Views: 3<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Was a renewed and intensified \u201cunity\u201d initiative with the Independent Christian Church (ICC) underway? Abilene Christian University had an ICC preacher on its lectureship a few years earlier. The Tulsa Workshop had two ICC speakers on its program in 2006. The December 2004 issue of The Christian Chronicle <\/em>gave major ink to two news stories and an advertisement, all of which seemed to point in this direction.<\/span><\/p>\n News Story Number One<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Page 1 carried the headline, \u201cChurch of Christ, Christian Church leaders test waters.\u201d The article, written by Chronicle <\/em>staffer Lindy Adams, tells of \u201dMinistry Impact \u201904,\u201d a meeting \u201cfor dialogue and fellowship\u201d in Grand Prairie, Texas (near Dallas), involving 350 men from the ICC and churches of Christ. Adams, in typical liberal jargon, referred to us, to the ICC, and to the Disciples of Christ as \u201cthree streams\u201d of the \u201cAmerican Restoration Movement\u201d and of the \u201cStone-Campbell Restoration Movement.\u201d (Note: I am not a member of a \u201cmovement,\u201d but of the church of Christ, to which He added me when I obeyed the Gospel plan of salvation [Acts 2:38\u201341, 47].)<\/span><\/p>\n David Faust, president of Cincinnati Christian University (an ICC school) denied that the confab was \u201cabout an organizational merger.\u201d Admittedly, \u201cdialogue\u201d with those with whom we differ did not imply unity or fellowship with them. Unless Adams was wrong in his report, however, they met for \u201cdialogue and <\/strong>fellowship.\u201d I need a bit of help to understand why engaging in \u201cfellowship\u201d with others does not imply \u201cunity\u201d with them, whether or not there is discussion of \u201can organizational merger.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Some of \u201cour\u201d most devoted (to liberalism) liberals who spoke had other ideas. Rick Atchley (of the Richland Hills \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d denomination near Fort Worth, Texas) wanted to see a \u201cfamily reunion\u201d involving the two groups in 2006, the one hundredth anniversary of the division the ICC\u2019s founders precipitated in order to have their unauthorized instruments and missionary societies. Prentice Meador of Prestoncrest Church of Christ in Dallas (another big city liberal church) suggested that Larimore, McGarvey, Brewer, and Lipscomb were men who believed in salvation \u201cby God\u2019s grace, not by getting everything right.\u201d (Meador here\u2014perhaps inadvertently\u2014encapsulates the liberal credo: God does not regard obedience over disobedience or being right over being wrong.) Unfortunately, the men Meador listed are not around to respond to his defamations.<\/span><\/p>\n The same article recorded the donation of $50,000.00 by an ICC in Colorado toward beginning a new congregation in Odessa, Texas, sponsored by the avant-garde Golf Course Road \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d in nearby Midland. The article also noted that the Northwest Church of the Christ (Seattle, WA) and a nearby ICC had merged in September 2004. This was hardly monumental, since Northwest was already using instruments in some of its Sunday worship assemblies.<\/span><\/p>\n Victor Knowles, ICC leader and editor of One Body <\/em>(the paper he founded in 1984 to blur crucial distinctions between the ICC and the Lord\u2019s church), commented that, while \u201csome will be contentious\u201d about such unification efforts, \u201cmany will welcome the opportunity to join hands.\u201d (Oh, but I thought the meeting was just for \u201cdialogue,\u201d rather than for \u201cjoining hands\u201d\u2014merger or union.) He was right on both counts:<\/span><\/p>\n News Story Number Two<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A three-page article (17\u201319, including centerfold) reviews a new book, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement <\/em>(more of that Stone-Campbell Movement <\/em>lingo). The reviewers, John Harrison and Lynn McMillon (both Christian Chronicle <\/em>staffers and Oklahoma Christian University religion professors), lauded the work of its editors, one from each of the \u201cthree major branches of the movement\u201d (there they go again) (the third \u201cbranch\u201d was the modernistic Disciples of Christ denomination). The editor \u201crepresenting\u201d the \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d was Doug Foster, highly acclaimed by Abilene Christian University as its resident \u201cauthority\u201d on \u201crestoration\u201d history. (This is the same highly touted \u201cscholar\u201d who, in a 1992 Wineskins <\/em>article, attributed heretical statements from a Baptist preacher to David Lipscomb, whom Lipscomb quoted in the process of refuting his error. Although many years have passed, Foster never came clean on his appalling error.)