THE SECOND INCARNATION

The most prominent of our self-appointed “agents of change” is Bro. Rubel Shelly of Nashville, TN. He and Randall Harris of David Lipscomb University are authors of “The Second Incarnation.” Their title reflects the creative idea that as Jesus was  incarnate in his fleshly body, so he is now incarnate in his spiritual body the church (p. 48). While the idea is intriguing, it is not Biblical.

A common characteristic of “change agents” is their attempt to present themselves as theologians who have discovered new truths we non-theologians have failed to discern.  This book is filled with ponderous theological jargon that suggests the authors have grown weary of the simplicity and the purity of the gospel (II Cor. 11:3). Enamored by their higher education in secular and denominational schools, the authors have come home to impose on us what they absorbed in that environment. When establishing their points, quotes of theologians seem to be preferred over scripture citations. They will doubtless impress their peers with their quotes from Tillich, Bultman, Bonhoeffer and others. It lets us know that the authors are widely read in the theologians of liberalism and that they have learned the obtuse vocabulary of the seminaries.  Such is learned in graduate programs at some of our schools whose professors do not allow students to use references from members of churches of Christ in their research papers. The authors seem unable to discern between Biblical Christianity and the denominational version they have embraced.

Their method is to build and attack a straw man, charging those who reject their views with beliefs and practices not commonly held. They pick the most ignorant, out of touch, opinionated preachers; the most legalistic agitators and exhibit them as typical of all conservatives who oppose their program for change.  In contrast, they present themselves and their comrades as loving, caring moderates, real scholars who only wish to save the church from self-destruction.

Change agents operate on faulty assumptions.

	That they have discovered and are practicing a more spiritual, God-pleasing kind of religion than that known by the thousands of preachers, elders and disciples who have labored and served our brotherhood for the last 200 years.
	That none but them know, understand and appreciate the grace of God. Long before some of them were born, great men of God taught us about God’s saving grace.
	That none but them understand the blessings and benefits of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life.
	That our concept of restoration means restoring a specific congregation from first century days.
	That they have discovered a new and superior approach to Bible interpretation. With that they claim to have found the true nature of the church. In reality, it is the old, emotion-based, subjective approach of Protestantism. Their Bible is a story book, serving only as a source for quotes for sermons, but not for regulating and guiding the faith, worship and practice of the church.
	That all of us but them are only interested in the doctrines and practices of the church and not truly dedicated to Christ and trying to be like him.
	That all but them are narrow, bigoted, and legalistic.
	That we claim that we are a perfect church and that we have attained complete compliance with every aspect of Christ’s will for us.  Do you claim that?

How they view the church.  Although the authors profess to love the church, their written words belie that claim.  For they hold the “traditional” churches of Christ, who refuse to accept their changes, in contempt, or in condescending pity. The churches they love are “their churches,” i.e., those embracing their changes. “Thus we have the right to reconsider our identity...Worship, life, mission, and evangelism all take on new appearances...” (p. 241). “...for some people, a relationship with God is virtually synonymous with church activity: if the particular religious community of which they are a part were to disappear ...for them it would amount to the disappearance of God” (p. 178). For their definition of the church they prefer that of Hans Kung, noted Catholic theologian, rather than that of the Scripture (p. 71): “The meaning of the church does not reside in itself, in what it is, but in what it is moving towards...” They do not accept the scriptural description of the church as the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13; Matt. 16:18-19). “If the church were to claim to be the complete realization of the kingdom, its claim would be idolatrous....and appear hypocritical...” (p. 76-77). They view the church today as a continuity from the first century which includes the corrupt Roman Catholic church of the “middle ages” (p. 79). They do not see anything permanent or stable about the church.  It is always fluid and changeable.  “What we must realize is that there is no finality for the church in any of its corporate manifestations” (p. 63). “The wine is the bubbling, churning gospel. It is the ever-arriving-yet-never-fully-realized-on-Earth kingdom of God” ( p. 11) By their approach, any denomination or group of people who sincerely are trying to be like Christ are a true church, a part of his body (Chapter 3).  They hope to bring about “a shift of allegiance from denominational loyalty to Christ, but in reality they would turn us away from Christ to a denominational status (p. 57).

