TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE? (Part 2)June 30 2004 at 2:13 AM
|John Waddey (no login)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
This is one very important question that confronts each congregation of the church of Christ. The decision to change or not to change Gods will for the church must not be made by its own leadership without Gods direction and authorization. This thread has been initiated for the purpose of addressing this question, and a series of articles by John Waddey will continue to be posted.
Heres introducing John Waddey, a native of Nashville, Tennessee and a lifelong member of the church of Christ, who has served churches of Christ in Mississippi, Colorado, Tennessee and Arizona. He has vast experiences in training young ministers and in Christian journalism. He serves as minister of the West Bell Road Church of Christ in Surprise, AZ
He sees the internet as a wonderful tool, which God has provided for the spread of the gospel and is eager to share his knowledge with truth-seekers around the world. For more information about the author and editor of the self-descriptive site, please link to:
Christianity: Then and Now
Please learn about what the author has to say regarding the winds blowing across the face of the brotherhood, and let us join the efforts against a spiritual war being waged against congregations before they are taken over and swept into apostasy.
TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE?
by John Waddey
Churches of Christ are standing at a critical crossroads. We face the same situation our forefathers faced in the half-century following the Civil War. Shall we continue in the old paths of New Testament Christianity that our predecessors in the faith traveled, or shall we change our direction? The road to the right is the road of ultra conservatism that inevitably leads to radicalism, faction and division. The road to the left is the road of liberalism. It leads away from the simplicity of the gospel to a denominational version of Christianity that stands without Christ's approval. It is the approach being promoted by those who are advocating change for our churches.
A hundred years ago the majority of those who were part of the movement to restore original Christianity chose the same road the agents of change are now promoting. Today they are identified as the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches. The issues that distinguished that movement last century and the movement for change of today are virtually identical. When the digression occurred in the past, the surviving remnant, led by great men such as David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, Austin McGary and J. D. Tant had to rebuild, almost from scratch. But God blessed their efforts and today well over two million souls are identified with the Churches of Christ around the world.
Today winds are blowing gale-force across the face of our beloved brotherhood. They are urging us to abandon the old ways for new ways learned from our denominational neighbors. These winds, originating primarily from our large universities, are sure to drive the ship of Zion on the rocks of destruction, should they prevail.
The purpose of this site [http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com/] is to address the changes being advocated; to examine them in light of Scripture. Each month we will post our journal, Christianity: Then and Now. We will review the books of the change agents as well as useful books that answer them. We will answer the questions our readers submit that relate to the problems before us. Additional materials will be posted on a regular basis. Should you find any of them useful, we encourage you to download them and distribute them, as you will.
Please join us in prayer that God will bless this effort and use this teaching site to the honor and glory of his Son and for the good of his church. Pray that we will do only good and no harm at all. If we can help one preaching brother to clarify his thinking and avoid taking the road to the left; if we can assist one eldership in protecting their flock; if we can help to reclaim one soul who has been beguiled by false teachers; if we can light a candle to guide one or a hundred in the way of Truth, our efforts will be well repaid.
Sincerely in Christ,
A TEAM EFFORT TO PROTECT THE CHURCH FROM HARM
by John Waddey
A spiritual war is being waged against the brotherhood of churches of Christ. Across the nation battles are being fought as agents of change work to gain control of congregations, schools, and mission outposts. They are well placed, well-funded and well prepared for their conquest. They are fully aware of what they are doing and where they are going. They are highly motivated and confident of victory. Unfortunately the majority of those who are their intended victims are unaware of the danger facing them. Some realize there is a problem but seem not to perceive the extent of it and the imminent danger it poses. If we are to effectively block this takeover of congregations, which will result in their being swept into apostasy, those who love the Lord and his church must take action. We must act now and act decisively. We must recruit an army of volunteers and we must educate and inform our fellow-Christians.
AN OPERATION IN WHICH YOU CAN HELP
Christians who have access to the Internet to join hands with us in an educational project
addressing some aspect of the change movement among our brethren. Some of the articles will remind us of the Biblical reasons why we believe and worship as we do. They will address those items being challenged by the promoters of change. Other articles will address the errors or fallacies of the false teachers. Some will review their books and speeches.
When you receive the article, read it and then forward it to ten or more members of the church on your mailing list with a note encouraging them to read it and forward it to Christians on their list. Such an effort has the potential to reach thousands of brethren
they will receive a brief lesson that will remind them of who we are, what we believe and why. They will be reminded of the dangers of the change movement
(Hopefully they can be elders, preachers, teachers, but any brother or sister in Christ). You are encouraged to send it to the congregations in your area who receive e-mail. Send it forth with a fervent prayer that God will bless your efforts and save his church from being swept away.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved in the most important thing in the world.
