CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST
July 20, 2008
25424 Aldine-Westfield, Spring, TX. 77373
www.geocities.com/adon77373/cypresswoodbulletin.htm
www.cypresswoodchurchofchrist.com
LIFT UP IN PRAYER:
Our congregation Our nation, leaders, and military
Various friends, relatives, and co-workers The persecuted church
THE CHURCH OF “IT”
“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified” (Galatians 3:1).
In a recent visit to another congregation, a prayer was offered by a brother in which he spoke of the church as an “it.” This troubled me and I wondered from where such thinking comes. He spoke of the church, “it” needing to remain pure and free from denominational influences, that “it” must live under the law, and indeed there is a law “it” must live under. We need to look at a little history to understand the context of this thinking and then to look at two views of the church.
In the 1850s, a preacher named David Lipscomb began a paper called the Gospel Advocate, and was joined later by James Harding. They followed Barton W. Stone and saw God at work in the world today, that we were led by the Holy Spirit, that the kingdom is the rule of God that needs to be accepted, were pacifists, and did not have a problem with accepting other traditions baptisms. They were open to discussion and disagreement and in those days, various points of view were often found in the paper (1). This is called the Nashville Bible School Tradition (NBST).
As Lipscomb’s theology developed over the years, a fellow in Texas disagreed with him and began a paper called Firm Foundation. He opposed Lipscomb on almost everything and became very dogmatic in that disagreement (2). Various editors believed that God no longer worked in the world, having given us His word which is all we need, that the Holy Spirit came only through the word (3), that the nation needed to be supported, and that baptism was for the forgiven of sins and only that; all other baptisms were unacceptable (4). They are called the Texas Tradition (TT).
By the 1930s, the most dominate view in churches of Christ was the second. The New Testament was viewed as the constitution of the church, a law book to live under. Among things the emphasized was that the plan of salvation should be the main concern. That included hearing the word of God, believing, repenting of one’s sins, confessing that Jesus is the Savior, and being baptized or immersed into Christ. Everything in this message was geared to understanding the correct form and condition of baptism. Whole tracts were written and sermons preached emphasizing that baptism was immersion and that it was for the remission of sins. Any deviation from this was considered heresy.
Into this mix came a fellow out of the Texas Tradition that disagreed with this prospective. His name was K.C. Moser. He began to see a flaw in the idea of “the plan” as often presented. He asked, what about “the Man“? He emphasized that we should be preaching about the Man Jesus and that we should encourage faith in Him that leads to a faith response by baptism. This did not set well with a number of people and he was criticized heavily for his view.
In the 1950s, more controversy arose as to how to interpret the “law” of the New Testament in what became known as the institutional controversies (5). The development of a method of interpretation, also called hermeneutics, was that there were commands to be obeyed, examples to be followed, and necessary inferences that man could reasonably conclude and then could become “law” as well. If everyone would accept the authority of scripture, and with a good heart and proper mind, read carefully the scriptures, then we would all see things alike. Didn’t happen. It was a utopian idea that did not take into account a host of factors. John Mark Hicks mentions a debate between two preachers who were also lawyers who could not agree on the subject they were debating, which I thought was kind of funny (6).
At the same time, young preachers found a book called The Way of Salvation by one K.C. Moser who talked about love and grace (7). They began looking at scriptures differently from those who saw it as “law.” The criticism of these young preachers was that their education had made them “liberals” who had “left the faith.” But those preachers began preaching grace and then they began to write. What we see today are many more returning to the Nashville Bible School Tradition whether they know of that or not (8).
That brief historical background hopefully will help in understanding how the church can be called an “it.” What I see is that there are two views of the church. First, though, we need to define church. The word itself means an assembly and for some, the called out. The church is not an “it,” the church is people, you and me. When one makes the church an “it” one makes it an institution. If one sees the New Testament as a law book that must be followed perfectly, then the church becomes an “it” that needs to be defended, protected, and maintained as pure. “It” is no longer people but an organization.
