Dr. Richard Hughes of
Pepperdine University has given us, “Reclaiming a Heritage; Reflections
on the Heart, Soul and Future of Churches of Christ. The book is
published by Abilene Christian University Press. Bro. Hughes was raised
in the Church of
Christ and
continues to claim membership in it (p. 118), but after reading his
book one can’t help but wonder, for how long?
From Bro. Hughes
perspective, “Churches of
Christ
are suffering a severe identity crisis” (p. 121). Those acquainted with
our brotherhood know it is not the conservative element among us, but
the liberals of the change movement who suffer from this identity
crisis. They don’t know who they are or where they are going. They only
know that they no longer wish to be part of “restoring the faith and
practice of the early church.”
He tells us, “It is time
to admit that in our churches, a wide variety of people from all walks
of life...simply do not find patternism and legalism to be meaningful
themes” (p. 121). By patternism he means the conviction that we should
be obedient to the commands, restrictions and regulations of the Bible.
He along with all other change agents flatly rejects that concept.
There is a legalism that is a perversion of
Christianity,
but he has in mind the sense that man should be obedient to the written
word of Christ!
We freely admit that those of the change “fellowship” fit this category.
He suggests, “For many in
our churches today, the restoration vision is a dead-end street, an
essentially useless category” (p. 121). Understand this and you will
understand what change agents are saying and why. This loss of faith in
our restoration vision is clearly demonstrated in the flow of materials
being issued by men associated with Abilene Christian and Pepperdine
University.
He declares, “And so we
are left with no useful past, no clear identity, and no meaningful
legacy. Essentially we are spiritual orphans” (p. 122). This sad passage
reveals the bankruptcy of the change movement. Those of us who look to
Christ as the head and founder of the church; to his word as the divine
standard of our faith, have no such disillusionment.
He asserts, “Many
feel...that the restoration ideal has spawned arrogance and division and
little else” (p. 67). Our movement spawned Abilene Christian University,
Pepperdine University (where the professor has taught) and a dozen
other schools. It spread the gospel message around the world into some
110 nations. It grew from 189,000 in 1906 to some 1,350,000 here at
home and as many more overseas. Its members have established and
sustained a dozen benevolent homes, scores of Christian primary and
secondary schools. They have pumped millions of dollars into relief for
the poor and victims of tragedies. They have established and sustained
campus ministries on scores of college and university campuses. Her
members have written and published hundreds of books and journals
including quality commentaries and Bible Translations. Her ministers are
generally well-educated
and her members are generally middle class. On the whole, her meeting
places are modern and comfortable although not usually lavish. She has
carried on an extensive outreach by radio, television, newspaper and the
Internet. This is the church that Hughes thinks has spawned little else
than arrogance and division..
Professor Hughes’ problem
is revealed on p. 59. “It was not until the late 1960s that I found
myself disillusioned with certain aspects of my heritage.” Now he is
disillusioned with most of it. But he finds much to admire in other
religious bodies who hold more liberal views.
It is revealing to
consider his view of Churches of
Christ,
of which is a part. His career has been spent teaching in schools
founded and sustain by members of this church, hence from them he has
drawn his sustenance. “Within a few short years, some had essentially
abandoned the search for truth...They elevated their rejection of creeds
to the status of a creedal statement...for all practical purpose, these
people had turned their backs on the genius of their own tradition” (p.
34).
He paints an accurate
picture of a contemporary “change congregation:” “restorationist
churches constitute a perpetual feeder for the evangelical
establishment. This is a way of saying that authentically
restorationist churches are by definition sectarian. As they move
toward denominational status, however, they almost invariably move into
the orbit of evangelical Christianity” (p. 111). “There is, perhaps
no better example of the transition from restorationist sect to
evangelical denomination than the Churches of Christ...” (p.112). He
should qualify this by saying, “Churches of
Christ
of the change movement!”
He identifies the belief
that drives the change agents, it is a “newfound theology of grace” (p.
132).
This book is a vivid
example of postmodern thinking. This worldly philosophy argues that
truth is unattainable; that all things are relative and there are no
moral and spiritual absolutes. He tells us, “Our fathers argued that no
human being can capture the truth, possess the truth, codify the truth,
preserve the truth, dispense the truth, or guard the truth.” “Instead,
each of us much search for truth, and that search is a search that is
never completely finished” (p. 30). Of course he offers no documentation
for this outlandish assertion. It does however tell us much about the
author.
