“This Message is From Churches of Christ”
All right. You’ve got the money — you’re free to put whatever you want on radio or television or in the newspaper. But I so often wish that groups wouldn’t say that this is from “Churches of Christ.”
There’s a television program that comes on here that’s associated with Churches of Christ. This past week the speaker kindly explained why women have to keep their mouths shut in church.
And that’s a message from Churches of Christ? Or just faithful Churches of Christ? Maybe a list needs to run of those who are faithful enough to support the message.
I couldn’t disagree more with his message. And yet people in Abilene hear that it’s from Churches of Christ.
This post isn’t about the issue of women and gifts, per se. Time will take care of this, anyway. Churches will realize they were wrong — just as on the issue of race.
It’s about presenting yourself as representing a whole denomination. (I know, I know, we’re not a denomination!) It would be like me presenting this on the internet as a message from Churches of Christ. It’s not! it’s my ramblings. It’s what I observe . . . what I believe.
“I know that the Bible is a special kind of book, but I find it as seductive as any other. If I am not careful, I can begin to mistake the words on the page for the realities they describe. I can begin to love the dried ink marks on the page more than I love the encounters that gave rise to them. If I am not careful, I can decide that I am really much happier reading my Bible than I am entering into what God is doing in my own time and place, since shutting the book will to go outside will involve the very great risk of taking part in stories that are still taking shape. Neither I nor anyone else knows how these stories will turn out, since at this point they involve more blood than ink. The whole purpose of the Bible, it seems to me, is is to convince people to set the written word down in order to become living words in the world for God’s sake. For me, this willing conversion of ink back to blood is the full substance of faith.” – Barbara Brown Taylor, Leaving Church
Well….I was tempted to make several comments since this morning (before it got so “heated”), but most were sarcastic in nature & none of you know me well enough to know when I’m kidding. So….I refrained. However….I’m ready to speak….and not sarcastically. The posts are far too serious for that now. Here’s the deal….no one likes to be spoken for. I wonder how God feels when we speak for Him? How do you think He likes us using His own Word to bash each other. I can’t stand it when I hear my kids say, “Well, MOM said….!” as a tool to hurt their sibling and put them in their place. Look….I’m Switzerland on this one….but I’m pretty sure that as much as we all hate it when people put words in our mouths….God does too. (Of course, that’s me speaking for God. Oops! I’m guilty too!)
Mike,
OK. That’s the second tone comment I’ve had, so my tone did not come across the way I wanted to so sorry. I actually have no tone to come across, I just thought I saw some inconsistencies (sp).
I want to comment further but fear mine has become clouded by my lack of ability to write what I mean. For the first time in my life I’m speachless.
mike,
i know this is a late post, or at least there are so many comments that it seems that way. anyway, before you move on to the next thing, i am curious about something.
first, i will say that i totally understand your main point in this post. i don’t want mack lyon speaking for the churches of christ. and i too am not looking forward to the launch of gbn. (ironically and disgustingly the church i minister to, would want lyon speaking for them.)
for my part,i am also not interested in restoration theology (RT), not even a little. there are several hallmarks of RT that i find cannot be sustained biblically. generally speaking the short list involves areas such as soteriology, worship and church polity. most of what i find useful/biblical is not even unique to RT anyway.
as regards polity, the relationship between pastors and evangelists in RT seems to be completely uninformed by the pastoral epistles. and so on. but after reading the transcript for the show you mentioned (and seeing some fairly poor exegesis) i’m curious where you disagree.
lyon comes across as condescending and smug. and there are some conclusions he comes to with which i would disagree. as well as the aforementioned poor exegesis.
thankfully none of has to rely on lyon to shape our thinking and in my own study of scripture there are a few things that are fuzzy still. (which i don’t lose any sleep over.)
but, it seems thoroughly biblical to say that the Lord exclusively calls men and gives them the responsibility for the ministry of the word and prayer, as well as the pastoral ministry.
note: i am not concerned with who “serves in worship” or deaconesses, etc. but i am genuinely curious how you view the pastoral ministry. your post is somewhat ambiguous. (which i get because that’s not what your post was about.) if you have the time and don’t mind giving us (maybe just me/lots of people know you, but i’m not one of them) a little insight into your thinking.
I’m confused. When Scriptures say an elder is to be the HUSBAND of one WIFE, doesn’t that mean the elder is MALE?
