Three or four years ago, Joe Beam wrote an article that was published on this site that outlined the changes that were taking place in The Church of Christ What Is Happening To Us? (http://www.gracecentered.com/what_is_happening_to_churches_of_Christ.htm). Seems that much of what he has said was about to happen has indeed happened. We are becoming more polarized as a people.
What do you think? Is it really playing out this way? If so, is it happening for the reasons he said?
Interesting. I think I read that months ago, but I had forgotten about it. (There's been alot of water under the bridge.)
A year ago, my traditional congregation went through a great turmoil when we hired a zealot preacher. (We didn't know!) That really opened my eyes to the rift among the various church groups.
Since the preacher left, things have settled down a great deal. We did lose some more conservative families to a church in a neighboring town. However, I would say our congregation has remained firmly within the traditional category.
Since the hubbub died down, I've lost contact with what may or may not be going on in the brotherhood. I have passed through phases where I was very cynical about the future of the Church. Now, I've put those ideas out of my head.
On a personal level, I am much more concentrated with my own spiritual growth than the relationship of the various CoC sects. I would term myself a traditional searcher, but I am close to being exasperated.
Therein lies the flaw I see in Joe Beam's analysis: there are those of us who believe that the doctrine of the traditional churches of Christ is very close to what it should be. We are not happy with zealots or innovators. However, we find that, whatever the intentions of the founders of the restoration movement, there are flaws in the doctrine and the execution. Therefore, we look elsewhere.
Enough for now. Sorry for the rambling.
On a personal level, I am much more concentrated with my own spiritual growth than the relationship of the various CoC sects.
That pretty well sums up how I've chosen to deal with the mess in coC's. :shrug:[/color]
If dealing with the mess makes us forget or forgo allowing the Lord's influence to "grow" us --
Then dealing with the mess is a bad thing. Let it ferment.
Of course, sometimes you have no choice but to deal with it... sometimes it comes and vomits in your lap.
Let me ask this in reference to the article: so what?
Okay, that was flippant, but it was also sincere. I guess you can tell that I'm an "Exasperated", but why hang on to "The Church of Christ" (denomination) if it's not working anymore? Why shape and sculpt and mold a piece of clay that's moldy and filthy and better off thrown in the trash for a clean fresh lump of clay? Why are we hanging on to a dead horse? I mean, if we're really serious about unity, why not get out there and BE part of Christianity instead of continually sequestering ourselves in the CofC lockbox and squabbling amongst ourselves?
I mean, if we're really serious about unity, why not get out there and BE part of Christianity instead of continually sequestering ourselves in the CofC lockbox and squabbling amongst ourselves?
That might be ok for some sects within the CofC that could do this with no problem. But for some sects they would have to turn their backs on a lot of their core teachings to do this. I don't think it is really that simple.[/color]
I started thinking about this again after my aunt mentioned that she'd heard that a local congregation had become much more conservative than they once were, and had begun more openly attacking other churches. A couple of the other Churches of Christ in the area, on the other hand, have moved noticibly to the left side of the chart.
And then there's the previously mentioned influx of unsolicited mailings about those who digress.
His artivle is dead on...
When I have more time I will elaborate...
rick
To elaborate a little bit on what I said before, I feel exasperated in part because our movement produces such a wide spectrum of doctrine and practices. Each generation reinterprets the Bible from scratch because there is no foundation to build upon.
Also, many people are hyper-critical of others within the movement. The arm attacks the knee because it is not an arm. This should not be--and does not indicate a body being led by the Holy Spirit.
Let me ask this in reference to the article: so what?
Okay, that was flippant, but it was also sincere. I guess you can tell that I'm an "Exasperated", but why hang on to "The Church of Christ" (denomination) if it's not working anymore? Why shape and sculpt and mold a piece of clay that's moldy and filthy and better off thrown in the trash for a clean fresh lump of clay? Why are we hanging on to a dead horse? I mean, if we're really serious about unity, why not get out there and BE part of Christianity instead of continually sequestering ourselves in the CofC lockbox and squabbling amongst ourselves?
I can see how you would feel this way, and I share your feelings, to a degree. BUT, what I have found is that every denomination has its problems, so, short of starting your own "house church", you're just going to end up in another denomination with problems. And, if you start your own "house church", it's just a matter of time until THAT church evolves into something with similar problems. So, for me, the answer has been, at least for now, to stay within the fellowship that I understand the best, deal with the negatives, and try to make a positive contribution in my own little way. As someone previously said, I try to focus on my own spiritual growth, hoping that out of that will flow something good. I don't know if that will make any sense to anyone else or not, but that's how I've chosen to deal with church issues.[/color]
I remember this article from a long time ago.
I guess I would describe myself as exasperated with the exasperateds.
Over the past four or five years I have noticed a handful of local churches who have "progressive" members whose thinking is apparently changing on some traditional views; they're having the sort of "grace awakening" I and many people in my church had twelve years ago. These people are being able to step outside the narrow confines of Church of Christ orthodoxy-and its happening on an individual level. Hopefully these people will influence other people in these congregations and spread this good influence. They're coming to see the larger picture, as it were, of the church universal and they're coming to see how diverse Churches of Christ were long ago.
One reason I am so interested in the Stone-Campbell Movement is because so many of the issues facing the modern Church of Christ are not really new at all-our ancestors in first, second and third generation Churches of Christ dealt with these issues way back then and regardless of whether we believe their movement was ultimately a failure or not, I think there's much wisdom we can glean from them if we're willing to listen. Dr. Leonard Allen expressed these sentiments very elegantly and succinctly back in 1993:
Seeing the past in a new light, however, can bring clarifying perspective and healing balm. It can help clear up imagined hurts and bring healing to unimagined, terribly real ones. It can provide the impetus toward reconciling old estrangements. It can make the future look different. . . .
We easily assume that the history of Churches of Christ is basically "the present writ small." One may assume, in other words, that Alexander Campbell and his colleagues restored New Testament faith and order sometime in the nineteenth century and that Churches of Christ-or at least some segment of them-have simply preserved that pattern of truth unchanged down to the present time, Today one may see a fairly fixed, uniform tradition and easily assiume that this has been the story from near the movement's beginnings.
But it was not. As the tradition formed through the nineteenth and down to the early twentieth century, certain voices assumed central, controlling positions, thereby pushing other voices to the margins. These more dominant voices shaped the tradition of twentieth-century Churches of Christ. They set the boundaries of acceptable views. They defined orthodoxy. They also interpreted, shaped, and maintained the "memory" or story of the movement, and this shaped story made clear who stood at the center and who at the margins.
But these central, more powerful voices were not, simply by virtue of their power, necessarily the wisest or most astute. . . .
Churches of Christ are now in a time when the central or dominant voices of the twentieth-century tradition are being questioned-gently by some, more sharply by others. It is a time when many people are assessing their spiritual heritage, indeed, a time, a time when the traditional settlement of center and margin is coming under critical review.
In such a time, it helps to hear some of the "distant voices," those who once occupied a strong place in the tradition but whose views have been remembered selectively, screened out, or simply forgotten. Listening to such voices helps one glimpse a modern heritage that is broader, richer, and more diverse than one presently may suppose.
Out of such listening can arise a new and perhaps more faithful settlement of center and margin. -
Pax vobiscum.
I agree with Connie. No group of Christians is perfect.
In the CoC, at least I know where the potholes and landmines are. If I choose to step on one, at least it will likely be on purpose and I will likely be prepared to deal with it.
In another group, I would probably unintentionally commit gaffes, and cause myself even more problems.
Although I don't agree with everything typically done ( and who does?), I do cherish my heritage. I think I'll stay where God put me, and be the best influence for good that I can be.
Mike
Amen to Connie and Mike.
I guess my questions were aimed at those bent at "saving the church", a do or die philosophy toward reshaping the CofC because of some sort of vested interest they have in it. Isn't that a waste of time, trying to force unity of doctrine when we could be out doing the Lord's work (feeding, nourishing, clothing, loving, sheltering etc. people)?
Furthermore, articles like the one presented here seem to take the stance of "we (the cofC) are all God's got, so we must DO something before Gods only (implied) true church falls apart". It's the same mentality that causes people to run around screaming "what'r we gonna doooooooooooooo?!?!?" when the numbers on Sunday go down a little (or a lot), as if the number of CofCers (the denomination) somehow reflect the state of God's Kingdom.
I said I would elaboarte more, so here it is...
My dad and I go to the same coc, it would probably be considered in the middle of the "satisfieds" as far as doctrinal positions. My dad is definitely a satisfied while I am an open leaning towards exasperated.
About a year and half ago my dad and I had a good discussion, I told him in my humble opinion as his generation moves on and mine becomes the leaders their is potential train wreck coming. In our little church of about a 100 or so that chart could easily be defined by age. The older you are the more closer you lean to zealot, the younger you are the more closer you lean to exasperated. Not saying one is right or wrong, just the simple truth.
What happens when the open's and exasperated's become the shepherds and deacons while their is still a fair ammount of the satisfieds and zealots left... a flat out disaster. My dad saw my point, but I know he thinks that us opens and exasperateds will come around.
