THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

The Crux of the Matter is a book recently published by Abilene Christian University Press and highly endorsed by Dr. Royce Money, president of that school.  It is the joint work of Jeff W. Childers, Douglas A. Foster and Jack R. Reese,  professors in ACU’s Graduate School of Theology. The book is subtitled, “Crisis, Tradition, and the Future of Churches of Christ.” The authors present themselves as resolvers of our problems, but in reality they are part of the problem.

For readers not trained in the jargon of denominational seminaries, much of this book will be unintelligible mumbo-jumbo. For example, “Truth without elegance is untrue, or at least incomplete” (p. 209).  Putting great stock in being theologians, they express their thoughts in dark, ponderous phrases to which the average reader may answer, “What?” Two of the authors being historians, prefer to attribute all major aspects of our faith and practice to influences wrought by men, institutions and events from the past, rather than to our commitment to the Bible. Our tenacity in clinging to our beliefs and practice they attribute to our loyalty to our traditions, rather than to Scripture. They are certain that we are what we are because of pre-restoration denominational influences such as Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc. (Chapt. 4).  The authors do not oppose tradition, they love it and believe that it must be factored in when deciding what is right or wrong.  Viewing matters through their theological spectacles, they confuse the sacred traditions of Scripture (II Thess. 3:6)  with those of men (Matt. 15:6-9).

One must read 114 pages of the book before he reaches the thesis of the authors. It is, that while we may be Christians we certainly are not the only Christians. The fifth chapter is devoted to this theme which beginning in the 1960s was long propagated among us by W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett.  They dearly love Alexander Campbell’s Lunenberg Letters; elevating them virtually to the level of Scripture (p. 115). In this they join the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches who have long done the same thing. Like the Disciples, they forget that Campbell was only a preacher in our midst, not our founder nor the authoritative interpreter of our faith.

On p. 117 they introduce one major thrust of their work, “Many in Churches of Christ no longer believe that instrumental music in worship is a salvation issue.”  Later they acknowledge this is their position and the use thereof should not be “grounds for disfellowship” (p. 247).  Their goal is expressed on pp. 117-118. Thus they call upon us to reexamine the possibility that we are just a denomination, instrumental music and all other issues...with a non-defensive, humble attitude...” Interpreted that means, do not actively oppose their efforts to change us.

The authors cleverly mask their radical ideas with repeated use of “perhaps,” “maybe,” or “some believe.” This provides cover when they are called to account for their unscriptural views.  They will be able to deny that they themselves say this, only that some may or may not have done so.

Readers will be impressed at the dearth of Scripture used by the authors when establishing their points.   This is to be expected, since their newly discovered way of approaching the Bible does not call for scriptural proof of anything.  Rather, they read the whole Bible as literature, listen to theologians, consider history and tradition and talk it over with a group of Bible readers and then seek a consensus based on their core gospel (i.e., those few basics facts they view as essential (p. 183). You can be sure that these men do not see the need for finding specific or even generic Bible authority for what they believe or practice. They liken our old approach to a “stranglehold on a proof-text at the surface level and forcing it to become a direct rule” (p. 183). The authors are a bit arrogant, implying that those of us not following their lead do not know how to correctly study and comprehend God’s book. They imply that they alone know to consider the type of literature a particular Bible book is; its historical, geographical background, context, etc. They may only recently have discovered these truths, but the reviewer learned them 40 years ago in Bible School.

There are twelve glaring points made in this book:

	They reject our long held approach to ascertaining what is God’s will  (p. 239). Our brethren have long believed that  finding appropriate Scriptures referring to a question and determining what God says on the subject settles the point. Some things are determined by a command or prohibition. An example that reflects a command also is authoritative. By carefully comparing all that is revealed on the subject we can draw a valid conclusion.
	They see no sin in using instrumental music in worship (p. 247).
	They see no serious problem in erroneous teachings such as premillennialism since it is not one of their core issues (p. 246).
	They think that we were mistaken to break fellowship with the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches over such issues as instrumental music in worship and missionary societies.
	They view the churches of Christ as a denomination of recent origin, full of flaws and flawed people (especially our past and present preachers who do not share their views).
	They protest that they are actually the “true conservatives” rather than liberals (p.193-194, 254).
	They believe we should not be a separate people but that we should participate with denominational neighbors in religious activities.
	Based on their unqualified acceptance of Campbell’s position in his Lunenberg Letters, they seem to be willing to accept the unimmersed as fellow Christians (p.114-115).
	They blame all the ills of churches and individuals on our “patternistic” approach to interpreting the Bible (p. 209).
	Their mission is to convince conservative brethren to not react and oppose them when they introduce their innovations into our congregations (pp. 235ff).  From their perspective, “we should not see our present crisis with too much alarm” (p. 256). They have no intention of abandoning their project or leaving for a denomination where such views are standard fare. They don’t want us to protest or leave when they infiltrate a congregation and introduce their divisive practices.   Such makes them look bad.
	By introducing their new, denominational concepts they are causing tension and strife in congregations across the land, but in true form they blame those who object to their disruptive practices as the troublemakers (p. 231-233).
	They have arbitrarily gone through the New Testament and identified what they call the core of the message.  To them the core is the non-negotiables, all else can be taken or left behind. Their core doctrines include, the fact of God, Jesus is his Son, Christ’s death on the cross and grace. Only the things most near the core are worth fighting for.  It is noteworthy that this core is the essence of every major Protestant creed.  If put into practice we would be united with them around the core.  Of course God says nothing about a core.  It is the figment of their fruitful imagination. Thomas Jefferson had a similar concept of the core of Christianity. That notable Deist produced what is now  known as the Jeffersonian Bible, with only the core preserved and all the extraneous materials omitted.

The authors of The Crux assert that “Those who blaspheme Christ by damaging his church in the name of their own cause are especially corrupt” (p. 187).  They of course had in mind those who  oppose their innovations. But the fact is, they are “damaging his church” and thus it is fair to say that they blaspheme Christ and “are especially corrupt.”  The author has spent 45 years worshiping and teaching among our churches. He has read upwards of 2,500 religious volumes, but none were as deleterious as this. It is “full of deadly poison” and will cause harm to any congregation where its message is put into practice.  Unfortunately this is the first of three books  to be produced by this team of writers. We can only pray that their project will fail from lack of interest.

These professors and their president, who so warmly endorsed their book, are a classic example of how liberals gain control of a Christian school. If they had appeared at the Abilene Christian College prior to 1960, espousing such views, they would have been confronted by irate friends and supporters of the school and driven out. Now they dominate a school that others founded and financed and use it to undermine the faith their predecessors held sacred.