As none of us were there at the time, we all assume that Jesus attended synagogue regularly. He knew corporate worship, but was it the corporate worship we command today? We know he was a Rabbi who had garnered some respect by the time his ministry to change the world began. That means he probably knew every scriptural nit that could be picked, textually and doctrinally.
When Jesus used his special divine talent to signal the commencement of his God-ordained ministry, he performed in the background at a wedding party in Cana and not as a gifted orator in front of enthralled listeners with bums on seat in a synagogue service. Not quite the upfront guy, at age 30 his mother had to coax him into jump-starting his ‘career’. (Moms do that a lot.) Rarely in his three short years do we have him on record exhorting people to attend synagogue, regularly or otherwise. (Could it be that he and his followers were not allowed into the synagogues?) I’ve always wondered why none of the Gospel accounts of his life place any emphasis on his or others’ synagogue attendance, aside from the incident when he vents his anger towards the more capitalistic practises he finds in the Temple courtyard (today’s mega-church complexes could compare, with their bookstores, soda shops, MacDonald’s, etc.). And because it hasn’t been written down or found in some desert cave somewhere, we still have yet to find where either he or his followers argued publicly or amongst themselves over best practise in liturgy or music. Those obviously were not issues.
Yet here we sit today on a Blog discussion two thousand years later, pointing fingers and spewing righteous venom at each other on how to do church and influence friends, believer and non. Little of this has to do with what really needs to be known. And none of this has anything to do with how people should be treated in God’s name.
Silly religious media broadcasts do not speak for God, and certainly do not manipulate my beliefs in Him with their scheme and spin, any more than Pharisaic interpretation of Him during the first century. Today’s cultural practise of pastor/preacher/teacher worship and the sycophantic followers it breeds is so dysfunctional. The purity of Gospel and the Great Commission has been totally messed up by misguided people with a God-complex who seek some kind of celestial celebrity status.
Charles- The comment that Mike made, twice, that really rubbed me the wrong way was that “Time will take care of this.” My interpretation of this was that the opposition on this issue would eventually give up, or die. I believe that Mike is speaking for the entire Church of Christ, by saying that in time, women will have a role in leadership.
If you want a picture of what the Church of Christ would look like without differing opinions, turn on Joel Osteen. Happy, yet lost.
I (frankly) don’t have the time, energy, or desire to read all of these comments. I read about halfway and got tired of it. It’s all the same and it’s all been said, so please forgive me if I comment the same thing that’s already been commented. Uh oh. Now I have to ask myself why I’m even commenting. I digress.
I’m sick and tired of these arguments- who’s right, who’s wrong, who’s too progressive, who’s too liberal, who’s too old, who’s too young- ENOUGH ALREADY! Mike never said in this post that the people who presented the show are “wrong,” so why has that become the argument? All he said was that he 1) disagreed and 2) wished people wouldn’t generalize that an entire group shares an opinion. Since Mike is a member of a CofC, as well as many others, I can understand why this would bother him. Seriously, people. Read the words he typed and don’t read the post with your mind already made up about what he was saying.
And honestly- what’s the point of arguing (or even discussing, I daresay,) it anyway? Most of the time, it only serves to make us more mad at the “other side.” Why do we even have sides? Aren’t we all on the same side? It’s about JESUS.
Chill out for a bit and just try to live the way he lived and love the way he loves.
One more thing…I find it incredibly funny what people consider progressive. The most progressive Church of Christ is nowhere near the most conservative in some denominations. Yet, we all claim Jesus. I think we’ll be okay.
Jennifer- You didn’t read far enough. In his last entry, Mike didn’t state that the brother was “wrong”, but “Way wrong.”
It’s interesting what people choose to comment on. They’d rather point out what I said that was “wrong” than what really matters.
Oh…”way wrong” – that changes everything. If he had just said wrong that’s one thing, but way wrong is over the top. I mean way over the top.
I think this thread began when Mike was wondering out loud why something broadcast from one segment of Churches of Christ in the name of Churches of Christ might be perceived as coming from all Churches of Christ. I suppose some listeners/viewers might come to the conclusion that the broadcast spoke officially for the Church of Christ (like some might think “The Lutheran Hour” speaks for all Lutherans). The end result is that Churches of Christ are no different from other denominations; in fact, they will be perceived as a denomination. Of course the TV broadcast in question has a right to disseminate their teaching, even if it might not be representative of the majority of Churches of Christ. A simple tagline at the end saying the broadcast was provide by specifice area congregations, with their names scrolled, would seem to be fair and reasonable.
