"Some Still Shoot Straight"

I received a recent publication from First Christian Church in Canton, OH. It was interesting to me that the church has instituted a "baptism night" rather than immersing respondents the "same hour." An article telling about "baptism night" was pretty vague and generic causing me some concern for a congregation I grew to love during almost eight years of ministry.

I sent a quick e-mail to John Hampton expressing my concern and asking him if the church had changed their position on baptism for remission of sins. Not only did I get an immediate answer, I got a copy of a message John intended to preach Sunday, March 16. After reading it over I recognized a good part of it as part of a message I had preached myself years before. To be honest, we both borrowed from the same source. There could be no doubt left in my mind that John saw baptism resulting in "inner cleansing" because of faith.

How different from the response I got from the preacher of the new Stadia replant in Gil bert, AZ. Neither owed me a response, but one took the question seriously and moved to alleviate suspicion with an honest answer. The other -- the one who wanted me to "shoot straight with him beause he could take it" -- never bothered to affirm or deny.

There are many things causing concern in the Restoration Movement. (See some of the comments on earlier blogs.) If Stadia is not using some litmus test regarding the preaching of "baptism for the remission of sins" all they have to do is be honest and verify their honesty. Like Reagan, I trust but verify! If the preachers and leaers of some of our mega and not so mega churches aren't adopting Evangelical doctrine and approach, let them say so and demonstrate that they are telling the truth. Honest answers without dissimulation is the only way to alleviate the growing tension created by distrust. Churches and congregations must learn to demand accountability of their colleges and our brotherhood "somewhats." We've had too many in years past who hid their beliefs and their motives resulting in the encroachment of liberalism into our schools, open membership on the mission field, and the near loss of thousands of congregations when the Disciples hid the purpose of Restructure. What the liberals did to the Restoration Movement in the late Nineteenth and the Twentieth Centuries, Evangelicals are doing today.

Churches must remain vigilant in their teaching and in holding parachurch agencies accountable for their actions.

There’s Something About a Feeling!

Well, now! Hillary has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit "on many occasions in my years on this earth." According to an interview by David Brody, the former first lady professes to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That's great! So does Satan! Not that I'm personally linking Hillary to Satan, of course, but there is a lot more proof to the pudding.

When asked if she believed that faith in Christ was necessary to going to heaven, she replied, "That one I'm a little more open to. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. But, ever since I was a little girl, I've asked every Sunday school teacher I've ever had, I asked every theologian I've ever talked with, whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you're well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that's why there are missionaries, that's why you have to try to convert. And, then there are a lot of other people who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that's how we understand it and who are we to read God's mind about such a weighty decision as that." Hillary, you don't have to read God's mind, just read God's Word! Of course, to do that you are reading the results of what God has communicated! Perhaps Hillary needs to go back to Jesus. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me." That's not some Sunday School teacher or theologian; that's Jesus!

As to feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, I have to ask, "Hillary, how do you know it was the Holy Spirit?" Was it just a feeling or did he communicate some objective truth to you? Did you feel the Holy Spirit's leading when you voted to support the president's Iraq policy or do you feel it now that you are running for president and oppose his policy? I don't think the Holy Spirit, who is God, vacillates that much! Did you feel the Holy Spirit's leading when you openly supported the prochoice agenda that has resulted in the abortion of 40 million human babies since 1973? I doubt it!

The problem with feeling the Holy Spirit has been with us since the Montanist heresy of the second century. Every believer (I'll take them at their word) who heads off in some wild-eyed direction supports their heresy, stupidity, or just plain folly with an appeal to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Our Disciples brethren said the Holy Spirit led them to Restructure in the 1960s, a step now admitted foolish. The leaders of Midwest Christian College back in the 1970s professed the Holy Spirit was leading them to purchase a Catholic hospital for a new campus. MCC is dead and buried. That sure makes the Holy Spirit look stupid, doesn't it! Without some objective foundation the profession of the Holy Spirit's leadership comes up way short!

So how can we know whether or not the Holy Spirit is leading? It certainly isn't labeling humanity's hair-brained schemes as such before the fact. It isn't pointing to a copy of the New Testament and saying, "That's all the Holy Spirit you'll ever need!" It isn't relying on our emotional response to felt needs. Then how can we know?

