Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

i was just surfing for c of c and found this

March 1 2004 at 1:44 AM
Anonymous  (Login wennifer)
from IP address

i was just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings and somehow ended up here!!!!! i'm sorry i did i'm not sure what you all are disagreeing about???? but just keep in mind we have but one judge sometimes silence and prayer are better!!!! i wish you all luck. you do not seem to be representing the church of christ very good here guys!!

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

I’m glad you found this

March 1 2004, 12:33 PM 

dear surfer,

you have just raised the level of my curiosity. why were you “just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings”? you see, some “surfers” look for a local congregation where they can attend a worship assembly while on vacation or tour. anyway, you seem to be young and searching for something. i agree with you on the “one judge” and “prayer”; but i don’t think “silence is golden” at this stage of the church’s life—in the 21st century. believe me … we’re still representing the “silent” majority. please continue surfing. there are a lot of things about the truth that can be learned from this site—lots of fine articles with scriptural references and written by those well grounded in the truth. ignore the arguments and disagreements (part of human nature) for now and just concentrate on the fine lessons. later on, your assessment of this website’s objectives and goals will become crystal clear to you. i wish you luck.

donnie cruz

 Respond to this message   
Kathy Poyner
(no login)

I'm glad you found this

September 4 2004, 10:00 PM 

Dear Surfer,
I am but a woman who has been in the body of Christ since 1968. I was but a child when I was baptized, but knew what I was diong. I have lived through church splits, seeded new congregations and grown with the church all my life. The madison Church of Christ issue has explained to me why I lost a dear friend recently. I didn't understand what was going through the church today. Silence is not golden when it comes to issues of doctrinally sound places of worship. We have to be informed so that we know what is going on to keep Satan at bay. You must be young or a recent convert to state silence is golden. may you study and learn to rightly divide god's word so that you are prepared to fight the battle we must fight every day of our lives. I think we get too comfortable here thinking that Judgement is light years away. This earth is not our home. It is only a proving ground or testing ground where we battle the spiritualbattle every day of our lives because Satan doesn't want to be alone in Hell. At this rate, he's going to have plenty of company and I'm not judging anyone. The Scriptures tell me what we need to do to have an eternal home in Heaven and what happens if we are not obedient to God's will. We can know if we are homeward bound or Hellbound. May you grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
In Christ,
Kathy Poyner

 Respond to this message   
Bob Emery
(no login)

I'm glad you found this

August 18 2010, 3:23 AM 

Great Comment


 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: i was just surfing for c of c and found this

April 7 2004, 9:44 AM 

Iagree. I was looking for info on the lord's church when I came across this. I am saddened and appalled by all this. I'm sure satan is very happy! You people had better re-read the scriptures and understand why our savior died on the cross! All man's petty jealousies only put them on the broad way. SHAME,SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Looking for the “Lord’s Church” (Jan, April 7 2004, 9:44 AM)

April 8 2004, 8:04 AM 


How were you looking for info on the “lord’s church”? Were you doing a search on “LORD’S CHURCH” or on “CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on “FORMERLY CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on whatever words and phrases that came to mind?

I was just wondering if, in your searches, you were able to find the following:
  • Oak Hills Church … “A Christ-Centered Fellowship” … San Antonio, TX … (formerly: Oak Hills Church of Christ)
  • Family of God at Woodmont Hills … [] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Family of God] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Church of Christ”] … Copyright © 2003 Woodmont Hills Church of Christ
  • Christ's Community Church … in Logansport, IN
  • Christ's Community Church … in Tulsa, OK

  • Or did you find other “cute” variations with the name “of Christ” MISSING … as follows:

      Boyertown Church … Boyertown, PA
      Called Out of God … Roswell, GA
      Carpenter's Church … Lubbock, TX
      Comptom Road Church … Murfreesboro, TN
      Covenant Fellowship Church … Searcy, AR
      Gateway Church … Woodbury, NJ
      Grace Chapel Church … Cumming, GA
Jan, I listed the last few churches above to illustrate my point in your search as to how you ended up finding the website for “concerned members” of the Lord’s church. Those congregations are probably mini-churches that not many people hear about. My other point is for you to note that Rubel Shelly’s church has been officially changed to “Family of God at Woodmont Hills” because of the negativity attached to the words “Church of Christ.” Similarly, here’s what one writer said of Max Lucado’s church:
    Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” . . . Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”

    What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)!

Honestly, you are saddened and appalled by the wrong thing. You should be saddened and appalled by the “Acts of the Apostles” of change, a.k.a. “change agents.” Max and Ruby have revised portions of the contents of the New Testament to conform to certain doctrines that they have borrowed from their denominational neighbors. It is about time that even just a handful of the many, many conservative preachers of the gospel let their voices be heard. Max and Ruby have become too loud and busy transforming the New Testament church into something else it shouldn’t be. I doubt very seriously that preachers outside of the Max-Ruby kingdom are jealous of their popularity and misguided objectives for the church. Max and Ruby, busily disturbing the peace and unity in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ, ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Re-read the scriptures … did you say? We’ve already done that so many times. The Concerned Members site is not a church—it has not changed the truth and is not teaching a new doctrine. Instead, we find certain teachings and beliefs of Max and Ruby to be fallacious and inconsistent with the truth. Perhaps, you could help them by re-reading the scriptures to them.

