I remember hearing this long ago, and it’s so true.
Some love their religious heritage the way babies love their mommy. Mommy is so wonderful and is never wrong. And if anyone says anything about my mommy they’re stupid and hateful.
Others despise their religious heritage the way teens sometimes see their parents. My parents are from another planet, and they’re never right.
And even others — like Larry James — see their religious heritage like mature adults. They are thankful for the strengths of the heritage; yet they’re not afraid to wrestle with the shortcomings. They do this in humility, knowing that we’re not passing on perfect understanding or practice to our own children or grandchildren, either.
Thank you.
What is really depressing in some of the comments to the last post is how the association is made that if you critique your religious upbringing you hate your grandmother. Which is just ridiculous.
Imagine telling Martin Luther or St. Francis or any of the prophets or Jesus himself for that matter that in their critiques of religious tradition they were being mean to their grandmother.
Your comments make me think of the Bereans, Mike. They were called noble by God–not hateful.
Yes. This. Thank you.
I don’t understand how people can equate “anger” with God expecting obedience from His people. When my children were growing up, I had rules and expectations, but if they did not obey, we corrected them…but not in anger. Scriptures teach that we should fear and reverence God…but that doesn’t make Him angry…it just means we’re not His peer. My guess is that those of you working for a boss have some fear and reverence for him…and if we do that for another human, how much more should we do it for Almighty God!
I grew up in churches in Texas and Arkansas…coloreds and hispanics were welcomed; Daddy and both grandads preached both full and part time. Now, 60+ years later I look back on those years as wonderful faith-building years by people who loved me and loved others. I know that some churches may not have been as loving as those in my experience, but I hope as some of you look back that you will give grace and forgiveness to those whom you feel did not teach grace and forgiveness…it may have been they did not understand it…that they were still growing…or it may be that your perception is incorrect.
Well said Mike.
Ok, first. Someone please tell me she didn’t say “coloreds and hispanics.”
Second, I loved Larry James’s words. The love for the people of the tradition was clear.
Maybe it depended on where you experienced the tradition. But in my part of the world the most famous sermon was Jimmy Allen giving a guided tour of hell — so real that you couldn’t sleep for a week. It was layered on top of a theological system where no one could hope to be saved. If you have to be right on how you understand psallo, church organization, and weekly communion, then you’re not likely to be right enough to avoid the tortures Mr. Allen described.
It was a world where people not in Churches of Christ were not considered Christians. Think about that! They were all considered lost. It still staggers me to write this. Maybe this inbred world isn’t out there — or maybe it’s as rare as the bizarre FLDS groups that the Mormon Church so eagerly distances itself from.
It was a world where some at least honestly thought they had restored the New Testament Church — that church history was a dark hole but that sometime in the early 19th century a few people decided to really love God enough to study scripture and go back to the pure wells.
It was a world of judgment and fear.
Were there good people? Absolutely! Could one hear the good news of Jesus Christ in the midst? Yes!
But let’s not excuse the judgment, the divisiveness, and the pride that was so common, at least in some places. Perhaps my experience was the exception.
The false suppositions used to support the past two threads are ridiculous. I wonder if any of the professing “christians” here understand the exceedingly sinfulness of sin, and how one transgression is of absolute offense to our thrice holy God. Seriously, who here has been radically and powerfully born again? Who here has been made a brand new creation in Christ with the Holy Spirit and the whole council of the word of God baring witness?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwpm1G5pVho&feature=related
Hebrews 10:26-31
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Saul persecuted the church and the Lord accused him of persecuting Him. Don’t try make a comment that is designed to point out that those who berate the church are out of place and out of step about the commenter. Yes, James has a right to evaluate his past but he goes too far when he contradicts the Lord’s statements and those of His inspired writers. I knew it was a mistake to post here.
