by Gregory Alan Tidwell, editor of the Gospel Advocate
Synopsis: The theme section of the January issue of Truth Magazine offers several reviews and personal reflections on the 2017 Exploring Current Issues Conference (ECIC). This is a private Bible study hosted by Jim Deason that has been conducted in Cullman, AL since 2011. This year's study focused upon the similarities and differences between institutional and non-institutional churches of Christ.
A group of non-institutional brethren visited in the Gospel Advocate offices on May 19, 2016. This meeting had been planned under the leadership of the former owner of the publishing house, Neil Anderson, and conducted by Randy and Jodie Duke, the current owners. Both Neil and Randy were part of this meeting, which opened a discussion the Gospel Advocate had not addressed since the 1950s.
Following up on the meeting in Nashville, Jim Deason invited several men to join him in Cullman, Alabama to continue our discussion. I appreciate Jim's graciousness in making these arrangements and Mark Mayberry's invitation to share my perspective on my time in Cullman.
The spirit with which the conference proceeded was cordial, and many doors of communication were opened that had been closed for years.
One matter I hope was clearly defined is the difference between the progressive wing of the institutional churches of Christ, and those of us who remain committed to the old paths.
At the time of division with the Disciples of Christ, the Gospel Advocate published this statement:
"There is a distinct people taking the word of God as their only and sufficient rule of faith, calling their churches 'churches of Christ' or 'churches of God,' distinct and separate in name, work, and rule of faith from all other bodies of people" (David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate, 1907, p. 457).
The unity of this distinct approach was shattered by the progressive movement in 1980, with the publication of Rubel Shelly's book, I Just Want to Be a Christian. Cascading from Shelly's initiative, change among the left-wing of institutional churches of Christ has proceeded with accelerating speed.
Rejecting the prohibitive nature of silence and the inerrancy of Scripture, the progressives are indistinguishable in their doctrine from liberal Protestants.
Progressives, having abandoned biblical authority, have brought changes into the worship of the church—notably using instrumental music and women to lead in worship. Further, progressives have denied the distinctive New Testament way of salvation, holding immersion as an optional extra. Many have abandoned biblical morality, even taking a more open position on homosexuality.
Roughly half of the institutional Christians, however, have never embraced the progressive apostasy.
Churches of Christ maintaining the faith we have always believed and practiced do so from a conviction of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We agree with what David Lipscomb wrote in the Gospel Advocate in 1885:
"God is the only law-making power. Any act of worship not ordained by God, the observance of any ordinance or the performance of any act as religious service not provided for by the authority of God, is treason against God… the proposition to form a church, or to unite with anyone on anything else than complete surrender to the will of God, and a full obedience to his requirements, is treason of the grossest type" (p. 402).
Again, many among the institutional churches take to heart this warning from the pen of David Lipscomb:
"The test of a church of Christ is: It recognizes God as the only Lawgiver. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10). When it consciously changes the smallest appointment of God, it dethrones God as the only Lawmaker and ceases to be a church of God" (David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, 227).
We remain a "distinct people," seeking to follow the pattern of faith and practice laid out in Scripture. Those following this path are convinced, if we ever abandon the quest of being just Christians by following just the Bible, we will have left our reason for existence as the church.
Christians worshiping in institutional and non-institutional congregations have much in common (with the exceptions of the progressives, noted above, who are practicing a different religion).
We agree on the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the authorized way of salvation. We share a common view of the need for establishing authorization for all aspects of Christian faith and practice from commands, examples, and necessary inferences found in Scripture.
In the summer of 1979, I was privileged to hear Guy N. Woods and Roy E. Cogdill speak in gospel meetings with only a week in between. These men were the leading disputants on the institutional questions in the 1950s. Hearing these men, it struck me—the two preachers could have exchanged outlines and delivered each other's sermons.
The Christians who share these common commitments are practicing a common faith and should be treating one another as brethren.
On the institutional side, we have (overwhelmingly, if not entirely) lifted the "yellow tag of quarantine." Christians worshiping at non-institutional congregations regularly write for the Gospel Advocate and speak at conferences conducted by institutional brethren. Colleges associated with the institutional position have no problem hiring a Christian attending a non-institutional congregation to work for them.
As we move forward, there are two points where I feel rhetoric has gotten out of hand, erecting straw-men which do not move the discussion forward productively.
The first is the question of "Why don't you just give up supporting institutions for the sake of unity?" This is disingenuous. The median-sized congregation among churches of Christ has 55 members. Most of our congregations barely scrape by to keep their building open, and the preacher paid. They do not send money to institutions. But these congregations are black-balled by most non-institutional Christians unless they have embraced the non-institutional position.
Second, the idea of "you don't fellowship those using instruments; why should we fellowship you?" is thrown down with the glee of a winning trump card. But a careful reflection will show the difference.
Both in the current apostasy and in the digression of the 1800s, the use of the instrument in worship followed the professed abandonment of biblical authority. The liberals of the 1800 and the progressives of the current day began by proclaiming a "new hermeneutic," and a changed view of the inerrancy of Scripture.
The congregations closely associated with Pepperdine, Abilene, and Lipscomb, which use instruments in worship, years ago rejected the inspiration and authority of Scripture. These same congregations deny the biblical way of salvation and use women to lead in worship. The analogy with the institutional questions falls short of this comparison.
At the close of the Cullman meeting, I used my home congregation in Columbus as an example. In the three decades I have served as a preacher, the congregation has had three very contentious situations where a small minority objected strongly to the direction we were taking.
In each of these situations, the elders listened to the objections and asked, "Is this a matter of conscience?" On one occasion, a third of the congregation objected to us using a screen with PowerPoint in worship. Not one of those objecting, however, felt it was a matter of conscience, and so we moved ahead.
In the other two situations, the numbers objecting were much smaller—in one instance, two families, and in the other one individual. But because these cases involved a matter of conscience, we did not proceed, for the sake of unity.
My question then: if no one in our congregation objects to our financial practices, should we change what we are doing to please someone who is not part of our congregation? If so, should all churches of Christ give up multiple communion cups, age-divided Bible classes, and require women to cover their heads in worship?
Should not, rather, each congregation seek to exercise proper submission to the Bible and appropriate consideration for the consciences of their members?
It is my prayer that we can reclaim the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. From my standpoint, the non-institutional brethren have much to offer to the whole fellowship of churches of Christ. Their commitment to Scripture provides a strength of conviction that is a blessing to all.
Let me say, also, my non-institutional brethren would benefit from those of us who have been in the trenches fighting against the progressive apostasy.
There are congregations among the non-institutional Christians that are essentially community churches, not churches of Christ. No, they do not send money to institutions and, probably, do not eat in their building. But they speak the language of Ashdod and have abandoned the ways of Zion. They are parasites on the body of Christ and will suck the life out of the fellowship if they are allowed to continue.
Those of us who believe in restoring the faith and practice found in God's inerrant word are stronger together than we will be divided. Let us seek ways to work together in the Kingdom of our Lord.
Author Bio: Gregory Alan Tidwell is the editor of the Gospel Advocate. Their website is gospeladvocate.com. He has served the Church of Christ at 1130 Fishinger Rd in Columbus, OH since 1984. Greg and his wife, Peggy have twin sons. He can be reached at greg.tidwell@gospeladvocate.com.