Jan, understanding “why our Savior died on the cross!” as you stated earlier is NOT the issue—you know better than that! Transforming or restructuring the New Testament church into an apostate church or denomination according to the “Lucado-Shelly Doctrine” is wrong—SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz

This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Apr 8, 2004 9:58 AM

 Respond to this message   
Robin Guidicy
(no login)

Life's evening Sun

April 8 2004, 11:37 AM 

In the narrow context in which the founder's and those
that represent the "old path" speak, it purely from
a loss of power.
Their day has passed.
They have refused to change.
They have become the pharisee of modern day christianity.
Their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way."
What you won't see reported here, is that numbers are on their way back up.
You won't see that the body is unified, and that Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony,
sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.
Another point of good news is that churches that were withering away around Madison are again growing.
Christians that wanted a less celebrative style of worship have gone elsewhere, and apparently are making contributions.
I think you'll find too, that those who have removed
"church of christ" from their signs reached a point of honesty.
The honesty is not what we want to hear.
Basically, this isn't a fellowship.
Who can blame them?
Character attacks, mistruths, half-truths, slander, etc.
If this represents the "church of christ" then count me out.
So, the road signs are clearly marked.
Whether we recognize the liability our name now carries
is up to us.
It has been my experience that nothing is more corrupting than a little bit of power.
These men, "concerned members" are desperately looking for it, and it is only here, in the shadows that they find it.
Life's evening sun is sinking low....low, indeed.
To depth's not previously seen.

Robin Guidicy
Madison Member

 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Life's evening Sun (Robin Guidicy, April 8 2004, 11:37 AM)

April 9 2004, 8:09 AM 

Robin, you said: In the narrow context in which the founder's and those that represent the "old path" speak, it purely from a loss of power. Their day has passed. They have refused to change. They have become the pharisee of modern day christianity. Their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way." [My response is in blue.]

I gather that you were making a comparison between: (1) the group of those who continue to “seek the old paths” [Jeremiah 6:16] and (2) the group of “change agents” with their proponents OPERATING with the agenda to subvert and create havoc as they attempt to “transform” congregations in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ. Admit it or not, the Madison congregation is unfortunately one of the victims. Robin, it is evident which side you’re on from some of your comments—which really are nothing new. Honestly and with all due respect, I think you needed a lot of help with your comments. So, let me help. (For more details, please see the thread: “A New Big Picture: ‘The Change Agents Are Coming! The Change Agents Are Coming!’ ”) So, here are a few additional characteristics of the change agents who have no desire to “represent the ‘old path’”:

--- Men who do harm to the body of Christ while being supported to build it up.
--- Men who claim to be helping the church while fomenting chaos and strife within.
--- Men who rush forward to offer a fix for the problems they themselves have created.
--- --- They offer staff services to help churches resolve the conflicts caused by their changes.
--- Men who seek to build their status and influence by bashing and attempting to discredit the godly …
--- --- preachers who blazed the trail before them and built the congregations where they now serve.
--- Men whose teaching and practice lowers respect for the authority of God’s Word.
--- Men who refuse to recognize and honor the church of Christ as the body of Christ.
--- Men who think they know more about how to worship God than did Christ . . .
--- Men who undertake to change the unchangeable kingdom of Christ.
--- Men who presume that the new is better than the old in the realm of faith.
--- --- They care nothing for the old paths (Jer. 6:16) .
--- --- They are like the pagan Athenians, always searching for something new or different.
--- Men who’d rather not speak boldly of Christ as the “founder” of the church of Christ.
--- Men who prefer to speak of Campbell and Stone as founders of their denomination.
--- Men whose favorite word is “grace” to mean salvation without obeying its conditions.
--- Men who love to speak of “freedom” to ignore Bible teachings on worship restrictions.
--- Men who love freedom to fellowship and be accepted by denominational bodies.
--- Men who speak of “patternism” as a sarcastic put down of the brethren true to God’s pattern.
--- Men who thirst for an emotion-based worship in the electronic churches of the televangelists.
--- Men who say that we are narrow, bigoted, and legalistic—they’re not.
--- Men who label us as “traditionalists” for our unwillingness to change.
--- Men who have abandoned the concept of restoring the original New Testament church.
--- Men who are busy rewriting our church history to: . . .
--- --- Paint a different picture of the goals and intentions of our forefathers and
--- --- Wish to cast their efforts as a “unity movement” and
--- --- Depict them as seeking fellowship with and not rejecting denominationalism.
--- Men who believe transition is a long-range mission accomplished after passing of older generation.
--- Men whose goal is conquest and dominance of the entire brotherhood.
--- Men who resort to warning the non-accepting brethren to “get over it”

Robin said: What you won't see reported here, is that numbers are on their way back up. You won't see that the body is unified, and that Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony, sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.