How they view the concept of restoration of original Christianity. The authors reveal that they no longer believe the concept of restoration is viable or desirable. “Even if there were a perfect church, our proper task would not be to reproduce its forms...”  (p. 63). “We reject a rigid ‘pattern theology’ that simply proposes to transplant religious-cultural forms from the Bible to the ...21st century (p.. 63).  Instead they encourage each disciple to be like Christ. But to imitate Christ we must look to his New Testament to find out what he is like. If looking to the New Testament cannot tell us how to be a church, how can it tell us how to be like Christ?

How they view our worship. “The tired, uninspiring event called worship in our churches must give way to an exhilarating experience...” (p. 13).  Chapter 6 is devoted to their vision for changes in our worship.  Some of their ideas are harmless, others are not really new. But they are determined to find a way to undermine our acappella congregational singing with soloists, choirs (and as later information shows, instruments). They would make the Lord’s Supper part of a  fellowship meal (p. 219), They assert that the worship of the early church was derived from the Jewish synagogue rather than ordained by the founder of the church (p. 135).  Their concept of worship will include “jubilation...perhaps with applause and cheering....” p.  140).

How they view Biblical authority.  Embracing and espousing a “New Hermeneutics” or new way of understanding the Scripture, they propose that by looking at the story of Jesus we will be better able to do God’s will than by depending on specific scriptures that address given subjects. They are bold to say “we reject a rigid ‘pattern theology’ that simply proposes to transplant religious-cultural forms from the Bible to the ...21st century” (p. 31). Scripture “certainly does not present an absolute blueprint for building a church; it does however, provide the theological parameters for such a project” (p. 36). “A bare historical precedent is not binding in and of itself. In their reading of scripture they “look for theological principles: eternal truths...” rather than for commands and prohibitions or apostolic examples (p. 36-37). Their guidelines for determining what we should do are thoroughly subjective.

How they view the doctrines long held and preached by churches of Christ.  “Those of us who are insiders to the church have fallen into the rut of perpetuating fallible—even corrupt and toxic—theologies, projects and systems “ (p. 240). “We honor and preserve certain cherished traditions, but we preserve them as traditions without consciously or unconsciously elevating them to the status of dogmas” (p. 241-242). The purpose of their book is to “offer a contemporary theology of the church” (p. 42). To protect themselves, they seek to pre-paint those who resist their efforts as bad folks who “become defensive, (and) mount an attack against the searchers, and try to discount those who have dared register their serious concerns by discrediting both their questions and their motivations” (p. 242).

Those promoting these concepts of change do so in the name of saving the church, making it relevant for the 21st century and saving the lost.   Yet almost all of them preach for congregations others (who did not hold their views) established and built up.  They operate from meeting houses others paid for. They recruit young sympathizers from other congregations.  The changes they promote are those Protestant and Catholic leaders were promoting in the 1960s and 70s. Our change agents  are just now catching up to that bandwagon.  They are descended from a long line of change agents dating from 1849. Men such as D. S. Burnett who introduced and championed the missionary society, L. L. Pinkerton who  introduced the first instrument of music in worship, W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett who for 30 years sowed their seeds of change, Chuck Lucas and Kip McKeen who wished to renew us and founded the “Discipling Movement.” How oft are we subjected to preachers, who while condemning the church for her divisions, problems and lack of progress, propose  solutions that will certainly result in yet another conflict and division and thus hinder progress? These brethren should do the honorable thing and dissociate themselves from the Churches of Christ, which they so despise.  When Bro. John Mulkey concluded that he could no longer endorse or preach Baptist doctrine, he stood before his Baptist brethren and announced his resignation and departure. He was an honorable man.