No. 39, Oct. 1999
ARE WE AFRAID OF
PROPHECY?
While I direct this question to our
own churches of the Restoration Movement in particular, it is appropriate for
all mainline Protestant denominations. In most churches prophecy is treated as
if it did not exist in Scripture. It is left to the “enthusiasts,” as we are
wont to think of them – prognosticators, dispensationalists, sensationalists –
to take prophecy seriously.
The enthusiasts (not used
pejoratively) nearly always have radio/TV programs and attractive mailouts,
often alarmist in nature. They write books about Endtime and Armageddon, such
as the Late Great Planet Earth. Many of them set dates for Doomsday.
They are usually independent churches, such as “Bible Churches,” or they have
independent ministries. They are usually the shadow of a charismatic leader.
They are seen as newcomers and “outside the loop” by the mainline, historical
churches.
The renowned Oral Roberts is an
instance of this, a “prophet” quite at home in prophecy. But he also talked
about visions of a 90-feet high Jesus, and even announced that God had told him
He would kill him if he didn’t raise so much money by a certain date.
Is this what frightens us? Do we
fear being radical or getting involved in the bizarre? “If you get into that
stuff you’ll soon be setting dates and donning ascension robes!”
While prophetic teachers, especially
the televangelists, have had a bad press these days, I suspect our problem with
prophecy goes deeper than any fear of being like them. It is more likely that
we fear an honest confrontation with Scripture on prophetic themes. We may be
afraid of what we might learn.
Even if there is irresponsible
extremism in some prophetic teaching, that does not excuse us from coming to
terms with biblical prophecy. Why is it that in most churches, including our
own, the second coming of Christ is seldom referred to and almost never
emphasized? It is not part of our prayers or our conversation. We are hardly
the people referred to in the Bible as “looking for and hastening the coming of
the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:12).
Churches of Christ have been
particularly deprived along these lines, due apparently to an oddity in our
history. Over a half century ago we had a fuss over premillennialism, which
really had more to do with personalities than with doctrine. R. H. Boll,
popular front-page editor of the Gospel Advocate, had for some years set
forth his understanding of certain biblical prophecies. The readers found them
interesting and informative, and for years there was no problem. He was not
pushy, certainly not an extremist.
But in time Boll’s views were made
an “issue,” especially by one of our editor-bishops named Foy E. Wallace. Boll
was caricatured as a false teacher and premillennialist, a baffling new term to
most of us, became a bad word. “Bollite” was added to our glossary of cruel
epithets.
While brother Boll insisted that
such views should not be made a test of fellowship, he was nonetheless
excluded, along with all “premill” churches. It was a tragic chapter in our
history.
But the more serious tragedy was
recognized by Boll himself. Once the campaign against him and premillennialism
reached incredible intensity, he predicted that Churches of Christ would likely
pay a dear price: they will be driven from whatever expectation of the
coming of Christ they may have.
So, thanks to Foy Wallace we are not
premillennialists. We are not millennialists at all. We are nothing! We ignore
the subject, except that some are still adamantly anti-premillennial. It left us
negligent if not ignorant of biblical prophecy.
We were sold a bill of goods. It is
high time to make a mid-course correction by putting prophecy back on the front
burner. I say back because our earlier pioneers in Stone/Campbell did
not ignore prophecy. Some of our pioneers were premillennial, some were
postmillennial – but none was non-millennial! To ignore the millennium, which
is obviously a biblical subject, is an odd position for people who claim to be
biblical.
R. H. Boll was a gentle man who had
no ax to grind. I am pleased that I got to meet him personally and to hear him
teach, just as I did brother Foy Wallace. Brother Boll’s “sin” was in asking us
to take certain biblical passages seriously. A few that he laid before his
readers were:
Nations will beat their swords into
plowshares and study war no more (Is. 2:4-5).
There will be such peace on earth
that the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Is. 11:6-9).
The kingdoms of this world shall
become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ (Rev. 11:15).
The earth and all creation will be
gloriously renewed (Rom. 8: 18-23).
