Sometimes I think those of us who say we want to restore the “ancient order” of the New Testament church don’t really want to bring the church back to its most primitive state. It is much more comfortable for us to bring the church back to the almost-ancient order of things–perhaps the end of the 1st century–rather than the day of Pentecost.
Yes, we give lip service to wanting to rewind the clock on church history a bit. Hence the catch-phrase “Restoration Movement” (although I prefer the name Stone-Campbell Movement, for reasons I’ll write about later). But few would be comfortable going all the way back to the beginning.
What do I mean by that? Well, consider that by the end of the first century, some pretty horrible practices had already been slipped into the church. To rewind history back to about 96 A.D. still gets us back to a point where the churches of Asia, described by Jesus in his Revelation to the apostle John, taught deviant doctrines and had outright anti-Christian practices taking place within their congregations. I don’t think that’s the “pristine state” we want to restore the church to.
If we rewind history back to 55 A.D., we still end up with a divided church. The apostle Paul had to write to the Corinthian church about that time to discourage them from getting drunk at the Lord’s supper (so much for the idea that Christians can’t drink wine), and forming factions around Paul, Apollos, and other popular preachers. In an odd sort of way, those looking for a “pattern” for the sectarian church we find today can find it in Paul’s first letter to this congregation. I guess it should make us feel slightly better to know that they had a problem with unity and sectarianism, too.
But what would happen if all Christendom rewound the clock back to that pristine day of Pentecost, when the first gospel sermon was preached, making converts to The Way? These people realized they had just crucified the very person who had come to free them. That’s what made their change of heart so powerful and world-changing.
You see, social movements start in their ideal state and decline through subsequent generations of leaders. Martin Luther’s reformation fits this model. So does Alexander Campbell’s; and Christianity itself no different. The subject matter chosen for the inspired epistles, written for the purpose of correcting already-errant practices in the ekklesia of that era, emphasizes this point.
Truth Bomb: The pattern for our ideal church is found somewhere in the days immediately following Peter’s first gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost, and NOT later in the first century after the epistles were written. Believers in that primitive state were undivided by opinions, brought together in koinonia solely for the love of their redeemer, each other, and their newfound Way of Life.
Of course, God used the apostles to reveal divine solutions to the problems those early Christians encountered, but it was all with the goal of restoring that primitive state of harmony in the church exhibited during those first days, months, and years.
Not one fact was added to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ after its first presentation by Peter. Did you know that Christians were saved and thrived as a community for about two decades before the first epistle was penned? Stanton doesn’t tell you that, do they?
This means that everything revealed in the apostolic letters, while God-breathed and important, should be seen as attempts to elucidate principles and eradicate human error, rather than attempts to create an appendix to the gospel or a new codebook of legislation. Jesus didn’t nail one codebook to the cross, just to institute another one.
I would say the epistles are not so much “additive,” but “restorative.” Leave it to fallible men to take uniting, uplifting doctrines and turn them into tools of division and factionalism. Men are really good at dividing, but not so good at uniting.
The factious spirit is the ultimate “innovation” in the church that we must purge out. We are called to to return, not to the almost-ancient order of things, but to the truly ancient, primitive order of the church. This is what Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and so many others reformers in the 19th century were trying to articulate. This “ancient order” is the state where Christians knew each other as brothers, not as hyphenated Christians or half-brothers alienated from each other to forever work apart in the great cause of Christ.
We do not have to agree with our brother on a list of creedal matters in order to work with him side by side. If he is our brother, he is worthy of our mutual love and edification. The correctness of our opinions does not justify forcing them them upon lesser (or greater) intellects. This was, at one time, the powerful restoration plea of the early 19th century. As Alexander Campbell once said, “It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect.”
Those of us who are the heirs of that legacy here in the 21st century might find that level of tolerance a bit startling due to the current factional climate, particularly if you’re fresh out of the Stanton sect or some other militant faction. It might be a little like hearing “cowbells in church” as Alexander Campbell might say.
But I thank God that the pendulum is swinging away from the divisive zeitgeist that infected the 20th century Restoration Movement. I sincerely hope that a new restoration movement–returning, not almost, but fully to the primitive concept of the brotherhood of all believers preached on Pentecost–will take hold in my generation.
