The material I may have mentioned is part of a
book that will be published hopefully
sometime a little later this year in the summer
entitled Will the Cycle Be Unbroken? Churches
of Christ Enter the 21st Century. And if you
were here the first day and the second, you
know that by the word cycle I'm talking about
those life cycle patterns that we mentioned
and talked about, those sociological, religious
sociological views that we saw. Yesterday
we talked a little bit more specifically about
the shape of churches of Christ as they seem
to be shaping up in this last decade of the
20th century as we enter the 21st century
very soon. And today I want to talk about
perhaps in a sense in sort of a theoretical
way and yet I think if we keep it in the
context of what's been said the first two days, it
can be applied in a very practical way and not
merely theoretically. Let's start this
morning with a prayer. Our Father in Heaven,
we're thankful for your love for us. We're
thankful for the provision that you've made for
us to live a life here that's close to
you, that's sure and stable and secure in you,
and to live a life forever after this existence
with you. We pray, Father, that as we try to be
your people according to your word that
you'll give us the Spirit and the attitude that
you would have us to have so that we
can truly have the mind of Christ, the attitude
of Christ. We pray specifically, Father, that
we, as a fellowship in churches of Christ, can
avoid division and fragmentation. Help
us and guide us in Christ's name. Amen. A
letter to the editor of one of our papers
expressed alarm at a statement made by a friend
of the correspondent that it looks like division
among churches of Christ is now unavoidable.
The editor of the paper replied this way,
If a people pleading for the union of all
Christians cannot maintain the unity of the
Spirit and the bond of peace in their own
limited communion and peaceably dispose of
all questions, then this plea for union is as
ridiculous a farce as was ever played before
the public. The apostolic churches had much
graver errors in doctrine and practice to
dispose of than any that are troubling us, and
many had a strong propensity to file off
into parties. The lessons of Christian liberty,
of tolerance and forbearance, of patience
and gentleness taught by the apostles need to
be carefully attended to. No one should
allow himself to indulge such fears or to utter
them. As long as we are one in the faith
of Christ and in acknowledging his authority,
we will remain one people, and free and kindly
discussion will bring us out of all our
differences. The year was 1869. The editor was
Isaac Errett
of the Christian Standard. We know painfully
well that the Restoration Movement did not
hold together, and to a part of the churches in
that movement, Errett has become one of
the villains in the division, despite the fact
that he tried to do all he could to mediate
between the contending groups and to avoid the
split that was finally realized in the
1890s. A century later, we in Churches of
Christ in the 1990s again faced the alarming
prospect of division. This time a better word
for what's happening might be splintering
or fragmenting, for there are many groups that
seem to be pulling off in different directions
over matters as diverse as biblical
translations, divorce and remarriage, and
biblical hermeneutics.
Is there any hope of avoiding a major
shattering of Churches of Christ, of our
efforts to
be the Church of the New Testament, to be the
kind of people God would have us be? If
you look at history or at sociology alone,
there doesn't seem to be much reason for
hope. Human beings, it seems, are going to act
in certain ways that consciously or unconsciously
are willful, full of pride, and much to the
delight of the Prince of this world cause
division among those who are trying to do God's
will. However, when we look to the
Scripture we have hope. The message of
Scripture is that we don't have to be pulled into
the ways of the world. The power of God can
change our lives, can make them more and more
like the perfect human life, our example, Jesus
Christ. That's what my lesson is about
this morning. I believe the key to the hope we
have for stopping and avoiding this tragedy
of division is found in a passage that you're
all very familiar with, and we'll read it
in its context, Philippians 2:5. The context of
Philippians 2:5. Paul's letter to Philippi
is one of, if not the most intimate and
personal of all the writings from his pen. He'd established
the church in the region of Macedonia, and the
Philippians had supported him financially
several times on the most recent occasion,
sending one of their members, Epaphroditus,
with some money to him in prison, evidently in
Rome. Epaphroditus had gotten deathly sick,
you remember, while with Paul, but was now
recovered enough to take this letter back
to the Philippian church. Some scholars
describe this letter as the most gentle that
Paul ever
wrote, even to the point that he only dealt
with their problems indirectly. Maybe that's
so, but if you read the book carefully, it is
obvious that the Philippian church, like
us, had a problem with Factiousness and
division. In three of the book's four chapters,
he gently
urges them, as a congregation, and in one case
by name, in chapter four, verse two,
to be united in harmony with one another, and
especially to be humble of mind with one
another. It's in the section where Paul gives
the ultimate example of humility to the Philippians
that the passage we're focusing on is found.
