Category: Christ & Culture (Page 28 of 45)

Stone-Campbell and the Civil War

In an effort to raise our “spiritual historical consciousness,” our Sunday morning Bible classes here at Central are studying Doug Foster’s “Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ.” We’re hoping this study will help us see that so much of what we believe and practice was shaped by outside factors of history and culture. The Christian faith was passed on to each of us by someone, as was our particular brand of Christian church. To acknowledge that it’s always affected by cultural and historical forces is to become more humble and less judgmental of others, to see God’s work and God’s Kingdom in much bigger and broader ways, and to rely more on his mercy and grace that saves us.

This past Sunday, we took a close look at how the Civil War divided the Stone-Campbell unity movement between churches in the North and churches in the South and, eventually, between the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ. For the past hundred years, we’ve largely denied that the War Between the States had anything to do with it. We have very smugly contested that our differences are doctrinal, over right belief and correct practice, about biblical interpretations and church structures. Ah, that kind of thinking and talking is why we need these kinds of studies.

In 1860, there were about 1,200 Stone-Campbell congregations in the north and about 800 in the south. And the closer the nation came to war over the issue of slavery, the more the opinions of church leaders were expressed. Alexander Campbell detailed his position in a series of eight articles in his Millennial Harbinger. He claimed that Scripture regulated slavery, it didn’t abolish it. He wrote that the Bible did not condemn slavery as sinful or immoral. And, perhaps influenced by his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, Campbell conceded that slavery just wasn’t in harmony with the spirit of the age or the advancement of society and so supported plans to end slavery gradually without disrupting business. On the other hand, Barton Stone had freed all of his slaves years earlier and was an active member of the American Colonization Society.

The Stone-Campbell churches didn’t have a national organization or governing board to approve policy and regulate disputes. But they did have the American Christian Missionary Society, headquartered in Cincinnati. Their annual meetings had always drawn church members from all over the country. But when the Civil War began, southerners were no longer able to attend. At the October 1861 meeting, a resolution was introduced calling on all the Stone-Campbell churches to support the Union:

“Resolved, that we deeply sympathize with the loyal and patriotic in our country, in the present efforts to sustain the Government of the United States. And we feel it is our duty as Christians to ask our brethren everywhere to do all in their power to sustain the proper and constitutional authorities of the Union.”

Tolbert Fanning published a strong response to the resolution in the November issue of his Nashville-based Gospel Advocate:

“Should we ever meet them in the flesh, can we fraternize with them as brethren? How can the servants of the Lord in this section ever strike hands with the men who now seek their life’s blood? We do not know how this matter appears to others, but without thorough repentance, and abundant works demonstrating it, we cannot see how we can ever regard preachers who enforce political opinions with the sword, in any other light than monsters in intention, if not in very deed. How can Christian men of the South do otherwise?”

Naturally, as tensions grew and hostilities erupted between the north and south, tensions grew and hostilities erupted between the churches in the north and south. That would just be expected, right? It’s wrong. It’s sinful. But it’s definitely the way things are. It’s the way human beings work.

As would be expected, the feelings of bitterness and anger didn’t subside with the end of the war in 1865. David Lipscomb wrote in a February 1866 Gospel Advocate article that the Missionary Society had spent the past four years “encouraging the work of Christians North robbing and slaughtering Christians South.” He accused the organization of “inducing the followers of the Prince of Peace to become men of war and blood.” With similar sentiment in the same publication the following month, Lipscomb claimed that the society “without evidence of a repentance of the wrong, should not receive the confidence of the Christian brotherhood.”

It is naive at best and dishonest at worst to claim that anyone in America before, during, and after the Civil War could have remained unaffected by it. Foster writes in Renewing God’s People:

The war created two very different moods in the country — one in the North and one in the South — that no one could escape. Northerners had won the war. There was a general sense of victory, progress, and prosperity, mixed with a desire to punish or rehabilitate the South. Southerners had been defeated. To survive, they interpreted their defeat as discipline from God to keep them from becoming like the materialistic North and to preserve their virtues as an example of God’s ideal culture. Thus, it was not just the war but its aftermath, particularly Reconstruction in the South, that broke Christian fellowship. After the war, many churches in the prosperous northern cities became successful in society. They built large buildings with expensive stained glass. They preferred educated ministers. They could even afford expensive organs for their new buildings… By contrast, Southern members faced starvation, disease, and economic ruin… To Southerners, it was inconceivable that their fellow Christians in the North could spend money on buildings and organs while their brothers and sisters in the South were struggling just to stay alive.”

