Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 1<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n It is common knowledge that a serious new thrust is being made to create unity between the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Church. It has been distinctly implied by some of our unity-happy brethren that the only ones among us who object to their plans are a group they style as \u201ccantankerous,\u201d \u201cignorant\u201d brethren of the \u201cprolific right wing of the church.\u201d Such \u201cknuckleheads\u201d have sought to \u201cemaciate\u201d certain leaders of this latest unity effort by their \u201cspurious and erroneous reports that have appeared in some of our brotherhood scandal sheets,\u201d to hear them tell it. These are not all of the terms of endearment that have been used, but they are illustrative.<\/span><\/p>\n Strangely, not one word has been said by our brethren who are so anxious to unite with the ICC about anything but the sweetest spirit on the part of ICC men\u2014no less than absolute gentlemen who would never raise a voice or hurl an epithet! (Of course, it is most likely that those fellows attending the \u201cSummit\u201d in Joplin, MO (August 1984) and the \u201cForum\u201d in Tulsa, OK (March 1985) were of that sort. All other types were excluded from the Joplin meeting, both by type of men who were invited and by being asked to go home if they could not so act as the \u201cSummit\u201d began.)<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps we will have a more balanced view of some of the men and the doctrinal views they hold by noticing some of their \u201cunvarnished\u201d statements relative to the Lord’s church and certain principles of Scripture. With this aim in mind, I submit the following:<\/span><\/p>\n After a long review of an excellent article by brother Gary Workman in The Restorer<\/em> (April 1984) on Romans 4, the editor of The Banner of Truth<\/em>, Fred Blakely, concluded with the following summary (August 1984):<\/span><\/p>\n Workman\u2019s objective in his \u201cexegesis\u201d seems to have been to bind upon those who will hear him a punctilious obedience to all \u201cthe law of Christ\u201d in order to obtain salvation. Such an attitude toward salvation by grace through faith has largely captivated the sect with which he is identified in a mesh of soul-shackling legalism which has robbed them as a people of experience of the life, confidence and liberty Godward through Christ, which is the heritage of those who lived and walk by faith, not by law, or sight.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In his opening statement on brother Workman\u2019s true article, Blakely said: \u201cActually, the confident editor exposed, his own serious benightedness and error on the subject and left it in a worse state of confusion than when he sought to expound it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The same writer offers his opinion of our great sin in the March 1985 Banner of Truth:<\/span><\/p>\n The sin of anti-instrumentalists\u2014 and it is a great and notable sin, not just an innocuous error of judgment\u2014is in their banning mechanical instruments of music (except the pitch pipe and tuning fork) from singing in the assembly of the church. By doing this they usurped the throne of God, reversing His authorization of such usage and so cursed what God has blessed. (Remember Balaam and his end!) There is no greater sin than such presumptuous action. We call upon those guilty of this transgression to think seriously upon their deed, and turn from it in genuine repentance. The command of the heavenly voice is, \u201cWhat God hath cleansed, that call not thou common,\u201d much less anathematize it (Acts 10:15).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet another statement from Mr. Blakely {Banner of Truth, October, 1984), he reviews brother Tom Warren\u2019s excellent little book, Christians Only\u2014And the Only Christians<\/em>. Under the title, \u201cA Church of Christ Manifesto,\u201d he writes as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Its error is in apparently equating the church of Christ (sectarian) with the bonafide body of the Lord, and insisting that men submit to its traditions and inferences as the very Word of God \u2014 Certainly, all of Warren\u2019s opinions and judgments cannot be received as those of God. Being in the tradition of dogmatism and exclusivism represented by second-generation Restorationists Benjamin Franklin and Daniel Sommer, the booklet is actually a current Church of Christ (sectarian) manifesto.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another man in the Independent Christian Church who does considerable writing is Ray Downen of Joplin, MO. He is a \u201cgrace only\u201d advocate who affirms that \u201c… Christians are not under law at all\u201d (Christians Are Re-Bom Free From Law<\/em>, booklet published August 25,1983, p. 5). In a brief tract entitled, \u201cConcerning Authority in Christ\u2019s Church,\u201d he writes as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n When Paul wrote to the church in Colossae, Thomas B. Warren supposes he was writing about \u201cthe matter of authority\u201d in 3:17. The expression, \u201cin the name of\u2019 means \u201cby the authority of,\u201d brother Warren explains. The same axe man, in demanding that all Christians accept a \u201cLaw of Authority\u201d he claims, comes from God, goes on to misapply \u201cfaith comes by hearing. . .\u201d What sort of blinders does a man have to wear to know no better than that?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. Downen favored me with the tract quoted above, including it in a letter filled with sarcasms about one of my articles he had read. In a recent letter to brother Warren, Mr. Downen expressed himself as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n You are not defending Christ\u2019s church, you are defending your narrow, sectarian misunderstanding of it. Your writing makes clear that you think salvation is limited to those who share your logical assumptions about truth. You think most Christians will go to Hell since they don\u2019t agree with you about instrumental music, re-marriage, the millennium, etc. Your writings are legalistic and not in harmony with gospel truth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I suspect that a statement made at the \u201cTulsa Forum\u201d in March of 1985 (a sequel to the \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d of August 1984) by one of the Independent Christian Church men may be representative of their general thinking. Kenny Boles of Ozark Bible College made the following statement in his speech:<\/span><\/p>\n If it is your heartfelt conviction that the use of the piano, or other instruments is sin; if it is your heartfelt conviction that I am damned to hell thereby, it\u2019s gonna be tough, it\u2019s gonna be tough for us to be brothers. Is there a difference between sin and error? If you believe I am in error, I can talk about that. If you believe I am in sin, and going to hell, we\u2019ve just drawn the battle lines, and we\u2019ll have to fight.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0 None of our folk would claim that all of us are free of improper attitudes. However, an incorrect impression has been left by some, whether intentionally or not, that the only ones with \u201cbad attitudes\u201d are some of us. The fact of the matter is that what seems to constitute a \u201cbad attitude\u201d in any of us is any expression of caution or criticism (to say nothing of exposure) concerning these efforts toward unity. Brethren, are we really so mean as some have made us, and are those in the Independent. Christian Church really so nice?<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS for and it was published in the July1985 edition of Spiritual Sword<\/em>, ed. Thomas B. Warren.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution: <\/strong>From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 0[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 1 page.] It is common knowledge that a serious new thrust is being made to create unity between the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Church. It has been distinctly implied…<\/p>\n