The older translations, like the King James
Version, the Revised Standard Version, say,
have this mind within you. The more recent
translations, like the NIV and the New American
Standard, say, have this attitude in yourselves,
which was also in Christ Jesus. Your attitude
should be the same as that of Christ Jesus.
I'd like for us to read some in the context of
this verse, Philippians 2:5, and I'd like
to start actually in Philippians 1, beginning
with the 27th verse. We don't need
a projector in this room. Has someone got us
turned off? Thank you. Someone was leaning
against the wall to get relief, and there are
some more chairs down front if you don't
mind taking the chief seats. Let's read
Philippians 1:27 on through chapter two, verse eight.
This is from the NIV. Whatever happens, conduct
yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel
of Christ. Then, whenever I come to you and see
you, or only hear about you in my absence,
I will know that you stand firm in one spirit,
contending as one person for the faith of
the gospel. Without being frightened in any way
by those who oppose you, this is a sign
to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved, and that by God. For it
has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not
only to believe on Him, but also to suffer
for Him, since you're going through the same
struggle you saw I had and now bear, and that
I still have. If you have any encouragement
from being united with Christ, if any comfort
from His love, if any fellowship with the
Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion,
then make my joy complete by being like-minded,
having the same love, being one in spirit
and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition
or vain conceit, but in humility, consider
others better than yourself. Each of you should
look not only to your own interests, but also
to the interests of others. Your attitude
should be the same as that of Christ Jesus,
who being in very nature, God, did not consider
equality with God something to be grasped
or held onto, but making Himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant, being
made in human likeness, and being found in
appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and
became obedient to the point of death, even
death on a cross. Have the mind of Christ.
Have the attitude of Christ. What attitude did
Christ have? What does that mean, precisely?
In verse 27 of chapter 1, Paul tells the
Philippians to act like citizens of Heaven
ought to act,
namely to live in harmony and unity with their
fellow saints. In chapter 2, verses 1-4, he
gives four reasons to live in unity and
explains in more detail precisely what it means to
live in unity. He talks about having the same
love, tenderness and compassion in verse 1.
Don't do anything out of selfish ambition. And
then he gives the ultimate example, which
provides the underlying attitude necessary for
living in unity.
The mind of Christ is essentially and
fundamentally characterized by humility and self-denial.
And we, unless we deny that this passage has
extended force for us today, are told to have
that mind. H. Leo Bowles in an article entitled
The Mind of Christ in 1936, I like this article,
stated quote, The mind of Christ is the
humility of Christ. The real test of
discipleship with
Christ is revealed in the humility or lack of
humility in our lives. The more intimate
we become with Christ, the more meekness and
lowliness of heart will be manifested in our lives.
There are certainly other passages that
illustrate the mind or attitude of Christ. You could
quote a number, I'm sure, passages like 1 Peter
2:21-23. Christ suffered for you, leaving
you an example that you should follow in his
steps. He committed no sin and no deceit was
found in his mouth. When they hurled insults at
him, he did not retaliate. When he suffered,
he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted
himself to him who judges justly.
And then 1 John 3:16, this is how we know what
love is. Jesus Christ laid down
his life for us, and we ought to lay down our
lives for our brothers.
And all these passages relate back to that
foundational attitude of humility. In a recent
issue of a paper published in Chattanooga,
Tennessee called The Examiner, in reaction
to a correspondence assertion that Jesus, in
contrast to the editor, had a positive attitude,
the editor replied, quote, This brother would
turn our Lord into a first-class wimp who
went about spouting little sweet talk to please
everybody. This statement reflects a notion
about Jesus that appears to contradict his
emphasis on humility.
