 THE CHURCH IN TRANSITION (a review)
James S. Woodroof has preached some 50 years among us. His book, published in 1990, was a precursor of numerous similar books calling for changes to the faith, worship and practices of Churches of Christ. “Transition” is a code word for “change.” Bro. Woodroof is a smooth, skillful advocate of change; more subtle and diplomatic than most of his fellows. This book is not totally bad. The careful reader will find a few insightful observations in its pages.
On the opening page, the author seeks to establish credibility by identifying himself and his revolutionary ideas with the late G. C. Brewer, icon of brotherhood scholarship and soundness. Bro. Brewer wrote a wonderful book entitled “As Touching Those Who Were Once Enlightened” dealing with the change agents of his day. He would be no friend to those today who are tearing down what he labored to build. Bro. W. well describes the thinking of those among us demanding change. Note: “Often when a church or a movement reaches the point I believe we have reached, it suddenly becomes “pragmatically ecumenical.” “Abandoning its convictions, it bands together with others who are suffering the same fate. Through organizational union they togther hope to stay afloat by jointly dismantling their rudders. Thus crippled, they drift into uncertain waters” (p. 6). No more succinct portrait of the change agents and their churches could be painted. The author says he is concerned about those who are “in danger of embarking on uncharted waters without a compass” (p. 7), but in actuality his book paved the way for much of the abuse and apostasy that now flourishes among us.
Bro. W. believes, “Until we get our own house in order we have no right nor reason to address the broader problem of division among those outside our movement” (p. 8).There were also problems of division in first century churches. Did that disqualify the apostles to address the broader problem of division? But they did so did they not? And so should we.
He makes a confession befitting for all change agents. “It seems self-defeating to write a book advocating unity if the book itself is written in a way which only produces more division” (p. 8). This spotlights a characteristic of the advocates of change; they justify their divisive actions, by charging those who do not accept them with being divisive.
The writer says, “We are a people of the Book” (p. 15). More correctly he should say, “we (change agents) were formerly a people of the Book.” The champions of change ridicule our emphasis on the Book, calling it legalism, patternism and other uncomplimentary names. They prefer story telling to book chapter and verse preaching. They delight in citing theologians and denominational leaders to establish their points. He has warm words for three journals that have promoted his concept of unity: Leroy Garrett’s Restoration Review, Carl Ketcherside’s Mission Messenger and Victor Knowles’ One Body (p. 17). Bros. Garrett and Ketcherside were formerly leaders of the Mutual Edification Churches (anti-located preacher). When that movement floundered, they then converted and became leaders of the most liberal element among us and were never accepted in fellowship by the great body of our people. Victor Knowles is a minister of the Christian Church. This puts a clearer focus on Bro. Woodroof’s dream for our churches. He cites as positive examples of folks seeking Christian unity the Abilene Christian University Lectures, the Tulsa Workshop and the Kiamichi Clinic of the Christian Churches in Oklahoma (p. 18). Since ACU is the fountainhead of the change movement, this clarifies where our brother finds his inspiration. To Bro. W. “Our burning desire to be biblical has blinded us to the need to be tolerant towards others who have the same desire but who have arrived at somewhat different conclusions” (p. 21). If a burning desire to be biblical is sinful we freely confess our guilt. We must be tolerant in all areas that are not fundamental to Christianity and salvation. Even Paul and John were intolerant to those who preached another gospel and went beyond the doctrine of Christ (Gal. 1:8; II John 9).
Interestingly, the author tells us that he “came to know and love Jesus Christ” long after he had been baptized, educated and trained as a minister and preacher. He was a missionary in New Zealand when he was finally converted (p. 26).
