Pieces in Understanding Something of God

Recent experiences make me think.

 As I think we all know, the concept of truth is constantly debated in our society, and perhaps nowhere is this more intensely the case than when Christianity collides with culture.  At this point the conversations become pretty intense.  Somewhere between the Christian who says, “The Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it,” which says virtually nothing to the person who doesn’t believe God has revealed Himself in the words of the Bible, and the non-Christian who says, “There is no such thing as truth,” lies a place for conversation about truth.

As a Christian (please don’t ignore this context and presupposition for my comments), there are two things that seem to me most crucial to keep in mind:  1) because we believe the God we believe in is real, everything hinges on His existence.  If the God of traditional Christianity is a mythical concept used to explain some element of our experience, and not real, then Christianity is simply not true in the sense of fitting with that which is really the case.  If the Christian God is not the sole Creator; if He did not choose a people for Himself; if He did not reveal Himself to Israel; if He did not speak through the prophets; if He did not become incarnate in Christ, so that God Himself became a human being; if He did not send His Spirit to be with those who believe in Jesus as Messiah; if God does not consider those who comprise the church to be His special children; if God does not care whether human beings acknowledge Him as Lord or not;  if God did not inspire in some way the writings we have in the Bible, then we need to openly acknowledge that Christianity is a human invention and not true or representative of truth.  If we do not continue to hold these things as truth, we can call ourselves many things, but we cannot accurately call ourselves Christians in the sense of traditional, historic Christianity, because we have decided that we no longer believe the things that make Christianity what it is. 2) I know of no other way for us to know what we know about God apart from what He has revealed about Himself in historical deeds (often in the ancient past in dealing with Israel, but also in the Christian era), by being with and leading human beings spiritually, by speaking to human beings, by becoming incarnate specifically in the person of Jesus Christ, by indwelling Christians with His Holy Spirit, and by revealing much about Himself and His will for humankind in the teachings of His followers, especially as these are recorded in the pages of the Bible.

I know this is not all that needs to be said about truth, but, if we stand apart from these two basic ideas about His will for humankind, my impression is that we land in a place where ultimately nothing can really be known about the Christian God.  Apart from these two basic ideas, whatever we come up with are at best educated guesses, or theories, or reflections of ourselves in the mirror with no inherent authority regarding what is real.  They are not far from being just speculative opinions or hopeful wishes, with any claim to being authoritative truth being just as valid as any other, meaning that ultimately none are authoritative.  Certainly, if the above two basic principles are not really true, then the twelve non-negotiables that comprise our What We Believe Statement are meaningless, being grounded ultimately in our whims.

When Nuances are Ignored

I occasionally hear someone remark about how much they admire another because the one they admire is so clear, so black and white when it comes to what they believe.  It is as if being crystal clear about what you believe somehow compensates for the deficiencies that exist in the reasons for your belief.  This doesn't work for me.  I don't see much value in speaking or writing for the sake of clarity as if an issue is as clear as black and white, when what is clear is that there really are gray areas to be reflected upon. We can ignore the subtle inconsistencies or deficiencies in an opinion if we wish, or act as though there is a strong yes or no on every issue, but I am not sure it really helps anyone in the name of clarity and with great passion to be less than accurate.  On many important issues there are subtle differences in ways of thinking or not easily seen evidence that make huge differences.  And I find that often people on either side of an issue can end up being the ones unable to recognize subtle differences, or they just ignore them in the name of passion.  My dictionary says that nuance is a noun, not  a verb.  At the very least we should be able to use it as a gerund - nuancing!  We have trouble with nuancing, or making fine distinctions or differentiations or in recognizing subtle variations that distinguish between two similar things.

Now, before someone insists that there is something worse than recognizing gray areas:  making no decision at all or having no opinion, I get that.  But lumping together different perspectives and ignoring slight differences just because it is easier or takes less effort to paint with a broad brush often ultimately causes more problems than stopping to consider the nuances.  You can paint a repaired fender with paint that is only one small tone different in colour from the original, and in some lights it will look just fine.  But the car is going to be moved and different angles of light will eventually show the difference.  Then it just looks like a bad paint job.

The issue I am thinking of today has to do with theological opinions.  Christians often have trouble nuancing when it comes to doctrinal matters, and those who criticize Christians and Christianity tend to lump together anyone who believes, as if a right-winged Calvinist Fundamentalist is the same as a believing educated Methodist professor at Duke.  Options available today regarding how one views the Bible, the concept of revelation, what the church should look like, the ways in which God deals with sin, or how Christians should interact with their world are myriad.  Lumping together someone who believes the Bible with someone else who believes the Bible may be a total mismatch.  Our passions about various issues shouldn't cause us to over look the differences, or we will end up making big mistakes about where people stand on all kinds of very important issues, causing us to respond in ways that simply do not fit, or that are quite unhelpful and unproductive in the long run.

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 6

 

In light of the largely autonomous character of the churches of the Stone-Campbell Movement, there is often only a loose connection that exists between the churches of the Movement in any given geographical area.  This fact stems from the initial ethos of the Movement, from the different divisions within the Movement that have occurred over the years, and, in the case of western Canadian a cappella churches, the closing of Western Christian College.

I am of the opinion that the relative autonomy of our churches can be very healthy in some ways; in other ways it is of detriment.  There is something healthy about individual churches being free to operate for themselves, with locally empowered leaders whose authority and service is centered in their own congregations.  A church's finances are controlled by and allocated by local leadership.  Ministry is locally controlled and planned.  And this seems to fit with the function of churches under the Apostles in the New Testament.  But it can be of detriment that our churches share less of a broader cohesive unity than they otherwise could.  They are not as much "part of something bigger" as they could be.  When the Movement began, and for years afterward, there was an identity for those churches which automatically came with being part of the Movement itself, set apart from the rest of Christianity that was not following the teachings of the Campbells, Walter Scott, and Barton Stone.  Those churches and individual Christians who did follow early Stone-Campbell teachings on biblical primitivism and Christian unity became an identifiable union of churches; it gave them a broader identity and purpose.  That we substantially lack this common identity and purpose prevents us from having a cohesive ministry.  The positive aspects of the Movement are not instilled in those new to us, or even our own children, and there is no common voice that can positively impact the ministries of other Christian fellowships around us.

All that to say that with a push from Evan Spencer, who is leading the new Bow Valley multi-site in Mahogany in south Calgary, there is going to be an attempt made to create a closer unity among churches in western Canada that find their historical roots in the Stone-Campbell Movement.  The goals will include 1) unity, fellowship, and encouragement among our churches; 2) cohesion, visioning and purposefulness in ministry; 3) providing a source of cohesive impact by the Stone-Campbell churches on Christianity as practiced in western Canada.

Plans are being formulated concerning how best to proceed.  Two moves most likely to be made here at the beginning are:  1) use the 3 Streams website that is already in existence.  The website was initiated by the group that through Alberta Bible College sponsors the Western Canada Leadership Summit each spring at ABC, but the goal of having the website is to provide connection for Stone-Campbell churches across Canada; 2) have some kind of initial meeting introducing the idea of  cohesion between the Stone-Campbell churches of western Canada, forming a steering committee of interested church representatives.

If you are interested in what is being proposed, please feel free to comment or send to me an email (Kelly@calgarycofc.com).  And you will want to look at the existing 3 Streams website at www.3streams.ca if you have not already.

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 5

A few months ago I began blogging a bit about Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada.  Continuing the series . . .