Was Jesus ever harsh or angry? A defense
sometimes used by those whose work is characterized
by attacks on brothers and sisters is that
while generally characterized by humility,
Jesus became angry and harsh at times. As far
as I can tell, there are five instances
in the New Testament that refer to Jesus
becoming angry or using seemingly harsh words
for someone.
In every case, his ire is directed either
toward Jewish religious officials or his own
disciples, people who should have been able to
discern the foundational importance of
humility, love, mercy, and compassion, but who
had gotten things mixed up. They didn't
understand what the real bottom line of
religion was all about. Let's look at these
five passages
quickly. Matthew 21:12 and 13 in the parallel
passages in Mark 11 and Luke 19 are
perhaps the most noted examples of Jesus acting
in a harsh manner. You know the story. Jesus
entered the Temple area after his triumphal
entry into Jerusalem and began driving out
the people who were buying and selling there.
He also turned over the tables being used
by the money changers and the dove sellers,
refusing to allow anyone to pass through the
temple courts with any kind of merchandise.
This instance is perhaps used most often to
justify using harsh words and actions against
brothers or sisters who believe or practice
something deemed by the user to be unscriptural.
But there are some cautions we need to be
aware of before we use the passage in that way.
First, Jesus had the authority to take
this drastic action. This was his father's
house in a unique way. I'm not convinced
that you or I today have the authority or right
to take matters into our hands in this
manner, particularly in light of the
preponderance of passages we're going to look
at in just
a few minutes that would point away from such
action. Second, caution about using this passage
to justify harsh actions on our part or harsh
words. Jesus' actions were directed against
a religious custom that had become accepted and
taken for granted by the religious establishment
of his day. References in Jewish writings from
the period tell how the system worked
concerning having to change Greek and Roman
coins to temple coinage in order to pay the
temple tax and purchase proper animals for
sacrifice. These were long accepted traditions,
expedient ways of carrying out the commands of
God that were sanctioned and approved by
the leaders, the elders. Taking the passage in
its context, if it could be used to justify
attacking anyone, it would be against
established religious traditions, good, bad, or neutral,
that have the time approved, time accepted
approval of our religious leaders. Looking
quickly at the other passages which indicate
anger or harshness on the part of Jesus, in
Mark 3:1-6, Jesus' enemies were waiting to see
if he would heal a man with a shriveled
hand on the Sabbath. When Jesus asked them
whether it was lawful to do good or evil on
the Sabbath, they all kept their mouths shut.
Verse 5 says that he looked around at them
in anger and deeply distressed at their
stubborn hearts. They didn't care about that
man with
the shriveled hand. They had no compassion at
all, and Jesus healed the man boldly in
their presence. Number 3, in Mark 10:13-16,
Jesus became indignant at his disciples because
they rebuked the people who were bringing their
little children to him. They were more
concerned with appearance and procedure, than
with the simplicity and
love exemplified by these little ones. 4, in
Luke 9:51-56, when the people of a Samaritan
village had refused to help the Lord's
disciples, James and John asked if Jesus wanted them
to call down the fire from Heaven and destroy
the village. Jesus, it said, rebuked James
and John, and they went on to another village.
They, again, were void of compassion and humility
in their reaction. That's what made Jesus mad.
That's what Jesus reacted to. And finally
in at least two places, Matthew 15 and 23,
Jesus has seeming harsh words for his days
religious teachers and leaders, the teachers of
the law and the Pharisees. His chief condemnations
are directed against their legalism and
hypocrisy. Quoting Isaiah, he describes them,
These people
honor me with their lips, but their hearts are
far from me. They worship me in vain.