He says, “We have searched the Scriptures, thinking, that in them we have eternal life; and not realizing it is He who is the life, we have failed to come to Him that we may have life. We, like they have become enamored by the written word to the point of becoming oblivious to the Living Word” (p. 29). This is a heavy indictment to lay upon some 2 million Christians around the world, the most of whom, it is fair to say, he has never met. Can he bring forth an example of any member of the church who is “oblivious to the Living Word” i.e. Jesus? Jesus said, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and are life” (John 7:63). Does Bro. W. believe that we can be saved without the Scripture or by neglecting them? If the Word is of so little value, why does he bother to preach the Bible? He quotes the early Christian, Eusesbius, who wrote of some in his day who “...treat the divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scripture declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be derived to sustain their impiety. And if anyone brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism can be made from it...” (p. 30). One can only conclude that the Bro. W. uses this interesting quote to strike a blow against brethren who have effectively used syllogistic arguments in controversy with those who were promoting change. It is wrong and unfair to imply that great thinkers like Bro. Thomas Warren in any way, “set aside the ancient faith” or that they did not know Christ, or did “not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scripture declare” preferring to make a syllogism. Perhaps the author has felt the sting of Bro. Warren’s piercing logic. Bro. W. says, “We had no more right (maybe not as much, in view of Paul’s statement) to preach only the last part of the good news than Billy Graham had to preach only the first part” (p. 33). First he should point out to us the preacher who has taught “only the last part of the good news.” Having done that he needs to elaborate on Billy Graham having more right to preach “only the first part” of the good news. Can we conclude from this that Bro. W. would consider the man who preached salvation by faith alone as more faithful to Christ’s commission than the man who preached salvation by faith and baptism( Mark 16:16)? Such reasoning helps us understand why numerous change churches have participated in Billy Graham crusades. It also explains why men such as Max Lucado are now preaching that salvation is by grace through faith, before obedience to gospel commands.
The writer tells us, “There is much uncertainty and mounting unrest among members of the Church of Christ today” (p. 44). But he does not say that such is only among those primed and prepped by the agents of change. That those under their influence are restless and uncertain is obvious to all. But they are only a small part of the whole. Most members of the church continue to hold to “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and are happy and confident in their faith.
In defense of himself and his fellow promoters of change, Bro. W. says, “those addressing the issue are not causing the problem, but are merely acknowledging the presence of it and attempting to offer some answers? (p. 44). Those familiar with our history know that there has never been a false teacher or agitator who troubled the church who felt he was “causing a problem.” It has always been their response that those who refuse to heed their demands were at fault.
The author makes an interesting concession on p. 45: “There are some mega-churches reporting increase, but most of them must admit that the majority of their growth comes from swelling;” i.e., by absorbing members from other congregations about them. His observation is absolutely correct. Speaking of promotionalism, he notes, “The mega-churches which provide the community with a wide selection of services are most susceptible to this trap” (p. 51) Agreed! Without promotionalism they would wither away. Their recruits would flock to the denominational mega-churches with more elaborate programs. It is primarily in the mega-churches that the change agents have been well received. Bro. W. charges, “the traditional approach to the Holy Spirit by Churches of Christ had been one of ignoring him. We generally believed that when the written word was completed, the Spirit’s work was forever done” (p. 49). Would he tell us just who has believed and taught this about the Holy Spirit. It is common to hear liberals make such unsubstantiated charges against the Lord’s people and the unknowing take them as facts. In reality they are exaggerated falsehoods.
