Christian Forums

I understand and agree with (to a degree) the point Rubel is driving at in this article.   Certainly we need to keep things in prespective.

On the other hand, I have heard some point to teaching like this to justify a lax attitude toward the word of God.  They will even go so far as to affirm that it isn't necessary to study it and try to understand it as long as we have "God in the heart."  This is as serious an error as the one Rubel addresses.

QuoteBrethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Romans 10:1-4 NASB)

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (i.e., He makes possible doing away with the penalty of the law through forgiveness) but this does not mean that the child of God can afford to be willfully ignorant of God's law.  An element of faith is seeking God's will by prayerful, reliant study of His word.  The Jews were zealous for God and I'm sure felt that God lived in their hearts, but Paul said they were lost because their zeal was not according to knowledge.  They were drowning in Jewish tradition but had little true knowledge of God's revealed will.  Knowledge is essential to the Christian life, and the written word of God is the primary place to go to for that knowledge.

QuoteFor the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
(Titus 2:11-15 NASB)

It is possible to fall from grace not only because we pursue salvation by works of law (Galatians 5:4), but also because we refuse to grow in our knowledge of God and His will for us.

QuoteYou therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
(2 Peter 3:17-18 NASB)

[/color]

It is one of those articles that sound good in the laboratory of ideas, but when taken out into the real world it doesn't work.

If it really did work, then Nashville would not be the religious same-old-same-old now that it was 20 years ago before The Jesus Proposal and The Jesus Community.

The point of the story about the shewbread is this:

It's always right to do what's right.

Jesus asked the synagogue rulers  "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?" Luke 14:3

When they refused to answer,  He answered by healing the man with dropsy.      The sabbath day couldn't turn an act of mercy into a sin.

But I agree with JohnT that far too many people just look at this and say
"we can do whatever we like."     That's not what Jesus said, neither is it what He meant.

Obviously I have a somewhat different take on this, though I do I agree with JTW that "doing your own thing," isn't what the story of the shewbread is all about. Some of the Pharisaees of Jesus' day would likely have let David's men starve to death before they'd break the rules and give them the Bred of the Presence.

Shelly's point is not to give license to "doing your own thing" but to remind us that rules have contexts, even in scripture, and that it's dangerous to elevate form over function. Shelly agrees that:

Every line of Scripture is Spirit-given and useful. Every teaching of the prophets and apostles is important. Covenantal distinctions, doctrinal nuances, right interpretations – all are worth energy to discern and effort to implement. They are things revealed by God to those who seek him.

Yet he is also mature enough and honest enough to realize that:

But back in the ranks of those of us who follow him in faith, there are legitimate differences of understanding. Not everybody sees the Bible alike on weighty issues of doctrine. Not everyone interprets the significance of a verb tense the same way. Or comes to the same conclusion about worship rules.

Why does he bother?

Sometimes the noise and rancor of those discussions create such a scene that the church becomes a spectacle before the watching (unbelieving!) world. And Christians lose credibility with those onlookers because we value being right over being in relationship. We often value being correct over being connected.

I think it would work in the real world if people could mature enough to see the "big picture" Shelly's alluding to here. Those churches I've been to, including Woodmont Hills, where this principle has been implemented, far from being places where doctrine doesn't matter and the rules don't count and you just do whatever you like, are instead places where righteousness and holiness are pursued, and disctintions are made between doctrines we must get right, and more peripheral doctrines on which there can be and are legitimate differences of opinion. These churches tend to be very open to allowing God to use them to fill peoples' needs.

When you're all in the trenches together, sharing the gospel, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, counseling people, doing disaster relief, etc., whether you use IM on Sunday suddenly doesn't seem so important-indeed, in the trenches, the subject of differences in worship styles and theologies rarely has time to surface.

Did Jesus die for any of the things Christians have traditionally divided over? Did Jesus die so that a certain church could proudly boast about its perfect doctrinal track-record?

Or is there something larger at stake than who's doctrine is more correct? Maybe Jesus did die so that his followers could have fellowship not only with him, but also with each other.

Pax.

Quote...
I think it would work in the real world if people could mature enough to see the "big picture" Shelly's alluding to here. Those churches I've been to, including Woodmont Hills, where this principle has been implemented,
...

First off, it's not hard for a strong leadership figure to make something work at a congregation. There are countless examples of mini-kingdoms in the religious world.

"If people could mature enough..."?
That completely misses the point!
One blames the real world for the failure of ideas?

What, if the plane doesn't fly, then it was the fault of gravity?
If the medicine doesn't work, the infection or the person's body should have been good enough to accommodate the healing power of the medicine?

No.
In the Real World, when ideas fail, the smart people get back to the drawing board. Smart people do not repeatedly try exactly the same thing again and again in the face of failure. The shuttle will not fly again on the hope that ice won't form this time. If the infection persists, we will try another antibiotic.