 A question that I suppose could simply be ignored by churches that derive from the Stone-Campbell Movement, but one with which I think some (perhaps especially newer) Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada are wrestling is whether or not they want their ministries as churches overtly to reflect this heritage.  Although it is likely that at least some vestiges of this heritage will be present in a church deriving from the Stone-Campbell Movement, is there value in a church continuing intentionally to identify itself with its background, or should certain factors cause our churches essentially to ignore their heritage?  For example, since the very ethos of the Stone-Campbell Movement is oriented toward a non-denominational, autonomous approach to church polity, should whatever influence the larger Movement may have on an individual church be discounted, set aside, or intentionally ignored?  Should whatever special relationships that might exist between churches deriving from the Stone-Campbell Movement be superseded or be lessened in significance by the relationships our churches may have with other Christian fellowships in light of the unity plea that was originally so much at the core of the Stone-Campbell Movement?  Are there elements to being a Stone-Campbell Movement derived church that should actually be overcome, so that it would be a God-honouring, biblical, ministry-advancing move to advance past our Stone-Campbell connections and identities so that we can better become the churches God wants us to be?  Are there other, more vital connections with other groups that our churches could make that would serve the advancement of their ministries above and beyond their connections to other Stone-Campbell churches or institutions or organizations?

On the other hand, if a church chooses to remain overtly reflective of its Stone-Campbell heritage, what exactly does this mean for the way it operates, for the connections it has to other Stone-Campbell Movement churches?  And what will or should these connections look like?

These questions are significant, I think, for several reasons.  First, there currently exists little working connection between some Churches of Christ a cappella and other churches derived from the Stone-Campbell Movement.  There are of course, members of these churches that still have relationships with members from other Stone-Campbell Movement churches, due to past connections, but there are almost no formal larger gatherings, no larger organizational ties, and few common projects on which they are working together.  And this applies to both the connections between Churches of Christ a cappella with other Churches of Christ a cappella and the connections of these churches with churches from the two other major branches of the Movement (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ).  Given the current situation, will churches in western Canada from the Churches of Christ a cappella in a hundred years have any connection at all between themselves and other Stone-Campbell Movement churches in western Canada?  Will they even care if they do or not?  For some of us, this still matters.  Secondly, waning commitment to a common heritage could mean waning commitment to some institutions/organizations among us.  We have lost Western Christian College.  If there is little sense of connection between us, will we be able to collectively sustain committed support to Alberta Bible College and to the Bible camps that we support?  Third, if there are not overt connections and commitments to the Stone-Campbell Movement present among our churches, will not whatever unique values and positive assets to the Kingdom that characterize the Stone-Campbell heritage not be completely lost on those among us who are younger and those yet unborn?  If there are elements of value in whatever common theology and ecclesiology we share, will these valuable pieces from our heritage be passed on and valued by those who in future generations will become our church leaders?  Or will these valuable pieces from our past be lost so that there is less opportunity for them to positively impact the Kingdom?  Fourth, are we not stronger and more capable when working together with others?  Despite our inherent autonomy, our churches have in the past enjoyed the benefit of working together on some common projects, of being encouraged by our joint gatherings, of feeling like we are identified with something bigger and more impacting than just our individual churches.  Would it not be a shame to lose the benefits of being unified and working together?  Others can no doubt cite other losses that may exist if some or many Stone-Campbell churches slip away from a connection to our heritage. 

In previous posts in this series I made overtures to the value of there being more efforts made toward Stone-Campbell Movement churches connecting with each other.  In the coming days I want to expand on this suggestion.

Seriously Considering Christ and Christianity

As everyone knows, there is a crisis going on in the church which has massive ramifications for the church and, ultimately, for world culture.  Young people, especially, are being challenged to walk away from their families' commitments to Jesus Christ and the church.  They are being told that Christianity is simply not true, that Jesus is not the Son of God and Saviour of the world, and that exclusively to hold to the truth of Christ is intellectually irresponsible or disreputable.  And such claims are coming not just from university departments of philosophy or biology, they often come from inside the church, even from those with lifelong involvement with the church, as some of those previously committed to Christ now significantly question most of what they previously were taught and believed.  This is not just sad, it is tragic, especially when the challenges made to Christianity are so often grounded on less than the most rigorous intellectual, philosophical, historical foundations.

From merely a human perspective, Jesus the Messiah or Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Bar Joseph from Nazareth in Galilee, born about 4 B.C., is the most important, most admired, most followed human being who has ever lived.  The social ethic he taught and exampled is considered the most important, most revolutionary, most widely influential, loftiest social ethic ever conceived.  The social community He created has been the most significant, most influential, most powerful force for good that the world has known.  If the poor, the sick, the lonely, the heartbroken, the unattractive, the outcast, the hurting, the disadvantaged, the imprisoned, the persecuted, the oppressed, the self-destructive, the addictive, the demonized, the evil and the rejected ones have received from someone a blessing, a helping hand, a bed for recovery, a word of encouragement, an opportunity to arise from their misery, or an opportunity for healing, forgiveness, sustenance, grace, and love there is a good chance that the good things that have come their way ultimately have a source associated with Jesus the Jewish Messiah.  The extent to which the evils of humanity that otherwise would have been put upon each other, but which were avoided or overcome by Jesus and those who with genuine commitment have followed Him, is simply incalculable.  About these things there can be no debate.

Some today, and even many Christians, have been compelled to re-evaluate all this, as if maybe what I wrote in the previous paragraph is not empirically true.  They would speak of the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or colonization, or Constantinianism or American Imperialism or Capitalistic Materialism as if these movements are directly based on who Jesus was and taught, as if Jesus and His true followers were responsible for these tragedies.  I will admit that those who claimed to follow Jesus were to a lesser or greater extent behind such movements; but no one who has carefully read, or even cursorily read, the teachings and example of Jesus in the Bible could ever link together with Jesus such aberrations from true Christianity.  Humans beings who truly and consistently followed His teachings would not, could not perpetrate such sinfulness.  He was entirely non-violent when it comes to military, governmental, institutional, and private action by his followers.  He specifically commanded against violence.  He taught His followers to love everyone, including themselves.  He was accepting of all those who hurt, including those who greatly sin because of their hurt.  He and His closest followers made virtue, kindness, love, goodness, gentleness, humility, peacefulness, patience, meekness, and non-judgmentalism the core of Christian teaching about how to live. These facts about Jesus and Christianity are very easy to verify, and they need to be kept in mind by those threatened by the attacks and unbelief that frequently come against Christ and the church, whether from inside the church or from outside.

