Thus Jehu
wiped out Baal from Israel. But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of
Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin—that is, the golden
calves that were in Bethel and in Dan.
(2Kings 10:28-29)
And the
LORD said to him, “Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will
punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the
kingdom of the house of Israel.” (Hosea 1:4)
I grew up in the
Churches of Christ. I was the fifth generation in my family to be a member of
those churches. My grandfather and father served as elders. My father was even
a full-time preacher/minister for ten years when I was a child. I learned a
great deal in the Churches of Christ, truths for which I will be eternally
thankful. I was baptized at fourteen and began fill-in preaching by appointment
at fifteen. By the time I was eighteen I was preaching often, and shortly
before I turned twenty I entered an internship program at the 77th Street
Church of Christ in Birmingham, AL. I worked in full-time preaching ministry in
Churches of Christ from November of 1998 to June of 2013, serving at
congregations in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia and speaking by invitation
in many other states and in Eastern Europe. I know these churches, love the
people, and have many friends and family still associated with them. So what I
say I say with personal knowledge, understanding, and sincere love, not from
ignorance or bitterness.
The Fourth
Avenue Church of Christ in Franklin, TN recently brought in a new preaching
intern. They are proud of her, yes, I said her,
and Wineskins has posted a YouTube video introducing her to the rest of the
world. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXglnMi0xA. The content of
that video is not my concern today. What does concern me is the relationship
between Fourth Avenue’s decision to openly practice egalitarian ministry and
the churches in which I grew up and where I ministered for a decade and a half.
The Churches of
Christ in which I spent the most time and where I did most of my ministry
describe themselves as “non-institutional” Churches of Christ. They are
conservative, or so they claim, strictly so, and are frequently labelled by the
more mainstream Churches of Christ as “antis.” The non-institutional churches
do not support evangelistic or benevolence ministry organizations from their
church treasury. They do not support Bible colleges or schools from their
treasury. They will not send money for evangelistic or benevolent ministry to
an overseeing (sponsoring) congregation but insist on sending the funds
directly to the place or person of need. And they do not eat in their church’s
building. They have no fellowship halls for common meals. Most would be
scandalized by the suggestion of hosting a potluck on the premises.
The
non-institutional Churches of Christ share the same doctrinal distinctives as
many of the mainstream Churches of Christ, e.g. a form of baptismal
regeneration in which baptism is the occasion and instrument of regeneration
and justification, rejection of instrumental accompaniment to the music in
worship, the claim to be the one true church established by Christ in the New
Testament and a corresponding opposition to denominations in all their forms
and to most other churches independent or otherwise. The Churches of Christ in
their many different forms have been plagued almost from their inception in the
mid-nineteenth century by doctrinal disagreement and resultant divisions. I
once listened to a Church of Christ preacher describe the three major divisions
in Christianity through the centuries: the establishment of the papacy and the
Roman Catholic Church in the seventh century, the Protestant Reformation in the
sixteenth century, and the division over institutionalism and orphan homes in
the twentieth century. It was so ridiculous I did not know whether to laugh or
cry. Churches of Christ have divided and continue to divide over issues ranging
from whether to have Bible classes and to use one cup or multiple cups in the
Lord’s Supper to divorce and remarriage, the use of prayer veils by women, and
the second serving of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening to those who were
absent at the morning service. What began as a unity movement in the nineteenth
century has become one of the most fragmented and sectarian sects in modern
Christianity, so it is no surprise Fourth Avenue’s latest decision will incite
controversy and further division.
Yesterday I
posted a link to the aforementioned video with the following comment: “4th St. [sic] CoC has a female preaching intern.
Some are thrilled, others appalled. Sadly most will miss the real issue.” Progressives
are praising Fourth Avenue’s decision, while traditionalists are bewailing and
denouncing it. But what is the real issue? The issue is not Lauren King (the
intern) or Patrick Mead (the senior minister). The issue is not Fourth Avenue’s
egalitarianism. Traditionalists say the issue is Bible authority. That is
right, but perhaps not in the way they mean it. The issue is the utter
disregard for Bible authority in the Churches of Christ as a whole. The issue
is the lack of a coherent theology, an ahistorical and unbiblical ecclesiology,
an anti-creedal, non-denominational form of confessional sectarianism, and a
legalistic approach to Scripture that leads inevitably to Pharisaism and
progressivism. The issue is not that Fourth Avenue has departed from the
orthodox faith. The issue is that the Churches of Christ do not have the
orthodox faith, none of them, liberal or conservative, traditional or
progressive, mainline or non-institutional. Fourth Avenue is the offspring of
the movement’s commitment to restorationism, and they are not a bastard but the
legitimate heir.
