Christian Unity

Recently I posted about where visitors to this blog are coming from. In a similar vein, I thought it would be interesting to investigate how people found this blog. There are three main ways: By a link on another blog, by a search engine, and from a bookmark. Since my counter shows me only the last 100 visits, here is that information broken down into those three ways.

1. Links on other blogs and sites. I think this is a function of where I’ve posted recently, and probably changes from time to time. Today, pinakidion takes home the prize. Anyway, here are the sites, with the number of references in my last 100 visitors in parentheses if more than one:

pinakidion.com,us (10)
nothingimportantto.us
restorationheritage.com
salguod.net (2)
clarkecomments.com (2)
theoccasionalopinion.blogspot.com (3)

2. Search engines (google and msn are the biggest sources). I’ll break these down generally by topic:

Something to do with unity

christian unity (5)
unity christian churches
unity christian church and church of christ
unity of members in church
unity in new testament
hymns about christians unity
what does complete unity look like
god commands unity

Famous restoration movement / church of Christ people

w.carl ketcherside (2)
daniel sommer (3)
daniel sommers declaration at sand creek
“new testament” constitution campbell
impact at lipscomb brooks avenue
andre resner

Hermeneutics

restoration hermeneutics
hermeneutics- examples
necessary inference
ceni necessary inference
making rules where scripture is silent

Miscellaneous church of Christ related topics

bible only
restoration of new testament christianity
a capella hymns church of christ
communion format biblical basis
“church of christ” “no place like home”
“church of christ” sermon “wizard of oz”
scriptures on stumbling block
“north atlanta church of christ”
apostolic review

Other churches or generic Christianity topics

christianity tired of walking alone groups (2)
churches christian sault sainte marie ontario
do aog’s believe once saved always saved
the rules of worship
cs lewis 1 corinthans 7
god will do the right thing

Miscellaneous

unity sand (2)
christian illustration

3. For the remainder, there is no referrer information available. That could be because the visitor’s browser is suppressing the information that the counter uses to track the referrer. Or it could be that they came here directly from a bookmark.

I think some regular visitors originally found this site by accident, and continue to come back here using the same search terms. Often it is obvious a person wasn’t really looking for this site (“unity sand”) but when they saw the site in the search result, they found the topic interesting enough to click, and sometimes spent quite a while reading.

Based on the search terms, quite a few of these folks were actually looking for information related to the ongoing topic of this blog. Even for those who were looking for something completely unrelated, it seems that the abbreviated subject information returned by the search engine was interesting enough to cause them to click. I take that as a positive indicator that people care about Christian unity, even when they have something else on their minds. At least I hope that is the case.

Interesting to ponder anyway.

Thanks to Phil Spadaro for pointing to recent articles from the Christian Chronicle about varying perspectives on the recent unity discussions that have occurred at several lectureships. It is clear that many Christians welcome the renewed dialog between a cappella churches of Christ and the instrumental Christian churches. And it is equally clear that many are not pleased with these developments.

One of the Christian Chronicle articles presents an interview with a minister named Alan Highers articulating the a cappella position. Highers considers it impossible for the two sides to come to unity as long as one side continues to worship with instruments. He points out that the churches of Christ “have been trained to seek book, chapter and verse,” and that they will not accept a practice that is not authorized in scripture. He correctly points out that there are thousands within his family of churches who cannot conscientiously worship with instruments. And he sees the current dialog as neglecting the key issue that prevents unity.

Highers raises the question as to whether instrumental music in worship is sin. Clearly it is sin for those who believe as he does (Rom 14:23) I do not expect, nor even intend, to change the minds of those who believe it to be sin. If there were some of that persuasion in my local congregation, I believe we would be obligated to accomodate their consciences by refraining from using instruments. (Rom 14:15, Rom 14:21)

But I believe their conviction relies upon flawed human reasoning. I believe the requirement for “authorization” (ie, the belief that the silence of the scriptures is prohibitive) is based on faulty exegesis of passages that actually teach against rules such as prohibiting instruments. (I previously blogged on this topic.)