So, as one who has carefully investigated these things over the last 40 years, some words of advice.  Don't just accept accusations against Christ and Christianity or accept claims made about the irrationality of belief in God without considering these things at great length and seriously testing their veracity.  Often young people, especially, hear claims made against Christianity or the church and with very little serious investigation accept such claims, or at least allow such claims to colour their view of Christ and the church.  Please don't just accept such claims just because it is considered more socially acceptable to disbelieve or to criticize the church or because you are embarrassed to go against the grain of society in its attack against Christ and the church.  Study history for yourself.  Study ethics for yourself.  Study science and philosophy for yourself.  Read the Bible and evaluate the church, yourself.  And please don't stop after reading one or two or ten books critical of Christianity thinking that such critics have said all that there is to be said.  I weary of hearing about those who have taken a class or two, read a couple of books, listened to a couple of lectures, and have decided that Christianity is not true, or that it is not noble or intellectually defensible.  Often I find the intellectual effort that has been expended in such investigations of Christ and the church to be truly second class; it simply does not measure up to the best of human investigative efforts.  It is shallow and incomplete, and those who conduct their inquiries in this way too often reach conclusions and make statements about Christ and Christianity that have little or no merit whatsoever, simply because they are looking for an easy way to excuse themselves from taking seriously the claims that Christ makes on their lives.  They simply wish to not be uncomfortable in their belief, or they wish to sin and feel better about it, or they are lazy, particularly intellectually, and so do not want to do the hard work on their own of finding out the truth about Christ and Christianity, about Christian history, about the real teachings of Jesus, about what authentic Christianity looks like.  Some have been hurt by Christians, or by the church, or their loved ones have been hurt by Christians or the church, to the point that hearing criticisms of Christianity are psychologically soothing or satisfying, because accepting such criticisms fits with the anger or hurt they already feel toward Christians who have harmed them.  This is understandable and explainable, but to hold against Christianity what has been done to you by sinful Christians is like despising gravity because the contractor who built the deck on your house built it poorly, causing it to fall and injure you or your loved one.  It is like despising rye or wheat or hopps or those who harvest such crops because someone else bought the grain and made from it alcohol, which another person bought, got drunk from, and then he or she drove while drunk and killed your loved one.  It is hardly the fault of the grain or the harvester.  But for some, it is far easier to just believe what an author or professor or the internet or Facebook tell you about Christians and Christianity, because some Christians have made big mistakes, than it is to conduct a long careful investigation, and so many just accept the easy answer.  It is too easy to stay where you are in carrying out your lifestyle of less than noble pursuits, your materialism, your self-centeredness, and to criticize Jesus and His followers, than it is honestly and plainly to be confronted by who Jesus really was and is, by what He really taught, by what He really calls us to.  So, many simply parrot the easy answers they have heard.  Please, don't stop after a half-hearted, lazy, easy quasi-investigative look at Christianity and then settle yourself in unbelief, ignoring the fact that you haven't really put in the effort needed.  Because the decision of whether or not to accept Christ or to remain Christian and connected to the church is so significant in one's life, you owe it to yourself, if to no one else, to honestly read and study for yourself, without cutting corners and without accepting easy answers.  Listen not only to critics of Christ and Christianity, especially as Jesus, the church and Christians are portrayed in contemporary mass media and social media, but give attention, too, to those who have investigated at a profound level both the claims of the critics and the claims of Christ and His followers and have found Christianity not just defensible, but have found it to be a system of belief to which it is worth being faithfully committed for life.  Nothing less will do.  If, in the end, after much careful, serious thinking and investigation you find Christ and Christianity not worth giving your life to, then so be it.  At least you will have reached your conclusion in light of your own honesty and to your own intellectual satisfaction, and not just because those around you─who live in a questionable world with questionable motives, and who themselves may not have been very careful in doing their own searches─have told you that Christ and Christianity don't deserve your attention or allegiance.  Or, if you should choose Christ, you will not be doing so because you simply adopted your parents' faith or have believed blindly.  You will have a faith that is grounded in what you seriously take to be the truth because you have investigated the question and found that God was quite capable of defending Himself.  You will have seriously considered Christ and Christianity, chosen faith, and you will be Christian because you will have seen that it is the best system of faith the world has known, because it is the only faith system in line with things as they really are.

 

 

Continuing Reflections on the Stone-Campbell Movement in Western Canada, Part 4

 If there is any merit in my suggestions in Part 2 that Discipleship, MIssionality, and Church Planting should be central concerns of our churches as we attempt to move forward out of a kind of stagnancy, it makes sense that our churches would understand well both what each of these is really about and how our churches and Movement can best accomplish something with respect to each.  The first part of this – understanding well what each of these areas of ministry is about – is not hard for anyone willing to read a bit, and I don’t know that room here needs to be taken up in describing each of them.  If you would like some help in knowing what you may purchase in order to know something about each of these, email me at Kelly@calgarycofc.com.

The second part concerning how our churches and Movement can best accomplish something with respect to each of these areas of ministry is a bit more difficult to answer.  Let me start, though, by saying that I think the biggest problem is not a lack of understanding but is, rather, in our being significantly distracted away from these basic areas of ministry.  Other foci capture our attention.  We end up spending our time, efforts, and money elsewhere.  We don’t give enough attention to discipleship, but instead focus on the worship experience we have on Sunday mornings.  We spend our money on world missions, which is important, but sometimes it is spent to the detriment of spending money here, where Christianity is perhaps making less headway than it is in some of the mission destinations we support.  We don’t spend enough time thinking about the growth of the Kingdom, planning for how the Kingdom can best impact western Canada through our efforts, because we are exclusively focused on our own church’s efforts, when there is evidence that fostering new church plants is one of the best things any church can do to expand the Kingdom.

Focussed and balanced attention is, then, necessary for us to center ourselves in Discipleship, Missionality and Church Planting.  Here, I will just mention how this could be playing itself out in our churches with respect to discipleship.  Are we as concerned to get our Elders, full-time ministers, and congregants involved in discipleship as we are in making sure our Sunday morning worship is outstanding?  Of course, should our Sunday morning worship not be done at its very best?  Definitely.  In fact, does the Sunday morning experience not also contribute to the discipleship and growth of those who attend?  We certainly want it to.   But I am not sure the Sunday morning experience warrants more attention than our more direct efforts to bring about discipleship in our churches.  Preaching on Sunday morning and our corporate praising of the Lord need to happen at a high level, but giving more attention to one-on-one discipling of each other could be more significant in bringing about genuine growth in the spiritual lives of Christians and in the numerical growth of the church, especially if disciples are created who themselves go about discipling others.  What is it that we most want for each Christian in our churches, that they are 1) blessed by great worship and are moved by a great sermon on Sunday morning, or that they 2) grow in their ability to build faith-fostering relationships with those around them who do not know Jesus, or who know Him at an immature level?  Although we obviously want both, I would say that if I could pick just one, it would be the latter, and that where we see ourselves at present defaulting to the first, there needs to be correction.

BTW, I am fully aware that my perspective on the priority of discipleship is not original and that current trends in ministry across North America lean in this direction.  But, like the sharing of the gospel, the fact that I am not the first to say it doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be said again.

 

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 3:

Often the question is raised as to whether or not there is still value in the Restoration plea, a plea that has at its center two major elements:  1) Christian unity and 2) fidelity to the original church.  Perhaps the question is raised because denominational sectarianism has taken such a beating in the last 50 years, that there is seemingly less urgency for us to continue calling for Christians to accept one another or to work together; we now do this on a grand scale.  That said, I think there is still much work to do on the unity front.  Perhaps the question is raised because biblical primitivism – strict fidelity to the original church - just doesn’t seem in our time to be particularly meaningful, or effective, or full of value or even possible.  The conclusion is that other emphases would actually serve the church better.  Perhaps the question is raised because our plea is often viewed as itself being responsible for a great deal of denominational sectarianism, both because we have shortsightedly denied the denominational status of our Movement and its various streams and because we have been sectarian even while denying that we are a denomination. So, some think that not only is restoring the church to its original form not necessary, it is actually a hindrance in our age to the advance of the Kingdom and of the gospel.

Personally, I am not ready to give up on the Restoration Movement, a.k.a. the Stone-Campbell Movement, meaning in this context that I am not wanting to see our plea come to nothing among western Canadian churches affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Movement.  Even in an age in which denominational loyalty is perhaps lower than it has ever been, many Baptists think there are still good reasons to be Baptist.  Many Methodists think there is good reason to remain Methodist.  Many Roman Catholics defend the value of continuing to be RC.  Many Presbyterians remain in their fold.  It would appear that remaining committed to one’s own heritage does not automatically have to be jettisoned as an option, even if we are committed to Christian unity (as so many Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians are).  For us to think that there is something of value in still being committed to at least some of the things that have made us who we are is not an absurdity.  In fact, for me, remaining committed to many of the principles, values, and doctrinal positions of the Stone-Campbell Movement is of vital importance.   Let me list some.