He thinks that the thing that kept us from being “swept away by the emotionalism of the early Stone movement was the excesses of Pentecostalism” (p.50). He does not perceive that the greater reason was the lack of Biblical authority for such behavior that made our people reject that emotionalism. While change agents call for a new hermeneutic that will free the rest of us from the old command, example or necessary inference approach to the Bible, they interpret every scripture through the prism of change. Woodroof interprets the historical record of the acceptance of the Gentiles into the church from a pejorative point of view, seeing events in their worst light. He exaggerates the extent of the problem with Peter and the other apostles (p. 65-66). Concerning the acceptance of the Gentiles, he writes, “But why all the resistence to this God-ordained transition? Why did God’s people oppose God’s plan? Why was there entrenched opposition, such prolonged resistance? (p. 67) To build his case for change today, he writes as if the failure of some Jewish brethren was the failure of the whole! This is not sound exegesis! The author writes, “Fear of change may also explain the actions of some who attempt to follow Jesus: ‘fear to move forward, fear to make peace, fear to open dialog.’ It is, however, a hallmark of true discipleship that disciples follow Jesus wherever he might lead... Jesus was on outspoken advocate of change” (p.68). He assumes that the leadership of the change agents is the same as Christ’s leadership. Christ came with a new religion. Can we conclude that is what the change folks have to offer us? Christ was empowered of God to institute change, they are not. Christ’s change was heaven- ordained, theirs seeks to change what Christ has given us. It is impressive to note how all change agents tend to say the same thing, use a common vocabulary and examples. This suggests that all have been to the same schools and seminars and read the same books and journals. It is as if they studied the same manual. I wish one of them would tell us the original sources from which they are gathering their materials. I can predict that they are from denominational churchmen who know nothing of, nor care a whit for going back to the Bible, finding and practicing New Testament Christianity. Bro. W. says, “Much of what the Jewish Christians had to recognize as baggage was not just that which resulted from human accumulation, but also that which had come to them through divine revelation” (p. 74). This leads me to ask is this where he and his associates are heading? Do they expect us to surrender to change that which is of divine revelation?
The author acknowledges that the things they wish to change “are things we can go to our graves practicing... (S)hould we recognize that we too are a church in transition; there probably will be no massive revolution in our worship practices or in the general manner in which we believe religiously” (p.77). Paul warned that “by their smooth and fair speech (divisive teachers) deceive the hearts of the innocent” (Rom. 16:18) Here are some of the changes already being widely promoted. You decide if they would effect a “massive revolution” in the worship of your congregation. * Instrumental music in worship, * choirs and solos; *the Lord Supper as part of a pot luck meal; * hand clapping and applause in worship; * women teachers and preachers; * no more gospel preaching, rather story telling and drama; * accepting our status as a denomination; * fellowshipping denominational bodies, * allowing their preachers to fill our pulpits; * people “being saved” by confessing Christ and praying the sinner’s prayer. If these changes would not be revolutionary in your congregation, it is evidence that the change movement is already entrenched there. Bro. W. tell us, “We...are faced with unremitting prospect of their being Christians on earth, as fully acceptable to God as we, who do not look and act exactly like us” (p. 77). He does not have in mind unknown souls who on their own have searched the Scriptures and found the way of salvation, rather he has in mind our denominational neighbors.
He along with other change agents likes to hold up before the world the various divisions that have occurred over the years and blame us with responsibility for them. “Look at the thirty or more official divisions among us...” (p. 77). Some folks exaggerate. That some brethren disagree on whether Christian should go to war does not constitute an “official division;” nor does disagreement about women wearing head coverings; nor most of the 30 he mentions. Many today can agree to disagree on numerous nonessentials that once troubled our fathers. The process is called maturation. By the way, I wonder what makes a division “official.” He charges, “We have been guilty of severing the body of Jesus from limb to limb. We have divided over such matters as cups and kitchens, organs and orphans, race and ritual, pastors and personalities, contribution and cooperation and a host of other things” (p. 78) This does have a cute poetic ring but it is exaggerated and seeks to blame all with the sins of the few. I ask Bro. Woodroof and his fellow agents of change, how he would respond if an element arose in the church where he preaches demanding that he not be paid for his work, or that they remove their fellowship facility or that they use only one cup in communion? Would he concede out of love, tolerance and a desire for unity? Would he try to teach them? If he saw them gaining ground among his members and threatening to overwhelm the leadership what would he do? If the mistaken brethren were frustrated in their attempts to impose their opinions for change and withdrew themselves and started a new congregation, would it be his fault or theirs? He says, “We like the Jewish Christians of the first century, have been sitting in a position of sectarian elitism for years” (p. 86). Does this include Bro. W. and his Christian ancestors? Does it include his fellow change agents, or only those who do not embrace his call for change? Name- calling proves nothing. But it does reflect the author’s degree of love and appreciation for the church of Church and his brethren within it.