Unfortunately, as one of the "front men" for the coC on the Christian bookshelves of the USA market, Rubel Shelly is a philosophical and theological lightweight.

I really hate to have to say that, because he is a de facto spokesman for the coC in this market-driven society, and I wish that I could say that he is one in the coC tradition of "people of the Book".

But I read The Jesus Proposal. The book began with a quite naïve worldview. Then I reached a chapter in which Dr. Shelly -- a 45-year Christian, a pulpit minister, and a former professor at a coC university -- admits that he didn't know what to do with baptism.

Imagine for a moment that in the days before the death of John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that it was not sure what to do about the Sacrament of Baptism...
Ludicrous!

Yet the coC has become so lightweight that a similar statement by Dr. Shelly in his book did not receive much mention or attention by his supporters.
Yet Hebrews 6 says that baptism is among the elementary principles for babes in Christ...[/color]

Quote

Quote...
I think it would work in the real world if people could mature enough to see the "big picture" Shelly's alluding to here. Those churches I've been to, including Woodmont Hills, where this principle has been implemented,
...

First off, it's not hard for a strong leadership figure to make something work at a congregation. There are countless examples of mini-kingdoms in the religious world.

"If people could mature enough..."?
That completely misses the point!
One blames the real world for the failure of ideas?

What, if the plane doesn't fly, then it was the fault of gravity?
If the medicine doesn't work, the infection or the person's body should have been good enough to accommodate the healing power of the medicine?

No.
In the Real World, when ideas fail, the smart people get back to the drawing board. Smart people do not repeatedly try exactly the same thing again and again in the face of failure. The shuttle will not fly again on the hope that ice won't form this time. If the infection persists, we will try another antibiotic.

Unfortunately, as one of the "front men" for the coC on the Christian bookshelves of the USA market, Rubel Shelly is a philosophical and theological lightweight.

I really hate to have to say that, because he is a de facto spokesman for the coC in this market-driven society, and I wish that I could say that he is one in the coC tradition of "people of the Book".

But I read The Jesus Proposal. The book began with a quite naïve worldview. Then I reached a chapter in which Dr. Shelly -- a 45-year Christian, a pulpit minister, and a former professor at a coC university -- admits that he didn't know what to do with baptism.

Imagine for a moment that in the days before the death of John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that it was not sure what to do about the Sacrament of Baptism...
Ludicrous!

Yet the coC has become so lightweight that a similar statement by Dr. Shelly in his book did not receive much mention or attention by his supporters.
Yet Hebrews 6 says that baptism is among the elementary principles for babes in Christ...

Skip,

What do you disagree with in the article?[/color]

QuoteRubel Shelly is a philosophical and theological lightweight.

Spoken like a true heavyweight.[/color]

from the article...who was 'strutting & preening' over their own scholarly abilities? :headscratch:

dj

QuoteSkip,

What do you disagree with in the article?

Not so much a disagreement, but an observation.

This is a quote from the article; the "meat", if you will:

Quote...
But back in the ranks of those of us who follow him in faith, there are legitimate differences of understanding. Not everybody sees the Bible alike on weighty issues of doctrine. Not everyone interprets the significance of a verb tense the same way. Or comes to the same conclusion about worship rules.

Sometimes the noise and rancor of those discussions create such a scene that the church becomes a spectacle before the watching (unbelieving!) world. And Christians lose credibility with those onlookers because we value being right over being in relationship. We often value being correct over being connected.
...

My observation is that this line of thinking is in the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and has been pursued by Shelly for at least two decades. It was laid out in detail by Shelly over a decade ago in The Jesus Proposal.

The fruit of this line of thinking was supposed to be interdenominational unity.

It is not hard to find that the coC was split by this philosophy (both congregations and inter-congregational ties) -- for example, Shelly's own congregation has strained (if not broken) relations with the traditional coC. Then splits were cemented when this philosophy is used to lay the blame on what we might call the "inflexible legalists", using unfounded ideas such as in the above quote, "...legitimate differences of understanding".
I'm left to wonder: Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?

As far as I know, in some 50+ years of the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition there has never been a single case of interdenominational unification! The closest thing has been ecumenical meetings and joint worship services -- then afterwards, everyone goes back to their home congregation...

So, based on the results of this experiment -- divisions caused, and no tangible unity arrived-at -- I must reject it.
The really sad thing is that the deception persists -- and with it, more divisions will come...[/color]

Quotefrom the article...who was 'strutting & preening' over their own scholarly abilities? :headscratch:

dj

That is an interesting question.

Historically-speaking, it naturally descends from this philosophy -- one who takes a doctrinal stand stand on what has become a hot-button 21st-century issue is painted as a know-it-all legalist.

Perhaps it is a warning shot, so to speak, of the sort of ad hominem that one who takes a doctrinal stand will face?
:shrug:

QuoteMy observation is that this line of thinking is in the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and has been pursued by Shelly for at least two decades. It was laid out in detail by Shelly over a decade ago in The Jesus Proposal.

