Views: 5<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The term, change agent, <\/em>has been in use at least since 1947 in social psychology circles in reference to those whose task it is to facilitate change in organizations. Lynn Anderson is generally credited with being the first to apply the term to the church, using it to describe himself and others in his 1994 book, Navigating the Winds of Change <\/em>(ACU Press, Abilene, TX). <\/em>What the social psychologists hope to facilitate in secular institutions, Anderson and his cohorts are doing in (and to) the church of the Lord. Thus, it seems that he has chosen the term advisedly and applied it accurately.<\/span><\/p>\n A Bit of History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The current pressures to make changes in the church of Christ did not arise overnight; they have resulted from steady increases over at least the past half-century. Those earliest change advocates were generally dismissed as liberal extremists and their complaints were recognized for their dangerous digressive implications.<\/span><\/p>\n Acceptance of a growing liberal\/change element gradually increased from the late 1960s through the 1970s to the point that many congregations and some schools were willing to support and defend men who openly taught error. This trend accelerated rapidly through the end of the century and into the new century, and those cries that were once considered aberrations of extremist elements have now become the norm for a vast segment of the church.<\/span><\/p>\n The common mantra of those who have continued moving leftward has been and is: \u201dWe don\u2019t like the church of Christ, and we\u2019re going to change it or die trying.\u201d Anderson might have more accurately called himself and his confederates \u201crevolution agents,\u201d for verily they are leading a religious revolution.<\/span><\/p>\n Why the Cry for Change?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n These fellows justify their clamor for radical change in the church on at least the following factors:<\/span><\/p>\n What Changes?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Let me be more specific about their change aims. Are they talking about needed changes in the lives of individual Christians? There is a never-ending need for each of us to examine ourselves constantly and to make necessary changes (2 Cor. 13:5). Were these the changes for which they clamor, we could heartily join their crusade.<\/span><\/p>\n Were they calling for changes in optional matters (e.g., meeting times, whether to build or rent a place to assemble, number of songs and prayers in worship assemblies, et al.), we could agree that some changes would at least be permissible (albeit, not necessarily expedient or productive). Since liberals continue to cry for change in the face of great latitude on such items, their lust for change obviously involves more than merely optional matters.<\/span><\/p>\n All that is left for the change agents to tamper with is obligatory elements of the Gospel. Sadly, many are so Biblically ignorant that they cannot (or they are so liberal that they will <\/strong>not), distinguish between optional and obligatory constituents of the Gospel. Their indiscriminate approach to Bible doctrine serves as a classic demonstration of \u201cmixing apples and oranges.\u201d Verily, apples and oranges are more alike in some respects than some of the things the change agents confuse.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cChange Agent Checklist\u201d below is by no means intended to be exhaustive, only illustrative, of what makes a \u201ccard carrying\u201d change agent tick. He will advocate at least some, if not all, of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n Astute Bible students who are dedicated to doing all things \u201caccording to the pattern\u201d will immediately recognize the enormity and severity of the changes these folk seek. These items, where implemented, will render (and have rendered) systemic, fundamental, constitutional alterations, striking at the very nature and heart of the Christian system. The congregations that have embraced them have, in practicality, lost their identity as churches of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n A Brief Who\u2019s Who of Change Agents<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It is time to put some faces and names on those who are leading the assault against Zion. We need to understand that error does not have feet, hands, or a tongue of its own. Error is always a hitchhiker, using the feet, hands, and tongues of human beings to spread its poison. For this reason, the Lord, Paul, and other inspired writers shrank not from identifying by name at least some of those who taught and\/or practiced error and the errors in which they were involved. It is necessary for us to know not only the \u201cwhat\u201d of error, but the \u201cwho\u201d that are diffusing it.<\/span><\/p>\n Some become very uncomfortable when names and errors are connected, but it must nevertheless be done. (I could wish that all brethren would get as uncomfortable about the destructive work <\/strong>of the change agents as they often get about the identification <\/strong>of them.) I do not relish calling names and assessing blame, but the time comes when it must be done. Surely that time is now<\/strong>. There should be no \u201csacred cows\u201d (papers, schools, institutions, or individuals) when God\u2019s Truth is at stake.<\/span><\/p>\n Space does not allow a long listing, and besides, only God knows everyone who belongs on it. However, there are certain ones who have gone out of their way to qualify for their places on this roster. (I offer my sincere apologies to any who believe they deserve to be enrolled below, but who were omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The very essence of God\u2019s message to men in every age has been a call for them to change. We should therefore urge and welcome change, but only as dictated by the Word of God<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n The lines have been drawn in this religious confrontation, but those who are faithful saints did not draw them. The Lord did that almost two thousand years ago. The change agents are not content to leave them where He drew them, attempting to remove the ancient landmarks (Pro. 22:28). Consequently, the purity of New Testament Christianity and the salvation of countless souls are at stake. God\u2019s faithful people dare not retreat from the battle before us. More of us must hear the spiritual call to arms and join the fray. Many need to arouse themselves from their indifference and lethargy, and using every honorable and Scriptural weapon, begin fighting for every soul and for every congregation that may still be salvageable.<\/span><\/p>\n We will do well to heed Solomon\u2019s words of inspired advice concerning change agents: \u201cMy son, fear thou Jehovah and the king; And company not with them that are given to change\u201d (Pro. 24:21). The question is not one of whether <\/strong>we must cease to have any company with the change agents, but only one of when<\/strong>. Some are already so far gone that fellowshipping them would be equivalent to fellowshipping denominationalists. Many others are well on their way down the same broad path, all because of their unmitigated aim of changing the unchangeable.<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS, and it originally appeared as an \u201cEditorial Perspective\u201d in the October 2002 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>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 5[Note:\u00a0 This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0 page.] Introduction The term, change agent, has been in use at least since 1947 in social psychology circles in reference to those whose task it is to facilitate change in organizations. Lynn…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n