Their teachings are but rules taught by men. It
seems, however, that even these apparently
harsh words were spoken in tones of humility by
Jesus. His disciples came and told him
later on, after his speaking, that these words
had offended the Pharisees, as if he didn't
know it. I see no justification for attacking
brothers and sisters in these passages. The
attitude of Christ, which we are to have, is
characterized by humility and compassion,
and that is not in any way negated by the
passages just examined. Another article from
an early edition of the Gospel Advocate, 1911,
M. C. Curfews wrote an article entitled The
Mind and Spirit of Christ, and I think it's a
good one too. This is the way M. C. Curfews
said it. He never permitted himself to be
thrown into a frenzy of excitement or to manifest
impatience. He was always calm and kind, even
under the most provoking circumstances. He
never spoke harshly to his bitterest enemy, nor
had an unkind word for his vilest persecutor.
When evil came in the form of insults and
injuries, he always maintained his characteristic
calmness and coolness, sometimes making no
reply at all. And when he did reply, it was
in tones of kindness, gentleness, and
tenderness toward those who tried to injure him.
The attitude is all-important in Christianity.
It's nothing new to you to say that the Bible
says over and over that the attitude, the
inward person, is the most important, the all-important
element in true religion. The outward
expressions that are prescribed by God are
obviously important,
but without the proper attitude, all the right
actions and words and precise beliefs rigorously
followed and taught are an abomination to God.
Passages could be multiplied. You're
familiar with many. First Son from the Old
Testament, 1 Samuel 16:7, God said to Samuel
as he looked for a new king to replace Saul,
the Lord does not look at the things man looks
at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but
the Lord looks at the heart. Psalm 51, verses
16 and 17, David after his encounter with the
prophet Nathan over the sin with Bathsheba,
says the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will
not despise. Micah 6:8, sometimes I've heard
it, the favorite passage in the Old Testament,
in God's rebuke of Israel, he has showed you, O
man, what is good, and what does the
Lord require of you? What does he require? To
act justly, to love mercy, and to walk
humbly with your God. These from the New
Testament, Matthew 18:3 and 4, in response to
his disciples
question concerning the greatest in the kingdom
of Heaven, Jesus said, whoever humbles himself
like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of
Heaven. Romans 13:10, in summation of
moral precepts similar to that of Jesus in
Matthew 5, Paul says love does no
harm to its neighbor, therefore love is the
fulfillment of the law. In Romans 14, all
the way the whole chapter, and on into the
first part of chapter 15, it's filled with
direction on the kind of attitude we should
have toward brothers and sisters in Christ.
In chapter 14, verse 4, who are you to judge
someone else's servant? In chapter 14, verses
12 and 13, each of us will give an account of
himself to God, therefore let us stop passing
judgment on one another, instead make up your
mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle
in your brother's way. And especially chapter
19 of Romans 14:19 I should say of
Romans 14, let us therefore make every effort,
every effort to do what leads to peace and
to mutual edification. 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2,
24, Paul urges Timothy to warn his hearers
against quarreling about words, it is of no
value and only ruins those who listen. For
the Lord's servant must not quarrel, instead he
must be kind to everyone, able to teach,
not resentful. Ephesians 4:2, in that familiar
unity chapter, Paul urges the Ephesians and
us be completely humble and gentle, be patient,
bearing with one another in love, make every
effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through
the bond of peace. James 3:17 and 18, these
verses tell us the essential characteristics of
the wisdom that comes from Heaven. The
wisdom that comes from Heaven is first of all
pure, then peace loving, considerate,
submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow
in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. Titus
3:2, Paul reminds Titus what is good
including to slander no one, to be peaceable
and considerate and to show true humility
to all men. And Matthew 9:13 is a crucial
passage it seems to me. After being severely
criticized by some Pharisees for eating with a
group of tax collectors and sinners, Jesus
told them, go and figure out what this means.
Then he quotes from Hosea 6:6, I desire
mercy not sacrifice. This passage in Hosea was
a scathing denunciation of Israel's sacrifices
that were correct in form. They were going to
church. They were doing and saying the
things that had been prescribed. But as you
read the book of Hosea again and all of the
minor prophets practically, these things were
an abomination to God because of what was
on the inside of these people. They were
offered, these forms were offered from a
corrupt and
merciless attitude of heart. Obviously there is
a difference made between a person's moral
attitude and his or her correct practice of
religion. They're connected but there's a
difference. According to this passage and all
the other passages and others, which is
most important, the right attitude or the right
practice? Well, there's no question.