Yours for the church we love,
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
Prior posts to this thread have been archived here. This is done to keep
the loading time down and other messages from being truncated due to
certain security and anti-virus protection measureswhich limit the content
capacity of a thread. Thanks.
Re: TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE? (Part 2)
|June 30 2004, 2:14 PM |
Mr. Waddy's two articles are all fluff - there isn't a single concrete item in either of them. He does use some yellow journalism tactics such as buzz words and fear mongering, but he offers little if any evidence.
Buzzwords and Fearmongering
|July 2 2004, 2:29 AM |
"NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE." Please read the archived portion of "To Change or Not to Change." Thanks.
Re: Buzzwords and Fearmongering
|July 5 2004, 1:05 PM |
My point is not that some information may be buried somewhere in the universe but that the posts by Waddey cannot stand on their own as posted on this site. As a result, they do not contribute to intelligent or spiritual discussion but simply repeat innuendo and result in raising alarm and suspicion where there is no need.
If Waddey would offer some Scriptural support for his arguments, his articles might have some value. As they are, they are less than helpful.
MORE THAN A FEELING: WORSHIP THAT PLEASES GOD
|July 1 2004, 2:02 AM |
Source: John H. Waddey, editor of: http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com
MORE THAN A FEELING: WORSHIP THAT PLEASES GOD
(A Book You Should Read)
Bro. Jimmy Jividen has blest the church with yet another fine book that addresses the contemporary needs and problems confronting us. In thirteen concise chapters he analyzes every aspect of worship from a Biblical standpoint. He devotes a chapter to the question, "Is worship something the assembled church offers to God or is it what Christians do as they go about their daily activities?" In chapter five he gives us an excellent discussion of "Worship and Culture." Separate chapters are devoted to Worship in Praise and Prayer, in the Lord's Supper, in Giving and in Hearing God's Word. Each chapter is following by meaningful suggestions on how to improve the quality of our worship.
The last two chapters are very helpful. In them the author looks at the current tensions concerning the worship of the church. He notes the similarities of today's problems to those that beset our people a century ago. He clarifies the differences in expediencies and innovations in worship. Those who read Bro. Jividen's material will not have to guess what he means. They will not be wondering if there is some veiled message beneath the surface of his words. This book is a wonderful call for the simple and pure worship instituted by the Lord.
With all the pressures for unauthorized change, elders would provide a much needed service for their congregation if they would schedule a quarter of Bible studies for all their adult classes, using this book for a guide. It will enrich the congregation's worship. It will increase the individual disciples' understanding of how to worship God acceptably and motivate them to truly worship in spirit and in truth. Meaningful discussion questions accompany each chapter. Preachers will find in this book excellent materials for sermons on the various aspects of worship.
You may order this book from the Gospel Advocate, P. O. Box 150, Nashville, TN 37202.
BEFORE YOU INVEST IN A NEW THING, CHECK IT OUT
|July 2 2004, 2:39 AM |
BEFORE YOU INVEST IN A NEW THING, CHECK IT OUT
Folk-wisdom is a wonderful thing. Without the advantages of higher education, our forefathers learned valuable lessons of life and encoded them in wise sayings. "Don't buy a pig in a poke," i.e., don't make a purchase without first inspecting the item. There is a certain risk in ordering merchandise from a catalog. The actual product is often not the quality that the picture implies.
Those progressive-minded elders, preachers and members, who are taken with the proposals for change being promoted by some of our university scholars, really need to check out the actual product before they buy the package.
What sounds exciting in a religious journal or a book may appear quite different in a real life setting. They owe it to themselves and the church to visit a Disciples of Christ/Christian Church. There was a time (125 yrs. past) when these folks were one with us in faith and practice. They chose the road now being promoted in a flurry of books being produced and circulated by faculty members of Abilene Christian University and endorsed by the president of that institution. To see the end results of the "drive to introduce change" in our brotherhood, "go and see. "
Then you can make an informed decision whether or not to proceed.
Please, Christian leader, before you buy the "change" package being promoted among us, make the visit; check it out. Is this where you really want to go? Once you invite the change-makers in, the likelihood of restoring the Biblical faith and practice of the past is almost nil.
- In a Disciples Church you can see the "new hermeneutic" at work. Their seminaries have been instilling in their students this approach to the Bible for a full century. One's approach to the Bible plays out in the faith and practice of the congregation.
- You can see the kind of music the agents of change will bring into your worship assemblies. When the question of instrumental music in worship is no longer a "faith or salvation issue," you get not only the pipe-organ, the piano and the chorus, but the rock band as well.
- There you can see first hand what the talk about "freeing our women to serve God" is really all about. They have women preachers and elders.
- You can see how replacing the search for Bible authority on questions of faith, practice and morals with the "story telling" approach can lead to gay membership and ordination.
- You can see for yourself the real meaning of, "we are Christians only, but not the only Christians." There you will find participation in the Billy Graham type of crusades, membership in the ministerial alliance, acceptance of the unimmersed as fellow-Christians and membership in the World Council of Churches.
