I have added a new poll concerning the firestorm about the new Church of Christ directory. There have been two major conversations concerning this new publication of the churches of Christ in America. One is that the churches of Christ are in decline and that the instrumental congregations have been excluded from the list. I have placed a poll on the side of the page to see how people feel about this choice. I have some thoughts on all of this discussion and will write on them in the future, but right now I would like to see what the feeling is concerning this step. Oak Hills was excluded from the previous directory, but by choice and the Richland Hills church was excluded not by choice. Anyway, how do you all feel concerning this?
Related posts:
- The Future of the Largest Congregations
- Defining Values in Congregations
- Wished All Congregations Were Like This
- Inappropriate Indirect Communication in Congregations–1
- Inappropriate Indirect Communication in Congregations–2
Tags:
This entry was posted by Matthew
on Saturday, January 31st, 2009 at 11:28 am and is filed under Church News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About The Author
Matthew is originally from Nova Scotia, Canada. He has a beautiful wife named Charity and a precious baby named Gabrielle. He has graduated from the Brown Trail School of Preaching, Heritage Christian University with his Bachelors of Arts in Biblical Studies, Lipscomb University with his Master’s of Arts in Biblical Studies and his Master’s of Divinity at Freed-Hardeman University. He is presently working towards his Doctorate of Ministry at Harding Graduate School of Religion. His articles have appeared in the World Evangelist, the Highway to Holiness, The West Virginia Christian, The Christian Echo, The Firm Foundation, Church Growth, and the Gospel Advocate. He enjoys hockey, golf, boxing, and chess. In his spare time he enjoys reading numerous genres of books. Also, he is working on climbing all of the 14ers in Colorado. Matthew is the Pulpit Minister for the Castle Rock church of Christ.
Loading ...
I’m certain that anything said will be twisted by whichever side sees it differently – there is just more heat than light on this subject. But most do not know how this happened technically. Carl at 21st is just a statistician and the task that 21st has been involved in for MANY years is listing acapella churches of Christ. If a church is using the instrument in even one of their services they are no longer acapella. They are at best a hybrid. Carl was not trying to start a firestorm just doing the job.
I had no idea that North Richland Hills was such an avid user of 21st Century Publications! As to questions about exclusion/inclusion, “Nevertheless the FIRM FOUNDATION of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His…” (2 Timothy 2:19)
I was a member of a congregation that added an instrumental worship service in 2001. I did not leave the congregation until 2005, because of a scheduling problem. (The church stopped its early service, so that my family and I could not attend it and the newly started urban ministry congregation which had a later worship assembly. We had to make a choice between the 2 churches, and we felt the need to be involved in urban ministry.) I am not opposed to 21st Century Publications dropping my former congregation, since it is trying to list exclusively a cappella congregations. I still have fond memories of my nearly 11 years with the blended congregation, though.
If a Church of Christ adds an instrument I see no problem with 21st Century publications keeping them out of the church yearbook. Churches of Christ are accapella and if they add an instrument they should cross over to the Independents because we would love to have them.
Churches of Christ are not a cappella in Australia. (well, about 96% of them are not)
I am curious about something. Did they also exclude the non-institutional congregations, the one cup congregations and the non-class congregations? If they did not it seems to me that consistency would demand that they do so. After all isn’t errror still error? Truly “Consistency thou art a jewel”.
No Mr. Cole. The purpose of this work by 21st is not in any way to judge faithfulness but to list acapella churches of Christ. As I said Matthew: ge ready for people to shoot off without checking out what this is about. Not being cruel Leon but sounds like you are looking for a fight. I’m not the one to fight, but the fact is Mr. Royster is being consistent.
I did not know that asking a question is looking for a fight. I take it from what you say that if they are acapella they are listed no matter what other position doctrinally they may hold. I assure you I am merely asking for information it does appear, from your response, there is an indication that you are being oversensitive I hope that statement will not be interpreted that I am being combative and looking for a fight.