Yeah, it was real.

In 1906, the official U. S. census date of the split, two-thirds of the Disciples of Christ churches were in the North and two-thirds of the Churches of Christ congregations were in the South.

Doctrinal issues are usually not just doctrinal issues. Stone-Campbell church leaders had refused to allow any differences in theology or church structure or worship practice to divide them. Though some disagreed with the need for a missionary society and some adamantly opposed it, it was never allowed to divide the churches. Until the Civil War.

The ways we think and behave, what we believe and how we practice, is passed on to us in a specific culture during a particular point in history. We’re affected by it. It shapes how we view our churches and how we view others. Can we at least acknowledge that? Then, by acknowledging it and trying to better understand it, won’t we be more humble? Won’t we be less judgmental? Won’t we be more patient and accepting, more kind and forgiving?

Peace,

Allan

The Reply to Blow

Thank you so much for your faithful reflection and wrestling regarding the controversial Dallas Morning New column by Steve Blow we talked about in this space yesterday. I’ve received twice as many comments on email as I have in the “comments” section of this blog. And that’s fine. But, good gravy, people, your stuff is good! Really good! I urge you to consider putting some or all of what we’re sharing via email on the blog here so everybody can benefit and be blessed by your insights.

It appears that what most Christians are reading in this little controversy is the reply to Blow’s column penned by Ron Scates, the Senior Pastor at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas. You can read the response in its entirety by clicking here. I’m not endorsing the pastor or the Denison Forum website where this link sends you; it’s just the easiest place to find the response. Click on that link, read Scates’ reply, and then let’s discuss.

~~~Seriously, I’m not going to continue here until you jump over there and read Ron Scates. Do it! It’s really, really good!~~~

OK, he starts by naming a mentor of his at Union Theological Seminary — name dropping; not necessary — and his words of wisdom, “Bad theology always hurts people.” Good line. I like it. Scates expands on it:

“I guarantee you… anytime you and I develop our theology based on majority votes based on the surrounding culture — rather than by what God has revealed in his Word — inevitably, we wind up with bad theology.”

And people get hurt. Lost people get hurt. And Christians get hurt by bad theology that’s shaped by the prevailing culture of the times.

Limiting the role of women in our churches is bad theology formed in and by a male dominated culture; it goes completely against the commands and examples in our Holy Scriptures; and it’s not a very faithful expression of the Gospel of Jesus that claims we’re all equal at the cross of Calvary and at our Lord’s resurrection table. It hurts people. It hurts our women and our little girls. And it cripples our Christian witness to a lost world that can’t understand our petty rules and inconsistent laws. It’s OK for a woman to pray and read Scripture, to comment and exhort, in Bible class and in Small Group and at the church retreat, but our salvation is in jeopardy if she does it in the worship center between 10:00 and 11:00 on Sunday morning. Bad theology. Based on the surrounding culture. Hurts people.

Our traditional “sema-soma” views of body-soul in which our bodies and all of creation are burned up and destroyed on the Day of the Lord, but our disembodied souls float up to heaven where we spend all of eternity in a spiritual worship service, without sermons, I assume, is bad theology. It’s Gnostic, formed in and by a culture that was seeking secret knowledge and power. It’s Greek mythology, completely counter to what our Scriptures tell us about what God is really doing in redeeming all of creation. And it’s led to a lot of Christians not caring about our planet, not taking care of our own bodies, not caring what the church building looks like. People like that are said to be “so heavenly minded they’re no earthly good.” Bad theology. Hurts people.

I could go on and on. Five steps of salvation. Five acts of worship — one at a time, of course! Marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Leadership structures. Power hungry bishops and abusive elders are a result of bad theology. Measuring faithfulness to Christ by church attendance and knowledge of Scripture instead of Christ-likeness is bad theology. Youth groups who only learn and worship and serve with people their own age, that’s bad theology. It’s theology that comes from our culture and not from our Bibles.

More on that from Scates, who says it so much better than I do:

“How you and I approach the Bible is key to forging a good theology. Is the Bible a spiritual cafeteria where we go through the line picking and choosing only what looks tasty and palatable to us? Or is the Bible a banquet to which we have been graciously invited, where the Author/Host sets before us a fare of his own choosing? At a banquet, guests don’t try to change the menu. That would be bad etiquette.”

