The Christian Church Merger
by Kerry Duke

They have a plan. In their minds it is a masterplan – a proposal to reunite churches of Christ with the Christian Church, and, in some circles, an effort to unite both groups with Disciples of Christ. On the basis of a common “heritage” in the American Restoration Movement, leaders from both groups are pleading not only for a ceasefire, but also for mutual acceptance in restored fellowship. They have big hopes for a “family reunion” in 2006 – the one hundred year mark of the division of 1906.

This effort is not new. Various attempts to restore fellowship between churches of Christ and the Christian Church have been made since 1906. But the past two decades have brought increased work for reunion. An article by then President of Milligan College, Marshall J. Leggett, in the Winter/Spring 1987 issue of One Body was almost a prophecy of how the masterplan for unity would unfold. Leggett outlines suggestions for accomplishing the goal of a reunion:

First, let brethren of goodwill continue to meet. I would offer you the beautiful campus of Milligan College if you would allow us to be your host. Then let me suggest that we have an exchange of college faculty. Professors at Milligan, for example, would be delighted to savor Southern California next winter. Then, Pepperdine people could come to those lovely mountains of East Tennessee and not have to worry about sliding into the Pacific. David Lipscomb professors could be guests of Cincinnati Bible Seminary, vice versa, and so forth. We could also have an exchange of pulpits.

Then let me suggest that at some future North American Christian Convention we have two evening speakers from the a cappella Churches of Christ and two from the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. We say the Convention is the one “tent” under which we can all stand. The evening sessions would be an invitation to our a cappella brethren to come, stand under the same “tent” with us. The Convention came into being to provide a platform from which the great themes of the Restoration movement could be proclaimed. Our a cappella brethren can preach these themes as well as we can – almost.

Down the road somewhere our congregations could have a joint evangelistic effort. It would not need to be one mass meeting. Instead, each church could have its own effort, but simultaneous with the others, coordinated, and with joint advertising. It would demonstrate to the community that we fellowship in that which matters most, the saving of souls. Then, way down the road, we might choose a mission field ripe for the Gospel, marshal our resources, mobilize our people, and take that “Macedonia” for Christ.

Mr. Leggett was not a prophet or the son of a prophet. But he could hardly have predicted more accurately what would occur in this unity movement. His suggestions have almost become gospel to those leading this reunion. As the following examples show, these leaders have been persistent, and their persistence has paid off in terms of numerical progress.

The Restoration Forum. Begun in 1984, this annual meeting of preachers from churches of Christ and Christian Churches is designed to promote unity between the two groups.
One Body Journal. The year 1984 also marked the beginning of the One Body Journal, which claims to be “the only magazine in the Stone-Campbell movement that has given consistent and complete coverage to the unity effort between Christian Churches/churches of Christ and the a capella churches of Christ” (Lincoln V. Knowles).

Confession of Sin. In June, 2000 seventeen representatives from churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ met together for promoting unity between the three groups. The statement they signed said, “We, therefore, participants in the Stone-Campbell Dialogue, confess to God and to each other that we are guilty of the sin of division and of harboring and maintaining a spirit of division.” The meeting was held at the Madison church of Christ in Madison, Tennessee.
Seminar for Preachers. A seminar for preachers was held at David Lipscomb University in 2002. The speaker for this event was Fred Craddock, a Disciples of Christ minister from Blue Ridge, Georgia.

Overture to Unity. Rick Atchley, preacher at the Richland Hills church of Christ in North Richland Hills, Texas made a passionate appeal for unity at the 2003 North American Christian Convention.
Stone-Campbell Encyclopedia. Over 200 writers from churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ released this history of the “movement.” Leroy Garrett, a long-time advocate of this unity effort, said, “If we can write an encyclopedia together...we can do anything together.”

Lectureships. Christian church professors and preachers have enjoyed increasing presence at lectureships of universities historically affiliated with churches of Christ. Pepperdine University and Abilene Christian University have been at the forefront of this trend.

The Christian Standard. This Christian Church publication featured an apology from Mike Cope, minister for the Highland church of Christ in Abilene, Texas. This apology, which appeared in the August 7, 2005, issue of the Standard, called for “mutual forgiveness” and recommended “churches planted together, ministries supported together, campus ministires united, and teen groups nurtured together.”

The Stone-Campbell Journal. The editorial board of this paper is comprised of professors from both Christian Church and church of Christ colleges: Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Lincoln Christian Seminary, Abilene Christian University, David Lipscomb University, Great Lakes Christian College, Harding University, and Emmanuel School of Religion. The journal will sponsor an annual conference on March 31 - April 1 at Cincinnati Bible Seminary. The special guest lecturer for this event will be Clark Pinnock, a theologian who is considered liberal even by evangelical standards because of his views on such subjects as the inspiration of the Bible and the nature of God.

A Case of Merger. In the Spring of 2005 the Cornerstone Church of Christ and the Parkside Christian Church became a single congregation in Beaumont, Texas: Christ Covenant Church.

Huge Efforts in 2006. The Restoration Forum, normally held in October, has been moved to February 19-22, 2006 to be held in conjunction with the Abilene Christian University Lectures. On February 20-22, Rubel Shelly will be a key speaker at the Ozark Christian College Preaching and Teaching Convention. The International Soul Winning Workshop in Tulsa, Oklahoma, will feature “team preaching” March 23-24. Then on June 27-30, the North American Christian Convention will hold an “unprecedented” unity gathering in Louisville, Kentucky.

Make no mistake about this. These people are determined to unite these groups, with or without your cooperation.

This unity movement has been marked by double-talk from its beginning. The first Restoration Forum was held at Ozark Bible College in Joplin, Missouri on August 7-9, 1984. Shortly after this gathering Rubel Shelly wrote his observations on the event in the November, 1984 issue of One Body. He actually had the audacity to make the following claims on the front page of that issue:

(1) It was not a merger attempt. Fifty men were present from conservative Christian churches, and the same number from the churches of Christ. Since neither of these restorationist groups has an ecclesiastic organization that allows any person or group to speak for it, no such discussion would have been possible.

(2) It was not an exercise in compromise. Not one person at the discussion was of the opinion that doctrinal tenets and personal convictions are expendable for the sake of creating a false facade of unity. Men of integrity who are committed to the Word of God have no concern to imitate the ecumenical movements of liberal Protestantism.
With the highest possible regard for the Word of God... all the summit participants accepted the premise that compromise of the truth is an impossible option in searching for God ordained unity.

(3) It was not a symposium-debate on instrumental music in worship.

He says the meeting was not a merger attempt. Why, of course not! Who would think of such? And did you notice that Shelly was quick to point out that neither group has an “ecclesiastical organization”? Here is a question: What would be unscriptural with that? Is such a governing body over individual congregations unscriptural? Where is the Scripture that forbids such ecclesiastical organization? If these men would face the music on this issue, they would give up their position on music in the worship of the church.

He also says the summit was not an attempt to imitate “the ecumenical movements of liberal Protestantism.” And just what is liberal Protestantism? Remember, this is the same man who joined hands with the Billy Graham Crusade a few years ago. Remember too, that a number of leaders in this movement are ready to fellowship the Disciples of Christ and that the Stone-Campbell Journal Conference in 2006 will feature the ultra-liberal theologian Clark Pinnock. The truth is the exact opposite of what Shelly wrote.

About the only accurate statement Shelly made about the meeting was that it was not a “symposium-debate on instrumental music in worship.” This is the very point that divides us; yet it is precisely this subject which these forums refuse to discuss. What part of the problem don’t these people understand? We will not condone the use of the instrument!

Another tactic that appears as a common thread in these unity efforts is diverting the issue. Leaders of the proposed merger use smokescreens and diversions while ignoring questions that challenge their beliefs.

“Only What is Specifically Taught.” In the Summer 2005 issue of One Body, Marvin Phillips presented the old argument that only matters that are “specifically taught” in the New Testament are binding. Since “instrumental accompaniment” is not explicity forbidden, Phillips assumes this issue should not be a test of fellowship. But the New Testament does not specifically forbid handling snakes in worship or smoking marijuana. The Bible does not explicitly condemn having a pope or praying to Mary. More importantly, the use of this argument by leaders of the movement is disingenuous. They imply by the argument that if the New Testament does specifically forbid something, they respect that prohibition and consider it binding. But many of these leading voices for change favor women in leadership roles in the church – a direct violation of what is “specifically taught” in I Timothy 2:8-3:13 and I Corinthians 14:34-35. Even when God does specifically forbid something, they pay no attention to it if it does not agree with their tastes. One of these unity promoters, Jack Reese, of Abilene Christian University, has made it clear in his book, The Broken Body, that neither instrumental music nor the role of women in the church should divide the church. The “Scripture nowhere specifically forbids it” argument – even if it were true – is not a rule they are willing to follow anyway. It is just a smokescreen.