Note: [2002 census shows MCC with 3,142 members; 4,730 adherents]
*Sunday School Drive on October 19, 2003; **”The Passion…” Movie Drive in Feb-Mar 2004

--- 2000 — Attendance: 3,000+ [est. weekly worship attendance, both assemblies]
JAN 2001 — Attendance: 3,000+ [est.; upheaval begins . . .]
2001 MAY__________________ 2,498___2,675___2,403___2,348
2001 SEPTEMBER____________ 2,163___2,335___2,577___2,096
2001 DECEMBER_____________ 2,148___2,008___2,039___2,134___1985 [Bruce White, minister]
2003 JULY_________________ 1,483 (July 20)
2003 AUGUST ______________ 1,702___1,759___1,726___1,742___1,732
2003 SEPTEMPBER __________ 1,782___1,722___1,629___1,498
2003 OCTOBER _____________ 1,681__________*2,028___1,643
2003 NOVEMBER ____________ 1,708___1,664___1,526___1,637___1,596
2003 DECEMBER ____________ 1,554___1,534___________1,557
2004 JANUARY _____________ 1,725___1,712___1,640___1,715
2004 FEBRUARY ____________ 1,746___1,606___1,608___1,647___1,816**
2004 MARCH _______________ 1,819**_1,718___1,738___1,698


Your report that “numbers are on their way back up” is an admission that a major upheaval did occur in the early part of 2001. Remember when the leadership announced—“GET OVER IT … WE MUST MOVE ON”? Your report is based on the accumulative count of those you have seen come forward to respond to be baptized or to place membership—but don’t forget those who have left. Your figures do not compute versus the counts in the Marcher.

The body that you claim is unified is only in your dreams. And the leadership continues to announce and advertise by making that distinction between the “traditional” group at 8:00 and the “contemporary” group at 10:30. The “Easter Festival” is celebrated only during the contemporary worship gathering at 10:30 with the “interactive worship drama” in place to be experienced. And why not provide the same opportunity for the old “traditionalists” to experience the same “interactive worship drama”? Are the dramatists afraid that more traditionalists will be driven away from this experience?

So, “Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony, sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.” Lone voice … OK … but I would like to know why you even bothered to post [which, of course, is gladly received] with the expectation that I would [probably] respond. Perhaps, I’m misunderstanding your statement. Or, are you implying that there are now many empty pews in the once-usually-crowded balcony?

Coming in late and leaving early? I thought you would be glad [ ] as that should deter me from making “too many negative and judgmental notes” about the performers doing their choir stuff with the accompanying rhythmic handclapping exercises. You see, Robin, most of the “MUSICAL WORSHIP” is at the beginning of the assembly period and it appears that during that stretch God can “hear” ONLY the elite musical group holding their microphones [that implies performance, doesn’t it? … or else everyone else should have a microphone, too, right? Amen? Amen!] Then at closing, I really have no use for extraneous singy-clappy songs like “I Belong to Jesus!” [please don’t let the title mislead you] or “Ain’t No Rock … Ain’t No Bird … Ain’t No Tree” or “I Was Made for This … to know Your tender kiss …” or “If You Miss Me” —just to name a few.

Robin said: Another point of good news is that churches that were withering away around Madison are again growing. Christians that wanted a less celebrative style of worship have gone elsewhere, and apparently are making contributions.

It is more likely that churches around Madison benefited from the upheaval at Madison. More likely they did not care at all for any “celebrative style of worship” [innovative enough to change worship content]—not even “less celebrative.” So, what should the leadership do now to bring them back to Madison?

(Robin, thanks for posting. I’ll try to address the rest of your comments when I respond to Tom Brite’s question[s]).

Donnie Cruz

This message has been edited by ConcernedMembers from IP address on Apr 9, 2004 10:56 AM

 Respond to this message   
Estill B.
(no login)

Re: Life's evening Sun

April 10 2004, 7:04 AM 


Allow me to respond to a few of your points.

I've been described as "phariseical" before when I've taken a stance on "bible only" principles, and the other person had no argument and wanted to "label" me. I believe that the problem with the Pharisees was that they were hypocritical. You don't know me, but I am not hypocritical.

You may be talking about Donnie and Ken here when you say '"their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way."' If you include me, and people like me, that couldn't be further from the truth. I strive to do EVERYTHING that I do based on biblical principles...not because I've always done it that way.

On a similar note, I don't tend to get bored in continuing to worship in a way I have always done it. I personally think that this is the main reason for a lot of the new "faddish" ways of worship...boredom.

The numbers may be on the way back up, but "unified?" Ask some of the long-time members who remain at the first service. My inquiries over the past year of these people have yielded the opposite results. They just don't want to leave their "church home."

Robin, there's a lot of love at Madison, in certain circles. But, it has been my experience that the more "conservative" members are more tolerant of the more "liberal" members in points of view, preference, etc. Why do you think that is, in your opinion?

Why are more "praise songs" led during first service as they have been more and more frequently over the last few months? This seems kind of arrogant to me.

Why is there now, all of a sudden, an Easter drama, and only during second service? Most of the more "liberal" people I know at Madison give biblical examples of things like "lifting holy hands" while singing or praying...or biblical examples of "prayer postures." There's no example of drama in worship. How did they come up with that one? Are people just afraid to say, "Why are we doing this?" It reminds me of "The Emporer's New Clothes." Everyone sees the clothes, right?

Why, (during football season usually) when second service people attend first service, do they "defiantly" clap during a "praise" song when they know it is upsetting to some brothers and sisters? What about that "love" they speak of? IF this is preference only, can we love anyone any more than to defer to that other person's preference?

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Re: Re: Life's evening Sun

April 10 2004, 11:33 AM 


I completely concur about "Bible only."
I don't agree with everything that is done, nor the way it is done, but, I don't have too....

As long as man is trying to do God's will there will be disagreements.
Mostly, though, they are trivial.
I have participated in both services at Madison.
Do I go to the first service and clap?...No, I don't.
Would I?...Probably not.
I have spent my entire life in "the church of christ".
I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I've seen church splits, you name it, I've seen it.

