[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Our greatest enemy isn't going beyond clear New Testament doctrine. It is making laws where God never did and chaining our great brotherhood from its task by those laws.[/quote]

The quote is the final statement made by Joe Beam in an article titled "What is happening to us?".  You can find this in the archive section off the GCM home page.  If you have not read this article...PLEASE read it!

It is IMHO the most "on target" thing I have read about the current environment in the cofC today...atleast in my small corner of the world.  I have made copies for many in our small congregation to read...so that we may discuss it, I passed them out Wednesday night.  It is my firm belief that ALL congregations must understand the current climate in "the mainstream cofC" and make a effort to stem the tide of legalism and name-calling before this split occurs.

If it is to occur, which I believe it will unless the Lord gives us all wisom to bridge the chasm created by the hurtful things said....I also believe we, as Christians, MUST know in our hearts where we preside in our personal belief.

With information, such as this article, it may be easier for those of US on BOTH sides of the "Innovative" / "Traditional" (inclusive/exclusive) canyon to find a way to join hands, to stop the tide of divisive talk.

For those that HAVE read this article.... Do you think that this split is inevitable?  I pray that it can be stopped, but with such terrible things that are said by some in publications and on websites in the brotherhood it seems like it's already occurred. :cry:

I spent the better part of my youth stuck in a box of extreme legalism. Content and "STATISFIED" with my life and my beliefs, what I held "true".  A few years back, the light began to shine through the "cell door" of my "legalistic mind".  I slowly pushed back the door to the freedom that my Lord had provided for me.  After a while I found out why the small sliver of light showing through the crack, who had opened that door, I knew my Lord was responsible... but was petitioned on my behalf by my mother.  For a number of years she had prayed that I might see that light...that I may get a glimmer of the "freedom in Christ".  For this I will forever be thankful.  I now pray EVERYONE that is in that "cell" to experience this freedom.

A man I truely respect, though I have never had the priviledge of meeting shared this thought with me....
"We mere humans have a tendency to try to make ourselves feel safe by locking ourselves inside a hardened room.  No one or thing can get at us that way.  We only know what we really think we ought to know and makes us safe.  However, the real safety is outside the room where there is real freedom!"

I guess this is the FIRST time in my 40 years of life that I want to be on "the LEFT" ... that's right "4R" ("Religous Radical Right-wing Republican") WANTS to be on "the LEFT"!  Atleast "the LEFT" as spoken of in the article by Bro. Beam! (Mind you POLITICALLY I am as much RIGHT as possible!)  I truely desire to be surrounded by an "Open Inovative" church here in Odessa .... and who knows maybe that is why God put in place the circumstances that brought me and Chad (Soapman..now that he UNMASKED himself in another thread) to the church of my youth ... atleast I will pray.

In Pursuit of Him,
Gaylan

Some people thought it was arrogant, condescending and offensive.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Jan. 02 2004,2:07)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Some people thought it was arrogant, condescending and offensive.[/quote]
I don't know Brother Beam personally but I'm pretty sure he didn't intend it that way.
Or were you referring to me?  If so, I must confess myself guilty on all charges.  Although I don't intend to be and really do try not to be.

Richard

I thought it was pretty much on target in my corner of the world here in the southeast.  I'm not so sure in some ways a philosphical division hasnt already occurred.  When you look at the more progressive churches a lot of the far right have already written them off as apostate.

Just curious BOG what in the article did you think was arrogant, condesending and offensive?  
RM

So you cant explain what you mean?  

Seems to me that if you feel that way you ought to be able to describe it a bit better than that.

Sure there are generalities in it as there are always exceptions but basically every church I know of there are those general philosophies represented.
RM

Well, let's see:

There was slapping labels on people  (Opens and Searchers vs. Zealots and Satisfieds)

Then there was complaining about "Zealots" using words like "Jubilee" as a label

Then there was the facile (gleeful?) prediction that within 12 to 36 months of some "split" the traditional churches would start declining

Edited by BOG 1/2/04
Then there was the confident assertion that Opens and Searchers had no part of the blame in the events (How could they?  They're open and searching.)   No, it's all the fault of the Zealots, helped by Satisfied fat cats who control the Universities.