 In our time I would hope that we would especially be committed to:

1)      The identification of freedom of the will as a theologically rich, necessary, biblical principle.  Religious determinism, especially in the subtle forms it takes in much of Reformed theology, was rejected by the formerly Presbyterian progenitors of our Movement, and for this I am grateful.  In an age when Reformed theology is often identified with orthodoxy, as if this, and only this, position is orthodox, there must be other faithful voices to counter this trend.  Twenty years ago I thought a more Arminian oriented position was winning the day, but things have changed a bit, in an unhelpful direction I would say.  I am glad we consider those with strict Reformed theologies our brothers and sisters, but I don’t find their theology to be particularly defensible, either biblically or intellectually.  I hope we remain committed to an Arminian perspective.

 

2)      Our sanctification.  Although we have been a bit anemic when it comes to our comprehension and emphasis on the Holy Spirit and His role in creating in us holiness, we have always defended the notion that faith without works is dead.  Christians should live better because they are in Christ.  Yet, when it comes to the need for sanctification, I am not so much thinking that Christians should be sinning less (they should, but that is not my real concern at just this point).  My concern is more that there is something necessary about us having a strong theological commitment to right living, a longing for holiness and Christlikeness, so that whether or not in our actual practice we miss the mark, at least there remains among us a commitment to uphold virtue.  For example, rather than overtly asserting our freedom to drink alcohol or to use the words “what the hell” in conversation (often I find the attitude that accompanies the presence of such things in someone’s life to be surprisingly immature), because we want to separate ourselves from restrictive moralism, I would rather that we continue to teach against drunkenness, to expect and teach a level of respectful, non-judgmental holiness, all the while recognizing the value that exists in Christian freedom.  So, we can without guilt drink alcohol, but the attitude with which one does so needs to be Christ-honouring, mature, with a sober mind, rather than with an immature flaunting of worldliness.  This is a different attitude than one present in the minds of some Christians and their theologies, when they apply the grace of God almost as a permission slip for acting in unholy ways.  We are to be transformed from one level of glory to another, Paul would say, living exemplary lives of holiness.  In this the Spirit wants to work cooperatively in transforming our lives.

3)      Our commitment to biblical, exegetical theology.  At times our biblical rationalism has not been as theologically fruitful as what we might hope.  We unfortunately can be atomistic “prooftexters” dependent upon induction and syllogistic reasoning.  Nonetheless, I am grateful for our commitment to the biblical text and for our desire to ground what we think, do, and say in Scripture.  This has always been a core identifying mark among us, not that it necessarily separates us from others, but it does speak to who we are.  I hope this never changes.

4)      An adherence to certain core biblical doctrines and practices.  The importance of believers’ baptism by immersion, communion each Sunday, autonomous churches, plurality of Elders, the priesthood of all believers, the simplicity of our worship – these are some of the beliefs and practices that for me are distinctly believed by us (at least in the way that we believe and practice them) and which should be maintained among us.  Do they have to look exactly the same in every one of our churches?  Definitely not.  Should an attitude of exclusivity and sectarianism accompany our beliefs and distinct practices?  No.  But we should recognize the great value that there is in so many of the things that make us who we are.  We have a rich tradition, not one to be undervalued or of which we should be ashamed.  There is as much legitimacy, if not more, in our distinctiveness as there is in the distinct traditions that identify our friends in other Christian fellowships.  They may recognize with more appreciation their tradition, and in some cases their traditions may seem more time-honoured, but our distinct practices are at least as biblically defensible as theirs, in my opinion, and as long as we can adequately defend our positions with graciousness and love, we need to believe them and practice them, being grateful for the richness of these beliefs and practices for our lives in Christ.

That’s all for this installment.  I would love to hear from others what they think concerning the value or vacuity of our Restoration plea.  In your opinion, what is there from the RM/S-CM to which we should cling?  What should we count unimportant?

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 2:

 Approaches to church ministry constantly come and go; they rise up to dominate our efforts for a time, and after they have run their course without great success, we move on to another ministry paradigm.  Today I want to offer three significant areas of ministry concentration on which RM churches may wish to focus if we want to break free from what I summarily called stagnancy in my first blog in this series.  I will mention these three specific ministerial foci because from what I can tell, they have the best chance of standing the test of time, being successful in the long run, without being subject to the ever-changing verities of both society and church.

First, Intentional, Relational Discipleship.  Relational discipleship is, of course, as old as the New Testament.  Jesus did it.  The apostles did it. The early church rapidly grew because of its impact.  In the first decade of the twenty-first century, discipleship has arisen as a major focus for many churches, with some having a great deal of impact on their communities because they vigorously applied a well-constructed vision for carrying out discipleship.  Usually such success is accompanied by a well-developed plan for small groups, but what must happen, whether in small groups or not, is that more mature Christians must be reaching out to those who are either not yet Christians or who are less mature, intentionally and relationally helping them to grow.  Our lack of commitment to this task and the limited number of church leaders we have (Elders and Ministers, especially) who actually disciple others, is as likely as any other factor to be a key reason for our lack of success in reaching our communities for Christ.

 Second, Missionality.  Three caveats:  1) It is tragic that the words “missional” and “missionality” ever became buzz words within North American Christianity.  Because they have, it is too easy for some to view missionality as just another fad among ministerial foci.  It should not be thought of in this way.  It is far too rich an idea for us to be cast off because its use sometimes seems faddish, or because it can be a bit difficult to define.  2) Also, because the word “missional” is so closely grammatically related to “mission” and “missions” it is easy for confusion, as if a call to be missional is primarily defined with reference to world missions.  World missions should be missional, but missionality needs to happen domestically.  3) Further, because those who wish to be missional are often oriented toward social justice, it sometimes feels like being missional is exactly co-existent with and completely encapsulated within social justice.  This is far from the case for most who wish to be missional, and it certainly should not be all we think of when desiring to be missional.  Like mission and missionality, missional churches need to have a social justice focus, but missionality is not just about social justice.  In fact, missional churches should be significantly involved in relational discipleship.

Third, Church Planting.  There have been some monumental failures in planting churches in western Canada; you will receive no argument from me about this.  However, there have also been some wonderful success stories, including the planting of almost every church of which the readers of this blog are currently part.  Your church was planted by someone at some point!  Church planting has, since the Book of Acts, been a key component of the progress of the church, and it will always be, and certainly this is the case in our own time.  I wish there were fifty or 100 RM churches in Calgary.  And I wish they were all participating in relational discipleship, missionality, and church planting.  The Greater Calgary Church Planting Network needs to keep planting churches.  We need a large number of church plants to take place in western Canada, especially in Greater Vancouver.  Whether new churches arise as multi-sites or fresh, newly birthed independent offspring, we need more churches.  We need, therefore, to have a proactive church planting mindset among us, and we need to keep producing church planters.

Just imagine if all our churches were really successful at Relational Discipleship, Missional outreach into our communities, and planting churches.  The contrast between what this could look like and the stagnancy that some of us feel is striking.  How can the revitalization needed to make this the case best come about?  Honestly, I am not completely sure; but having a number of us engage in dialogue about such things could serve as an impetus or catalyst for our moving forward with success.