But the theology of the culture is so much easier, right? Of course it is. It tempts me all the time. It would be much easier to just play chaplain to a bunch of church people who sit comfortably in their pews week after week. It would be much easier to believe God has no holy expectations of his people. It would be much easier to believe I need to take care of myself first and look out for my own needs first and then take care of others. I’m reminded of something G. K. Chesterton wrote years ago in Orthodoxy: “Christianity has not been tried and found lacking; it’s been found difficult and never tried.” Something like that.

Scates particularly addresses Blow’s attack on the traditional views of hell and of Jesus as the only way to salvation:

“Do I believe hell exists? Yes. Do I fear hell? No. I hold both those beliefs for the exact same reason that I believe Jesus is the only way to eternal life because he says so… and that if I be in Christ, hell is not my eternal destiny. In the Gospels, Jesus talks more about the reality of hell than he does about heaven. It is Jesus himself who makes the claim (as much a minority claim in the 1st as in the 21st century) that he alone is the way to the Father… and away from an eternity in hell (John 14:6). Good theology always takes Jesus at his Word… rather than extends a wet finger to the prevailing winds of culture.”

Here at Central, we’re learning in our Sunday morning Bible classes that our Church of Christ history and particular theologies have been shaped and formed almost as much by culture and popular opinion as by our Lord. Almost. And that’s not a knock against CofC. Good gravy, it’s a commentary on our fallen humanity. It’s a call to be on our constant guard against it. And it’s a challenge to be always ready to grow and change and restore.

Scates’ last lines are perhaps his best. I’ll close with them the way he did.

When all is said and done, good theology is a “revealed” theology… it comes from outside of ourselves… not something of our own making. Historically, the Church has always said that that source of revelation is God himself… revealing himself to us through is Living Word, Jesus Christ, and his written word, the Holy Scriptures. Good theology usually arises when you and I attend to, not contend with, the Bible.”

Peace,

Allan

Where Steve Blow is Right

By now, I’m sure many of you have read the much-circulated response to a controversial column written by Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News about the Church’s doctrine of salvation in Christ alone and its traditional teachings on hell. Blow wrote his column this past Sunday in reaction to NFL quarterback Tim Tebow’s pulling out of a scheduled speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church in Dallas. Tebow was allegedly catching some public heat for lending his name to and appearing at a place where the pastor regularly denounces “gays, Mormons, Oprah, Catholics, Obama, etc., etc.” So, because of the pressure, he bailed. And apparently, Robert Jeffress, the pastor at First Baptist, called Tebow a wimp from the pulpit the following Sunday. Blow wrote a column about it. And the reaction to Blow’s column has been swift and prolific and wildly celebrated. The one everybody’s talking about was written by Ron Scates, the Senior Pastor at Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas.

Now, take a deep breath with me (breathe in….. hold it…. now let it go…. ahhhhhhh…. feel okay? Good.) and let’s look at this for a moment. Not many people have actually read Blow’s column, only third- and fourth-hand sensationalized characterizations of it by his detractors. In defense of those who haven’t read the actual column, it is hard to find. The Morning News makes readers pay for its best on-line material. And, secondly, it’s a lot easier to just read the rabid responses and pretend to hate the writer of this liberal, anti-Christian column. That second point is not a defense. Not at all. It’s just the way things are.

Let’s look at Scates tomorrow. Here’s a link to Blow’s original column from last Sunday. I hope this particular site is still offering the column for free by the time you click on it. It won’t take you long to read the column; it’s only about 600-words.

Blow never suggests in his column that Christians should change their views or relax their doctrines in order to appeal to the masses as has been claimed this week by some of his harsh critics. Yes, he is sarcastic in places — most of the best columnists are. And, yeah, he implies that his own religious beliefs have shifted so that he leaves room for other ways to salvation that don’t necessarily include Christ. But the main point of his column, and the thing that bothers me most, is his assessment that Christians in the United States don’t really believe in hell and they don’t really believe Jesus is the only way to God because if we did, we’d act like it.

I can’t shake that this week. It’s bugging me. Because I understand where he’s coming from.