Just to clarify my previous comments, it seems to me that the Bereans questioned what they were taught. They searched the scripture and depended upon God’s word not just the word of men or their own traditional beliefs. Unlike the Jews in nearby Thessalonica, they received the new message from Paul and Silas with eagerness. For this, God called them noble, not “bashers” of their forefathers. And I don’t know if this is relevant in this situation, but it is interesting to me that once the Jews in Thessalonica learned that the Bereans were accepting this Good News and message of hope and life in Christ, they left Thessalonica and traveled to Berea to stir up trouble for the noble Bereans and for the teachers of God’s word.
To me, loving and appreciating a church who loved me as a child is a good thing. But my childhood memories are just that—seen from the view of a child. Now that I am an adult those memories of childhood, whether good or bad, are not what solely governs my theology. God reveals Himself to me in His word and as I live daily in His Presence.
That’s a very good analogy, Mike, one that I’m sure I’ll repeat.
Dale, I’m not sure why you think it was a mistake to post here. Do you have to post only where everyone agrees with you?
qb
And some of us are like children who were abused so much that they finally had to put distance between themselves and their mothers in order to be healthy. In the best of circumstances, we find new families in which we can thrive.
If my child is about to run into the street, I am going to scream for him to stop. Why? I love him. I am not in that moment concerned that he will be offended by my words. I am not worried he will call me “judgmental” or “narrowminded”, and I’m certainly not going to hold my tongue because he might one day label me unloving. I don’t want him to die, and in that moment I will do anything to save him from that fate!
What if there was actually no car coming and he was in no true danger? Does that change the purity of my heart? Does that change the love that motivated my firm and even harsh warnings? No, mistaken or not, I THOUGHT he was in danger, and my warnings were motivated ONLY by love!
Why doesn’t anyone give our heritage credit for having as pure of a motivation? Yes… they believed in hell. Where did they get such a ridiculous idea??? Yes… they were sometimes very stern in warning people about what might lead them into the “street.” But we ALL know that love isn’t always warm and fuzzy. Love tells the truth, even if it isn’t well received.
If a person choses to disagree with the theological foundations of our heritage, then so be it. I personally agree with some things and disagree with others. But why do we insist on judging their hearts? The Churches of Christ were ridiculed and berated for their beliefs for 50 years or more. They were persecuted and laughed at. You may feel those criticisms were correct, but we all must recognize that it takes great CONVICTION and COURAGE to swim against the tide. True… our herigage wasn’t in the mainstream. True… we were often mocked and dismissed by the majority. Please tell me… how is that not an evidence of Great faith???
coloreds
w.o.w.
Kerry, I do think our heritage arose from pure motivations, as eloquently and pithily articulated by the men who are normally associated with its genesis: Christians only, but not the only Christians; in essentials, unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things, charity; and the like.
Unfortunately, in many cases of my personal acquaintance, we wandered far afield from those ideals. The motivations may still have been pure, but the results were not just innocent, exegetical curiosities; in some cases, they were toxic. And if such things arose from careless exegesis, there is an unavoidable, culpability issue that accompanies the toxicity. Exegetical “torts” have pastoral (not to be too dramatic, but can we also say “soteriological?”) consequences. Those torts need to be identified as such and then remedied through charitable but direct dialogue.
Exercising discretion and pointing out the toxicity of certain strains of Christian belief are not the same as “judging hearts.” We are, as one poster put it nicely, “working out our salvation with fear and trembling.” One can be respectful of people while challenging their dearly held beliefs; in fact, as you pointed out yourself, it is precisely the loving thing to do.
qb
Excellent follow-up Mike, and good comments by many above.
It takes maturity and wisdom to look back on your childhood and admit, “I love my parents and appreciate the sacrifices they made for me/us, but they flat-out got it wrong in some areas.”
And then make it a point not to repeat their mistakes.
This is a fine thing to say when talking about parents and children, but it begins to chafe religious people when applied to the church. Especially in a movement so historically invested in doing church right.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Dee’s original reference to “coloreds” was intended to be anachronistic, historical irony, illustrating how backward we were back then by tweaking our current, enlightened, cultural sensitivities.