I desire mercy not sacrifice. Does that mean
that correct belief and practice are irrelevant?
No, it does not. Certainly it does not. But the
scriptures are quite plain about what
is the essential foundation for correct beliefs
and practices. Humility, mercy, gentleness,
love of peace, forbearance. Without these
things, without the mind of Christ, the attitude
of Christ, correct belief and practice are
totally empty. Restoration leaders and the
mind of Christ. The religious reform, now I'm
getting into my own element actually. This
is part of the area that I love best in talking
about church history and the restoration movement.
You know probably that the religious reform
movement that was led by Thomas and Alexander
Campbell and Barton W. Stone and a host of
others had as a large part of its basis an
attempt to place the proper emphasis on one's
attitude about religion. Barton Stone in the
last will and testament of the Springfield
Presbytery included a paragraph that willed
quote, preachers and people to cultivate a
spirit of mutual forbearance. Pray more and
dispute less. Stone in a classic article
published in his Christian messenger journal in 1835,
I quoted it yesterday and I'll quote it if I
could a hundred times in every speech I
give. The scriptures will never keep together
in union and fellowship members not in the
spirit of the scriptures which spirit is love,
peace, unity, forbearance and cheerful obedience.
In his famous declaration and address Thomas
Campbell expressed similar sentiments and
frustration with the division in the religious
world of his day. This is part of what he
said, the first and foundational truth of our
Christianity is union with Christ and
the very next to it in order union with each
other in him. This is what Brother Woodruff
was talking about the other night and the
brother who spoke Sunday night as well. For
this is his commandment that we believe in his
son Jesus Christ and love one another.
But how to love and receive our brother as we
believe in hope Christ has received both
him and us and yet to hold communion with him
is we confess a mystery too deep for us.
If this be the way that Christ has received us
then woe is unto us. We do not here intend
a professed brother transgressing the express
letter of the law. It is an evil not only
judging our brother to be absolutely wrong
because he differs from our opinions but more
especially our judging him to be a transgressor
of the law in so doing and of course treating
him as such by censuring or otherwise exposing
him to contempt or at least preferring ourselves
before him in our own judgment saying as it
were stand by I am holier than thou. These
from our documents in the early part of our
movement. What is the attitude that we see
in churches of Christ today? I don't think
anyone would or could disagree with the statement
that if everyone who is a member of the Lord's
church today had the mind or attitude of Christ
we would not be in the danger of fragmentation
that we are now. Consider such statements
as the following taken from some recent
publications. Two brethren are mentioned and it
calls their
name and says they stalemated themselves by
preaching unnoxious modernistic gospel. It
should be apparent that this is only one phase
of a blitzkrieg campaign to erase biblical
authority. Predictably the two denied such
lethal linkage. In another article a brother
is described as brainwashed. Nothing about his
once wonderful reasoning processes seems
to work anymore. This once reliable erstwhile
dependable stalwart for the truth has left
no stone unturned to undermine the doctrinal
principles that he formally affirmed. Later
the same brother is described as a muley cow
because he no longer had horns to hook with.
That is he would not debate with the man who
was writing the article. Such attacks are
not confined to one side in the current
frictions. Conservatives, liberals, pietists, intellectuals
using my terms, which are not very sometimes
perfect at all, but using those terms doesn't
matter where you are. Almost any other group
that might be identified in the controversies
have used inflammatory and even slanderous
language at times in dealing with those with
whom they disagree. At least to me this
approach, this type of language does not appear
to demonstrate
the attitude of Christ. It does not seem to be
kind and considerate and merciful and peacemaking
and humble. And the fact that someone uses
Un-Christ-like attacks on a brother or sister
does not justify retaliation. Because someone
else does not demonstrate the attitude of
Christ does not make it all right for you or me
or anyone else to reply in like manner.