“It won’t go any farther.” In the same issue of One Body editor Victor Knowles cautioned readers that the proposed merger does not mean fellowshipping everybody and everything. He drew lines on various points. We cannot fellowship Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists, he said, “because we are not agreed on Christ.” He criticized Catholics for their teaching about Mary and warned that we should not attempt to have unity with “liberal mainline Protestant denominations” who “do not believe in the full inspiration and authority of Scripture, the unqualified deity of Jesus Christ, or the sanctity of biblically defined marriage.” He called these “essential matters” and lamented the fact that some in the Restoration Movement “do not ‘speak with one voice’” on these issues – an apparent shot at the Disciples of Christ denomination. Knowles also condemns Calvinism, suggesting that we cannot have fellowship with a teaching that “strikes at the very heart of the gospel.”

What kind of talk is this for a champion of unity? Where is the love in his article? How can Knowles be so intolerant and judgmental over these matters? Isn’t it Christ, not doctrine, that ought to unite people?

What consistent reason can Knowles give for not fellowshiping these people? What is wrong with the Catholic practice of praying to and honoring Mary as “the Mother of God”? Why is this unscriptural? Let Knowles tell us. The minute he does, he will show why instrumental music in worship is wrong. How can he put down denominations for not respecting the authority of Scripture, when he and others in this unity movement show blatant disregard for the authority of the Word themselves?

Has Knowles closed the door to the Disciples of Christ? Has he put them in the same category as Catholics?

They are clearly one of the "liberal mainline denominations" he mentioned. Disciples of Christ leaders are clearly involved in certain aspects of this unity trend. Has Knowles declared that he will not fellowship them?

Even if Knowles were to try to maintain these lines of fellowship, he does not speak for others in the movement. He has no control over what will happen once the merger is initiated or over how far it will go.

But that is the whole irony of these lines drawn in the sand. Knowles assures us that the unity movement between churches of Christ and Christian Churches will not progress to these levels of fellowship. The truth is, with numerous leaders involved in this unity effort, it already has! Preachers in both groups have already fellowshipped Catholics, “liberal mainline Protestant denominations,” and Calvinistic groups! Who does he think he is kidding? Abilene Christian University has had ultra-liberal denominational preachers to speak on their campus. Tony Campolo, who recently said that the issue of homosexuality “shouldn’t be a defining issue” (Christianity Today, November, 2005), has spoken in chapel services at ACU. And how can he claim that the family reunion will not include all such denominations given that the Disciples of Christ are already involved in these unity efforts?

The nature of apostasy is progressive. One compromise makes the next one easier. Those who depart from and reject the authority of Scripture are never satisfied with making one change to the divine order. Their direction is to go farther away from the truth as time ensues. When illegals cross the border of our country, they are not content to stay a few feet inside U.S. territory. They do not stay as close to the border as they can. They go deeper and deeper into the United States. Apostates from the New Testament work in the same way. Paul said, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Tim. 3:13).

“But there are other issues.” Advocates of a family reunion tell us we need to stop arguing about matters such as worship because the world is lost and we need to focus on evangelism.

If these men are really sincere, and if preaching Christ to a lost world is more important than the music question, then why don’t they give up the use of the instrument? Why not get rid of the very thing that is distracting us from a higher goal? If telling the world that Jesus is the Son of God is more important than instrumental music in worship, then why do they spend so much time trying to justify its use and attempting to persuade others to accept their point of view?

The Bible does teach that some issues are more important than others. Justice, mercy and faith are “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23). Jesus cited Hosea 4:6 “I will have mercy and not sacrifice” to Jewish leaders who had no grasp of greater and lesser matters (Matt. 9:13;12:7). The Lord requires that we do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). Yes, a just life is more important than worship: “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Prov. 21:3). But that does not mean that questions of worship are of no importance. The place of worship under the Mosaic law was important enough for Jesus to tell the Samaritan woman that she was wrong about it (John 4:22). The required day of worship for Christians was important enough for Paul to condemn binding the Sabbath day (Col. 2:16-17). The role of women in worship was important enough for Paul to say, “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (I Cor. 14:34). If questions about worship are to be set aside for the sake of proclaiming Christ as the Son of God, then why didn’t New Testament writers follow this advice? They wrote a lot of passages about worship (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:17-34; 14:1-40; Eph. 5:19, etc). According to leaders of the proposed reunion, these inspired men should have avoided these issues and concentrated on telling the pagan world about Jesus.

Will these men be consistent with this plea? If someone wants to introduce burning incense, snake handling, or praying to the apostle Peter, will they ignore these practices for the sake of maintaining unity in proclaiming Christ as the Savior?

Chuck Colson and other supporters of Catholics and Evangelicals together show how far this reasoning goes. Colson argues that Catholics and Protestants should set aside their differences so they can work toward a higher good. They agree on certain fundamentals – the deity of Christ, the resurrection from the dead, and the atoning death of Jesus. While Catholics and Protestants have their disagreements some of which are important, these differences pale in significance when compared to issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and the removal of God from American culture. Ever the politican, Colson is always eager to strike a compromise – in this case biblical truth.

The merger plan between churches of Christ and Christian Churches is a minature version of Catholics and Evangelicals together. Did you notice that both groups will tell us which issues are important and which ones are not? We say to the North American Christian Convention and other leaders of the 2006 unity plan: we believe that each individual has the right to read what the Bible says about the importance of issues, and we will not bow down to an arbitrary and subjective list of essentials and non-essentials or of greater and lesser issues, whether that decree is issued by Catholics and Evangelicals Together, the Restoration Forum, or the Pope himself.

Did Jesus take this approach with Jewish leaders? Did He ever say, “You and I both believe in the one God as our Father. We all agree that Moses gave the law. Why should we argue with each other and condemn each other over matters of doctine when we could unite with one voice against the pagan Greek-Roman culture around us?” But the truth is that Jesus disputed with fellow Jews about many doctrinal matters: the Sabbath labor law (Matt. 12:1-13), the Corban tradition (Matt.15:1-9), divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3-12), paying taxes (Matt. 22:15-22), the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-32) and others.

The world of the first century presented many issues to the New Testament church: the unbelief of Jews, the skepticism of Greek philosophy, the superstitions of the Gentiles, and rampant immorality and idolatry. But Paul and other New Testament writers never appealed to these issues for the purpose of dismissing certain doctrinal issues within the church: Judaizing teachers (Galatians), the antichrist doctrine (I-II John), forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which are called “doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1-3), the denial of Jesus’ second coming (II Pet. 3:1-12), the denial of the resurrection (II Tim. 2:17-18), the doctrine that slaves were not to be subject to masters (I Tim. 6:1-3), and others. Why didn’t Peter, Paul, and John ignore these issues for the sake of unity? After all, Christians in all these churches believed in the one God and in Jesus. According to conventional religious wisdom, they should have emphasized these issues much less, if at all, and directed their energy toward fighting the common foe of ancient pagan culture.

Unity champions have long complained that we have become so wrapped up in internal doctrinal strife that we have ignored major issues like racism and poverty. Let them speak for themselves on these issues, and the rest of us will answer for ourselves. Racism is wrong and the poor need our help. We agree on these issues. So why bring them up? Is it to divert attention away from the question of music in worship? Is it to charge us with inconsistency in practice – that we harp on the instrument issue and fail to rebuke racism or help the poor? If that is their insinuation, let them prove it. I cannot speak for all who oppose the instrument, but I can speak for myself and many others I know who hate racism, oppose instrumental music in worship, and are loving, kind people who will do whatever they can to help their poor neighbors.

“The only difference is the instrument issue.” This was not true in 1906, and it is not true today, except perhaps in rare cases. The reason is that instrumental music in worship is not an isolated issue. It is part of a broader and more fundamental question: biblical authority. The issue of instrumental music is a package deal; it stands or falls together with many other practices. The reasoning that accepts instrumental music is the same reasoning that is used to defend many other unscriptural innovations. Whether or not one actually practices these other innovations is not the point. The fact is that one cannot consistently approve of the use of the instrument in worship and oppose these other ceremonies. If instrumental music is right, then so are they. But if these innovations are wrong, then so is instrumental music, since there is no more authority in the New Testament for one than there is for the other.