Jennifer- Your whole point was based on something that you thought Mike hadn’t said, that he, in fact, did say. You said, “read the words he typed and don’t read the post with your mind already made up.” If anybody hasn’t read what is written, it is you and Doug. “Way wrong” were Mike’s words, not mine.
Discussions like this are extremely important. Mike has a lot of influence. If he continually goes unchallenged, what he says will be widely accepted. I’ve got no problem as long as what he says agrees with the Word of God. When it doesn’t agree, as in the case of the role of women, someone has to point that out.
Finally, Mike is my brother in Christ. I would not think twice about laying my life down for him. That doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with him.
I think this scripture is applies:
Colossians 2
20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21″Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence
Mike’s opinion on the matter may have gone over easier if he responded to Scripture with Scripture instead of just calling it “wrong…my opinion”. Mr. Lyon’s interpretation of the scriptures doesn’t seem to be in the form of a rant but a way for us to look back at what the first century Church was to do. The Bible has, and always will, stand the test of time and opinion. I believe it is the guide that Christians are to follow and what God deemed as best for us.
The series of postings on this blog have gone from opinions to tongue-lashings to hateful “venom” but no where has there been a discussion on saying why Mr. Lyon’s statements are un-Biblical. Maybe the Church of Christ shouldn’t advertise on radio or TV. It seems that a group of people on a blog can’t even have a simple discussion without attacking one another.
Mike, I enjoy hearing you speak any chance I get and I appreciate what you do for the ACU student body. I also understand that your blog is an avenue for discussion and debate. I just hope that we will all come to a realization at some point that the best point of discussion in spiritual matters is going back to the Word. I have yet to see anyone take that stance and refute why Mr. Lyon is being attacked for his message.
Aaron,
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Mike… so I’m not. But IMHO Mike has clearly and scripturally stated his views on issues such as women’s roles in the church in the archives of this blog and elsewhere. At some point it becomes unweildy to continue to jaunt through Greek definitions and exegetical explanations again and again. That IS the problem, in my opinion. Too often in our tradition, we turn differences of opinion into matters of salvation by the very process we use to win the battles: Biblical prooftexting. Everything doesn’t come down to a logical biblical argument that can be won or lost. Often, I have come to believe, the Spirit doesn’t so much give us the answers to the questions we are asking of the Bible as he shows us which questions we should even be asking. If brothers and sisters come to different practical applications after the prayerful study of scripture, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one is right and one is wrong– it may just mean that the particular issue at hand (instrumental music, women’s roles, one cup or many) may NOT be a question the Bible even attempts to answer in a universal way.
Mike seems to be simply asking that we speak only for ourselves and our own meager understandings… and have humility when it comes to others who differ.
I do feel that all of us stray from that kind of humility too often. Perhaps that is the main problem here with some of our comments.
The main “embarrassment” concerning the C of C is their claim to be the church of Christ. They reject any mention of salvation by grace, and anybody not of their membership is bound for hell. Though they may be “independent” from one assembly to the next, there must be some kind of consensus or, like the Exclusive Brethren, an ad hoc “pope” someplace keeping them all in line if the biggest variation from the “conservative” to the “progressive” is how many songs they sing, sitting or standing!
They teach “baptism for the remission of sins” so that (1.) baptism is what remits sin (not Jesus’ blood, or faith in His blood), and, (2.) the baptisee must have their mind totally focused the remission of sins for the sins to be remitted. Otherwise, or in case any part of the body doesn’t get completely immersed, they had better try again!
Their founder said, “Of course I do not believe in salvation by the grace through faith!” and his followers still don’t. They reject Christ’s sacrifice, by insisting on saving themselves through their own good works, and so believe only the parts of the Bible they can stretch to fit their opinions. They call themselves, “Christians,” in a way that excludes any others: Call them Campbellites. It is Alexander Campbell they follow, only in the “name” of Christ.
You’re way off base, Mr. Easter.
You sound much more condemning than any of the members of Christ’s church to me.
>
And the source of this quote is . . . ?
OK, I’m going to try again; my cutting and pasting didn’t work.
Robert Easter said: “Their founder said, ‘Of course I do not believe in the salvation by grace through faith!’”
And the source of this quote is . . . ?