Regardless of how sinful or bad someone might
be, it does not give license for evil actions
and words to combat them. Not everyone will
have the mind of Christ and even those of
us who are trying to cultivate that attitude
don't have it in full measure instantly.
But those of us who are Christians must always
be consciously striving to grow in that mind.
Does having the attitude of Christ mean that we
should not reprove or rebuke those who
are believing and acting in a way contrary to
Christ and His teaching? Don't think so.
The Christians in Ephesus and Ephesians 5:11
were told to reprove the unfruitful works
of darkness. In 1 Timothy 5:20, the evangelist
was told to rebuke an elder who sins publicly.
In the familiar 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul exhorts
Timothy to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with
all longsuffering and doctrine, a doctrine as
the NIV puts it, with great patience and
careful instruction. None of these passages,
however, or any other contradicts the overwhelming
thrust of scriptural commands, exhortations,
and examples that Christians in all their
dealings are to be characterized by the mind or
attitude of Christ. Whatever reproving
or rebuking means, it does not negate that.
We're in the midst of a period of great stress
in churches of Christ, stress that's been
building for at least 25 years. This decade
will be a crucial one in our history. The one
thing that will avert a major fragmentation
is for each of us to cultivate the attitude of
Christ in our dealing with brothers and
sisters. The seeming dilemma between attitude
and conviction is a false one. Having strong
convictions does not have to result in a harsh,
abrasive, hurtful attitude. In fact, it must
not. In Romans 8:9, Paul informs the Roman
Christians that they are not to be controlled
by the sinful nature, but by the Spirit. And if
anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,
he says he does not belong to Christ. How are
we going to get the mind of Christ, individually
and in our churches? As I close, I'd like to
say a few things that you may want to react
to briefly. I have a class right after this one
that I'll have to go fairly quickly to,
but I want to stop a little early for some
reaction. I see two things necessary for what
I might call spiritual renewal in churches of
Christ. They are clearly inseparable, but
they are different. Number one is individual
renewal. That is, renewal on the part of individuals
who are members of churches of Christ, whose
lives are altered and their individual outlook
and behavior are transformed to have the mind
of Christ. Movements when large numbers of
individuals are converted from an old worldview
to a new one. Such awakenings began, according
to sociologist William McLaughlin in his book
Revival's Awakening and Reform, in periods
of cultural distortion and grave personal
stress. We lose faith in the legitimacy of
our norms, the viability of our institutions,
and the authority of our leaders. In other
words, spiritual renewal takes place when large
numbers are jolted into changing the
way they see the world operate. A real problem
with this generally, and I'm speaking now
personally, okay? I'm speaking because this is
about me, and I'm generalizing from my
own situation, my own mentality, my own way of
thinking, and I'm generalizing from that,
and it might not be fair to do it, but that's
what I'm doing. If I'm not being fair, then
you tell me when we're through. A real problem
with this idea, generally, is that many Christians
of Restoration Movement heritage seem to have
little conception of what conversion is. The
Bible seems to teach that conversion has to do
with absolute submission, Romans 12, the
arrogant human nature, and acknowledgement of
the all-powerful nature of God. The tendency,
again, it seems to me, is to become more
arrogant, particularly those of us who have
good educations
and nice jobs and comfortable existences. We
buy into the so-called gospel of wealth,
which says we're being rewarded physically
because we're good people, and those who
are poor or sick or homeless are there because
of moral deficiencies. They could have better
if they wanted it. We submit to a number of
regulations and obligations. We go when we're
supposed to go. We do what we're supposed to
do, but we remain in charge of our lives.
God is the one who, after we've done almost
everything that would be required and still
fall a little short, steps in and makes up the
difference. Conversion for adult Christians
who've been in the church for some time and who
think like this, it seems to me, is going
to be a jolting, radical thing, an encounter
with God which fundamentally alters our secular
worldview. And you see, our roots have
conditioned us as a people generally to reject
this type
of encounter, and it will be difficult in
coming. I'm not the first person to say any
of these things. I know that. Just in looking
in the last 20 or 30 years, I have found numbers
of people. In the Lipscomb Lectures in 1960, a
man by the name of J. Harold Thomas had
a lecture, and part of it was just amazing. He
said, we're worldly people. He's talking
to people in the church. We're lovers of riches
and luxuries. We're getting rich, the chief
aim of our lives. We're a people of the double
everything. Two TVs, two cars, two homes.