We need to truly understand, with no caveats, that the Lord himself adds to His church–not to a particular sect–those who would be saved. He alone strips the sectarianism and self-seeking from the hearts of people with diverse backgrounds and intellects, and allows them work together as one. What God has made clean, let no man call common, unclean, or unworthy of our fellowship. If God has called him, who am I to reject him? That is the truly “ancient order” of things. That is first century unity.
I agree at not having small differences divide, Kevin, however, on the issue of alcohol, the other aspect, that is rarely discussed, is that if something is a stumblingblock for another, it is best to avoid it. For those who abstain from alcohol, no man will become an alcoholic because of them. But, if someone reads your post, buys a wine bottle, gets tipsy, and then becomes a drunk, would you not also share some culpability? I cannot see how you wouldn't. Not everyone can have self control in that area, and we are paying a fearful price for it. This is nothing new, it's quite common in human history, and there are plenty of examples of how much harm it does to families and individuals. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. This determined defense of pleasures and 'liberties' is self defeating.
Stanton squawks about tiny issues that have no salvational significance, but the church at large seems to feel unity is based on getting along, and that absolute truth isn't really important. Well, it is. This was a conversation that was had long before Christ, when the Sophists of Athens declared that every man was the measure of everything. This attitude has infected the church. Man isn't the measure of everything. Proving all things, WITHIN REASON, is important, and it's been neglected for far too long. Also, Corinth was notorious for being one of the most debauched churches in the body at that time. So using them to represent all of Christianity is a bit of a reach. It was a seaport, and the equivalent of San Francisco back then.
We agree on quite a bit, and especially the part of setting aside sects for the sake of unity with the foundation of Biblical truths. These truths are not meaningless necessary inferences that show patterns having no significance today, but rather moral truths that have been around for thousands of years, and will be around long after we die.
To know and love a truth one must study it, and the study of the Bible has fallen to all time lows. The effect on society is catastrophic. No longer is right and wrong clearly defined, agreed upon, and practiced. Now, arbitrary opinions of the rich and powerful are viewed as gospel by society at large. It's a very dangerous world when Jeff Bezos is the moral compass for tens of millions. Technology complicates the problems of human nature, because it is hard to see where the age old human vices are present in technology. And, if we aren't careful, we will be destroyed by these vices in technology.
It ever happens that societies work hard, along with churches, prosper, then decay in their prosperity. It was a theme that happened with the Jews in the wilderness. They no sooner had the Promised Land, when they promptly turned around and forgot God. It is happening in America, and with the Christian church. No longer is she the beacon of hope and healing she once was.
I don't want to go round and round on wine again. You've accepted the premise that we must adamantly teach and enforce the "best" choices that we ourselves *think* people ought to live by. I view that as tyranny, and antithetical to scriptural unity. We keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep getting what we're getting.
Telling people how they should behave in matters that are clearly conscience is no different than Stanton. Sure, you might pick different things now than you would have a year or two ago to enforce. But that's all. It's the same sin of oppression and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." It's the same virus of factionalism that simply works its way into the genetic code and subverts our unity as a body of believers.
Until we all really wrestle with, and defeat this antiscriptural notion that it's OK to teach the doctrines and commandments of men, we will keep getting the same virulent divisions we see today. As Ketcherside so brilliantly laid bare, we must slay this dragon, or it will keep rearing its head to bit and devour us.
Yes, but your approach is sophism. The idea that there is no absolute truth, and feelings are equal to objective facts. Man was not designed to lead with feelings. https://larouchepub.com/other/2003/sci-techs/3035sophism.html
This was an issue that predates Stanton, and even Christ. It's why we have the First Amendment, because those who rely on feelings are constantly trying to silence those who use objective truth as a reference. We've seen that often on here, and it has never been discouraged by you.
Romans 6 says either we are a slave of sin, or of God. You seem to think that is some sort of 'tyranny'. Well, God disagrees with you, and you can have that conversation with Him.
Disputing minor issues like breaking the bread is Pharisaism, understanding the grievous harms alcohol poses IS NOT PHARISAISM AND LEGALISM, IT'S COMMON SENSE.