Wow, it has been a long time since I have visited this particular web address.  The occasion for being here today is my reflecting upon the status and future of Restoration Movement churches in western Canada.  Our church is an interesting hybrid, finding itself settled between the a cappella Churches of Christ (C of C) and the Independent Christian Churches (ICC).  We have both a cappella and instrumental worship assemblies on Sunday morning.  We also have close connections to numerous churches among both the C of C and ICC sides of the RM.  I, personally - and this is also the case with Dustin Lammiman who is on staff with me - have daily contact with those from the ICC.  We have occasional contact with churches that are still a cappella only.  This is not by choice, it just has worked out this way since there are so many ICC churches in our immediate area.

Being who we are as a church (Calgary Church of Christ), when I think of the future of the RM in western Canada I tend to think of the whole of the Movement, and not just the a cappella or instrumental side of things.  And I would love to see all churches historically connected to the RM move forward and grow.  It is on this I want now to make some comments, although I would imagine I will not have time to go as far today with this as I would like.  So, I will likely complete this project in stages.  Because I am so ignorant of the Disciples of Christ affiliated churches in western Canada I will leave them out of the discussion here.  When I know them better, I will gladly include them in this discussion.

First, I want to reflect a bit on what I think is the status of our churches.  These reflections are based on nothing scientific; they are impressionistic, so I could be far off the mark.  First, my impression of the a cappella churches is that they are on the whole, at best ineffectual, or perhaps stagnant is a better word.  I don't mean they are doing nothing with respect to ministry, they certainly are, I just mean that in the grand scheme of things, and on the whole, they are having little impact, and they are not growing.  In fact, given the fact that there has been a steady reduction in the number of C of C churches in the last 25 years, there is good reason to say that, taken as a whole, the a cappella side of the Movement is struggling.  I do know of four church plants among the C of C that have taken place in the last 25 or so years, the Gentle Road inner city church plant in Regina, the South Edmonton Church of Christ, Northwest Church of Christ in Regina, and the South Island Church of Christ.  I am not sure that any  C of C that is long in existence in western Canada has grown by more than five percent in the last fifteen years.  Yeah, I would say stagnant, on the whole.

My perspective on the ICC side of our Movement is a bit different, although it is far from being all positive.  The number of churches is expanding a bit, with six or so church plants still functioning that were initiated in the last fifteen years, out of about ten or so that have taken place in the last fifteen years.  West Coast Christian Church in Surrey, Northern Hills in Calgary, Mahogany and Skyview in Calgary (which are multi-site plants of Bow Valley Christian) and Mission Heights (a multi-site plant of the Grande Prairie Church of Christ) are bright spots, although Mahogany and Skyview are brand new and Northern Hills is only a year into its existence.  West Coast Christian is the most successful church plant taking place among RM churches in the last fifteen years or so.  I will admit that I am a bit unfamiliar with all the workings of the ICC in western Canada, so if someone in the know challenged me and said that there have been twelve or thirteen church plants in western Canada in the last fifteen years, I would just have to accept the correction.  Is it all good?  Certainly not. Some of the largest ICC churches in western Canada have plateaued.  There are almost no ICC churches in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with only a few in BC.  The strength of the ICC is clearly in one Province - Alberta.  So, I would say that in general the ICC, too, is a bit stagnant, with some exciting bright spots perhaps poised to take the Movement out of its stagnancy - but that remains to be seen.

Interestingly, there are a few churches like ours that cannot simply be identified with either the C of C or ICC, because they are churches that have historically been C of C churches that have now accepted the use of instruments in worship.  Our church has both a cappella and instrumental worship services.  The Shelbourne St. Church of Christ in Victoria is now instrumental.  The Glen Elm Church of Christ in Regina is now instrumental.  Each of these churches is a bit plateaued in terms of growth.

So, if stagnancy is the general feel of the Restoration Movement as a whole, where lies our future?

First, the conversations that I have with the ICC brothers and sisters with whom I have most of my discussions about such things, are generally hopeful, forward looking, and visionary.  Whether they will long-term be successful or not (they certainly have the potential to be successful), that Grande Prairie Church of Christ and Bow Valley Christian Church have planted multi-sites, and that there have been several church plants take place in the last fifteen years, and that the Greater Calgary Church Planting Network would like to plant more new churches is all exciting.  It is disturbing that the majority of ICC churches are not growing, but that there are bright spots, especially those connected to new churches, is something about which it is worth being hopeful.  If I talk to Alan Jones, or Rick Scruggs, or John Nicholson, or Steve McMillan, or Kurt Kuykendall, they may say that the Movement in general is stalled, but all are hopeful for and working toward their churches moving forward.  One positive that exists for the ICC that is not there for the C of C is the connectedness that exists among them because of ABC.  If there is value in a collective vision of any kind, the prospects for the ICC carrying out such a collective vision are far greater than they are for the C of C.  But in this there is a challenge.  Given the overt unity that exists between ICC churches, largely because ABC is in existence, can this unity actually perform a function in enabling the ICC to intentionally plan its future, thereby creating a more effective future for the Kingdom?  I am not sure this is happening at present; perhaps something more directed and intentional should be happening.

I am not sure if I have enough up-to-date knowledge of the C of C churches to speak accurately of their future prospects.  I am sure the individual congregations are positive and hopeful and working hard.  These are great brothers and sisters.  I think of my brothers like Lee Patmore in Lloydminster or Mike Parker in Saskatoon, or Kirk Ruch in Burnaby or Kevin Vance in Regina.  I have great respect for such friends and servants of Christ and the congregations they represent, and of all the C of C churches in western Canada I could say the same.  The biggest fear I have about their future is that with the loss of Western Christian College, and with some key congregations no longer being as unified with the a cappella churches because they now use instruments (like our church, Glen Elm in Regina, and Shelbourne St. in Victoria), the C of C in western Canada suffers from a lack of cohesiveness.  It could be that this lack of cohesiveness will hamper their ability to break free from stagnation.  Small autonomous churches sometimes lack the needed momentum and resources to make great strides.  This could limit the future possibilities for the C of C.

All that said, I wonder if there would not be value in more collective intentionality being present among RM churches in western Canada.  For various reasons some C of C churches would likely choose not to participate in vision framing discussions. But at least Calgary Church of Christ, Shelbourne St. in Victoria, and Glen Elm in Regina could join with ICC churches to discuss not just what they are doing, as is shared every year at the Summit at ABC in May, but what we might do together to further the influence of God's Kingdom in western Canada, expressed in the RM.

Well, that's all for now.  A little reflection on the status and potential of the RM in western Canada; a hint that we should perhaps work on a collective vision.

Last night I was privileged to sit in on a lecture at Alberta Bible College given by Dr. Irving Hexham, a scholar of world religions who teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary.  Irving is a Christian, but his professional life centers not only on his own faith choice but on all religions.  In the course of his work he regularly writes and lectures on the place of Christianity in our religiously pluralistic world.  The lecture was very good.  New info for me concerned the widespread impact on prominent theologians of Thomas Paine.  I knew of Paine and have read some of Paine, but I certainly didn't know that he had impacted Feuerbach and Wellhausen.  I don't know enough of the latter two to say if Hexham has this right, but if he does, I find it very interesting.