Blow cites plenty of statistics in his short column. He tells us about a recent survey that found 70-percent of Americans agree with the statement: “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Those numbers apparently include 57-percent evangelical Christians who also agree. And a religion survey conducted by Baylor University found that only 27-percent of Protestants  say their Christian faith is the only path to salvation. Blow confesses that, as a Christian, he too believes “the world is just too wide to say that God cannot move and work in many ways.”

I don’t know if the numbers are correct or not. How would I know? They’re disturbing, for sure. But, I’m just not certain of the reliability of the statistics. What I am dead certain of is the truth behind Steve Blow’s most damning accusation against Christians: our actions speak much louder than our words when it comes to what we believe and don’t believe about the Christian faith and that undeniable testimony is that we don’t believe in hell or in Jesus as the only way to eternal life. Based on his own experiences as a professing Christian in our Christian churches, he’s concluded that

“most Christians really don’t believe this one-and-only path to salvation. If we do, what monsters we must be. There’s no way we could sit complacently in our favorite pew Sunday after Sunday, or devote such energy to building pretty new sanctuaries, when most of humanity faces eternal torment without our intervention. If we truly believed, we would quit our jobs and spend every waking moment trying to save people from the flames — just as we would save someone from a burning house.”

This is precisely why the Church is losing its kids and losing its credibility as a witness to something different and better and higher than what this world offers everybody every day. Because we’re not acting or living in ways that are different or better or higher than the ways this world acts and lives every day. What the culture sees, and what a lot of our own children and young people experience, is that we Christians preach and teach and sing about our concern for those without Christ, but do very little about it. What else should people think about us? When they see us bicker and argue about worship styles and leadership structures while doing nothing to share the Good News with our across-the-street neighbors, what other conclusion could they draw? While they watch us build new classroom wings and take ski trips, sit in more conferences and attend more meetings, and ignore everybody who doesn’t believe like we do, can we really blame them for thinking we don’t really believe what we say we believe? A whole bunch of us are spending more time and energy and money on fighting for our right to own guns than we are pleading with our best friends to submit to the Lordship of Jesus. We’re working 70-hour weeks and buying huge houses and driving four cars and piling the money up in our retirement accounts while paying no attention to the dozens of people we see every day who do not know Christ.

What else is the world to believe?

That’s where Steve Blow is right.

He says in his column that Jeffress’ traditional Christian faith is a “relic that is fading fast.” That’s a correct statement unless God’s Church begins to sacrifice and serve and genuinely live out our doctrines in ways that eternally impact the lost in our communities.

Peace,

Allan

Religious Freedom: Part Two

In our Sunday morning Bible classes here at Central, we’re studying the history of our Churches of Christ within what is called the American Restoration Movement. The hope and prayer is that we, in the words of Doug Foster, “raise our historical spiritual consciousness,” that we come to understand how our distinctive faith and doctrines and practices have been shaped by particular history and culture in order to better grasp the founding vision of our movement and make a deliberate turn back to the best parts. And if you’ve made it past those two sentences to this one, congratulations. Sorry about that.

We’re using Foster’s book, Renewing God’s People, to guide our study and discussions. I’m sharing the fruits of our study and openly processing some of it in this space. You might look at yesterday’s post if this one’s going to make sense.

It was during the prolific exercising of “religious freedom” in the colonial days of the American frontier when the call for “restoration” became a popular cry among Christians. The denominationalism of the day couldn’t be good for the spread of the Gospel. The constant dividing and splitting and planting and branching probably wasn’t communicating the truth of unity in Christ. There seemed to be no end to the numbers of new churches and new forms of Christianity that were being established in the States based on somebody’s new or different interpretation of the Scriptures. Finally, a few church leaders began questioning whether new churches and new denominations, the exercise of this nationalistic and democratic and individualistic religious freedom, was actually harming their Christian witness. Some religious leaders went so far as to say this denominationalism was a direct affront to the prayer of our Lord in John 17 in which Jesus prays for unity among all believers “so the world may believe.” Denominationalism, in their view, was in fact a sin.