There is a common straw man logical fallacy on this blog that if you stand up for a moral truth, no matter how significant, that's legalism, and you are just like Stanton. Not hardly.
Ketcherside was dealing with minute matters, not large moral issues that history has long ago decided.
I agree with you Kevin 100%.
Telling people how they should behave in matters that are clearly conscience is no different than Stanton.
You will forever go in circles in this topic with some & we will probably keep hearing about the "straw man logical fallacy" BS as well until one can actually step away from Stanton. Thank God we are all individuals who can make our own decisions in life in this great land of the free. Monte you would probably fit right over in the Middle East. They would probably call you a king seeing how your mind is so set back & oppressed.
Not sure why you don't think I believe in objective truth. It's objectively true, for instance, that the Bible shows many examples of acceptable drinking of alcohol. It is also objectively true that the Bible teaches not to over-indulge in it. It is an opinion to say that because it represents a potential danger, that we must teach the hardline stance to stay away from it at all costs.
I prefer to teach what is objectively true, meaning to speak where the Bible actually speaks, and be actually silent where it's silent. And I'm using this subject, not to hash it out further with you, but to illustrate that *how* we articulate objective truth makes a big difference to how unified the body of Christ is.
Monte, you said that "Ketcherside was dealing with minute matters, not large moral issues that history has long ago decided."
I disagree. Jesus prayed for the unity of all believers, and Ketcherside's message is that the reason we've never realized that unity is we've been too busy to agree on *what* to believe, rather than in *whom* we believe. Ketcherside's argument is a meta-argument. He steps higher to look at the big picture, rather than trying to iron out all of the "little" differences that divide Christians so often.
I have a book laying around somewhere entitled "Where The Saints Meet," and it's a compendium of all the COC sects divided up by doctrines. This is so when you're visiting another city, you can look up and find one that matches your preferred hobbies (preacher vs. no preacher, classes vs. no classes, one copy vs. multiple cups, colleges vs. no colleges, etc. etc. etc.). I agree all this issues are "little" in the eyes of God. But they are the types of things that divide most believers from one another.
You can download a copy of the book here –
https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=crs_books
Spot on, Kevin! You hit on the very thing that disturbs me most about Merie's group-the rules they institute to "err on the safe side", and to "avoid the slippery slope".
They institute these rules, and then can't understand why members don't seem to have any judgment or common sense in their lives.
When we take away the freedoms that God has given us, namely the right to work out our own salvation, then how are we to learn judgment? If I merely have to memorize rules, then where is the learning? Where is the applying God's word to my own heart?
And how is it free will when we don't have a choice? We are then no different than the animals.
There are things in my life that I choose to avoid, because I know and understand that, for me, they are deep pitfalls. Once in them, I have a very difficult time climbing back out of them. But I can't put that on someone else, for them those things may not be a problem.
For example, Merie's group teaches against coveteousness. But I can tell you that I saw many teachers with huge closets of clothing and shoes. One teacher in Lakeland had so many clothes, I doubt that she would wear the same thing twice in six months if she rotated her closet. (I know because I had to help move all of her stuff). Let alone the shoe collection.
I'm not judging her, just saying that Merie's group teaches rules, but they forget the heart. Buying a lot of clothing is ok, but I remember one Christian being rebuked publically for covetousness simply because when she opened up a new bottle of shampoo, she would then buy another bottle to have ready! (For those who find this impossible to believe, I kid you not).
When you teach your own conscience, and make up rules, you simply cannot make enough rules to cover everything. So then you make more rules and have more meetings to teach others to enforce those rules, and it goes on and on and on….
Instead of forbidding the use of cellphones and email and trying to restrict communication, why not just teach the truth? Merie's group used to be famous for teaching (in non-member classes) that the truth never contradicts it self, and never changes. We should be all about the spreading of the truth, and wouldn't communication be an excellent way to do so? If you focus strictly on teaching the truth, you don't have to worry about restricting cellphones and other means of communication.
Lynn, I checked out the copy of Where the Saints Meet you linked to, and this illustrates my point precisely. That copy was published in 1957 and did not have the sectarian classifications that later editions came to use.
ME = Mutual Edification (no paid preacher)
NC = No Classes
OC = One Cup
Etc.