Defenders of instrumental music in worship and leaders of the family reunion need to explain why the following things are wrong – if they even believe they are wrong. If they do consider any of these to be unscriptural, they should give us the biblical reasons for their opposition. If they are unwilling to do so, they should not even be given an audience.

Is it biblical to have a pope over the church? Would the leaders of this movement please answer this question, especially since the New Testatment nowhere specifically says not to have a pope?

Are Denominational governing bodies such as state boards or world conventions scriptural? Why is the North American Christian Convention website so quick to give the following disclaimer? It reads: “The NACC office is not a denominational headquarters office...we have no official denominational organizational structure or polity.” What is wrong with having denominational headquarters? Where is the biblical teaching that forbids having such governing bodies? Where is congregational autonomy taught in the New Testatment, and what Scripture forbids replacing this system with with a central overseeing body?

Is it biblical to pray to Mary, or Peter or Paul? Where is the Scripture that prohibits such prayers?
Would it be scriptural to offer an animal sacrifice as worship, not in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrifice, but in commemoration of His death? More and more premillennial theologians say this will happen during the thousand year reign. If a church decided to do this now as memorial to Jesus’ offering, would it be scriptural? What passage forbids this?

Are the pet blessing services of Episcopal churches scriptural? Is it biblical to offer communion to dogs and cats? Saying this is ridiculous doesn’t answer the question. Is it unscriptural, and if so, why?

Is it scriptural to have cookies and cokes in the Lord’s Supper? Where is the Scripture forbidding this? In fact, where is the passage that prohibits replacing the Lord’s Supper itself with some other ritual or celebration?

Is it biblical to observe the Lord’s Supper in honor of a couple at a wedding, to honor the deceased at a funeral, or as a meal of racial reconciliation? Where does the New Testament say that we are not to do these things?

Is it scriptural to burn incense in worship or use holy water or have a special priesthood for the confession of sins?

Is bowing before and kissing a statue of the apostle Peter biblical?

Is it biblical to sing songs like “Singing in the Rain” or “Rocky Top” in the worship assembly?

Is it scriptural to designate Thursday as the Lord’s day instead of Sunday?

Is it biblical to handle snakes in worship to God?

We could end this whole controversy over instrumental music if these men would honestly answer these questions and then be consistent with their answer. But as long as they refuse to answer these and many other similar questions and avoid settings such as debates where these questions can be pressed, the problem of division will continue.

Is instrumental music the only difference? An article by a gospel preacher who decided that the grass must be greener in Christian Church lawns is revealing. It is entitled, “A Journey Into A Far Country” and appeared in the March, 1991 issue of Vigil. Here is his experience:

It has been correctly said, “You are what you eat.” Likewise, it may well be also said, “You are what you read.” I should know, for as a result of a a reading diet of too much Restoration Review, One Body, and such liberal ilk, and not enough Bible, I became, in the late 1980’s quite disillusioned with the churches of Christ. Reacting to what I perceived to be unchristian attitudes among my brethren (and not even recognizing at the time that my own attitudes were rotten), more and more I began to take, especially in published articles, a militant stance against the churches of Christ. Coming under the insidious influence of the recent unity movement being propogated by the Independent Christian Church and certain liberal brethren, I became an advocate of “full and complete unity” with the Independent Christian Church, and embraced the concept that the silence of the Scriptures does not forbid the use of instrumental music in worship. Thus it was, in the summer of 1989, and at the height of my disillusionment with my brethren, that I made the transition (digression) into the Independent Christian Church, moving to NE Ohio to work with an instrumental church of Christ. This was done in spite of the protests of my wife.

As I prepare this article, it has now been just about a year and a half since I entered into “full and complete unity” with the Independent Christian Church. Both before and after I made the transition, several faithful brethren tried to show me the error of my position. I steadfastly refused to be swayed by their scriptural argumentation. However, what their argumentation could not do (not because it was faulty, but because I refused to let it do so), my experience of “full and complete unity” with the Independent Christian Church began to accomplish.

The congregation that I have been working with is quite “conservative,” as compared to most Independent Christian Churches. Nonetheless, my whole time with them has been a time of struggle, both with the congregational leaders, as well as with the majority of the members, over their erroneous concepts and teachings on such matters as grace (Swindoll, and not Paul, is emphasized), baptism (they do not believe it is necessary for a person to be immersed, regardless of his reason for being immersed), Premillennialism (the Persian Gulf War has caused it to surface in the congregation, and most of the members seem to be tainted by it), woman’s role (they have no problem with women leading prayers, leading singing, or even addressign the assembly), divorce and remarriage (they seem basically to hold the typical liberal views that Hicks and others espouse), the qualifications of elders (for examples, a divorced and remarried man, with no children, has been an elder of the congregation within the last year), the Holy Spirit (typical denominational views concerning the direct operation of the Holy Spirit are held), the observance of Christmas and Easter (and even Halloween!), and such like. Now please remember, this is a “conservative” congregation I am talking about. Based upon my knowledge gained from what I have read in Independent Christian Church publications, and from my dealings with area congregations, it is much worse than this in most Independent Christian Churches!

As a result, my eyes have really been opened to just how erroneous my doctrinal stance on the silence of the Scriptures not forbidding the use of instrumental music in the worship of God actually is, as well as the grave error of both my advocacy and practice of fellowship with the Independent Christian Church! You see, in some of the erroneous things which they advocate, I have heard them make appeals to the silence of the Scriptures, and it is their use of that same kind of argumentation that I used with regard to instrumental music which has finally caused me to see and admit to myself that my argumentation in favor of instrumental music in worship was wrong. This realization, as well as some of the other areas wherein they advocate that which I firmly believe to be incorrect doctrine, has in turn caused me to realize that there is just no way that I, if I want to be true to God’s word, (and I do), can continue in fellowship with the people of the Independent Christian Church.

We can only pray that other Christians will not have to experience a similar situation before they open their eyes. That is why we are sounding this warning. The year 2006 has been declared open season on a capella churches of Christ. And no, I do not believe that large numbers of churches of Christ will sell their buildings and move in with neighboring Christian Churches in 2006. But I do believe that these unity efforts will further weaken an already weak element in the church. These congregations may not give in to the plan, but some of them may become more lenient in their stance against the Christian Church as a result of the reunion efforts. They may not be open to combining congregations, but they may be willing to allow Christian Church preachers to speak at their meetings and workshops. They may be more open to the idea of an occasional special joint worship service with a Christian Church. When they see our colleges and large churches and well-known preachers joining with the Christian Church, their already weak convictions will likely grow weaker. So while the 2006 reunion may not bring an immediate and striking reversal of the 1906 separation, the results of this unity effort will probably last for years because too many would rather follow than lead. On a more positive note, leaders of this unity plan may have underestimated the level and strength of opposition in churches of Christ. Their timing may not be as good as they think. Time will tell in 2006.

I still maintain that those involved in this proposal, especially from churches of Christ, have been somewhat secretive about their part in it. As of the time of this printing, the Abilene Christian University website advertisement of the 2006 lectureship listed eight theme speakers. The “special guest” is Don Jeanes. All the website says is that he is from Johnson City, Tennessee. Don Jeanes is the President of Milligan College! Similarly, a letter I received from the World Convention claimed that it was not party to the discussion for this reunion. Yet Douglas Foster, Rubel Shelly, and Phillip Morrison - all voices for a reunion - have worked with this organization (www.worldconvention.org).

In October 2005 I sent the following letter to forty key people in this movement. They are editors of major journals, presidents and professors of colleges, and leading preachers from both sides. So far only two of these unity leaders have responded. Neither of them responded to the first point of the letter.

Editorial

We have heard all of our lives that the only difference in the Christian Church and the church of Christ is instrumental music in worship. Those who say this are either given to lying or they do not know what they are talking about. The Christian Church and the true church of Christ are as different as daylight and dark. Darkness fits the Christian Church and light represents the faithful church of Christ.