(It appears to have worked, judging from [the other] Brent’s and Steve Jr.’s alarm. But it would have worked better if Dee had used the far more provocative, far more offensive N-word. And although it would have been shocking to see, it would have made Dee’s point even more strongly: Dee’s daddy WAS swimming against the cultural tide by welcoming all who came without regard to the ethnic or racial considerations that were so prominent at the time.)
In any case, that’s the word that was used back in the day, during the so-called “glory days” of the Restoration Movement.
I wonder why we cannot give the same attention to form and rhetorical criticism in exegeting one another’s posts that we give to exegeting so-called sacred texts?
Somewhere, someone said recently that we ought to be in the business of exegeting not only Scripture, but also one another. Here’s a good example. qb
Well said.
Well said qb. I would agree. It is both right and good to challenge and correct errors. I have lovingly tried to do so my entire adult life. I love the CofC and have tried to continue the restoration of God’s Church by pointing out areas in which we must change to please God (like abandoning a “once saved BARELY saved” theology). However, the spirit with which you write is not the same as many who have removed the reason from their arguments and lash out at their heritage like a rebellious teenager screaming at his father in the driveway.
You are right, what you describe as “exercising discretion and pointing out the toxicity of certain strains of Christian beliefs” is not “judging hearts.” But we both know that some attacks (including some on this site) are not only leveled at the doctrines, but also at the people.
On a different note… I am trying to absorb your word “toxic.” To me, that word means “poisonous and destructive.” But isn’t that exactly what CoC people were trying to “save” people from? They TRULY believed that certain beliefs and practices would cause people to be lost. Therefore, they believed those doctrines (ie salvation apart from baptism; unauthorized worship, denominational organization, etc.) were “toxic.” Therefore, were they not doing EXACTLY what you are espousing??? What makes their viewpoint of what is “toxic” any less valid than mine or yours? I promise you that they could quote Bible on every subject. Is it because they are less enlightened or less learned, or because the world perceives their doctrine as “more mean?”
They certainly weren’t PC.
Was Jesus?
Just something to think about.
Kerry,
I find it odd that you would bring in Jesus to defend the particulars of CoC doctrine. That is, very little of what the CoC has traditionally taught or divided over seems to be of vital interest to Jesus. This, I think, is what Larry’s post was about: Discovering Jesus in a tradition that mistakenly (but with good intentions) allowed Acts and Paul to eclipse the gospels. That is, in broad terms, we created a religious denomination–a religious niche–instead of taking up the cross of discipleship.
Kerry, toxicity - as I am using the term - is purely a matter of effect, not intent. (It may be accompanied by intent, but it need not be.) At high enough doses, even water is toxic: it is, as you say, “poisonous and destructive.” And I’m sure you recall, back in the day, when it was considered a good idea to bleed a person who had an infection of some sort. Despite the best of intentions, very often such “therapies” were unnecessarily fatal. That’s what I mean by “toxic.”
So I’m trying to use the word with clinical precision: there are assumptions and presuppositions native to the perverse strains of the Restoration Movement that had toxic EFFECTS on us, usually of the long-term/chronic sort and only occasionally of the acute sort. The pathologies we’re seeing today are the result of a long, almost imperceptible drift from the unity-oriented motivations of the past, much like the proverbial frog-in-the-kettle.
The incredibly destructive effect of rabid CENI-ism (and all of the exegetical/hermeneutical pathologies that have arisen around it) is a good example of the legacy we have inherited. Of course CENI arose out of good intentions to cleave closely to the text; but it was and is logically incoherent, practically unworkable, and theologically daft. Conceding its good intentions, who can deny the “poisonous and destructive” results of rabid CENI-ism, most recently evinced by the public hoo-hah raised in an Oklahoma newspaper ad?
