Alan Rouse on Thomas Campbell's reflections and our current state

[James.]

http://christianunityblog.net/2009/03/thomas-campbells-reflections.html

"Twenty seven years had passed since Thomas Campbell had penned the Declaration and Address of 1809, launching a noble movement to bring to an end the ungodly divisions among Christian believers. There had been many victories and many defeats along the way. Having devoted so much of his life to bringing about unity, what lessons would the elder Campbell share with those coming afterward? What course corrections would he urge? What are the lessons learned, which might help the later generations to achieve the goal?"

[Lee Freeman]

I'm not sure the elder Campbell would recognize the mess we've made of their Reformation. In many CoCs I know of, certainly the two I grew up in, many of Thomas Campbell's views wouldn't be tolerated and he'd be withdrawn from if he refused to recant them.

Pax.

[James.]

In some cases, the parting would likely be mutual.

[blituri]

Those congregations influenced by the Campbell's and others were building on Calvin who called his effort a RESTORATION MOVEMENT.  That meant to remove all of those things the Catholics had added including lots of superstition surround baptism (sprinkling) including the ritual of exorcism.

Those building on the Methodist-Anglican-Church of England-Catholic model did and do use the High Church principle although it was proposed by the Church of England but never adopted. The Disciples then and now used a three legged stool which they had to get in a line: the Scriptures, history as in councils (repudiated by the Presbyterians) and tradition based on the change in culture.  Rubel Shelly speaking for the dozen congregations promoted the same three things to line up including changed culture: once you have them lined up  then DO IT.

Alfred T. DeGroot wrote that:

"This is why Thomas Campbell could say:

"The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as a perfect a rule for particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members."

"Thus there came to be, very early in the career of this movement, interest not only in

    (1) Christian unity in a new freedom, but also (defined as 'church')
 
    (2) a return to the doctrine, ordinances, and discipline of the New Testament church."
    (p. 153) (defined as 'sect')

In 1932, A. W. Fortune says, "The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission.

        There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament Church
             that should be restored, and

        in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions

There have been those who regarded the

New Testament Church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences. Because of these two attitudes conflict were inevitable."

There has been no urge to look to the first century church for a PATTERN but to use the Word-only which is demanded by the Campbells who defined church as "A School of the Blble."  Therefore, as there is no need to adopt Plato to OUR culture there is no reason to make the Word by the Spirit of Christ fit our changed culture."

The definition of CHURCH as CIRCE or KIRKE which defines the Babylonian-Jerusalem model cannot exist without the PATTERNISM of CULTURE.

"Broadly speaking, it may be said that number

    1. above generated the present fellowship called Disciples of Christ,
           and that number (church)
    2. gave rise to the Churches of Christ. (sect)

According to Troeltsch,

    Disciples would be among the 'church' type and
    Churches of Christ among the 'sect' type.

"By 'church' is meant that body of conceptions which says "From the beginning they have been 'high churchmen'...

    because they 'never ceased to stress the visible and corporate character of the Church
    as the Divine Society,' (with bylaws, a head and ability to adapt
    to the culture) and rejected 'legalized methods and structural forms
    which are a contradiction of the living nature of the church.'

That, of course, is inherited directly from the Catholics which defines the CHURCH as the authority to SUPERCEDE the Bible from which they take only "spirit."

The CENI defended by all historic scholars as well as the Bible means that you use the Bible as TEXT BOOK and worship defined by the Campbells was "Reading and Musing the Word of God."  That also defines the church in the wildereness, defined by Paul and practiced by the historic church until -- as readily confessed by the Catholic Encyclopedia -- their "Living Church added things like music because it was common to all pagan cults."

The Disciples have a head much like that of the Pope and that is the INSTITUTE to which the Church of Christ never belonged.  Degroot and others recognize that they are HIGH CHURCH and history notes that adopting the name CHRISTIAN many were influenced by O'Kelley and the Methodists in the South.  The history of Christian churches in Tennessee relied heavily on O'Kelley.  Some scholars deny that the Methodist or Church of England High Church (never aproved) are not protestants at all.

On another forum I have had to prove that the NACC which began in 1927 but finally sected out in 1971 has a headquarters, staff and tax-exempt status. They plan the national conventions at which the CHANGES are facilitated.