We have never understood why there has been such a division between the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. The Disciples of Christ just carried on with their disrespect for the authority of the Bible and the Christian Church cut off just a bit shorter than they. How can the Christian Church think they are much better than the Disciples of Christ when they practice the same disrespect for God's Word? James tells us when one deliberately disobeys God that person is guilty of all (James 2:10). Let us look at this principle from another viewpoint. Is one better off if he confesses one sin and forsakes it but he continues in a deliberate fashion many other sins? this is exactly what is done in principle by the Christian Church. They said the Disciples of Christ became so liberal in their religious practices that they must cut them off. How liberal does a religious body have to become before they must be cut off? Who decides this--God in His Word or the Christian Church? The Christian Church has departed so far from the teachings of the Bible that it is deplorable, and yet they blew the whistle and separated themselves from the Disciples of Christ because they said (the Christian Church) that the Disciples of Christ became too liberal. These days if the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ were placed in a sack and shook up and then poured out, you could not tell the difference. We predict that the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ will get back together in the future. If not, why not? The Christian Church fellowships the denominations, so why would they have a problem with the Disciples of Christ who are in reality their spiritual brothers? Victor Knowles, a Christian Church preacher, asknowledged this in a lecture he gave at Pepperdine in May of 2005. This is no secret. All the christian Church preachers know this as well as most of the members. The Christian Church of today is nothing more than a denomination preaching and practicing denominationalism. Holding the views they do, one could fellowship any and all religions in the world. They would have to do this to be consistent with their teaching and practice.

Does II John 9-11 ever cross the mind of those in the Christian Church? Have they ever studied Romans 16:17-18 and Ephesians 5:11? Does sound doctrine ever cross their minds? Do they not know that some bible teaching mixed with the teachings of men makes vain religion (Matt. 15:8-9; Mk. 7:7-8)? As I have read the various materials of preachers and teachers in the Christian Church, I am lead to believe they believe strongly in situation ethics. We have read some materials of Victor Knowles, a leading man in the Christian Church. He gives some very good illustrations but he is very short on Bible teaching and doctrine. I read his material he presented at the Pepperdine University lectures of May 2, 2003 which was titled "Forced Fusion." He taught very strongly in this material that situations and circumstances may very well unite the christian Church and the Church of Christ. Why did he not deal with unity based on the Word of God? We will tell you why--Knowles cannot get the Bible to agree with his practice and belief.

What is the difference in the Christian Church and the faithful church of Christ? We now list some of those differences:

1. Christian churches have no trouble calling their preachers "pastors." Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
2. Christian churches have no trouble when their preachers call themselves "Reverend." Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
3. The Christian Churches have no trouble accepting the Missionary Society. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
4. Christian churches believe the Lord's Supper can be taken on any day of the week. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
5. Christian churches have a Junior Board in them. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
6. Christian churches have official Boards in them. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
7. Christian churches have women elders. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
8. Christian churches have women serving on Boards. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
9. Christian churches have women deacons. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
10. Christian churches receive into their fellowship the unscripturally baptized. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
11. Christian churches practice baby dedication. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
12. Christian churches observe Holy Week and have pre-Easter services with the denominations. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
13. Christian churches have fund-raising services in support their church work. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
14. Christian churches say they began with the Stone-Campbell Movement. Faithful churches of Christ deny very strongly that they began with the Stone-Campbell Movement.
15. Christian churches use instrumental music in worship. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
16. Christian churches fellowship the denominations. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
17. Christian churches believe those who are in denominations are brothers in Christ.
18. Christian churches have choruses as they wish in worship. Faithful churches of Christ are opposed to such.
19. Christian churches have children's church. Faithful churches of Christ oppose such.
20. Christian churches have plays and performances in worship. Faith churches of Christ oppose such.
21. Christian churches believe in missionary societies. Faithful churchs of Christ oppose such.

A Letter Sent to Forty Leaders of This Movement

Dear Church Leader:

In view of increasing efforts to unite churches of Christ with Christian churces, I offer the following observations.

• The use of instrumental music in worship can no more be justified than having a pope or praying to Mary. This is the bottom line to the whole controversy. Leaders of the proposed merger cannot consistently oppose these and other Catholic innovations while they approve of instrumental music.
• "The Restoration Movement" is a horribly abused misnomer. Dissident voices appear throughout the Middle Ages, protesting against the corruptions of New Testament Christianity and refusing to bow the knee to Baal. These brave souls who were often martyrs lived centuries before Martin Luther or Alexander Campbell. The spirit of restitution of pure christianity is manifested in varying degrees througout church history.
• The tactics used by leaders of a "family reunion" are subversive and underhanded. The merger attempt is more of a hostile takeover than a family reunion. Leaders of this movement from churches of Christ are far more bold and plainspoken when they are with Christian Church leaders. Christian church publications, websites, and colleges have been very open about their intentions for 2006. But the same avenues of communication among churches of Christ that support this plan have been relatively muted.
• The claim that accepting this plan for consolidation does not mean compromising the authority of Scripture and embracing the Catholic and Protestant world is sheer hypocrisy. A number of leaders from both churches of Christ and Christian churches have already created a fellowship with these "non-restoration" groups.
• Innocent people were hurt by the 1906 division, and innocent souls will be hurt by this merger, particularly in churches of Christ where the real nature of the proposed reunion is clouded by obscure theolgical jargon.
• Leaders of the unity plea smong churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches are for the most part ambiguous about the question of including the disciples of Christ, referred to as a "liberal" group by many independent Christian Churches. Do they intend to reunite with the Disciples--if not in 2006, then eventually? Do they favor or disfavor fellowship with the Disciples? Will they invite them to the table for merger talks, or will they try to bring them in the back door?
• The whole idea of this merger springs from the desire to "be like the nations around us." It is a version of the broader trend toward ecumenism in religion. While they accuse others of reading the Bible through Enlightenment--Restorationist eyes, promoters of a family reunion blindly follow the spirit of the age, reading the Bible through agnostic glasses darly colored with theories of contextualization.
• Endless speeches and articles that plead for unity while ignoring the issue of biblical authority solve nothing. Even worse are unity meetings that claim to be free and open discussions, yet forbid dissenting views because their own view has already been decided.

I challenge any of those among churches of Christ and Christian Churches advocating this merger to engage me in a public discussin focusing on instrumental music and other practices, such as women in leadership roles in the church in light of the Scriptures.

For the sake of His Word,
Kerry Duke,
Dean, Tennessee Bible College

Hermeneutics Determines Where One Goes With the Bible
Ronald D. Gilbert

Hermeneutics deals with the science of interpretation. Everyone uses hermeneutics when they approach the Bible, but not everyone uses the correct hermeneutic. God gave us the Bible therefore we must assume it can be understood. One of the most important questions in religion is what will we aqccept as our standard of authority. We must accept the Bible and Bible only as our standard of authority. A failure to understand how the Bible authorizes had led to the proliferation of different religious groups.

To illustrate the point consider Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. Luther wanted to retain in the church all that was not expressly forbidden in the Scriptures, while Zwingli wanted to abolish all that could not be proven by Scripture. So Luther's hermeneutic was "show me where the Bible says not to do a practice." He would argue since there is no passage that says "thou shalt not" then a practice is authorized. Zwingli on the other hand had the hermeneutic if the bible does not authorize a practice we should not do it.

Zwingli followed the principles of Col. 3:17 and I Pet. 4:11. Luther did not. Luther's hermeneutic lead to the spread of denominationalism. Where one comes out in religion will be determined by the hermeneutic he uses. The Christian Church adopted the hermeneutic of Luther and defended instrumental music on the grounds that it is not explicitly condemned in the Scriptures. the Catholics, Mormons, jehovah's Witnesses, and a host of manmade religious groups have followed and continue to follow that same hermeneutic by establishing a religious practice based on the idea that it is not condemned in the Scriptures. One tremendously important fact that all need to see and heed is that the Bible authorizes by what it says and not by what it does not say or condemn.

As early as 1851 there were problems in the state of Kentucky over the instrumental music issue. In February of 1851 a man who signed his name as “W” wrote a letter to the editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer. In his letter he stated, “What say you of instrumental music in our churches? Should not the Christian Church have organs or Bass Viols that the great object of Psalmody might be consummated? Would not such instruments add greatly to the solemnity of worship, and cause the hearts of the saints to be raised to a higher state of devotion while the deep toned organ would swell its notes of ‘awful sound’? I think it is high time that we awaken to the importance of this subject. We are far in the rear of Protestants on the subject of church music. I hope, therefore, that you will give your views in extenso, on this much neglected subject.” 1

Perhaps the thoughts of “W” in this letter expressed the sentiments of many of that day. However, notice that “W” made no appeal to the Bible or sound doctrine. His concern did not state that some were trying to restrict what the Bible says. The appeal of “W” was that we are “far in the rear of Protestants.”

In 1860, Ben Franklin said there might be occasions when the instrument would be permissable. Note Ben Franklin’s ironical answer. He said the instrument is permissable: “1.Where a church never had or has lost the spirit of Christ. 2. If a church has a preacher who never had, or has lost the spirit of Christ. 3. If a church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusement and secular entertainment, and abandoning all idea of religion and worship, instrumental music would be a very pleasant and agreeable part of such entertainment.”2 There is much truth in Ben Franklin’s statements.