About a year ago we had our monthly Wed. devo service, where any of the men could get up and lead a song. We had a female visitor who obviously had never been to a coc before, of course thinking this was an "open fellowship" she got up led a scripture, prayer and song. To this day I am thankful no one made her sit down, I applaud the men of our congregationfor handling this gracefully. But at a "mens" business meeting the next Sunday, one of the men in my generation asked about this and said, "I thought what she did took courage, and frankly did she do find anything wrong?". It never went any farhter than that at the meeting.
I took my dad home and he was surprised about that little comment he asked me what that guy thought he was trying to accomplish. I reminded him of our conversation about 6 months ago, I told him, see it is not just your wayward liberal son who thinks this way, many in my generation think this way, and probably most of the thirty something's in the church were not offended at all by what she did, while everyone in your generation saw this as a clear violation of I Tim. 2.
It has never come up again, but what is going to happen, when my generation becomes the shepherds??? When my generation decides that women passing out communion trays is just that, women passing out communion trays, not anything that is of authority. I could give you more hypotheticals but you get the idea...
I only hope that the grace that abounded that night abounds when this train wreck of generations comes to a full collision...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
... she got up led a scripture, prayer and song...
... what is going to happen, when... my generation decides that women passing out communion trays is just that, women passing out communion trays, not anything that is of authority?
We're already doing all that (and more) at Woodmont.
Great post, Rick. You might like to read "A New Kind of Christian" (if you haven't already).
I fall in the cautiously open category. Because of that, and because I befriend people on both sides (and have various beliefs/opinions/views in common with both), I find myself constantly caught in the crossfire between my friends to the left and right.
I fall in the cautiously open category. Because of that, and because I befriend people on both sides (and have various beliefs/opinions/views in common with both), I find myself constantly caught in the crossfire between my friends to the left and right.
I think I'm there too. I'm probably a moderate.[/color]
Lee Freeman wrote:
Over the past four or five years I have noticed a handful of local churches who have "progressive" members whose thinking is apparently changing on some traditional views; they're having the sort of "grace awakening" I and many people in my church had twelve years ago. These people are being able to step outside the narrow confines of Church of Christ orthodoxy-and its happening on an individual level. Hopefully these people will influence other people in these congregations and spread this good influence.
This statement scares the crap out of me, Lee. That's why I'm exasperated.[/color]
Rick wrote:
It has never come up again, but what is going to happen, when my generation becomes the shepherds???
The theory being that every generation of young people go through an identity/rebellion phase, but that they grow more conservative with age. I think the theory has merit, although not in every case. You probably have reason to be concerned.[/color]
Lee Freeman wrote:
Over the past four or five years I have noticed a handful of local churches who have "progressive" members whose thinking is apparently changing on some traditional views; they're having the sort of "grace awakening" I and many people in my church had twelve years ago. These people are being able to step outside the narrow confines of Church of Christ orthodoxy-and its happening on an individual level. Hopefully these people will influence other people in these congregations and spread this good influence.
This statement scares the crap out of me, Lee. That's why I'm exasperated.
Why does people thinking for themselves and abandoning what they view as a rigid dogmatism and exclusivism scare you? People like my preacher, my parents, and friends of mine have been led by God from legalism and a pharisaic self-righteousness into a state of reliance upon God's grace and an unwillingness to conclude that everyone outside of Churches of Christ is lost-I know such an attitude doesn't characterize everone in Churches of Christ, but it certainly did most of us.
For myself, the idea that there
might be viable Christians in "denominational" churches was a bit scary because it invalidated a lot that I had been taught as kid-but then so did my study of the Stone-Campbell Reformation. Those guys wouldn't have lasted a month at the churches I grew up in. But now I'm excited about it; I've learned a lot from "denominational" Christians that before I would've scoffed at or ignored as "false teaching." I'm not scared of the unknown anymore and I don't regard "denominational" believers in an "us vs them" mentality like I used to. I now see that these folks are every bit as sincere as we are-they serve the same Christ we do, and hope for the same salvation we do. I realize that there are still major doctrinal differences, but I think spiritually mature Christians ought to be able to discuss such things in a spirit of love and forbearance.
Pax.[/color]
The ironic thing about all this is that the plea for unity today seems to coincide with the idea of abandoning rigid dogmatism. But, for the majority of the Christian world, assuming that most Christians are Catholic/Orthodox, unity with the majority demands an acceptance of (even more) dogmatism.
But, I am making an assumption here for which we might do well to ponder this question...
Which are more dogmatic, the conservative/legalistic CoCs or the Catholic/Orthodox Churches? I understand that the RCC/EOC actually have a body of doctrine that they explicitly label as "dogma".
For that matter, it's a myth that the Baptists, Methodists, and Lutherans, etc. don't.
For that matter, it's a myth that the Baptists, Methodists, and Lutherans, etc. don't.
Actually, it's hard to top the dogmatism of some of our Reformed friends. We must agree to a specific philosophy about how salvation is determined or an accusation follows that we're trying to save ourselves with our own works or righteousness or we're not trusting in Jesus alone, etc.
(No, no sidetrack to those discussions, please. Plenty of other threads devoted to that :D . Just illustrating the point that whatever a particular group or school of thought "dogmatically" emphasizes is, in fact, dogma where they're concerned.)[/color]
sometimes the unity movements seem to not just abandon dogma, but doctrine. When does it cross the line to the hippy mantra of "I'm ok, your ok, you do your thing, I'll do mine."
Why does people thinking for themselves and abandoning what they view as a rigid dogmatism and exclusivism scare you?
Long story short, let's just say that, IMHO, this goes to the "Baptistization" of the CoC.
For that matter, it's a myth that the Baptists, Methodists, and Lutherans, etc. don't.
Actually, it's hard to top the dogmatism of some of our Reformed friends. We must agree to a specific philosophy about how salvation is determined or an accusation follows that we're trying to save ourselves with our own works or righteousness or we're not trusting in Jesus alone, etc.
(No, no sidetrack to those discussions, please. Plenty of other threads devoted to that :D . Just illustrating the point that whatever a particular group or school of thought "dogmatically" emphasizes is, in fact, dogma where they're concerned.)[/color]
Precisely. (no sidetrack intended :))
That is why y'all need to find yourselves a good Bible church. We are non-denominational, automous,............ :noworry:
Now where have I heard that before?
Why does people thinking for themselves and abandoning what they view as a rigid dogmatism and exclusivism scare you?
Long story short, let's just say that, IMHO, this goes to the "Baptistization" of the CoC.
We used to
be Baptists. Campbell borrowed a lot of his ideas from the Baptists. IMO we could learn a thing or two from the Baptists.
Pax.[/color]
I think we've already learned enough from them.
Which Baptists? There are probably more baptist sects than CofC sects.
Which is one of the things we learned from them.
Campbell's churches were members of the Redstone and Mahoning Baptist Associations; Campbell stated his intentions to remain affiliated with the Baptists as long as they would have him and allow him the freedom to follow his conscience (which they both championed and procalimed). But Campbell was eventually booted out of the Baptists for his controversial teaching that there was a disctintion between Old and New Covenants, that at baptism sins were remitted, and for his refusal to adopt the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. That and personality clashes with a couple of Baptist pastors. Nevertheless, both Campbell and his father Thomas always regretted the rift between they and their "Baptist brethren." And as late as 1866, talks were under way relative to a formal union between Stone-Campbell churches and the Baptist Church until the Baptists backed out.
Pax.
BTW, despite my earlier pessimism, I don't think the traditional Church of Christ is going anywhere anytime soon. No need to sound the death knell just yet. Are we in decline? Maybe, but other denominations are feeling the pinch more acutely.
BTW, despite my earlier pessimism, I don't think the traditional Church of Christ is going anywhere anytime soon. No need to sound the death knell just yet. Are we in decline? Maybe, but other denominations are feeling the pinch more acutely.
The fact that it isn't "going anywhere," that its just maintaing the status quo, if that's what it's doing, or is in a slow decline is one of the problems it seems to me.
I wonder if some segments of the brotherhood haven't become "a people without a vision."
Pax.
I wonder if some segments of the brotherhood haven't become "a people without a vision."
Pax.
Isn't this the same question being asked throughout the Protestant world right now?
Would Joe Beam's model still hold true if you replaced "Church of Christ" with "Baptist" or "Methodist" or some other name?[/color]
Isn't this the same question being asked throughout the Protestant world right now?
And I don't think the question is limited to protestantism. From what I understand, the Catholic Churches of Europe are empty.
According to a friend in France, empty is an understatement. I also remember Lynn Anderson talking about meeting a man who makes a mint off selling old church furniture stripped from empty churches in the UK to restaurants for decor.
The West has been in the Post-Christian Era for quite a while, but the church (in the broader sense) has been in one bad case of denial and, istm, let things get worse than it should have before waking up and reacting. Some don't know how to react, so they just pull the curtains down and pretend the train's still moving.
The only Baptist I'm super-concerned about learning from is John.
http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html
This is an ongoing reporting of visits to churches, primarily in the UK. Some congregations seem to be doing ok. I've also read some about how Africans are doing missionary work in Europe and now have some pretty big churches there, especially in the UK.
Would Joe Beam's mode still hold true if you replaced "Church of Christ" with "Baptist" or "Methodist" or some other name?
I really don't know that I could answer yes in the circles I have been in, at least not to the level that Beam portrays. It might have something to do with not believing we are the true, literal institutional church of Christ.[/color]
http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html
This is an ongoing reporting of visits to churches, primarily in the UK. Some congregations seem to be doing ok. I've also read some about how Africans are doing missionary work in Europe and now have some pretty big churches there, especially in the UK.
