Cedar Park Church Of Christ


 

Special Studies

WHY CHURCHES OF CHRIST ARE FACED WITH THE CURRENT DIGRESSION

by Jim R. Everett

HERE WE ARE!!!

  1. It is becoming increasingly apparent to the some Christians who are identified with institutional churches of Christ, that something is wrong.

    1. Modernistic, liberal practices which obviously have no scriptural authority have become the norm and no longer the exception. They wonder how such "liberal" trends are being promoted and accepted by their leaders with such little resistance.

    2. The churches with which they are affiliated are essentially different in their approach to scripture, their practices, and their lack of uniqueness in the religious world.

    3. What happened to the church they once knew?

    4. Comparatively speaking, it is like going on a trip but arriving hundreds of miles from your destination, and then retracing steps to see where the wrong road was taken.

  2. "HERE WE ARE!!!" -- There is a commonality of modernism in which institutional churches can be broadly embraced.

    1. There is a growing acceptance of instrumental music in worship.

    2. Women are helping to serve the Lord's Supper, helping in leading singing, teaching Bible classes composed of men and women, etc. (How long before women preachers and elders? Why not?)

    3. Social programs abound under the auspices of the congregation -- kindergartens, mother's day out, psychological counseling, marriage counseling, singles groups, recreational facilities, sponsorship of league sports, etc.

    4. Members are accepted into fellowship who were baptized with "denominational baptism," which essentially takes issue with the gospel plan of salvation.

    5. Their belief about the working of the Holy Spirit in conversion and intervening in personal living is that of denominations. It is a mystical, better-felt-than-told experience with claims for direct Holy Spirit guidance.

    6. If not always an outright approval of social drinking and adulterous marriages, they, at least, do not take a stand against them.

    7. Pulpits have been exchanged with denominational preachers.

    8. Digression has been so drastic that in some of these institutional churches, no thought is given to whether or not scripture authorizes a practice. They don't even think in those terms, for they do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the scripture.

    9. What you see today IS A DENOMINATION. It is admitted by some.

      • "Through the process of modernization and the development of various parachurch institutions, the Church of Christ was no longer a sect, much less an informal movement; it had become instead a full-blown denomination, at least in terms of its social standing in the context of American culture. This was the issue to which leaders in the anti-institutional movement had pointed all along.

      • "In spite of all this, however, most leaders of mainstream Churches of Christ never fully comprehended the issues that the anti-institutional people sought to raise. They remained convinced, in spite of all their concession to modernization that Churches of Christ persisted unscathed as the twentieth-century embodiment of primitive, nondenominational Christianity," (Reviving the Ancient Faith, The Story of Churches of Christ in American, by Richard T. Hughes, p. 252).

    10. There is a full blown apostasy today which began with some very small departures. There is little comfort in reminding brethren that they warned many years ago of the results of the roads they were taking.

  3. SOME OF THEM ASK, "HOW DID WE GET HERE?"

    1. A look at the past will give some answers to their perplexity.

    2. I am approaching this presentation by starting at the current destination of institutional churches and tracing back through the past to find the cause of the digression, for the following reason.

      1. In the early controversy about these issues, some brethren found it impossible to get over the prejudicial appeal of poor, starving orphans.

      2. Furthermore,the hateful, unjust labeling of those who opposed church supported institutions as "anti-orphans" or "orphan haters," clouded the issue with emotionalism to such a degree that objective thinking became impossible.

      3. To a lesser degree, the same kind of prejudice still exists and that makes objectivity difficult; however, if we can see the gradual process from the extreme end back to its seemingly innocent beginning, we can avoid the prejudicial appeals and make sound scriptural decisions.

TO GET "HERE" FROM "THERE," YOU MUST APPROACH SCRIPTURE DIFFERENTLY.

  1. Have you ever wondered how and why Rubel Shelly, Randall Harris and others came up with a new hermeneutic?

    1. Liberal minded brethren could not get where they wanted to go with a "book-chapter-and verse-commands-examples-and necessary implications" hermeneutic.THEY REALIZED THERE WAS A GROSS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THEIR PRACTICES AND THEIR HERMENEUTIC.

    2. They could simply change the parts of the Bible that did not fit what they were doing and where they going -- liberal, denominational theologians do that without batting an eye but they do it with an hermeneutic composed of church tradition, H.S. guidance and noted theological interpretations -- a denial of the very verbal inspiration of scripture. But, that approach would cause a general uprising of the more conservative members.

    3. Shelly admitted that non-institutional churches applied the "old hermeneutic" more consistently than did the institutional, liberal churches. But he found the old hermeneutic too restrictive and his practices inconsistent with what he was supposed to believe.