Hexham's main point was that Canada is experiencing the same kind of demise of Christianity that much of Europe has experienced, and he offered reflections on this and a challenge for churches to do something about it.  What I appreciated most was his call for intellectual engagement on the part of evangelicals.  Many times I have heard people talk about how so and so went to university and lost his or her faith, or about how so and so became too smart or too educated for Christianity.  The latter comments I have always found very strange, and the comment about university students losing their faith I find very unfortunate.  In both cases I find that the problem is not that students or others start to be challenged by thoughts that are too deep or that are irrefutably critical of religious faith.  It is actually exactly the opposite.  This is even the case for graduate students who go to seminary or who study religion or, specifically, Christianity in any academically rigorous environment.  The problem is not that they look too deeply into things, but that they so quickly in their searches think that they have fournd irrefutable challenges to religious perspectives.  I am often surprised when I read athiests or hyper-critical scholarship at how unsubstantiated their opinions about faith systems really are, but one may not see this upon a cursory glance or after taking a couple of university level courses in religion.  That despisers of religion find something unproven in Christianity or some other faith does not mean that their perspectives are  proven, or even that they are intellectually profound, but many of those with faith never allow their searches to take them to a place where this can be seen.  Nor do faithful people allow room for the fact that while someone may successfully challenge some feature of Christianity or another faith system, this does not constitute a refutation of the entire faith system.  Instead, faithful people are often like teenagers who hear from their peers something that contradicts the beliefs or values of their parents, and without even knowing how to check out the truth of the opinions of their peers, they accept them because we all tend to have a bit of a rebellious streak.  So, when we hear something that contradicts the faith system in which we were raised, we immaturely accept the validity of the challenges, without really doing the intellectual investigation needed to be discerning.

No doubt part of our problem is the general lack of intellectual discernment and unwillingness to explore ideas in print (people don't read!) that so typifies our society.  And, of course, it is getting worse.  This accounts for so much laziness, sloppiness, and lack of concern on the parts of evangelicals when it comes to thinking seriously about faith.  It is so easy to continue just to believe and trust either 1) the shallow, not very discerning stances that our faith has often taken, leaving us as believers unequipped to deal with challenges; 2) the insufficiently defensible positions that challenge our simplistic, not very discerning faith systems, leaving us unbelievers who unsuccessfully dealt with these challenges, when really there is so much more that should have been considered.  Obvioulsy, neither of these options should be selected by anyone with the ability to do otherwise.

So, I would say Dr. Hexham has it right that the church must promote something different than the simple acceptance of belief claims coupled with ignorance regarding the challenges that will continue to face Canadian Christians.  He may have overstated the problems we have in sending our children to Christian schools.  These don't have to be intellectual ghettos that simply reiterate the same faith claims we have always made while closing our ears to our challengers.  I think it is wise to have our children very well grounded before they face challenges  on the world's terms; it is best to see them first in environments that will challenge them, where they can face new perspectives, but where they can reflect upon such challenges in a context that inculcates faith along with serious intellectual rigor.   But when this has taken place, or when individual Christians have been well prepared at church or at home, there is simply no reason to fear intellectual challenges to our faith, or to be put in environments that will educate in challenging ways, because we must prepare people who can not only remain faithful but who can state their faithfulness in compelling ways before the world - a world into which they must enter in order to be the church in the world.

We Need So Much More Than Gun Control

While I think there are good reasons to think seriously about controlling the availability of some firearms, because they can so easily be obtained for misuse, I wish I could see far more wise attention paid to the factors that are responsible for the monstrous, escalating societal problems that are making inevitable at an increasing rate acts of violence (as a general trend, over the last several decades - even if in the immediate past there has been progress in this), gross selfishness, a lack of civility, economical irresponsibility, the denigration and suppression of basic morality, and bigotry towards all things religious. I grew up in a society that, while it had many problems, in general was, in my opinion, "better" in many key ways than what is now present. In many areas there has been positive progress, but these do not outweigh, to my mind, the ways in which we are worse off, and are worsening.

Some examples.  1)  Society has taken many positive steps toward responding to homosexuality in less prejudicial, more loving ways, but at the same time it has rejected the Christian perception of homosexual acts as sin.  You can have one (more love) without the other (relaxing the Christian perspective on what is sinful), but this is not the route we are following.  We should not and cannot forcefully bind Christian moral principles on society, but society is unwise in departing from this standard where it has been freely and well applied.  Allowing gay/lesbian marriage or the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples is a choice society must be freely allowed to make, but these particular choices are at least as destructive as the prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians.  And of course I have not mentioned the moves made in society to prevent those who find homosexual practice immoral from freely exercising their faith in uninhibited ways.  What I have written here in no way reflects a hatred of homosexuals, but no doubt someone would want to make such a claim, and for this they would find public support.  That is, to my mind, a far more prejudicial perspective than what I actually hold toward homosexuality, but many fail to see this and continue to think in prejudicial ways toward those whose religious beliefs require of them that they think of homosexual acts as sin.

2) Society has created irresponsibility on the parts of many citizens who survive by taking advantage of social programs that are too easily abused, and we insist on blaming everyone and everything for this problem other than our refusal to hold people accountable.  The other side of this, of course, is that it is a good thing on a large scale to offer social programs, to assist those with all kinds of needs, to give people every opportunity and advantage to succeed and to help provide for them when there is deprivation.  I am grateful that there is so much awareness of the needs in our society and so many efforts made to address such needs.  But as a society we are hugely economically irresponsible, with governmental spending being way too high and taxes being too low. I am afraid that if spending cuts do not take place, if austerity measures are not taken by governments, if taxes are not raised, we will all ultimately suffer the consequences, and there will be less money to help the poor.  We will end up with far more poverty if governmental spending is not reduced.  And it is certainly not just the rich who need to have their taxes raised.  Increasing the taxes of only the most wealthy persons in our society will do very little to correct the huge debt problems of the United States.  For many of us, the reason we do not want taxes raised is not because we will not be able to afford our basic needs, but because we will not be able to afford our luxuries.  And this is as prevalent among my middle-class peers as it is among the wealthy.  Raise taxes for all, cut back on the stupid, huge government waste, and meet the needs of those who need society's help.  It will not be painless, but I don't see a way around these inevitable choices.

3) There is something horribly wrong and degraded about a society that allows free access to and promotes the aborting of unborn children.  This cannot be justified, to my mind, on the grounds of women's rights, economic hardships, or the inconveniences of unwanted pregnancies.  How do any of these attempted justifications adequately excuse the killing of children?  This is not just a departure from the Christian perspective to which I personally hold, it is a departure from civility; it is degraded, narcissistic, barbaric destruction of life, chosen for the sake of convenience and so that we may relieve ourselves of responsibilities and hardships.

These are three examples in which society is making what I would consider to be poor choices, and they are signs of deepseated problems.  I don't expect that in any of these areas we will make huge progress any time soon, but talking about these seems to me way more productive than focussing all our attention on the social evil represented by the ownership of firearms.  Personally, I don't get at all the necessity some feel to have access to assault weapons.  Surely they cannot think that their possession of such weapons is the key to preventing governmental tyranny.  So, I would be happy to have them banned if it means less availability of such weapons to those who would abuse them.  But it is a mistake to think that the banning of assault weapons or limiting our access to handguns is a core solution to the societal problems that lead to violence.  This is the treating of a symptom, and not even one of our most detrimental symptoms of societal degradation.  Actually making progress in preventing violent acts will come with the societal change represented by progress in the kinds of choices I have mentioned above.  