<\/span><\/p>\n Tom Olbricht, retired head of Pepperdine\u2019s religion department (and one of the originators and principal advocates of the \u201cnew hermeneutic\u201d movement several years ago) wrote a number of articles in the aforementioned Encyclopedia<\/em> concerning the church (including one on hermeneutics!). His credentials inspire anything but confidence that his material faithfully represents Scripture or history.<\/span><\/p>\n One could easily infer that the reviewers consider all three bodies of the \u201cRestoration Heritage\u201d (the reviewers\u2019 terminology) equally honorable (and\/or culpable) concerning the three-way division. They said the Encyclopedia <\/em>desired to \u201cstress the \u2018connectedness\u2019 of the three traditions.\u201d This statement and\/or aim was almost <\/strong>amusing, considering the utter \u201cdisconnectedness\u201d that prevailed\u2014and will remain\u2014as long as the Disciples and the ICC despise the authority of Scripture, and as long as faithful brethren stand for the Truth.<\/span><\/p>\n The Advertisement<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Christian Chronicle <\/em>carried a prominent advertisement, titled, \u201cPresident Sought.\u201d The ad sought a new president for the Disciples of Christ Historical Society. The candidate \u201cmust be…committed to reconciliation,\u201d and must have \u201ccommitment to and knowledge of all traditions in the Stone-Campbell Movement.\u201d (I failed to find must be committed to the Scriptures <\/em>in the ad.) What business did the Chronicle <\/em>have helping a branch of the modernistic Disciples of Christ (or any denomination) find an employee? Was this not one more attempt by the Chronicle <\/em>to blur the line of fellowship between Truth and error? Are there still those who doubt the Chronicle\u2019s <\/em>leftward theological tilt?<\/span><\/p>\n A Bit of History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cMinistry Impact \u201804\u201d (merely for \u201cdiscussion,\u201d \u201cdialogue,\u201d and \u201cworship,\u201d but not \u201cunity,\u201d remember!) grew out of the series of \u201cRestoration Forums\u201d conducted over the preceding twenty years and the \u201cStone-Campbell Dialogue,\u201d begun in 1999. The first of these forums (originally billed as a \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d) convened in August 1984 on the campus of Ozark Bible College (an ICC school) in Joplin, Missouri. Fifty men from churches of Christ and from the ICC (all deemed to be \u201cirenic\u201d) attended by invitation only. Principal participants included Rubel Shelly (he had publicly announced his liberalism only a year earlier) and Victor Knowles (ICC unity activist identified above).<\/span><\/p>\n Of the fifty men invited from churches of Christ, perhaps six were known for their conservatism, while the rest had already made a reputation, either as doctrinally soft and\/or as unabashedly liberal. Some extremely compromising statements were made in this forum by men in\u2014but on the way out of\u2014the Lord\u2019s church (e.g., Randy Mayeux). Others who were present, suggested compromises and\/or wrote articles afterward that urged compromise in the interest of \u201cfellowship\u201d and \u201cunity.\u201d Liberals in the church eagerly participated in these ecumenical exercises.<\/span><\/p>\n While some of \u201cour\u201d participants were quite willing to ignore such differences as the use of instruments in worship\u2014and the crucial underlying issue of Biblical authority\u2014the ICC attitude was uncompromising (regarding its compromises!). Concerning instruments, their attitude was (and is): \u201cWe are not about to give them up.\u201d Since about 1987, only those on the extreme liberal fringe among us have attended these \u201clove-ins\u201d with the ICC folks. Faithful brethren rightly view these forums as both futile and malevolent because they ignore the numerous substantive hermeneutical, doctrinal, and practical errors that preclude Biblical unity.<\/span><\/p>\n Is Unity the Summum Bonum <\/em>in Religion?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The foregoing considerations raise the question, \u201cShould religious unity override all other considerations?\u201d Are doctrinal Truth and Scriptural practice only secondary and relatively insignificant? Many in the church, in an ecumenism run amok, now answer these questions affirmatively and would have all of us do so as well.<\/span><\/p>\n Some delight in stressing the emphasis the Campbells and other early restorers placed on unity, especially in their early efforts to free themselves from sectarian shackles. These self- styled \u201chistorians\u201d leave the impression at times that unity was their only <\/strong>interest and plea. However, an objective perusal of only a few of Alexander Campbell\u2019s uncompromising, strongly worded articles in The Christian Baptist <\/em>(1823\u201329) will quickly dispel this impression. The early restorers pled for unity, based on submission to, rather than sacrifice of, inspired Truth. Faithful men have never sought or proposed unity merely for its sake alone.