The copy I saw as a young man was published probably sometime in the 80's. You could look up every sectarian classification of COCs in existence, defying the very principles of the unity movement from which we came. This shows the downward spiral our "unity movement" entered into over the course of the 20th century.
BTW, Ketcherside was from the same M.E. sect that my dad raised me in after being withdrawn from by Stanton at Merie's insistence. Yet Ketcherside was a pariah even in M.E. circles, because of his more inclusive understandings of Biblical unity. It wasn't until my early 20's (late 80's/early 90's) that I decided to read Keterchside for myself, spurring me to do my own "clean Bible challenge" several times over.
M- what constitutes the moral law? Please give me a couple of examples.
AnonymousApril 5, 2019 at 10:15 AM
It's written on our conscience.
Romans 2: 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Reason and logic lead to it. Most of the moral law is common sense. Those who object to it the most, are often those who love their own vices the most as well.
This is why Jesus said don't judge unless you have removed the beam out of your own eye first. This scripture has been badly perverted by the left and lukewarm Christians. Christ was actually talking to them. They think they can judge moral issues when they proudly flaunt their immorality with no compunction.
One of the most valuable skills a human can have, as evidenced by Solomon asking for it when God asked him what he wished for in a dream, is the ability to judge other humans wisely and correctly. Alcohol, in all forms, impairs that ability. Our nation is full of people who simply cannot judge human nature. And the church is as well.
BTW, for those interested, General Omar Bradley of World War 2 fame, and Ronald Reagan were both raised church of Christ.
https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/what-this-5-star-general-said-about-aggression/?cat_orig=education
I could be wrong, but I thought Reagan was raised in his mom's Disciples of Christ church. The Disciples were the group started by Alexander Campbell. They have unfortunately become very progressive in modern times. I think as an adult, Reagan usually identified himself as Presbyterian.
One thing that sort of stuck out to me after so many years was the story of one sister in Merie's church who told me the scripture where there were factions (I am of Apollos, etc.) in which Paul chastised them all for being divided is the scripture that convinced her Merie's church was THE ONE. I never understood why that scripture was that impactful to her in that way. Not even when I was in. And now, I realize that despite their differences Paul was asking them to be united in that they still had the same gospel and it wasn't based on where and who baptized them. This is exactly the part that gets me about Merie's church because it is so black and white that that's what they do. They made me get rebaptized even though I was ALREADY baptized in another COC. Even then subconsciously I thought this verse explained that there could be differences depending on who brought you the gospel and it was OK.
Further thoughts?
Yes, their twisting of that chapter on unity to say the opposite of what Paul meant is a very distinctive doctrine of the SCOC. It took me a lot of years to realize it, because if you pluck a verse out of its context without understanding the point, it sounds convincing.
Unanimity ≠ unity
Unanimity = tyranny
It is impossible for two people with independent consciences, intellects, and maturities, to come to exactly the same conclusions without coercion.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
"When two people think exactly alike — one of them isn't thinking."
Great quote Anon April 9, 3:51!!
Anon 3:51 & AFC – Exactly!
M Long, great points. Yes these versus used in nonmember classes 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. Paul letting the Corinthians know as you said do not be divided in Christ’s teachings and the testimony of Christ that was confirmed in them. Simply follow Jesus and not these others who may of baptized them. MM dunked me and got me wet ughhh. I never thought anything of it other than when asked I know who dunked me. I’m not seeing at all how Merie could’ve thought what she thought. Of course Christ isn’t divided. They say the religious world is divided and we are not. And? Btw Merie divided and they continue to not follow Christ’s teachings and the word of God.
I see there's a PP on Facebook again.. No picture, with 11 friends and some friends from El Cajon and San Diego.. I know darn well she would never go without being on Facebook so she can snoop.. she deactivated or deleted her last one when we all talked about her being on Facebook and being active
How does one honor their father and mother when they disagreed with Stanton, and Stanton cut off all ties between them and their parents?
I said, 'Sin when repented of, can be rapidly and completely healed by God'. Stanton withdrew from me over this. In my Bible, God's ability to heal is limited only by the individuals ability to believe it possible, as Jesus demonstrated many times by healing the spiritually and physically sick. But, Stanton had other ideas.