True, but they're still a minor drop in the bucket when taken in the picture of the UK population. You can find booming churches in Manhattan, too (Jim Cymbala's, for example), but in light of the population, and past Christian:non-Christian ratios, it's all waaaaay down from the past.[/color]
The real growth in Christianity has moved out of the Westernized cultures (U.S., Europe) and into Latin America and Africa. It's a big shift.
Yep, and that actually excites me. The Latin & African churches seem to have been able to better balance zeal & emotion with truth, something the Westernized churches struggle to do, often choosing one over the other.
I wonder if ACU is doing anything to cater to the hispanic population--if not from Hispanic Americans, then from Latin America generally.
If someone has any special knowledge about ACU, I would appreciate their answer.
Thank you, someone. :;):
http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html
This is an ongoing reporting of visits to churches, primarily in the UK. Some congregations seem to be doing ok. I've also read some about how Africans are doing missionary work in Europe and now have some pretty big churches there, especially in the UK.
True, but they're still a minor drop in the bucket when taken in the picture of the UK population. You can find booming churches in Manhattan, too (Jim Cymbala's, for example), but in light of the population, and past Christian:non-Christian ratios, it's all waaaaay down from the past.[/color]
The numbers are down from decades past, that's true. But according to some of the reports I've read, the problem MAY be overstated.
Some of the reports are from what appear to be very active churches.
I'm not downplaying what is happening in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter). I guess what I'm saying is that we often say that this or that church/fellowship is growing, so there must not really be a problem. To me, that's denial. Growth in pockets doesn't negate the problems of the whole. It's kind of like saying that because my canker sore cleared up I don't have to worry about my blood pressure anymore.
There, was I clear as mud?
btw, it might not sound like it from this thread, but I'm a very optimistic person....just not optimistic at the expense of facts.
I wonder if ACU is doing anything to cater to the hispanic population--if not from Hispanic Americans, then from Latin America generally.
If someone has any special knowledge about ACU, I would appreciate their answer.
Thank you, someone. :;):
As best I can tell, they're not doing anything at all.
When my son graduated about a year ago, I didn't see more than 5 or 6 brown faces in the crowd.
There's this young woman who grew up in our congregation - her parents still attend. She's about 3 years older than my boy. She worked for me for a about a year after she graduated high school and then went off to ACU.
Anyway, this girl is not only bright, friendly and good-natured; you never saw a more beautiful girl in your life. I'm not kidding.
Her experience wasn't good - she said she never felt welcomed. Most amazing to me, not a single guy ever asked her out. I couldn't figure out whether they were blind or stupid or whether inter-racial dating is still a big no-no for them. But I was amazed. I know that if the age difference had been just a little bit less, I'd have been encouraging my son to take her out.
I'm not entirely sure if that's what Tidbit was asking, but what BOG is describing (while it is, definitely, an issue of its own) is not what I was referring to in my original comment. I'm not talking about hispanics here in the U.S. but those in countries in the southern hemisphere, for example.
The primary way I have seen ACU reacting to this shift, theologically, is by moving from a solely mission-minded approach to an approach of partnership -- learning from the Christians there, rather than trying to teach at them. ACU, I think, sees a big part of its role as being that of helping educate church leaders. Now that there are a lot of Christians (in some cases more than in the U.S.!), our role (in the U.S.) may be more along the lines of helping them grow and mature in their newfound faith. For instance, ACU is helping train faculty members at the Baxter Institute in Honduras (a CoC Bible school). Their dean has graduated from ACU's Graduate School of Theology and two other faculty members are in progress, last I heard.
ACU also has a very strong partnership with Heritage Christian College in Ghana, West Africa. ACU Bible professors travel there each summer and sometimes for short terms in the winter to teach classes there, to help them get their accreditation. In a few years, there are plans to offer a full ACU master's degree entirely in Ghana. And as with Baxter, several HCC faculty are currently at ACU getting graduate degrees as we speak.
A Bible student anywhere around the globe can take up to 18 hours from ACU's GST online, and more courses are being added (online) in the next couple of years. Already, students from New Zealand, Japan, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Mexico, Uganda, and parts of Europe have taken GST courses online.
In addition to Ghana, ACU professors have taught summer courses in Nairobi and Kenya.
ACU's missions folks are making an attempt to send out more multi-national missions team, trying to include natives from the region.
Another result of this shift is that there is more of a focus on the U.S. (and Europe) as mission fields. This is taking place both outside the U.S. and within -- we are seeing missionaries from Africa come here, and we are seeing an increased emphasis on domestic church planting/missions in the U.S.
Here's an interesting stat for ya:
In the last 15 years, the number of missionaries going out from North America and Europe had a 12 percent increase. Missionaries from the developing world saw a 200 percent increase.
OK, sorry for the book. Tidbit, you knew better than to ask that. :p
btw, it might not sound like it from this thread, but I'm a very optimistic person....just not optimistic at the expense of facts.
If I notice your canker sore is cleared up, that wouldn't mean I'm ignoring facts, would it?
Nah, but I'd wonder why you're looking. :p
btw, I wasn't implying you were ignoring facts, I was just explaining that my attitude isn't as negative as it sounds in this thread.
Nah, but I'd wonder why you're looking. :p
Folks look at car wrecks, too, don't they?
From looking at the church attendance stats in the UK, it is obvious that the numbers have been declining over the past few decades. However, after looking at Mystery Worshipper, there are some congregations that seem to be doing quite well. Kinda makes a guy wonder why that is.
OK, sorry for the book. Tidbit, you knew better than to ask that. :p
Thanks for the info, Wendy. I appreciate the efforts ACU is making to become (as I believe they say) a 'world-class' university. I kind of changed the subject, and was wondering whether ACU had taken steps to diversify the domestic student body, specifically to be more welcoming to hispanics. In light of the populational and cultural shift in Texas and the southwest, I think it would be good for ACU to lead the brotherhood by recruiting more hispanic faculty members, staff and students. As it is, the CoC in America is not reflecting the racial diversity of society at large.
BOG's post sheds quite a bit of light on the situation.
I kind of changed the subject, and was wondering whether ACU had taken steps to diversify the domestic student body, specifically to be more welcoming to hispanics. In light of the populational and cultural shift in Texas and the southwest, I think it would be good for ACU to lead the brotherhood by recruiting more hispanic faculty members, staff and students. As it is, the CoC in America is not reflecting the racial diversity of society at large.
I agree. I know ACU has increased their emphasis on multi-culturalism in the last five years or so. There is an Office of Student Multicultural Enrichment (http://www.acu.edu/campusoffices/osme.html), a full-time multi-cultural student life coordinator and a full-time multi-cultural recruiter.
For what it's worth, this past school year, ACU had 200 international students, out of about 4,780 students total. 18 percent of the student body is non-white. Six percent are Hispanic.
Other CoC schools:
(These stats are from a year ago.)
Harding had about 151 international students. 10 percent of the student body was non-white, one percent Hispanic.
OCU had about 12 percent of the student body non-white, two percent Hispanic. (Don't have info on their int'l students)
DLU (Lipscomb) has about two percent international (26 students). Eight percent of the student body was non-white, one percent Hispanic.
Lubbock Christian, a considerably smaller school, has impressive diversity stats! 21 percent non-white, 14 percent Hispanic. Only one percent international, however.
According to U.S. News & World Report, 17 percent or higher non-white is considered a diverse campus.
Way to go, LCU, on drawing such a diverse crowd. :)
For what it's worth, this past school year, ACU had 200 international students, out of about 4,780 students total. 18 percent of the student body is non-white. Six percent are Hispanic.
Not too bad.
Having read the whole thread, I'll pick on topics hit upon early in the thread...
I will note in passing that anyone who has looked at coC history in the post-Civil War period to the split of 1906 will see that the coC of the late 1900's and into the 2000's is "history repeating itself". IM is still an issue, and instead of Missionary Societies there are women's roles and worship styles questions. The coC has inherited the women's role and worship style questions from greater Protestantism, and the coC as a movement is too theologically shallow (IMO, anyway) to deal with it any better than the rest. Perhaps the coC is too conservative to become embroiled in the homosexual issues of this day, but I wouldn't count on it.
I'll be blunt: Ignorance of the scriptures is problem number one.
Think of it this way -- it's like you're converted from speaking English to, say, Swahili.
Now can you really become fluent at Swahili listening in classes on Sunday AM, Sunday PM, and Wednesday PM -- roughly 4 hours a week?
Can reading about Swahili rather than actually diligently studying the textbook bring you to fluency?
In the same way, in my experience, Christians don't radically modify their behavior when they become Christians. They tolerate.
They don't study the Bible diligently and regularly. Often they read devotional books and allow their opinions and positions to be formed by inputs other than the Bible. Somehow the "quick answer" from a commentary is better than patiently studying, meditating, and praying (when the question may linger unaswered for a time).
Another root problem with the coC, and Western / American Christianity in general is, IMO, primarily cultural -- on two levels.
First of all, "church life" and "real life" are separated. Need I say more?
Second, culture is seen as "real", and church / Christianity as a pipe dream. No one can really attain that or understand that or really live that way. This is illustrated by the gap between the older generation and the younger generation. Each generation is basing the church upon the standards of the current culture. One needs look no further that the issues of celibacy (Catholic) women's roles and homosexuality (Protestantism) to see this in operation upon the churches.