They all define the Church of Christ as a SECTARIAN splinter simply because never in its history did it INTRODUCE instruments to splinter the church: none of the sub-sets in The Church of Christ ever existed other than by hateful definition when others IMPOSED something to divide them.

So mark it down as well documented that the Disciples and their sub-set the NACC are bassed on and EXPLAIN that they have the authority to sow discord because they are a HIGH CHURCH and have to run onward in order to try to keep up with culture.

Churches which become a musical sectarian division clearly ridicule the Church of Christ as being "Strict Constructionists." 

Therefore, the new SECTARIANS and the regular Church of Christ do NOT see the Scriptures in the same way.  The High Church is not built upon the foundation (laid) by the prophets and apostles. That handfull which has been subverted to instruments clearly worked with the NACC to derive their "High Church" definition of the CHURCH as the definer of faith and practices.  That does not mean that most Christian churches are very aware of the denominational powers at headquarters.

Most who have sown discord by imposing instruments have first defined themselves as postmodern meaning that Scripture has no meaning for OUR changed culture except seven historical facts ABOUT Jesus.

[blituri]

Probably many of the Christian churches sected out of the Disciples beginning in 1927 and ending in 1971 would not agree with the following foundation of the Disciples of Christ.  However, the people who have posted their "white papers" defending instruments and adopted by a very few of the Church of Christ use the High Church (Catholic) position to put down those who will not bow to the pipers and defend the right to add instruments based on our changed culture.

Richard L. Hamm of the Disciples defines what DeGroot defines as a HIGH CHURCH while the Church of Christ is a SECT. Those within the NACC promoting instruments follow the same standards even though they get mixed up. For instance, they decry the Church of Christ for using REASON thinking that they can understand what is defined as an obsolete book (postmodernism).  However, you will note that the Living Church which moves in step with culture is the ones who appeal to reason even if it is MISQUOTED:

The first is Scripture, which for Christians means, of course, the Holy Bible (which is to say the whole Bible: the Hebrew and Christian testaments).

The second is reason and the third is experience .. We Disciples are quite appreciative of these sources. Our movement was born within the philosophical context of John Locke who said that truth can be known through reason tempered with experience.

But the BIRTH of the Disciples was midwifed by a false reading of John Locke.  John Locke defines heresy as "adding anything not clearly commanding in Scripture which becomes a test of fellowship."  The Church of Christ did not ADD congregational singing to any congregation and thereby cause a SECTARIAN division. 

In this secular age in which we live, I'm afraid that many of us have increasingly depended on these two sources alone, but reason and experience are two valuable sources for understanding God.

The Fourth is tradition The Church has learned some things in the past two thousand years (that's right, the Church learned some things even before Alexander Campbell!). By looking to the church's tradition (its history, its declarations, its collective wisdom) one can learn much about the nature of God and the nature of humankind. As the sage has said, one who does not learn history is doomed to repeat it. Studying the church's tradition is a way for us to learn some things the easy way!

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Living God, uses these four sources of revelation to teach us who God is and who we are.

http://www.piney.com/Lockereasonableness.html

We might inform the agents of radical change that NO COUNCIL ever approved of the use of instruments in the mass proper and they never were: professionals and monks used the organs placed by rich people to compose and even invent "harmony" beginning after the year 1200.  The organ played processionals, intermissions and recessionals but the did not "sing congregationally with instrumental praise."  In fact an early council

A.D. 360

"But considerable prominence was given to the hymns by the Gnostic, Bardesans, who composed a psalter of 150 psalms. However, the 59th canon of the Synod of Laodicea, 360 A. D., enjoined that 'No psalm composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be READ in the Church, but only... the Canonical Books of the OT and NT." Int Std Ency., p. 2494

Psalmody thus came to be increasingly the monoply of trained singers, and the 15th canon of the Council of Laodicea, 360 AD, proscribed that 'no others shall sing in the church save only the canonical singers...who go up into the ambo and sing with a book." (Int Std Bible Ency, Psalms, p. 2494a)
NOW SEE THAT LOCKE IS MISREPRESENTED ALONG WITH THE BIBLE

http://www.piney.com/Lockereasonableness.html

John Locke denied that REASON had ever contributed anything to spiritual religion. However, when God reveals, then it seems reasonable to the mind which God created. Locke speaks of HUMAN REASON and concluded that:

1. In this state of darkness and error, in reference to the "true God" Our Saviour found the world.

But the clear revelation he brought with him, dissipated this darkness;

made the one invisible true God known to the world:
and that with such evidence and energy,
that polytheism and idolatry hath no where been able to withstand it.