Keith and Tina,the last thing in the world I want to do is condemn anyone. The point I was trying to make was one of warning. If you had just been up a certain street and saw that a dangerous dog were loose, it surely would not be “condemning” or “anti-dog” to warn a young mother with her children that there might be a hazard in that area. CofC folks are some of the nicest people you’re likely ever to meet, and I have had some good friends in that group. This does not change the fact that the doctrine of that organisation truly and actually does support the old heresy called “Pelagianism” which puts the whole burden for one’s salvation squarely on his or her own shoulders. For further information I can recommend no source more authoritative than the literature rack by the door of your local CofC church house.
And, I’m sorry, Tina, that quotation was from Mr. Campbell’s own career when he was about to debate a minister from the local Presbyterian church. His friend was asking him what position he would be taking in the debate. Campbell told him his position, and he was rather shocked. “What? Don’t you believe in salvation by grace through faith?” To which he reported Campbell answering him rather shortly, “Of course I don’t believe in salvation by grace!” My apologies that I have lost the documentation, but if you ask a CofC member about their church’s beliefs on that, in my experience they will be more than eager to fill you in. Again, their own literature is very clear on these points. None of this, again, is to insult a soul, but if anyone sets their faith in their own works, then they are falling away from God’s grace (Gal 5:1-9): This is not a matter of taste and style, but of eternal importance.
Mr. Easter,
See…..THIS is the problem. A LOT of “they”, “them” & “CofC’s”. I AM the “they”, the “them” and a “CofC” and I do not believe one thing you say I believe. It is b/c of people, such as the ones Mike was refering to, that have been using the airways to explain to the general public what I believe–that has convinced you that we all believe the same thing. You just proved Mike’s original point of how dangerous this type of broadcasting is and why it is so destructive. Thank you for bringing this discussion out of the viper pit & back to Mike’s point.
To believe in Jesus and His blood is for salvation and the way anyone receives the benefit of His sarificial atonement through obedient faith is not Pelagianism.It is a bbilical response to the grace of God.
Sorry , meant , biblical.
ray b. is right its not pelagianism…its semi-pelagianism.
Obedient faith is from the word of God . Romans 1 : 5 is just one example. Not even semi-pelagianism.
Pe·la·gi·an·ism [ p? láyjee ? nìzz?m ]
noun
Definition:
belief that denies original sin: the belief of the heretical Christian monk Pelagius that people can earn salvation through their own efforts, without relying on the grace of God, and the rejection of the concept of original sin
Semi-Pelagianism involved doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views both of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation. The label “Semi – Pelagian,” however, is a relatively modern expression, which apparently appeared first in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and became associated with the theology of the Jesuit Luis Molina (1535 – 1600). The term, nevertheless, was not a happy choice, because the so-called Semi – Pelagians wanted to be anything but half – Pelagians. It would be more correct to call them Semi – Augustinians who, while rejecting the doctrines of Pelagius and respecting Augustine, were not willing to follow the ultimate consequences of his theology.
NOW… if my belief demands that I acknowledge that ONLY God’s grace and mercy is able to save me… AND that my obedience DOES have something to do with it… then HOW MUCH obedience is required? Which specific disobedience is NOT covered by grace?
What a tangled web…
Pe·la·gi·an·ism
noun
Definition:
belief that denies original sin: the belief of the heretical Christian monk Pelagius that people can earn salvation through their own efforts, without relying on the grace of God, and the rejection of the concept of original sin
Semi-Pelagianism involved doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views both of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation. The label “Semi – Pelagian,” however, is a relatively modern expression, which apparently appeared first in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and became associated with the theology of the Jesuit Luis Molina (1535 – 1600). The term, nevertheless, was not a happy choice, because the so-called Semi – Pelagians wanted to be anything but half – Pelagians. It would be more correct to call them Semi – Augustinians who, while rejecting the doctrines of Pelagius and respecting Augustine, were not willing to follow the ultimate consequences of his theology.
NOW… if my belief demands that I acknowledge that ONLY God’s grace and mercy is able to save me… AND that my obedience DOES have something to do with it… then HOW MUCH obedience is required? Which specific disobedience is NOT covered by grace?
What a tangled web…
sorry for the double “hit”
I Thessilonians 1:7-9 …This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and DO NOT OBEY the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.
That’s all I need to hear about the importance of obedience.
Who decides what the “gospel” is? Is it the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus or is it “the plan of salvation” – with whatever that entails, You know this blog could go on forver.
I meant to say “this particular blog post.
Cari, I read your post, and I do praise the Lord that you are an exception to the rule!