Finally, the perversion of society with private in-home entertainment beginning with VCR tapes and progressing to pay cable and internet access has brought decadence into homes that at one time was restricted to the red light district. To pick on men, it is much different to drive and park and enter into a "gentlemen's club" than it is to click over to a porn Internet site in a private room of your own home.
IMO, secret sin is paralyzing the church to a far greater extent than in previous generations.
I'll be blunt: Ignorance of the scriptures is problem number one.
Think of it this way -- it's like you're converted from speaking English to, say, Swahili.
Now can you really become fluent at Swahili listening in classes on Sunday AM, Sunday PM, and Wednesday PM -- roughly 4 hours a week?
Can reading about Swahili rather than actually diligently studying the textbook bring you to fluency?
Maybe a bigger problem is just a lack of desire to practice Christianity, instead of just knowing it. Personally, I think 4 or 5 hours a week is plenty of time to get to know the Faith. I learned calculus in 3 hours a week of class time and 4 hours a week in homework time. I would think that at about 5 hours a week a person could have a relatively thorough knowledge of the Faith (with citations from the New Testament) in about 6 months. Of course, that should be the beginning.
Ken[/color]
I think we're "learning the faith" every moment we're awake, by putting into practice the lessons learned in those four hours. Life's a lab.
"But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." Hebrews 5:14 ESV
I think we're "learning the faith" every moment we're awake, by putting into practice the lessons learned in those four hours. Life's a lab.
"But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." Hebrews 5:14 ESV
That's what I was trying to get at, but you said it better.
Ken
I would not disagree; there is benefit -- but IMO "church-only" Bible study time falls far short of what is needed.
I have an unfortunate feeling (from years of interacting with Christians) that in the "lab" of life, many Christians don't use the textbook, don't don the safety goggles, don't know what is in the beakers and can't tell which substances are good and which are harmful.
I used to mark the passages read in church with a special mark in my Bible. Try it sometime; you may be surprised at the end of a year to find how little of the Bible is actually used in 4 hours of church a week.
I understand what you're saying, Skip, and don't necessarily disagree. However, I do wonder sometimes if the RM has left us with the idea that study, more than application, is the goal of teaching in the church. Look, for example, at the Sermon on the Mount. Was it a call to study, or a call for examination and action? We tend to emphasize "study to shew thyself approved" as though study is an end, and not the means to an end.**
Don't misunderstand, I'm certainly not downplaying the need for study, personal or corporate, but I'm wondering how all those brothers and sisters of old who had no copy of the Word at home were still able to be shaped by it so dramatically. More especially, I'm wondering why they were shaped, it sometimes seems, more than those of us who have so many resources and times to study. I'm thinking we're dealing with a heart problem of another sort, I guess. It's not our lack of study, but our lack of desire to be shaped by it, no matter how much or little we open the Book (much, again, like the S.K. quote Connie brought).
---------
** I think of things like this when discussions come up about translations. "Study to shew thyself approved" in the KJV gives quite a different impression than "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved" in the ESV. One conveys an idea of gaining knowledge, the other one of gaining character. That's a big difference.
Jmg,
We may be talking around each other here.
I see study, meditation on the Word, contemplation, and memorization in the sense of the examples of David in the Psalms or Jesus in the temptation or in discussions with the wisest scriptural scholars of the day.
They knew the Word, and they lived it.
They could not have lived the Word and applied it without knowing it and thinking it through.
They could not have fully known God without His Word.
The relationship with God takes time and effort above and beyond pew-sitting.
Yet uninformed and misdirected effort is wasted -- one must be directed by God (His Word) or one is beating the air.
Skip,
So your complaining about people not reading the Bible or giving enough attention or care in meditation of it. All I can say it has always been like that. I seem to remember reading St. John Chrysostom complaining about the exact same thing, and that was 1600 years ago.
I don't know what goes on in the bigger churches but in our little church Bible classes about 80% of our classes are just studying Scriptures. The other 20% is topical like prayer, role of elders, etc.
If that's what causes splits in churches then were doomed to split.
Ken
Back to the original focus of the argument:
Here's an example of what's happening to us -
A (somewhat) elderly friend of ours recently got a packet from ACU (her alma mater) attempting to hit her up for money. (I'm guessing it was actually the Alumni Association, not the university itself.)
She responded that she didn't think they should have given Max Lucado a prize and so she wasn't going to send them any money until they explained just why they had done it.
They responded with a letter telling her that was just fine, they'd take her off her mailing list and she would no longer receive any communications about the alumni activities, etc, etc. (I wonder if this counts as in informal letter of disfellowship?)
Now, to be fair, I've only heard one side of this, and haven't seen any of the letters.
On the other hand, this lady is quite bright, not a rigid or absolutist personality, and would probably even consider herself to somewhat toward the more liberal "grace-centered" spectrum of the brotherhood.
But both ends of the spectrum have made agreement (or disagreement) with Lucado into a litmus test or an issue over which to choose up sides.
What astonishes me is that, his writings are so insipid as to defy belief. It's a real marvel that someone so uninteresting could become so polarizing.
What astonishes me is that, his writings are so insipid as to defy belief. It's a real marvel that someone so uninteresting could become so polarizing.
Perhaps he is the churches of Christ red hefer* that we will dance around in praise of the god of disunity. Then we can sacrifice him and be on our seperate merry ways!
Ken
*If I remember correctly the red hefer is sign to orthodox Jews that the end it near.[/color]
OK, who might have guessed that I'd have two cents to throw in on this one?:p
Just for what it's worth...
It is not the university's policy, nor have I been aware of any instances of, removing people from communication without their explicit request. From what I understand, almost all of the (negative) communication ACU received about Max Lucado included (after a long tirade) a request to be removed from any future university mailings. I have never been aware of any attempt to remove people simply because they disagreed with us on this issue or any other. I feel quite sure there are probably faculty or board members who might have disagreed with ACU's decision to honor Max. Obviously they weren't "disfellowshipped" or anything of the sort. I'd really like to go ahead and quash the rumor that anyone who doesn't like Max is "disfellowshipped" from ACU. That's a rumor I'd rather not have floating around, if it's all the same to you! :D
I mean, think about it. Would a university really stop asking people for money without a specific request to do so??? :;):
If she did not ask to be removed from communication by the university, and still received that response, I would say it was a mistake or a misunderstanding. An exception, not the rule.
Also, the Alumni Association generally doesn't ask for money. They tell you about events and ACU news and ways you can be involved and resources available to you. It's generally safe to open mail from them! The president or the Development Office is who asks for the $$$$.
Now, I do think that there are certain CoC issues that tend to become litmus tests. Although I don't think BOG's example is the best one, I think the point can still be made. For some, Max is a litmus test (on both sides!). For some, it's role of women or praise teams or baptism.
I've even found myself guilty when I first started posting on this message board of assuming a person's positions on a wide variety of issues based on their stance on one particular issue.
I bet Skip can speak to that -- how many times have people assumed he is against instrumental music??
I continued getting requests from International Bible College for contributions long after I was disfellowshipped. It never bothered me-I simply ignored them. Finally they stopped sending them. I probably should've asked to be removed from their mailing list but never got around to doing it for some reason.
For the record I appreciate Max Lucado's giving Churches of Christ a more positive image than we had heretofore with many people. A lot of folks only knew us as an exclusivist, contentious, dogmatic group who liked to argue for baptism and against IM. Partly through Max's books many people realize that not all Churches of Christ are like that. Imagine books by a Church of Christ author as bestsellers in "denominational" bookstores! Who'd have thought it ten years ago?
His books are useful to a certain segment of people. Personally I prefer CS Lewis, Fr. St. Augustine, Benedict Groeschel, GK Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but I do like some of Max's stuff, and if other people benefit from it that's great.
I certainly appreciate him being one of the talking heads when Larry King does a show on some controversial religious issue or other, as Lucado usually offers a reasoned, well-thought-out, well-articulated, sensible and above all biblical, response.
Pax.
...
I bet Skip can speak to that -- how many times have people assumed he is against instrumental music??
:thumbsup:
Probably just about everybody at one time or another...
In scanning the article again, I noticed that the author indirectly reinforces something that has always been the Achilles Heel of the RM -- what I will call the Power Centers.
There are at least three types of Power Centers:
-- Journals (Wineskins, Firm Foundation, Spiritual Sword, etc)
-- Prominent authors / preachers (Lucato, Shelly, etc)
-- Colleges / universities (ACU, FHU, etc).
There is a possible fourth in the area of doctrine:
-- Commentaries
I noticed that Beam mentioned the Power Centers prominently in his comments, but didn't include them in his chart. I think that it is simplistic to separate the groups from their power centers; the groups and corresponding power centers are inseparable.
Sadly, though, that points out that as a religious movement, the reality is that the bulk of the coC is tied to institutions of men (a de facto clergy) -- not the Pope and the College of Cardinals, but to 'little kingdoms' of periodicals, preachers, and universities.
Side note: Not growing up in the coC or in the deep South, but moving here later, it has been difficult to understand the rather bizarre (to me) Power Center culture of the coC in the deep South. Yet the phenomenon is strong enough to split churches, and I have witnessed instances in which it seemed that an attack on a Power Center was tantamount to an attack on the Bible itself.