I love congregational singing.
In fact, I have led it that way most of my life.
Do I love the "old" songs? Absolutely!
Do I love the new ones? Without question....
Are any of them sacred? No, they aren't.
Do I hold some of them closer to my heart than others.
Yes, without question.
I can be moved to tears by "Old Rugged Cross" just as easily as I can by "Above All."
However, I don't offer condemnation for doing it a particular way.
Going through the motions isn't worship,
Regardless of the style.
Frankly, there are aspects of a full-fledged drama
of which I am unsure, but, am I opposed?...No.

There are churches of christ that oppose supporting missionaries, sunday school, orphan homes, and the list goes on and on.
I don't find them listed anywhere on this web site.
Are they anymore or less faithful than you or I?

I further believe that much of what Max Lucado and
Rubel Shelley, and list goes on and on, are a victim of, is simply put; jealousy.
I'm not here to defend or prosecute anyone for their belief or worship style.

Estill, I don't take issue with anything you say.
I spend one sunday a month speaking at two of our senior citizen centers.
Its my duty as a christian to care for the widows,
and those who have gone before me.
They are a part of my family. I love them, not because I have anything to say to them, but, rather by being there with them.
Just like the Lord promises to be with me.

Madison is, by and large, a very positive place.
Are there problems?....Absolutely.
They are on a much grander scale, because its Madison.

It doesn't matter if you go to Poplar Bluff, Missouri
or Kingston, Jamacia, tomorrow christians will gather
in great numbers, and small, and remember, reflect,
and yes, even celebrate a risen savior.


 Respond to this message   
Estill B.
(no login)

re: Easter drama

April 12 2004, 9:02 AM 


Thanks for your very civil response...I believe we are in the minority here in that aspect.

First of all, song styles don’t mean a hoot to me. We’re commanded to sing...if the lyrics are bible-based, we have no argument here. However, some old songs aren’t appropriate, as well as some of the new ones. More later on that...

I agree that many of our disagreements are trivial. I am a life-long member and attendee of the church of Christ as well, and have seen many non-scriptural based splits and arguments over the years.

I equate our adherence to "Bible-only" ways of doing things to the Israelites’ adherence to the Book of Law. The Israelites were never more than a generation or two from complete apostasy. They would forget the ways of the Lord and walk in their own ways...God would turn His back on them every time.

In dealing with things such as: song leaders, praise teams, song books, microphones, sound systems...we are commanded to sing, so those items are an adjunct to that. Supporting missionaries is bible-based, as are the support of widows and least we find these things mentioned in the New Testament, if not the method.

The restoration principles of Stone, Campbell, and others, while not a biblical command in and of itself, set a basis for interpretation of the Bible and worship practice. We’re not following men when we follow these principles, but following a logical pattern of interpretation of the scripture. This is where my “condemnation” of an Easter drama during a “corporate” worship service comes in.

How can we sit by and condone such a practice? We never see this done in the New Testament!

We either have a method for studying, interpreting, and practicing our Christianity, or we have basis, no rock-solid ground, no foundation, no platform on which to base our life and worship practices as Christ’s church. Is there a better way of interpretation than the restoration principles laid down by our early founders? If so, I don’t know what that method would be.


 Respond to this message   
Robin Guidicy
(no login)

Re: re: Easter drama

April 12 2004, 6:21 PM 


In my mind, to some extent, you answer your own question.

Restoration isn't a one time thing.
Restoration or revival occurs in a churches life, as it does in an individuals life, perhaps a number of times.
Going back to Campbell and Stone, they fundamentally
disagreed over baptism.
In the spirit of unity, and what they saw as opportunity to redefine the christian faith, they chose to lay that and other differences aside.

I was at Madison yesterday morning, during the second service.
I must make a couple of observations about it.

As it began, I wasn't completely comfortable with it.
I have been in dramas, but never in a sunday morning
(The Easter crowd at Madison was the largest sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.)

Every commanded aspect of worship as laid out in scripture was involved.
The message, (or sermon, if you will) was presented
by reinactment.
As a result of the message, which was bible,
two gave their lives to the Lord.

What I guess I am trying to say is this.
I argued for years about the validity of softball teams, and basketball teams, etc....
What greater way to convert someone than to get to know them, and find common ground with them?

Our culture has changed since I was a boy.
I remember saturday evenings spent in conversation, under a tree, with neighbors after dinner.
Those same talks that were held in lawn chairs, in the yard, are now done via the internet or a cell phone.

I do not say that things have changed for the better.
I do say it is more difficult to cut through all of the
options available today.

When I was a teen, proms, swimming, high school dances,
rock music, shorts at camp, those were all battle grounds in the church.
Even women wearing slacks were a subject of debate.

We fiddled while Rome was burning.
Young people left the church in droves.
Church membership dwindled. Those that were baptized in the 70's and 80's were generally just kids of faithful members.
The church of christ grew only two years in those two decades.
We didn't have any good news to share with anyone.
We chose to give them the "turn or burn" sermons.

Even church of christ colleges were defined as liberal or conservative.
Lipscomb was for heatherns, Freed-Hardemann for bible bangers.
Conservatives gave to FHU, liberals to DLU.
And so it went.