W. K. Pendleton argued for the use of the instrument and placed it on the plain of expediency, such as eating of meats, or using meeting houses. He then argued that the Scriptures said nothing about a meeting house just as they said nothing about the instrument. Pendleton argued that since the Bible nowhere says “thou shalt not have a meeting house” then they are authorized. That is a faulty hermeneutic.

Also, during the 1800s advocates of the use of instrumental music in worship were to argue that it was used in the Old Testament. This also is a faulty hermeneutic. A practice is not authorized today just because it was used in the O.T.

Brother Moses E. Lard in 1864 wrote concerning instrumental music in worship. “Let every preacher in our ranks resolve at once that he will never, under any circumstance or on any account, enter a meeting house belonging to our brethren in which an organ stands. We beg and entreat our preaching brethren to adopt this as an unalterable rule of conduct...Thus, these organ-grinding churches will in the lapse of time be broken down, or wholly apostatize, and the sooner they are in fragments the better for the cause of Christ.”3 Time has proven Lard right.

This statement by Lard may have seemed harsh to many of his day and of our present day. Lard was on the right tract. If there is no Bible authority for the use of instrumental music in New Testament worship today and there is not, then those who bring in such do so as the doctrines of men and not God, thus it is vain worship (Mk.7:7). The real question then and now is where is the Bible authority for the use of instrumental music in Christian worship?

Many of our liberal preachers in the church of Christ have contended for years that the church of Christ and the Christian church should never have divided. They have tried for years to down play the importance or lack of importance of using instrumental music in worship. There are programs planned all across our nation to reunite the churches of Christ and the Christian Churches and the Disciples of Christ back into one fellowship. One Body magazine, a publication of the Christian Church, Vol. 22, No. 3 Summer 2005 issue is filled with the plans for the 2006 Reunion. Some mergers are already taking place. In the May 2005 issue of the Christian Chronicle, an article appeared about “church of Christ, Independent Christian Church in Beaumont merge in late March.” McLeod, the preacher for the Cornerstone church of Christ said, “Cornerstone had a long-standing view that instrumental music was a non-issue.” He went on to say “we understand the use of an instrument in worship simply as ‘a custom that we did not follow’, not as a theological point of debate...” Notice these brethren don’t have a problem with instrumental music. The fact that something is being used in New Testament worship that is not authorized doesn’t bother them because it is not a theological point of debate. Would having a pope be a theological point of debate? Many churches of Christ are so far gone into liberalism that instrumental music is a small thing to them.

The One Body magazine is edited by Victor Knowles. Knowles is a preacher for the Christian Church. His name is one that many might remember as appearing on liberal lectures of many of our liberal schools and churches. Many then, in the church of Christ have been in fellowship with the Christian Church for the past several years by using Knowles of One Body magazine on lecture programs.

Jack R. Reese writes “several church leaders on both sides called for unity in the midst of the growing polarization. Individuals like J. W. McGarvey and T. B. Larimore however strong their opinions on the controversial issues of their day, refused to draw lines of fellowship over these issues.” McGarvey was very weak and even inconsistent for many years. While he taught that instrumental music was wrong, he repeatedly went in and out of churches that used instrumental music and conducted meetings without condemning their sin. However, later in his life he acknowledged that was wrong on his part. The refusal of McGarvey and Larimore to take a stand for truth hindered the problem then as it does today when men refuse to stand upon God’s Word.

In the same issue of One Body magazine Phillip Morrison wrote on “Should Instrumental Music Be a Barrier to Fellowship?” This article was a copy of a speech he delivered at Freed-Hardeman Lectures in debate with Marlin Connelly. Morrison states on p. 9 that it is not his purpose to advocate instrumental music in worship or defend its practice in his speech but to advocate a more inclusive view and practice of fellowship. And yet if you read his article he does advocate and defend instrumental music in worship. Morrison writes on p.9 on “Puzzling Criteria For Fellowship” (p.9). Morrison says he knows of Christian doctors who perform abortions when the health or life of the mother is at stake and he knows of no one who makes that a test of fellowship. Does that prove that abortion is right? No! He then refers to containers for communion, versions, how to care for needy children, Sunday school classes, or the details of what will happen when Jesus comes again, or whether or not instrumental music is used in worship. Are the above things parallel? Evidently Morrison feels the number of containers used when taking the Lord’s Supper and the use of instrumental music in worship are parallel. Both to him seem to be a matter of expediency. Morrison next says if we have to agree on everything in order to have fellowship, we will eventually have no fellowship for we all have some differences. He then cites the church at Corinth where they had all those problems and yet he says they were still in fellowship with God and one another. Brethren really miss the mark when they cite Corinth and say look at all the doctrinal differences they had as if to say that such division is o.k. I suggest some go back and read the letters to Corinth. Paul was not commending them for their doctrinal diversity. He was rebuking them and calling for change. Paul was not saying thank God for your diversity. In I Corinthians 1:10 he was calling on them to all speak the same thing and that they have no divisions. In I Cor. 4:17 Paul taught the same doctrine “every where in every church.” On p.16 Morrison said, “For many years, I accepted uncritically the claim that ‘sing and make melody in your heart...’ was both prescriptive and proscriptive – that we were instructed what to do and what not to do.” He then states nothing in the text of Eph.5 regulates the kind of musical worship one offers. This sounds to me like Morrison is “advocating and defending instrumental music in worship” which he said was not his purpose in this article. Just what does Eph. 5 teach, brother Morrison? Is he saying since Eph. 5 doesn’t say not to use instrumental music then it is authorized? We know Eph. 5 teaches singing but where does it teach playing? Next on p.16 Morrison said he can’t ignore Scriptures that puzzle him. So many passages he says refer to instrumental music in heaven. Morrison and many denominational preachers are confused over these statements concerning instrumental music in the Old Testament worship and heaven. The confusion melts away when one takes the correct hermeneutic. Where does the New Testament authorize instrumental music in Christian worship? (I Pet. 4:11, Col. 3:17). He next cites I Cor. 14:8 “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to battle.” The whole context is discussing speaking in tongues in worship without an interpreter. If this passage authorizes a trumpet then does it also authorize “battle” in worship? If not, why not? Some seem to be so desperate to find instrumental music in the New Testatment, they will grab at anything! He then says “we get in trouble when we try too hard to make the direct command, approved example, and necessary inference hermeneutic fit every circumstance.” This is the correct hermeneutic. Morrison and others seem to like the hermeneutic which says since the Bible does not say thou shalt not then a thing is authorized. He then says that “arguments from the silence of the Scriptures are particularly troublesome because we make them so subjective.” The Bible uses arguments based on the silence of the Scriptures. Perhaps Morrison and others should read Heb. 7:14. The writer argues that since there is no authority from God for one of the tribe of Judah to be a priest of the Levitical order, then one could not. The same principle applied to instrumental music would say that since there is no Bible authority for instrumental music in worship then such would be sinful. I see why arguments based on the silence of the Scriptures are “troublesome” to him. He next shows that he does not understand the difference in an aid and an addition. He said, “It is disingenuous to stand in a church building not authorized by scripture, behind a podium not authorized by Scripture, use a microphone not authorized by Scripture, use a hymn book not authorized by Scripture, use a pitch pipe not authorized by Scripture, and argue that we must not use a piano on the grounds that it is not authorized by Scripture.” I deny his argument. All the above things except the instrument are authorized by expediency. Using a song book is still singing. When you use the piano you are using another kind of music, not vocal, that is authorized, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, but instrumental, which is not authorized.

Marvin Phillips writes “Unity is Not Demanded on All Things” (p. 10). He says, “such things as the Being of God, the Lordship of Jesus, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, the New Birth, the church and genuine commitment to Christ are ‘specifically taught’ and must not be compromised. All other things belong in the ‘sincerely deducted’ column.” Phillips, like so many others, sets himself up as the one who decides which things we must have unity on and which things it is o.k. to disagree on. Phillips did not mention in his list the Lord’s Supper or giving or the role of women in the church. Do you suppose these are matters on which he feels we can disagree and still have unity? He went on to say on p.10 “things like musical accompaniment, frequency of partaking communion, use of praise teams or drama.” These things he says must not be used to draw lines of fellowship. Notice what he said. He puts the frequency of partaking of communion in the area of expediency. I suppose he would have no problem fellowshipping those who don’t partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week!