I Am Just Being Honest

Honesty may be the best policy, but sometimes the ways in which we express our honesty are hurtful to others and calculated to be more self-serving than anything else.  Being open and expressive of your opinions and feelings may gain for you the reputation of "telling it like it is," but at times the hurt you cause with your honesty is unnecessary and counterproductive.  You may just elicit defensiveness on the part of the one(s) to whom you are speaking.  Sometimes gaining a reputation for honesty is coupled with the perception that you are also a bully, or that you are rude, or that you care more about making your own point or even the virtue of being open and honest than you do about the feelings of those against whom the point is being made.  I understand the value in openly expressing how we feel about the words or actions of another, particularly when what we are attempting to bring about is valuable change.  What I don't care for is the need we all sometimes feel to express our disgust before or while or after we suggest change.  So, instead of your hearer(s) being able to immediately react in positive ways to your blunt suggestions, he or she (they) first has to wade through the distraction of your rudeness or hurtfulness.  It is, of course, possible to make suggested changes to others with such care and gentleness that the force of the suggestion is lost or is insufficient to motivate change; there are times when a solid blow struck immediately above the bridge of the nose, between the eyes, seems like the only thing that will gain the desired effect.  But, I find that these cases are actually fairly rare.  Most people react well to carefully chosen, carefully timed words calculated to bring about their best.  It is when they cannot hear the love in your words, but only your negative evaluation of them, that the muscles in their jaws begin to contract.  So, say what you mean, but say it with grace, with tactfulness, with respect and love, and it is likely that the first reaction on the parts of those to whom you are speaking will be that they will openly listen to what you suggest, rather than failing to hear your wisdom and honesty because your disgust filled attitude and rude speech put them off from the the very start.

They Did Better Than We

I enjoy reading what early fathers of the Stone-Campbell Movement wrote in response to the religious climate of their day. Sometimes I disagree with their conclusions or manner, like when I consider Barton Stone's view of the Trinity (I think he is quite wrong when it comes to who Jesus is in His relationship with the Father), or when I think of the tendency toward post-millenialism that was present in Alexander Campbell and others, or when I think of the harshness and rigidity that the Alexander Campbell of the Christian Baptist showed toward those who disagreed with him, but I also greatly admire much of what they were about. One of the things I love about them was their level of commitment to genuine biblical scholarship. Now, read me correctly, I just wrote, "scholarship," not "academia." Scholarship doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the academy and degrees, it has to do with study and a concern for understanding in a way that includes knowing history, languages, and being able to work well with biblical texts. This can be done apart from the academy, and, in fact, the fact that it can be done apart from the academy is so much my point in appreciating our early Restoration fathers. Alexander Campbell had no degree. He did study at the University of Glasgow, but he took no degree. Barton Stone took no university degree (although he did study at an academy that offered what could be called post-secondary education). And those with whom these early Restorationists interacted typically possessed no advanced academic training. Advanced academic training and degrees were of little concern to them, nor were there abundant opportunities for advanced academic study available to many. But they were, nonetheless, amazingly - by our current standards - far more able to read and interpret well written texts than are the majority of Christians today. Scholarship for them did not equal time in the academy. It simply meant time learning; it meant being studied. What is more, not only did they often possess the scholarly skills (I mean by this only that they had the ability to study well; not that they had academic credentials) needed to interpret texts well, but the climate of the day meant that many held an intense interest in reading texts well, including the biblical text. It was simply part of who they were for them to do well in interpreting texts, and this was true of many people, apart from whatever advanced academic training they may have received. Now, this is not to say that there were not also many of their day who were essentially illiterate, but those who were afforded even just a grammar school level of education were often trained well in interpreting written materials, and they had an interest in being good at it. That was just who many of them were. So, for example, apart from his one year at the University of Glasgow, Alexander Campbell had already learned Greek and Latin from his father. Barton Stone knew Greek and Latin before he went on to post-secondary education. That is just what people did if any education was available to them. School boys learned Latin! These people knew languages and grammar and they knew what to do with texts and had the ability to reason well about them.

Things are not the same today. A certain level of being able to understand and interpret texts cannot be assumed to be the typical North American person's skill set. Nor can it be assumed today that a great interest in being able to understand written materials well is part of anyone's intellectual makeup or personality.

This poses a problem for the church today because, despite our current intellectual climate, the Bible will always be a written record. The Bible is a text constituted by texts. To not be able to interpret well the Bible, as a written text, or to not be concerned with interpreting it well as a written text, is to put ourselves in a highly vulnerable position; one that scares me. For instance, not being able to deal well with the biblical text leaves us unable to respond as well as we should to challenges regarding church doctrine. One person says they believe one thing, another says they believe another thing, but not as many, as should be able to, can discuss biblical doctrine by dealing well with the biblical text. Too often, we don't know the Bible well, don't know how to go about knowing it well, aren't all that interested in knowing it well, and, therefore, don't want to, or don't know how to, productively discuss biblical doctrine with others. (I suspect that the causes for this, in addition to the current intellectual climate being what it is, include a revulsion on the part of some stemming from the type of fighting and disunity that has been caused by Christians disagreeing and dividing about what they think the Bible teaches. And this I get. Unfortunately, we are often woeful at knowing how to disagree without allowing anger and frustration to rule our thoughts in debate, rather than letting logic and the results of sound understanding dominate our discussions. I love discussing biblical topics with those who disagree with me, but I don't know many Christians who can do this without getting angry, who can consistently focus on the issue at hand without bringing into the argument pre-judgments about the motivations of the one(s) with whom they disagree, or who give the thoughts of another a fair hearing. We don't actually listen very well to what our discussion partners are actually saying, and we far too often pre-judge what we think they have said or their motivations. This kills the opportunity for genuine learning to take place on the parts of those involved in such discussions.) For another instance, if we cannot do well with the biblical text, we cannot do well in discerning the kind of spirituality that its pages communicate. How can we love well God or our brothers and sisters if we cannot well discern what Jesus wants us to understand about such things? We must be able to read well what the Bible records of the teachings of Jesus.

So, we are in a bit of a pickle. That we live in the intellectual climate we do does not mean we can relax on our responsibility as Christians to know the text well. At the very least our preachers and teachers and Elders have this responsibility, but we all do! No matter the causes of the conversational dysfunctions that prevent us from disagreeing in productive ways, we are not absolved from doing well doctrinally or from dealing well with biblical texts that communicate Christian spirituality. Dealing well with texts is still so much the basis on which doctine must be decided; and it lies at the heart of productive Christian teaching and discipleship. The culture in which our spiritual forefathers was raised perhaps made this easier for them, but this does not mean that we have an excuse because it is not so easy for us. Christian, learn well to deal with the biblical text! Be as expert as you can! Academic degrees count for nothing, or at least very little, and being associated with the academy is about the same. But biblical scholarship is available to all, especially in our day when almost anything can be studied on line (but, oohh, please be careful with this). Be a Berean! Learn how to rightly divide the word of truth! Study to show yourself approved! And learn how to argue your positions about texts and to disagree with others about the meanings of texts in a climate of mutual respect and true intellectual openness! Learn how to discuss actual opinions about texts, rather than allowing your suspicions of the motives of those who hold opinions with which you disagree about the texts you are studying, to prevent you from keeping the meaning of the texts at the center of your discussions.

An Open Letter to Anyone Interested

Dear Friends,

When I was 23 years old I was getting ready to leave from ACU and head to my first ministry position in California, and I knew I was going to be moving from the rarefied air of the academy into the life of full-time service in the church. As I prepared for this, there was one concern that loomed large for me.