With such a view, the constitution tells us that there is a form of government of a plurality of elders and deacons, that there is a plan to enter the church, that there are acts of worship that are acceptable, and that there is only one way to see anything related to the church. But one must have the right interpretation of the law. If one does not then one’s soul is in jeopardy. Brother Hicks calls this positive law These must be perfectly obeyed to be right with God. Obedience is the positive command in any area related to the church.
Interestingly we have divided over a number of issues over the last century. Much of it is in the area of what the Bible does not say. For those who live under “law,” there is what is called expediency, that which aids in fulfilling the command. We are commanded to sing; a song leader aids in accomplishing that command, but not a praise team or more than one song leader nor a woman song leader (9). Expediency is something that is used if one likes something, but if one does not like something then they appeal to the silence of the scriptures to not do it. It then depends on the likes and dislikes of the one’s in power and who have the greatest influence through preaching or papers.
Those who see the church as an institution defined the leadership as an eldership. A more accurate way of saying it is a board of elders or directors who make decisions and expect the congregation to obey them without question. Those who struggle and leave are not important because they were never really committed to “the faith.” Anyone who questions decisions is considered rebellious. The primary emphasis is to defend the institution at all costs.
Much of this has to do with how one reads scripture. There are several issues here. First, they divide the Bible into two parts, old and new, and that the old has little to do with us. Many begin the New Testament at Acts 2 because that is when the church was established. They read the New Testament as if it were a law replacing the Law of Moses, and in fact they read all of scripture through the lens of a law book. In my mind, they have picked up more of the pharisaical ideas of the first century Jews with their oral and written traditions than what is found in the Old Testament. They ignore the fact that Paul defended his preaching from Moses and the prophets (see Acts 26:22-23) and that the noble Bereans searched the Old Testament for the truth (Acts 17:11).
Brother Hicks also mentions the moral law which in some cases was not as serious if violated because we all sin morally. This justified some very sinful behavior in some famous preachers that could be overlooked because they were “right” on the church. Today, this isn’t as tolerated as it use to be though little is said about the moral failings of some in the Texas Tradition (10).
To sum up, the church is an “it” because some see it as an institution under a constitution that has all the legal responsibilities.
The second model of the church sees people and recognizes that we are a family. This is a scriptural model when we see that God is our Father, and we are brothers and sisters in Christ. The church is the “bride” of Christ. We are the family or household of God. As such we see things much differently though we often do the same things. We emphasize the importance of fellowship, of seeking and caring for one another, of sorrow and joy, of celebration around the Table of the Lord. We see elders as shepherds in the role of servant leaders following the model of Jesus who care for the flock, not their personal opinion.
We read scripture differently. We do not read it as legal texts but rather as what Brother Hicks calls theological biography (the Gospels), theological history (Acts), missional letters (Romans through Jude), and apocalyptic vision (Revelation). But we also read the Old Testament differently, through the eyes of grace rather than law. We see God’s grace in His redemptive purposes leading to Jesus and the cross. Even in judgment, God is gracious in any number of ways. Providing for a disobedient nation in the wilderness is an act of grace in judgment (see Exodus through Deuteronomy).
The church is people, you and me. We are a body that is important because each member is important (see 1 Corinthians 12). Worship and fellowship are our lives. We recognize strengths and weaknesses rather than lawbreaking (11). We recognize that we do not do things perfectly but we also recognize that what some consider Bible are in reality traditions. Church buildings and pews all facing forward is tradition. Old songs verses new songs is tradition. If one were to return to the days of the early Restoration Movement history, an assembly would be an all day affair. I believe that Brother Hicks mentioned that Alexander Campbell would rather have everyone sitting around the Lord’s Table in fellowship than having a pulpit from which to preach.
Finally, we go back to the differences between the Nashville Bible School Tradition and the Texas Tradition. One is Christ centered and the other man centered. One believes that God is active in history today and that the Holy Spirit continues to be present in His people while the other sees little if any activity of God, and the Bible, given by the Holy Spirit, is sufficient for all we need. The one sees the kingdom as the rule of God affecting life and the other the kingdom as the church, an institution. One sees baptism as an act of faith, the other as a command of law.