The fruit of this line of thinking was supposed to be interdenominational unity.

It is not hard to find that the coC was split by this philosophy (both congregations and inter-congregational ties) -- for example, Shelly's own congregation has strained (if not broken) relations with the traditional coC. Then splits were cemented when this philosophy is used to lay the blame on what we might call the "inflexible legalists", using unfounded ideas such as in the above quote, "...legitimate differences of understanding".
I'm left to wonder: Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?

As far as I know, in some 50+ years of the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition there has never been a single case of interdenominational unification! The closest thing has been ecumenical meetings and joint worship services -- then afterwards, everyone goes back to their home congregation...

So, based on the results of this experiment -- divisions caused, and no tangible unity arrived-at -- I must reject it.
The really sad thing is that the deception persists -- and with it, more divisions will come...

I've seen a ton of unity that's been caused by this type of thinking.  People willing and openly accepting other believers as Christians rather than either snootily rejecting them out of hand or pretending to study with them on an even playing field while really trying to convert them.

I've seen a lot of fellowshipping, learning from, teaching, and generally loving other Christians that's come about because of this kind of thinking.  A great deal of tangible unity.

Unification?  Throwing all of our churches together?  No, but unity nonetheless.

Is it worth the internal splits?  I can't say for certain, but there are a lot more believers out there than there are in here.[/color]

Quote

QuoteSkip,

What do you disagree with in the article?

Not so much a disagreement, but an observation.

This is a quote from the article; the "meat", if you will:

Quote...
But back in the ranks of those of us who follow him in faith, there are legitimate differences of understanding. Not everybody sees the Bible alike on weighty issues of doctrine. Not everyone interprets the significance of a verb tense the same way. Or comes to the same conclusion about worship rules.

Sometimes the noise and rancor of those discussions create such a scene that the church becomes a spectacle before the watching (unbelieving!) world. And Christians lose credibility with those onlookers because we value being right over being in relationship. We often value being correct over being connected.
...

My observation is that this line of thinking is in the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and has been pursued by Shelly for at least two decades. It was laid out in detail by Shelly over a decade ago in The Jesus Proposal.

The fruit of this line of thinking was supposed to be interdenominational unity.

It is not hard to find that the coC was split by this philosophy (both congregations and inter-congregational ties) -- for example, Shelly's own congregation has strained (if not broken) relations with the traditional coC. Then splits were cemented when this philosophy is used to lay the blame on what we might call the "inflexible legalists", using unfounded ideas such as in the above quote, "...legitimate differences of understanding".
I'm left to wonder: Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?

As far as I know, in some 50+ years of the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition there has never been a single case of interdenominational unification! The closest thing has been ecumenical meetings and joint worship services -- then afterwards, everyone goes back to their home congregation...

So, based on the results of this experiment -- divisions caused, and no tangible unity arrived-at -- I must reject it.
The really sad thing is that the deception persists -- and with it, more divisions will come...

Do you have a proposal that will bring unity to the body of Christ?[/color]

Quote

QuoteMy observation is that this line of thinking is in the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and has been pursued by Shelly for at least two decades. It was laid out in detail by Shelly over a decade ago in The Jesus Proposal.

The fruit of this line of thinking was supposed to be interdenominational unity.

It is not hard to find that the coC was split by this philosophy (both congregations and inter-congregational ties) -- for example, Shelly's own congregation has strained (if not broken) relations with the traditional coC. Then splits were cemented when this philosophy is used to lay the blame on what we might call the "inflexible legalists", using unfounded ideas such as in the above quote, "...legitimate differences of understanding".
I'm left to wonder: Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?

As far as I know, in some 50+ years of the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition there has never been a single case of interdenominational unification! The closest thing has been ecumenical meetings and joint worship services -- then afterwards, everyone goes back to their home congregation...

So, based on the results of this experiment -- divisions caused, and no tangible unity arrived-at -- I must reject it.
The really sad thing is that the deception persists -- and with it, more divisions will come...

I've seen a ton of unity that's been caused by this type of thinking.  People willing and openly accepting other believers as Christians rather than either snootily rejecting them out of hand or pretending to study with them on an even playing field while really trying to convert them.

I've seen a lot of fellowshipping, learning from, teaching, and generally loving other Christians that's come about because of this kind of thinking.  A great deal of tangible unity.

Unification?  Throwing all of our churches together?  No, but unity nonetheless.

Is it worth the internal splits?  I can't say for certain, but there are a lot more believers out there than there are in here.[/color]

In the recent thinking of Protestantism, accepting another as a Christian is called "unity".

It seems to me that trading one set of Christians (that we now accept as brothers) for another (whom we split with when our doctrinal standards changed) is not advancing unity.
:shrug:

QuoteDo you have a proposal that will bring unity to the body of Christ?