We could not imagine why people wouldn't listen.
Didn't they know we were the church of the Lord?
Of course, they saw right through us.
In our arrogance to be right, we ran more off, than we converted.

The seeds of division in the church go back to the sixties.
This reformation had to occur.
The plumbline had to snap.
The redifining of faithfulness would see to that.

Now its worship styles.

Maybe what you and I are talking about is simply put
just a difference in presentation.
If I understand what you are saying,
you see it as a man in a pulpit, presenting God's word.
Certainly, that way is biblical.

I saw the drama yesterday, as God's word coming to life, through others.
Is it bible based?
In my opinion, yes it is.
Is it the way we have always done it?
Definitely, not.

Those two souls were converted to a risen Saviour yesterday.
It just so happens, it was a little more literal than we are used to.

So Estill, if you want to call it an arguement for it, i guess thats what I would say.
It's not my intent to argue at all though.
Rather, just give you an honest opinion.

I appreciate yours as well.


 Respond to this message   
Donnie Cruz
(no login)

Re: Re: Re: Easter drama (Robin Guidicy, April 12 2004, 6:21 PM)

April 13 2004, 6:12 AM 


For the sake of those who may not be aware of the differences [as you declared] between Campbell and Stone with regard to baptism, would you please: (1) clarify or be more specific as to the differences between their beliefs; (2) provide reliable sources so it can be validated that they indeed had differing views; and (3) identify for us as to whose [Campbell’s or Stone’s] particular belief prevailed for decades and decades until Max Lucado came up with his own? Do you really know what Max Lucado is teaching about baptism? Does Max’s view of baptism differ with either Campbell’s or Stone’s? Do you agree with Max’s doctrine?

Robin, I’m wondering about how everyone else reacted to the interactive Easter drama worship this past Sunday. By your admission, you weren’t completely comfortable with it at the beginning. At what point, then, in the “drama worship service” did you begin to feel completely comfortable? Did you reach that comfort level as soon as you knew that [at least] a couple of elders actively participated in the drama performance? (Of course, you may have known all along about these elders performing—would this be a valid assumption?) May I ask what your feelings would be, for example, if suddenly the Madison elders decided to include a televangelistic-like “charismatic divine [miraculous] healing service” during the “worship” period? Would you, perhaps, go through the same kind of experience, i.e., from being a little comfortable with it at first to being completely comfortable at some point later on? Or, would you not have any objection to “performing miracles” [in the sense of “as in apostolic times”] at all and anyway—period?

You said that the “Easter crowd at Madison was the largest Sunday morning number I have seen in the four yrs. my family has attended there.” I believe you did accurately state that considering this is now 2004. However, it can also be accurately stated that prior to four years ago and the upheaval during which time you and your family had just become members, this recent “Easter crowd” would not have even compared with the least attended non-“Easter” gathering then.

Please don’t get me wrong about this one—I was really happy to witness the two baptisms this past Sunday. But we’ve seen that happen just as well throughout the other 51 weeks of the year when the “Easter Festival” is not celebrated … and in past years as well. Are you saying that they came forward because of the drama performance? I hope not. Also, I think everyone realizes that the drama artists quoted passages especially direct statements made by the real Bible characters. In your estimation how much of the story had to be fabricated to extend the performance beyond the length of time it would take to read the story directly from the Bible?

Robin, with all due respect, the arguments regarding sport events, gymnasiums, church buses and kitchens, songbooks, one-cup, etc., are really getting old. We don’t even bring these up because these are non-essentials—they can be decided by and within the local congregation. And churches of Christ have survived for many generations with these minor differences. I think tracing the history of the church back to only the last few decades to prove your point is quite limited and narrow I would say. Reality is that what divided the church about a century ago had something to do principally with musical instrumentation in worship. I’m afraid it is true that history repeats itself. The church is in much more perilous times and circumstances because there has been a movement to restructure and transform the church. That is the BIG picture! The expression “worship style” is nothing more than a cover up of the serious intent and agenda that the change agents want to achieve. Worship in spirit and in truth is the “style” that should remain as a constant—it is not a variable. When worship in spirit and in truth (just to let everyone know that “spirit” does not mean “charismatic”—OK?) changes into something else, then, worship CONTENT changes. That’s when problems occur and become magnified. No believer should be opposed to changes or to change methodologies so long as the truth is unaltered. Wouldn’t you agree that God’s scheme of redemption is adaptable to each culture? Therefore, using cultural changes as the reason for transforming the unchangeable kingdom of Christ equates to belittling and demeaning God’s intelligence in designing what’s best for his creation.

The great men of the Restoration Movement were united because of their willingness to abandon denominationalism from which they came—you know that. Those men detested it. The church has resisted it for generations. Why resort to it ever again? As Estill has very well stated: what better principles are there for the New Testament church in the 21st century! Certainly, compromising the truth is not the solution—it is the problem.


 Respond to this message   
Kenneth Sublett
(no login)


April 13 2004, 6:05 PM 

    Robin: Going back to Campbell and Stone, they fundamentally disagreed over baptism.

    In the SPIRIT OF UNITY, and what they saw as opportunity to REDEFINE the christian faith, they chose to lay THAT other differences ASIDE.