Just stick to the Word of Truth, the Scripture, and obey God's Word. If you want to be pragmatic in an approach to problem solving let it be known you are applying pragmatic solutions; don't lay them off on the Holy Spirit to sound super-spiritual. The Holy Spirit does "lead into all truth," but that promise is ours only in a secondary way! Jesus made that promise to his disciples. They were led into all truth and they recorded it for us so we'd know which way to turn when it was an issue relating to God's sovereignty. Where God has not spoken he leaves the matter to us to figure out a solution that honors him and remains faithful to the revealed Word.

We are experiencing so much post-modern pablum these days that it's really hard to keep our heads on straight. I guess there's something to that old popular song, "There's something about a feeling…."

Stone Campbell Differences

Considering the Restoration Movement a homogenous people is a huge mistake. The fact is the Restoration Movement is an amalgam of many theological concepts, personal leadership characteristics, and social backgrounds. To my knowledge, only one author, Richard T. Hughes, a scholar in the non-instrumental fellowship, has analyzed the movement according to these criteria. I am of the opinion that differences in these areas continue to create an undercurrent of tension within the movement. If I am correct, it will take only a spark to initiate more unfortunate division within the movement.

Hughes points to two major personalities as the source of the tensions. Although strained in some of his analysis, Hughes points to Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell. Both men were the leaders of the two groups that united together in late December and early January 1830-31. Both were Presbyterians, but both came to conviction about restoring the New Testament Church in different ways.

Hughes says Stone’s convictions arose out of his experiences with the revivals of the Second Great Awakening. It was Stone who organized the famous Cane Ridge Meeting where estimates placed the participants at between twenty to thirty thousand. Preachers from many denominations preached. Stone saw the religious excitement and the apparent conversions. Hughes contends Stone recognized the power of a united witness and became convinced uniting Christians could in turn win the world to Christ. Hughes also contends that, for Stone and his followers, holy living became more important than any concept of “sound doctrine.” The only way to that kind of living was through a return to New Testament teaching.
Campbell, on the other hand, was more intellectual and theological in his approach. Some would say he was more legalistic. Most historians of the Restoration Movement suggest Campbell owed much to Locke and Bacon, both of whom were Enlightenment philosophers. Because of this Hughes suggests Campbell’s approach was more scientific and legal. Thus, Hughes describes Campbell as more legalistic. As a result, his version of restoration required seeing the New Testament as a “pattern” which could be followed resulting in a virtual reconstruction of the early church. For Campbell, then, emotion was downplayed and reason elevated. He viewed “sound doctrine” as something to be restored along with the organizational and functional structures.

I think Hughes sometimes strains out gnats to swallow camels (pardon the pun). He takes the typical non-instrumental interpretation that the early Campbell differed from the later Campbell. He insists the Campbell of the “Christian-Baptist” era differed greatly from the Campbell of the “Millennial Harbinger.” Hughes says the difference can be attributed to the success of the Movement as it moves from “sect” to “denomination.” I disagree with Hughes’s views, but his insistence that Campbell and Stone differed in some significant ways is at least partially valid.

It is my conviction that a good share of the tension existing in the Movement results from these differences. Let’s note just a couple of examples.

There is growing tension over the emphasis of “experience” in worship. We are told today that “seekers” (or whatever you want to call them) are seeking an “experience with God.” Thus, on one hand, those from the Stone tradition feel right at home with experience-centered worship. Like Stone they would avoid excesses of the charismatic movement or frontier revivalism. At the same time, they would not shy away from utilizing music, speaking styles, or other methods designed to impact the emotions. The heirs of Campbell, on the other hand, eschewed all sorts of emotionalism. The Gospel, as Campbell saw, it was a common sense message that could be evaluated, considered, and either accepted or rejected. Campbell believed such a message and its acceptance resulted in appropriate emotional response. It was Campbell, not Stone, who insisted the church’s hymnody be examined so it would express biblical truth. It was Stone, not Campbell, who continued to use the “anxious seat” in his evangelistic preaching.

There is also growing tension over the place and purpose of baptism in the salvation process. Both Campbell and Stone taught baptism for the remission of sin. Stone, however, was a “Johnny come lately” as his “conversion” to this view didn’t take hold until after the union of the Disciples and the Kentucky Christians. Stone came to the conclusion that immersion was the proper form of baptism, but he was not one to emphasize it. For Stone, union (unity) was more important than “sound doctrine.” Campbell, however, began teaching baptism for the remission of sins in the McCalla debate and never once changed his tune. It is true that Campbell refused to condemn or absolve those in the denominations who were baptized with an incorrect mode or an unscriptural purpose. In the “Lunenburg Letter,” he voiced his opinion that those who were mistaught or simply could not understand biblical truth on this matter could be among the saved. It is my conviction that Campbell would not receive the unimmersed into membership of a local church. Rather, he would follow the example of Acts 18 and do some extended teaching leading to immersion for the remission of sins.