The Church managed to remain unified for the first thousand years in the face of great persecutions and several heresies.
Might do us good to look at how they did it.
But I will forewarn you: Their methods are probably not acceptable to 21st-century Americans.

(And their methods are the very antithesis of that espoused by the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and Shelly...)

Quote

QuoteDo you have a proposal that will bring unity to the body of Christ?

The Church managed to remain unified for the first thousand years in the face of great persecutions and several heresies.
Might do us good to look at how they did it.
But I will forewarn you: Their methods are probably not acceptable to 21st-century Americans.

(And their methods are the very antithesis of that espoused by the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and Shelly...)

Care to elaborate?[/color]

Quote

Quote

QuoteDo you have a proposal that will bring unity to the body of Christ?

The Church managed to remain unified for the first thousand years in the face of great persecutions and several heresies.
Might do us good to look at how they did it.
But I will forewarn you: Their methods are probably not acceptable to 21st-century Americans.

(And their methods are the very antithesis of that espoused by the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and Shelly...)

Care to elaborate?

Read the book of Galatians and see how Paul dealt with heretics.
Read the first three chapters of Revelation and see how Jesus dealt with wayward churches.
Read how the early church dealt with heresies such as the Marcionites and the Arians.
Check the scriptures and see how many churches there were. (Not congregations; churches.)

Scripturally and historically the heretics were given the opportunity to repent -- then, if not, were expelled from the church for refusing to renounce heresies. (And then, just as now, some of the heretics actually started their own heretical churches)

The most striking difference between then and now is that then there was one church, and the heretics were marked and not accepted. Now, with Protestantism dominating our religious landscape in America, it's more likely a matter of which ones -- not one, but ones -- to accept, than to ask which one is the church. A "one church" concept is very much passe in 21st-century America.
:shrug:[/color]

QuoteRead the book of Galatians and see how Paul dealt with heretics.

I've read it before and I just reread it.  I hope you got more out of Galatians than the way Paul spoke of "heretics".  

Quote
Read the first three chapters of Revelation and see how Jesus dealt with wayward churches.

Harshly, agreed....define wayward.

Quote
Read how the early church dealt with heresies such as the Marcionites and the Arians.

Just because the early church did it doesn't mean it was the right way.  Also, define "heresy".  Please include examples of a few things that you believe in the modern church can be deemed heretical.

Quote
Check the scriptures and see how many churches there were. (Not congregations; churches.)

The most striking difference between then and now is that then there was one church, and the heretics were marked and not accepted.

There is still only one church, unless you've observed something that I've missed.  It seems to me the 'heretics' to which you refer in Galatians were people trying to hold others to bits and pieces from the old law chosen to increase their own power. Did you see something in the article that you felt was an attempt by man to bind you where God has not bound you?  

   

Quote
Now, with Protestantism dominating our religious landscape in America, it's more likely a matter of which ones -- not one, but ones -- to accept, than to ask which one is the church. A "one church" concept is very much passe in 21st-century America.
:shrug:

Without going to extremes, is it my responsibility to decide who I do or don't accept as a Christian brother or sister?[/color]

Cab1974,

A few quick answers...

(I don't recall saying that the only thing I got out of Galatians was how to deal with heretics...
Where in the world did that come from?)

For definitions, I suggest: http://www.m-w.com

The example of the church is not necessarily binding, but I don't see that ecumenical efforts today are doing any better.
Do you know of a way of dealing with things that you think would be better than the way the early church did things? (Of course, it would have to have quite a track record to do better than roughly 1000 years of unity...)

Modern church heresies?
According to various posters on various threads now ongoing in the Theology section, here's four to start with:
1) Not believing that Jesus is God
2) Calvinism
3) Arminianism
4) Not accepting Real Presence in the L.S.

As far as the article binding man's ideas, I've already brought this up:
Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?
Do you care to take a crack at that one?

Your last question is rather ambiguously worded.
The first thing that comes to mind is the OT question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and the corresponding NT principle of bearing one another's burdens.
How you deal with people should differ depending on whether you count them as an unbeliever, a wayward brother, or a faithful brother.
So it is incumbent upon you to do your best to decide their spiritual condition, then meet their needs.

QuoteIs it worth the internal splits?  I can't say for certain, but there are a lot more believers out there than there are in here.

Some of the wisest words spoken on this thread thus far.  We must remember that God's embrace is a lot larger than our little corner of Christendom.

QuoteCab1974,

A few quick answers...

(I don't recall saying that the only thing I got out of Galatians was how to deal with heretics...
Where in the world did that come from?)

For definitions, I suggest: http://www.m-w.com

The example of the church is not necessarily binding, but I don't see that ecumenical efforts today are doing any better.
Do you know of a way of dealing with things that you think would be better than the way the early church did things? (Of course, it would have to have quite a track record to do better than roughly 1000 years of unity...)