He tells us, “I have spent, and am presently spending, my life pursuing pure doctrine. But I insist on letting God determine what that doctrine is...(p. 94). Would he inform us just how God tells him what is “central” and what is “peripheral” doctrine? Does he have a source of information beyond the Bible that the rest of us mortals have?
He says, “Jesus himself was preached as the only message. There was no other” (p. 107). Why then did the Holy Spirit guide the apostles to write the epistles if they are unneeded and per him the root of our lack of unity?
He notes, “there have been believers in every generation, especially among restorationists, who so revered their own traditions that they felt justified in excluding all other believers who did not totally share their beliefs. This is purely and simply sectarianism...” Based on a few cases, he proceeds to casts guilt on the whole body of Christians.
On one hand he argues that we should just preach Christ and not let doctrine divide us. But then he says, “the call for us to preach God’s message and “let that be enough” has nothing to do with the ongoing need to nourish and strengthen the new convert in the ‘whole counsel of God.’ It does not advocate abandoning the letters of the Apostles which address the further equipping of the saints or the organizing of the church to be the body of Christ in the local community. It does not negate the addressing of specific problems of the corporate church and the correcting of abuses...” (p. 110-111). He wants it both ways. Preach Christ and that is enough, all else is divisive. But we do need to preach from the epistles and address the specific needs of the church. These opposites cancel each other, do they not? Why then does he fault us for preaching the “whole counsel of God;” Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Revelation? He writes, “We have shed blood to establish the sufficiency of that God-designed process apart from denomination accretions. Surely we will not abandon it now...” (p. 111). But it is Bro. Woodroof and his coworkers who are in fact trying to change (i.e., abandon), the faith, worship and practice, that God designed for his people.
He states, “I have often said that Rom. 14:1-15:7 is the Spirit’s attempt to clean up the mess caused by the events in Acts 10” (p. 119). Although he later attempts to soften this rash statement, it borders on blasphemy. The Holy Spirit does not attempt, he does. The divine instruction of Peter and the opening of the door of salvation to the Gentiles in Acts 10 was no mess. It was one of the epochal events in sacred history. He charges, “Any thoughtful assessment of the 20th century Church of Christ will drive us to the conclusion that we as a movement, instead of an instrument to the glory of God, are to a great extent, an occasion of embarrassment and cause of shame to God” (p. 120). Does he include himself and his change comrades in this indictment? Does this describe congregations where he has preached? Without doubt he is embarrassed by his association with Churches of Christ! Like all liberals, he finds loveliness in denominational bodies and naught but sores and ugliness in the Lord’s church!
“For those who say ‘we divided over convictions,’ well it may seem that way on the surface,, and we may wish it to be that in reality, but that is seldom, if ever, the case” (p. 121). I take it that he feels we had no scriptural basis to refuse to go with the Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ when they introduced their changes! If so he should bid us goodby and go to them. He would surely be more comfortable there.
“The more conservative church...must not condemn the church which (is)...more liberal” (p. 123). This is what his book is all about. He wants us to allow the liberal change agents do their work; to effect their changes without question or challenge. How convenient for them! He labors to convince us that their changes are not really bad, but only in the minds of we whom he judges to be weak Christians. He writes, “The uncleanness lies inside a person and not in the things themselves which lie outside the person” (p. 125). But there surely are things he would object to:adoration of images, a pope, infant baptism, etc. etc. Are these things wrong only “inside the person?”