Paul may have had something analogous to this in mind when he spoke of those who have “zeal, but not in accordance with knowledge.” That is a phrase that could aptly be used of many of our brethren (and I do consider them brethren). Their insistence on being doctrinally “pure” - itself an ontological farce - wreaks havoc wherever it raises its ugly, Medusan head. It is not merely a problem with the individual personalities involved, though that has a big role as well; it is a characteristic of the hermeneutical system they (we) have adopted. Given the assumptions, the outcomes may have been logically inevitable, but they were at least the prohibitive favorites.
qb
Brent,
I suggest you go to the College Church of Christ in Searcy website and listen to a few Jimmy Allen sermons, particulary on grace. I think you might be surprised. I would also be surprised if you know much of anything about Brother Allen. Was he fiery? Sometimes. But dig a little deeper before you make general comments about someone.
Jim - fortunately for me - God looks at me through Christ since He is my redeemer. And, no amount of yelling, screaming or carrying on you or some preacher does will change that. I’m a forgiven sinner because of Jesus - isn’ that why we’re supposed to be joyful, salt of the Earth, and a light to a fallen World? It’s Good News to me.
“The truth is, I may have spent too much time on these issues in an attempt, both to make peace with my rather bizarre religious heritage and, at the same time, to reform it in some meaningful manner.”
It is fairly evident that this James character has not moved on to a more adult relationship with his historical heritage. But at least it is a biblically twisted attitude. God did tell Israel to wipe out all vestiges of Canaanite history when they went into the new land. I feel that James has equated his heritage with Canaan. Isn’t it strange that both sides get to pick who plays the part of Israel in their little spiritual melodramas.
Mr. Cope point out one adult comment about James’ heritage that he made. Show us please one instance of listing the “strengths of the heritage” that James made.
James has an adult attitude? No, I think not. I think he, as one commenter said about themselves, feels abused by his past and is still lashing out like a 16 year old child.
‘Look what mommy and daddy’s beliefs did to me. I’m still trying to recover.’
If I could talk to this James fellow I’d tell him I was sorry and I understood from his perspective that is was bad and then after a little more whining and snot wiping on his shirt sleeve on his part I’d hit him with a classic.
GET OVER IT. GROW UP ALREADY.
SOMEBODY CALL A WAAAMBULANCE!
This is getting ridiculous. I’m out.
I’m not willing to let the church be redefined as a “faith tradition”, or “religious heritage” for the sake of allowing some to feel better about themselves by lumping the church into the broken religious world. These are people whose movements are born and die with the latest book releases. In the big picture, I am comforted in the fact that their page in church history is penciled on tissue paper. Their legacy of loosely held beliefs will long be forgotten and lost in the slightest breeze. Their primary core value of open-mindedness will only confuse their children and leave them with a vast empty feeling inside.
Hi, Troy. Would you be willing to identify the “some” - presumably among us, here - who:
1. Are primarily interested in feeling better about themselves;
2. Are “lumping the church into the broken religious world;”
3. Hold their beliefs loosely; and
4. Drift with the literary novelties of the day?
Interesting post.
qb
On My.
I’ve been censored.
Not because I ran the church down.
Not because I claim Jesus exclusively.
Not because I reduced the church to a tradition.
BUT because I asked a legitimate question of our host.
Sorry.
GOOD POST. GREAT JOB. “Z” SNAPS ALL AROUND.
Rusty, I went back to see what you wrote on this thread. Here’s all I could find:
*****
Rusty Shackleford
May 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Oh if only there were an angry God.
A God to deal with such hatred and anger.
My only respite is the knowledge that most of those old people have gone on, hopefully to face that evil deity, and that shortly that whole generation will die.
Thank Mike for bringing me to such an uplifting understanding of our past and a time to reflect on just how hateful my parents and grandparents were.
Shalom
*****
Assuming that’s the only other post you submitted - maybe you WERE censored, after all! I can only find one other post of yours - it would help your servant qb to understand you more if you would point out where the “legitimate question” was in that post. I’m having a hard time finding it amidst all the egregious misrepresentations of what has been said.