- You can see how "we can do anything the Bible does not condemn" plays out in the practice of a church. First they rejected the idea of "the law of silence" that says we can only do what the Scripture authorizes us to do. They then abandoned "book chapter and verse" Bible preaching. They now have no trouble embracing things clearly forbidden and condemned by Scripture.
- You will see the fruit of theological liberalism in the life and teaching of a church. Many of their theologians and preachers blush not to lay their sinful hands on the sacred text of the Bible and question if it is even legitimate.
- You can see a full blown denomination. With its national governing body, headquarters, presiding officers. They now proudly acknowledge that they are truly a denomination.
- You can see the kind of preachers it genders; reverend pastors whose preaching has been reduced to the level of cold water.
- You can see a dying church. For half a century the Disciples have been declining in membership. Standards have been lowered to the bottom notch, entertainment has replaced worship. Every new social fad of liberalism has been embraced, still they are dying.
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
Re: BEFORE YOU INVEST IN A NEW THING, CHECK IT OUT
|July 3 2004, 12:15 AM |
More negative emotional nonesense. The old "the sky is falling" slippery slope alarm. No Bible here, just Waddey's continued emotionalism.
Story telling leads to the ordination of gays?!! I find it very difficult to believe Waddey actually believes this.
Does Waddey actually believe that there are no Christians except those in churches of Christ? My, my. Perhaps Waddey could explain how one becomes a Christian and then demonstrate that if someone not in a Church of Christ does those things, that they are still not Christian. If he cannot demonstrate that, then he must admit that we are not the only Christians.
Waddey has picked the extreme to prove his point. He could have pointed these leaders to the Independent Christian Church which, in many ways are more Biblically conservative than we are. Yes, some of them have a band and they seem to have a stonger Preacher model. But Waddey has already said that being wrong in a few places isn't damnable. If it isn't, what's the cause of all this emotion?
What about addressing each of the 10 issues in Waddeys article?
|July 4 2004, 3:16 AM |
More negative nonsense from H. Roberson who has yet to say anything positive about the many articles written to warn churches of the Change Movement and the apostates. Roberson missed all the points in Waddeys article above. Lets hush for a few moments! Instead of H. Robersons gobbledygook, lets hear H. Roberson address the following key items in Waddeys article:
- New hermeneutic that allows the change agents to justify their new beliefs, programs and practices
- Instrumental music in worship not a salvation issue
should be acceptable in worship
- Women preachers and elders
- Story telling or drama approach in teaching about heaven and hell
- The un-immersed being added to and as co-members in the body of Christ
- That we can do anything the Bible does not condemn
- Theological liberalism
- That the church of Christ is a denomination among others
- Reverend pastors [as when Max was addressed as Reverend Lucado on TVhe liked it]
- Entertainment in worship to boost attendance
What say you?
|Dr. Bill Crump|
RE: H. Roberson's Posts Rebutting John Waddey
|July 5 2004, 10:30 AM |
I've noticed often that advocates of the Change Movement or sympathizers thereof can only offer futile name-calling and insults in "rebuttal" to Bible-based opponents of this Movement. H. Roberson brands John Waddey's mature, eloquently written articles and warnings as emotional, sky-is-falling "fluff." Roberson selectively ignores the bulk of articles Bro. Waddey has written opposing the Movement based on the PRINCIPLES found in Scripture. Yet in those posts of June 30 and July 3, Roberson offers nothing from the Scriptures that would support the Change Movement.
Arguments based solely on insults reveal much about those making them.
Re: RE: H. Roberson's Posts Rebutting John Waddey
|July 5 2004, 2:45 PM |
My, my brother Crump.
My comments refer to Waddey's posted articles and their rather obvious lack of clear ideas. I'm sure Waddey himself is a nice, sincere man. His writing however, is rather poor.
Let me illustrate, using an extreme example: Mr. Waddey says that story telling will likely result in the ordination of gays. Even if Waddey is the greatest saint to walk the Earth, that comment is totally unsupportable. One does not need scripture to point that out. It is prima facie falacious.
Is pointing that out an insult to Waddey? No, it is a critique of his rather weak writing skills. His writing is far from mature and eloquent and would earn him a failing grade in critical writing class.
I have read the posts by Waddey and have favorably commented on at least one of them, perhaps two or three. The point is Waddey's inability to articulate in writing a coherent, scripture-based argument for his ideas.
If we are to have a mature discussion, we cannot wear our emotions on our sleeves and take valid critique as insults. If a point is not supportable, it isn't. Period.