But wherever the preaching of the truth he delivered, and the light of the gospel hath come, those mists have been dispelled. 

2. Next to the knowledge of one God; maker of all things, a clear knowledge of their duty was wanting to mankind.
This part of knowledge, though cultivated with some care, by some of the heathen philosophers, yet got little footing among the people.

All men indeed, under pain of displeasing the gods, were to frequent the temples, every one went to their sacrifices and services; but the priests made it not their business to teach them virtue.  But natural religion, in its full extent, was nowhere, that I know, taken care of by the force of natural reason.

It should seem, by the little that has hitherto been done in it, that 'tis too hard a task for unassisted reason, to establish morality, in all its parts, upon its true foundations, with a clear and convincing light.

And 'tis at least a surer and shorter way, to the apprehensions of the vulgar, and mass of mankind,

that one manifestly sent from God, and coming with visible authority from him,
should, as a King and law-maker, tell them their duties, and require their obedience,

than leave it to the long, and sometimes intricate deductions of reason, to be made out to them:

such strains of reasonings the greatest part of mankind have neither leisure to weigh, nor, for want of education and use, skill to judge of. We see how unsuccessful in this, the attempts of philosophers (theologians, priests, poet-musicians in the classical religions) were, before Our Saviour's time. How short their several systems came of the perfection of a true and complete morality, is very visible.

And if, since that, the Christian philosophers have much outdone them, yet we may observe,

    that the first knowledge of the truths they have added are,
    owing to revelation; though as soon as they are heard and considered,
    they are found to be agreeable to reason, and such as can by no means be contradicted.

    Truth appeals to our REASON; Reason NEVER reveals TRUTH. John Locke is usually maligned.

I have talked with some of their teachers, who confess themselves not to understand the difference in debate between them: that they divide communion, and separate upon them.  Had God intended that none but the learned scribe, the disputer or wise of this world, should be Christians, or be saved; thus religion should have been prepared for them, filled with speculations and niceties, obscure terms, and abstract notions.

But men of that expectation, men furnished with such acquisitions, the apostle tells us, I Cor. i, are rather shut out from the simplicity of the gospel,

to make way for those poor, ignorant, illiterate, who heard and believed the promises of a deliverer, and believed Jesus to be him; who could conceive a man dead and made alive again, and, believe that he should, at the end of the world, come again, and pass sentence on all men, according to their deeds.

That the poor had the gospel preached to them, Christ makes a mark, as well as business, of his mission, Matt. xi. 5. And if the poor had the gospel preached to them, it was, without doubt, such a gospel as the poor could understand, plain and intelligible: and so it was, as we have seen, in the preaching of Christ and his apostles.

[notreligus]

I've done much reading on the Restoration Movement and I own a fair number of books which I've read on the Movement.  When I comment I oftentimes just post what I've learned and don't always refer to a certain book or page (although I could but it is time-consuming).  I said that to say this:  From everything I have gleaned from what I've read I believe that the non-instrumental position of the Church of Christ can be traced to two things:  (1) Tradition.  In the early days of Christian Baptist/Christian/Disciples of Christ congregations, a piano was a luxury.  That was the same for churches of any label of that time in rural America.  The people were poor.  They didn't need instruments in the early days so they saw no need to change.   (2) Since the New Testament does not expressly address the subject, the non-instrumental Church of Christ choose, as a matter of conscience, to not use instrumental music in worship services.  I'm a musician and I'm not opposed to instrumental music.  But I respect any group that would choose to not use instrumental worship.  There's no question that people can get so caught-up in the music that they become more fleshly minded than spiritual minded and the One who is to be worshipped, Christ Jesus, is forgotten.  I used to work on the A/V team at an Independent Christian church and I got to the point where I could not stand it anymore.  I had to follow the preacher's sermon like I was following a list of cues for a theatrical show.  I didn't see where Christ had much to do with the worship service or the preaching by the time we got finished turning everything into a scripted performance. 

[blituri]

I've done much reading on the Restoration Movement and I own a fair number of books which I've read on the Movement.  When I comment I oftentimes just post what I've learned and don't always refer to a certain book or page (although I could but it is time-consuming).  I said that to say this:

From everything I have gleaned from what I've read I believe that the non-instrumental position of the Church of Christ can be traced to two things:

(1) Tradition.  In the early days of Christian Baptist/Christian/Disciples of Christ congregations, a piano was a luxury.  That was the same for churches of any label of that time in rural America.  The people were poor.  They didn't need instruments in the early days so they saw no need to change.