Robin, that is why you need to listen to Jesus (the Spirit) rather than White or Shelly. That's what the false preachers practicing the Stone Occult would like you to believe but they LIE on every point in their false foundation that the Campbells preached "unity in diversity." It is a fact that T. Campbell in His Declaration and Address (written before he met Stone) lobbied for a group effort to uplift the instruction and morality of each community. Just as Paul defined the ASSEMBLY of those who GATHERED using a form of the word SYNAGOGUE, T. Campbell saw the assembly "worship" as Paul Commanded Timothy: "giving attendance (worship) to the public reading of the Scripture, to exhorting the keeping of THAT SCRIPTURE and to understanding the DOCTRINE of that passage. That defines a Synagogue and "there was no praise service in the synagogue." As in Rome, the Kentucky people could assemble with DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS if the "glorified God" using one MOUTH and one MIND to speak "THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN." If Campbell was a UINDIV fella, he would not have been kicked out of the Presbyterian for offering the Lord's Supper for those without their token, or the Baptists for rejecting baptist baptism. So, it is all a lie.

    A. Campbell on Fellowship: "Upon the whole, it appears that the Christians had their public, their special and their private or particular meetings--their public meetings for public edification, their special meetings for special edification, and their more private or particular meetings pro re nata.

    But all the while, it is as obvious as the light that shines, that professed believers, acknowledged Christians, and none but they, are the proper, intended and specified subjects of all religious communion and fellowship in all the ordinances of gospel worship,

    nor can they scripturally intend, much less extend, that communion beyond themselves or those of their own number. See 2 Cor. vi. 14-18.

    Donnie challenges: For the sake of those who may not be aware of the differences [as you declared] between Campbell and Stone with regard to baptism, would you please: (1) clarify or be more specific as to the differences between their beliefs; (2) provide reliable sources so it can be validated that they indeed had differing views; and (3) identify for us as to whose [Campbell's or Stone's] particular belief prevailed for decades and decades until Max Lucado came up with his own? Do you really know what Max Lucado is teaching about baptism? Does Max's view of baptism differ with either Campbell's or Stone's? Do you agree with Max's doctrine?
Donnie assuredly knows that the SLITHERING are connected with Ishtar worship. An actor or theatrical performer is, by definition, called a HYPOCRITE. And "music" which was the persona of the Goddess Worshipers were always literally or spiritually emasculated. The slithering serpents were always associated with the sOPHISt brand of theatrical speaker: to say serpent in the Book of Revelation was to say sOPHISts which is the Nachash serpent or musical performer in the book of Genesis, the garden of Eden and in heaven before he/she was CAST OUT. When you are in the presence of DEVIL WORSHIPERS it is probably safe to SLITHER but I think Donnie is not the "hidden one" but, being honest, is right there where the serpents strick and the Locusts STING. Did you know that the serpent's sting is identified as AN ADDED BUREN in the force of a TAX (tithe) when the war is not declared. The added burden is a MARK of the end time.

Barton W. Stone was looking for a more comforting way to CREATE CHARISMATIC EXPERIENCES which were then used to certify one to be JOINED TO a Presbyterian or Baptist church. Everyone lived in misery and rarely did Calvinistic predestination give one any assurance promised as a pledge for proper baptism. Therefore, Caneridge was to manufacture these experiences learned from some Methodists and some baptists stretching all of the way to the First Great American Awakening and from there back to the Witchcraft "seizures" used to certify that Parris was THE authentic preacher in Salem. And from Layard's eye-witness acccounts quite identical to Devil Worship in what is now Iraq
    "Many had professed religion, and many more, who were at the mourner's bench, refused to be comforted. After laboring with the mourners until a late hour of the night, without being able to comfort them, Brother Stone arose and addressed the audience: 'Brethren, something must be wrong. .." (Rogers, p. 56-57).
Because all EMPOWERING singing and music and rhetorical preaching is defined as SORCERY there is still no COMFORT. Apparently the only real COMFORT at Madison is rejoicing in holding an ISHTAR ritual as she goes through the GATES OF HELL. False "worship" leaders with music "rejoice in that they are HURTING those wo were Biblical literate and Spiritual people who are urged to worship God "in the spirit" as the new place.

Stone concluded that they MUST NOT be preaching what the Apostle's preached. There, he said, they had been told to repent and be baptized. The group was still confounded about BAPTISM and "the speech was a PERFECT DAMPER upon the meeting." Stone repeated this sermon several times and it usually destroyed the enthusiasm. Stone measured the power of the Holy Spirit by how effective he was in SEEKING A SIGN which he held in his own mind uninstructed by a clear reading of the Bible. When the Bible is preached in its fullness it has always reached a tiny "remnant" and when it has "mass appeal" we can be sure that "Brethren, something must be wrong." People will still HURT YOU REAL BAD for preaching the truth "as it has been taught.

Perhaps it is to the South's credit that "AROUSAL REVIVALISM" did not work among the masses as it might have with a few early converts on the dangerous frontiers. Rogers says of B. F. Hall--
    "On the 15th of May, A. D. 1825, I was, by prayer and imposition of hands, ordained by the venerated B. W. Stone and others".. in Missouri
Then Hall reports on a preaching trip into Middle Tennessee undoubtedly preaching Stone doctrine with the same failures which Stone noted from trying to get people to have an experience--
    "Early in the summer of that same year (1825), I returned and preached through Middle Tennessee and Northern Alabama. We had many camp meetings that fall. It was a season of much religious interest. It was no uncommon thing, at a camp-meeting, to see from ten to fifty weeping sinners at the anxious seat, crying out for mercy. Being naturally sympathetic, I thought they were the most affecting, touching scenes I had ever witnessed. At many of those meetings I spent nearly the whole night singing, praying for, and trying to instruct weeping mourners how to obtain pardon. I would weep with those that wept, and rejoice with those that rejoiced.