<\/span><\/p>\n Undeniably, unity in spiritual matters is a major theme of the Bible. Jesus came to heal the great division between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14\u201317). Moreover, he came to heal the ultimate alienation between God and mankind (Luke 19:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). None can (nor should any desire to) deny that the Lord and the inspired New Testament penmen urged (and urge) unity. The Lord prayed that all who would believe on Him would be one (John 17:20\u201321). Paul pled for unity among the Lord\u2019s people (1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1\u20133). Peace and accord are conditions that all right-thinking men highly prize and greatly admire: \u201cBehold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!\u201d (Psa. 133:1). It is still appropriate to ask, however, if unity is the ultimate goal of God and the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n Some Balancing Considerations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0The Lord\u2019s Prayer: <\/strong>As mentioned above, the Lord prayed for unity among all those who would \u201cbelieve\u201d on Him through the apostles\u2019 teaching. However, one is mistaken to identify these \u201cbelievers\u201d as those who merely reach the conclusion that He is the Son of God, while ignoring His Word in their doctrine and practice. He did not have modern denominational \u201cChristendom\u201d in mind. That this conclusion is sound is attested by the even as <\/em>clause He employed: \u201cThat they may all be one; even as <\/strong>thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us\u201d (John 17:21a, emp. DM). The Father and the Son are absolutely one in doctrine and practice, and this is specifically the unity for which the Lord prayed.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, the New Testament repeatedly uses believe <\/em>as a synecdoche for the entire Gospel plan of salvation, beginning at least as early as John 3:16. This use of the word is especially noticeable from Pentecost forward. Those who received the Word, were baptized, and were added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47) initially constituted \u201call that believed\u201d (v. 44; cf. 4:4, 32; 5:14; 1 Cor. 3:5; 9:5; et al.). Similarly, inspired writers juxtapose believer <\/em>with unbeliever <\/em>to distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian (1 Cor. 14:22; 2 Cor. 6:15; 1 Pet. 2:7). A \u201cbeliever\u201d in the New Testament context is one who has obeyed the Gospel and has been added to the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Surely, the Lord would not have confused us by referring in His prayer to \u201cbelievers\u201d in some other sense. Granted, He would have all men be one who \u201cbelieve\u201d on Him in any sense, but His prayer is much more narrowly focused. He did not pray for some sort of pseudo \u201cunity\u201d of His people with doctrinally diverse denominationalists in an oxymoronic \u201cunity in diversity\u201d in which they would \u201cagree to disagree.\u201d Believers <\/em>did not include such folk, so any application of the prayer to denominationalism is secondary at best<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Primarily and specifically, His prayer looked toward the fast-approaching Pentecost and the glorious new era it would inaugurate as the apostles began preaching His Word (Mat. 28:18\u201319; Mark 16:15\u201316; Luke 24:47\u201349). The \u201cbelievers\u201d were those who would believe on Him \u201cthrough their word\u201d (John 17:20)\u2014those who would obey the Gospel, as demonstrated earlier. He prayed that all these <\/strong>\u201cmay…be one.\u201d May be <\/em>translates a present tense form, indicating continuing action. Hence, He prayed not only for initial, but also for perpetual unity among those who would obey the apostles\u2019 teaching <\/strong>and whom He would add to His church<\/strong>, as occurred in the beginning (Acts 2:41\u201342, 47).<\/span><\/p>\n Those disciples did not need a \u201cunity forum\u201d to achieve unity. Unity occurred when\u2014and because\u2014they initially obeyed the Gospel, and it continued as long as they \u201ccontinued stedfastly in the apostles\u2019 teaching.\u201d When three or three thousand persons obey the pure Gospel and continue in it, they will become and remain genuinely united, whether in the first or any subsequent century.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul\u2019s Plea: <\/strong>Paul\u2019s plea for unity (1 Cor. 1:10) was directed to the Corinthian saints who had initially been united in Christ by obeying the Gospel (vv. 13\u201316; 15:1\u20132). For doctrinal and practical reasons in their private and congregational behaviors (e.g., 1:11\u201312; 3:3\u20136; 5:1; 6:1\u20138; 11:17\u201334; 12:1\u201331; et al.), the Corinthian saints were divided. Paul did not urge them to merely declare a state of \u201cunity\u201d in spite of their doctrinal diversity. Rather, he pled for them to \u201call speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment\u201d (1:10). They were to be of one mind <\/strong>and one voice <\/strong>because of the one message<\/strong>, which Paul taught \u201ceverywhere in every church\u201d (4:17)\u2014not because of negotiated compromises.