A Lack
of Coherent Theology
The Churches of
Christ began through the influence of men like Barton W. Stone and Thomas and
Alexander Campbell. Each of these men gradually separated himself in the
mid-nineteenth century from denominations whose doctrines and practices they
had come to reject. But unlike the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth
century, the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement was not primarily theological;
it was social and ecumenical. These men recognized the division and disunity in
modern denominationalism and called for the abandonment of creeds and
confessions of faith. It was believed that returning to Scripture alone would
produce unity among the sects.[i] But
this was far from the case. Instead, historic Christian truth regarding the
depravity of man, the working of the Holy Spirit in the unregenerate, and the
principle of justification by faith apart from works began to be discarded, and
in its place appeared Pelagian notions of human ability and an individualistic
and ahistorical reading of the Bible.
To this day
Churches of Christ are divided and diverse in their views of the atonement,
divine omniscience, and eschatology. It is not surprising when progressives
jettison penal substitutionary atonement[ii],
but there are open debates and written works, even by the most extreme
traditionalists in Churches of Christ, denying the penal substitution of Christ
as a doctrine tainted by association with Calvinism. Open Theism[iii]
is fairly common in even “conservative” Churches of Christ, though it is not
always identified by that name. And the A.D. 70 doctrine[iv],
better known as full preterism or realized eschatology in evangelical
circles, has corrupted Churches of Christ for years and been embraced by entire
congregations in some cases.
The Churches of
Christ claim to simply “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the
Bible is silent,” but their individualistic approach to interpreting Scripture
leads inevitably and repeatedly to doctrinal innovations and divisions. Because
they lack a coherent theology that stresses the unity of Scripture and the
analogy of faith, individual passages are interpreted out of context and
without regard for their relation to the rest of the Bible’s doctrine. Churches
of Christ understand very well what they reject (e.g. instrumental music,
salvation by faith alone, creeds and confessions), but they are less clear on
what they positively believe. Therefore doctrines like the propitiatory work of
Christ, the omniscience of God, and the hope of Christ’s future return are held
loosely and are constantly in jeopardy as Scripture is re-read and
re-interpreted in innovative ways.
What is needed
in the Churches of Christ is a coherent theology that displays the unity of all
Scripture and understands the culmination of every part in the work and promise
of Christ. Of course, most of my friends in the Churches of Christ will insist they
do have such a system, but one cannot reject the notion of systematic summaries
of Christian doctrine and affirm you have a coherent system as well. The
remarkable disunity among Churches of Christ on clear and historic theological
questions in light of their unity on arguably ahistorical and innovative
practices is a strong indicator of the lack of any coherent understanding of
the Bible’s overall theme and message.[v]
An
aHistorical and Unbiblical Ecclesiology
The
Churches of Christ are a product of the Restoration Movement, an enterprise
designed to create Christian unity by setting aside human creeds and
re-establishing the original church of the New Testament. This restoration
effort has been understood variously in the Churches of Christ. Some think the
New Testament Church is restored where the doctrines and practices of the
Church are re-established in local congregations (e.g. no instrumental music,
baptismal regeneration, and weekly communion). Others understand restoration in
more personal terms of individual reconciliation to God through the gospel. But
in any case, the theme of restoration is very important to the identity of
Churches of Christ.
The
Restoration Movement is considerably different from the Reformation Movement of
the sixteenth century. In the latter men like Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli,
and John Calvin called for individual and institutional repentance in light of
the teaching of Scripture. Their approach to Scripture was not innovative but
deeply historical. They recognized the unity of the Church, that it was truly
catholic (universal) as confessed in the Apostles’ Creed, even if the Roman
Catholic Church had much to repent of teaching and practicing. The Reformers
did not regard themselves as restoring the New Testament church. They sought to
reform the contemporary expression of the Church in terms of biblical theology.