There is also growing tension over relationships with evangelicalism. It is certainly true that many congregations and their leaders see the Restoration Movement as part of the evangelical family. Some of our younger historians, theologians, and biblical scholars are trying to minimize distinctions until those they influence see the Restoration Movement as merely one additional denomination in the greater evangelical world. In recent years I have visited several large Restoration Movement congregations and large evangelical congregations. With a few exceptions the service formats and content were identical. Most, if not all, of our mega-churches have services indistinguishable from those in the mega-churches of evangelicals. The exception in some of “our” churches is the weekly observance of Communion. Of course, even that is disappearing!

Would Stone be upset? I seriously doubt it. For Stone, “unity was the polar star.” It was all important goal. The Kentucky Christians wanted to “sink into union with the church at large.” From the vantage point of someone in the Stone tradition, the contemporary identification with evangelicals it is part of the fulfillment of the goal.

Would Campbell be upset? Absolutely! Campbell said he never expected to see “all the grand armies of God unite.” Rather, he was looking for those who were committed more to Christ and his Word than to their denominations to unite with others committed to the same goals. Although some contemporary historians describe the Restoration Movement as a “come outer” movement, Campbell insisted on true evangelism. In fact, the reason he encouraged the Mahoning Baptist Association to call Walter Scott as evangelist was precisely for that reason.
What is the upshot of all of this? It would be tragic if the attitudes and approaches of the most influential leaders of this movement led to contemporary division. Yet I see the potential for division growing on the horizon. Lines are being drawn between those who emphasize baptism for the remission of sins and those who don’t. There are those who will continue to follow the Willowcreek philosophies and they will eventually be indistinguishable from the denominations and they will reject any identification with the Restoration Movement (some are already there). Others will retreat and spend the remainder of their existence condemning and vilifying those who “left them”. Some will, with Hughes, say the Restoration Movement is a “lost cause”. Others will attempt to “hold the line” and some, like myself, will continue to “speak out” while retaining relationships across the board hoping division won’t occur again.

“Shoot straight with me!”

Stadia will apparently launch Genesis Christian Church in Gilbert, Arizona in the near future. The church has a web site giving information about the church and publicizing the new congregation's "Grand Opening." Genesis replaces Gilbert Christian Church which closed its doors this past fall. It will join an extension campus which Mesa's Central Christian Church recently opened. Gilbert should be an excellent location for a church plant since it is a rapidly growing suburb in the Phoenix metroplex.

Rumors abound that Stadia will not place leaders in new church starts who preach and teach baptism for the remission of sins. I checked out the church's web site and their statement of faith. Like many such statements, the language is sufficiently vague on many points. The section on salvation, however, is so vague as to say nothing. Individuals from any evangelical denomination can interpret it to suit their particular perspective. I rather expected this would be the case because the church planter selected for the church's start, although said to be a product of Mesa's Central Christian Church, was educated in a state university, Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary, and Phoenix Seminary. In other words, unless well educated at Central, he has no solid background in the principles and plea of the Restoration Movement.

I emailed the church planter and asked him for a definitive response to his and the church's understanding of the purpose and place of baptism in salvation. I got back an email which gave an equivocal response. He also stated that he assumed I wanted to know how the church viewed the relationship between baptism and salvation and told me to "be straight with him." I responded without any equivocation and asked him bluntly if baptism had anything to do with salvation. To date the man who wanted me to "shoot straight" with him "because he could handle it" has yet to respond.

I know he has no obligation to respond to me but I always wonder what these guys have to hide. I asked an honest question and I hoped I would get an honest answer. I should have known better!

Membership and Discipline

I recently received two very good questions. (1) What are your thoughts on (church) membership and how important should it be? (2) When you do "exclude" church members, how would you go about this process?

These questions arose because someone surfed to my history web site (www.christianchronicler.com) and found some Q&A I did while at First Christian Church in Canton, OH. Over several years I received numerous biblical and doctrinal questions I answered on the FCC web site. Today it isn't "politically correct" to emphasize doctrine so the Q&A was taken down shortly after I left leaving it in my purview to post it on my own site. One question asked if there were any reasons to exclude (excommunicate) people from a church. My response was that the Bible teaches three reasons for putting people out of the congregation: (1) The denial of Jesus; (2) Sexual sin; and (3) Creating factions or division. Both questions above can be tied to this discussion.

