RICK ATCHLEY’S SPEECH AT THE RESTORATION UNITY FORUM *

Oct. 20-22, 2002 self-appointed representatives of Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches met in Lubbock, TX for their 20th annual assembly to promote unity among the two bodies.  Among the many speeches presented was one by Rick Atchley, minister of the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Ft. Worth.  I listened to the tape of his presentation and have before me a transcript of his speech.  I say this lest anyone assume that I might have mis-heard or misrepresented him. Of the several prominent ministers of the church who have embraced the change movement, Bro. Atchley stands at the head of the list, along with Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly.  The Richland Hills church is the largest congregation among us and no other is more fully committed to the change movement than is it.  From his delivery at the Forum, it is evident that Bro. Atchley has the highest respect and regard for his peers in the Christian Churches. Not one word of criticism does he offer, not a single exhortation to make any adjustments or changes in their beliefs, worship or practice.  On the other hand it is equally evident that he holds members of Churches of Christ who do not share his unity quest in utter contempt. Describing them, he says, “they’ve been mean, they are mean, and going to stay mean!  And I think those people (meaning us)....you’re going to deal with some ugliness” (p.4 Question and Answer Session).  His description of us was greeted with a roar of laughter by the Christian Church delegates.

Bro. Atchley’s theme was, “The Unity Imperative,” and he opened with the declaration, “I want to see in my life time, our fellowship reunited, and I intend to do all that I can to see that that happens” (p. 1). He and the Richland Hills church already are in full-fellowship with the Christian Churches, but his goal is to move all of our preachers and churches to that same position.

Bro. A. tells of his grandmother who in her family was the only  member of the Church of Christ. She helped lead him to Christ. On her death bed he discovered that she was baptized in the early 1900s in a Christian Church. He asked how she ended up in an “acappella Church of Christ?” He was shocked when she replied, “the preacher moved.” From this he concluded that in the past such questions as instrumental music were no “big deal;” hence, neither should it be today. By this story he unwittingly reveals his lack of understanding of our past history. The division we experienced was not a finished reality in some places until the decade of the 1920s.  The names Christian Church, Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ were all used indiscriminately prior to that final dissolution of fellowship.  A congregation could be known as a Christian Church and yet be acappella. If a previous preacher had tolerated or advocated use of instrument, or if had he tried to straddle the fence, his successor could come along and teach the church God’s will for worship, urging the brethren to sing and make melody in their hearts” (Eph. 5:19). He then refers to “all those lousy sermons” he had listened to “all these years.”  Those of course, were sermons relating to instrumental music, stressing respect for God’s Word, the authority of the New Testament of Christ, the sin of adding to or taking from God’s revealed will, etc.

Bro. Atchley cites Alexander Campbell, who wrote in his Millennial Harbinger, “We’re not going to publish, in this journal a lot of issue-oriented articles.” He proceeds to fault us for preaching and teaching on issues such as instrumental music. It is noteworthy that he feels free to address the issue from his point of view (that instrumental music is not an issue worthy of discussion). But we should not address it from our point of view!

Bro. A. attributes our refusal to yield on instrumental music to “our pride and our refusal to admit that cultural baggage has influenced a lot of who we are.” He says, “We all have cultures that taught us what we believe about what is right and wrong and what the Bible says...” (p. 2).  It is true that we all have to distinguish between our culture and God’s expressed will. But is he saying that it is impossible for us  commoners to read and make that distinction?  Or is it only intellectuals of the change movement who have attained to that higher level of knowledge?

He insists that “we’ve (Churches of Christ) got to recover a passion for the doctrine of the unity of all believers” (p. 2). He seems to think that only he and his comrades for change care for, or preach on the importance of Christian Unity.  From the beginning of our movement, 200 years ago, our brethren have preached on unity. Sadly we have learned that not everyone wants unity. Some want a unity to believe and do as they will, regardless of Scripture’s teaching. Others want unity, with everyone yielding to their opinions. Even the apostles encountered factious men (Tit. 3:10) and those who caused divisions  (Rom. 16: 17). Just as Paul was not responsible for the defection of Phygelus and Hermogenese (II Tim. 1:15), we are not responsible for those who break fellowship with us.

He labors to convince his Christian Church auditors that our objection to instrumental music is simply a matter of “personal faith” or opinion, rather than a matter of Scriptural teaching.  He confuses the eating or not eating of meat, (something God declares unimportant), with the worship of God, of which nothing is more important.

He says that early Christians, being led away to death would not have “fussed about a piano.” (The Christian Church folks enjoyed his point and laughed.)  Under those same circumstances, what would they have said about infant baptism, or sprinkling, or weekly communion or a hundred other points of Bible teaching? Such emotional appeals only beg the question. The real question is, must we obey all things whatsoever Christ commanded or not?  (Matt 28:20).