    "At one of those meetings, in the fall of 1825, an unusually large number were constantly at the anxious seat, weeping, and praying, and begging us to pray that God would have mercy upon them. Some found relief during the meeting; but the greater number remained uncomforted.

    At the close of the meeting, when about to leave for another meeting, a brother proposed that we sing a parting hymn, and the Christians first, and then the mourners, who had not found peace, should come forward and give the minister the parting hand.

    When the broken hearted mourners came in a long line, weeping as if their hearts would break, I could sing no longer, but burst forth in a wail of anguish of soul. My pent-up grief found vent in a gush of tears. On the way to the next meeting, I said to a brother preacher:

    "There is a wrong somewhere. Surely, we do not preach as the Apostles and first evangelists preached." (Rogers, p. 57-58).

The Stone method which had created the excitement worked for a short season. The less erratic method of weeping and mourning worked with certain people but did not work as a universal principle because it had no Biblical foundation. While he held a series of meetings during the fall "this idea haunted me" that there was a difference between the message and results of his preaching and Biblical examples.

Therefore, Hall seemed totally frustrated and went visiting family. He tells how he was led to the truth by Campbell through reading a book. He came across a copy of the Campbell-MacCalla debate and said:
    "I knew it would exactly fit and fill the vacant space. I was converted over; and was one of the happiest young converts you ever saw; happier than when I was converted the first time." Hall no longer held his Stone influenced conversion to be good enough and he, in effect, rejected Stone as an authority by rejecting his primary method of revival.
Hall then met with Stone but Stone rejected the teaching because it chilled the mourning which he saw as the work of the Holy Spirit. His preconception stood between his mind and the Bible. Or perhaps the universal principle that truth does not attract the masses was something he was not ready to accept.

Bypassing Stone, Hall baptized Samuel Rogers as the only preacher who did not oppose the idea. At this time, Hall moved a bit closer to the Biblical pattern and with Rogers was the only Stone preachers who were prepared to advance the Restoration cause.

Therefore, if we were looking for the "trail to the Old Paths" we should see that the restoration movement branched totally away from Stone's early views at this moment. In 1827 Hall preached in a meeting and if he baptized no one else, one convert went on to fan the flame. His new move toward restorationism led him to preach (note his spelling)--
    "baptism for the remission of sins on Cyprus Creek, in Lauderdale county, Ala., on the Lord's-day night. Talbert Fanning was present and heard the discourse, was convinced of the truth, and, when the invitation was given came forward and made the good confession, and was immersed the next morning for the remission of sins." (Rogers, p. 60)
Tolbert Fanning went on to preach against slavery in Murfreesboro. Like Paul, he was slipped out of the 'boro before he could be harmed. However, race NEVER divided the church of Christ as it did ALL other religious groups. In fact, the Southern Baptist church is identified as a GNOSTIC RELIGION which "has no connection with the historic church" according to one writer who sets the record Straight that NOTHING of STONEISM survived in churches of Christ.

It is clearly a calculated deceit to try to form an ECUMENICAL church using Stone and the Campbells. The Campbells admitted that some Christians must exist "within the sects" but their advice was to COME OUT OF BABYLON. The church of Christ NEVER existed with UNITY among the DIVERSITY of those who rejected Babtism. Stone, too, came around to the truth when he discovered that the "witchcraft" of fire worship no longer worked.

We have noted that self-proclaimed SCHOLARS are condemned by Jesus as the "doctors of the law" who "take away the key to knowledge. Therefore, they CANNOT grasp the WORD but don't hesitate to become peer-affirmed "scholars." For instance, take a look at one at

Ken Sublett

 Respond to this message   
(no login)


April 13 2004, 6:12 AM 


Again, thanks for the civility of your tone.

I guess that restoration and revival could be thought of as meaning the same thing. In this context, I see it differently.

The restoration movement, as you know, involved some determined men who resolved to look to the bible only, using no creeds, oaths, or other man-made documents or methods in their spiritual walk.

Revival (as I’d define it) is also a spiritual re-awakening, but set in the context of the restoration movement.

Over the last 3-4 years, some brothers have sought to sell me on many of the new ideas like “lifting holy hands,” clapping, and sermons with little Bible and lots of jokes and “fluff.” These brothers have told me these things are just “out of my comfort zone.” I don’t see it that way. I see it more as “gimmickry.” Isn’t there any right and wrong anymore? Why are we so afraid to say so?

Robin, lest anyone think that I’m old and decrepit, I’m only in my 40’s. Regarding “proms, swimming, high school dances, rock music,” and “shorts at camp,” I believe these should still be “battle grounds.” The world has been and still is moving away from the church. The church doesn’t need to move with the world. Remember what happened to the Israelites when they moved away from God? You don’t need to look too closely at our youth group to see the young ladies dressed in a worldly way. I don’t need to describe what that does to our young men.

Regarding “turn or burn” sermons, what kind of messages did Moses give the Israelites? What kind of messages did Jesus and Paul give the people of their day? Love was a major subject, but neither man was afraid to call them “a brood of vipers” if need be.