Much grass,
qb
qb- Thanks for asking. I’d love to identify the “some” that I referenced above. Simply go to one of the Christian Universities that identify with the churches of Christ. Look for the teaming thousounds of students who are apathic and disengaged from the church. Look for the thousands who hold deep-rooted convictions regarding anti-capitalist environmentalism, climate change, and social justice with no opinion, one way or the other, about baptism. When you find these studends, ask them what adults have been the greatest influence on them. Then you will have found the “some” I am speaking of.
I almost never in the history of this blog have pulled comments. But yes, “Rusty,” you qualified. It wasn’t for disagreeing with me or Larry. I never mind having people disagree. It was for the ad hominem attacks on a friend of mine. Go after his ideas. Critique the ideas. Don’t attack the person. Others who comment here are a good model of how to disagree vehemently while maintaining dignity. Perhaps it would help you to this that about “this James character” (as you referred to him in the post I pulled): some day I hope to grow up to be the kind of Christ-follower he is!
Troy, I agree. Far too many people worship at the Church of Global Warming which happens to be the biggest hoax on the face of the earth.
Also, one reason gas prices are going through the roof is the environmental wackos opposition to drilling.
Jim, I think I understand (a little) the exceeding sinfulness of sin. It’s what pinioned the Son of God to the cross.
So I also think I understand (a little) the exceeding gracefulness of grace.
Go to Gethsemane. Go to the cross. Find that “trysting place where heaven’s love and heaven’s justice meet.” Find the One who personifies acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humble with His God.
Then come back and tell me all over again that the only aspect of God’s character that matters is His righteousness, His justice, His vengeance and His hatred of sin … and that His love, His mercy, His forgiveness and His sacrifice are a distant second place.
I just read through some of the comments and was reminded again why I don’t make a habit of reading comments.
Love your blog, Mike. I’ll stick to the posts.
Jim T.
Dan, where have you been? Ever heard of “An Inconvenient Truth?” Might want to check that one out. I think it won an academy award or something.
-From “an environmental wacko” who just happens to think that the Lord left this planet in our care.
Wow.
I feel bad for the folks on both sides of these arguments because I really believe you have a lot more common ground than your finding in this forum.
I don’t think I come from the same place or arrive at the same conclusions that Mike and Larry do but I can’t imagine that any of us haven’t struggled at times (maybe lots of times) with the historical and even current failures of the cofC tradition. I wish we had been out in front of the civil rights movement. I wish we didn’t have the reputations of exceeding judgementalness (is that a word?). I have struggled over the years with how to be a part of the way forward without dishonoring our past.
I am thinking about how little my grandparents pay attention to the Holy Spirit and how entrenched they are in certain ways of doing things. But then I am reminded of their deep faithfulness, their exceeding love and the legacy of godliness they are leaving our family. I feel such a legacy demands that my family continue to grow and seek a better and more perfect discipleship. I love our heritage, but I know even greater things are in store for us if we can truly latch on to that which is important.
At the same time, judgement is not a sin. Loving people by rebuking them is a weakness of the “new cofC”. Following literary and pop religious figures is not necessarily wise. I think it wise for each of us to evaluate that which we will not let go of. I think love and righteousness go hand in hand.
By the way, what’s with the attitudes about using the term coloreds? Is there anyone here who really believes that Dee uses this term in a disrespectful manner. When Dee grew up, this was a respectful term. I know that it has fallen out of PC, but let’s not jump on someone because they don’t use the right words when we all know they mean well. Ever heard of the NAACP?
Something tells me this conversation is about to veer into a discussion on global warming. How did that happen?
I want everyone to know that Elizibeth did not receive any compensation from me for precisely and perfectly making my point.
Now, if we could simply direct some of that passion back to saving souls, instead of saving trees, we’d be in good shape.
It’s refreshing to see the tide changing (again). Troy, I think you are right.