1960s, saying this. We're two-faced, two-timers
of God, and our sectarianism is the fruit
of our sin. The lectureship here at Abilene
Christian in 1,978, centered on the whole lectureship
on the topic of spirituality, has some
excellent lectures. In 1980, Klein Payden delivered
a lesson he titled, From Caves to Cathedrals.
He takes that life cycle thing I put on the
board Monday, sort of, and talks about it. He's
basing his title on a phrase from a Vance
Habner book, in which Habner contended that all
religious movements begin in a cave and
die in a cathedral. And in that sermon, Payden
reluctantly admitted that it may be best that
the Church of Christ, as the identifiable
religious group we know today, go out of existence,
so that Christ's church might spring up
somewhere else and carry out the great
commission of
taking the Gospel to the world, a task we've
been charged with, but are simply neglecting.
In a special Herald of Truth workshop, held in
August of 1976, a private workshop, but
some of you may have heard and read the paper
later, Bachelbert Baxter stated in his message,
The Crisis,
We must recognize that people and institutions
grow old, get tired, become lazy, and die.
We see this happening in our own life cycles
and the life cycles of those all around us.
Tragically, the same tendency is also seen in
movements. There's a period of vigor in
the early years, followed by decline and
ultimate disappearance. It is all too easy for congregations,
institutions, and movements and preachers to
forget the cause to which they were originally
committed and to become casual and placid. This
must not happen to the Restoration Movement.
That's Brother Baxter in 1976.
Will this happen to the Restoration Movement?
Will this happen to Churches of Christ? Will
the cycle be unbroken? I'm not sure that more
sermons on dedication or berating Christians
for not doing more mission work is the solution.
Conversions are going to have to take place.
And only the Spirit can give spiritual life
where there is spiritual death or grave sickness,
2 Corinthians 3:6. I'm not talking about
Pentecostalism or charismatic tendencies of
religion, total
subjective experiences. I'm not talking about
that. I believe there's ground between some
sort of sectarian secularization and
fragmentation and that totally subjective
mentality. But
I am firmly convinced that the solution, the
conversion of people's mind or attitude to
have the mind of Christ is not simply or
primarily an intellectual enterprise which we
can simply
buck up and achieve. Such things are
accomplished only by much prayer. I hope that
each of us
will strive to have the mind or the spirit or
the attitude of Christ and come to be known
by our humility and mercy and compassion and
love of peace and of each other. And then
the world will know that Christianity is from
God and know what it's all about. Thank you.
We might have about five minutes for reactions
or comments. Yes?
Some of us who have some tendency toward an
authoritarian personality style, in a world
like ours with rapid change we tend to react
with future shock. That future shock I think
complicates our quest for humility and unity in
a movement. Can you offer some suggestions
to either those of us who are suffering future
shock or those of us who are trying to work
with members of our congregation who are
experiencing some sort of future shock?
I'm probably not the most competent person to
deal with that because you're getting into
some areas that I would think would be more in
the area of psychological counseling and
some good solidly trained Christian counselor
like we have a whole department of over here
would be probably a whole lot better than I
would be. As a historian I can say some
things, especially as you look at examples in
the past of groups of people who have gone
through the same type of thing. Generally
speaking, in American church history I can
think of several instances where religious
groups, religious movements have experienced
tremendous periods of stress, decline, crisis,
and in their own way suffered a future shock
so to speak and maybe that process of religious
life cycles. The first one that I think of
is the Puritan group, the Congregationalists in
New England. They came over full of zeal.
They were absolutely convinced that they were
the ones who would restore the church and
they used that term. This land, America, had
been prepared for them in their own mind especially
by God for that very purpose. They couldn't do
it back over in England because of all
the laws and all of the structures and so forth.