And your statement of “consistency thou art a jewel” was just a statement. Good, I’m glad to know that. Please read my first post. The book was not to draw lines. Carl was given a job and was just doing it.
But … who at 21st gave him the job with those specifications – a cappella churches only? And why this year rather than last year?
And who gets excluded next year? And for what?
And who decides?
I don’t know that it really matters. 21st Century Christian will not likely be publishing the Lamb’s Book of Life.
None of us will.
Wow, there is certainly a flash point in the church. So far, the survey is mostly a dead split on the right direction for the directory. I think there are a baunch of issues to deal with on this one. I think I might spend some time dealing with them in some blogs in the future. Just a quick thought on these issues, one would be identity of churches of Christ. What are the issues that are important, one would have to say the instrumental question, the second issue would be the consistency issue. What is big enough to put one out of the book? Who picks? Utimately, probably the most important issue is where is this leading or not leading? One final thing, is this like the census of 1906. Will this be a marker for those congregations? We all need calm heads, a lot of grace, and a balanced understanding of truth to deal with all of this. Also, thank you for everyone’s comments.
The very term “a-capella Churches of Christ” places a descriptive restriction on who is among us. Now it is not only necessary that we have believed and been baptized into Christ, but we must also be a-capella.
Regardless of what the scriptrures teach regarding a capella vs. instrumental worship, this just seems to be one more example of how a Christian fellowship has allowed one issue (and a small one in scripture) to be elevated to the point that it defines fellowship in the Lord. VERY SAD!!!
Personally, I wish the book did not have any marks designating any churches apart from another. If I am traveling and I visit a congregation that happens to be pre-millenial or opposed to Sunday-school, will it really matter that I worshiped one time with them? It is not like I am becoming a member of that particular congregation. I realize instrumental worship would be a different scenario for some but if it is essential that a person finds a local a-capella church then pick up the phone and call around to make sure which churches are a capella and which are instrumental.
If we would do this, then we would not need to have any publisher deciding that we need to mark certain churches and exclude others. As for the publisher’s concern, they might just be shocked to find out that the concern to separate from the instrumental churches is not held by as many members of the CoC as it once was. So just who are they trying to serve?
Grace and peace,
Rex
So Rex…not surprised that YOU are the one in charge of deciding what is a big issue and a small one. Glad the Lord appointed you the judge. And your words are revealing: “Regardless of what the scriptures teach…” that’s the problem really isn’t it?
And, again, don’t shoot the messenger. Carl was given a task by another to continue to publish the information on a-capella churches of Christ. You do not know him or his position on the issue of instrumental music. He is just a statistician doing the work assigned him and he saw churches using the instrument and that makes them no longer a-capella. And, it is an old statement but true. The book did not change, THOSE churches did.
Not trying to be harsh brother but sounds like you have an axe to grind.
Are we not suppose to be insterments of the Lord ?
if thats the case then when we Praise Him should be doing it without any physical aid ?
the moment we involve something physical or earthly… it then can “potentally” become corrupted and twisted, even worshiped.
and then the true purpose of the act of Praise in the worship service is lost.
worship the Lord or worship the guitarist ?
We all can Sing. ( if we are willing)
but can we all play the guitar or drum or flute or trumpet ?
this would require a music class for every member to go to worship service…
if not then worship would be a consert… and thats best kept outside of worship.
not that theres anything wrong with doing this on our own time but when we meet as a Church we all must harmonize as One Body.
not that theres any thing wrong with playing or knowing how to play an insterment.
but instead why not let the Lord just play our souls as an insterment.