I believe that too, Elizabeth. But appealing to Albert Gore III as a paradigm for your environmental stewardship…well, let’s just say it’s giggleworthy.
In a recent comparison, for example, of the homes of Gore and Bush - abundantly verified against “urban legend” claims, as documented by Snopes.com - the contrast in green-ness was staggering, according to current measures of that virtue.
But the winner was not Gore, not by a long shot. Now THAT is what I call a REALLY inconvenient truth. Why does anyone take Gore seriously on these matters?
So go, and be blessedly green. But choose your exemplars more carefully!
helpful qb
qb - are we twins separated at birth? We always seem to end up on the same page.
Today this seems especially true in your latest post regarding Elizabeth’s choice of “exemplars” - a bit of Berean model might help many when trying to swallow AG the Third’s suppositions stated as absolute fact. And, dear ‘twin’ - you always say things in such a fine manner. Thanks! 
Kathy - I want to agree. I think qb is a good conversation partner. Sometimes he agrees with what I write; sometimes he doesn’t. But he “always says things in such a fine manner.”
Calling EVERYONE who disagrees with MR. JAMES approach to his heritage- a child or adolescent. That isn’t character assassination? Telling those who don’t agree with you and James they aren’t “being adult” that’s OK?
Well, good to know there are some kind of standards.
Kyle,
Excellent response, and by far the most encouraging comment I’ve read in this thread.
I can’t imagine anyone posting here is not interested in taking care of the creation God has blessed us with. I also can’t imagine that everyone here is not interested in saving souls.
The first command God gave us (Gen 1) and the great commission (Matt. 28) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they fit together quite nicely.
I agree with Kyle; everyone here has more in common then they are letting on…but that’s how these discussion go I guess. I still enjoy the conversation.
As someone who has spent a good part of my life with coC fellowship, I am learning to become very grateful for my religious heritage. I tried to run from the coC even while I was in school at Lipscomb, but I got a preaching job at a coC, and when that ended tried to find a church from another fellowship, but once again God led us back to a congregation with the same religious roots. I am especially thankful these days for so many in our fellowship who are leading the charge for Church unity, social justice, peace, discipleship, and so many other important issues. I think some of the things our fellowship has really gotten “right” like congregational autonimy have really led to the great changes and spiritual growth in the past and recently, and I am thankful for that too.
I do however have my fair share of frustrations with a whole number of shortcomings in our churches, but my wife reminds me often that I used to have many of the same opinions that I now despise and people loved me enough to be patient with me and nurture me without forcing their ideas on me. Now I hope that as I continue my education and my plans to be a theology professor someday, that I can lovingly, humbly, and gracefully nudge people toward a deeper understanding of their faith and a grater love for our God.
One of Jesus’ comments that has greatly disturbed, challenged, and inspired my convictions and way of approaching and living Christianity is found in John 5:39-40.
“You diligently study the Scriptures, because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Truly embracing Jesus as the living Word of God has been both challenging and freeing for me, given my particular religious upbringing, with its strengths and weaknesses. I am currently reading Richard Foster’s latest book, “Life with God,” which I am finding very insightful and helpful so far. I guess one of my greatest challenges is learning to move beyond striving for safety (religious and otherwise) to a willingness to radically trust in the loving leadership of the triune God and go with Him into places where I don’t have all the answers and structure figured out. I think it’s been kinda like the challenge Peter must have faced when God showed him the spread of unclean foods and told him to eat freely and not to call it unclean.