I guess that's another facet of my "Ignorance" observation -- that the dictates and doctrines of the Power Center can have the effect of replacing scripture and personal study with a set of talking points from a class or a book -- a 'creed' of sorts.
I have never been aware of any attempt to remove people simply because they disagreed with us on this issue or any other.
As I've said, I've heard only one side of it and not seen the correspondence.
Nonetheless, this issue has continued to be a lightning rod, and bad feelings continue to boil. And as I think I've said before, I have a hard time crediting the notion that whoever decided to give out this particular prize didn't anticipate a lot of the fall-out, yet went ahead anyway.
All evidence of the "choosing up sides for a fight" that has been going on for several years. And in general, I think Lucado is just a rallying point for both sides - a sort of mascot to one group and a bugbear for the other group.[/color]
Side note: Not growing up in the coC or in the deep South, but moving here later, it has been difficult to understand the rather bizarre (to me) Power Center culture of the coC in the deep South. Yet the phenomenon is strong enough to split churches, and I have witnessed instances in which it seemed that an attack on a Power Center was tantamount to an attack on the Bible itself.
I have no idea what things are like in the heart of Dixie,
but up in the north and west Texas, this was very noticeably with regard to the ACU powercenter.
Nearly every congregation I know up in that part of the world had an "ACU" faction and the "non-ACU" faction. (This was extended into our household because my wife attended ACU and I didn't.) There tended to be very litle interaction between the groups, and there were quite often hard feelings when the ACU Travelling Roadshow came to town each year to show their video about how if you sent your kids to ACU, you could be sure they'd marry an ACU kid (whose parents you probably knew from your ACU days.) (And of course, there was dragging the youth group to Sing Song and Homecoming also.)
If you get about 300 - 400 miles away, it starts to weaken a little bit.
I'm hesitant to post this because I don't want us to get off track of the points being made by making this entire thread about ACU or Max Lucado. However, I do feel the need to clarify and provide the most accurate information possible (maybe it's the lingering journalist in me) since I happen to have access to extra information.
I have a hard time crediting the notion that whoever decided to give out this particular prize didn't anticipate a lot of the fall-out, yet went ahead anyway.
You may not realize this, but all ACU alumni awards (including outstanding alumnus of the year, which is what Max received) are voted on by the Alumni Advisory Board. The board is made up of a cross section of alumni. They, not the administration, choose the award winners.
Also, as I have mentioned before in these discussions, the decision was made (and Max was told of the honor) PRIOR to his announcement that Oak Hills would be going instrumental and dropping the CoC name. About a week prior to that announcement actually.
Now, of course, ACU knew that some would disagree with this award. But ACU also knows that there are no perfect people to give awards to. Giving the award did not mean that ACU endorsed every belief/decision Lucado has ever made. You'd be hard pressed to find a Bible faculty member at ACU who agrees with Max on his stance on baptism. But the things Lee mentioned -- his bestselling books that have touched the lives of millions, his national Christian influence, etc. -- are what made them decide to honor him.
There tended to be very litle interaction between the groups, and there were quite often hard feelings when the ACU Travelling Roadshow came to town each year to show their video about how if you sent your kids to ACU, you could be sure they'd marry an ACU kid (whose parents you probably knew from your ACU days.)
I guess it's just my age difference, but I've never heard of or seen this, and I've lived within 150 miles of ACU for all 26 years of my life. It kind of makes me laugh though. All Christian schools get the rep of being marriage factories. Now, most don't promote that aspect as much, I guess.[/color]
Down here in the Heart of Dixie ACU is on the outs with many people for being what they view as a bastion of liberalism. Not saying its true, only saying that's what a lot of conservatives think.
Down here, most conservative CoCs tend to think alike and hold to very similar, in most cases identical, doctrinal platforms. That's how a church like mine can get disfellowshipped by other churches it's never really had fellowship with-because it violated the common understanding and interpretation of sound doctrine.
Also, colleges set the "religious/doctrinal tone" in a town like mine, and I suspect, in a much larger town like Abilene or Nashville, too. In Florence International Bible College, now Heritage Christian, a conservative, mainline, primarily preacher training school, is looked to as a "power center"-though no one would call it that; it's doctrinal views and way of thinking are the norm for most of the individual congregations in the county. Part of the school's requirements were that full-time students had to complete so many hours of church-related ministries in one of the churches each week, which was carefully monitored and graded by the school. Of course they aren't allowed to work with a liberal or anti-institutional church.
When several IBC students whose thinking was more progressive began attending my church about eight years ago, after our disfellowship, the Dean of Students at IBC/Heritage warned them not to attend my church if they wanted to pass. Our two ministers were politely told they were no longer welcome on campus, where one had taught classes before and another had recently graduated. The dorm parent, we'll call him Vance, who with his family attended another "liberal" CoC in town, was told to leave his church or resign his job at the school. I think he resigned from his job.
Other "power centers" would be the churches who sponsor the Christian Student Center on the University of North Alabama Campus. I know for a fact that they've had at least two progressive directors over there who were required to teach the party line so as not to get fired; one of them, we'll call him Tom, played that game as long as he could, but finally couldn't live with his conscience, resigned and went to Nasville, where he got a better job at another school where he didn't have to keep his true views private.
The elderships who sponsor the CSC defitenly set the agenda for what is acceptible there.
Brotherhhod newspapers would be the last "power center" down here. IBC/Heritage published The World Evangelist for about thirty years; it set the tone for "sound" doctrine in its pages.
Pax.
bog:
Nearly every congregation I know up in that part of the world had an "ACU" faction and the "non-ACU" faction. (This was extended into our household because my wife attended ACU and I didn't.)
I can easily believe this. The effect is noticeable even in East Texas.
There tended to be very litle interaction between the groups
Well, apparently some interaction in your case! :D
Mike[/color]
I grew up among that same tension (being only 87 miles from ACU), and it spread as far as the NE, where there are ACU and non-ACU oriented congregations/groups. Much of this is a lingering side effect of the Exodus church plantings, though.
With an atmosphere of "I am of ACU, I am of FHU, I am of Libscomb", is anyone surprised that the coC fragments?
Actually, I am being increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Beam's factions are a symptom, not a cause.
To put it another way, the universities churn out preachers and supporting graduates that form the factions of Beam's charts.
Comments?
With an atmosphere of "I am of ACU, I am of FHU, I am of Libscomb", is anyone surprised that the coC fragments?
Actually, I am being increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Beam's factions are a symptom, not a cause.
To put it another way, the universities churn out preachers and supporting graduates that form the factions of Beam's charts.
Comments?
Don't forget the preacher training schools.
Ken
With an atmosphere of "I am of ACU, I am of FHU, I am of Libscomb", is anyone surprised that the coC fragments?
Actually, I am being increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Beam's factions are a symptom, not a cause.
To put it another way, the universities churn out preachers and supporting graduates that form the factions of Beam's charts.
Comments?
That very well could be part of the problem.
But it's not as though students go into one of those schools a blank slate and walk out as part of a faction. Wouldn't you guess they (or their parents) have already established which group they're a part of and choose a school based on that? It's no big secret which schools are more conservative and which ones are more progressive.
Wendy,
Certainly many parents whom I personally know have basically "betrothed" their children to their alma mater from birth.
Yet there is no guarantee that the parent's experience will match that of the child, given a typical 20 to 25 year gap.
As an aside, our congregation has a virtual pipeline into two of the "more conservative" Christian universities in the region.
Finally, I think that it is safe to say that the high school and college age groups are the most rebellious and impressionable and volatile of the age groups.
So I think that it is possible, even reasonable, to find many kids who walk into college as basically a blank slate (or at least searching or malleable) and leave a member of a faction.
Interesting discussion.
And it goes to show once again the impact of congregational autonomy to the extent that the issues are different in different places. Here in Kansas for example, I would not agree that the "power centers" set the agenda. But having grown up in a military family, I certainly have been to places where the opposite would be true. I simply say this to point out that autonomy makes efforts like Beams difficult in the sense it is only possible to approximate. The same template cannot be used everywhere in the same way. But it is a good place for discussions to start.
[Make no mistake, however, even here Lucado would be a lightning rod.]
Finally, I think that it is safe to say that the high school and college age groups are the most rebellious and impressionable and volatile of the age groups.
So I think that it is possible, even reasonable, to find many kids who walk into college as basically a blank slate (or at least searching or malleable) and leave a member of a faction.
And many leave to become youth ministers (not picking on them, I've been there) who then start "factioning" them at a younger age...this I'm starting to see on an increasing scale (in Tx before I left, not up here).
That's true; I've seen a lot of youth ministers end up being extremely divisive forces.
Three or four years ago, Joe Beam wrote an article that was published on this site that outlined the changes that were taking place in The Church of Christ What Is Happening To Us? (http://www.gcmagazine.net/whatishappening.html). Seems that much of what he has said was about to happen has indeed happened. We are becoming more polarized as a people.
What do you think? Is it really playing out this way? If so, is it happening for the reasons he said?
It is more than enough to care for the local congregation.
Suffice it to say all other local congregations are out of my care and attention unless needs be I join myself to them.
ollie
Actually, that may be so for you, but not for me.
I organize a multi-congregational youth activity, which brings with it the 'baggage' that what each congregation teaches 'matters' to all other congregations involved.