All of the Bible, Babylonian tablets, the classical literature, the church fathers and all founders of denominations repudiated any kind of instruments in the assembly. The Christian Church "fathers" said that the organ was an aid and if used AS worship it would be sinful.

Jenny Lind 1820-1887 performed in Nashville just affter 1850.  Nashville had become a boom town after about 1843.  Even before, Nashville had a reputation as MUSIC CITY.  It had a number of music stores. music schools and even a musical theater. It attracted noted performers and no young lady would make it past the cotton patch without some musical training. Instruments were cheap--even hand made--and in early pioneer pictures they display their guitar, fiddle, dulcimers and muzzle loader.  The fine piano used for Jenny Lind and others is till on display.

I have a hand made banjo, dulcimer and a flute made like the earliest out of a deer's leg bone: that's why they call it a tibia. The banjo was made by by black slaves and they became its father.  So, the POOR thing has never been the case. A David could take three of four sticks, some left over sheep gut and have a harp.  He could stretch a bit of hide if he wanted a sounding board.  Flutes were made out of bone or a piece of rolled up leater. Pan's pipes were made of  REEDS and probably glued together with pitch. Drums were pieces of leather stretched over a frame like a wheel.  Reed instruments were well documented. 

The first melodian added in a church belonged to a member.

The Church of Christ was ordained in the wilderness and was:
INCLUSIVE of Rest, reading and rehearsing the Word. That never changed up to the time of Christ
EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing.

Click for some history of the Synagogue which never had a praise service.

http://www.piney.com/Synagogue1.html

The Israelites were abandoned to worship the starry host BECAUSE of musical idolatry on their REST day.  The king, kingdom, temple and animal sacrifices were NOT COMMANDED when God rescued them by Grace.  Those not of the tribe of Levi and those of the tribe not on rare duty met in the SYNAGOGUE which was and  is defined as a school of the Bible. Once you understand that they you could never see a reason for doing music when the elders are teaching you the Word of God. That IS the sole duty of the Church

(2) Since the New Testament does not expressly address the subject, the non-instrumental Church of Christ choose, as a matter of conscience, to not use instrumental music in worship services.  I'm a musician and I'm not opposed to instrumental music.  But I respect any group that would choose to not use instrumental worship.

I believe that most of us learned how to read on the surface just enough to preach sermons.  If you define words and look where the writers point you will see that the Bible is filled with repudiation. That begins with lucifer called the singing and harp-playing prostitute up to Romans17 where the Babylon mother of harlots uses speakers, singers and instrument players. John called them sorcerers.

There's no question that people can get so caught-up in the music that they become more fleshly minded than spiritual minded and the One who is to be worshipped, Christ Jesus, is forgotten.  I used to work on the A/V team at an Independent Christian church and I got to the point where I could not stand it anymore.

I had to follow the preacher's sermon like I was following a list of cues for a theatrical show.  I didn't see where Christ had much to do with the worship service or the preaching by the time we got finished turning everything into a scripted performance.

[Norton]

Thomas Campbell most likey regreted saying: "The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as a perfect a rule for particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members."

Bro. Campbell promised to publish a comprehensive list of the particulars for the worship, disipline, and government of the New Testament Church. He never fullfilled his promise, and many are still looking in the Bible to find it.

[blituri]

Thomas defined church as "A School of Christ."

He defined "worship" as "Reading and Musing the Word."

That's smart: he knew about the church in the wilderness defined INCLUSIVELY and EXCLUSIVELY if he had read the Bible or John Calvin

The church in the wilderness was the synagogue well documented after the Israelites fell into musical idolatry and were nationally abandoned to worship the starry host.

The synagogue always existed and a Sabbath day's journey was defined as about 700 feet. WORK includes "sending out ministers of God."  The godly civillians were QUARANTINED from inside the walls in later times when they heard the instruments sending signals and NEVER MAKING MUSIC.

We all know that other than the FALL FROM GRACE because of musical idolatry, the use of say the harp begins only as a JUDGMENTAL SIGN when the elders fired God and demanded a king like the nations: God understood that they eanted to worship like the nations.  Instruments were not included in the Law of Moses and David DID NOT follow the Law of Moses as a king abandoned to worship the STARRY HOST.  You would not expect any one deliberately sowing musical discord to have ever read that history.