The Bereans and early church did not have the scriptures to search . . .
bb,
Act 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
It has been said that one of the greatest curses and the greatest blessings was being raised in the good ol’ church of Christ. I am thankful for the foundation and much of the training. However I outright reject legalism in all forms and many of the associated hermeneutics and resulting attitudes and teachings that were a result of our movement. Let’s just stick to the Bible turned into CENI is the only true way to understand the scriptures. “We speak where the bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent” really meant we speak where we want the Bible to speak and we are silent where we want the Bible to be silent. I believe much of what led and drove our movement was a sense of sincere duty and well intentioned but there was little perspective and evaluation to keep those noble intentions and sincerity in check. What started as an ecumenical movement to unity and just sticking to the Bible; “We are just Christians but not the only Christians” turned into legalism on steroids and eventually led to the thinking and attitude of “if you don’t believe and think like us then you are not a Christian”. Unity turned into “Think like us and we can be unified”. Gospel meetings were more geared toward convincing people that our ways of doing church were right and theirs were wrong. The gospel meetings were also designed to lead our religious friends to baptism not necessarily Jesus or a real faith in Him. Remember all the public debates over IM and church cooperation and any other issue we would dream up? We turned God into something or someone who was mostly concerned over what happened in a one hour assembly once a week and who could or could not do it and how it must or must not be done. Many churches and brotherhood leaders now don’t believe our religious heritage has much significance, “we are just the church of first century like n Acts”. I was talking with a friend of mine the other day that is also well educated in RM history. We listed a whole bunch of early leaders from Alexander Campbell to TB Larimore to David Lipscomb to KC Moser to James Harding and their respective beliefs evident from their writings. Most of them now would be disfellowshipped by many of the churches of Christ today for one or more of their beliefs. So now it seems for many congregations worship the bible rather than the God who is trying to reveal himself through it. Any group of people who do not welcome a constant questioning and re-understanding of what they believe and why they believe it are no longer seeking the truth but just trying to keep things like they want them to be.
Your Fellow seeker of the Truth,
qb,
What exactly did you mean by “soteriological consequecnes”? Please be specific.
Brent,
The problem with your post is that hell is in the New Testament. Jesus taught on hell and even gave grim descriptions of it (“Their worm dieth not”). Paul also wrote about hell (“taking vengence on them that know not God”), yet you at least seem to imply that Jimmy Allen was wrong to preach on hell so well to the point that one couldn’t sleep. I would say that he did his job.
The problem is one of balance and, once again, I think the accusations against the old church are not fair and precise. The old church was much more balanced in its approach to biblical opposites than the new, enlightened crowd. Just think . . . were you more likely to hear a sermon on heaven in Churches of Christ during the1950s or a sermon on hell at Highland, Richland Hills, Woodmont Hills, etc. in 2008? How about the love of God and the wrath of God? Do you actually believe that Mike would preach on the wrath of God to the extent that B. B. Baxter preached on the love of God?
Granted, I’m not saying that the old church was 100%, completely balanced in how it dealt with issues (wouldn’t that be like perfection anyway?), but the enlightened crowd is not the one to do the criticizing here because they are much more unbalanced in their approach to the harsher nature of God. And even when they do venture to mention hell, punishment, guilt, wrath-all biblical in nature-they apologize 15 minutes before they say what they’re going to say. I recently heard an enlightened guy preach on hell and the time he took apologizing for what he was going to say was longer than the time he spent on preaching hell. Is that the spirit we find in Jesus in the gospels? Is that how the apostles preached in Acts?
Oh, sorry, that pattern theology’s coming out again! Well, for the enlightened crowd: What emergent or missional principle makes it expedient and best not to deal with these issues as Jesus and the early church leaders did?
You said, “. . .a theological system where no one could hope to be saved.” Come on, man, be fair in your assessments. I know we have to generalize to a point because time and space are limited, but, man, it’s hard to even deal with statements like that.
“ . . . no one could hope to be saved.” Unbelievable.
maddog, what I had in mind there was Jesus’ castigation of the Pharisees for “turning over heaven and earth to make one convert, then making him twice the child of Gehenna as [themselves]” (not an exact quote, obviously; qb’s memory does not serve well).