Dale,
I have no axe to grind. I just question the wisdom and goals of the decisions made by someone. Yes someone… when this book was published again…someone had to make the decision to publish only the “A capella Churches of Christ.” Who made that decision? Since our fellowship is not entirely a capella anymore, why then limit it to exclude the few churches that have added some instrumental worship (especially when the book has no problem including other congregations who have certain practices that take them out of the mainstream of the CoC)? And if they took a poll among members of the Churches of Christ, what percentage of the members would they be serving by excluding certain churches? All members of the Churches of Christ? That seems very unlikely. My point is that this book does not serve well all the people they seek to serve. It would be better served to include the instrumental congregations with a little designated notation much like they do with “one-cup” or “premillenial” congregations. Further more, and in my judgment (which, like everyone elses, is shaped by scripture), the decision to exclude instrumental CoC’s only helps unintentionally to serve a dark power that continues seeking to make an issue of fellowship where scripture does not.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Pretty simple thot: If you want to purchase a directory of acapella churches of Christ, purchase the directory from 21st Century Christian. If you do not want to purchase the directory, then don’t.
About 20 miles from where I live there is a church building with a sign that reads, “Primitive Baptist church of Christ.?”
Sonny,
What is a Primitive Baptist CoC? Do they originate in the Restoration Movement? I have never heard of that name before.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex…you still miss it. the publication for MANY years and as far as I know has ALWAYS been called “a listing of acapella churches of Christ” The decision was not made this time. It was made MANY years ago when the decision was made to publish such a book. It was done not by 21st CC but by, I think, Mack Lynn. Carl and 21st are just doing what the title of the publication is. You seem to be missing the point.
Dale,
I do not think I am missing it. I know what the title was many years ago but then many years ago (1970s, 80s, 90s) there was not a significant minority of a capella church adding an instrumental worship service was there? And too my knowledge, Richland Hills CoC is not all instrumental. It has one instrumental service and several other a capella services.
21st, which is aware of what is going on, made a decision to not adjust their title (or change it all together). That decision now excludes a segment of churches among our fellowship. Though I doubt there decision was to intentionally be excluding in a dividing manner, that decision only helps to further fragment a fellowship that is already polarized, fragmented, and potentially in the initial phases of another major split.
Grace and peace,
Rex
If, indeed, we are potentially in the initial phases of another major split, is it because a publishing company chose to use the same standard it has used in time past or because congregations chose to do things differently than they have in the past? BTW, I think this blog has helped illustrate Matthew’s topic of indirect communication about conflict.
Eddy,
Both and neither. Neither a publishing company’s release of a book nor a few congregations who have made some changes have done anything that in and of itself would result in a major split among our fellowship. Yet at the same time, I believe both acts unintentionally are part of a larger power that is working against us that will result in disasterous consequences. Does that mean that neither group should have made the decisions they made? Not necessarily so. Each side must move forward and that requires making decisions. But I still question the decision to not make a change that would allow the inclusion of those congregations who now have added instruments. First, those churches (too my knowledge) still are mainly a capella. Such a decision to exclude says through perception that a church is either instrumental (and then no longer among us) or a capella (and one of us) rather than acknowledging that though our fellowship is comprised mostly of exclusively a capella churches, there are some churches that are both a capella and instrumental. Secondly, and related to the first, the decision continues the furtherance of the unwritten creed that makes a capella worship a test of fellowship.
I am not trying to say that this was the intention of 21st Century Publishing. However, wrong or right, this is the message that has been received by many. That is why I believe the book needs to change and include those churches that have added some instruments (and if they want to place an asterik or some other marker, that seems appropriate), especially since those churches still support in many ways ministries and institutions associated with the CoC.
Any ways, that is all the energy I have for this blog post. Even if we disagree, we still be brethren!
Grace and peace,
Rex
No not in the R.M. They are a primitive Baptist church and only a P.B. C.
because you were right when you said “how a Christian fellowship has allowed one issue (and a small one in scripture).” The music issue is a small one. In fact it is so small that it isn’t there. The N. T. doesn’t say anything about I.M. in worship.
I have known of them for many years. 20+ years ago I worked with a man that went there. He believed (as they teach) that he was born saved or born lost. Although he came in work one day and said that he had been restored. I asked him why and he just looked at me. I also worked with the man that preached there. I also worked with his brother and brother-in law. They would quickly tell me that they were not a congregation of the churches of Christ. They teach what other P.B. C’s teach. But they put on their sign CoC. Does that make them Christ church? No. Just like many others who put CoC on their sign does not make them Christ church. Isn’t it what one teaches that makes them Christ church? It is not that we just love everybody (and we should) as some teach. and it isn’t everyone that acknowledges Jesus is Christ church. Don’t you think it is what is taught and lived that makes us Christ church? Rex get you hackles up
Sonny,
Thanks for your reply. I have never understood how someone who believes you are either born saved or lost is able to minister to the many who have had children die (of which I am one).