He feels he has discovered the cause of our lack of unity: “We haven’t preached Christ crucified as the gospel.  We have not decided to know nothing but Christ and him crucified” (p. 5). Of course he has in mind all of his brethren, save the change agents.  It strikes me as a bit arrogant and judgmental to assert that the thousands of men who have preached among our churches have failed to preach Christ and him crucified. In fact I think it is more likely that every last one of them did; some more, some less, but all of them proclaimed the crucified Christ.

He affirms his belief in “salvation by grace through faith” (p. 5) and implies that  other brethren (i.e. traditionalists) don’t believe it.  Again I suggest that every man that ever mounted a pulpit in a Church of Christ believed in salvation by grace through faith because it is plainly taught in Scripture (Eph. 2:8-9).  They did not however preach salvation by grace alone. That was the theme of their Presbyterian neighbors. They did not teach salvation by faith alone. That was the message of their Methodist, Baptist and Lutheran friends.  In recent years, change agents such as Bro. Atchley have discovered this foundation pillar of Protestantism and have begun to proclaim it among our people.  They neglect to emphasize that those who truly love Christ will keep his commandments (John 14:15) and that Christ saves those who obey him (Heb. 5:8-9). By the way, if preaching Christ crucified will forestall division among Christians, why have some left the Richland Hills church since they launched their program of change?

Bro. Atchley is proud that his congregation participated as counselors in the recent Billy Graham mission. He calls it “a tremendous event.” Over 100 members of his congregation participated in the mission (p. 6). Did they help those seeking salvation to pray “the sinner’s prayer?.”  We would ask Bro. A. what would be the spiritual status of those who prayed that prayer but chose not to be baptized for remission of their sins (Acts 2:38)?

He protests that some call him a liberal.  He says he believes in the absolute authority of Scripture, the miracles and male leadership for the church. Of course he uses a twofold definition for “liberal.”  Since he is not as extreme a liberal as a Unitarian preacher or professor, he insists that he does not qualify for the designation.  But “liberal” is a relative term. Webster defines it, “Broad-minded, tolerant; esp: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” It is “insistence that the churches should be undogmatic in temper, tolerating a plurality of theologies, and seeing personal social ethics as their main concern....” (New Dictionary of Theology (IVP). It is being ideologically left of center of the group one is associated with and its standard which they honor as the declaration of their faith. There are liberal and conservatives among Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists and Churches of Christ.  Bro. A. and others of the change movement, without dispute are left of center among the brotherhood of our people. He reveals the thinking of his circle of brethren  by saying, “most of the preachers that I run with in mainline churches of Christ do not believe instrumental music is wrong” (p. 7).  Strange, but most of the preachers I know do in fact believe instrumental music in worship is sinful. Until 25 years ago 99 ½ percent of our preachers believed it was wrong. He assures us that he is not trying to make (us) worship “and violate (our) conscience” (p. 7). He just wants us to admit and accept that “it ain’t wrong.”  Then he and his change agents can use instruments if they wish and enjoy full fellowship with those who do.  We could argue the same way for the use of beads, incense and candles in worship.
In the Q & A session he ponders, “I wonder in acappella churches of Christ, if this one issue isn’t going to cause another breach...?”  His response is enlightening. “I don’t know if we have enough energy to split again” (p. 7).  But note that he is not worried that it might do just that! He has no intention of giving up his crusade, even if it is divisive!

To a question, he responds, “you are going to find a lot of a cappella churches that are gonna’ start saying ‘Sunday morning we are going to be a cappella, but after that, we are going to let a lot of freedom reign,’ which is pretty much what we do at Richland Hills.  You walk into our youth center Sunday morning or Wednesday night: and I’m telling you–Christian rock an’ roll is just blasting’” (p. 9).

Bro. Atchley’s final word is, “But if you believe that Jesus alone saves, then you can be my brother or sister” (p. 10). Thus he shows where his road leads: open membership; fellowship with all who believe in Jesus as Savior. Perhaps it would be easier for him to tell us which sects and denominations that would exclude from his fellowship.

Rather than Rick Atchley and his team trying to change a million and a half of us,  most of whom do not share his view, it seems it would be far better for them to go to the Christian Church, or some other Protestant body where they would be gladly received.  It is time we bid farewell to Bro. Atchley and his fellow change-agents.  They are going out from us because they are no longer of us (I John 2:19).   A. B. Gregoreo

* (Page numbers cited refer to a typed transcription of Bro. Atchley’s speech).