PARTICIPATING IN GOD'S LIFE (A Review)

This book, authored by C. Leonard Allen and Danny G. Swick, is sub-headed "Two Crossroads for Churches of Christ." They describe it as "an historical/doctrinal study of Spirituality in the heritage of Churches of Christ" (p. 15). Those who read this book will find it to reflect the reasonings of philosopher/theologians who have judged churches of Christ to be a flawed and failed attempt at  the religion of Christ.  They offer us what they feel is the antidote for our ailments. It is a call for churches of Christ to make the necessary changes to be acceptable to the Postmodern world. Conversely, Jesus and the apostles thought the world should change to be acceptable to God (Rom. 12:2). It helps to understand that the authors have embraced Postmodernism as their guiding philosophy. "We who like to call ourselves postmoderns" (p. 92).

The authors build their story around a brief controversy that erupted in the pages of Alexander Campbell's Millennial Harbinger and the Gospel Advocate between 1857 and 1860.  The participants were Dr. Robert Richardson, confidant and coworker of Campbell and Tolbert Fanning, president of Franklin College and editor of the Advocate. Fanning was also a friend and traveling companion of Campbell. They take this exchange of articles between two preachers and declare it to be representative of the entire brotherhood, then and now.  Richardson argued that the proper approach to understanding God's will was not by a simple rational reading of it.  He insisted the spiritual truths must be understood with the mind and the heart (p. 38). According to him,  somewhere in the movement "there remained a ‘serious defect which paralyzes the  most earnest efforts and renders comparatively fruitless the most successful proselytism'" (p. 41).  According to Allen and Swick, "The problem in fact lay primarily in (the fact that) a human philosophy had infiltrated the camp, blocking the flow of Divine Life..." (p. 42).  This criticism is interesting since the authors and their fellow-promoters of change are seeking to introduce the human philosophy of  "Postmodernism" into the contemporary church. Richardson argued that Fanning and other leaders had embraced and adopted the Common Sense philosophy of John Locke, a system he disparaged by calling it "dirt philosophy"  (p. 42-43).  The authors use this derogatory term in referring to the reasoning of brethren who do not share their Postmodern view. It is noteworthy that neither Richardson nor Fanning sought to develop a following based on their views about the Holy Spirit and the Christian.

While focusing their attack on Bro. Fanning, the unspoken target is all of those brethren of the church who do not subscribe to their Postmodern views. It would be revealing to compare the work and accomplishments of the authors with that of Fanning.  Theirs pale beside those of his. Much of the success of our churches in the Mid-South flows back to Fanning's labors.

The 15 pages of notes gleaned from this book cannot be thoroughly presented in this brief review. We can only provide a sampling. This book reflects the following views of the authors:

• That Churches of Christ are a human denomination, seriously flawed and needing renovation.

• That as a whole, we have totally misunderstood how to study and understand God's will.

• That in general we have failed to understand and thus benefit from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

• That as a people we are hopelessly mired in the rationalistic philosophy of John Locke. They would rescue us by leading us to accept Postmodernism.

• That the authors have embraced and are calling  for a religion of subjectivism and emotionalism.

• That by following their doctrine, God will speak to us beyond the Word and "make the words of the Bible a reality in our lives" (p. 76). They look for Divine illumination (p. 48).

• That by understanding the Spirit's work as they do, we can walk in a way and engage in practices that are humanely impossible (p. 177).

• They recommend to us a "litany" so we can become more consciously "Trinitarian." This would be published so we could repeat it in responsive readings in our worship (p. 188). They also suggest a Trinitarian prayer to  be "repeated mentally in the rhythm of one's breathing, inhaling with the first clause of each couplet and exhaling with the second clause" (p. 188). Imagine a Buddhist mantra.

• The authors are reaching for a mystical experience with God, such as other pietists have in days past.  Their position, by necessity, diminishes the value and importance of Scripture in the life of Christians. It encourages its neglect as they reach for a mystical experience.

• The assertions and conclusions set forth in these pages demonstrate that the authors have a very limited and imperfect acquaintance with and understanding of the larger brotherhood of churches of Christ.  Perhaps their perception has been distorted by their years in the environment of the seminary.

• Their thesis is built upon the premise that members of churches of Christ are devotees of John Locke's Common Sense philosophy. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of our brethren are unacquainted with Locke and have never read a line of his writings.  They have constructed a vulnerable straw man and beaten him soundly, but alas  their assumption was mistaken.

• Readers of the book will get a good sampling of "theobabble."  The authors are strong on opaque reasoning and philosophical speculation but weak on Bible knowledge.

The authors are sure that our fathers made a terrible mistake by not following Richardson's subjective approach to religion.  Perhaps they could explain why our churches, with their common sense way of reading the Bible, have flourished far more than those of the Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches who followed Richardson's subjective approach?  Do they say that those churches are more spiritual than our brethren?

Of Judas, Jesus said, "good were it for that man if he had not been born' (Mk. 14:21). Of this book, we could say the same.   An ancient philosopher once said, "Those who drink from tainted wells can expect to be sickened."