There will be new heavens and a new
earth (2 Pet. 3: 13).
Christ will remain in heaven until
the time for the restoration of all things, the things the prophets spoke of
(Acts 3:21).
Saints will live and reign with
Christ for a thousand years (Rev.20:4).
Was it criminal of R. H. Boll to ask
us to take an honest look at such prophetic texts as these? Or to ask us if
they have been fulfilled?
Do we believe:
– that someday in human history
there will be such world peace that there will be no more war? No more war! Wow!
– that the gospel or the kingdom
will be so successful that “the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as
the waters cover the sea”?
– that we will one day inherit or be
part of a gloriously renewed earth?
What promises these are and what
comfort they offer! And what deprivation there is in paying them no mind!
Can we not get excited when John in
Rev. 21 sees a new heaven and a new earth, and the holy city, the New Jerusalem
coming down out of heaven from God?
And to hear Him who sits upon the
throne - God at last speaks! – “Behold, I make all things new.” Not all new
things, but all (old) things new! That includes us, even our bodies.
This is but a taste of the glorious
things prophecy says to us. And an apostle assures us that through such
“exceeding great and precious promises we become partakers of the divine
nature” (2 Pet. I A).
I am not asking that we adopt any
system or ism. We don’t have to accept any millennial theory. We can ignore all
that. But we must no longer ignore large sections of Scripture that are
prophetic in nature. They too are the word of God.
We don’t have to understand it all.
But we must learn to glory in the rich promises that the prophets lay before
us, even when we find them baffling and overwhelming. It is over-whelming to
think of all earthly governments becoming the government of Jesus Christ, but
that happens to be part of holy Scripture.
Let’s be baffled, let’s be
overwhelmed! That is OK, for that is part of reverencing the Bible and being in
awe of God. But let us no longer be afraid to face up to anything that is in
the Bible.
A good rule may be, I may not
understand, not yet, but I will not ignore (nor be afraid of) what the Bible
says. - Leroy
PROMINENT CHURCH OF
CHRIST STATES
NEW POSITION ON
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC
There is interesting news out of San
Antonio. The elders of the Oak Hills Church of Christ, where Max Lucado
ministers, has issued a “white paper” on instrumental music. It was an unlikely
announcement for a Church of Christ, even for an avant garde congregation
like Oak Hills.
I say “unlikely” because while we
may have numerous congregations that share Oak Hill’s position, they are not
ready to say so publicly. I know of only one other of our congregations – one
in Tulsa some years back – that has done what Oak Hills did.
It was a public statement, read to
the congregation by one of the elders. It stated that the elders had made a
careful study over several months relative to what the Bible teaches concerning
the use of musical instruments in worship. Their conclusion:
“The elders unanimously concluded
that there is no Biblical prohibition of the use of musical instruments in
worship.”
They went on to state that the use
or non-use of instruments is “a matter of diverse opinion.”
Will they therefore start using
instruments? Not necessarily. Maybe, maybe not. They wisely stated that any
future introduction of instruments “should be conducted in a manner that avoids
division.”
They are in no hurry to make such a
change. They invite feedback from the congregation. “Talk to your elders,” they
urged their people. They closed by assuring the church that they would look to
God to lead them.
In recognizing that the Scriptures
do not condemn the use of instruments in worship, Oak Hill may help other
Churches of Christ to see what should have been evident all along: the use
or non-use of instruments is a matter of opinion or congregational
preference.
Oak Hill is really saying that we
can have congregations that use the instrument and those that do not. There is
no prescription in the Bible, so each church is free to do as it chooses.
When this is our position we will be
where our pioneers were at the outset of the Restoration Movement. Their
favorite motto was: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion,
liberty; in all things, love. Only things clearly stated in Scripture were
considered matters of faith. Other matters, including methods, were treated as
opinions. “Silence” does not legislate, leaving each church to decide for
itself.
When such methods as organs and
societies made their appearance toward the middle of the 1800s, some of our
congregations adopted them and some did not, without any break of fellowship.