James O’Kelly (1735-1826) was one of these guys. A Methodist preacher in North Carolina and Virginia, O’Kelly openly questioned the power and authority of the bishops in the Methodist church, particularly the two in Baltimore. He balked at the whole bishop system, arguing that each Christian congregation should act democratically, like a republic, to govern its own affairs. His motto was “Bible government, Christian equality, and the Christian name!” In 1793, he formed the “Republican Methodists.” Then he went even farther the next year, dropping the name “Methodists” alltogether. We are only Christians, he said, “Christian” is the only name for disciples of Jesus.

In that same year, 1794, O’Kelly published his Cardinal Principles of the Christian Church:

~ The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church

~ The name Christian should be used to the exclusion of all party and sectarian names

~ The Holy Bible is our only creed, and a sufficient rule of faith and practice

~ Christian character is the only test of church fellowship and membership

~ The right of private judgment and liberty of conscience are the privilege and duty of all

~ The union of all followers of Christ to the end that the world may believe

What do you think about those six rules? Is this a fairly decent summary of standards and practices for a Christian church based on the Gospel of Jesus? What would you add to a list like this? What would you subtract? Could a church or a group of churches even function with this type of charter? Could a group of churches — Churches of Christ, maybe — function this way today?

O’Kelly’s churches grew to about ten thousand members in North Carolina and Virginia. They eventually adopted believer’s baptism by immersion as their standard practice and taught that the unity of all Christians is God’s plan for redeeming the world.

At the same time, a group of Baptists in Vermont led by Abner Jones (1772-1841) and another group of Baptists in New Hampshire led by Elias Smith (1769-1846) began to independently proclaim a non-creedal Christianity. They  denounced Calvinism and took the name “Christian” as the only acceptable label for disciples of Jesus. These two, again independently of one another, established at least fourteen churches in the early 1800s.

Funny, huh? Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell weren’t the first ones or the only ones with these kind of ideas. The idea of “restoration,” stripping away what is new and unnecessary to get back to something in its pure and original condition, actually was fairly popular at the turn of the 19th century.  It was being preached and practiced by many. And Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 was driving it.

“…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” ~John 17:20-23

Peace,

Allan

Religious Freedom

We began our Bible class on Sunday morning by trying to name all the different Christian denominations in the U.S. As you can imagine, the names came fast and furious and I scribbled the words on the white board as quickly as I could to keep up: Methodist. Presbyterian. Catholic. Lutheran. Church of God. Baptist. (What kind of Baptist? OK, four or five different kinds we could think of.) Christian. Disciples of Christ. Unitarian. Non-Denominational/Community. Episcopal. Assembly of God. Then it started to slow down a little. I asked, “No Church of Christ? Why hasn’t anybody said Church of Christ?”

And someone in the back, on the right hand side of the room said, jokingly, “We’re not a denomination!”

Much laughter and frivolity ensued.

OK, Church of Christ. What kind of Church of Christ? One-cuppers. No-classers. Acappella. Instrumental. No kitchens. Etc.,

It took about two minutes to fill the giant board with all the names of all the different versions of Christian churches in the U.S. We kind of started cheating at the end by naming Cowboy Church, Biker Church, and Skater Church. But the point was well made and well illustrated. As Yakov Smirnoff used to say, “Only in America!”

There are more Christian denominations in the United States than in any other country in the rest of the world. More sub-sets of denominations. More splits and plants and branches than anywhere else in the history of this planet. It’s always been that way here. When America was being colonized, there was no official national religion. (There still isn’t, of course; we forget that sometimes.) Unlike the rest of the world, no one denomination could serve as the state church. In the colonies you had Puritans and Baptists, Anglicans and Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans, Quakers and German Reformed, all here to establish “the true church.” They had left their own churches and homes, they had fled their own families and nations, because they couldn’t implement their own individual ideas and preferences in their established churches. They didn’t want a Pope or bishop or church board telling them what to do. So they came here where they wanted — and they got! — religious democracy. Here in America, ordinary members were making decisions for the churches. Ministers were not formally educated. It was religion without the creeds and councils. In that age of reason and enlightenment, people figured they could read the Bible for themselves and come to their own conclusions about the right and wrong ways to do church. And they did!