    4. Not all "institituional" churches have accepted the new, alternative hermeneutic.

      1. Some continue to wrestle with their inconsistencies -- claiming to give book, chapter and verse, clinging to cliches stemming from so-called "restoration principles," trying to maintain party lines. Their loyalty is to a "Church of Christ Denomination." They are reluctant to accept the new modernism, because of traditional "Church of Christ" ancestry.

      2. It is possible that some are aware of their inconsistencies but do not see it as a big deal -- just differences of opinions. Modernistic practices make them uncomfortable but for the wrong reasons.

      3. Others may be aware of the inconsistencies between what their congregation practices and the scripture's say but do not know what to do about them. We can encourage them by offering a viable alternative to their dilemma.

"GRACE-FELLOWSHIP" APPROACH

  1. Predating the "new hermeneutic" approach but also running concurrent with it was a continual, developing concept that God's grace covers all men who believe in Jesus, regardless of what they may believe and practice. If such believers are in fellowship with God, then we ought also to fellowship them.

    1. That approach was found in institutional churches, though it may not have been expressed in what we have come to know as "grace-fellowship," or "gospel-doctrine" distinction.

    2. That kind of thinking gave rise to cliches like, "Preach the Man and Not the Plan" which was echoed from Abilene. It also seemed to be the kind of reasoning that produced arguments like those made by J.B. Thomas in "We Be Brethren" -- all differences that existed should be overlooked, because we are to love our brethren.

    3. Our exposure to that kind of reasoning is, perhaps, more identifiable with Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett who crystallized the thinking by a "gospel-doctrine" distinction as a basis for resolving the division that existed between institutional and non-institutional churches. However, the "gospel-doctrine" distinction did not stop with an application to churches of Christ. It also found application to embracing in fellowship groups of the Christian Church who still preached the gospel plan of salvation but worshipped with instrumental music and supported their own institutions.

      1. "Grace-fellowship" thinking maintained that differences that exist in matters of "doctrine" should be considered as inconsequential, because we are all united by the gospel in Christ.

      2. They taught that Christians not only do not agree on doctrinal matters but they cannot agree; therefore, doctrinal matters should not be the basis for determining fellowship in Christ.

      3. They further affirmed that since fellowship in Christ is based on our oneness resulting from the gospel message, all who have embraced that gospel are our brethren regardless of what they believe and practice doctrinally. For awhile, baptism was still accepted as a necessary prerequisite to fellowship but that barrier began to be broken down with the "brethren in prospect" label for unbaptized believers.

    4. That kind of thinking began to break down the unique distinction between God's people and the religious world.

      1. To these people, the distinctiveness of the church of Christ in comparison to denominationalism was an "eliteness" prompted by a Pharisaical party allegiance and they came view the church of Christ just as a denomination among denominations.

      2. Why then should there be this great chasm, this division between us and our devout religious neighbors? This was an echo of the sentiment expressed by denominational friends -- "We are all going to heaven -- just traveling different roads."

      3. The prejudicial accusation some would like to avoid, "You believe that you are the only ones going to heaven," has its origin in the recognition by denominations of the difference between the church of Christ and denominations. They believe that there Christians in all the churches and are, therefore, appalled by what they view as a "Church of Christ party spirit."

      4. Consistently, from that line of reasoning, the institutional "Church of Christ" should consider itself to be a denomination among denominations and fellowship all other religions.

    5. If the church of Christ is the best of denominations, the one nearest the scripture, but just a denomination among denominations, then the uniqueness of the church of Christ needs destroying and the barriers need tearing down.

    6. However, that is not the scriptural concept of people who are trying to be Christians, following the N.T. pattern as Christ and His apostles established it.

    7. "Grace-Fellowship" kind of reasoning affected three primary things that make Christ's church distinctive:

      1. First, the organization and work of the church -- that is doctrine about the distinctiveness of the church in structure and function.

      2. Second, the worship of the church -- that is doctrine about the uniqueness of the church in its respect for how God wants to be worshipped.

      3. Third, the simple gospel plan of salvation -- this is also "doctrine" about the conditions of salvation as required by the authority of scripture.

      4. THE PATTERN HAS BEEN TO DIGRESS FROM THE SCRIPTURAL ORGANIZATION AND WORK OF THE CHURCH, THEN TO PROCEED TO THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH AND FINALLY TO PERVERT THE GOSPEL ITSELF. All of which has an effect on the uniqueness of the church and the individual lives of disciples in their character and lives.

    8. There is a direct relationship between what is believed and what is lived -- sound moral lives come from sound doctrine; conversely, false doctrine will inevitably produce moral laxness.