They were not made causes for division until some editor bishops insisted that
it could be only one way.
Alexander Campbell believed that his
unity movement would never divide because it would never make matters of
opinion matters of faith. We violated that trust. Oak Hills is helping us to
make a mid-course correction.
Oak Hill’s liberating announcement
lacks one vital ingredient. It should have stated (and not just implied) that
we in Churches of Christ have been wrong in making instrumental music a test of
fellowship all these years. If it is true that the Bible does not condemn
instruments in worship, as Oak Hills now concedes, then we should not have all
these years condemned those who use them, including even others in the
Restoration Movement We have indeed branded them as ‘’‘erring brethren” or
“digressives,” and have drawn lines of fellowship.
We need to make it clear where we
have been wrong. We certainly have not been wrong in being non-instrumental or
a cappella. We are in fact in good company in being non-instrumental in that
many of the great Orthodox churches have been a cappella for over a thousand
years, as well as some younger denominations.
That is conceded. No one can fault
us for being non-instrumental That has not been our sin. Our sin has been in
violating the principles of our own heritage: making an opinion or a
preferred method a test of fellowship.
This means that we have been
sectarian about the non-use of instruments in worship. We have made it an
“issue” by imposing “the way we do it” upon others. We have dishonored both
Scripture and our own heritage by at-tempting to make our opinion a practice of
the church catholic.
Since we have good reasons for being
non-instrumental (but not anti-instrumental!), I hope Oak Hills will remain a
cappella. That is part of who we are in Churches of Christ. We sing without
instruments, and usually we do it well, often to the amazement and edification
of visitors.
A case in point was when one of my
Harvard profs, a high-church Lutheran, visited one of our churches. He
exclaimed in amazement, “The entire congregation is the choir and without
accompaniment!” We have a witness to make to churches who have the problem of
playing more than they sing. And it is the singing that is clearly
biblical! – Leroy
WHERE IS THE TRUE
CHURCH?
Back in the 1950s when Karl Barth
visited this country he was asked, Where is the true church? He ventured an
answer, “I suppose the true church is wherever the Spirit of Christ is in the
hearts of the people.”
Not bad! While that may be as well
as one can do, Barth could be accused of begging the question. One could still
ask where those are who truly have the Spirit of Christ.
I doubt that it is a question that
can really be answered. We don’t know where the true church is. Only God knows!
Those words in 2 Tim. 2: I 9 are indeed impressive: The Lord knows those who
are His.
Or maybe it is one of those
questions that we can answer only in part, a kind of ongoing answer, but never
completely answered.
The time was, however when I was not
so equivocal. Like those who taught me so well in my youth, I was convinced
that “the true Church of Christ” could be identified in terms of the right
name, right worship, right plan of salvation, right polity, right worship. The
true church was the right church, and I sincerely believed that we were that
church. After all, we had prooftexts for all of it.
But others point to different
identification marks – the Holy See, the ecumenical councils, episcopal
succession, modem “restored” churches, such as the Amish and the Mormons.
The great creeds may be seen as
efforts to set parameters for the true church. The true church has the right
doctrines. This may well be part of the answer. I’ve always favored that great
oneliner of the ancient creeds: We believe in the one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic church. That is more than a start in answering our question.
Hans Kung in his Christianity says
in effect that the true church is ecumenical. I would say the true church should
be ecumenical Most churches, as per my experience, are not ecumenical, if
this means being pro-active in relating to the church at large.
When Richard Hamm, president and
general minister of the Disciples of Christ, gave a recent report about his
denomination, he spoke of “Three Marks of the Faithful Church.” These were a
deep spirituality, true community, and a passion for justice. He drew these
from Micah 6:8: “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love
kindness, and walk humbly with your God.”
That might serve as an extension of Barth’s
answer. With this as the measure how many true churches are there?
If by true church we mean the ideal
or perfect church, then there are no true churches. The Body of Christ on earth
is, after all, made up of sinful, fallible people. The church is flawed,
imperfect, and far from all that it should be, for that is true of all
of us who make up the church.