Is that enough, or should I continue?   While Mr. Beam is a bit smoother than the Firm Foundation bunch, it's clear that he's every bit as partisan.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Gaylan @ Jan. 02 2004,8:34)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I also, by seeing what is going on in our own community here in west Texas, believe that MOST hurtful, divisive things being said about other Brothers and Sisters and WHOLE congregations...is being published/said by our more legalistic brethern.  Why is that?[/quote]
You're new here, so I'm sure you aren't familiar with the regular quarterly thread ridiculing the publishers of the Spiritual Sword (a publication I had never heard of until I started visiting this board.)   And you missed out on last summer's dog pile on Buster Dobbs and the Firm Foundation (another publication I don't read.)   I won't go on.

I will say that your characterization of Mr. Beam's article as "defining beliefs" as opposed to labeling is exactly the kind of thing that drives me further and further into the conservative "zealot" camp.  What upsets me the most about the "innovative" "open" "grace-centered" faction in our ongoing dispute is their continued insistence that they bear no responsibility for what is going on.   Mr. Beam's article comes right out and says it;  you come pretty close yourself.

Perhaps the article was arrogant and condescending. If you think it was, then it was to you. Personally, I see him as simply, "saying what we were all thinking." Maybe not all of us, but a bunch of us.

Imagine for a moment that all the members of the churches of Christ across the 'spectrum' are in fellowship. It's not too hard, after all they all have the same name on their church signs. During any given month, a tiny fraction of those members take it upon themselves to write things down, publish them and distribute them to other members who wait eagerly to read what they've come up with this month. What do we find. Some say that other members just aren't doing things right. They are thinking, writing and doing things that they feel ought not be done by members claiming to be 'Church of Christ.' Some say that others are too legalistic. Others say that some are too liberal. Accusations fly about people trying to change what was right and good or about people trying to blindly follow and bind non-scriptural traditions to the point of divisiveness. And on and on we go. Joe Beam's article was merely a reflection of what has been going on for decades with people trying to map out the geography of the garbage that we put ourselves through month after month. Instead of dealing with the dozen or so members who are writing things we think are harmful, we group all the members who cotton to such thinking into a group (a group that is smaller than our "churches of Christ") and then we give that group a title. Zealot. Searching. Satisfied. Exasperated. Or maybe we like different titles: Liberal. Legalistic. Erring. Sound. (I hate when people use the word 'sound'. Just a personal hangup, sorry guys) Even geographical terms. Tennesseean. Texan. California. Some titles are more universally recognized: NI. One-cuppers. and my favorite, Mainstream. Some titles are more nebulous or esoteric. Change-agent. Traditionalist.

The fact is, as long as you think of yourselves and others as falling into a subset of Church of Christ, or even a subset of Christians, you put yourself into a denomination, and are then at odds with the Great Commission. Do I belong to Christ or to the Church of Christ? If I successfully convert a soul, does that help or hurt churches against whom I am competing? You wonder why people are not evangelistic. I think it's not because they are bashful. I think it's because they know way down deep that their church is too small. We want to be part of a larger group, but we don't want to be associated with people we don't particularly like. That's consumerism. I pay a lot of money to the church each week. I don't want to have to pay for a bad church. So I'll just say I am really a "searching" Christian who doesn't support "satisfieds" and "zealots" and who, by the way, thinks they're the problem with the "Churches of Christ". In fact, I'm not 100% sure they're even saved, but hey, God'll sort that out in the end. So if you ask, "what kind of Christian are you?" I'll tell you that my sign says Church of Christ and hope that your opinion of me will reflect well on the Church of Christ. But if you've heard of us before and didn't like what you heard, then I'm not like most "Church of Christ", I'm really a "searching" Christian just like you. You won't find that title on any sign, bulletin, t-shirt, or bumper-sticker. But trust me, that's what I am.

What I mean by all of this is to say this: let's not be guilty of trading one form of denominationalism for another, just by adjusting our terminology.