This conflict will continue though many are questioning those who emphasize law. Many are looking for relationships which an institution cannot provide but a family can. Those who are more legalistic see any change as a threat to scripture when in reality it is a challenge to tradition. The Lord’s Supper is an example. The legal idea is that one cannot do two acts of worship at the same time so we cannot sing during the Supper. We have come to an alter to offer a sacrifice. We partake of unleavened bread because that is what we find commanded in the Passover (Exodus 12). What we do not see in Exodus 12 is any mention of wine yet Jesus introduces the Lord’s Supper with a cup of wine. This probably developed over several centuries of Jewish traditions expanding and explaining the meaning of the Passover. Many of us look at the Table of the Lord as a family concept, rather than an institutional alter (12). Much more could be said. I would encourage you to read brothers Hicks and Valentine (13).
Maybe we should use a different term rather than “church.” We say we are going to the church building when we mean the assembly. Maybe we should say God’s people instead or God’s family. What about the family of Christ? It is something to think about to better understand what we mean.
George B. Mearns
(1) John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine call this the Nashville Bible School Tradition (NBST) in their book, Kingdom Come, Leafwood Publishers.
(2) Hicks and Valentine call this the Texas Tradition (TT) because it developed in Texas.
(3) One preacher in recent years was bold enough to say the wherever one reads “Holy Spirit” in the New Testament, just substitute “Bible.”
(4) These two streams of thought and papers continue today, though the Gospel Advocate is now similar to the Firm Foundation.
(5) For those of you not familiar with the institutional controversies, they included the congregational support of radio (and later television) programs such as The Herald of Truth out of Abilene, Texas, the support colleges, orphan homes, etc. out of the church‘s treasury, having Bible classes and kitchens in buildings, and a number of other subjects. Those who opposed such things became known as non-institutional or the antis for this opposition, but continued to view the church as an institution.
(6) see http://johnmakrhicks.wordpress.com under interpretation, hermeneutics or church
(7) Lubbock Christian College (now University) hired K.C. Moser as a teacher and was criticized for it. Yevette had brother Moser as a teacher on Romans where he related some of the experiences he had due to the criticisms. He wrote a book on Romans called The Gist of Romans. In his preaching he emphasized the death and resurrection of Jesus. I had the opportunity to hear him at Sunset in a morning chapel around 1974. In talking with a college friend of Yevette’s, she related how she had grown up in a graceless church and changed after spending a short time at Lubbock Christian.
(8) Today, these brethren are labeled “change agents” because they call into question the hermeneutic of command, example and inference.
(9) Interestingly, in the late 1800s, there were a few women preachers and one male preacher who had a woman who led songs during his long gospel meetings he had in various places. Then there were a number of single women who went as missionaries to Japan in the early 1900s and one remained there through World War II.
(10) This is not to say that others do not sin. Brothers in the Nashville Bible School Tradition have and have lost positions because of it. It is an inconsistency on the part of the Texas Tradition to ignore moral failings of some of their well known preachers because they are considered “faithful” in proclaiming the “truth,” their phrase for traditions. They have ignored charges of adultery and child abuse, moral sins, because accurate institutional proclamation is more important. A classmate told me of loosing a preaching position because he did not agree with the elders who wanted to “sweep” an adulterous affair of a youth minister “under the rug.”
(11) One person argued with me that if a person attended a Sunday morning assembly, they were faithful, but if they failed to attend an evening assembly when they could, they were unfaithful. That is a legal, not family, definition, and might help us understand the emphasis on attendance and giving.
(12) see John Mark Hicks, Come To The Table, Leafwood Publishers.
(13) There are a number of blogs that are focusing on the grace aspects of the church. Some I would recommend in addition to John Mark Hicks (see above) would be Al Maxey at www.zianet.com/maxey/, Bobby Valentine at http://stoned-campbelldisciple.com , and Ray Hawk at http://monter.wordpress.com. Brother Hawk has moved away from the legalistic aspects of church to a more grace centered idea.