When
any sect of churches becomes defined by doctrines that are arguably unattested
in the history of God’s people, when the church itself is understood in ways
virtually unknown for almost two millennia, something is clearly wrong. History
is certainly not an infallible guide, and any study of the history of the
Church must convince the careful student that it has been characterized from
the outset by disunity, corrupted doctrines, and unbiblical practices.
Nevertheless, the Church has stood the test of time, and God has faithfully
preserved a remnant by grace who did not bow the knee to Baal. Some Church of
Christ historians endeavor to trace the doctrine and practice of Churches of
Christ through the centuries by appealing to various minority and often
heretical groups, but this is a thin effort to establish continuity in the face
of such obvious discontinuity with Christian history. Because Churches of Christ
have so little awareness of and connection to their heritage as believers in
Jesus, there are fewer checks and balances against doctrinal innovations that
defy the historic practice of the saints.[vi]
An
Anti-Creedal, Undenominational form of Confessional Sectarianism
The
Churches of Christ, like many modern, independent Christian groups, claim to
have no creed but the Bible, but this claim is, of course, a type of creed.
What is really meant is Churches of Christ are not obligated to confess or
affirm any particular creed written but men. The reality, however, is
otherwise. There is most definitely a creed, albeit unwritten. The fallacy of
“no creed but the Bible” thinking is that no one can then distinguish their
beliefs (creed) from what the Scriptures actually say. If my creed is written,
I can objectively examine it in light of Scripture. But if I think my beliefs
are exactly what Scriptures say, it is much harder to be objective.
The
truth is Churches of Christ have a very definite creed, though it continues to
evolve and diverge between the more traditional and more progressive
congregations. While claiming to practice church autonomy (independent,
self-government), when one Church of Christ steps outside of the recognized
boundaries of the movement, other congregations are quick to criticize. But if
Church of Christ anti-creedalism is correct, the digressive, autonomous
congregation is simply doing what they are supposed to do. They are
interpreting and applying Scripture without regard for human affirmations and
declarations. So what if Fourth Avenue has a female preaching intern? Why
should other Churches of Christ care? Yes, you can object that it is
disobedience to Scripture, but Fourth Avenue believes it is actually obedience
to Scripture. It comports with their anti-creedal confession, and who can say
their interpretation is incorrect? Should Fourth Avenue bow to the historic or
general interpretation of the rest of the Churches of Christ, regardless of
their own convictions? If so, then the Churches of Christ should abandon their
commitment to having “no creed but the Bible” and quickly move to adopt a
formal statement that does synthesize and summarize the doctrinal distinctives
that are important to them.
A
Legalistic Approach to Scripture that Leads Inevitably to Pharisaism AND
Progressivism
Conservatives
will say the real problem with Fourth Avenue’s decision to bring in a female
preaching intern is the rejection of Bible authority, and that is certainly
true, but it hardly goes far enough. The problem is that Churches of Christ in
general have disregarded Bible authority in the areas where it counts most and
have inconsistently appealed to it in other areas. You can be a preacher in the
Churches of Christ if you deny God knows the future freewill choices of man or
reject the penal substitution of Christ, but if you affirm sinners are
justified by faith alone, apart from works, you will be branded a heretic and,
in some cases, be regarded as an unbeliever. Bible verses are debated to
determine whether women ought to be veiled in worship, whether the Lord’s
Supper ought to be offered on Sunday night, and whether the saints can share in
a potluck in the church’s meeting place. But the most fundamental questions
relating to justification are largely passed over with simplistic appeals to
verses about baptism and recitation of the common belief that to be “baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” means one is not saved
unless and until they are immersed in water, and not even then, perhaps, if it
is performed in a Baptist church.
Churches of
Christ do divide and must continue to divide over secondary doctrinal questions
because they believe their salvation depends, in part, on having the correct
doctrine and practice on these issues. But this exposes the real issue, the
hinge on which everything else turns. The Churches of Christ lack a clear and
biblical understanding of the gospel. Does this mean every member is unsaved?
By no means! But it means those who are saved in those churches are saved in
spite of the doctrine they are hearing, not because of it. Those who trust in
Jesus are saved and will be saved, whether they realize their security in
Christ or not. But it is not because they are in the one true church. It is not
because they were baptized in the right way and for the right reason. It is not
because they reject historic creeds and confessions. It is not because they are
separate from those “denominationalists” meeting down the road.