While there are certainly beliefs (e.g., denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh from God – 1 Jn 4) and certain practices (e.g., incestuous behavior – 1 Cor 5) that remove us from the fellowship of Christ and his church, we should probably be careful in saying that what makes us Christ church is based on what we teach. Ten years from now, we all will probably teach differently on some issue than we do now. Does that mean are not Christ church now because ten years down the road we conclude that what we taught was wrong? We need to keep in mind the work of God. It is God who redeems us and makes us who we are – Christ church. While we can certainly reject that, given the fact that Paul still considered the Corinthians as belonging to the church even with all of their problems, that tells me that the bulk of being Christ church is not dependent upon us but on God. That is probably why Paul spends so much time in the beginning of his letters talking about what God has done.
Any ways, your comments about I.M in worship not being mentioned in the N.T… Very true. Then why does the N.T. get used to teach against I.M. in worship? The answer is lies in the hermenuetic we approach scripture with. The very fact that we have reduced the subject to only what the N.T. says (and not the O.T.) relies on a certain hermeneutical assumption. Though that hermeneutic may be right (though I doubt it), it betrays what the real problem in the CoC is right now and what the same old problem has always been – hermeneutics. Right now in the CoC there are at least two different hermeneutical approaches to scripture being employed and that is why there is so much diversity among the two different approaches who both take scripture very seriously. And that is what is perhaps the saddest part of division, that unity has been lost not because our confession of Jesus has been lost but because there is not a common shared hermenuetic that allows us to remain uniform in our understanding of scripture.
Well, I said I was done with this blog post but I wanted to respond with Sonny since he responded to my question and raised more dialogue. I do want to say to the rest on here that even though we do not always agree, I truly appreciate the dialogue. Thanks to Matthew for the venue of dialogue.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex you are right we should be careful about saying certain things. But we must abide in the teaching of Christ. 2 John :7-11. The church that belongs to Christ must teach His teachings. Based on His teachings we are His church or we are not. Yes it is God Who redeems us and he makes us who we are. The Corinthians were Washed, Justified and Sanctified. They did have problems. Too many use the Corinthians as examples of being alright because they had problems and Paul wrote to them as brethren. God will cleanse those in that church and God will cast away those in that church that He judges unrighteous
The hermenuetic that I use is to sing praise to the Father. It is found several times in Scripture. The melody I make is with the heart. I am not judging anyone but praising God as His word tells me too.
Sonny,
What does “teaching of Christ” in 2 Jn 9 include? Too many seem to extend the meaning of that phrase to include subjects which the apostle John does not seem to have in mind. Todd Deaver has written an excellent book that includes a discussion on how this passage has been mishandled by some.
Any ways, your desire to be obedient to God as you understand his word to teach is commendalbe and an example to all. In my ministry experience, it amazes me how much our knew understanding of grace (perhaps misunderstanding) has nullified the word “obedience” despite its occurances in scripture. We may not always agree on exactly what sort of things God is calling us to be obedient in but we do seem to agree that grace is no excuse for the lack of obedience.
Grace and peace,
Rex
21st cc doesn’t have to be the official list. I think the free market solution would be for some enterprising person to publish an alternative directory – and hopefully not exclude any church of Christ.
all i see is it divides the chruch.
thats bad.
i hate to sound like a defeatist, but i think we lost any idyllic state of the Sign-Out-Front “Church of Christ” being the flawless equivalent of the Church-of-Christ in the NT a great long time ago (probably long before i was born).