Modern church heresies?
According to various posters on various threads now ongoing in the Theology section, here's four to start with:
1) Not believing that Jesus is God
2) Calvinism
3) Arminianism
4) Not accepting Real Presence in the L.S.

As far as the article binding man's ideas, I've already brought this up:
Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?
Do you care to take a crack at that one?

Your last question is rather ambiguously worded.
The first thing that comes to mind is the OT question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and the corresponding NT principle of bearing one another's burdens.
How you deal with people should differ depending on whether you count them as an unbeliever, a wayward brother, or a faithful brother.
So it is incumbent upon you to do your best to decide their spiritual condition, then meet their needs.

I don't necesarily want to debate the article, just wanted you to provide some specifics on your viewpoint...your initial post didn't really give any and I was interested.

And where did you get your information that Christians were unified for the first thousand years?[/color]

Quote...
And where did you get your information that Christians were unified for the first thousand years?

That's generally-agreed among the religious history that I've read.

There were definitely heresies and schisms, but the common view is one of sacramental unity until the Great Schism of the RCC and Orthodox around 1000 AD.

(And even today, the RCC dwarfs all other Christian religious groups combined!)

Just facts, until I'm corrected on my history...

So who are the successors?  How does one identify The One True Church, here in 2005?

Quote

Quote...
And where did you get your information that Christians were unified for the first thousand years?

That's generally-agreed among the religious history that I've read.

There were definitely heresies and schisms, but the common view is one of sacramental unity until the Great Schism of the RCC and Orthodox around 1000 AD.

(And even today, the RCC dwarfs all other Christian religious groups combined!)

Just facts, until I'm corrected on my history...

Are you suggesting we should revert to the code of Justinian (approx 500AD)?  

I know what Websters will tell me about unity.  Can you tell me how you define unity in its application to modern Christianity?[/color]

The unity is in Christ.  That's our common ground, that's where the crossing points of the Olympic Rings of our lives are.

Quote

QuoteSkip,

What do you disagree with in the article?

Not so much a disagreement, but an observation.

This is a quote from the article; the "meat", if you will:

Quote...
But back in the ranks of those of us who follow him in faith, there are legitimate differences of understanding. Not everybody sees the Bible alike on weighty issues of doctrine. Not everyone interprets the significance of a verb tense the same way. Or comes to the same conclusion about worship rules.

Sometimes the noise and rancor of those discussions create such a scene that the church becomes a spectacle before the watching (unbelieving!) world. And Christians lose credibility with those onlookers because we value being right over being in relationship. We often value being correct over being connected.
...

My observation is that this line of thinking is in the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition, and has been pursued by Shelly for at least two decades. It was laid out in detail by Shelly over a decade ago in The Jesus Proposal.

The fruit of this line of thinking was supposed to be interdenominational unity.

It is not hard to find that the coC was split by this philosophy (both congregations and inter-congregational ties) -- for example, Shelly's own congregation has strained (if not broken) relations with the traditional coC. Then splits were cemented when this philosophy is used to lay the blame on what we might call the "inflexible legalists", using unfounded ideas such as in the above quote, "...legitimate differences of understanding".
I'm left to wonder: Who is to be the arbiter of which "difference" is "legitimate" and which is not?

As far as I know, in some 50+ years of the Ketcherside-Garrett tradition there has never been a single case of interdenominational unification! The closest thing has been ecumenical meetings and joint worship services -- then afterwards, everyone goes back to their home congregation...

So, based on the results of this experiment -- divisions caused, and no tangible unity arrived-at -- I must reject it.
The really sad thing is that the deception persists -- and with it, more divisions will come...

Not to start another Stone-Campbell argument, but Shelly's view is the authentic Stone-Campbell view.

Shelly had been written off and disfellowshipped long before he co-authored The Jesus Proposal with John York in 2003. The ideas he and York set forth in that book did not cause the division-nor did Shelly's "liberal" views.  The legalistic mindset that he was attempting to get away from and lead others out of is what caused the division.

As far as I know Shelly never advocated withdrawing fellowship from any of his more legalistic brethren; all he did was attempt to point out what he believes are serious impediments to Churches of Christ embracing fully the grace of Christ. His more conservative brethren are the ones who withdrew fellowship from him. Rubel's been mocked, ridiculed and even caricatured on pamphlets and tracts denouncing his "false teachings." To his credit, as far as I know, he has never responded in kind.

Shelly and Garrett aren't really saying anything that Stone, the Campbells, Scott and Richardson, Larimore and Loos didn't say a hundred and fifty years ago. Shelly's views are "the old paths."

And I've never heard or read Shelly repudiate baptism-Woodmont Hills has a large baptistry in the lobby where everyone can assemble for a better view of the baptism. But he will not tell an unbaptized believer they're going to hell without immersion; neither would either of the Campbels or Stone.

Pax.[/color]

Regarding that 1000 year unity, I have some reservations. First, and others can correct me if my memory has failed me here, but the break that occured with the Orthodox had been brewing for a long time with plenty of dis-unity along the way.