I am not attempting to defend the Change Movement or Change Agents, simply reviewing publically posted articles. Waddey happens to have a seemingly inexhaustable supply of poorly written ones.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
H. Roberson and Critical Writing
|July 7 2004, 1:09 AM |
I am always eager to learn from the experts. Since you have judged Mr. Waddey's writing skills as weak and have definitively stated that he would fail a critical writing class, then we must conclude that you have credentials and considerable expertise in this area. Perhaps you would inform us about the critical writing class(es) (or any writing classes) that you conduct in, say, a college, or university. Or perhaps you've written several books about this subject, maybe even contributed some articles to appropriate periodicals on this subject. You see, I'm a writer of non-fiction, and I'm always seeking new ways to improve my writing skills. So if I could read some published textbooks and articles on critical writing from an expert, such as yourself, I just might get that Pulitzer someday. I'm certainly not looking for a full CV from you, just some of your latest and best books and articles to study. That's not too much to ask. Of course, I could check out books on the subject from the library or enroll in a critical writing class, but I'd REALLY like to read YOUR published material. And this site would be a good place to promote your material. Can you help me out here? Thanks.
Re: What about addressing each of the 10 issues in Waddeys article?
|July 5 2004, 1:00 PM |
I addressed two of Waddey's points simply to make my point. If you have read my posts you will have seen that I have found good things in Waddey's posts but in most of them, he simply rehashes emotionally-laden proof points for his positions. He does not offer scripture that directly addresses his points, but simply raises an emotional alarm.
I did address two of Waddey's points:
His fear mongering about the (the lack of) cause and effect leading to ordination of gays and his personal emotional reaction against the (lack of) cause and effect of "not the only Christians" leading to acceptance of the unimmersed as Christians. The two paragraphs of Waddey's article that address those two "issues" are complete non sequitors. His "sign" does not necessarily "cause" the affect he is so concerned about.
Waddey does not offer scripture to support his points. He simply states something he doesn't like and then makes an extreme application of the thing. The result is that anyone who would utter the phrase "not the only Christians" would immediately be accused of being a Change Agent with sinister motives. The simple fact is that if we use our (standard Church of Christ) understanding of what it takes to be a Christian, it is highly likely that there are Christians in places other than Churches of Christ. They may be erring in various ways, but even Waddey admits that being perfect isn't required. The point is that even if Change Agents have been known to use this phrase, the phrase itself has a high probability of being accurate and it is not necessary to go to the extreme Waddey does in spreading alarm over it. It is not true that everyone that utters it is an ultra-liberal, demonized Change Agent.
If you would actually read past the first paragraphs of my posts, you might see that they do address various points. Do I want, do I need to address every point in Waddey's article to illustrate that his posts are full of opinionated, emotional alarm? I think not; these illustrations I choose to use suffice.
Re: What about addressing each of the 10 issues
|July 6 2004, 3:15 AM |
I hope that later on I will get a chance to address your highly journalistic points of view. [Hmmm
I do not have to remind you of your condescension toward other contributors journalism abilitiesbut, contrary to your criticisms, they deal with issues directly and are to the point; they provide scriptural references to support their addressed points.]
Raising an alarmyes! Raising an emotional alarmno! Calling it an emotional alarm is similar to the change advocates defense mechanism that those who oppose them do not have love and are void of the proper relationship with God and fellowmen. May I remind you that you have quite frequently described various articles as emotionally alarming or fear mongering? Lets just say that being alarmed is the appropriate message. Waddey has accurately warned congregations that The change agents are coming; the change agents are coming! I hope and pray that he will continue to do so. And guess what? Wed better be alarmed! But so far as emotionalism goes, just visit one of the charismatic-transformed churchesyou will find it there.
H., I believe youve been over-reacting to posted articles that you probably wish werent posted. Waddey is NOT publishing a book via this websitewhich reminds me that if youre really interested in knowing books that he has written, especially about the Change Movement, please link to the website thats provided for you and others in most of his articles. If you were observant enough, you would notice that usually a special effort is made to post lengthy articles in segments. Do you know why? Yes, you do know about retention, comprehension and attention spanmost readers are not on the same level as you. [Youve just heard that from me
and youre loving it.] Waddey and other writers, in many of their brief articles [not books, remember?] try to get their points across as briefly as possibleand notice how the numbered or bulleted items serve the purpose.
Waddey is opinionated? And youre not?
[to be continued
|A Concerned Member|
The "Journalist" Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
|July 12 2004, 9:48 AM |
Posts by the self-appointed journalistic critic H. Roberson should serve as an example to all readers. Although he denies being a change agent or a sympathizer of the Change Movement, it seems more than coincidental that articles strongly opposing this movement draw Robersons strongest criticisms. Even those articles backed by Scripture Roberson brands as weak, emotional, sky-is-falling fluff, fear mongering, and yellow journalism time and time again. In reality, this journalist doth protest too much, methinks.