Next, he goes where most go when they try to give us a list of things we must have unity upon. That place is Eph. 4:1-6. He said this passage give us “the platform for unity - one body, spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism and God. This is the unity we are to maintain.” So according to him this is the all-inclusive list. As long as we unite on these things, that’s all that matters. Notice however, not mentioned in his list are the following things: having a pope, premillennialism, once saved always saved, sprinkling or pouring for baptism, the baptism for the dead as taught by Mormons, worshiping on the Sabbath, women preachers, speaking in tongues today, miraculous gifts including Holy Spirit baptism for men today, hell not eternal, the resurrection of dead, the Lord’s Supper, marriage -divorce-remarriage, homosexuality, polygamy, and a host of other issues. The list could go on and on of religious doctrines not mentioned in Eph. 4:1-6. So according to Phillips we don’t have to unite on the list of things I just mentioned because they are not found in Eph. 4:1-6.

Thomas Langford writes on “One Body, Many Parts.” He says, differences such as “small churches, big churches, simple worship or elaborate, instrumental music or unaccompanied voices of praise, one cup or many cups on the table” are irrelevant “since all are brought into the kingdom with varying degrees of knowledge and opinions. Diversity in God’s church is not only of race and gender, it also reflects the interpretations characteristic of a diverse people. Not all may be correct in their views, but none of these opinions should jeopardize salvation or mar the fellowship in the Body to which the Lord graciously added us all.” Notice his comparisons. He tries to parallel large church, small church with instrumental music. These are not parallel. If diversity is so wonderful would it not follow that the more diverse we are in doctrine the better? That is not what Paul taught in I Cor. 4:17. Langford said none of these opinions should jeopardize salvation. It would be interesting for him to give us a list of false doctrines that are not salvation issues and false doctrines that are salvation issues, that is, if any false doctrines are salvation issues.

Next Langford says, “There are two philosophies in the church today: one argues for and maintains division, the other seeks to build bridges and bring the children of God together.” It seems that those who use the instrument in worship are still blaming those who do not for the division. Back in 1985 Shelly said if they brought in the instrument where he preached, he would not “mount the pulpit and condemn them and divide the church.” Now consider in this situation, who split the church? Who bears the blame, the ones who bring into the worship things unauthorized or those who stand against unscriptural practices? Things have not changed much in the past hundred years. Then and now those who oppose instrumental music are blamed as the trouble makers. In I Kings 18:17-18 the same thing was happening during the days of Elijah.

Langford said, “I want to be accounted as one who loved all the brethren, who worked to lower the dividing walls among the saints, and who sought like my Lord, to be a peacemaker” (p.11). I am sure most folks want peace. However, how far are we willing to go in order to get along? If we would compromise a few points we could have peace with the Baptists and the Methodists. A few more compromises and we could have peace with the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and Catholics. After adjusting our doctrinal stand in order to have peace with the denominations just a little more change on our part and we could have peace and fellowship the Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems. How far do we go in compromising the truth in order to have “unity”? Go back and read Matt. 23 and see how much Jesus compromised with the Sadducees and Pharisees in order to have unity. Doctrines that come from man and not God are vain (Mk. 7:7). I suggest also that Acts 15 be read to see how the apostles dealt with the Judaizing teachers. Just a little compromising and there could have been “unity.” Acts 15:24 says that some were troubling the church, subverting their souls, teaching, “ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.” Notice God did not say “thou shalt not teach that men must be circumcised and keep the law.” They were teaching something that they had no authority from God to teach, just like men today who teach that instrumental music should be used in worship. Neither has authority from God and thus both are wrong. By the way, being circumcised and keeping the law are not mentioned in Ephesians 4:1-6, yet some teach that these are the only things we must unite upon. Paul didn’t know that because he made an issue of doctrinal points not mentioned there. Paul called upon a church to sever fellowship with a man who had his father’s wife (I Cor. 5). Why did Paul do that? Did he not know that “unity” is more important than doctrinal differences? Here Paul was disrupting the unity of the widely diverse Corinthian church over a matter not even mentioned in Ephesians 4:1-6! Many seem to be more concerned with “unity” than they are with truth.

One man writes to the One Body magazine under the heading “We Can Go Too Far” (p.21). He writes, “I read in a recent One Body that a church of Christ was having fellowship meetings with a Disciples of Christ congregation. Are people not aware that many Disciples of Christ leaders deny that God is a personal God in Heaven – that He is just an ‘energy’ or the ‘good that is in us all’? Some of their leaders and members deny that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, or that His blood atones for sin, and that He arose from the dead...”

“Also, in the same edition of One Body, it was reported that a union meeting of the three groups was held at Culver-Stockton College. Years ago Culver-Stockton College published that the New Testament gospels are not historical works and are not composed of facts that actually happened. As to the question of Christ’s deity, they could only say that ‘He was fully human’ (taken from the Disciples magazine, Catalyst). It was also reported that at the Culver-Stockton meeting that the Disciple who was to preach said, ‘the pre-existence of Christ mentioned in I John 1 is a myth.’ We can go too far in seeking unity with other church groups.” Does this man who writes to the One Body magazine correctly represent what the Disciples of Christ teach and believe? If so, then how can these doctrinal issues which are addressed in Ephesians 4:1-6 be ignored?

Victor Knowles writes on “Differences Too Great to Ignore” (p.24). He said, “Christianity can never be one with Judaism, Buddhism or Islam because we are not agreed on Christ...Biblical oneness can only happen when all yield to the Lordship of Christ... There are many people out there who don’t believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be.”

Some in Judaism, Buddhism and Islam hold some of the same views that some of the Disciples of Christ hold. If they can fellowship those who question the deity of Christ and that His blood atones for sin in the Discipels of Christ then why not fellowship the Moslems who believe the same thing concerning these two issues?

Knowles went on to say, “many evangelicals lean toward Calvinism, a doctrine that is opposed to the clear teachings of Scripture...Calvinism strikes at the very heart of the gospel.”

By what hermeneutical principle does Knowles conclude that Calvinism is wrong and strikes at the very heart of the gospel? And yet he is in fellowship with the Disciples of Christ, some of whom deny the deity of Christ and that Jesus was born of a virgin, that His blood atones for sin, that He arose from the dead, and, say the pre-existence of Christ mentioned in I John 1 is a myth. Are we now to believe that one doctrinal error which violates Ephesians 4:1-6 is important and must be stood against but another is not important and should not sever our “unity”? My question is this: who decides which error should divide and which error should not divide?

From the web page of Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) under the heading of “What We Believe,” the following appears:

“We accept Jesus’ gift of baptism. Some churches believe that one must be baptized by immersion to be sure of your salvation. Others believe that one is saved by faith and that baptism is only the first act of obedience after being saved. Disciples of Christ regard baptism as an important command of Christ. He told his disciples, ‘Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore, in an effort to be faithful to Christ, we practice baptism. We see full immersion as the most symbolic and appropriate manner of obedience. However, we accept members into our congregation who have been baptized by other means: infant baptism and confirmation, or adult baptism by sprinkling. We do not question the validity of other forms of baptism or require immersion for membership. Disciples of Christ take no official position on whether one must be baptized to be saved. We believe matters such as this are in God’s hands alone. We encourage all members to prayerfully discern God’s will for themselves.”

I hope these statements help those who have been told that the only difference between the Christian Church and the churches of Christ is the use of instrumental music to see that this is indeed a lie.

The differences between the Christian Church and the church of Christ remain the same today as they were 100 years ago. The Christian Church does not respect the authority of the Bible. They attempt to justify unscriptural practices based on the argument “the Bible does not say not to do such.” Members of the church of Christ respect the principles set forth in God’s Word (Col. 3:17, I Pet. 4:11; Mk. 7:7; Heb.7:14, Rev. 22:18-19).

We were blamed then as now for causing division because we refuse to go along with instrumental music and other doctrines and practices contrary to the Scriptures.

One brother in discussing instrumental music said, “I don’t draw the line at the instrument. I don’t think the Lord died over that. I’m not going to make that a test of fellowship with you in Christ...I don’t want to be divisive over it.” What did Christ die for? I thought He died to purchase the church with His blood (Acts 20:28)!

I also thought that He wanted the church to be without spot or blemish, which would surely include moral impurities as well as doctrinal errors (Eph. 5:27; Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:11; II Jn 9-11; II Thess. 3:6.) Paul taught in I Timothy 4:15 that to be saved we must continue in the doctrine.

