Now the Open Letter to RHCC elders--without any personal comments.

February 2, 2002

Elders for the Richland Hills Church of Christ
RHCC
6300 NE Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76180-7899

Re: New Viewpoints Concerning Deacons

My Brothers in Christ,

It is indeed with a heavy heart that I present this letter for your discussion and consideration.

In 1986, DeeAnn and I brought our family to this congregation. It was time of healing for me. After 14 years in the ministry, I had twice followed preachers in the pulpit who stayed on staff after my arrival. As all of us know, this presents some very unusual challenges. After a great deal of thought and prayer, we decided that we would establish our home here, find gainful employment, and focus on rearing our children in a stable and secure home. RHCC was the right place to make our church home. The healing was needed and received. We were grateful to be here and knew this would be our new home.

Over the years, I have had friends question me about my membership at “that church.” My answers were from the heart and straight to the subject. I told them that I knew of no perfect body of Christians, including their own congregation. Further, I stated (and have always maintained) that congregations need both conservative and more progressive members. I try to fill that conservative role, as many of you may know.

I want to use this letter to discuss some recent decisions. I am not going to use scripture references because you are each fully aware after your lengthy studies on the subject at hand. Please allow me to present my thoughts as clearly as possible.

RICK’S WEDNESDAY DEFENSE

We were not in attendance for Rick’s message, but I have carefully reviewed it. Let me say that it is the best wording and explanation that I have heard in one of our pulpits. The reason why I appreciated the message so much was because it was an exact restatement of lessons and studies that I have had since college and throughout my public ministry; however, there are a few problems that I see in your combined studies which I feel are incorrect.

First, I Timothy 3:11. I have heard this argument several times. I have researched it before but have always come to the same conclusions. Many others have supported these conclusions — and that makes the conclusions neither correct nor wrong. I am simply not alone in these beliefs. If it be assumed that 3:11 refers to special women servants, then I would suppose that we would conclude that there is NO mention as to the character requirements for the wives of elders and/or deacons. Secondly, the Holy Spirit could have easily employed a conjunctive relief for our understanding by saying that the men servants and women servants have the following character requirements.

I clearly and completely understand the arguments that you employ, but just as clearly, I do not agree with the conclusions that you have made. Rather, I believe that the logic you have employed is a stretch and is not consistent with the context. My position also could have some difficulties, but is certainly the more sound hermeneutic principle. I do believe that you have tried too hard to come up with your conclusions. Further, I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit meant to make church organization that complex or difficult to discover.

As we are aware, men added chapters and verses; they are not in the original language. After Paul finished his instructions to Timothy about congregational leadership and organization, he went into one of his Pauline interludes and recites personal instruction to the young preacher. Then Paul begins again with inter-congregational relationships in chapter 5. It is in chapter 5 that your studies and Rick’s message find another great agreement with my views. I believe that the “widow indeed” is likely the deaconess of the first century church. It would be my guess that Phoebe in Romans 16:1 would be one such enrolled widow. But carefully follow the remainder of chapter 5 and see why this widow might be “enrolled.” The logic employed is that of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Read this carefully, again, please.

I have no problem with women deaconesses, but I cannot uphold the way you arrived at that conclusion in 3:11. And since your conclusions seem to mirror mine in chapter 5 and the widow indeed, then why did you not follow the directions that are found in chapter 5? Or, did you feel that they do not apply to the church today?

Again, Rick’s message, all of it, was absolutely correct in regards to Biblical views concerning our elders’ and deacons’ function in the church. It was a superior presentation. But, and I think this is getting to the heart of the matter, when Rick discussed the recognition that he hopes for his daughter, we find a direct contradiction.

The lesson was correct in teaching that the work of a deacon or special servant is not a reward or an office in the church. I believe that is exactly what you have in mind — recognizing the women in the same way as the men. Frankly, I believe that your thinking in context would be foreign to the New Testament Church and to our written revelation of the role of men and women in the church.

A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE

My Brothers, you made a significant departure from practice by ordaining these special servants without any presentation to the congregation for approval. Richland Hills has been so good about this practice. Instead, you have reverted to the good OLE boy approach of “putting them in.” In other words, if Acts 6 is a prototype, then why were we denied the opportunity to “look out among ourselves?”

Here is a great concern that I have: After all the months of your study, why didn’t you choose to follow that study with a congregational study on Lord’s Day morning? This is most perplexing to me. I see no way that individual or collective wisdom would allow this to happen. To others and me, it boils down to either ignorance or deceit — and I KNOW that you Brothers are not ignorant. Why was this done in such a manner?

OUR PLACE IN CHURCH HISTORY

This congregation will and is playing a vital role in the continuing efforts of New Testament pattern restoration. Others are watching closely. The responsibility is great. I firmly believe that a few other congregations will follow suit. But, many will find great cause to find fault and the result will be, in my humble opinion, our sowing seeds of discord across our Brotherhood. I already fear that when members move from RHCC to another city, that they do not attend a church of Christ. This is both sad and alarming to me.

I will say this clearly: I will not depart from the church of Christ. It is my heritage, and it is my belief that she is the body of Christ. I believe that I was added to her at the time of my baptism and believe that she still strives, more than anyone else, to be the bride that Christ will receive unto Himself.
My beloved shepherds, the work of this church is vital. But, I believe that we are going to lose some very good, faithful, and contributing members. Under the current practices, my family will be forced to leave as well. I refuse to separate from mainstream church of Christ, and I believe that is the direction in which we are headed.

A RESOLUTION

First and foremost, I believe that each elder and minister involved in this decision needs to repent and publicly request forgiveness of God and the RHCC family.

Secondly, let’s start over on this study congregationally. Letters need to be sent out to every household informing members of these decisions.

It seems abundantly clear that confusion has been created. Entertaining the idea of ordaining both men and women and choosing the more accurately translated term of “servant” or “special servant” without congregational study and involvement was a most unwise choice. Let’s all come together to study as a body and come to an accord. I have never been part of a split in a church, and I do not want that to happen now.

I am most happy to discuss this with you and am willing to help in any way that you deem useful. We, as a family, dearly love and appreciate your labor of love and leadership that you provide. This letter is a rebuke of love and a plea to ask you to step back, start this process all over, and study together.
In the service of the Master,

Weldon C. McKinney