I believe those who hold that silence prohibits are inconsistent in their application of their rule. They permit some practices as expedients, even though they are not authorized in scripture. They sing in harmony, using song books, without any scriptural authorization. They meet in a church building owned by the church, purchased with funds contributed as an act of worship, again without scriptural authorization. Many of them take communion using individual cups, without scriptural authorization. All of these practices are considered expedients and therefore are permitted. But (apparently arbitrarily) they refuse to classify instrumental music as an expedient. I have not yet heard a reasonable (not to mention biblical) explanation showing the difference between instrumental music and the other items mentioned.

The important point here is that, whatever rule is used to distinguish permissible expedients from things prohibited by silence, the application of that rule would require human judgment. Therefore such a rule must not be used to draw lines of fellowship. (See earlier articles here and here for my earlier comments about Thomas Campbell’s propositions on this topic.) Inherently, these issues are disputable matters. And we have a very clear command on how to handle those things. (Rom 14:1, Rom 14:22) Those issues must not be permitted to stand in the way of unity. Why do we fail to obey these clear commands, and instead attempt to bind our own fallible inferences?

In the Christian Chronicle article, Highers asked:

What kind of unity would it be if people who claimed to be united could not even worship together?

The solution to that apparent dilemma is for the instruments to be left out when the two groups are together, and for both groups to embrace one another without passing judgment on disputable matters. Surely that would be a greater degree of unity than we have today.

I have on my desk a disturbing letter from a brother in another city. He describes a congregation torn by disunity. It is a familiar story about Conservatives who hold to the ancient paths, and Liberals who feel they have freedom in Christ. They differ on many familiar topics. The Conservatives question the validity of the conversions of many of the Liberals. And the Liberals refuse to comply with the teachings of the Conservatives.

What is most interesting about this situation is the way the leaders have behaved. One, a well-known Conservative, has shown some openness to accepting the Liberals, though publicly he generally refrained from taking sides. He feared that many were not ready for the issue to be addressed head-on, and that doing so would risk more division. Another preacher, a leading Liberal, has insisted that the matter be settled once and for all, and has shown no interest in compromise. He even stood up publicly and attacked the Conservative leader, and now has distributed an open letter rebuking the Conservative and promoting the Liberal position. Quoting from the open letter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

The congregation was in Antioch. The Conservatives (Jews) were holding to the ancient paths of circumcision and the other Jewish customs. The Liberals (Gentiles) were not. The two leaders, Peter and Paul, were taking different approaches to the controversy. One was right and one was wrong.

Why was the Conservative leader (Peter) clearly in the wrong? What was his hypocrisy? It was that he believed that the Gentiles were fully Christian, but he was afraid to stand up for them publicly. His fear kept him from acting on his convictions. That was not “acting in line with the truth of the Gospel.” For that, the Liberal leader (Paul) rebuked him publicly, and wrote an open letter about it, so that we are still discussing the situation nearly 2000 years later.

The same type of conflict occurs in today’s church. The issues have changed. There are walls between Christians due to these issues. Many believe that some of those walls need to come down. But many leaders who believe this are afraid to take a stand. Instead, they try to placate both sides without calling for change. They are walking in Peter’s hypocrisy. The question each of us should ask is, am I acting in line with the truth of the Gospel? Am I more like Peter or Paul in these situations?

It is true that we should just let some issues alone (Rom 14:22). But when it comes to accepting a brother, we must not be silent. Love is the greatest command, and it trumps all other rationales. The issues at hand do not justify failure to accept a brother. We must speak out. If we do not, we are walking in Peter’s hypocrisy, and fall under Paul’s rebuke.

At some point, some people will stand up and rebuke the hypocritical leaders publicly. They might write open letters. They might even name names. Preferably, all that won’t be necessary. Maybe instead, we will all learn to embrace our brothers even when they disagree with us on some things. Let’s pray for that!

In the words of Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, “There’s no place like home!”

That’s not to say we didn’t thoroughly enjoy our trip. Actually, we took two trips–one to the mountains, and one to visit a church in the Triangle area of NC.

My wife and I spent six days in the Appalachian foothills of South Carolina, walking mountain trails to about ten different waterfalls and taking in some magnificent scenery. We encountered a variety of wildlife (various snakes, lizards, a blue heron, hawks, vultures, miscellaneous other birds, squirrels, something like a weasel or river otter, but — surprisingly — no deer). That’s my idea of a great vacation!

