-
Churches of Christ are a denomination that originated with Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. We must look to them to know what we believe and how we arrived at our faith (pp. 5-8). He is comfortable identifying us as “Stoneites” (p. 76) and Campbellites (p. 82) although he knows that both Campbell and Stone and all of his brethren, prior to the current change movement, repudiated such misnomers.
-
Our fathers misunderstood and perverted their movement, turning it into a narrow, hollow sect that has grown progressively away from the noble ideals of the founders. “...among Churches of Christ, the restoration vision shriveled into a hard and legal shell, a parody of its former self” (p. 7). “ To him our fathers suffered from an “all pervading naivete regarding the power of history and culture; and a radically sectarian perspective by virtue of which they commonly claimed hat the church of Christ to which they belonged was the one true church apart from which there could be no salvation” (p. 57).
-
We were wrong in objecting to the introduction of Missionary Societies and instrumental music in the worship of the church. “ (T)he origins of the instrumental music debate appear to lie in a struggle over social class...” (P. 57).
-
We splintered away from the real Camp-Stone Restoration Movement. “The authentic followers of Campbell (i.e. Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches jhw), therefore eventually shifted their commitments from the restoration of the ancient church to the unity of all Christians, separate and apart from any concern with primitive Christianity” (p. 7).
-
We emerged as a separate denominationsl body in 1906. “In 1906 the first federal religious census lists ‘Churches of Christ’ as a new denomination whose most visible characteristic was their adamant refusal to use instrumental music in their worship” (p. 57). According to Hughes ours was “a radically sectarian perspective” (Ibid.). “By the middle of the nineteenth century, Churches of Christ were emerging as a sect in their own right “ (Ibid.).
-
We mistreated Robert Boll the true heir of Barton Stone’s view of Christianity (p. 10). He and his premillennial followers who were the last vestige of Stone’s influence. They were persecuted and unfairly treated by us. To Hughes, “The real issue, of course, was not premillennialism but rather, the apocalyptic world view and the counter cultural ethic it sustained...” (p. 10).
-
We also mistreated those who sought to forbid the support of Benevolent Homes and Church Cooperation in Evangelism and Missions. He sees them as the true heirs of the fathers of the movement. They “remained loyal to the nineteenth century agenda of Church of Christ” (p. 12).
-
W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garret were true apostles of the faith that saved us from self-destruction by sowing the seeds of the modern change movement. “(I)t is difficult to overestimate the influence that these two men exerted among Churches of Christ...At the very least they helped create a theological climate that would prove favorable to the progressive tradition that emerged among Churches of Christ in the 1960s” (p. 139).
-
We have been and
continue to be hopelessly racist since we did not actively support
Martin Luther Kings “Freedom Movement” (p. 127-130), and only a few giants
such as Royce Money have had the courage to go to a Black School and confess
his sins and ask forgiveness (p. 138).
-
To change agents, the most radical and legalistic conservative best represents the traditional Churches of Christ. While the most intelligent, benevolent and moderate liberals best represent the progressives (p. 153).
-
He conveniently overlooks the scores of conservative men holding earned doctor’s degrees who have and are serving the “traditional” churches, while enumerating the heroes of the change movement who hold the terminal degree (pp.140-141).
-
We are not equipped to survive in the post modern age. “The pressing question for Churches of Christ, therefore, was this: how could a modern (i.e., Enlightenment -based religious tradition like Churches of Christ survive in a postmodern world?) (p. 152).
-
We don’t know how to interpret the Bible. “Indeed it is fair to ask how such a rigorously scientific approach to the biblical text (such as all brethren used prior to the 1980s jhw) could survive in the post-modern world” (p. 154). According to him we have been trying to figure out, ”What kind of book (is) the Bible...? Was it a constitution? A pattern? A blueprint? Or (is) it a theological treatise, describing the relationship God seeks with human kind and the kind of relationships humans should therefore sustain with one another? Increasingly, leaders in mainstream Churches of Christ (i.e. change leaders jhw) defined the Bible in these later terms” (p. 154).
-
We have been wrong in denying women a leadership role in the public leadership of the church (p. 157). “The classic position of Churches of Christ on the role of women in church affairs surely reflected the values of a patriarchal American South” It was a mistaken hermeneutic that made us misapply Paul’s prohibitions against women in leadership positions. “If the Bible was a theological document, not a legal document then there were passages that seemed to reflect the core of the biblical message and for that reason, some felt, might well take precedence over texts like I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2” (p. 157).
-
To Dr. Hughes, the liberals who espouse postmodern philosophy are right (p. 153). We are narrow reactionaries to resist them. “Churches of Christ, by the late twentieth century, were in the process of rethinking their other major theological support—the restoration vision. Indeed, many congregations had embraced the process of renewal and even redefinition of their tradition” (p. 158).
If the learned doctor is a friend of Churches of Christ, I pray that he will never become our enemy.
HOW AN AGENT OF CHANGE VIEWS CHURCHES OF CHRIST