Second, in regards to the methods used to achieve the unity, I recall that many times it came at the point of a sword.

Also, thanks to folks like Ketcherside, Garret and Hook I do have a greater sense of unity. I used to have that coc view of the only true church, but now I believe that there are Christians gathering in buildings with many different names, and who do not see themselves as needing to get people to switch church buildings, but rather, see the mission as getting people to accept Christ. The Promise Keeper events unite all kinds of Christians in a united goal to make Christian men better Christian husbands and fathers.

As Janine said, unity is in Christ, not the name on a building.

QuoteRegarding that 1000 year unity, I have some reservations. First, and others can correct me if my memory has failed me here, but the break that occured with the Orthodox had been brewing for a long time with plenty of dis-unity along the way.

Second, in regards to the methods used to achieve the unity, I recall that many times it came at the point of a sword.

Also, thanks to folks like Ketcherside, Garret and Hook I do have a greater sense of unity. I used to have that coc view of the only true church, but now I believe that there are Christians gathering in buildings with many different names, and who do not see themselves as needing to get people to switch church buildings, but rather, see the mission as getting people to accept Christ. The Promise Keeper events unite all kinds of Christians in a united goal to make Christian men better Christian husbands and fathers.

As Janine said, unity is in Christ, not the name on a building.

I'm not sure there was any forcing or coercing of anyonre at actual sword-point, though some of these controversies did occasion eruptions of violence. And in many cases, bishops, rather than following scriptrure and conscience, did what was politically expedient or in their own particular best interest at the moment, often changing their position when the political climate changed. Sometimes two or more bishops would be fighting over the same see. These bishops were not at their best during these controversies, and really showed their human side all too clearly. If Eusebius and other chroniclers are to be believed this wasn't limited only to the bishops, but their supporters and factions from the laity got in on it as well. One can see better why Constantine wanted to put a stop to all this squabbling with the Council of Nicaea-though it failed to do so completely.

Pax.[/color]

There is actually somewhat of a reverse correspondence between the RM fathers and Shelly on several points, such as...
-- T. Campbell began his Restorationist vision with his Declaration and Address, while Shelly's document that corresponds the D&A came near the end of his ministry
-- A. Campbell and Stone moved away from the Presbyterians and religious groups led by clergy into what became known as the church of Christ, while Shelly began in the coC and has drifted away from it, removed the coC SOF, and professed a desire to move in a direction toward the religious groups that the Campbells and Stone and Smith and many others left behind
-- A. Campbell grew in a greater conviction and understanding about baptism, while Shelly wrote that he began with an understanding of baptism, and has digressed to the point that he doesn't know what to do with baptism
-- The RM fathers communally united thousands of believers from various religious denominations - including religious leaders and, in many cases, entire congregations or groups of congregations, while Shelly has, to my knowledge, not unified with anyone beyond calling them "brother"

The Shelly vision appears to be descended from the Ketcherside-Garrett "Freedom in Christ" vision.
"Freedom in Christ" is a non-negotiable precondition of unity, as proven by Garrett's own response to the Christian Affirmation 2005 -- Garrett affirms that maintaining his own freedom is more important than concessions which might lead to unity! Garrett's recent response to a document that espouses the ideals of the traditional coC - that of Campbell's golden years - makes me seriously doubt whether Garrett could have even brought himself to join Campbell's restoration!

And there is no similarity between the two 'movements' in their fruits. Campbell and Stone can make the claim that members of different religious traditions physically unified on restorationist principles. The Ketcherside-Garrett legacy is one of even more division within the churches of Christ (as if the coC needed any help finding things to divide over!)

A valid question of a "Unity Movement" is "Was any unity brought about by Ketcherside's, Garrett's, or Shelly's personal efforts?"
The answer seems to be none (that I know of, or that anyone can tell me of). Certainly nothing anywhere near that of the RM that brought literally thousands of people out of various denominations into one communion.

It seems that Ketcherside-Garrett allow for a view of unity simply by calling another person "brother".
Campbell and Stone did not hold such a shallow view of unity -- if they had, there would have been no need to bother with unity talks and an eventual physical & communal unity together, or unity talks with others who approached them with petitions to join their restoration.

QuoteA valid question of a "Unity Movement" is "Was any unity brought about by Ketcherside's, Garrett's, or Shelly's personal efforts?"
The answer seems to be none (that I know of, or that anyone can tell me of). Certainly nothing anywhere near that of the RM that brought literally thousands of people out of various denominations into one communion.

It seems that Ketcherside-Garrett allow for a view of unity simply by calling another person "brother".
Campbell and Stone did not hold such a shallow view of unity -- if they had, there would have been no need to bother with unity talks and an eventual physical & communal unity together, or unity talks with others who approached them with petitions to join their restoration.