Scott, you are right- the more we try to figure it out, the more tangled we get. If we stop trying to figure it out, and just open our Bibles with a heart of simple obedience then first the tangles aren’t as important as they seemed, and as we continue listening to the Word with a heart to understand, by His Spirit, and so obey, we realise that He has the tangles all worked out.
A young Jesus Freak asked an old preacher one time, “Nick, what’s is it like serving the Lord that long?” Pastor Gray just told him, “It just keeps getting simpler and simpler!” The trials still come, and sometimes they hurt a lot. But God’s grace is never-changing! God bless you all!!!
Keith,
I think that’s II Thes…
Also, Paul is talking to people who are being persecuted and reassuring them that their persecutors will come to a just end in the judgement. That’s quite different than using that verse to frighten people into eternal insecurity about what fine print they may not have understood.
I’m not saying that’s what you meant, but that is what is promoted quite often… making God’s people fearful that they are slipping up on a technicality that God has left dubiously unclear. Of course God hasn’t left anything unclear… but we do tend to muddy the water as did the Pharisees, as did the serpent in the garden, by binding heavy loads or over-extending what God DID say into what works best for our purposes.
Obedience in its own right means nothing if I’m obedient to something other than God’s true Word. That’s why I’d rather go the other direction and give leeway for differences than judge based upon my own narrow understandings.
Thank you Scott, I did mean II Thess.
I was simply pointing out one of the scriptures that mention obedience, since many seem to think the ONLY thing one can do to lose their salvation (or not have it, whatever) is to take obedience seriously. I like things simple, and when the Bible says people who don’t obey the gospel will be destroyed I take it seriously. That’s all.
I find the concept of being completely saved by grace with the side effects being obedience to Christ a very simple one.
Interesting thought, most people do not want to be spoken for, so how do we handle this situation? Not one group represents the whole, we are not a denomination with a single voice. Should it be from such and such congregation. Just thinking.
http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
Question. when is the last time (myself) included we fead a homeless person in our house? That seems a little moer important than influnce, right, wrong, TV, radio, what someone tone was. To be Jesus is to care for the marginalized of the world, and have compassion. Just a thought.
Peace
Our church has put together a community wide evangelistic event for the past couple of years.We have gone out of our way to not mention that we are the sponsoring church.We don’t do this because we are ashamed of being a COC. We just wanted this event to be about Christ and people coming to know him. If Church of Christ ever becomes a description instead of a title, it will be because we are less interested in ourselves and more passionate about others and their relationship to Christ.
After reading the thoughts after what Robert Easter posted regarding the Exclusive Brethren .I wondered how much people actually knew about them ? after all unless you are born into them is it likely that many get the chance to find out ? you will need to have a dead seperation with any of your family or friends who do not agree to join as well to do that ! .Yet so many are so worried about discussing their practice for fear that they might be condemming them .But yet i wonder if not many who have suffered because of their practice , might not be condemmed to pain and suffering because of this fear ? .To me its more that political correctness takes over that which comes from the heart ! and just as many were dismayed when Jesus stayed and ate at the house of a prostitute ! well not alot has really changed .
You fears condemm many to even suicide you know !! .And many through being quite wrongly withdrawn from . I doubt a man who overturned the tables and went to the cross ! would follow you or agree that you follow him .
This is not a condemnation ! this is but me speaking my mind of what i believe is right from wrong , and there should be no fear in doing that ! .I believe so many continue to suffer because of the lack of it,and many leave the flock completly because love and christianity rightly so seems to be not much more than the words of those more focused on being politically correct .Would you stand at the cross and also suggest “it is not for us to judge ” ??or would you atleast speak of your convictions ?
Mr. Easter,
Don’t be too happy for me that I’m an exception to the so-called “rule”. I may be dead wrong. Thank God for grace.
Well but for one or two !there is now silence .
And i think but for a few at the cross , the silence would have been just as deafening . And later the many slowly would have appeared with their offerings of quotes of scripture and suggestions of love .
Without being condemning or passing judgement(as we all come to our own convictions) , i speak up which i think is the right thing to do and speak of my convictions .And i suggest we can know all the scriptures off by heart and have all the quotes and know all the right moves .But if we stand by in silence without atleast speaking up of our convictions ,wilst those who might be being persecuted through being born into a church that could be harming people !. Turning many away from Christianity and causing some to suicide . I ask how can we be hope to be judged as any better than those who do these things ? .