On the first weekend, we visited a mainline church of Christ in a small town in the area. There was a good age distribution in the congregation, though there were more over-60 folks than I am used to seeing. The attendance was a little over 100. The congregation has four elders and is in the process of appointing a fifth (a couple of the elders are facing some health issues). Singing was a cappella, consisting of familiar old church hymns. We like that. The preacher was young, in his late 20’s. He preached a good sermon on 1 Cor 10:13. After service, one of their zones hosted a covered dish lunch for visitors, which we enjoyed very much.

On Thursday we returned home for our own congregation’s midweek service, joined up with the other elder and his wife, and travelled Friday to the Triangle area of NC to visit with the elders of the Triangle Church, a congregation that shares the same recent history and heritage as our own. We stayed with one of their deacons, a family that has been best friends of ours for 25 years. On Saturday we spent many hours visiting and talking with their elders and one of their ministers. It was very obvious that our two congregations have a tremendous amount in common, both in our strengths and in our weaknesses. We exchanged thoughts and approaches to address the needs in our two congregations.

On the second Sunday we attended the service of the west region of the Triangle church. Like the congregation we visited the previous week, the singing was a cappella. But this time it was a mixture of old hymns and more contemporary songs. The sermon was interactive, with a roving microphone being passed to individuals in the congregation who wished to share a scripture or a thought on the subject. The topic was an introspective look at worship and connecting with God. Overall the flavor of the service was more “post-modern” than the previous week. But it was deeply spiritual.

Returning home, we were very tired, but it was a “good tired.” That is typical of my vacations. I’m really haven’t figured out how to have a restful vacation! So it’s good to be home.

P.S. I’ll be very busy for the next three weeks as I prepare for taking the CISSP certification exam. Please pray for me!

It’s time for this blogger to take a vacation! So I’ll be away from my computer for awhile. During that time my wife and I plan to hike a few mountain trails (mainly the level ones!), take in some great scenery, and relax. We plan to visit a church this weekend from another branch of the Restoration Movement (location TBD). The following weekend, if final details can be worked out, we’ll be visiting with the elders of the Triangle congregation in North Carolina, to enjoy a small reunion, to encourage one another, and to share experiences. The other elder from my home congregation and his wife plan to meet us there for the weekend. Hopefully this will be a time of growth as we all learn from one another’s experiences.

I’ll be posting on the blog again in about two weeks. “See you then!”

Recently I ran across an amazing quote from Alexander Campbell, taken from “Debate on Human Creeds” between Campbell and his Presbyterian opponent, N. L. Rice.

It is not the object of our efforts to make men think alike on a thousand themes. Let men think as they please on any matters of human opinion, and upon ‘doctrines of religion,’ provided only they hold the head Christ, and keep his commandments. I have learned, not only the theory, but the fact, that if you wish opinionism to cease or subside, you must not call up and debate every thing that men think or say. You may debate anything into consequence, or you may, by a dignified silence, waste it into oblivion. I have known innumerable instances of persons outliving their opinions, and erroneous reasonings, and even sometimes forgetting the modes of reasoning by which they had embraced or sustained them. This was the natural result of the philosopy of letting them alone. In this way, they came to be of one mind in all points in which unity of thought is desirable, in order to unity of worship and of action.

About a century later, W. Carl Ketcherside quoted the above statement in a Mission Messenger article, describing it as “one of the most significant statements I have ever read.” (Thanks to Phil at restorationunity.com for pointing out to another great article at the Christian Standard where I first found this quote).

Anyone who has read this blog for very long knows that I frequently appeal to 2 Tim 2:24-26 as an important divine instruction for addressing disagreements in the church. I think the above comment from Campbell illustrates very well the wisdom behind Paul’s admonition to Timothy and to the rest of us. Rather than debating every point, and arrogantly demanding that all submit to our views, we need to be patient with one another while God works to bring us to unity.

I continue to be fascinated and deeply encouraged to find that this was the mindset of the founders of the Restoration Movement. Let’s return to those roots!