We have had many liberal brethren in the churches of Christ for the past several years who are trying to move the Lord’s church into denominationalism. Many of them have already gone into denominationalism and perhaps others will be taken in by the so-called “Family Reunion” that will be taking place in 2006 among some of the Christian Churches and the churches of Christ. However, just like it was 100 years ago, some will not be deceived by false teachers – they will remain loyal to God’s word. It is time brethren to decide. Will you follow men or God?

Endnotes

¹Earl West, The Search For the Ancient Order (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 308-309.
²Ben Franklin, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” American Christian Review, Vol. 3, no. 5, Jan. 31, 1861, p. 19.
³Moses E. Lard, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing,” Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. 1, no. 3, March 1864, pp. 332-333.

Does Our "History" Keep Us From Being "Certain"?
Glenn B. Ramsey

From the first day of man’s existence until this day, God has given instruction to man about His will. God has always revealed His will to man so that man can, if he wishes, understand and apply that will to life’s circumstances. God told Adam and Eve what they could and could not eat in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-3). Adam and Eve understood with certainty what God’s will was for them as related to the trees of the Garden. In Genesis chapter 6, God revealed to Noah the specifics of the ark he was to build to save himself and his family from the flood. This chapter reveals that Noah did all that God had commanded him to do. The clear and certain instructions of God for Noah show that God reveals clearly to man His divine will.

In the New Testament we learn, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). In I John 2:3-5 we read, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (I John 2:3-5). There are many, many other pasages in the Bible that show that God has revealed His will to man. These passages also show that man is expected to understand God’s will in matters of revelation and that man is expected to follow them. God’s revelation of His will to man shows us that He expects man to be sure and certain of the way of life that will result in salvation eternal.

In view of these clear truths (which could be supported by many other passages of scripture) it may be surprising to some to read and hear brethren in the church of Christ who are not certain about some things that God has revealed. They write as though one cannot be certain of things simply because the Bible says the things, but they propose the old denominational argument that such an understanding may simply be “one’s own interpretation” or the result of one’s cultural heritage or history”!

Some time back, brother Jack R. Reese wrote a book entitled, The Body Broken: Embracing the Peace of Christ in a Fragmented Church. Brother Reese is Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas. The magazine One Body (Vol. 22, No. 3, Summer 2005) included an article on Chapter 1 of Reese’s book entitled, “Facing the Past, Framing the Future.” In the article you are reading, page notations refer to the pages of that issue of One Body. In the entire article there was not one citation of Scripture. So the Scriptures referred to in this article are offered in support of truth, and often as rebuttal to brother Reese’s surmisings.

Brother Reese seems to hold the position that where we are now and where we are going depends upon the “history” of our past behavior and “heritage” more than it depends upon our listening to and following God’s revealed Word. He said on page 4, “A glance back at our past provides perspective on how we have become who we are and casts light on the road we seem determined to take.” Truly those who followed God’s Word in past generations have significantly influenced the growth and development of the church. The point is, however, that we are not dependent upon any uninspired men or groups of men for the certainty and truthfulness of a proper position of service today. We are totally dependent upon God’s complete and certain revelation – the Bible.

It is certainly true that certain individuals during the Restoration Movement had very strong opinions on the issues of their day but did not draw lines of fellowship over them (the issues included use of instrumental music in worship and the missionary societites). Brother Reese does not point out that the refusal of these leaders to recognize God’s lines of fellowship (men cannot arbitrarily “draw” lines of fellowship) resulted in the majoirty of faithful churches of Christ losing their buildings, other properties, and schools and colleges to the liberal elements of the apostate brotherhood of that day! He states on page 4 that “Some preachers implored churches to live in unity despite their differences. But this spirit did not prevail. We are heirs of that legacy.” I, for one, am thankful that there were faithful Christians who would not compromise the truth for the sake of a perceived “unity.” There can be no spiritual unity until all are willing to agree to the truth of the Spirit’s revealed Word! (See Ephesians 4). Anything else may be a “union” but it is not the “unity of the Spirit.”

In the first chapter of Reese’s book there are two points made and expanded. One refers to what is called “historylessness” and the other relates to what he called “the oppressive companion called Certainty.” On page 5 is this reading:

Restoration churches from the beginning were imbued with an impulse to skip over the past in an attempt to consider the first century alone. Most church members today reflect this inclination, either by denying that they have a history or simply by their ignorance of it. At its most insidious this historylessness takes the form of spiritual amnesia, a disease in this case consciously chosen by the sufferer...Historylessness functions most destructively by robbing us of perhaps our most important Christian quality: humility. If every other group is forged out of human labor and only ours comes directly from God, if all others are shaped by human doctrine but only ours follows scripture completely, then our only possible response is to stand over everyone else in judgment or pity.

Several questions are in order. Does going back to the first century for instruction and example (that is, going back to the New Testament revelations about first century Christiantiy) keep one from being humble and submissive to God’s will? To the contrary, when one submits to the New Testament’s instructions he is bowing in humility to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords! Such a humble one will seek by example and word to lead all others who will listen to the foot of the same Cross!

Does brother Reese believe that the church of Christ came from the labors of men or did it come from God or did it come from God but was dependent upon the work of men? Can brother Reese name one denominational church whose doctrines and practices came ONLY from God and not also from man? Does brother Reese believe there is one denominational group that is NOT shaped (in doctrine) by human labor? Does brother Reese believe that we can (ought to and are able to) follow scripture completely? Does brother Reese know the difference between the response “to stand over everyone else in judgment and pity” and the responsibility all Christians have to submit to the judgment of God, through His word, and to exhort all others to do likewise?

How much church history must one know to become and remain a faithful Christian? If he knows what the New Testament teaches is not that enough? Other knowledge may be interesting and provocative, but it does not compare with inspiration’s revelation. Must one become enamored with the “history” of and “decisions” of various churches down through the years in order to have a humble spirit? If so, the Catholics should be the example! Is it not enough to be blessed by the “inspired word” (See II Timothy 3:16-17)?

On pages 6 and 7 brother Reese talks about the “companion of Certainty.”

My companion did not merely live in our home but also was a vibrant part of the life of our church, though I could hardly have distinguished home from church since one almost completely overlapped and defined the other. Its presence was not unique to our home. In fact, because of how my parents lived and what they taught their children, our experience with this presence was less substantial than that of most of my friends. But everyone I knew in churches of Christ had a common experience with it. We didn’t talk about it, but we felt it in every sermon and every class. It’s name was Certainty...This companion was a great comfort, providing solace and reassurance to us all...I can recall almost no negative experiences growing up in churches of Christ...I have never felt the burden of legalism. I do not recollect ever feeling repressed or judged. For me Christian living was not only full of joy, it was the only life I could imagine. Of course being a Christian meant living the way we lived and believing what we believed, which is to say, being certain of what we knew...Certainty was present at every church service. It was a companion in every prayer, the unspoken assurance behind every sermon. I knew who was going to heaven and who was not. Those who were going to heaven came only from those of us who were, as we called them, “members of the church”. Not all members of the church, of course, would go to heaven (who knew everyone’s private thoughts and behaviors?) But clearly no one else would. There is a great deal of comfort growing up in a world where things are so clear. I just couldn’t understand why those who were not members of the church didn’t always like us or sometimes thought we were condescending. But that was just one of the consequences of living with Certainty. It was our burden to bear, and we bore it with purpose and determination...Moreover, I still believe most of what [emphasis mine, gbr] I was taught. I am more committed than ever to baptism by immersion for forgiveness of sins, weekly communion, the leadership of elders, freedom from denominational hierarchy, and the authority of scripture. My understanding is deeper now. I believe my perspectives are broader and my approach to scripture healthier. But the essence of what I was taught I have not rejected. The greatest problem was not what I was taught but the unexamined and ubiquitous presence of Certainty...I do not mean to imply, of course, that there are no certainties, no absolutes. There are. The problem is not that we acknowledge the certainty of God at the center of things. It is in assuming that we have mastered these certainties rather than being mastered by them, that our understanding is the understanding, that our knowledge is complete while the knowledge of others is partial or flawed. The issue is not whether the object of our knowing is certan. It is. Rather, my concern is whether our knowing of it is flawless. It is not...While certainty, at least on the surface, served us well enough in the past – keeping our fellowship together, energizing our zeal for evangelism, inspiring our preaching – it is proving false in our current context. [Emphasis mine, gbr] As the continental shelves of opposing cultures slide and crash into each other, as the ground beneath us shakes, and the structures we have long trusted begin to tremble, Certainty seems to have abandoned us. We have clear answers to many questions that our children and our culture are no longer asking. A growing number suspect the Bible was not asking some of those questions either. Our isolation from others is now our bane. Because of it, because of Certainty’s betrayal, the very identity of the church as we have known it is crumbling. [Emphasis mine, gbr] If we are not who we were, if what we knew to be true can now be challenged, if we can engage in meaningful and constructive conversations with others who are different than we and even learn from them, then who are we? If Certainty was the engine of our movement, if our exclusive claim to salvation was the justification for our existence, and if these values are collapsing, then what is our reason to exist now?

