Christian Forums and Message Board

By the way, every founding leader and member of the Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ was an Exasperated.

If in fact this is true, then Skip is correct that argument and divisiveness are built into the movement (at least that's what I understand Skip to have said in the past.)

Yes, divisiveness is "built in" to the coC. It is built into the very fabric of the church - we are either in Christ or not.

The big difference, to me, between "g-c" and "traditional" is nothing more than where we draw the boundaries of fellowship. Nothing more, nothing less.

A "for-instance":
A "g-c" coC Christian and a "traditional" coC Christian could probably enjoy a conversation together about "how wrong" the Mormons or JWs are. Change the topic to Rubel Shelly and they will probably not agree; pretty soon the "traditional" will be a "Pharisee" and the "g-c" will be a "Change Agent" and they will part ways.

One of the basic problems with people - all "labels" included - is selfishness. Neither side can compromise - that's a powerful American trait, and a trait not to be proud of.

There may well be an increasing division and isolation in the coC as the article asserts (in fact I agree that there is division in the coC), but from my viewpoint and an examination of history, it seems to me that a 'clean split' in two (with a few fragments) is likely. The "more liberal" will move doctrinally and worship-style wise in the direction of groups such as the Christian church and other conservative / fundamentalist evangelical groups. The "more conservative" will remain the "traditional coC". And (it's a sign of the times) a few independent groups will spring up - after all, we in the USA are in the midst of an explosion in the number of difference religious groups. But all-in-all, roll back the clock 100 or so years and you will see today's situation as if in a mirror (except that we drive SUVs and they drove horse-and-buggy, and they fought over "the organ" and we fight over "worship styles").

One of the basic problems with the article is an oversimplification of motives. I just scanned it, but it seems to me that Mr. Beam ascribes pure religious motives to all, which is far-too-often not the case.

Example: Two departures from our coC, "traditional" (but 20 or 30 years ago we probably would have been called "liberal-leading" if not just plain "liberal").
Departure One: Exasperated, and left, because the full bar at home in the family room was not accepted by the church as OK. In truth, it finally boiled down to a choice between the bar and the church, and the bar won (it was easier to change churches)...
Departure Two: Zealot who left us because the installation of the overhead projector made us "liberal" (so they found a church without one (yet)).

Note that if I leave because of an overhead projector I'm a "Zealot", if I leave because they chose old-style songbooks I'm "Searching", if I leave because they won't accept my divorce and remarriage I'm "Exasperated".
Despite the fancy labels, probably the root cause in every case is a form of selfishness. They're just not doing it "my way".

Skip

However, I have to disagree with you here. This may be true for the most part, but there are still many instances where people are forced to leave, and it's not just because of their own selfishness. True, selfishness may have been the cause, but it may not have been on the part of the party who left.

I agree.  I can think of at least one legalistic zealot who was a pretty sincere guy.  He went on to become an apostle.  I'm convinced that one can be equally sincere in holding a more liberal approach in applying Biblical authority.  The selfishness comes in more in how we live with those differences, in how we make decisions about our direction and practices when others operate from a very different perspective.  We each need a good dose of humility to keep us from being contentious as we promote our views.

Blessings,

Bob

Following Jesus: Rules, Relationship, or Both?

   There are two ideas out there about how to serve God that are wrong.  One idea is that serving God is all about following the rules and very little about a personal relationship.  The other idea is that serving God is all about having a relationship with God, and very little about following rules. 
   Let’s talk about one extreme: all rules and little relationship.  How can this manifest itself?  Could it not look like a church that is more concerned with the absence of instruments than the absence of heart?  And, could it result in a church that is known in the community as the church that doesn’t have a piano and preaches against the prom rather than as the church that is known for its great spirituality, love for God, and love for fellow man?  How might this affect the church’s view of the Bible?  Might such a church view the Bible mainly revealing a set or rules rather than a relationship?   All rules and little relationship…could it result in a church that is more concerned with outward appearances than inward righteousness?  What would an individual that is thinking like this be like?  Might he or she define morality in terms of a lists of don’t (like “Don’t drink.  Don’t dance.  Don’t smoke.  Don’t have sex outside of marriage, etc.

His cross, like the ark in the wilderness, is the center around which his people are to encamp; so that they cannot separate into factions, or withdraw from each other, without retiring at the same time from the presence of the cross.

"It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should. " - FD Srygley (1856-1900)