in the Churches of Christ. And I hardly see the relevance. The question posed dealt with the reaction of the LOST to the Church of Christ and its style of worship. The questions weren’t about a particular congregation: just what impact does AC music and the church name have on potential converts.

    I can’t count the number of times I’ve been asked, “Why should we change from our traditions when we don’t KNOW that we’ll draw a bigger crowd? What’s your evidence??”

    When I present evidence, I’m told, “Maybe this isn’t indicative of a healthy church” or “We shouldn’t be numbers driven.” Or whatever. If I present no evidence, then I’m a fool for making a decision without evidence. If I present evidence, then I’m wicked for daring to suggest that numbers matter. Or for assuming that all churches are the same. It seems that there is no argument that can be made other than to continue to pursue a strategy that is obviously failing.

    I hear “number-motivated” arguments from people all the time: “let’s merge with X congregation so we can have youth” or “let’s get back to the 50s or bus ministries because it brought numbers.” While these may have merit for growth, maybe it can be accomplished in better ways.

    What better ways? What the better answer? Where is the AC Church of Christ that is growing by converting the unchurched? If other methods are so effective, why are the Churches of Christ in rapid numerical decline?

    Also regarding numbers, Lakewood (Joel Osteen) has 40k+ members, but the draw is the prosperity Gospel, not Jesus’ gospel. If we tickle ears, people will come.

    Really? Is your argument that numbers don’t matter? That growth is likely evidence of worldliness?

    If there’s a better solution, what is it?

    I believe that Jesus’ words are still true —

    (Joh 4:35 ESV) 35 Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.

    (Mat 9:36-38 ESV) 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

    Joel Osteen is beside the point. Church growth does not have to be based on a false gospel. In fact, the true gospel is plenty good enough. We just need to return to it.

  27. tb says:

    Jay,

    Thank you for taking the time to respond once more. I’ll respond briefly.

    Your critique of the use of the Fathers is fair. I’m not arguing that we should adopt their practices, but I do think that the earliest documents (Apostolic Fathers esp.) can be useful for understanding the turn of the 1st – 2nd c. You’re correct that little to nothing is known about pre-70 synagogue worship (can’t use Rabbinics here). What we know is probably limited to the NT (Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25). My suspicion is that the reason worship-practice is not outlined in the NT explicitly is because there was an understood norm and it was a non-issue.

    Bread and wine/grape juice are commanded. While they are human produced, God expects use of them on Sundays. Pews, trays, buildings, are optional and sometimes a hinderance. Right worship does not require these things, but it does require assembly, our voices, and the bread/wine on Sunday.

    You raise a good point point about the false dichotomy regarding insider/outsider issues. I will think and pray on this for the future.

    The point with the prophecy passage (1 Cor 14:23–25) is about the secrets of an unbeliever being revealed by a prophet. As a result he worships God. I think you’re trying to say that if any practice is perceived negatively by outsiders then we should change it. The question is whether this is a principle that can be reapplied to a different category of worship like psalm-singing (cf. 14:26) or whether its dealing exclusively with the specific situation of assembly disruption via prophecy and tongues.

    Our assemblies should and can help convert the lost, but it does not have to be by means of IM. Engaging, biblically-based preaching, quality congregational singing, and the people themselves interacting with visitors can make a huge impact. I’ve visited the same 10,000+ member Christian Church twice before where no one spoke to me except the greeter. The music was top-notch, the lesson was excellent, but no one stopped to talk. If I indicated I wanted to place membership there, I have no doubt people would talk to me and engage me with small-group opportunities. I occasionally meet people in the community from this same church both former and present members who will say that they miss having a small church family (certainly at 10,000+ this is a concern). But this can occur at 500 member churches too. I’ve been a member of a CofC where the same teacher of the class didn’t know my name after a year and a half. In some cases, it really comes down to whether the people in the assembly can live-out the gospel before and after services by showing love and genuine concern. I would say our ability to live out the Gospel should be more of a goal than using IM as a crutch to accomplish the same purpose.

    Numbers indeed are important for God’s purposes. But God also works with small remnants of very faithful people (cf. Ezra-Nehemiah; 12 disciples, house-churches, etc). Rapid growth can be a false illusion. The very same crowd that Jesus had compassion on, he later in John would rebuke them for only desiring bread and not the food that leads to eternal life (Jn 6:26–27). As a result many of his disciples (not just the crowd) left Jesus (6:66) because of their focus on earthly things and not spiritual ones (6:28–66). There was a crowd at Pentecost, but one which was intentionally scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Numbers are important, but so are small groups of people living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t want to see the church decline, none of us do. But I think the reason the church is declining because people aren’t living out the Gospel and trusting God to provide the increase for us. Reversing this trend means revitalizing our congregations with Jesus and the Gospel. In some places it’s happening, and without IM.

  28. Dwight says:

    I would argue, and I think that I have scripture behind me, that most of the converting should be done outside of the assembly. This allows the assembly to not be an barrier or a reason, but rather Jesus Christ. We are not converting in the church to the church through the church. If this is done, then the IM question is not a factor, until the decide who they wish to assemble with and then it is their decision. We should leave our biases as the door of the converts house.
    In regards to the church fathers, I have heard many lessons that used them, but strangely this is the only place we use them, as we don’t mine them for information on baptism, etc. Many of the early CF believed in infant baptism, the very same CF that some use against IM. And we never confront the thought that they CF never use scriptures when they argue against IM. But it is OK since we can’t either. Silence reigns.
    Strangely God was completely silent on secular entertainment, as all singing was directed to God, so is it scriptural. Can we watch a movie that is secular? Can we even sing a secular song?

  29. Johnathon says:

    tb and Jay,
    Your discussion of the insider/outsider issues reminded me of something C.S. Lewis once wrote in the preface to Mere Christianity. Perhaps you will find it useful:

    In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.

Comments are closed.