Under the guise of journalist, Roberson would have us believe that his criticisms are based solely on the allegedly poor writing styles of the authors, regardless of the fact that their articles present clear, legitimate messages of warning about apostasy in the Church. To that, we must conclude that Roberson either blindly denies that such apostasy exists, or that he is in reality an innovative, bona-fide change agent who utilizes journalistic criticism in a failed attempt to foil opponents of the Change Movement. I submit that H. Roberson is the latter. If Roberson was a legitimate, unbiased journalist, he would have cited appropriate Scripture to fill in any gaps that the authors may have unwittingly created. But since his condescending criticisms are definitely biased against articles opposing the Change Movement, we must further conclude that H. Roberson is indeed a wolf in sheeps clothing and a journalistic legend in his own mind. Let the reader beware.
|A Concerned Member|
RE: The "Journalist" Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
|July 14 2004, 8:16 AM |
I'm going to take the advice of Jim Edgmon's post in another forum and show love to H. Roberson by apologizing for using the phrase "legend in his own mind." We can get a clear picture of Mr. Roberson's views without resorting to such cliches.
Re: What about addressing each of the 10 issues in Waddeys article?
|July 5 2004, 2:30 PM |
If you insist. The following comments are tied to Waddey's points, not your restatment of them.
1. Waddey does not define the New Hermeneutic and assumes too much of his reader. The phrase New Hermeneutic is loaded with emotion, differs with who one might read discussing it, and has become rather useless in discussions except as an appeal to emotion. But this point is actually a further introduction of his following points rather than a point by itself.
2. Waddey, although elsewhere allowing for Christian imperfection, wants to make instrumental music a salvation issue in order to keep out rock bands. If Waddey's other postings accurately reflect his views on forgiveness, our need (or lack thereof) of perfection, and the grace of our God, this statement goes too far. The simple fact is that music in an assembly cannot be a salvation issue if we 1)limit the way of becoming a Christian to the Church of Christ's standard H-B-R-C-B formula, and 2) allow for a Christian's (and presumably a group of Christians') ability to be wrong on some things and still remain saved. Are there things that can cause Christians to be lost? Yes, Paul provides quite a list but doesn't include instrumental music in them. Waddey, in order to be consistent, must accept those that use instrumental music as Christians (if they meet the formula). The discussion then becomes one of interpreting the various somewhat vague scriptures that deal with the topic, allowing God's grace to cover incorrect deductions, and then allowing each congregation to decide what they will do.
3. Waddey again goes too far in using an extreme to not allow other, more conservative applications of wider roles for women. It is not a given that those who advocate wider roles for women would automatically move, either in the short or long term, to female preachers and elders. Do some? Yes. Must all? No. Does the NH require it? Although Waddey does not define it, probably not.
4. I've already addressed this point, in this thread. The use of stories has nothing to do with the ordination of gays. This is perhaps Waddey's silliest point.
5. I've already addressed this point, in this thread. The simple realization that there are Christians in places other than churches of Christ does not lead to Billy Graham crusades, ministerial alliances, or to acceptance of unimmersed as fellow Christians.
6. Waddey appeals to the Law of Silence which nowhere exists is Scripture; it is a made up (although sometimes useful) tool to help us understand particular passages. Unfortunately it has become a law unto itself which is misused to allow things we like and disallow things we don't. In any event, the rejection of the Law of Silence does not lead to practices that are specifically condemned. Just the opposite in fact. It does help us re-examine Scripture to determine if our understandings and applications have been and are appropriate.
7. Waddey does not explain theological liberalism, again expecting too much of his reader. Those that are not in his circle will not know what he's talking about. It makes one wonder whether Waddey knows what liberal theology actually is, or if he is again grabbing buzz words and creating strawman arguments.
8. Yes, the Disciples are, and accept themselves as a denomination with all the trappings (depending on whose list you use). What Waddey does not do is demonstrate how either the New Hermeneutic or "progressive-minded elders, preachers, and members" necessarily require that the churches of Christ follow suit. Again, there is no demonstrated cause and effect, resulting in this point too being more fluffy fear mongering.
9. Waddey's opinion of cerain preaching aside, here again he fails to show causal relationships between the NH and "reverend pastors." Does the NH require us to call our preachers by different titles?
10. This is true. The Disciples may well cease to exist by 2050. The cause, attributed to one of their historians is their failure to preach the Gospel. However, Waddey again has failed to illustrate how the NH has issued in this eventuality. The result? More fluff.
Waddey's "warning" is not logically presented, is not supported by Scripture, and appeals to emotion and fear of the extreme. It is in fact a fine example of yellow journalism with little to commend itself - except to be used as an example in journalism school.
Waddey didn't address entertainment in worship.
Law of Silence
|July 6 2004, 10:16 AM |
The enemies of Christ and of the church love to plant cow patties and then CHARGE them with stirring up a stink.