Part of being the true church (why
not simply say the church?) is to realize our flawed state and to sue for God’s
grace – “God, be merciful to your church, sinners all!”
The church at Corinth had a lot
wrong with it, hut still the apostle Paul addressed it as “the church of God
which is at Corinth” and went on to call it the Body of Christ. A true church?
I still like the question. We should
keep asking it. And keep on trying to answer it. Perhaps that is the true
church – one that is sincerely asking the question and seeking answers.
Don’t you think we have more to
learn from a church that longs to be a true church than from one that presumes
that it already is a true church? – Leroy
Between Us . . .
One of our summer trips was to the
Austin, Tx area where I took part in a series on “Strengthening Your Faith” at
the Round Rock Church of Christ, an exciting church with vision. While in the
area we were house guests of Jerry and Joy Ash in Taylor and Max and Dot Watson
in Austin. Max and I go back a long way, being roommates at ACU. We’ve kept in
touch.
We went on to San Marcos to see
their big mall, which we found to be Texas-size, and to visit with old friends
John and Alice Ballard, who took us to see Holland Street Church of Christ’s
new building, new to us. I often ministered to that church back in its avant
garde days.
We went on to Kerrville in the Hill
Country to visit with some of Ouida’s friends from college days. Delightful
folk, but we were impressed with how old our friends are getting! While in
Kerrville we also called on Phil and Kathy Wyler, a spiritual visit it was.
Kathy is the one who named this newsletter – a just claim to fame!
We don’t always chronicle our visits
to the Pecan Grove Church of Christ in Greenville, Tx. since we go there rather
frequently. But all early September visit was so delightful that we want to
record it. The way they share and build relationships is inspiring to be part
of. It is evident that they are in love with each other. and they reach out
with caring hands to the needs of others. Marks of a true church!
A late summer appointment took us to
Butman Methodist Encampment near Abilene for a weekend retreat for two of our
churches. one from Abilene and one from Lubbock. I did a short series on the
Holy Spirit in the life of the church. On that Sunday I addressed the Quaker
Ave. Church of Christ in Lubhock on “Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh: Do We Get the
Point’)” I told them no pun was intended. It was a great day with a great
church. I complimented them for “making history.” In my history of the
Stone-Campbell Movement you can read about how the Quaker Ave. church has made
history. We were guests in the home of dear friends Tom and Nellie Langford and
A. E. and Ruth Oliver.
We invite our readers in Indiana to
join Ouida and me in Terre Haute when I speak at the Eastside Church of Christ
on Lord’s day, Oct. 17 at both a.m. and p.m. services. A seniors’ retreat
follows at McCormick’s Creek State Park. Call Lloyd Goble at 812-299-9875 for
further information. The next Lord’s day, Oct. 24, we will be with the Church
of Christ in Linton, In. Call Tooger Smith at 812-659-2616 for info.
Ouida will also he with me on a
visit with Random Rd. Chapel in Arkansas City, Ks.. Oct. 3 I. You’ll be blessed
by getting acquainted with this great little church. Max Foster at 316-442-5043
is the contact.
If we get this newsletter in the
mail before I leave on Sept. 211, I should be in Ukraine while you are reading
this. I will be with Dr. Joseph Jones of Troy, Michigan, and the two of us will
be with one of our missionaries, Epi Stephen Bilak of Lausanne, Switzerland, a
native Ukranian who does work in Ukraine. He will be our guide and interpreter,
and all three of us will take part in a lectureship at the Crimean Christian U.
in Simferople. We will visit churches as time allows. It should be a super
experience. We’ll give an account in our next, Lord willing. Ouida plans to
play “catch-up” while I’m gone for over two weeks and we’ll keep in constant
touch bye-mail. What a world!
We solicit your help in placing our
back issues of Restoration Review (1952-92) in the hands of those who
might benefit from them, especially the younger set. We’ll send you 25
different issues for only $5 postpaid, or one of all we have, upwards of 100,
for $15 postpaid. Back issues of this newsletter are free for the asking.