He reasons that the goal
of restoration is, “that every Christian must return to the biblical
text time and time again, constantly rethinking his /her beliefs and
opinions in the light of God’s holy word” (p. 34). What he wants to
convey is that we cannot be certain of our understanding of baptism, the
nature of the church, the role of women in leadership, the question of
instrumental music in worship, etc. I would ask him if he is sure about
such doctrines as monotheism, the deity of Christ, the reality of
heaven, salvation by grace? How can he be sure of his faith? Does he
have to keep searching?
He labors long and hard
to convince us we cannot understand God’s revelation sufficiently to
say, “this is that” which the prophets spoke (Acts 2:16). Jesus said,
“Ye shall know the truth” (John 8:32), but Dr. Hughes says we cannot
know the truth. But then Jesus did not have his doctorate, did he?
Hughes tell us that God “refuses to be confined by words, even biblical
words; and therefore shatters every formula, every definition, every
pattern, every plan, every from of orthodoxy...” (p. 46). By his
doctrine, he has no pattern, no standard, no sure way of knowing God’s
will for how to serve him; only a blind leap of subjective “faith” and
the wistful hope that God will have mercy on him! He assures us, “As
envisioned by the founders of our movement, this ecumenical thrust never
depended on the ability of human beings to arrive at the truth or to
agree on a set of theological propositions...” (p. 31). Thus I suppose
we should embrace in fellowship everyone who claims to be a Christian,
all of whom are hopelessly searching for illusive truth.
He repeatedly implies
that members of Churches of Christ, other than his circle of change
agents, pretend to be infallible and absolute masters of all of God’s
truth. Yet in 47 years of preaching among our people I have yet to
encounter even one who so claimed.
The author tells us “the
dominant theme of Churches of Christ in our early years was our
commitment to the conviction, that ‘God is God and all human beings are
fallible.’” (p. 35). He oft repeats this profound theological and
philosophical truth but he offers no documentation to sustain it. Can he
find anywhere, at any time a leader among our brethren who did not in
fact recognize God alone as God and all human beings as fallible? Just
one! He finally gets around to saying, “Alexander Campbell and Barton
Stone seldom made direct and explicit statements to that effect, but
they pointed unmistakenly to their convictions in that regard...” (p.
53). Where? This airy statement bears the musty smell of the seminary
and most likely had its origin in the lectures or writings of some
denominational professor. It is profound but meaningless for the
discussion at hand.
Change agents like Hughes
delight in finding some ill-conceived, ill- stated line by a brother and
then asserting that such dribble is representative of all conservative
men...those not of his tribe. He delights in setting the extreme views
of prominent men against the general consensus of other mature
brethren. This he does with David Lipscomb’s views on Civil Government
and Barton Stone’s views on Premillennialism. He fails to note that
David Lipscomb fought the change agents of his generation hook and claw
until he grew too old to do so.
Dr. Hughes goals are
easily identified.
He wants to convince us
that we are in fact a denomination and should not claim otherwise
(p.51-52).
He wants to convince us
that Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone were the “founders of our
tradition” (p. 48).
That the founding
generation expressed no interest in restoring the “true Church of
Christ” (p. 37).
It is too bad that those first generation restoration preachers did not
understand this. They would not have worked so hard to win members of
sectarian bodies to the church they served.
Along with other change
agents he wants us to “treat the Bible as a narrative that tells the
story of God’s mighty deeds on behalf of the world which he created,
which he seeks to redeem and over which he someday will triumph when his
rule is complete” (p. 186). He should tell us if there are any
commandments to be obeyed? If so, which? Perhaps he would explain those
two reference which speak of God’s word as a pattern and tell us why
they do not mean what they say (II Tim. 1:13; Heb. 8:5).
To Dr. Hughes the defeat
of premillennialism in our ranks was unfortunate.
“The destruction of the
apocalyptic vision (includes premillennialism) severely weakened both
the restoration vision and the counter cultural dimensions of Churches
of Christ ...” (p. 116). If he feels that a belief in premillennialism
is so important, he could find it by transferring his membership to the
Independent Baptists.