There are several, always freshly-planted stink bombs or lies about the Restoration Movement. One is that they taught all of the heresies and even created bad breath. Ooops! Someone is sure to start a "BadBreath Ministry" shortened to BM.
Now, the old deliberate lie about the LAW OF SILENCE.
First, it should be noted that until 1878 according to David Lipscomb--and I have found nothing to refute him--that anyone even SUGGESTED the need for authority to add instruments. In the Restoration Movement the rationale was: There is NO LAW which says 'thou shalt not use instruments' therefore we gonna do it spite of hell.
People who had NEVER used instruments among Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians made NO CHANGE. Therefore it NEEDED no legalistic law to keep on NOT doing what you had never done. So how in the name of sanity could they have to INVENT what the blind cannot see throughout the Bible and all of church history.
Because peacable churches WOULD NOT consent to being FORCED into the "cowbell in a concert" they were branded a SECT. In other words if you object to someone parking their BULL in your living room you lack hospitality. You can see that "earth bound" thinking in this forum. We have noted that a sect or heretic is one who USES excitement to LIFT UP your minds so that they can LIFT UP your property. Non-instrumental groups have NEVER infiltrated and stolen an instrumental church.
Secondly, all LITERATE Bible readers grasped that music to BLEED off worship was controlled by Lucifer the singing and harp-playing prostitute. They understood that the "serpent" in the garden of Eden was a Musical Enchanter. The "tallest tree" in Eden was the Assyrians who brought you the BRASS MOUTHED instruments looking much like the poison-spitting cobra. Those who blame others for bad breath CANNOT grasp that the anti-music theme is used throughout the prophets (by the Spirit of Christ). They cannot graps that Jesus CAST OUT the minstrels like Dung.
Our little dead church in the high woods went into panic mode when several of the men began connecting Romans and Hebrews to the prophets because it swamped out their carnal brains. Blind means the inability to LOOK where Biblical words point. GRACE points to God's purifying our Minds at baptism if we believe. However, the overwhelming meaning of GRACE is using music, loud speaking, sexuality and homosexuality to EARN the approval of the goddesses.
Now, the Bible COMMANDS that we use SILENCE. If anyone thinks like the change agents that THEY have to fill in the hole in the donut left by God then they MUST deny God the right to include and exclude. Throughout the Bible this LAW is established for the LAWLESS who feel up to correcting God. The LAW OF SILENCE is used to INTRODUCE music: the spiritual mind can see and hear te overwhelming and LOUD connection of music to Satan, to prostitutes and to homosexual priests. So the BLIND lead the BLIND and that is just ok with God.
The history of the Christian religion is universal in demanding that the Bible is the authority. Even the HIGH CHURCH concept which never got "voted approval" insists that the Bible be the guide but THEY must define what the Bible says.
I am sure that quoting Scripture is evil but here goes:
The Law of Silence:
The meaning of God giving us A holy spirit or A good consience or A good consiousness or A co-perception of His Word is to regenerate our minds or spirits to remove our spirits from those of whom Christ the Spirit:
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.Acts 28:27
A Christian can hear the words and even the silence because at BAPTISM god sweeps our minds or spirits which allows believers to read the WORDS and understand the meaning. Even in His Revelation God in Christ hides the truth from unbaptized people so that
...Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: Acts 28:26
Waddey agrees with Jesus the Spirit: Disciples are made by BAPTISM and FURTHER TEACHING of a regenerated mind or spirit. Those who followed the teachings of JESUS were disciples or students. Only Disciples of Christ were called Christians. It would be absurd to call one a Christian who follows the teachings of a Shelly or Lucado: they are Shellyites or Lucadoites. Jesus the Spirit said that ONLY those who believed that "Jesus was the Christ the Son of God" and believed that "he that believes AND is baptized shall be saved" are SAVED. So says all of the Bible and most of history. Jesus said it and anyone who denies it is simply blind. Waddey says it and it is a fact. But to the blind there ARE NO FACTS "quoth Shelly, never more."
The BLIND simply CANNOT make their mental BAT hit the BALL of truth. That doesn't keep them from swinging, swinging, swinging.
PUT THE BIBLE BACK IN THE BIBLE SCHOOL
|July 9 2004, 2:10 AM |
PUT THE BIBLE BACK IN THE BIBLE SCHOOL
The church exists to preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15). By definition the Bible School is a learning environment where people study the Word of God. A visit to some of the liberal Protestant churches in your neighborhood would reveal that there can be a Bible School which does not teach Gods Book. But a closer look would also reveal that they are dying churches with dwindling attendance and an uncommitted membership. Lest we be proud, we should take a long hard look at our classes. More often than we wish to admit, a child can attend our Bible classes for years and still be virtually illiterate in Scripture knowledge. Some of our current problems are the result of a weak Bible School program. The reasons are many but some causes are:
- Untrained teachers who know not how or what to teach;
- Unprepared teachers who fail in their duty to their pupils;
- Poor literature and teaching aids which have little Biblical content and/or poorly present Gods Truth;
- A Bible school program in disarray and confusion;
- Unmotivated students, who come to class unprepared and manifest no interest in learning;
- Uncaring parents who make no effort to help their kids learn at home or be prepared for their Bible Classes;
- Irregular attendance with frequent absentees and tardies.