The problem with
the Church of Christ’s hermeneutic is not
that they insist on Bible authority for all that they do. The problem is they
create doctrines based on innovative interpretations of the New Testament text
and inferences they claim are necessary. The problem is they approach the text
heterogeneously, as if the various parts are separate and can be understood
independently, rather than recognizing the theological unity of Scripture and
relying on the analogy of faith. The problem is they believe their conclusions
and practices derived from innovative interpretations of Scripture are, in
part, the reason they are saved and stay saved unlike the other Christian
sects. These errors can only lead to Pharisaism and progressivism. The “conservatives”
and the “liberals” are standing back to back, their feet are resting on the
same foundation of sand, and they are shouting loudly at the other never
realizing they are standing on the same spot, only facing two different
directions.
Jeroboam’s
Calves Must Go Too
The
Lord raised up Jehu in the days of the Divided Kingdom to bring judgment on the
house of Ahab and to destroy the religion of Baalism the latter had promoted.
This act of judgment was good. It needed to be done, and Jehu did it
faithfully, destroying Ahab’s family and essentially eradicating the Baal cult
in the northern kingdom. But Jehu did not go far enough. When it was all said
and done, Jehu continued to worship Yahweh by means of the golden calves King
Jeroboam erected many years before at Dan and Bethel. He did not realize that
Jeroboam’s calves were the progenitor of Ahab’s Baal. Jeroboam claimed to honor
Yahweh with his golden calves, but in reality he had abandoned the true
doctrine and worship of the Lord. It was only a matter of time before someone
came along and introduced another god alongside the golden calves.
This
is the story of the Churches of Christ. The progressives are Ahab. They have
taken the logical next step and introduced the religion of Baal. The
traditionalists are Jehu. They are fighting a commendable battle, but with the
wrong presuppositions. They will attack Ahab’s Baalism, though unlike Jehu,
they will not succeed in overthrowing it. They will correctly decry and
denounce the latest error introduced to Israel. But rather than call for true
and total repentance and reformation, as Hezekiah and Josiah arguably did, they
will only criticize the latest innovation while perpetuating the broken, sinful
system which produced it. They are calling for a return to the status quo, not
realizing the system was broken from the beginning.
What is needed
is repentance. Repentance from egalitarianism, yes, but so much more. What is
needed is repentance from an unbiblical, ungracious, and legalistic
characterization of the gospel and the church. What is needed is a return to
biblical orthodoxy, something the Restoration Movement abandoned from the
outset. What is needed is repentance in the direction of the gospel. Jehu
destroyed Baalism in Israel, but he continued to support Jeroboam’s idolatry.
He rightly criticized the evil introduced by Ahab, but he advocated the very
evil that produced it. Ahab’s Baal was the genetic and theological descendant
of Jeroboam’s calves, and Fourth Avenue’s egalitarian progressivism, while
deplorable, is the genetic and theological descendant of the “conservative”
Church of Christ’s restorationism. It is not enough to overthrow Fourth
Avenue’s Baal. The entire movement must be called to repentance and reformation
toward the gospel. May God grant such repentance to my brothers and sisters.
-Joel M. Ellis,
Jr.
December 5, 2014
[i]
See Thomas Campbell, “Declaration and Address,” http://www.therestorationmovement.com/declaration.htm.
[ii]
Penal substitutionary atonement says that Christ’s death actually provided
payment for human sin by appeasing the wrath of God and enabling Him to forgive
what would be otherwise unforgivable (cf. Isa. 53:4-6; 2Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13;
1Pet. 2:24).
[iii]
Open Theism says that God is all-knowing but that the future, freewill choices
of man are not real yet and therefore unknowable, even to God.
[iv]
Realized Eschatology says that all biblical prophecies concerning the end times
terminated at the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full preterists
deny a future coming of Christ and a general resurrection of the dead as a
future event.
[v]
For example, I am not aware of any Church of Christ that has divided over the
question of God’s omniscience and whether He knows the future, freewill choices
of human beings, but divisions over a second serving the Lord’s Supper and
whether divorced and remarried persons can be admitted into membership are
regular occurrences.
[vi]
Who is to say egalitarianism and Open Theism are not the restored doctrine of
the early church? Once we begin to interpret our Bibles individualistically and
ahistorically, anything is possible. Perhaps Christ is not eternal after all.