I've actually been told by a couple of congregations that they could not participate because of what one participating congregation teaches -- even though this particular youth activity is not one in which doctrine is taught -- to the elders it is apparently a matter of fellowship. My response is just to say that their elders gotta do what they gotta do, whether I agree or not. It ain't my business to tell them who to fellowship.
The irony (duplicity?), to me, is that one of those two congregations that won't participate with us locally participates in the Lads to Leaders program and attends a regional convention (in which I organize the very same event) with the very same "problem" congregation there! And the local event is not associated with worship (we just use the buildings), but at the regional convention there is a joint worship service...
I would not agree that the church is "more" polarized now than 10 or 30 or 50 years ago.
The coC is polarized, but IMO not "more" so.
Maybe it's just that the divisions are finally reaching us out here in the hinterland. Our little congregation has run smack into a string of warnings (some in the form of telephone calls) about associations and activities since I wrote the original post here.
Maybe it just means we're finally coming to life.
In thinking about the Podcast that Adam Ellis and I do on Post Restorationism (http://postrestorationist.podomatic.com/), I was wanting to look at the article, but the link at the beginning of the thread is broken. Can it be reposted please?
The hidden door behind the bookshelf still works.
What is Happening to Us? (http://gcm.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=133)
Thanks Marc
I don't think that many kids get sent to church colleges without parents knowing what they are paying for.
In an email exchange with a shepherd at a former congregation (we remain confidants) he talked of a congregation he attended many years ago. At that time virtually all of the kids who went to college ended up going to Harding. Today almost none go to a church college. He puzzled over what had changed, yet he really had his answer because he mentioned that now when recent grads move into the area they generally visit once and move on to another congregation because they don't want to go backward. This church is holding an area-wide meeting about holding on to traditions. Once one of the most progressive congregations in the area it has reached its place and wishes to hold to it.
If parents see that their neighbor's kids aren't coming home to the congregation they aren't going to risk "losing" their children.
What struck me most was the concept on the chart called innovative. Few
CoC's in the scheme of the evangelical world would be considered even a little innovative. In CoC circles what makes you very innovative is about 10 to 20 years ago in the evangelical world. Thinking a praise team makes you innovative means you should stay in and the CoC.
I had a discussion several months ago with a CoC that took CoC out of the name and was building a new sanctuary to accommodate instrumental worship. In talking to them about the books they were reading I had to ask if they realized they were 15 years behind the curve. I wanted to know if they understood that their built in feeder system, grace centered CoCers was going to dry up and they were going to have to compete with the mega church for members.
I wanted to know if they understood that their built in feeder system, grace centered CoCers was going to dry up and they were going to have to compete with the mega church for members.
Interesting and valid point, kanham.
What struck me most was the concept on the chart called innovative. Few
CoC's in the scheme of the evangelical world would be considered even a little innovative. In CoC circles what makes you very innovative is about 10 to 20 years ago in the evangelical world. Thinking a praise team makes you innovative means you should stay in and the CoC.
I had a discussion several months ago with a CoC that took CoC out of the name and was building a new sanctuary to accommodate instrumental worship. In talking to them about the books they were reading I had to ask if they realized they were 15 years behind the curve. I wanted to know if they understood that their built in feeder system, grace centered CoCers was going to dry up and they were going to have to compete with the mega church for members.
I've always maintained that in general the CofC is neither conservative nor particularly devoted to the authority of scripture - we're merely laggards.
We're perpetually 20 - 30 years behing the "fun" denominations on all issues:
worship styles
women's roles
marriage/divorce
Skip (I think it's him) has suggested, and I'm sure he's right, that within 5 - 10 years (if not sooner) there'll be serious agitation from the CofC avant garde to normalize homosexuality.
Skip (I think it's him) has suggested, and I'm sure he's right, that within 5 - 10 years (if not sooner) there'll be serious agitation from the CofC avant garde to normalize homosexuality.
It's already beginning to show up among some of the more progressive CofC bloggers.
Skip (I think it's him) has suggested, and I'm sure he's right, that within 5 - 10 years (if not sooner) there'll be serious agitation from the CofC avant garde to normalize homosexuality.
It's already beginning to show up among some of the more progressive CofC bloggers.[/color]
You've got to be kidding me.
Could we not use the word progressive for that? I see little progress in such a view. What fascinates me is that people don't understand how unprogressive that concept is. Go back to the Roman Empire and see just how prevalent it was.
I think there was a reason that culture actually progressed beyond that for hundreds of years. To go back to such a destructive place would seem to make them primitives not progressive.
Could we not use the [word] progressive for that?
...
How about "Digressives"?[/color]
Sorry, kanham, but I won't.
You'll see that it's that the people pushing it will have been on board with all of the things that you might consider "progress" and that they'll be using almost the same arguments as were used for the other issues.
Many, many people will drop out on this one and not be willing to go that far, but they'll be unwilling to see that it was there "progressive, innovative" thinking that laid the foundation for this thing they reject.
Could we not use the word progressive for that? I see little progress in such a view. What fascinates me is that people don't understand how unprogressive that concept is. Go back to the Roman Empire and see just how prevalent it was.
I think there was a reason that culture actually progressed beyond that for hundreds of years. To go back to such a destructive place would seem to make them primitives not progressive.
I used progressive to describe the rest of their beliefs, not this particular one. However, I just don't see too many traditionalists or conservatives writing about being wrong in this area.
For those interested in what the future holds for the CofC, look here:
http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea (http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea)
Same arguments, same people.
For those interested in what the future holds for the CofC, look here:
http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea (http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea)
Same arguments, same people.
Now, I think I've seen everything... :doh:
http://www.gayrestorationist.blogspot.com/ (http://www.gayrestorationist.blogspot.com/)
Lord, help us.
For those interested in what the future holds for the CofC, look here:
http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea (http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea)
Same arguments, same people.
How about that Doublespeak?
Are you "Willing to be wrong?"
:help:
For those interested in what the future holds for the CofC, look here:
http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea (http://www.kendallball.net/20060223/wide-as-the-sea)
Same arguments, same people.
Now, I think I've seen everything... :doh:
http://www.gayrestorationist.blogspot.com/ (http://www.gayrestorationist.blogspot.com/)
Lord, help us.[/color]
I found the third link in his list interesting, because people try to say that linking "gender issues" to "homosexual issues" is a slippery slope argument.
Yet there it is, just as predicted.
It's not a slippery slope.
It's just as BOG noted: ""[P]rogressive, innovative" thinking that laid the foundation" -- for both.
But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.
I found the third link in his list interesting, because people try to say that linking "gender issues" to "homosexual issues" is a slippery slope argument.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
It appears it's going to have to stop somewhere. We have to draw the line somewhere... the trouble is, those who don't stop at the line will look at those of us on this side of the line as "legalistic", I'm sure.
The terms "progressive" and "legalistic" must truly be in the eye of the beholder.[/color]
That is hardly a CofC issue. I've even had convsersations with a preacher from my side of the tracks about how paving the way for women to be elders and the homosexuality issue are related.
It appears it's going to have to stop somewhere. We have to draw the line somewhere... the trouble is, those who don't stop at the line will look at those of us on this side of the line as "legalistic", I'm sure.
The Episcopalians couldn't draw it.
The United CofC bunch couldn't draw it.
The Methodists aren't able to draw it.
The Presbyterias haven't been able to draw it.
I see no reason to think we'll be any better able to draw it than these other groups.
But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.
Phil,
I don't really think I have to. Many of the assertions made simply fall short. The idea that thinking homosexuality is not what God planned makes one mean and ugly and hateful to homosexuals does not hold with reality. It can to some but it doesn't have to.
So how can I explain or defend or change ones mind if that is what they say reality is?
Of course there will be a push to "normalize" homosexual intercourse within the church because the church has for the most part turned spineless and unwilling to confront heterosexual intercourse outside of the bond of marriage.
The homosexual's lustful thoughts are no worse than the lustful thoughts of the heterosexual and their relations no worse than the heterosexual relations we turn a blind eye to among heterosexuals.
All I've heard so far out of the cofC pulpits and out of evangelical pulpits is that homosexual people are slime who want to subvert our culture.
If that's the best that can be managed then failure is inevitable because demonizing people rather than confronting action is wrong and even more vital when you demonize the person and the people meet nice and reasonable people of that group they conclude ol preacher in the pulpit is just behind the times.
:amen: I lived in Massachussetts for eight years and worked with gays. Gays are generally more educated, slightly wealthier , more urban, and I think, better behaved than the average American and many of us.
I found them easy to work with , less condemning, and more polite .
The Church also contained ex-gays, women, and men.
I see no difference between their lifestyle and a fornicator's lifestyle and don't belive God plays "Big Sin, little sin " anymore in this area than anywere else.
Respectfully,
Striving
Of course there will be a push to "normalize" homosexual intercourse within the church because the church has for the most part turned spineless and unwilling to confront heterosexual intercourse outside of the bond of marriage.
The homosexual's lustful thoughts are no worse than the lustful thoughts of the heterosexual and their relations no worse than the heterosexual relations we turn a blind eye to among heterosexuals.
All I've heard so far out of the cofC pulpits and out of evangelical pulpits is that homosexual people are slime who want to subvert our culture.
If that's the best that can be managed then failure is inevitable because demonizing people rather than confronting action is wrong and even more vital when you demonize the person and the people meet nice and reasonable people of that group they conclude ol preacher in the pulpit is just behind the times.