This concern began to build through my experiences of learning the Bible at ACU. When I had left to go to ACU at 19 I knew only what I had been taught in the church in which I was converted, and although I had some questions about what I had been taught in comparison with the what the Bible seemed to be saying to me, I had no informed reason to doubt what I had been taught because I knew so little. In fact, that was the major reason I went off to school--so that I could better learn the Bible. Some people go to school so that they can train to enter the workforce. At that point in my life, I just wanted to better know the Bible. I thought it possible that I may end up in ministry, but my main concern was that I wanted to know the Bible better. I had questions about faith, truth, and Scripture, and I wanted to have my questions answered by the best people the Churches of Christ had who could answer my questions. My years at ACU perfectly answered my needs. At ACU I read mountains of material about the Bible. I learned biblical languages, biblical history, all about interpretive methods--and we read the Bible in an intense, focussed way. We read it in abundance, wrote papers about it, discussed it. I took classes covering most of the Bible. I started building a library so that I would have reference works ready at hand while I was in ministry.

The big concern I had as I prepared to go to California after my years at ACU was that I saw clear differences about what I thought the Bible taught on certain matters and what I had heard in the church in which I was converted in Oregon. It was clear to me that the professors at ACU, after the life-times of study they had done, after all their academic training and writing, and after all their years of serving in the church, knew more about biblical doctrine than anyone else with which I had experience. And what they showed me, and what I studied on my own after studying under them, was at places different than what I learned at the Hill Street Church of Christ. So, I was faced with a problem. On the one hand, I wanted to serve in Churches of Christ, knew only Churches of Christ, loved Churches of Christ, and thought that the Churches of Christ had soooo much right about themselves. Churches of Christ meant everything to me because they were now, especially after the deaths of my parents, the only close family I had (with me having so little relationship with my sisters--this has now changed some). On the other hand, I could see a clear difference between what I thought the Bible taught on certain things and what I was expecting the churches I served to teach. I knew there were going to be occasions when I was going to want to say to my brothers and sisters, “I think we have gotten this point of doctrine wrong and we need to restudy our Bibles on this issue.” And I didn’t know how this would be received. I honestly felt that there were things that my brothers and sisters needed to learn about the Bible and about certain doctrines in order for them to be more in line with God’s will for the church, but I was afraid they would not receive well what I thought they needed to be taught. This was my biggest concern. So I went to my most beloved professor and I told him my big concern. I asked him, “How can I take the things that I have learned about the Bible into the church in a way that will allow them to hear and understand?” I was convinced that my new understandings were more biblical than what I was taught, but I was afraid that the church would not listen well to the message that there were new things to be learned. The advice he gave to me was sound. He said, “Kelly, you have to keep going back to the biblical text. You have to show people that what you are teaching comes from the Bible.”

This is all I have ever wanted to do. I want to learn the Bible the best I can and teach people the Bible. That is why I constantly read about the history of biblical times. That is why I read my Greek NT on a regular basis (right now I am doing my own translation of the gospel of Luke). That is why I have three degrees and am still trying to finish my Ph.D. I just want to know the Bible the best I can and to teach other Christians all the things that I have learned about the Bible. When I think about it, that is what I learned from those good people who first taught me the Bible in the church where I was converted. They had learned the Bible to the best of their abilities, and this is what they taught me, and they taught me that I had to study the Bible for myself and teach the truth I found there. It didn’t matter what I had learned as a Catholic growing up or what anyone else thought. I needed to study and learn the Bible for myself, and what I learned that the Bible taught is what I had to teach others. My professor at ACU was saying the same thing. Read the Bible. Teach the biblical text. Help everyone to learn what you think the Bible says. If you cannot show that what you believe is found in Scripture, you have nothing to teach.

It has been 30 years since I left ACU. In the meantime I have continued to learn and teach the Bible. I try to study it every day. I try to pray every day about my understanding of Scripture. I pray all the time that the things I teach the church will be right and true. I do not always live and speak purely, but I have tried to be as pure hearted about this as I can possibly be. I don’t see how I can do anything else. May God help me to never to do anything different from this.

Despite what anyone else may say or think, my only agenda regarding the matter of instrumental accompaniment of our singing is to teach the Bible and for the church to follow its truth, wherever that may lead. As it turns out, this currently means that my view is different from others who see things differently. I may think the church needs to head in a direction different from where we have been because I am convinced that the Bible is leading us to a new understanding. But I have no other recourse than to teach in the church of Christ what I think the Bible says. Anything else would be a violation of my understanding, my conscience, and God’s will for my life. There may come a time when I cannot convince people that my understanding of Scriptural things is accurate. There may come a time when a church thinks, “What he believes and teaches about the Bible is not true, we need to get someone else to do the preaching and teaching here.” If and when that happens, that will be fine. That will be their right as Bible following people who have to follow what they believe to be the truth about Scriptural doctrine. But if and when that happens, I pray it happens because the people who think I am wrong are as willing to take the time and effort to study the Bible for themselves, and to be the best Bible students as they can be, as what God would want them to be. As Christians we have an obligation to learn the Bible the best that we can. That means taking it far more seriously than most Christians do. I want people who tell me I am wrong about my interpretation of biblical doctrine to do so because they know the Bible better than me; because they have a more studied, learned understanding of Scripture than I do. When I am convinced this is the case, may God help me to follow what I come to see as biblical truth.

Recently, I heard the concern voiced that we at the Calgary Church of Christ not make a decision that forces people who could not sing with instrumental accompaniment--because of their beliefs about what they think the Bible teaches on this subject--to be put in a position where they either had to sing with instruments or not be part of the body. I said that I would not promote the church doing anything that would put people in that position. I don’t believe that we have or that we will put them in this position if we introduce another service that includes instruments. Instead, people in our church who want to praise God with instrumental accompaniment of their singing will not be prevented from doing so by people who think the Bible teaches that to do so is wrong, and people who want to praise God with a capella singing will not be prevented from doing so by people who think the Bible teaches that singing with instruments is allowable. Under the current plan, both groups of people, who view biblical doctrine on this issue so differently, will get to practice their faith and worship as they see fit. They will both get to practice what they think the Bible allows with respect to the issue of singing with instrumental accompaniment. To me this seems like a very good compromise. Both groups of Christians will get to practice what they think the Bible teaches and what our leaders have decided is biblically appropriate. Neither group will be forced to practice something other than what they think the Bible allows in worship. Neither group will be hindering the other from doing what they think is biblically right. It seems to me that in such a context, Christian love and unity can be preserved quite easily; Christian love and respect for others will actually win out in this situation.

For my part, I want to teach people what I think the Bible says on the matter of singing with instrumental accompaniment. I believe I have that responsibility. I think my job description requires that of me. I don’t think the church would want anything different from me, even if they ultimately decide that I am wrong. Of course, the church has the option of disagreeing with me. The Elders, as those responsible for doctrinal teaching in our church, have the obligation to ask me to stop teaching in our church what they think is wrong, and if I cannot do so in good conscience I should leave my position. But if our Elders as a group agree with me, they have the same obligation I do to teach what they think the Bible says. Then, if the church disagrees with the leadership of our Elders and me in this area, the church has the right and the obligation to remove us from leadership. In such a case, the Elders and myself should no longer consider ourselves leaders in the church.

I am not the only one who is advocating that we have an instrumental service. There are many that think that we should do this. I can only assume that that is because they have reached the same conclusion that I have about what is biblically allowable with respect to our singing with instruments. Our Elders (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) have also reached the conclusion that to have an instrumental service is not a violation of biblical teaching. But they have chosen to not put their brothers and sisters who think differently in the position of having to violate their consciences and to practice something they think is unbiblical. This seems to me a loving choice. I am praying that everyone can come to see it this way. You may decide after studying the issue intensely that you actually don’t have a problem with Christians singing with instruments in one of our services, or you may decide that you do. But I hope that you can respect our Elders and leaders for making a choice that they think is biblically sound and lovingly gracious, even in light of the fact that there are those who disagree with them.