The result of that is what you saw on our white board Sunday morning.

Back then, the idea was that if you read your own Bible with an open mind and good common sense and the conclusions you drew were different from what your church was teaching, you just started another church. What do I mean “back then?” It’s all still the same today!

Religious freedom. Yuk.

“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” ~Galatians 5:13-15

The American concept of “freedom” is a whole lot different from the Scriptural view of “freedom.” The apostle Paul writes that freedom means we are released from the things of this world — sin, selfishness, ego, pride, unalienable rights — that would keep us from serving others. Scripture says freedom is being loosed from the shackles of self to consider the needs of others more important than our own, to become less so that Christ and his holy will can become more. This nation’s concept of freedom is just the opposite. This nation’s founding documents and ideals, based on the prevailing thoughts at that time and still supporting the prevailing thoughts in our time today, tell us that Americans are free to do what we want, free to choose, free to own, free to pursue personal happiness, free to move, free to make money, free to speak, free to do whatever we want wherever we want, and whenever we want to do it with nobody ever telling me I can’t.

How do you think the freedom the colonists had to start all their own churches based on their own individual understandings of Scripture benefited the Kingdom of God? How might it have hurt? I’m certain there is both good and bad here. What’s good about our religious freedom in this country? How does this same freedom hinder the spread of the Kingdom or the sanctification of Christians? How might things be different — then and now — had American Christians understood and were to understand freedom as the liberty to serve others instead of ourselves?

Peace,

Allan

Peterson on Community

God meets us in community. Jesus saves us in community. The Holy Spirit transforms us in community. The individualism of our culture is a lie devised by the Father of Lies to isolate us and divide us so that we don’t mature into the image of God with which we were created to bear. The more buds we stick in our ears, the more screens we stick in our faces, the more technology moves us away from face-to-face life together, the less likely we are to “attain to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Skipping small groups Sunday night to finish that work project for Monday morning does you more harm than good. Postponing that lunch with a friend to watch a DVR’ed TV show isn’t the healthiest thing for you. You’re better off waiting in line with people to hand your money to a real live cashier than zipping through a self-checkout station to swipe your card by yourself. Saying ‘no’ to the church potluck in order to eat your own style of food in your own kitchen on your own time is saying ‘no’ to God’s holy design.

I like Eugene Peterson’s angle on Christian community in his book Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places:

Christ plays in the community of people with whom we live, and we want to get in on the play. We see what Christ does in creation and history and we want in on it, firsthand with our families and friends and neighbors.

But difficulties arise. Sooner or later those of us who follow Jesus find ourselves in the company of men and women who also want to get in on it. It doesn’t take us long to realize that many of these fellow volunteers and workers aren’t much to our liking, and some of them we actively dislike — a mixed bag of saints and sinners, the saints sometimes harder to put up with than the sinners. Jesus doesn’t seem to be very discriminating in the children he lets into his kitchen to help with the cooking.

I didn’t come to the conviction easily, but finally there was no getting around it: there can be no maturity in the spiritual life, no obedience in following Jesus, no wholeness in the Christian life apart from an immersion and embrace of community. I am not myself by myself. Community, not the highly vaunted individualism of our culture, is the setting in which Christ is at play.

Living together in community forces a person to sacrifice, to compromise, to give in. It teaches one to share, to serve, to submit to the whole. Life with others encourages a person to think about others, to see somebody else’s point of view, to consider other possibilities. See, community makes us more like Jesus.

I’m pretty sure that’s by design.

Peace,

Allan

« Older posts Newer posts »