He wants us to accept
women in leadership roles in the church. He describes God’s limitation
on women in church leadership as “subjugation of women” (p. 89). He
would negate the plainly stated restrictions on women (I Cor. 14:33-34;
I Tim. 2:11-12) by citing Paul’s words, “There is neither male nor
female, for ye are all one in Christ” (Gal. 3:26-29). The fact is that
God did not in some other verse place limitation on people regarding
ethnicity or social status as he did on gender!
He labors hard to
convince his readers that the best minds among us have always believed
that one could be a faithful
Christian
while an active member of a human denomination. No doubt a few
exceptions could be found, but the overwhelming majority of our brethren
have not thought or said such. Only with the advent of the change
movement has such become widespread.
Like other liberals in
the social, political and religious realm, Dr. Hughes wants the church
to involve itself in their social agenda. He frequently mentions our
failure to respond to the issues of poverty, racism and war (p. 87),
and “the subjugation of women” (p. 89). “Why Churches of Christ took so
little interest in social ethics. Why, for example were we so reluctant
to see the implications the gospel holds for large-scale
issues of peace and justice? (The anti-war
movement of the 60’s and the Civil Rights Movement, JHW). Why were we
so reluctant to confront the issue of racial segregation...why did
Churches of Christ take so little interest in the great moral issues
that convulsed the country during the turbulent years of the 1960s?” (p.
58). He faults brethren because “they sometimes cast their lot with the
forces of law and order that sought to subdue the voices of dissent” (p.
61). “Almost never did white, mainstream Churches of Christ support the
great swelling movement on behalf of peace and justice that captured the
minds of so many Americans...” (p. 61). As a true liberal he cannot
imagine an intelligent person not agreeing with his agenda. He cannot
understand that many of us preferred law and order to those motley
crowds of anarchists rioting in our cities. Nor can he understand how
Christians
could work within the church to change sinful attitudes about race
without joining the Civil Rights political movement. Dr. Hughes faults
today’s church for the failures of past generation in dealing with
slavery (1810-1865)
and segregation. In this he follows the example of the social and
political liberals. They cannot concede the progress made because they
spend their time dwelling on the failures of the past. We do not deny
the failures of past generations, but we recognize the great progress
that has occurred. He constantly labors to paint “white mainstream”
churches of Christ as molded and shaped by their culture. I would ask
him if black Christians
and churches are shaped by their culture? Are the academic communities
at ACU
and Pepperdine U molded and shaped by their culture?
One of the few useful
things in this book is Dr. Hughes portrait of the liberal change element
that has arisen to prominence among us. Note the characteristics of
these people:
They worked to “enhance
their colleges by appealing to the budgets of local congregations
through a variety of promotional strategies, through increasingly
complex institutional structures, and through a vast building campaign,
aimed at giving Churches of Christ more viability in the affluent and
‘respectable parts of town.’”
“Following the 1960s,
other developments suggested the Churches of Christ
(make that liberal
congregations and preachers) were rapidly turning their backs on their
Restorationist heritage and moving into the evangelical orbit.”
The distinctly
evangelical theme of justification by grace through faith” became the
norm in their preaching.
“A therapeutic gospel,
coupled with an emphasis on ‘family values’...dominated many Church of
Christ pulpits.”
“Worship sometimes verged
on entertainment.”
“And many urban Churches
adopted ‘church growth’ strategies that had more in common with the
Willow Creek Church (Independent Protestant Denomination in Illinois JHW)
than with that traditional heritage” ( p. 117).
Change agents like Dr.
Hughes like to talk about radical faith, discipleship and commitment,
but observation reveals it is radical liberalism, not God’s ways they
are calling us to. Bro. Hughes is a man he describes as “swallowed by
one strain...of the popular religious culture that dominates much of
American Christianity today” (p. 133). He is immersed in postmodernism,
a thorough going liberal, who is trying to reshape our people after his
own philosophical image. I feel sorry for this brother. His much
learning and his academic environment have poisoned his heart against
the church of his parents and his early life. They have filled him with
a spiteful arrogance towards it and his fellow-Christians. He really
needs to break out of this church which he holds in such low esteem and
migrate to one whose social agenda is more attuned to his; perhaps the
United Methodist or the Episcopal church. His book is pure poison, it
would have been far better had it been stillborn.
Other Articles
Baptist Questions Given Bible Answers