If you saw a man beaten by robbers and lieing by the side of the road , would you stop to help him .Or would you quietly walk past thinking it is not for me to judge he might have deserved it .
Earlier in this post John Dobbs raised a good question. One answer is to speak publicly and let the public know that the local Church of Christ does have a different view than the TV Church of Christ. Another suggestion is to remove the Denominational Sign form the church building. Thankfully in Itahca, New York I do not have to worry about either, because there is no Churches of Christ TV broadcasting — and when I get the stuff in the mail, it gets filed in that all important file very quickly.
Yes Rex i personally think it is only right that atleast some conversation takes place , without it how is it possible that anything will change ? .We dont have to condemning if we enter into conversation and debate do we ? , isnt it obvious that sort of thing used to happen as we read the scriptures in the bible ?.So why isnt it still happening now ? .
And for anybody who doesnt know alot about what happens within the Exclusive Brethren , here is a link i have found of a site with a comunity of ex members telling how it has effected them http://peebs.net/ or http://peebs.net/forum/.
Of course i agree we must not be judgemental and we need to fair and considder there is two sides to every story . And we can be fair when we listen and talk with both . But i personally doubt we would be considdered to be good samaritans , if we pass by thinking it is not our problem .
I praise God that I am a member of the church of Christ. Never will I be ashamed to state such an allegiance. It is His church . He purcahsed the church with His blood. He is the head of the church. Jesus is the only savior of the church. Church of Christ is a designation of a relationship with Jesus. The church is of Christ. We teach Him , bow the knee to Him , adore Him and should be changing into His likeness. He is perfect. We are not but we have a perfect High Priest and the perfect word to guide us as members of the church of Christ.
Right on, Ray B. I think everybody on this conversation can say that, with extreeeme gratitude!
Arthur, it sounds like you’ve tied in with the EB also! The scariest part of the whole EB phenom just might be yet to be seen. Though a small sect in itself, their philosophy is seen widely in the strict dispensationaism of the Scofield Bible and much of the modern doctrines of what we call Evangelicalism. Maybe the worst, in the long run, is the idea that we “don’t need” this, that, or the other until the Faith has gone from a carefully prayed-out way of life to the current idea that simply having had a certain opinion at some time in one’s life is all that Christian Faith really amounts to. In the EB, that plays out in their focus on their contradictory “doctrines” on women and communion which give the members a feeling of “holiness” while their core beliefs just don’t leave room for them to understand verses like Heb. 12:14 or John 17:3. I think when Jesus asked, “When the Son of Man cometh, will He find faith on the earth?” just might have had the Rev. Darby’s issue in mind.
On the up side, (oy, is this long!) we still have the Bible, we still have the Holy Ghost, and we still have the fellowship of others who are sold out for Jesus to encourage us each the other to continually give ourselves over to our Risen Lord! The culture around us wants to impose its opinions and expectations on us, but God is faithful to save us out of all that as we just keep doing Romans 12:1!
Rom. 1:16, Amen!
Thank you, Ray B.
It’s both encouraging and refreshing to see someone standing up for the Lord’s church withough having to apologize for it or explain how it’s really “more like the rest of the world than you think.”
Ray B and Keith…
I love the Lord’s church, the body of Christ, the universal family of God that has been born again into Jesus Christ. I will never be ashamed of that.
I also love and respect the A Capella Churches of Christ fellowship that is part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, the group for which is listed in every phone book under the denominational name “Churches of Christ.” BUT sometimes, I am saddened and ashamed of some of the fruit produced from some of the Christians and Churches that belong to the Churches of Christ.
Though the two of you may not make any distinction between the one body of Christ and the Churches of Christ, I do. The Churches of Christ are but one group belonging to the fragmented body of Christ. I want you to clearly understand the distinction I am making so that you will not make it appear as though I am claiming to be ashamed of the body of Christ — because that is not what I am saying.
—-
Robert Easter,
What is EB?
Sure the church has made mistakes. Will in the future . But the church will finally be victorious over all enemies. I think it is time to stand up and say praise God for all the victories we have already experienced.Through the centuries the church of Christ has carried the gospel to the world and many great works of compassion have been seen and observed all over the world. Even today , it would be impossible to know how many obeyed the gospel and began the new life in Christ. And it will continue to be the same everyday until He comes again. How marvelous to be a member of the body of Christ , the church of God , the church of the firstborn, the church of Christ.
Yes, but this blog started out and my comments were about the Churches of Christ, one fellowship/denomination within the church of Christ.