<\/span><\/p>\n Division Commanded: <\/strong>Some depict those who dare oppose any effort supposedly aimed at \u201cunity\u201d as negative knuckleheads who delight in religious division. This depiction is neither true nor fair, nor is it Scriptural. \u201cUnity,\u201d if not based upon Truth, is not only undesirable\u2014it is unauthorized<\/strong>. Some moderns are apparently unaware of Jesus\u2019 declaration in Luke 12:51: \u201cThink ye that I am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.\u201d God\u2019s faithful ones are forbidden to maintain fellowship and be united with those who rebel against the Lord and His Word (to do one is to do the other, John 12:48).<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus commands His church to separate from (not remain united with) one who sins against a brother and will not repent (Mat. 18:15\u201317). The church is to mark and turn away from (not unite with) those who deceive others by their false doctrines (Rom. 16:17\u201318). The church is to \u201cpurge out\u201d and no longer \u201ckeep company\u201d with a member who lives an immoral life (1 Cor. 5:1\u201313). The church must \u201cwithdraw\u201d from and \u201chave no company with\u201d brethren who are disorderly and who reject apostolic doctrine (2 The. 3:6, 14; cf. Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim. 1:19\u201320; Tit. 3:11\u201312; 2 John 9\u201311; Rev. 2:5). These passages clearly affirm that \u201cunity,\u201d arrived at by compromise or surrender of the Truth, is forbidden and sinful. The conclusion is also unavoidable that our Master requires us to disrupt fellowship and unity when men will not repent of their rebellion against Him. We are to have no fellowship with brethren<\/strong>, much less denominationalists, who persist in sin and error.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Both branches of the Christian Church (i.e., the Disciples and the Independents) are denominations, spawned by those who rebelled against the Christ and His Word. I know of no present attempt to \u201ccozy up\u201d to the left wing (theologically and politically) Disciples. The thrust of liberals among the Lord\u2019s people continues to be toward the ICC. However, those who are so eager to join themselves to the ICC (in spite of its adamant refusal to repent of its many errors) may as well go ahead and start fellowship negotiations with the Disciples. The two groups share the same basic attitude toward the authority of Scripture. The Disciples have simply been more consistent in following where that attitude leads.<\/span><\/p>\n The old denominational slogan, \u201cOne church is as good as another,\u201d is accurate only in reference to the denominations. If the liberals in the church of Christ accept one denomination (e.g., the ICC), they have no logical basis on which to discriminate against and reject another (e.g., the Disciples, the Lutherans, the Baptists, et al.). Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly have been consistent\u2014if grossly in error\u2014in this respect. Not only have they openly embraced the ICC, but Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and likely others in their open-ended ecumenism. Lucado has outdone even Shelly (and several other fellow-apostates) in at least one respect: He changed the name of his denomination so that innocent Truth-seekers are no longer confused by seeing \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d on his building. May the Lord speed the day that all of those who are more in agreement with and feel a greater kinship toward the denominations than with the Lord\u2019s faithful people will go ahead and join them \u201cwhole hog.\u201d The \u201csooner the better\u201d it will be for the church of Christ. As beautiful and desirable as unity is, it is not the \u201cbe all and end all\u201d in religion. Jesus did not say, \u201cYe shall know unity, and unity shall make you free,\u201d but \u201cYe shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free\u201d (John 8:32).<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS, and it originally appeared as an \u201cEditorial Perspective\u201d in the January 2005 issue of THE GOSPEL JOURNAL, <\/em>a 36-page monthly of which I was editor at the time.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution: <\/strong>From TheScripturecache.com<\/em>, owned and administered by Dub McClish.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 3[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles page.] Introduction Was a renewed and intensified \u201cunity\u201d initiative with the Independent Christian Church (ICC) underway? Abilene Christian University had an ICC preacher on its lectureship a few years earlier. The Tulsa…<\/p>\n\n