Question 1 In my opinion, the continuing emphasis to grow large congregations contributes to a declining interest in church membership. I'm sure there are many other dynamics contributing to it as well, but in a culture that avoids commitment it is easier to gather large numbers than call for membership commitment. Southern Baptist preacher Rick Warren teaches that membership relates to commitment and identifying with a specific congregation is a statement that the member is committed to Christ and the work of the local church.

I think there is a biblical issue at the heart of the matter. The Bible teaches that when a person is immersed into Christ they become part of the body of Christ. Immersion, according to Scripture, is the time when a person of faith transitions from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. Granted, there is no guarantee that a person's heart is right or that he/she truly believes Jesus is God's Son and trusts him alone for salvation, but baptism into Christ remains an external indication of that commitment. Therefore, membership in a local church provides a means by which the leaders can identify those who have (at least) made that step of commitment.

There is a practical issue, too. Identifying with a local congregation means (or should mean) that the individual is willing to submit to the elders' of a particular assembly. God placed the elders as "superintendents" of God's flock. They are responsible for assuring the teaching of sound doctrine and to maintain a congregation's commitment to God, Christ, and Scripture. This means, among other things, that it is the elders who are responsible for maintaining a congregation's good character and reputation and that implies they are responsible for loving discipline when necessary. They are to serve the church not "lord it over" the members. They lead by example.

In the Restoration Movement the concern has not been simply adding "members" as one would recruit members for a service club or fraternal order. The concern is for evangelism and bringing individuals into relationship with Christ and his church.

Question 2 The answer to this question is partially answered in the response to the first. Church discipline falls into the responsibility of the elders. Biblically, however, the whole congregation must also be involved. The primary method is to follow Christ's directive in Matthew 18:15 and following. Discipline starts with an individual who is wronged or concerned. Galatians 6:1 indicates that an erring brother must be confronted with loving care. The example in 1 Corinthians 5 indicates that Paul insisted the church in Corinth discipline a brother who was overtaken with a serious fault. He recommended "delivering the erring one to Satan" (putting him out of the assembly) until he repented. Contemporary Christians, perhaps afraid of legal ramifications, ignore these biblical instructions and examples. The result is Barna's studies revealing that Christian morality is hardly distinguishable from that of the secular world. Today's church simply does not take sin seriously. To talk about sin is politically incorrect.

In the not so distant past, a church member needed a "letter" to transfer membership from one assembly to another. This letter indicated they were a member in good standing and not subject to any church discipline. By the 1960s, few churches required letters opting instead to write the individual's previous congregation to inform them of a transfer. This provided an opportunity to communicate any problems that existed. In the 1970s and 80s, there was little or no communication between the current and previous congregations other than a note that the previous congregation "should change their records." Today there is no communication at all in most cases. I have known of situations where individuals were members of two or more different congregations at the same time.

A plurality of denominations and an unwillingness to "check out" new members leads to the fear that any discipline simply leads to "going down the road." So, in effect, we are back to the numbers game.

Discipline need not be unkind or unloving. In fact, the biblical picture of church discipline is just the opposite. The recalcitrant were removed and "treated as a gentile." That doesn't mean hatred; that means lovingly communicating the gospel and calling the individual to repentance. No church discipline should ever be practiced "without tears." But…we live in a culture where parents are afraid to discipline their children; it is no wonder church leaders are afraid to discipline the children of God.

Practicing church discipline is not denying the "grace standard." It is, in fact, applying it! Even when such discipline requires exclusion in extreme situations, it must be accomplished with unconditional love for the disciplined. This may seem paradoxical, but much of Christianity is! We save our life by losing it; we gain status by becoming humble and so on. It is entirely possible to discipline, not from anger or vengeance, but from love.

May we seek a restoration of biblical membership and discipline!

Just a Bible Church

I heard it again the other day. "We don't want to be a 'Christian Church'; we just want to be a Bible Church."

Pardon me! What exactly do you mean?

I guess itmeans we don't want to be in the "Christian Church" denomination; we want to be "independent" and just be a Bible Church.

Pardon me! Don't you know that the Bible Church movement is every bit as much a denomination as those congregations generally recognized as part of the Restoration Movement?