They couldn't go all the way and purify
the church, restore the church. But this land
was provided by God to do that and they got
over here in the first generation zealous for
their beliefs. They had all had what they
believed to be a conversion experience which
put them in a right relationship with God.
They're Calvinists of course in their beliefs
and they have to have some sort of indication
specifically that they've been converted in
that way of thinking. But after the first
generation there weren't quite nearly as many
conversions in the second generation and then
the third they got into real problems. Over in
England you weren't going to be a Puritan
unless you had had a conversion. And some
people when they got their ears cut off and
their tongues seared with hot irons and their
heads put in pillories and so forth and thrown
into jail, other people saw that and they had a
conversion experience. If you hadn't
had one, you got one. But when they got over
here to America and there was nothing pushing
them, there was nothing happening. I mean it
was the status quo to go to church. Everybody
went to church. You were expected to go to
church and this was the thing that you did.
These experiences that they believed were
conversions slacked off pretty quickly and
the ministers actually in the late 1600s became
so worried and alarmed that they got together
and they came up with this solution, at least
partial solution, to get more people into
the church. Technically these people baptized
infants because they thought that they ought
to be in the community. But only infants of
members and full members had to have the conversion
experience and after you got two or three
generations and there weren't but a handful
of folks around, what are you going to do? So
they decided they would go ahead and baptize
infants that weren't children of actual members.
They call it the halfway covenant. They're
just struggling trying to say, how are we going
to get this thing out of the decline
and the doldrums? Again, I'm speaking as a
historian and I do not endorse everything
necessarily that happens. But if you know
anything about American history, what begins
to happen in the next generation is a massive
great awakening, it's called, and primarily
led by people who began praying for it. It
happened over a long period of time, depending
on which historian you read, roughly around
1720 and lasted on into the 1740s. Second
example is the Methodists. The Methodists began
as a movement, pulling away from the old Church
of England, which was dead and cold and formal
generally. It was a renewal movement in the
Church of England, so they started out as sort
of a renewal movement to try and get
people back to a right relationship with God.
And John Wesley himself, again, I'm not saying
this because I endorse everything he believed
or taught, but John Wesley consciously tried
to go back to the Bible. He consciously, as he
understood it, tried to go back to the
Bible. But after a few generations, the
Methodist Church began to get just like the
Church of
England, built nice big buildings, had padded
pews and carpets. In the late 19th century,
there were some folks in the Methodist Church
who began to become very alarmed at this,
and they said, we've got to go back to our
roots, to the holy life that was called for
by John Wesley and the early people in our
movement. And it became so strident eventually
of course that the Holiness movement, who was
trying to renew and revive the Methodist
Church, completely separated. That's one
alarming thing, that every time you see a big renewal
movement, you see some people reject it. And
instead of avoiding division, there actually
is a major division. That happened with the
Puritans. It happened with the Methodists.
In the 1960s, there was a revival or renewal in
mainstream religion. Part of it was what's
generally called the charismatic renewal or
revival. But that wasn't all of it. There
were others who were calling for a
reexamination of what Christianity really is.
What is it?
Structures? Hierarchies? You know, the mainline
religious denominations have all these structures
and bureaucracies, and they were spending
millions and millions of dollars on salaried
officials that had nice big offices. And they
began to say, you know, what is Christianity
all about? And some people began to try and
reexamine all of that. It's maybe not even
over yet. Some historians, it's so recent that
they haven't quite figured out at all
that was happening in the 1960s and after. But
we were, in the 1960s, Churches of Christ
had some folks who were part of that in a sense
because there was some very great unrest
again trying to say, what is Christianity all
about? And what are we all about? That's
not helping particularly in your situation
other than to say you're not alone. It's
not the first time it's happened. And there
might be some books that could be recommended
again, especially by some of our folks in the
counseling division over here that I can
put you in contact with that might be more
helpful than what I could say as a historian.
Well, I've got to get to my class and teach
about the religious wars of Europe. So thank
you for being here.