You know, this sounds good.
But have you been among those (and this isn't an accusation - I just don't know) who condemned the old hard-line position on divorce and remarriage?
And isn't that where the old condemnation of extra-marital sex began to break down?
Do I think the old "you are going to burn in hell if you don't leave your husband and go back to the first one" theology is wrong? Absolutely.
Your point is quite probably valid in that the transition started with the change in teaching on divorce but there was nothing right in the divorce is OK teaching or in the we will help you through it without trying to get you to reconcile mindset.
I had an ELDER not terribly long ago tell me how glad he was that a woman in the church was divorcing her foreigner husband who held a faith other than Christianity. Unlike the elder I had actually met the man, in fact knew him quite well and knew that with reasonable certainity that she was lying in part or in whole about what he had done wrong.
Back on track though its a two wrongs situation. We avoided needing to confront some wrongs by teaching wrongly now we may teach correctly but avoid confronting the wrong.
I find neither the old way or the new way acceptable nor scriptural.
But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.
True. We need to learn how to speak and act both compassionately, and consistently with the Word. Dropping compassion for the sake of Truth won't heal; dropping Truth for the sake of compassion is an impotent false hope.
How we talk talk to people with this struggle is being discussed on this blog (http://homefront.blogspot.com), too.
But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.
That is hardly a CofC issue. I've even had convsersations with a preacher from my side of the tracks about how paving the way for women to be elders and the homosexuality issue are related.
The Episcopalians couldn't draw it.
The United CofC bunch couldn't draw it.
The Methodists aren't able to draw it.
The Presbyterias haven't been able to draw it.
I see no reason to think we'll be any better able to draw it than these other groups.
I'm saying this with all sincerity. There is only one group on earth that has the capability to stop the infiltration of homosexuality into the Christian culture, and the ability to expel such false teaching without dissolving into irrelevance. That group is the Catholic Church.[/color]
I don't understand how. Just look at the catholic clergy.
Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):
Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):
That doesn't seem to support your previous assertion.
Like Balaam, they can't help themselves. :;):
That doesn't seem to support your previous assertion.[/color]
How so?
You asserted that the Roman church will be the only one to stop the homosexual infiltration into Christian culture. When Jerry pointed out how unlikely that seems given the current state of their clergy, you said they are like Balaam, and cannot help themselves.
But, ultimately, Balaam was very effective in causing great harm to God's people, undermining them through the use of sexual immorality.
I was thinking of the following passage:
So Balaam said to Balak, "Did I not also speak to your messengers whom you sent to me, saying, 'If Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the LORD, to do good or bad of my own will. What the LORD says, that I must speak'? (Num. 24:12-13)
Of course I'm aware of the passage in Revelations:
But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.
I'm not saying the CC is like Balaam in every respect. I'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear when I wrote, "they can't help themselves".
I don't buy it.
...and I bet CD and Clever don't either. :;):
But maybe the Num 24 passage was just related to blessings and cursings, so maybe it wasn't a good reference.
Ken
I don't buy it.
...and I bet CD and Clever don't either. :;):
Don't worry, I'm not asking you to buy anything, because I'm not selling.
It would be nice in a perfect world if we gave everyone exactly what they needed...
-- The one who needs a sharp rebuke, a sharp rebuke
-- The one who needs loving guidance, loving guidance
So far as I can tell, the main thing is to actually warn the one committing sin.
It is obvious that in the Bible different methods were used with different audiences, and I really can't think of a single instance in which the method was condemned. More often than not, the message was to-the-point, even harsh.
It seems that the message, however delivered, is the crux of the matter.
Anyone rejecting truth because of 'how the truth was delivered' will ultimately answer to God. I am quite confident that God will deliver opportunity to all to repent, and that there will be no lame excuses accepted before the Judgment Seat.
But we've got to understand that these conversations are coming. There are many out there who do not feel that homosexuality is a sin and we will have to be able to answer that idea outside of the "Thus saith the Lord," because they have an answer that is perfectly reasonable to them.
True. We need to learn how to speak and act both compassionately, and consistently with the Word. Dropping compassion for the sake of Truth won't heal; dropping Truth for the sake of compassion is an impotent false hope.
How we talk talk to people with this struggle is being discussed on this blog (http://homefront.blogspot.com), too.[/color]
Back to the main line of the discussion.
I've browsed some of these blogs, and I have to say I'm unimpressed for a variety of reasons, but mainly because their approach is internally contradictory.
First, they rail against Christians for (allegedly) singling out this sin while ignoring others (such as porn, adultery, etc.)
Then, they seem to suggest that we deal with issues of homosexuality in the same way - by politely looking the other way and pretending we don't notice.
A few observations:
1. I'm not familiar with any CofC's that approve of pornography.
2. Imperfect discipline is a hardly a reason to abandon standards of conduct. What if we said "You know, a lot of murderers go free, so it's not fair to lock up the ones we catch. We ought to just let people kill each other?"
3. I'm not aware of any political movement seeking to impose upon society approval for pornographers or adulterers.
I will admit there's a lot of hypocrisy, but hypocrisy isn't the worst thing in the world. The hypocrite at least acknowledges that there is good and bad, right and wrong. I'd much rather tolerate a hypocrite than surrender to the "anything goes" type of morality that's being promoted these days.
I've found more good comments in the responses than in the blogs, for some of the very reasons you list.
I don't understand how. Just look at the catholic clergy.
Interesting point.
The fact is, the Catholics have a serious problem.
They have one thing that Protestants don't have, though.
They have a leadership structure that allows them to deal with the problem with a real chance to actually solve the problem within one Church.
I would say that the Orthodox have the ability to stand as well.
I really don't think that Protestantism or the RM could / will be able to deal with this problem.
Look at the mess that "issues" have made of Protestantism, many of the issues being trivial compared to homosexuality.
I give Protestantism and the RM little chance of any real solution, just more fragmentation.
Society's mindset on the issue has already transitioned into the membership (and increasingly, the leadership) of Protestantism and the RM.
Look at homosexuality threads on the board --
Dare to take a stand against the sin of homosexuality?
Better carefully couch your words, or you'll be accused of casting the first stone (you hypocrite)!
The approach toward "condemning" (if you can call it that anymore) the sin has changed (what tangible good has that done?), and in some cases the sin has become acceptable.
Protestantism and the RM will either split, or compromise. Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.
(I see that my last two paragraphs parallel BOG's post above.)[/color]
I really don't think that Protestantism or the RM could / will be able to deal with this problem.
Look at the mess that "issues" have made of Protestantism, many of the issues being trivial compared to homosexuality.
I give Protestantism and the RM little chance of any real solution, just more fragmentation.
Society's mindset on the issue has already transitioned into the membership (and increasingly, the leadership) of Protestantism and the RM.
Look at homosexuality threads on the board --
Dare to take a stand against the sin of homosexuality?
Better carefully couch your words, or you'll be accused of casting the first stone (you hypocrite)!
The approach toward "condemning" (if you can call it that anymore) the sin has changed (what tangible good has that done?), and in some cases the sin has become acceptable.
Protestantism and the RM will either split, or compromise. Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.
(I see that my last two paragraphs parallel BOG's post above.)
It pains me deeply to suggest this, but it seems to me that the prospects for unity among Protestant bodies in the US are greatly improved - but that the unity will be a unity in irrelevance.
Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.
Skip,
I think you have said something very poignant. The fact that many confused our country with the church has, like the frog boiled slowly, led to an inability to distinguish between the two.
It would seem that as our culture falls further away from Christian values the clearer the differences should be. Unfortunately instead it seems to be pulling many down with it. Unfortunate but true.
To be honest I would love nothing more then to see the Catholics get their sex issue in order and return to being a strong voice for the Church. They have a serious credabiliity issue at this time though. Many of those leaders and authorities are the ones who perpegated molestation on the priests before and the leaderships way of dealing with it was to hide it for years.[/color]
Don't expect either to buck society, because too often their members are (it pains me greatly to observe this) members of society first.
Skip,
I think you have said something very poignant. The fact that many confused our country with the church has, like the frog boiled slowly, led to an inability to distinguish between the two.
It would seem that as our culture falls further away from Christian values the clearer the differences should be. Unfortunately instead it seems to be pulling many down with it. Unfortunate but true.
To be honest I would love nothing more then to see the Catholics get their sex issue in order and return to being a strong voice for the Church. They have a serious credabiliity issue at this time though. Many of those leaders and authorities are the ones who perpegated molestation on the priests before and the leaderships way of dealing with it was to hide it for years.
That's exactly why I don't think, unfortunately, that the RC can make any bigger dent in this than the rest of Christianity in the US (or the rest of the West for that matter). Yes, they can continue to make a stronger "official" stand, but that's not a guarantee their parishioners will "flesh out" the doctrine, anymore than they have divorce, adultery, etc.
That's not a cut at the RC by any stretch. We certainly have no room to cast a stone in the area of "fleshing out" our beliefs vs. them or anyone else.
The bigger problem as I see it is not just the lack of doctrine-discerning hierarchy. It's the very approach to Scripture and Truth to begin with. To hold the beliefs that some are coming to, one has to use a hermeneutic that can actively discard even the most direct statements from God at whim...and somehow still feel smugly righteous at the end of the day.[/color]
I do think that there are going to be some problems when even the RC isn't standing up for what is right.
Quebec Priests oppose Vatican on gay marriage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186381,00.html)
Here is an excerpt from the article referring to the letter the Quebec priests wrote:
The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."
"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."
I do think that there are going to be some problems when even the RC isn't standing up for what is right.
Quebec Priests oppose Vatican on gay marriage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186381,00.html)
Here is an excerpt from the article referring to the letter the Quebec priests wrote:
The letter questions whether the church has "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."
"In these matters," the letter says, "the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."
So you have 19 Canadian priests writing a letter
in direct opposition to official teaching. I'm not saying that there won't be any turmoil in the subject, or even dissension in the ranks.
I am of the 60's generation and I thought that would be the one to do what you think the current younger generation will do. I'm not so sure. I also think that age has little to do with it. I am 61 and I am definitely in the more liberal camp.
I have chosen to stay in the cofc (a more liberal one, I think - at least in some ways) because it is my heritage and my wife is comfortable here. We are also loved and cared for at our church.
I associate with other churches, community churches mainly, and have even preached at some other churches, so that gives me some contact with those who are more nearly where I am, I suppose.
Cleon
: rick6886 Mon Jul 18, 2005 - 09:50:43
I said I would elaborate more, so here it is...
About a year and half ago my dad and I had a good discussion, I told him in my humble opinion as his generation moves on and mine becomes the leaders their is potential train wreck coming. In our little church of about a 100 or so that chart could easily be defined by age. The older you are the more closer you lean to zealot, the younger you are the more closer you lean to exasperated. Not saying one is right or wrong, just the simple truth.
What happens when the open's and exasperated's become the shepherds and deacons while their is still a fair amount of the satisfieds and zealots left... a flat out disaster. My dad saw my point, but I know he thinks that us opens and exasperateds will come around.
. . .what is going to happen, when my generation becomes the shepherds??? When my generation decides that women passing out communion trays is just that, women passing out communion trays, not anything that is of authority. I could give you more hypotheticals but you get the idea...
I only hope that the grace that abounded that night abounds when this train wreck of generations comes to a full collision...
my humble 2 cents
Rick
Rick,
In our little church of about a 100 or so that chart could easily be defined by age. The older you are the more closer you lean to zealot, the younger you are the more closer you lean to exasperated. Not saying one is right or wrong, just the simple truth.
I can't speak for any other church but those I have been involved with and the Christians I have personally worked with. However, among those Christians I know and have talked with in depth on views, etc, those who would be classified as exasperateds are actually mostly composed of "baby boomers" who have gone through the 60's-90's extreme sectarian/exclusive nature of much of the CoC. I also have worked with a number of younger generation Christians while they were in college who are now in the late 20's age group now and many of them are very "conservative" and almost fit in well with those CoC views of the late 70's thru lat 80's. Of course, I am very rural so that may have a decided impact as these young adults who are also rural dwellers. I am curious how the latest college generation from the Christian universities will turn out. Many of their professors of Bible are also "baby boomers" and have also become more exasperated with the more conservative views. The so-called "post-modern" church, which I think we are still just starting to see develope, is going to be unpredictable as to where it will actually end up with that type of mix. One interesting correlation I am finding among those who fall into the exasperated category, especially among the baby-boomers, is that many favor gender equality in the church at all levels (with some having reservations only in the elder position) based on their understanding of Gal 3:28 and that they understand the restrictions on women in 1 Cor and 1 Tim as being specific to the churches in Ephesus and Corinth and not general commands.
Incidentally, I fall into the same category as Cleon--I'm just not as old has he is (but not far behind at 57!).
: WileyClarkson Tue Mar 14, 2006 - 08:36:32
...
However, among those Christians I know and have talked with in depth on views, etc, those who would be classified as exasperateds are actually mostly composed of "baby boomers" who have gone through the 60's-90's extreme sectarian/exclusive nature of much of the CoC.
...
This caught my eye.
It was not the church that was changing during this time; rather, it was a time of radical upheaval of American culture.
And, unfortunately, ISTM that Christians changed with the culture rather than remaining grounded in the church.
So yes, relative to the culture, the church seemed to be drifting to the conservative. But it was the culture that was moving...
New article in response to this article (What is Happening to Us) by Joe Beam.
It's at http://www.gracecentered.com/extremes_in_churches_of_Christ.htm
Your thoughts?
: admin Tue Jan 02, 2007 - 16:11:25
New article in response to this article (What is Happening to Us) by Joe Beam.
It's at http://www.gracecentered.com/extremes_in_churches_of_Christ.htm
Your thoughts?
This article is good and I also really liked Joe's article. I know some people don't like Joe's "model", but it really does describe the entire gamut of the members of the church of Christ. I immediately saw where I was on his spectrum. Some people had heartburn over the word model, if I remember a few months back on the forum. Model is probably an unfortunate term. It implies "this is how it should be". I disagree, Joe's model only made it easy to graphically describe what his theory of what was happening, not instructions of how it should be.
Jaime
What Joe described has played out accurately. And at least where I am, the moves toward division have been made mostly by those on the right. of course, they don't consider themselves as having made the moves; they believe those on the left have drifted. As a result of the "zealots" digging in and fortifying their exclusiveness, many on the left are having less to do with Churches of Christ as a whole. They are finding more receptive voices.
This may not be the case everywhere, but it's what I see where I am.
I understand where the writer of the new article is coming from. I know many people who want peace, and believe it will be found somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure I agree that this is where peace is found.
Those who are moving away from the old paths aren't doing so because of a desire for a new experience. I do think that this is what led some of our movements in the past, but I don't think this is the case now. I don't see the aimlessness the writer refers to. This movement seems deeply grounded in scholarly research and deep study. It is far from an emotional movement, and one of my complaints about it is that it at times becomes too clinical, too jargon-filled.
Because of this, I don't think settling in the middle will work. This is asking someone who has discovered a bit of truth they haven't previously seen to not act on this truth. The writer mentions what were once considered matters of faith becoming matters of opinion. Thank God! Many of us are realizing that we have brothers and sisters outside of our fellowship. Asking us to ignore the bond we have with them through Christ for the sake of a smaller unity does not seem reasonable to me. And this one thing is as key a point as any other, and is the only compromise that will bring peace in our brotherhood.
In the end, I think what is valuable is focusing on Christ, not on ourselves. The writer says, "Some ask, "What will it take for the church to grow again?
The model has some flaws, as models do. I am far left on the model, but neither exasperated (have not left "the brotherhood"), but neither am I simply "open". I embrace as my Christ-siblings all those who believe in Jesus as God's Son and our Risen, Living Savior. However, those on the far right think I am not even on the model anymore! They are still my Christ-siblings, and I can, have, and do worship with them. But they NEVER come and worship with us. They even have trouble sitting at table with us at a restaurant. As if we have a scarlet "A" stamped on our foreheads.
I don't believe the answer lies in compromising to the middle. I believe the answer lies in being the people we are called to be - people who love God completely, and people who love each other selflessly. That works for everyone on both ends, as well as in the middle. Love, yield, and submit to each other. No exceptions. What's left are a people whose focus is where it ought to be - not on externals, but on internals. Not on who-does-what-where-and-how, but on who loves who. God loves us. We love God. We love each other. The world will know that we are followers of the Christ, the Messiah, by our love. Nothing else.
Or not.
Hee hee hee... you cannot count on a spell-checker to fix things like this...
... It is hard to practice that "golden rule
I'm afraid that many of us wax elephant when we think we are waxing elegant.
If you indeed have brothers and sisters in Christ outside of the Church of Christ tradition, than your "brotherhood" is a lot bigger than folks with a certain sign out front. And if that is true, then doing what is right should be paramount over peace inside a particular grouping.
: phoebe Tue Jan 02, 2007 - 17:45:45
I don't believe the answer lies in compromising to the middle. I believe the answer lies in being the people we are called to be - people who love God completely, and people who love each other selflessly. That works for everyone on both ends, as well as in the middle. Love, yield, and submit to each other. No exceptions. What's left are a people whose focus is where it ought to be - not on externals, but on internals. Not on who-does-what-where-and-how, but on who loves who. God loves us. We love God. We love each other. The world will know that we are followers of the Christ, the Messiah, by our love. Nothing else.
Or not.
Thank you for this thought. This is what some have been discussing on this thread and I encourage all to read it:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=16457.msg341842#msg341842
I think this is
so much more important than many in the cofc are willing to admit. The issue has always been "Who's right?" or even "Who's right!" in a bragging sort of way. But what we need to ask ourselves is not "who is right" but "Lord, help me with searching for truth".
I always know who's right.
I am never ever mistaken in this.
I can bet my life, your life and the Tooth Fairy's wand on me being right in this.
The one who is always right is the Lord.
(Oh, p.s. -- I think it's supposed to be "wax eloquent"...)
How could you wax an eloquent?
(more medication needed)
With elephant wax.
: admin Tue Jan 02, 2007 - 16:11:25
New article in response to this article (What is Happening to Us) by Joe Beam.
It's at http://www.gracecentered.com/extremes_in_churches_of_Christ.htm
Your thoughts?
Very nice and thought provoking article...thanks for posting it here.
: marc Fri Jan 05, 2007 - 09:40:14
I'm afraid that many of us wax elephant when we think we are waxing elegant.
And what's wrong with waxing elephants? HHHMMMMM? :)
Nothing. At least then everyone has to acknowledge the big ol' elephant in the room.