I get a bit testy when I hear drivel like that! It's sort of saying that those churches associated with the Restoration Movement are now a denomination. (I don't want to get into an argument over what constitutes a denomination at this point. Even Alexander Campbell talked about "our denomination" at times.) Maybe its saying that the churches of the Restoration Movement have a specific theology that sets them apart from others where the "Bible Churches" don't!

Well, that's probably true to an extent. Bible Churches, like most "non-denominational" churches are simply part of the typical mish-mash of evangelical churches "out there". Most if not all of them preach the typical evangelical core message that we used to identify with Baptists. In other words it is the typical faith only message that the Restoration Movement largely rejected in the early 1830s. What it is is a populist message that is easy for people to swallow. It is an easily marketable message because it identifies with what people hear parrotted by the most "popular" writers and speakers of our day -- you know, the ones we invite to speak at the North American Christian Convention! Pardon the sarcasm!

It offends me to have someone suggest that any attempt to "preach the whole counsel of God as it is written" is divisive, denominational, and sectarian while preaching the "politically correct" message is right on!

I've had students say stupid things like I started this message with and I expect it from someone who hasn't really studied or understood what our movement is all about. When I hear it from "big guys" who are in their late 50s or 60s it makes me want to ... well, regurgitate!

Listen, folks!

We have a biblical name ... Christian Church, Church of Christ ... although there are many others, we kinda settled on one of those.

We have a biblical structure ... elders and deacons lead local congregations (except where prophet preachers have taken over) and we do not have any extra-congregational structure to dictate our beliefs or practices.

We teach only what the Bible teaches ... or at least we should.

We use biblical terminology for biblical things.

We observe the Lord's Supper weekly just as did the early church; we baptize just as the early church baptized and we hold forth the same message the early church proclaimed.

That's more than I can say for the Bible Churches. I have no quarrel with these churches when the preach the Bible. I don't quibble with them when they immerse. It's when they tell people that obeying all the commands of Scripture is optional and unrelated to salvation ... that's when I get upset.

Ever Feel Like You're in Limbo?

For longer than I care to remember I've tried to establish in my own mind where I belong. Some may think I belong in a safe padded room. If that's you, you might be right! So far, though, I've avoided the "men in white coats."

No, I'm talking about where I fit in the Restoration Movement.

One reader suggested some time ago that I must oppose the whole mega church thing. That's just not true! In fact I admire those leaders who, without compromise, work with God to build great churches. Over the years I've visited a lot of mega churches both in the Restoration Movement and otherwise. I'm an advocate of the philosophy of the "Purpose Driven Church" model because, in my opinion, it is balanced and doesn't require any sacrifice of convictions. Outside the movement I've studied and visited Overlake Christian Church, Southeast Christian Church, Saddleback Church, Northcoast Community Church, Willowcreek Community Church, and served on the staff at Christ's Church of the Valley. Some of my closest friends are on the staffs of Southeast Christian Church, Southland Christian Church, First Church of Christ in Burlington, KY, as well as several others in the Ohio Valley region. I've had the opportunity to get to know some of the truly big men in the brotherhood and know them to be men of character possessing a sincere desire to reach the lost. I enjoy worship when part of a crowd of hundreds or thousands. It is exciting, stimulating, and encouraging!

Why then am I often so hard on some of the goings on in these churches (and others, too)? It is because I know that many look to these congregations for inspiration and methodology. That's always the way it is. Smaller churches look to larger influential churches simply because they are successful. It is also because I care about strong biblical teaching and get concerned about the drift of our churches into populism and pragmatism without regard for sound doctrine.

The latter concern throws me into another camp -- an ultraconservative camp. It is the camp of the absolutist, the legalist, and the traditionalist. Over the years I've fought two of the three without losing sight of the reality of absolute truth. I hate the brooding suspicion even though it sometimes overtakes me. That's why I complain about some who refuse to "tell it like it is," who think that by preaching a "self help" message they are communicating the Gospel, and are failing to let people know that Christianity is more than just solutions to every day problems. It is, after all, a belief system with tenets that must be believed and obeyed. At the same time, I'm just as uneasy with those who would pass judgment on others, withdraw from fellowship, or draw lines where Scripture never draws them.

So at times I feel like I am in limbo. I love the brotherhood! I have friends all across the spectrum of thought and theology in the Restoration Movement. I know these people. In many cases, I know their hearts and they want to please God. It is just that they -- and all of us -- are misguided and mistaken at times.