This problem is usually reflected in ill-kept classrooms, literature not available on time, teachers not present when class assembles and no discipline in the classroom. Such a situation is a recipe for an educational disaster. As overseers of the church who bear responsibility for the souls of the flock, elders must see that such a scenario never occurs in their congregation (Heb. 13:17). If it has already happened, elders should post an all hands on deck alert and take all necessary action to rectify the situation.
Change agents will find it hard to seduce a well taught congregation!
- Make an immediate inspection to determine the extent of your problem.
- Reshuffle your workers to see that competent people are put in charge of repairing the damage done.
- Examine and evaluate your literature, if it is from a denominational publisher, or weak in Bible content, retire it and find new materials that will truly teach students the Word of the Lord.
- Meet with your teachers. Let them know that you expect their best efforts if they are to teach.
- Attend the various classes and observe what is being taught and how effectively it is being done. Dont hesitate to give specific suggestions to your teachers for improving their work.
- Speak to the students. Tell them the value of their class, urge them to be good students.
- Mount the pulpit and tell the flock how important Bible School is and their need to be actively involved in it.
- Have your preacher deliver meaningful lessons on the value of Bible Study, the privilege and duty of teaching, the need for faithful attendance at Bible Class.
- Plan a program and have a drive for increasing Bible School attendance and enrollment. Set some challenging goals.
- Pray for Gods help and guidance in safely leading your flock from here to eternity; that your charge will truly grow in grace and knowledge (II Pet 3:18).
- Insist that everyone involved in your Bible School program exalt Gods Word! Have each student bring his Bible, then study it, memorize it, learn its practical lessons and how to live them. Make it clear that Bible Class hour is not for play, or entertainment, not for babysitting, but for learning!
Let this be the year when we put the Bible back into the Bible School!
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now
|Dennis (Skip) Francis|
To Change or Not to Change?
|July 16 2004, 3:32 AM |
Source: Bible InfonetTo Change or Not to Change?
By Dennis (Skip) Francis
There has been tremendous pressure applied in recent years to change the message the church preaches, to change the methods used for getting the message across, and to change the moral ground on which the church stands.
The agents of change say that the church and its message has become irrelevant, and for it to become relevant again, change must occur. Talk seems to center around such issues as "tolerance" and "presentability." It is suggested that the church should become tolerant of certain types of behavior or attitudes or that the church should become more presentable to society to be accepted by more of that same society.
In religious issues, change is good when it brings us closer to God and his ways. Change that takes us away from God and his teachings is, of course, bad.
The apostle Paul speaks about how some changed to become closer to God. "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17-18). Changing from slaves of sin to slaves of righteousness was good.
Paul also wrote, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6-7).
The Galatians had obeyed the gospel but had changed and were turning away from Jesus Christ. In Galatians 3:1, Paul says to them, "Oh foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth." The Galatians had changed, but it was not good change. Further, those who were responsible for their change were called "perverters of the gospel."
There are good changes and some bad changes. Are the changes that modern-day critics of the church desire good or bad?
Many today say that the church must become more tolerant. Tolerance, in the mind of some, means non-judgmental. To many, being non-judgmental means never saying that anything is wrong except, of course, saying that being judgmental is wrong.
In Luke 13:3, Jesus says, "But unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" and illustrates for us that he is not tolerant of sin! In Luke 19:45-46, we read how Jesus went into the temple and drove out the moneychangers, and then says to them, "It is written, My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." This also illustrates that Jesus was not tolerant of those who defile God's house.
Not only was Jesus intolerant of some things while he was on this earth, the Bible tells us that he will not be tolerant when he comes again. In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Paul tells us that Jesus will come with "flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel." Jesus is most decidedly not tolerant of those who do not obey the gospel!
God's Word does teach tolerance, but not tolerance of sin. Rather, it teaches tolerance of people, not their behavior. God does not desire that anyone should perish, but that "all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).
What about the presentability of the church and its message? Should that be changed?
Most of those who advocate changing the presentability of the church are talking about making the church more entertaining. They want fun and games.
God is not the author of confusion but of peace. How confusing worship would be if the church caters to each person's idea of fun and games. In verse 40 of that same chapter, we are taught, "Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:33). The Corinthian church turned the Lord's Supper into fun-time, and some even got drunk (1 Cor. 11:21). This caused them to be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ by taking it in this unworthy manner.