One could argue that Campbell and Stone effectively caused turmoil and disunity among the various denominations that the members of the CofC originally split from....just creating another denomination where there were already too many.  I'm not arguing that, just trying to open you up to see that if you're going to argue it one way, the opposite could be just as true.

IMO, unity can only really begin when we stop building walls around ourselves and claiming that we are the infallible One True Church...when we can admit that most of what we fight about is only our opinion of what should go on during the 1-2 hours on Sunday morning.  Unity is more about accepting (true acceptance, not just lip service) fellow believers as Christian brothers and sisters than it is about gathering in the same place, or in buildings with matching names on Sunday morning.    

Which brings a question to my mind...maybe it belongs in a new thread.  What disagreements are important enough for us to divide ourselves over?[/color]

cab1974 asked, "What disagreements are important enough for us to divide over?"

I think it's okay to have different preferences, even differing strong beliefs on some matters of doctrine. No reason we can't worship together anyway.

Sometimes the differences are pronounced enough that we can't easily worship together, so we need to assemble in different groups. We can still recognize each other as brothers and sisters, and work together when we can, for the good of the kingdom.

Are there some things that draw a line in the sand, where you can love someone but not believe they are a Christian even if they say so? I think the answer is yes, and involves what most of us would call heresy. Defining the limits of heresy is tricky and has certainly caused a lot of problems in the past. Here's how Lee Freeman defined it on another thread:

QuoteFor Paul, heresy was teaching that to be a good Christian you first had to be a good Jew, it was substituting salvation by grace through faith for salvation through law;
to Paul and Jude, heresy was wolves in sheep's clothing leading people astray with their false flattery, deceitful words and endless controversies, whose fruits, or lack thereof, would give them up;
to Peter, heresy was people deliberately and maliciously twisting and distorting certain of Paul's writings;
to John, heresy was saying that the physical material universe was intrinsically evil, therefore Christ could not have had a physical incarnation.

To the Church Fathers, heresy was in saying either that Christ was totally God and not human, totally human and not God, or partially divine but not God.

New Testament and early Church heresy was not about using or not using instrumental music; women's role; one or many cups; Sunday or non-Sunday school; a proper understanding of the remission of sins before being baptized; the wrong interpretation of Revelation; or any of the other stuff they taught us was "denominational false doctrine" when I was a kid.

As Carl Ketcherside once said, "All error is equally wrong, but all error is not equally important."

What else does anyone think belongs in the category of heresy, that should lead to a mandatory  division between professed believers in Christ?

Mike[/color]

Whoops!
I accidently deleted this with "Edit" rather than "Reply"...

:goingtopuke:
---
As I recall, the key to the reply to Cab's insightful post was this question:
What disagreements are important enough for us to divide ourselves over?

Or, in the case of Protestants:
Who will decide what disagreements are important enough for us to divide ourselves over?

For historically, Protestants will split rather than submit.

Cab, there was turmoil and disunity in the denominations the Campbells and Stone left long before they began their movements. Thomas Campbell actually began his and his son's movement by attempting to unite the divided Presbyterian sects in Ireland. Did they further that turmoil and disunity? Perhaps, though such was not their intention.

I have argued extensively that the Campbells' and Stone's over-arching goal was not restoration, but rather unity; unless we're saying Campbell's goal was a restoration of the unity of the church. Campbell used his restorationist agenda towards that end-unting the true Christians of all the denominations upon the gospel of Christ and the ancient order.

It is extremely significant that Barton Stone-one of the co-founders of the movement-was never a restorationist. He disagreed completely with just about every item in Campbell's restorationist agenda-yet Campbell united with him. Had Campbell's only or primary goal been restoration he never would have united with Stone. It simply wouldn't have happened.  But Campbell was willing to set aside his restorationist agenda in order to facilitate unity; the Christian Baptist is full of articles in which Campbell says that all that is necessary for Christian union are the belief in Jesus ansd baptism. Such as this statement from the CB of 1824:

 As to the first of these, it is again and again asserted, in the clearest language, by the Lord himself, the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, that he that believes the fact that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten by God, overcomes the world, has eternal life, and shall, on the veracity of God, be saved. This should settle the first point; and as to the second, it is disposed of in a similar manner; for the witnesses agree that whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and is baptized, should be received into the church, and not an instance can be produced of any person being asked for any other faith, in order to admission, in the whole New Testament. The Saviour expressly declared to Peter, that upon this fact that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, he would build his church; and Paul has expressly declared, that "other foundation can no man lay (for ecclesiastical union) than that Jesus is the Christ." The point is proved that we have assumed, and this proved, every thing is established requisite to the union of all christians upon a proper basis. [/b]

By 1837 Campbell had largely abandoned restoration as a means to unity-he said that he saw more clealy than ever that passages like Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body; one Spirit; one hope; one Lord; one faith; one baptism; one God and Father of all) which he'd long referred to were a better platform for unity than restoration, since nearly every Christian denomination believed Ephesians 4.

Campbell wasn't looking for an amalgamation or confederation of denominations, but rather for the true Christians in those denominations to come out of them and unite. Campbell considered his and Stone's churches to be "Christians only, not the only Christians." One of their mottoes was: "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things charity." Campbell viewed the gospel and the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 as the "essentials" everyone had to agree on-not in their interpretations of these items, but in their acceptance of them as fundamental elements of the faith; everything else was a matter of private opinion.

Sadly Campbell was forced to admit by 1837 that what he effectively had was another denomination, as certain of his disciples took his earlier restorationist teachings and ran wild with them, and began pushing for a unity upon correct doctrine.

Campbell said that he would unite with anyone who loves Jesus and was striving to follow him in all things according to their level of knowledge of his will. He struggled over whether fellowship could be extended to the "pious unimmersed," yet finally opted to err on the side of extending fellowship.

If Campbell returned today making statements such as these, he'd be "marked and disfellowshipped" in two seconds!

Pax vobiscum.

I postulated

QuoteThe point of contention is:
"Which did Campbell & Stone do: Restore the NT church, or create another denomination?"
Their goal was to restore the NT church. Did they succeed?

Lee answered BOTH questions (from his viewpoint)...

Campbell & Stone didn't...
-- Restore the NT church (according to him that wasn't their goal anyway)
...rather...
-- They created just another denomination (which would not be surprising without a guiding goal such as reformation or restoration)

So it is safe to say that Lee's testimony, if correct, forces one who is seeking a means to unity to toss Campbell & Stone into the dustbin of history.
Only a fool would follow a path to unity that resulted in robbing other denominations of thousands of Christians -- only to have them split into at least three major divisions (churches of Christ, disciples of Christ, and Christian Church) and at least two cults (International Church of Christ, Iglesia Ni Christo) and influence the creation of a third (Mormonism).
The Campbell and Stone "unity" movement managed more splits in 200 years than the RCC had in 1,500 years!

[size=8]History is a vast early warning system.
--Norman Cousins[/size]

[edited][/color]

QuoteSo it is safe to say that Lee's testimony, if correct, forces one who is seeking a means to unity to toss Campbell & Stone into the dustbin of history.

Maybe there is a way to learn some things from them, both their successes and failures, rather than "tossing them into the dust bin of history." But, yes, I think you may be right that the idea of calling people out of their denominations and into "our" denomination (or non-denominational group of people) may not be the most successful unity plan ever.

It also may be why we are seeing a new call for a different kind of unity -- a unity that does not require complete doctrinal uniformity (along the lines of what mike posted). Of course, it does involve SOME degree of doctrincal uniformity. And what degree, is, as Skip has pointed out, the real question that divides us.

Wendy[/color]

QuoteI postulated

QuoteThe point of contention is:
"Which did Campbell & Stone do: Restore the NT church, or create another denomination?"
Their goal was to restore the NT church. Did they succeed?

Lee answered BOTH questions (from his viewpoint)...

Campbell & Stone didn't...
-- Restore the NT church (according to him that wasn't their goal anyway)
...rather...
-- They created just another denomination (which would not be surprising without a guiding goal such as reformation or restoration)

So it is safe to say that Lee's testimony, if correct, forces one who is seeking a means to unity to toss Campbell & Stone into the dustbin of history.
Only a fool would follow a path to unity that resulted in robbing other denominations of thousands of Christians -- only to have them split into at least three major divisions (churches of Christ, disciples of Christ, and Christian Church) and at least two cults (International Church of Christ, Iglesia Ni Christo) and influence the creation of a third (Mormonism).
The Campbell and Stone "unity" movement managed more splits in 200 years than the RCC had in 1,500 years!

[size=8]History is a vast early warning system.
--Norman Cousins[/size]

[edited]

But is all of this the fault of Stone and the Campbells? Was their goal a flawed one? Or is there a way unity under their terms could've worked?

I think that if the second and third generation leaders in the movement had refused to draw lines in the sand over peripheral issues the unity would've been maintained.

But even if we lay all of the blame on the Campbells and Stone, or their methods, and none on their disciples and descendents, at least they tried. I'm willing to give them points at least for trying to be proactive and bring people together.  What have their descendents done for the past seventy-five or a hundred years?

And just as an aside, Iglesia Ni Cristo cannot properly be called an off-shoot of the Stone-Campbell Movement any more than the Mormon Church can. Manalo tried various different Protestant denominations, and briefly attended a Presbyterian seminary. He was only a member of the Church of Christ and a student of the Church of Christ Manila Bible College for four years. When he founded Iglesia Ni Cristo, Felix Manalo was a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. His four years in the CoC influenced his theology (as Sidney Rigdon's did his), however Iglesia isn't a branch of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Likely all of the various churches he tried influenced his theology to one degree or another.

Pax vobiscum.[/color]