Lev. 16:27 And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering,
        whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place,
        shall one carry forth without the camp;
        and they shall burn in the fire their skins,
        and their flesh, and their dung.

The instrumental NOISE was never called music: it was exorcism in all similar STAR and SERPENT worship. If God turned them over to worship the starry host then WHY do you not have any scholarly "doctors of the Law" permitted to know that.  Those who corrupt the Word meaning "selling learning at retail" and also defined as "adultery" will be strongly delusional and therefore promote lying wonders.

Heb. 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Heb. 13:11 For the bodies of those beasts,
        whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin,
        are burned without the camp.
Heb. 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also,
        that he might sanctify the PEOPLE with his own blood,
        suffered without the gate.
Heb. 13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him
        without the camp, bearing his reproach.
Heb. 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
Heb. 13:15 By him therefore let us
        offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually,
        that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Heb. 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not:
        for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

YES, I KNOW AT ACU THEY WOULD SAY ''HIT DON'T SAY NO FRUIT OF THE HARPS."

And Christ supplies the fruit of the LIPS: not the other way around!

Is. 57:19 I create the fruit of the lips; [FREE Isaiah 55)
        Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near,
        saith the LORD; and I will heal him.

Don't seek your own pleasure or speak your own words Isaiah 58

Is. 57:20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea,
        when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

WHICH ABSOLUTELY REPUTIATES THOSE WHO DESTROY THE PEACE AND CAST UP MIRE.

When the Levites--an old Egyptian cult--put on femine garments, performed in a feminine falsetto (acappells), played, sang and danced the WOMEN'S ROLE, their PROPHESYING is called SOOTHSAYING. That, if the preacherlings can never grasp it is what means being TURNED OVER TO WORSHIP THE STARRY HOST.

MUSICAL RELIGION WAS ALWAS EFFEMINATE: THE LIPS OF THE FRUITS IN AMOS AND REVELATION 18 WHERE JOHN CALLED THEM SORCERERS WORKING UNDER THE BABYLON MOTHER OF HARLOTS.

Isa 57:3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the wh*re.

Soothsayers: Anan (h6049) aw-nan'; a prim. root; to cover; used only as denom. from 6051, to cloud over; fig. to act covertly, i. e. practise magic: - * bring, enchanter, Meonemin, observe (-r of) times, soothsayer, sorcerer.

IN CORINTH Paul warned about APPEARING as MAD:

    Manteuomai (g3132) mant-yoo'-om-ahee; from a der. of 3105 (mean. a prophet, as supposed
    to rave through inspiration); to divine, i.e. utter spells under pretence of foretelling: -
    by soothsaying.

    Gad who spoke to David was a seer or stargazer:

    "From mantis, a seer, diviner. The word is allied to mainomai, "to rave," and mania, "fury"
    displayed by those who were possessed by an evil spirit represented by the pagan
     god or goddesswhile delivering their oracular message." Vine

Is.2:6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east,   
        and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves
        in the children of strangers.

Please is: H5606 saphaq saw-fak', saw-fak' A primitive root; to clap the hands (in token of compact, derision, grief, indignation or punishment); by implication of satisfaction, to be enough; by implication of excess, to vomit: clap, smite, strike, suffice, wallow

Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon: Je.27:9

And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers: Mi.5:12

"In an inscription from Cyprus, in one from Rhodes and in several from around the district of Carthage, there are references to important personages who bear the title Mqm'lm which we can translate as AROUSERS of the god.'" (de Vaux, Roland, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Doubleday, p. 247).

"We even have a mention at a later date of a similar custom in connection with the cult in Jerusalem, where certain Levites, called me'oreim, 'AROUSERS,' sang (every morning?) this verse from "Ps 44:23: "Awake, O Lord! Why do you sleep? Rouse yourself! Do not reject us forever." The Talmud tells us that John Hyrcanus suppressed the practice because it recalled too readily a pagan custom." (Roland de Vaux, p. 247)

You don't know of anyone who has not engaged in a STUDIED IGNORANCE of what the Campbells knew: that is why no Bible literate person would impose instruments in any of the churches UNTIL they had decided that the Bible was NOT the guide for faith and practice.