It's been difficult for me. I still deeply love my parents, and appreciate all they did for me, but not being able to talk to them, or the other siblings in Stanton is not easy. It has taught me contentment, but for a few years, I was rather bitter at God.
Haven't spoken with my brother and father for 11 years, for the crime of disagreeing with Stanton. And their teachers are determined to carry this discipline to the death, apparently.
I absolutely refuse to take back what I said, because I'm not going to be intimidated into being silenced. It's better to die withdrawn from, resisting an unscriptural teaching, in my mind, than to submit to it and continue in fellowship. So, though I had no ill will or animosity towards anyone in Stanton, they determined the church needed to be purified of me.
It is kind of frightening to ponder some of the fairy tales they have spread about me. Two sources in Stanton already said that I was said to have been promoting homosexuality. Never did that or practiced it in my entire life, but to Stanton, denying charges often becomes proof they are true.
I've written this before, but, since the newspapers constantly re tell stories until they are fixed, I'm copying them. Most people don't object to the newspapers lying every single day, so I hope they don't object to me saying the same truths multiple times in 7 years. Some read now who didn't read in the past, and vice versa.
“Live, then, and be happy, beloved children of my heart, and never forget that until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,—’Wait and hope.’ Count of Monte Cristo
Very sad! As you grow older as I have you realize family is everything. Sometimes they do some very hurtful things to one another. Your story so sad! Prayers for you. Prayers for healing before they die and that God will reveal the truth to them.
Montesquieu,
Convincing your family members who still are in the SCOC to go along with their directive of not having any kind of contact with you is the only weapon they have, but it is a considerable one. Not to besmirch your family, but those willing to obey any such orders should be utterly ashamed of themselves, not just for allowing themselves to be mind-controlled through cult-like methods, but also before God, who in no way approves of, endorses, or authorizes the spiritually pathological behavior of this sect, and of course, their Ruling Triumvirate of KS, GP, and TC. The weight of the sins upon their heads already has crushed them; they are spiritually dead, but won't lay down.
Montesquieu, I feel for you my friend. Stay strong! Anon 3:01 You are right on the mark!
Monte: You're an inconvenience to the lot of them.
Has anyone else noticed that those who are an inconvenience, whether not able to do works, question too much, refuse to go along with certain things, are easily withdrawn from? Merie, for all her talk of being a Christian, started a very DEMANDING cult. There is no real room for the variety of people that Jesus himself spoke about as needing him. They are too weak. They are burdensome.
Monte, there have been times when some want you off this blog. I have been on occasion on this list, frustrated by your tirades, and I have a feeling there may be future times when I feel that way. But I also understand the danger of censoring, in essence withdrawing from, you. When you wear people out, they want you to just disappear. I have seen that quite a bit in Stanton. They might want to work with you a while, but when you are a true burden, they will dump you if you don't do what they say. I remember when a sister here in SA died, and I understood faithfully, and I said to a female counselor, "Well at least she's in heaven now," and her response was "Well we don't know that." This sister was weak and had been ill a long time and while she was on occasion praised for her phone calls and texts to people, in the end, this is what I heard from her from a LEADER. It permeates Merie's church and it STINKS. How someone who calls themselves a Christian can, after 30-40+ years say this about a sister in Christ is beyond me. To even imply that she didn't make it was such poor judgement and showed me how unkind her thoughts were even as a sister had just died. I remember comparing it to another sister who had also died about the same year. That sister was fairly well off and hardly a burden to others except maybe physically due to her illness in the last few months. She was a much younger (in the faith) Christian, but she was better off and in some ways contributed in her own way. She had moved to another congregation but not very near so I don't believe she was doing the work either. Anyhow, she was praised so highly. And I didn't mind at all. But they were both kind ladies. They lived different lives. And I felt like some of the judgement was based on their life situations.
I have also seen so many complaints about other people who needed too much help in other ways, like single moms with their kids. They had better be just about perfect or get there fast, as well as go along with EVERYTHING they are told, or they are not going to be wanted. You can't have something for nothing in Stanton. You had better be contributing in multiple ways, because otherwise when you make one mistake, they will quickly turn on you.
It's human nature to many times judge others by how successful they are in this life. And if you can combine that with going along with Stanton, well you're in a good position. Carnal, much?