Whether or not God is likely to have mercy on the Pharisees’ contemporary heirs for leading otherwise innocent people into the bondage they set forth as “gospel” is for Jehovah to decide, and I have no thought about an answer. But if Matthew’s rendering of the diatribe in chapter 23 is anywhere close to what Jesus actually said of the scribes and Pharisees, it at least SUGGESTS that bad theology can pose soteriological barriers for its naive adherents.
That’s all I meant.
qb
Kathy, almost thou persuadest me to be a Padres partisan.
K
ind things to say you (and Mike) had.
qnotyodab
Maddog -
You are the official hagiographer of Churches of Christ. To pretend the church was balanced . . . that it wasn’t exclusivistic . . . that it didn’t leave people despairing of any hope of salvation . . . you either weren’t there or you didn’t listen.
I’ve heard lots of ministers who don’t preach on the wrath of God to the extent that BB Baxter preached on the love of God. I bet, however, they preach on the wrath of God and the love of God to the extent he did. Wrath is a vital topic. But wouldn’t you say God’s love is a slightly larger topic — maybe a more dominant theme — in scripture? If not, you make my point.
Jimmy Allen’s sermon on hell was persuasion at its worst. And it betrayed a failure to understand metaphor.
qb,
So, basically a salvation issue, right? This is what I thought you meant. In a typical move, you retreated a bit and left final judgment up to God (for it does belong to him), but you’re basically saying that wrong teaching can affect one’s salvation. I agree. I’ve tried to make that point in several different ways on this board, but no one seems to bite.
The point of contention is not that there are salvation issues, but which teachings, believed wrongly, are worthy of the title.
NOT ONE OF US
One of the first challenges faced by the Christians in Hope, Florida was to seek the Lord’s will as to what should be their posture toward relating with others who believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord but are from different denominations, groups and traditions. These Christians were determined to denounce and destroy the divisive, sectarian spirit within themselves which can so easily take over. They believe deeply that the Lord does not want them to view other believers (at best) as inferior competitors or (at worst) caricature them as full enemies to the cause of Christ. Out of their zeal to be faithful to biblical truth, these believers realized they must take care in deciding when to relate and when to remain separate. This is not a new question for disciples. This has been of concern to the faithful of the Lord in all ages.
The prophet Elijah served the Lord during a time of great discouragement in Israel. Elijah felt that he alone was all who was left of the Lord’s faithful people in Israel. He made this arrogant claim twice to the Lord:
“I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” (1 Kings 19:10, 14, NIV)
The Lord is in a better position than his children to know who is faithful and who is not. The Lord knows the hearts of each person. The Lord rebuked Elijah’s spiritual arrogance with this surprise announcement:
“Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18, NIV)
How to view others who sincerely believe in Jesus but are, by affiliation, “not of us” (of our tradition, our denomination or our group) has always been of practical concern for the disciples of our Lord Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Mainline Protestants denominations have wrestled with this question. The Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church also wrestled long and hard with this question. Every faithful Minister or other Shepherd wrestles with this question as well. There is a little narrative from Jesus which may shed some light on the question of how to relate with others. The narrative is recorded in two gospel records, those prepared by both Mark and Luke:
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you. And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”
(Mark 9:38-42 and Luke 9:49, NIV)
This short Gospel narrative exposes the very heart of the separatist, spiritually isolationist, sectarian posture which began to raise its ugly and divisive head even among Jesus’ very first disciples. Jesus personally rebuked his disciples for their self-righteous judgment of this unknown man they met though he was also serving “in the name of Jesus.”
Folks who believe in Jesus, but who may also be less biblically literate or more spiritually immature, are not to be rejected or marginalized. Jesus taught that to deal harshly with those who love him, even if they are “not one of us” is as sinful and shameful as abusing a little child. To reject them is to reject the One whom they are striving to honor and serve. This need to embrace all sincere believers, as Jesus taught, is part of the deep conviction held by Christians in Hope. This is why they feel that any rigid isolationistic mentality in the body of Christ must be rejected at any and all cost. They feel they dare not give into, perpetuate or display such spiritual ignorance and arrogance even for a moment.