Paul told us in Romans 1:16 that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Further, in the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21), and he decried the wisdom of this world which tells us that the message of the cross is foolishness. Paul says "For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" (1 Cor. 1:19). He goes on to say, "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" The message of the cross and the method of its presentation are not up to us.
The church is not to be like a politician and take polls to see which way the wind is blowing and then go in that direction to gain votes and followers. The church is to be governed by principles eternal principles. If that pleases men, good; if it does not, too bad for those who are displeased, but the church must not waver. The church is often counter-cultural, and that is what makes her a "city set upon a hill."
We need not please the men of this world; on the contrary, the Scriptures teach that we are not to please men. Ephesians 6:6 tells us we are not to act "with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as bond-servants of Christ." Paul tells us in Galatians 1:10, "For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ."
Feel-good theology says that anything that makes you feel good is right. Christianity says obeying God is right and will give you peace and that makes you feel good. There is a difference in saying that feeling good is the standard for conduct, and in saying that right conduct produces happiness. Some seem to say, "I know that I am right because I feel good." We ought to say, "I know that I am right because I obey the gospel, and that makes me feel good."
Practicing feel-good theology has another detrimental effect of even greater importance: one cannot be saved until one is convicted and convinced of his own sin. You cannot convince a person of his sin by using the "I'm OK, you're OK" methods which are advocated today. No one seeks God until he is convinced that he is a sinner and needs God. There is such a thing as "godly sorrow that works a repentance that is not to be repented of."
Some advocates of feel-good theology say, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." That is true, but we seek the souls of men, not flies.
Should the church change to be tolerant of sin or to be more entertaining? Not according to the Word of God! The Bible has not changed, people and their needs have not changed, the church should not change.
DANGEROUS ASSUMPTIONS IN A TIME OF CRISIS
|July 27 2004, 3:01 AM |
DANGEROUS ASSUMPTIONS IN A TIME OF CRISIS
Churches of Christ are facing a major crisis as a sizable and influential body of men and some of our large universities have mounted a campaign to transform the church into a modern charismatic denomination. Apostles of this movement are traversing the brotherhood, sowing their seeds of change with significant success.
Elders, whose task it is to protect their flocks from wolves and thieves (Acts 20:28-30), must be especially vigilant in this time of conflict. Faulty assumptions in the current climate could prove disastrous to congregations and souls of disciples, young and old.
There was a day when we could safely assume that if one was a member of the Church of Christ he would:
- We cannot assume that because a brother or sister was once a faithful child of God that such is still the case. Time and circumstances have a way of eroding the faith of some. They fall away from the faith (I Tim. 4:1-2).
- Nor can we assume that a man, once known as a faithful, dependable preacher, is still that today. Across the country a number of men have embraced the agenda of those who are trying to change our faith, worship and practice. John teaches us to try the spirits for many false prophets are gone forth in to the world (I John 4:1). Paul spoke of men who made shipwreck concerning the faith (I Tim. 1:19-20). Some of the leading advocates of change were once faithful, effective preachers of Gods Word. Elders cannot afford to assume soundness when interviewing preachers or inviting guest speakers.
- We cannot assume that because a Christian College was once a sound bastion of the faith and a safe place to send our young people and preacher students, it still is. Some of our schools with illustrious beginnings and long histories of service to the kingdom have now emerged as fountainheads of false teaching and promotion of change. Parents and students should investigate carefully before deciding on a school.
- No longer can we assume that a congregation wearing the name Church of Christ is in fact a faithful church following the ordinances of Christ. The church in Ephesus had left her fist love (Rev. 2:4-5). Some churches that once were strong for the way of Christ are now a new variety of congregation, known for their changes in the faith, worship and practice. Before a person places his membership, he should observe carefully and inquire very pointedly as to their thinking and practice.
- We cannot assume that because a brother or sister once loved the truth of God and rejoiced to hear it proclaimed, they still do. Jesus warned, the love of many would wax cold (Matt. 24:12). Experience demonstrates that such is happening among our people today.
Today, thanks to our change agents and to the universities from whence they came, all of these fundamental truths are openly challenged and even repudiated.
- Believe the Scriptures to be inerrant (John 10:35)
- The church to be the sacred body of Christ (Eph. 1:22);
- That denominationalism was wrong (I Cor. 1:10-13);
- That all things must be done according to the divine pattern (Heb. 8:5);
- That the use of instrumental music in worship is sinful (Eph. 5:19-20);
- That women should not preach or fill roles of public leadership in the church (I Cor. 14:33-34);
- That only those properly immersed have their sins forgiven (Acts 22:16);
- That salvation by faith only is a teaching of man not found in Scripture (Jas. 2:18-26)
In such a spiritual environment, assumptions are dangerous things. Wise leaders will assume nothing. They will prove all things; hold fast that which is good and abstain from every appearance of evil (I Thess. 5:21-22).
John Waddey, Editor
Christianity: Then and Now