At this point “Church of Christ” is just a name, a denomination (that’s right, i said it–gasp! blasphemy!). Whether a “Church of Christ” (name) really is a church of Christ (NT) is, functionally speaking, up to an individual’s conscience and best judgment to decide. Some individuals find an instrumental “CoC” not to be a NT-coc at all. Some individuals find an instrumental “CoC” to be a NT-coc that has a problem. Some individuals find an instrumental “CoC” to be a NT-coc that’s just a different flavor of ice cream.
So to whom is the guide written? Only the first group of individuals? Then leave the instrumental “CoC”s out. Is it written only for the third group? Then list the instrumental “CoC”s just the same as the non-instrumentals. What if it’s written for only the second group? Then leave them in but specify in the listing which congregations are instrumental and which are not.
Notice this last option would produce a perfectly functional guide for all three groups. The first kind of individual would then know beforehand what congregation to avoid rather than finding out the hard way. The second kind of individual would be able to decide how big of a problem it is for them given other factors (travelling, convenience, worship times, etc.). The third kind of individual would have a plethora of churches to visit anywhere in the country.
For what it’s worth, i think focusing too long on which churches are “in” or “out” just takes our focus and energy off improving ourselves and our own congregations.
Hello,
I’m not from your congregation; I was only reading your information and checking out your web site. I am a sister in Christ from another state. I myself am very firm on following only the instructions we were given by the Lord and not using instruments in worship. I question our excluding congregations who are erring in their worship… I’m not to sure that’s the way to help them. I had a question once on why there are some congregations with fellowship halls and some without so I reached out and asked several brothers and sisters from all around.
I thought you all might be interested a responce I recieved from one brother and I’ve pasted it below. With that said I would ask that you please be very carefull and do not let this discussion become a debat and get out of hand.
Here is his responce….
{{ I, too, wish there weren’t so many issues today over which brethren were divided. But I would take any anxiety over the “fellowship hall” issue any day over the kind of things Paul had to deal with, for example, in the church at Corinth. Yet, with all their “warts,” he addresses them, “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours…” (1 Cor. 1:2). Then after the “fur flew” he writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.” (1 Cor. 16:23,24).}}
A Sister.
There is no doubt that this generation has been placed in a situation that merits much wisdom, caution, and spiritual integrity. We are not alone, 100 years ago others found themselves where we. The paths that we choose will affect the generations that follow us. Let us prayerfully consider who we are, whose we are, and what we will do. I am thankful that there were those 100 years ago who stood without compromise upon the truth. I am thankful that the lines of fellowship that were drawn (painful though they were) maintained the purity of the church so that I could be blessed to be a part of the church that is fashioned according to the scriptures. I pray that I will have the wisdom and the moral fortitude to do what I can to restore the erring when possible, but to protect the purity of the bride of Christ where I may do so. There comes a time when fellowship can no longer take place. If we cannot have fellowship in the truth, we have no fellowship.
Remember who has left whom here. They (instrumentalists) were where we (a cappella) are. Who has moved? Who has caused division? Unity as prescribed in the Bible is that we “speak the ame thing” and “be of the same mind” (1 Cor. 1:10). Anything else is not unity. In many cases the lines of fellowship have already been drawn. They were drawn by those who left our fellowship.
The words of H. Leo Boles spoken to those who followed the path of the instrument and the missionary society still ring true today, though spoken in 1939: “Brethren, this is where the churches of Christ stand today; it is where unity may be found now; it is where you left the New Testament; it is where you left the churches of Christ, and it is where you can find them when you come back. ”
And finally the words penned by John as inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1 John 2:19 seem fitting…
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
It isn’t really that they’ve “left.” Most did not request to be omitted from this directory.
At the same time, Michael, you (and many, many others) are drawing the line that leaves them out. That line, for you, is instrumental worship. For someone else, it might be institutional support; for another, having a Sunday School not specifically authorized in scripture.
The apostles Paul and John drew lines, too. But they tended to draw them on issues of the incarnation, the requirement of circumcision, the binding of Jewish law on Gentiles; the superimposition of genealogies; the elevation/worship of angels. We both believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak on these things previously unspoken in scripture.