There is an encouraging article at the Christian Standard about unity efforts in Lubbock, Texas. Quoting from the article:

I know from this experience it is possible to be united in spite of our differences. Such unity does not require the sacrifice of any honest convictions. We at Quaker Avenue are still a non-Sunday school church. And while we are cooperating with the Christian churches in town, we are still an a cappella congregation.

It is true we don’t make the same harsh, legalistic arguments against our brethren on these issues, but loving them does not mean capitulation. We are united in Christ, on the great facts of the gospel, while remaining free to study and interpret the Scripture and its implications for ourselves, as a free congregation in Christ.

It’s great to hear that others are beating the same drum… and are actually doing something about it!

From time to time I have conversations with people who used to be part of the churches of Christ, but have left due to the perceived legalistic approach to the scriptures. Often these folks have renounced the belief that baptism is necessary in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. Emotions on the subject run deep, and are often a significant obstacle to progress toward reconciliation and unity.

It is not my purpose in writing this to defend my beliefs about conversion. But to avoid confusion I want to be clear that I do believe the scriptures teach that God grants forgiveness at baptism. I base this upon the usual passages (there are many), especially Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. I grew up in an independent “free will” Baptist church where the teaching was not incompatible with this belief, but I became convinced of it in college through the campus ministry of a church of Christ. Since then, thirty years of Bible study have ony reinforced that belief. And thirty years of studying the Bible with my friends have shown me that many others are equally convinced of the opposing belief.

These opposing views appear to be an impregnable wall preventing unity. Each side presents a caricature of the other side’s views, portraying their opponents as ridiculously dishonest with the scriptures. Instead of showing respect for one another, and seeking areas of agreement, both sides exhibit a preference for disputing and quarrelling. We appear to love the fight more than we love peace.

Both sides cannot be right. The two positions are mutually exclusive. But it is quite possible that neither side is exactly right. There might be some truth to be learned from both points of view. That statement may raise the blood pressure of the “true believers” on both sides of the issue, those who do not want to give an inch to those they consider their adversaries. To many people, in order to feel resolved in their own minds, everything needs to be clear-cut, black and white. They must find a definitive answer to every question. That is not the kind of world God has created. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we do not understand everything in the scriptures. (If you truly understand every passage on baptism, please explain 1 Cor 15:29 to me!) It takes humility and faith to admit we don’t know something. Humility is required because not knowing everything means we are fallible. Faith is required because we must rely on God to accept us despite our failures. Some things are beyond our control. We don’t know it all.

If we could be humble and have that kind of faith, I think we could find significant common ground on the issue of baptism. Hopefully most people on both sides of the question could agree on what is stated verbatim in scripture. Could a Baptist quote Acts 2:38-39 as an invitation, without caveats, as Peter did? If not, why not? Could a church of Christ preacher quote Rom 10:9-10 in instructions to a church, as Paul did, without going into disputes about conversion? Can we just let the scriptures speak for themselves?

It is what we infer and deduce based on scripture that gets us into trouble. It is not surprising that people draw differing conclusions from what is written in scripture. God knows what we are made of. He could have presented things in a way that we could not mistake. I t was not an accident that he gave us the scriptures in the way he did. I believe he gave us the scriptures in a way that requires us to ponder, to digest, to work at understanding. I think God wants us to experience lifelong learning. To continue to learn throughout your life requires great humility. Pride is the enemy of learning. When we draw our conclusions from scripture, pride causes us to love our conclusions and inferences as much as the scriptures themselves. We confuse the two, because of our pride.

We (both sides) have drawn lines of fellowship based on what we infer from the scriptures, as if our inferences were infallible, the very Word of God. Let’s resolve not to do that any longer. Let’s unite on the scriptures, and the scriptures alone. If we’ll do that, I believe the Holy Spirit will bring us to the unity for which Jesus prayed.

A recent post at restorationheritage.com led me to an interesting article by Joe Beam titled “What’s Happening to Churches of Christ?” The article is a few years old but describes dynamics that are likely to persist for some time. He describes a framework for understanding the various points of view within these churches, which is worthy of our attention.

He describes four types of churches, made up of six types of people. These types (churches and people) range from very inclusive to very exclusive in their view of people outside their type.

Starting from the most inclusive (left) and moving to the most exclusive (right), the four groups of churches are: Left Wing, Innovative, Traditional, and Right Wing.