Is it possible (Can we be certain of it?) to ‘know whom I have believed” (II Tim. 1:12)? Can one know if he has “fought the good fight” and laid “hold on eternal life” (II Tim. 4:7; I Tim. 6:12)? Did the Lord have the authority to provide an ‘exclusive” road to salvation which man may know and follow (Matt. 7:13-14)? Can we be certain that we “know Him” by keeping His commandments?

My answers to these questions are in the affirmative. This is because I believe the Bible! Any kind of sophisticated philosophy and writing that denies the truth of God’s Word is not following the Certain path! It is following the “uncertain” path to unbelief and places one on the road downward to destruction. When we see men in supposed “high places” in the Kingdom who deny the certain promises of the New Covenant, we must realize the pernicious danger that they represent to anyone who follows their instructions and suggestions.

May our Lord help us to “be strong in the Lord and the power of His might.” May we allow His word to always guide and direct our lives – in all the things we do and say.

My Prophecy of January, 2004
Malcolm L. Hill

(I wrote the following article in the January issue of Living Oracles. Almost two years have passed since I wrote it and what was written then has already come to pass to some degree. Much more is still hidden from the view of members of the church but it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day. The liberals in the church of Christ had better take heed because they might have already miscalculated their takeover of the churches of Christ. Read the material carefully and prayerfully. –– M.L. Hill)

I do not know how many times I have been asked in the past twenty-five years, where is the liberal, digressive, side to the church of Christ headed? I must say for some time I have been puzzled about the matter. “Will the liberal element in the church of Christ get themselves a new name?”, I have asked myself. “Will they keep the name church of Christ and go sailing on the ocean of religion wherever they wish?” I have thought. Just where are the liberals and the “non-traditionalists” headed and what will be their end? I must go to some restoration history to make my case.

The real work of restoration history in this country goes back to 1800, give or take a little. The church of Christ did a tremendous job of returning to the New Testament order of things from 1800 until 1849, at which time the Missionary Society issue rose up and sowed discord among the brethren. Then ten years later in 1859 instrumental music was introduced into the worship of churches of Christ and this produced much more trouble among them. Then from 1860 to 1865 the churches of Christ faced the civil war issue which sowed much division in the church and brought about much confusion. So it could be truthfully said that from 1849 until 1906 there was all kinds of confusion and division in the church of Christ.

By 1906 there was so much confusion and division in the church of Christ and the gap between brethren had become so wide they had to separate, thus we had the birth of the Christian Church. The liberal element went with the Christian Church and the faithful brethren stayed with the church of Christ. The Christian Church took 85% of our brotherhood with them in 1906. The Christian Church took 85% of our church buildings in 1906 as well as the preacher’s homes and the other property of our brethren. In 1906 the Christian Church took most of our large congregations thus they took most of the money with them. We lost 39 of the major institutions of higher learning to the Christian Church in 1906. In 1906 the Christian Church took 6,640 preachers with them leaving the church of Christ with only 2,100 ministers. The Christian Church membership in 1906 was 982,701 while the church of Christ had 159,658 members.

Other statistics could be cited to show you what happened in 1906 but those given will suffice. The faithful brethren were told to hit the road if they did not like what was going on, even though many of them had given sweat, blood, tears, land, and hard labor to make the church what it was in those years. The Christian schools of those years were brought into existence by men who loved the Lord and who by great sacrifice gave to make them possible. Most of these schools still exist today but all of them have gone into liberalism and digression more or less. Sad, sad, indeed!

Now, where is the church of Christ today and what is going to be her wind up? The church of Christ today (January 2004) is where the church of Christ was in 1906. Most large churches of Christ have joined in practice the Christian Church along with a number of the smaller ones. Many preachers in the church of Christ have joined the Christian Church even though they have not declared it by word but their deeds and their preaching will prove it so. Many members have already joined in heart and soul the Christian Church that took over the churches of Christ almost totally in 1906.

Many have said to me, “Brother Hill, why don’t those liberal, digressive, preachers among us today get out of the church of Christ and join the denominations because they believe as the denominations do?” The reason the liberal preachers in the church of Christ have not done this is because they would lose their standing, their salary, and they would have to start at the bottom of denominationalism. This they are not about to do because their vain pride and their glory-seeking spirit is too great. They want to be at the top of the ladder and not on the bottom rung.

We ask again, “where is the larger portion of the church of Christ headed and where will it wind up?” She is headed to the Christian Church as it did in 1906. The Christian church will be glad to receive them because it raises their membership considerably and it gives the Christian Church preachers great satisfaction to think they have won the battle again over the true churches of Christ. On the other hand, the liberal preachers in the church of Christ will be given great prominence in the Christian church because the Christian church is willing to pay this price for membership gained along with the many side benefits such as evangelism, money, power, recognition, preaching appointments, a broadening of fellowship and brotherhood, etc. The Christian church is happy with the deal and the liberals in the church of Christ are happy with the deal, especially the preachers and many leaders in the church.

Another thing that needs to be noticed in this merging of the Christian church and the liberal wing of the church of Christ is that of fellowship. Men like John York, Jeff Walling, Rubel Shelly, Glover Shipp, Jack Reese, Tom Olbrict, Prentice Meador, Don McLaughlin, John Mark Hicks, Randy Harris, Joe Beam, Lynn Anderson, Mike Cope, and around 250 others on the 2004 Pepperdine lectures are already with the Christian Church when it comes to the practice of unscriptural Christian fellowship. The liberals in the church of Christ want to fellowship whoever they wish in religion and there are still those in the church of Christ that will not permit such but the Christian church will. So the transition from the church of Christ to the Christian church by the liberals in the church of Christ fits into their plan well. By joining hands with the Christian church they can fellowship and be a part of the Billy Graham Crusades, Trinity Network, Promise Keepers, or any other denominational outfit they wish and still be in good standing the he Christian Church. This makes the liberals at Abilene Christian University, Harding University and Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee, David Lipscomb University, Pepperdine University, and all the other liberals in church of Christ Universities, celebrities in the Christian church and this is where these liberals want to be. They want to maintain their superiority and notoriety and this they can do in the Christian church and still participate in and be a part of any religious fellowship they wish. And don’t forget the money side of the situation.

Will the joining of the church of Christ and the Christian church in the 2000’s cause the liberal churches of Christ to change their name from church of Christ to the Christian church? Some may change their name and some may not. Some of these liberal churches of Christ will be like some Christian churches today who still go by the name church of Christ even though they are Christian churches in reality. And what about the name? Who knows what some of these churches will do along this line? They may be called by any number of names selected. Keep in mind, they care not for Bible and Bible authority. When people leave the Bible they always roam where they wish to roam and in most cases they split and split on down the line.

There are many proofs of what I have written in this article. The Pepperdine lectures of 2004 is sufficient proof. On page 13 of their lectureship book there is a panel and they will be discussing ARE CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND CHRISTIAN CHURCHES EVANGELICAL? They have Christian church preachers on this panel. Now what do you say? The 2004 lectures of Abilene Christian University are just as bad and are equal to the same things. Brethren, most churches of Christ are not going to go into the Christian Church; they have ALREADY GONE there along with most higher institutions of learning we have in the church of Christ. The day is on us and what is your disposition?

---

Beliefs of Disciples Preachers

Disciples of Christ ministers were asked if they “strongly agreed” with the following. Here are the percentages of those who said “yes,” as reported in Ministers at the Millennium (ACU Press, 2000):

Adam and Eve were real	22%
Scripture is Inerrant	6%
Jesus was born of a virgin	17%
The Devil exists	15%

 

---

Disciples and the United Church of Christ

The following is from the United Church of Christ website:

"In 1989 the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) approved a historic partnership of full communion. The two churches proclaimed mutual recognition of their sacraments and ordained ministry."

The same website contains a resolution approved by the General Synod of the UCC which accepts "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons...welcoming them and encouraging their participation in every aspect of the mission and ministry of the church."

United Churches of Christ accept local churches of any denomination that seek membership under mutually satisfactory provisions. (New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 14, p. 416). This means that the Disciples of Christ fellowship many denominational bodies and that the Christian Church is pressed to do the same since they now accept the Disciples of Christ.