Can we be so certain that the men who generated the Regulative Principle, the patternistic hermeneutic and the law of silence were equally and unquestionably inspired of God to impose them on the fellowship of churches of Christ?
Michael,
1 John 2.19…are you kidding? That is the most misused and abused proof-text example if I ever saw one. You are not free to rip scripture out of its historical and cannonical context to just use it to support whatever cause you wish. And if I might be a bit candid, to do so only shows a very low respect for the authority of scripture.
-Rex
Rex,
If you can refrain from the judmental attacks long enough, I would appreciate if you would point out exactly how I took 1 John 2:19 out of context.
No, it doesn’t seem candid. It seems judgmental.
Michael
Michael,
It sounds sort of strange that you accuse me of being judgmental, considering your earlier post. We all make judgments and I believe your use of 1 John 2.19 was a gross misuse of scripture. Why? When you consider the fact that the apostle John is addressing an pre-form of gnosticism that denied Jesus was the Messiah who came in the flesh and were denying the reality of sin, to use a passage that says someone is not and has never been part of the body of Christ because they have instruments in worship becomes a misuse of the particular scriptural intent. If we went with the logic you are attaching to this scripture, then anyone in a preceived error would be considered as never being a part of the body of Christ – not now nor before. In that case, everyone of us would be excluded because we have all changed our views on something in the past. If we have never changed a veiw, then we are excluded for the error of lacking humility. Such logic is a dead end that is very inconsistantly applied and I believe a man by the name of Todd Deaver has done a masterful job with his book “Facing Our Failure” in showing the inconsistencies. I am just thankful that such logic really has nothing to do with the Christian faith.
I hope that explains where I was coming from.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Yes Rex, it does explain where you ae coming from, but it has nothing to do with where I was coming from. I did not say that those who use the instrument in worship fit the same category as the Antichrists that are being discussed in 1 John 2. I simply meant that the sentiment expressed in the words quoted were fitting. They have gone from us because they are not of us. I stand by that point. The rest of the things that you have inferred and credited to me are not mine, but yours.
Keith.
While you and I disagree, I appreciate the spirit in which you wrote your post. When I spoke of certain churches having left, I did not mean that they wanted to be excluded from any directory. I meant that they have left the doctrinal position that they once held concerning these things and have made the decision to move into areas that they know will sever their fellowship with many if not most of the church of Christ. Once more, I point out that it is they, not we who have made these changes.
One thing that seems to be lost in these discussions is that instrumental music is not the only issue. In fact, it is only a symptom of certain other issues, such as biblical interpretation and respect for biblical authority. The Regulative Principal IS a matter of respect for biblical authority. Such requires authority from God in matters of worship, doctrine, and organization in the church. While instrumental music is one example of a lack of respect for biblical authority, others like serving the communion on Saturday are equally important considerations.
Matthew,
It’s been a long time since you and I have sat down together and discussed such brotherhood issues. I miss that. You asked the question as to whether this would be like the 1906 census. I do not believe it will be. 21st Century is not trying to police the brotherhood here, just to provide a useful service. Those who produce the publication must make some decisions as to who or what will be included. They have that right. The term “1906 division” is really a misnomer. The listing of the “Christian Church” apart from the churches of Christ in the 1906 census was simply a recognition by the government of a division that had already taken place. The 1906 census was an official government recognition of this fact. “Churches of Christ in the United States” is not official in any sense, nor do I believe 21st Century intends it to be.The 1906 census took place after the division had become defined. We have not reached that point, though we may. Let us all pray that the truth will prevail and we may be what Christ prayed we will be in John 17. Let us pray that we may indeed be unified as prescribed in 1 Cor. 1:10.
Michael, I appreciate your gracious reply. We’ll likely not resolve our differences here, but it has been good to exchange views here.
Matthew, thanks for providing the forum for it!
Jay Guin has a good post about the Regulative Principle and it’s origins.
http://oneinjesus.info/2009/02/03/renewing-our-worship-authority/