Similarly, the six groups of members are: Exasperated, Open, Cautious, Searching, Satisfied, and Zealots.

For a more detailed description of the groups and their relationships, see the original article.

Reading Joe Beam’s article, I cannot help but be reminded of the Sand Creek Address and Declaration. In the Zealot group we have a group of very conservative Christians with a very exclusive view of the “true church” and “ancient paths”, much like Daniel Sommer and his followers in 1889. The article suggests that the Zealots sometimes celebrate when the Exasperateds leave their fellowship. That also carries the haunting echos of Daniel Sommer in the immediate aftermath of the Sand Creek event.

Then in the Exasperated group we have a group that is, well, exasperated with the narrow views of the Zealots. And you have several grades of people in-between who would like to hold things together but are finding that to be increasingly difficult–much like David Lipscomb and others who wanted to find an alternative to division 117 years ago. It seems likely that the two extremes will part company, in one way or another. It remains to be seen whether the middle can hold together, and if so, what it will look like on the other side.

I see similar factors at work in the former ICOC congregations, though from where I sit it seems that these churches are not in the same degree of crisis as the “churches of Christ” now face.

Given my strong convictions about Christian Unity, I find this whole situation very distressing. As Daniel Sommer later said after his change of heart, in the proposal known as the Rough Draft, “Can’t we all agree on something?” Specifically, once God has adopted someone as his son, he becomes a brother to all the other sons God has adopted. It has nothing to do with how many correct doctrinal positions he holds, nor with how many of the “ancient paths” he has understood correctly. He may be wrong about many things. But he is a brother to everyone who has been adopted by God. It is not our responsibility, nor our right, to attempt to purify the church by division. That is as true for the Exasperateds as for the Zealots.

Let’s learn the lessons of history. We’ve seen this movie before.

A quick search of the blogsphere will demonstrate that there are conflicting views about what Christian unity ought to be. Some are eagerly pursuing unity with everyone who claims to be Christian. Others are distressed by this, arguing that unity which God approves cannot overlook errors in doctrine. Some are making great efforts to forge unity with other groups. Others say that unity cannot be created through human effort, but must be created by God. Some consider the pursuit of unity to be the top priority for Christians today. Others speak of the “unity cult,” alleging that those pursuing unity comprise yet one more faction in the church.

Let’s look at some scriptures.

Gal 3:26-27
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

What makes us one in Christ is that we were all adopted as God’s sons by faith at the time we were baptized. That is the common denominator upon which biblical unity is built. We are brothers because God adopted us as sons. Those are the people with whom we should have unity.

John 17:20-23
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Jesus prayed for his followers to be one, to be “brought to complete unity” (KJV “may be made perfect in one”). This was his prayer to God, so obviously God has a decisive role in bringing it about. But he didn’t say “Father, make them perfect in one.” Rather he asked that they “be made perfect in one.” So it sounds like there is a third party involved. Who might that be? The scriptures give us the answer.

Eph 4:11-13
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Paul makes it clear that unity does depend in some measure upon the labor of the shepherds, teachers, and others who work to build up the body of Christ. Through their work the church becomes prepared for works of service. These are the things that enable the members of the church to “reach unity in the faith…”

Note also that the church doesn’t start out with unity in the faith. It has to be brought to that point, in a process that takes time (“until we all reach…”). The expectation was that the Christians would live peacefully together despite their differences, as they go through the process that would bring them to complete unity. So peace should precede unity, and should lead us to unity as the various parts of the church perform their God-given roles.

The first step toward unity is peace. We should be peacemakers (Matt 5:9). We should seek peace and pursue it (1 Pet 3:11, Psalm 34:14). Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness (James 3:18).

Where I’ve experienced unity, it has been a beautiful thing. But the process that brings us from disunity to unity can be unnerving, frightening, even painful at times. It takes us from an area where we are comfortable, to another place that is previously unknown to us. Like Abraham, we are called to leave our home and travel to a land that God will show us later. That takes great faith.

So in the interest of unity, let’s be peacemakers. Let’s be patient with those who are fearful of the journey. And let’s not put obstacles in one another’s path as we seek to reach unity.