He endorses the “Bull’s Eye” approach to evaluating scriptures. We are left to wonder if Bro. Bill Love got the idea for his book by that title from Bro. Jim Woodroof or did Bro. W. get his idea form Bro. Love?
After deriding us for not spending more time in the gospels and too much time and emphasis on the epistles, he then spends much time and space in Romans chapters 14 and 15 to make his case for his change agenda. Working on Rom. 15:17-18, he writes, “...the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit. He who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God.” He then concludes with these remarkable words, “Does not he also then, imply that a person who fails to view the kingdom in this way is not acceptable to God? Is not this a necessary inference?” (p. 141). Earlier he faulted us for using logic, making deductions and drawing inferences. Such, says he, is divisive. But when he needs it, he does just that. I suppose it is acceptable to do so if you are promoting the change platform, but not if you are objecting to it. He states, “Since the kingdom consists of righteousness, peace and joy...it follows that we should then be in pursuit of that, and be forever finished with division and strife...” (p. 145). Per him we should never spend time opposing error taught and practiced by others. But notice that he and other change agents do just that against us, continually. If it is good of them why not for us? He and his brethren remind one of the anti-war demonstrators at work in our cities. To protest our nation’s war against the cruel tyrant of Bagdad, they throw rocks and bottles at the peace officers tying to maintain the peace of the community. Speaking of the early days of our movement, he says, “In those days, when such massive theological jungles had to be cleared and the boundaries of doctrine identified and staked out, we were able to provide honorable and intelligent men of integrity to do battle for the truth and defend the faith. We own much to those giants who gave their lives in pursuit and propagation of truth” (p. 149). If such was a good and noble pursuit then, why is it not now? Most change agents prefer to hurl rocks at those early champions who cleared the road for them to travel.
He says, “Instead of going to the uttermost parts of the earth to preach ‘Jesus as the Christ’ to the lost and unchurched (Lk 5:31-32), we remained close to the camps of those who considered themselves saved and occupied ourselves with preaching reactionary theology...” (p. 150). Note he feels we should not seek to win those who already believe in Christ and think themselves saved. That would include members of all religious denominations. This speaks volumes about Bro. Woodroof’s thinking. Were Priscilla and Aquila mistaken in taking time to each Apollos and win him over? Or was Paul wrong for teaching and rebaptizing those twelve men of Ephesus? He derides “self-appointed defenders of the faith committed to..keeping the church pure” (p. 151). But change agents such as Bro. Woodroof are self-appointed saviors of the church with their own variety of unity with Christian Churches. They too are warring against legalism, traditionalism. If it is wrong for us, why is it right for them? Is their case special?
He states, “Whenever two groups thus separate...more than likely the division indicates that neither has the mind of Christ at all—not at the time of separation or later...the longer each group goes along without the influences of the other, the less likely either will possess the mind of Christ” (p. 166). Does he include our fathers who refused to go with the progressives of last century whom we know as Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches? If so, then all of his years of service have been with an illegitimate body that is “not likely to possess the mind of Christ.”
To Bro. Woodroof, Churches of Christ are a denomination , born of the division with the Disciples of Christ. “We don’t like to hear criticism that would imply that we may be a denomination. But the time has come of Churches of Christ to redefine the term ‘denomination’...” (p. 167). By that redefinition, he means we should accept our status as a denomination and not insist that we are the true church of Christ founded by Jesus. This being the case, when he went as a missionary to New Zealand he was in reality a denominationalist sowing and practicing denominationalism. When he has preached here at home he did so as a denominational preacher to congregations of denominational people. The message of The Church in Transition reminds one of a fountain that offers from the same opening both sweet water and bitter (Jas. 3:11). That which is good is tainted by that which is false. The value of this book is to know just what this prominent author really believes about the Church of Christ, our faith, our practice and our people. It demonstrates the destination the agents of change have in mind to take us. It makes us aware of how serious our problem is. It also give us a good insight as to where much of the thinking of lesser men comes from. JHW |
