Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (10:00 am)

   AM Worship (11:00 am)

   PM Worship (3:00 pm)

 Thursday

   Bible Classes (7:00 PM)

Location

Piedmont Family YMCA

442 Westfield Road

Charlottesville, VA 22901
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 1

When Flatland Is The Heartland
by Terry W. Benton 

On page 23, LaGard claims that all members of churches of Christ, including himself, his father, and previous generations were like "Flatlanders" (people who knew only the two-dimensional world of flat things, but not the possibility of a three-dimensional world of spheres and "upward" realities).  He adds that "To the extent that there are thought to be other fundamental, substantive differences between our fellowship and 'the denominations', we find ourselves 'circles' in a world of 'squares' and 'triangles.'  By groping others doctrinally, we sense that everyone else has unauthorized angles, while we are the only legitimate geometrical figure".  With too broad a brush stroke, he painted his father into a flat circle. In fact, he imagines "our fellowship" (I suppose all the people he could conscientiously fellowship in local churches of Christ), and paints them all (every member of this imaginary "fellowship" he calls "ours").  I wonder if he has me in his circle?  He has his father there.  I could conscientiously fellowship his father, so I would suppose that LaGard would paint me into a flat circle and claim that I am also unaware of this "other dimension".  I would think that Frank Smith knew that he was preaching in churches whose members (at least some) held a denominational view of "the church of Christ".  I'm sure LaGard's father knew better and tried to teach weak and immature members that they were not to think of the church of Christ as a flat circle that contained many (local) circles within the larger circle.  I would imagine that Frank Smith took a trip into the scriptures and looked back at the erroneous concepts of the church that many local members held, and I would venture to guess that he tried to explain this spiritual sphere more perfectly.

I have long taught that I am not a part of a denomination called the "Churches of Christ".  I am sure LaGard just misunderstood what many preachers have long tried to get across.  LaGard is correct that some preachers and teachers are still using denominational jargon that would be foreign to anything Peter and Paul would be familiar with, such as "Church of Christ school" and "Church of Christ minister" etc.  Yet, I cannot but think that Paul was a minister of churches of Christ.  As opposed to being a minister of Jewish synagogues, Paul was changed, and became a church of Christ minister.  I find that it was not possible in the first century for many people to paint Paul with an accurate brush.  They said he belonged to the "sect of the Nazarenes".  They put him in "flatland" with themselves, regardless of what he thought himself.  Likewise, when LaGard says that all people in "churches of Christ" use the term "in the sectarian sense in which WE use it" (p.24), he paints people into his own flatland against their wishes.

 I wonder if LaGard ever read F.B. Srygley's non-flatland view of the church?  "The New Testament Church" by Srygley is a wonderful collection of non-"flatland" essays on the church.  R. L. Whiteside was certainly not preaching the flatland view when he wrote: "To say that local churches of Christ constitute the church of Christ is a great mistake, for there are children of God who are not members of any congregation. When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, there was no local church in that community for the eunuch to become a member of; yet he became a child of God, a member of God's family, which is the church of God" (Quoted in Plain Talk, vol.10,no.9,p.6).  I also find many non-flatland views of the church espoused in the writings of men like Robert Turner, Sewell Hall, and many, many others.  It would surprise me if Frank Smith spoke of the church of Christ as a denomination or with flatland concepts.  However, I do not deny that some preachers HAVE made flatland arguments that denominationalized the "Churches of Christ" (in effect).  I detect some flatland language in Leroy Brownlows' workbook on the church and in other writings of other men, but I do not think advertising a congregation as a "church of Christ" in a phone directory is what will put us back in flatland.  I find websites for house-churches that do not want to be thought of as a denomination, however, they have only succeeded in denominating themselves as house-church denominations.  I've seen a sign that said "the church" in front of a building.  They thought they were getting away from denominational concepts of the church, but soon people thought of that group as "the Church - church"(denomination).  A group meets in a house and wants to be Christians only. That's fine and good, but soon they tell people that they are a church of God and people will think of them as a denomination. They say, "no, I meant the church of Christ in the Bible sense" and people will think of them as a denomination.  Some of those meeting in that house will think of all people meeting in houses without a sign out front as "THE church" of the Bible.  They will exclude people who feel that a sign saying a "church of Christ" meets here is within scriptural bounds of authority.  Soon they have denominated themselves in their house-church denomination.  They too feel the edges of other churches with different angles and they assume they are the only ones in the true church.  However, they have simply formed another flat circle in flatland.

I concur that only by grasping the truth about the church in the Bible and teaching about it correctly can we move babes out of flatland concepts.  However, the house-church concept can become its own "heartland" and it too can be just another flat-land shape.  There are many who will no longer meet with brethren in a church-owned building because they have argued falsely that buildings are denominational and unscriptural.  They have simply drawn a smaller flatland circle around themselves and felt our edges to be out of harmony with their own.  With arrogant pride they think they alone have ventured into the true dimension of space-land.  They think they have discovered "upward" while they claim that all brethren in buildings are lost in flatland.

 If LaGard has found himself in a denomination, then we (editorially speaking) would urge him to come out.  I have determined that obeying Christ will put me IN and keep me in the right places, the heavenly places in Christ.  I cannot help it if people think I am of the "sect of the Nazarenes" or in a "Church of Christ denomination".  All I can do is keep my focus and try to tell the truth.  If I entered a denomination, I did not plan to, nor did I realize it, and if I can figure how I got in one, I will make every effort to get out.   But, I will not allow that just because LaGard or any other man SAYS I got in one despite my knowledge and will, that therefore I MUST be in one.  Nor will I concede that just because LaGard SAYS "we" (whoever he includes in that I cannot tell) are all in "flatland", that therefore "we" all are. 

 I appreciate the concept of "true restoration", that is, each man being truly restored to the Lord, but it appears that the house-church arrangement with a common meal of the Lord's Supper and a few other changes like not giving money to continual needs every week, is NOT "true restoration"(p.27).  Many of the things LaGard suggests for "true restoration" are just another "Northward", not "upward" call.  Let us go "upward".  Upward does not require leaving buildings and only meeting in houses or under tents or rocks or trees.  Upward does not require us to sit in a circle or around a table, never in pews. Upward does not require us to eat larger amounts of bread and drink larger amounts of the fruit of the vine.  Upward is spiritually climbing with a living hope and a powerful faith.  We all need this. But "Northward" is not upward.  Northward is binding what the Lord has not bound, that all churches must meet in houses and eat larger amounts of bread and drink.  Northward is loosing where the Lord has not loosed, that we do not have to give every first day of the week unless we discover a special need.  Paul wanted the Corinthians to open their eyes and see that "special needs" could be miles away, and that should open their minds to consider many other constant needs that are always special.  Northward is telling brethren that they need not give every first day of the week.  Upward is telling brethren that there are constant needs and that constant giving is upward in service to God.  I'm afraid that LaGard wants to move people upward, but will be instrumental in moving more people Northward or Southward. 

I remember Peter warning us that the false teacher will allure through the "lust of the flesh" and will "promise liberty".  Some people will be glad to quit giving and meet in houses to "eat" the Lord's Supper. They will enjoy the promised "liberty" of not having to "give" to common collective matters each week.  They will be lured by the promise that this is how to "truly restore" New Testament Christianity.  However, it is not upward.  I believe that I have been moving "upward" even while taking the bread and fruit of the vine in a pew in a building commonly purchased by this local church.  I believe I have moved upward in songs, prayer, and Bible study and in weekly contributions to common needs that are always "special" in the Lord.  I would call brethren to move upward, but outward is not always upward.

Click Here to go to the Next Article in This Review