    9. The end result of broadening the base for fellowship in Christ was the loss of the distinctiveness of the church of Christ.

    10. The wrong road had been taken many years before and the journey was reaching a different destination.

TAKING THE WRONG ROAD

  1. It is what I call one "TINY-GIANT" detour. In taking a trip, if you take the wrong road, the further you go, the more off course you will be -- just a few months after getting married Margaret and I took a wrong turn in San Antonio and ended up in Bandera, when we were on the way to Burnet. When we made the wrong turn, we were only one block from the right road!!!

    1. INNOCENT, WELL MEANING? PERHAPS! BUT A DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH WHICH LED TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.

      1. Once the road had been taken and the precedent set for congregations practicing things which were not their authorized work, there was no scriptural restraint for anything members could remotely justify by human rationalization.

      2. The church supported orphan's home issue was the driving wedge of the massing thrust for the college in the church budget. But it didn't stop there. The issue about the Orphan's home has never been about taking care of orphans. It has been about congregations financing any kind of human institutions, whether it be for benevolence, edification, or evangelism. There is no scriptural authority for congregations financing Orphan's homes.

      3. In 1964 Batsell Barrett Baxter wrote a tract defending the college in the church budget. He said of the college and orphan's home -- "Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphan's home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphan's home and the Christian school must stand or fall together," (Questions and Issues of the Day, p. 29).

    2. In 1945, following WWII, there was a great "missionary spirit". Men had come home from the war who had been exposed to the world of unbelievers and they were strongly moved to reach those people with the gospel.

      1. In order to accomplish that, it was believed that independent congregations working with their own resources could not evangelize effectively -- I might remind you, that was the same concept which first promoted the concept of a Missionary Society in the middle 1800's.

      2. To evangelize the world, the sponsoring church arrangement was concocted by which brotherhood churches could send resources to one big church which would oversee the work in a particular area.

      3. Sponsoring churches sprang up everywhere.

      4. The sponsoring church was nothing more than an attempt to work churches together in an nauthorized combining arrangement (Note "If I Be Lifted Up" by Batsell Barrett Baxter with preface about the Lubbock Bible Forum's arrangement).

      5. It was concocted originally in order to give semblance to maintaining proper church organization while trying to avoid the label of being a "missionary society."

      6. You see, brethren years ago knew the "Missionary Society" was wrong, though they might not have known why it was wrong.

      7. The "sponsoring church" arrangement mouths "local autonomy" while practicing one congregational oversight essential to combined efforts.

      8. It is not just a congregation doing its own work with elders "tending the flock of God among them," (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

    3. Social programs, entertainment, recreation, etc. were first defended as a MEANS of being able to reach lost souls.

    4. There were some arguments made in the 30's, 40's and 50's to justify unauthorized practices which have been pursued to their logical conclusions. The modernism in churches of Christ today did not just accidentally happen -- it is the result of unscriptural concepts and unauthorized practices which opened the flood gates for all kinds of modernistic, liberal practices.

    5. Some of the arguments which were common during these years are the basis for all kinds of modernism. The following is a sample:

      1. "Whatever the individual can do the church can do." "There is no difference between the church and the individual."

      2. "There are many things we do for which we have no Bible authority."

      3. "If you can do this, then you can do that." This was a common procedure in arguing for congregational support of colleges, hospitals, etc., based upon the accepted practice of congregational support for orphans' homes.

      4. "Where There Is No Pattern," by Clay Pullias. If there is no pattern, then certainly no one should object to anything churches wished to do -- all church supported institutions and combined efforts would be scriptural methods, because the N.T. simply laid down no information for how churches were to work and what they were supposed to do.

    6. True churches of Christ have always echoed the sentiment -- "We speak where the bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent."

      1. We are a "book, chapter and verse" people, because we know that we are to do all things by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17).

      2. We approach the Bible with respect for how to establish what is authoritative -- in a way common to all authoritative language -- direct statements, examples and necessary implications. There is no other way to know what is right in Heaven's view. If you depart from that base, there is no logical stopping place short of becoming a denomination like other denominations.

LOOK AT THE SEQUENCE FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.

  1. Brethren began building institutional, benevolent homes and asking congregations to support them.

    1. Remember that, historically, such homes had not always existed nor been supported by congregations -- the first benevolent institution operated by churches of Christ was opened on Sept. 5, 1910, in Columbia, Tenn. called "Tennessee Orphan Home."

    2. Remember also that the issue was never about whether or not orphans should be cared for. The issue was whether or not congregations could build and maintain such institutions.

  2. The first thrust to get so-called "Christian Colleges" supported by congregations met with strong resistance, because most did not believe that congregational support for educational institutions was the work of congregations.

    1. But all institutions -- benevolent, educational or evangelistic -- stand or fall together.

    2. Some brethren in the 40's, 50's and 60's understood that clearly and began to build and support all kinds of institutions to be supported by churches. Others could not see that and fervently defended benevolent institutions, while denying the right of other institutions to receive assistance from the congregations' treasuries. To them the difference in the institutions was that the benevolent institutions were somewhat innocuous but other institution were threatening and dangerous.

    3. It was obvious that serious division existed among congregations. Discussions, debates, and exchanges of ideas not only were not helping to heal the division, they were actually driving brethren farther apart, because they were crystallizing very specific concepts about approaches made to apply the Bible to our problems.

    4. As far as the "main stream," institutional churches were concerned, there was no possible econciliation and in 1954, B.C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, called for a "quarantine" of all anti-institutional brethren.

    5. If the differences could not be resolved so that both segments could agree and work together, then another system of thinking would have to be instituted.

      1. Along came the "grace-fellowship" movement that approached the problem differently. It sought to resolve the problem by saying that we cannot agree on doctrinal things but that does not matter. After all, we are all one in Christ by the gospel.

      2. The gospel-doctrine was an arbitrary, non-biblical distinction but that kind of thinking had its natural consequences -- it broadened the base for determining fellowship in Christ.

        1. For instance, if doctrine about the work of the church does not matter, then why does doctrine about the worship or organization of the church matter?

        2. And, if those things do not matter, then why have we been telling our devout, religious neighbors that they are worshipping unscripturally when they use instrumental music?

        3. The undenominational uniqueness of the church of Christ fell into further disarray.

    6. Though the implications of that kind of thinking were being realized, most still held to the "book-chapter-verse-command-example-necessary implication" hermeneutic.

      1. Time moved from the 70's through the 80's and to the 90's. Humanism, the feminist movement and liberal politics were causing some very drastic changes in our culture.

      2. The so-called "liberated woman" was clamoring for equal rights in leadership rolls with men in religious circles.

      3. Institutional churches of Christ, composed of people who had been conditioned to think more liberally, were really having a problem with this.

        1. The one thing that kept restraining a broadening roll for women taking the lead was a hermeneutic of "command-example-necessary implication."

        2. Women taking the lead over men could not be justified with that hermeneutic. (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 3:1-ff; 1 Cor. 11:3).

        3. It was not startling, then, that Rubel Shelly and company composed another "hermeneutic" to accommodate the times. They sought to replace what they considered to be an outdated, restrictive hermeneutic of "book-chapter-verse-command-example-necessary implication" with one that determines practice based on how it filters through the person and character of Christ. Shelly admitted that "institutional" churches had been inconsistently applying the old hermeneutic and that "non-institutional" churches had done a better job at applying it.

    7. Abandoning the "Command-example-necessary implication" hermeneutic tore down the last bastion and opened the flood gate for ultra modernism. What is being realized today, is the final product of a gradual process of departure that started back in the 30's, 40's and 50's. It was a departure from sound, Biblical principles of establishing Bible authority for every religious practice by those who sought to justify church support for "our institutions." Institutionalism has been the curse of God's people.

FROM HERE, WHERE?

  1. They are HERE -- THEY ARE A DENOMINATION -- that is obvious to many Christians who have seen their congregations change.

  2. If they continue in the same direction, these churches of Christ, in a short time, will be more liberal than some main line denominations -- that is inevitable.

    1. We have explained HOW and WHY they got there.

  3. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? TWO CHOICES:

    1. Stay on the same road? It takes you further and further away from the scripture and more and more into denominationalism.

      1. There is only a remote possibility that change in those congregations can be affected by concerned members working in that relationship.

      2. Don't be lost because of loyalty to a building and fond memories of what used to be.

    2. SEEK THE OLD PATHS -- not customs and traditions in "restoration roots" of American in the middle 1800's, but the old paths of a desire for Heaven's approval for all we do religiously -- back to the Bible.

      1. Let the church be the church -- a spiritual relationship of saved people involved in the spiritual work of saving souls, worshipping God, and preparing for heaven.

      2. The uniqueness of the church of Christ has always been its undenominational nature -- Christians throughout the world in a fellowship of autonomous, independent congregations each with its own God-given, scriptural organization, doing its own work.

  4. The tendency has always been for Christians to want to become more like their religious friends and compromise rather than maintaining that unique distinctiveness. But we are to be as unique as first century congregations were in the midst of Judaism and pagan idolatry.

Click here to send an e-mail to Jim R. Everett: corresp@cedarparkchurchofchrist.org


 

Created on 29-Mar-99

Page last updated