We’ve fooled ourselves that our “young people are leaving in droves.” Parents aren’t taking the responsibility to teach them the basics of Christianity. My children are still in the church body. All it took was for ME to teach them about the truth and God’s absolute authority, but it’s not about me or any gimmick I could use. It’s about the power of God’s word.

I hope you think about what I’ve said. I’ve had the last few years to think about and distill down the “new ways” of doing things. But, when it comes down to brass tacks, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree. I love your spirit, and appreciate your love for people.


 Respond to this message   
Robin Guidicy
(no login)

The Finer Points

April 13 2004, 2:48 PM 

Again, you make valid points all the way around.

There is no question that, as far as youth are concerned,
there are a number of battle ground issues.
Parents are in fact, the one's responsible for their children's spirtual lives.
My point as it concerns the church is that we only fed them the fire and brimstone, and a part of swing we see to the other way, is to a degree, a reaction to the repressive
lifestyles that were promoted within the church.

The fact, that people call themselves "christians" and then act like an agent of the devil when having this discussion
is another part of this equation that puts the church under
scrutiny that shows it in less than glowing terms.

Paul when adressing the church in Corinth called it "sanctified", (or set apart) even though its problems were well documented.
I'm sure Paul was discouraged to find the church in this situation.
He still loved them, and it showed in his writings and his actions.
His love manifest itself in number ways, including disciplining the people.

God's will is being done here, even though we don't understand the how or why.
He will be glorified in the end, with or without me.

I refuse to get into conversations with Mr. Cruz and Mr. Sublett, because they are traps.
Mr. Cruz distorts what he sees to fit into his square hole.
He isn't alone.

I'm afraid all of us are guilty to some degree, of trying to make scripture line up with our lives, instead of the other way around.

I appreciate your honesty, and your opinion.
Have a great day.


 Respond to this message   
B Chism
(no login)

Easter Drama

April 10 2012, 10:59 AM 

Beyond any discussion of praise teams,praise leaders,drama troups etc.What is the Biblical Authority for a congregation of the church presenting a Easter drama.
It is my belief that the Lord gave us a pattern,The New Testament. "... it has been confirmed,no one maketh it void,or addeth to". Gal.3:15.
Whatever is offered to God as worship,which is not authorized by the new testament,is not acceptable to him.
The fact that somthing is intended to be worship to God does not mean it will please God. Gen.4:2-5, Mal.1:8,Mt.15:9.
The bible often uses the word "strange" in the sense of "not acceptable or not authorized" lev.10:1-2,Heb:13-9.

We cannot expect to lead others to Christ by any way other than that which he commands(Prov:14vs12). His command to us (2Tim:4:2-5) Preach The WORD. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the WORD of God.Rom: 10:17

 Respond to this message   
Tom Brite
(no login)

Question for Donnie

April 8 2004, 11:43 AM 

Donnie, one of the things that I remember most from my Sunday school education in a conservative church of Christ is that while "church of Christ" or "Church of Christ" was A name for the Lord's Church, that it was not THE name for the Lord's Church, at least from a biblical standpoint. So, it seems strange to me that you are more, or at least, equally concerned about the name of certain churches as you are the doctrine of those churches.

You do not have to talk to many people to come across those, who rightly or wrongly, have a very negative impression of the name "C(c)hurch of Christ" because of past events. I can tell you that there were several times in my youth when I had invited friends to church with me when it did not take too far into the sermon for me to be embarrassed that I had asked them to come with me. While we in the C(c)hurch of Christ have not viewed ourselves to be a denomination, that is exactly what the outside world has perceived us to be. It seems to me that by insisting that we must call ourselves C(c)hurch of Christ that WE HAVE made ourselves into a denomination that must be known by those three words. Personally, I think your statement that those words were removed from the sign at Woodmont Hills, Oak Hills or any of the other churches listed because they were ashamed to wear the name of Christ to be shallow.

So, I guess my question would be this: Are you saying that the only name that a gathering of the Lord's people can be know as is "C(c)hurch of Christ?" If your answer is "no," then please explain why you are taking to task these congregations for making these changes. I would appreciate your comments so that I can better understand your thoughts. Thanks!

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

RE: Question for Donnie

April 9 2004, 8:58 AM 

Since this is an open forum, I'll ask Tom a question while we wait for Donnie's response. It pertains to your statement, "I can tell you that there were several times in my youth when I had invited friends to church with me when it did not take too far into the sermon for me to be embarrassed that I had asked them to come with me."

Unless I infer incorrectly, you had invited guests from another denomination(s). Would you please describe those specific elements of the sermon or the service that embarrassed you before your guests?

 Respond to this message   
Tom Brite
(no login)

Answer to Dr. Crump

April 9 2004, 2:04 PM 

Dr. Crump, I probably should have explained that point in my earlier post. I found it embarrassing, and when I would invite friends from other churches (not churches of Christ) to visit our service with me and then the preacher would call out denominations by name, including the ones from which my friends were visiting, and refer to them as being "bound for hell," which is the exact statement that was made. Whether or not this is true, I did not, and still do not, believe it appropriate for that statement to be made in a public setting. It builds walls that I found to be irreparable by further discussions. I have heard from numerous people that statements like those would prevent them from ever darkening the interior of a "church of Christ" again.

 Respond to this message   
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?

There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site;

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter