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 3

Neither Catholic nor Protestant?
By Terry W. Benton

In this chapter we are offered a wonderful recap of the conviction and trials of Martin Luther. LaGard says that Luther was not a mere reformation leader but a real "restorationist". After dousing us with the merits of Martin Luther as a greater change agent of his time, he hopes his own readers will see as great a need to challenge the so-called "Churches of Christ" of our time. We (editorially speaking) appreciate the challenge to any unscriptural organization and for the growth of any scriptural one. If there is a denomination called "the Churches of Christ", we should deny its validity and challenge its’ scriptural right to exist. Many of LaGard’s readers may indeed be in such a denomination, but there are many other of his readers (like myself) who deny being in such a denominational entity. By so often using the pronoun "we", I get the impression that LaGard views himself, his father, and anyone else who has captured a vision of "restoration", as automatically a part of a "system", a "movement", and yea a denomination. We are forced to ask, Does the very use of the idea of RESTORATION automatically put one in a denominational church of Christ? Can we not agree with Luther’s objections to the pope without being a part of Luther’s system? If so, can we not also agree in principle with some men like Alexander Campbell without being part of his system (if he had one)? I do not agree with all that Luther OR Campbell taught, but I recognize truth when I see it, and both men taught some truths that I cannot help but agree with. Yet, I am neither Lutheran nor Campbellite.

LaGard would surely claim that I am in the Church of Christ denomination despite all my protests and denial. I would respond that I am not in one despite all of LaGard’s affirmations and assertions. He would surely claim that I have not escaped the clutches of this denomination no matter how much I deny it. I would respond that I am not in one just because F. LaGard Smith says I am. Only if we accept LaGard’s premises can we become the monster that he is trying to slay. The sad thing is that even after writing his book, LaGard has not altogether detached himself from the denomination he sees himself in, and to the extent that he succeeds in forming the house-church-meal-eating-denomination, he will still have the new monster, which he helped create, to slay.

If all it takes to prove a group of people belong to a denomination is to CLAIM that they do, then when LaGard has started a group of people meeting in homes only and eating a meal for the supper, all we will have to do is CLAIM they are in a denomination and they will thereby BE what we claim they are. As much as I have respected LaGard’s writings in the past, I would still accept my own perspective over his. Why should anyone allow LaGard’s premise that there is a "we ourselves" (organization) that has inherited its beliefs from both Catholicism and Protestantism? When LaGard convinces a group to meet only in homes and eat the supper in meal fashion, will THAT "we ourselves"(entity) have not inherited from both Catholicism and Protestantism in similar but (perhaps) other ways?

This third chapter confronts us with some good stuff, but also a lot of flawed ideas and premises. We will consider these as carefully and honestly as possible. First, we will address the issue of Martin Luther as a "restorationist".

I. LUTHER "COULD NOT BE MORE RESTORATIONIST"? p.49

While Luther is to be greatly admired for his effort to "reform" the Catholic Church, we cannot view him as someone trying to restore the New Testament order to local churches, and the Roman Catholic Church was a larger entity that was not within his power to restore. You could restore people to the Lord by pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church is unscriptural from top to bottom, but getting people to leave the Roman Catholic Church is not restoring it. His effort at reform is to get the pope and his workers to change some things they are doing and teaching. This is ALL Martin Luther wanted to do. LaGard claims that Luther could not be more restorationist. He could be more, lots more than he was. He could have started by trying to dismantle the unscriptural Roman Catholic Church, appeal to all to leave it, and he could teach people to refuse to recognize the pope and to follow only the Bible. If Luther did not do this, then he COULD have been more of a restorationist. We believe that LaGard tries to paint Luther with more beautiful colors than he actually possessed.

If Luther could not be more restorationist in his outlook, then why did he remain Roman Catholic in sentiment? Why did he recognize the Roman Catholic Church at all? LaGard meets himself on his own point when he claims that "Luther died a practicing Catholic"(p.51,52). How then can LaGard claim that Luther was restorationist? How can he claim that Luther "could not be more restorationist"? Why did he die a practicing Catholic if he was indeed a true restorationist? It is impossible to be restorationist and Catholic at the same time. One recognizes only the New Testament scriptures as solely authoritative and the other recognizes the pope as additionally authoritative. The two viewpoints cannot co-exist in the same person with sanity.

Homer Hailey, in "Attitudes and Consequences", shows that Ulrich Zwingli was closer to the truth in basic outlook toward scriptural authority than was Martin Luther. He sets forth many quotations from each that lead to this conclusion. Yet, LaGard would have us believe that Luther could not be more restorationist. We can admit that Luther was a great REFORMATIONIST (he wanted reform within the Roman Catholic Church), but he was far from being restorationist in his basic scriptural outlook.

It should also be noted that LaGard would lend credibility to Luther as a restorationist when he himself would say otherwise. Hear the words of Luther AFTER the posting of his ninety-five theses (1517):

Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)

Does this statement reflect a restorationist outlook at all? No, he still acknowledges the pope as the voice of Christ. He also calls the pope his "Holy Father". Did Luther never read Matthew 23? No restorationist can possibly acknowledge this address to the pope and recognition of the pope as the voice of Christ by any stretch of the imagination. Listen further.

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)

He did not want to separate from the Roman Catholic Church. He merely wanted to change some of its forms, "to make her better". Luther was no restorationist. His own words show that he was only a mild reformationist (wanting only small reforms within the Catholic Church). But listen further:

Letter of Luther to Amsdorf, January 9, 1545:

The pope would rather publicly worship the Turk and Satan himself . . . than allow himself to be brought into order or reformed. (p. 184)

Even within his famous 95 Theses, Luther acknowledged the pope. Of the Pope, Martin Luther wrote in Thesis #9, that ". . . the Holy Spirit in the Pope is kind to us. . . ." And in Thesis #53, he insisted that those who were engaged in false teaching were "enemies of Christ and the Pope".

Luther is hard to pin down because he vacillates from side to side contradicting himself on many turns. He had little or no use for the book of Revelation until he found some material to use against the pope, not as a totally invalid office and position, but as a hypocritical person who let injustice continue. He never acknowledged the book of James as fully inspired of God. Thus, we find ourselves wishing to further reform the reformer, but the facts leaving us unable to acknowledge him as a true restorationist.

Luther was also unwilling to relinquish his unbiblical views of Mary. Of this doctrine he said:

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

(Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)

He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

(Ibid.)

God says . . . : "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God.

(Ibid.)

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.

(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," December [?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Luther, authorized translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.

(Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522)

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.

(Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

How can a man who thinks that we should come to God "THROUGH" Mary, be taken seriously as a restorationist? The man was a great reformation leader, and this cannot be denied. But, to say that he could not be more restorationist in his basic outlook surely misses the mark.

Luther’s recommendations for treatment of Jews is certainly to be despised by all who truly believe that vengeance belongs to the Lord and that he DID repay them in the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70) and the consequent destruction of the Judaism that was connected to priesthood and temple. Luther would charge Christians with an on-going task of punishing Jews. When you read the following, you will know that Luther was not a restorationist in the least.

Quote:

On the Jews and Their Lies:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing, and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves ... I shall give you my sincere advice:

Set fire to their synagogues and schools, burying and covering with dirt what won't burn, so no man will see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and Christendom.

Second, I advise that their houses be seized and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that the rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews, for they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, or tradesmen. Let them stay at home.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and all cash and treasures be taken and kept for safekeeping.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an axe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses, letting them earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Genesis 3:19). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time ... boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat ... For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

[The whole tract may be found in English in Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp 268-293. A number of English books have translations of these directives. Among them is "The Christian in Society," ed. Franklin Sherman (1971), pages 268-272. The "Ideas in Conflict" book, "Religion and Politics — Issues in Religious Liberties," by Gary E. McCuen, also quotes them on pages 16-23.]

Unquote.

Adolf Hitler was a spiritual descendent of Germany’s own Martin Luther. If you want to see the fruit of Martin Luther’s teaching and evaluate whether to give him credit of being a true restorationist of New Testament Christianity look no further than Germany between WWI and WWII. The document of Martin Luther as well as his public teaching was put into action by Adolf Hitler. Did the early Christians treat the Jews like this? No! Were they encouraged to do this? Not at all! Yet, our brother LaGard Smith wants to paint Martin Luther as a true restorationist. How can we think of Luther as a restorationist with this kind of hateful track record?

Martin Luther, in the preface to his commentary on Romans, said, ""I find James to be so at odds with Paul as to refuse even to give him a place in the canon."" Can such a man be anything more than a reformationist? Surely, without the whole counsel of God a man cannot be considered "restorationist" in his basic outlook!

Clearly, Luther wanted reform in the popes he knew to be morally corrupt. He was not seeking a desolving of the Roman Catholic Church, but a reform of it. A true restorationist is interested in the utter desolution of all false religions and a restoration of one’s life to God and His will. God’s will has the power to restore the patterns of conduct and worship we saw emphasized in the first century New Testament order.

There are apostate churches of Christ that need modern Martin Luthers to challenge the drifts within. For example, it is a good thing, at least to some extent, that the following Twenty-Five Theses were posted on the door of the Richland Hills church building in Fort Worth, Texas. There is some terminology that I would not endorse within the document, and a few concepts that I would not endorse. But, the document is as brave and courageous as Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Here is what the 25 Theses says to that drifting church in Fort Worth.

Quote:

TWENTY FIVE THESES

<<<>>>

CONCERNING DIVISIVE MATTERS

IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

and particularly at

RICHLAND HILLS CHURCH

[Being The Largest Congregation Among Us]

October 31, 2002

In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, we set forth these propositions for open discussion after the order used four hundred eighty-five years ago by Dr. Martin Luther of Wittenburg, when in 1517 on this date of October 31st, he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to his church door. His action was a major milestone in history and in man’s attempt to free himself from the shackles of false religion. Luther’s diligent study of the Scriptures revealed a sharp contrast with what he observed in the church of his day.

As members of the body of Christ, we have either been affected indirectly, if not suffering personally by having felt compelled to leave the church where we had long held membership. This has been in consequence of her elders’ and minister’s unbiblical doctrines and practices, accompanied in some cases with threats of withdrawing names from the membership roles of any who might raise Biblical questions, speak or write against the changes they have brought in.

The following Twenty Five Theses are based upon the foundation which calls upon us to "test the spirits", for "it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends" (I John 4:1-6; 2 Corinthians 10:18). The truth we speak is in love for truth, for lost souls and for the church of the Lord.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, "Repent," intended that there be a change of heart with respect to all unrighteousness. This includes those of us within the church as well as those without. Any who dares to change doctrine, worship and practice of Christ’s holy church needs to repent, including elders and preachers. Christ has bestowed on no man or group of men the right to change one item of His will for His church.

2. This does not refer only to inward change, but also involves a resolve to change those outward acts performed in life, as well as in doctrine, corporate worship and praise under the oversight of the shepherds of the flock.

3. Elders are to set proper examples and are to teach the flock under their care (I Peter 5:1-4). We call on the shepherds who oversee the flock to exercise their duty under the Chief Shepherd, to protect the flock from wolves or other intruders who would destroy, harm or divide the flock. They are entrusted by the Owner to be faithful to the instructions given to them. They are courageous and bold whenever their duties are challenged, and are not at liberty to change the stipulations laid down by the One who entrusted them with the sheep. They are not to account as unimportant, unnecessary, peripheral or trivial any part of their commission, and are not to allow a stranger to come in with new and different ways.

4. The elders must be careful students and teachers of the Word and able to discern who those wolves are who are scattering and dividing their flock: "Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them" (Romans 16:17). Such divisive men may be eloquent speakers, nevertheless "by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people" (verse 18).

5. We call on you to repent of changing the charter written in 1967 by the original founding elders. You removed, among other things, without the knowledge and consent of the congregation, this concise restrictive clause: "No mechanical instrument of any kind whatsoever shall ever be used in connection with the song service or worship or work to be carried on or conducted by said congregation or religious body". You have dishonored those righteous men and women who made every effort within their power to safeguard future generations from this specific departure from the Bible pattern for New Testament worship. They were aware of the divisive nature of this particular innovation and therefore made specific mention of it in their founding document.

6. We call on you to repent of your unbiblical and inconsistent decision to allow the use of mechanical instruments of music in any and all functions of the church, excepting only the public assembly on Sundays and Wednesdays.

7. We call on your minister, Rick Atchley, to repent of his willful failure to preach against the unbiblical use of mechanical music in Christian worship, and of his bold declaration that he not only has never preached on the subject in all his tenure here, but that neither shall he ever do so in the future. He denied that Nadab and Abihu were stricken dead for offering "strange fire" in his sermon based on Leviticus 10 called "Fire Alarms," concluding that God will never judge a man on the basis of "something the Bible says nothing about".
[Note: The absurd and false doctrine that there is no significance in the silence of Scripture allows adding anything a person desires in worship so long as there is no "thou shalt not". A booklet was written by a then-member at Richland Hills to refute this doctrine: A Commentary On What The Bible Does NOT Say. Thousands have been circulated in only a short time, showing widespread interest in the subject.]

8. Brother Atchley and the elders have fallen into the error that this is a matter of mere personal opinion to be kept to one’s self and is therefore "a non-issue" that is "not open to discussion." Our conviction is that history confirms the introduction of the instrument of music was the major cause of division within the body of Christ over the past 150 years, as well as being a divisive element in major denominational groups even prior to that time. When an elder was asked if they would be willing to discuss these matters with other elders in their city, he replied: "No; we are congregationally autonomous." [Cf. Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:5 and Acts 20:17 where all elders in a city evidently shepherded one church located there when there was no known segregation of congregations within the city.]

9. You have announced your intentions to seek closer fellowship with the Christian Church with no intent of reproving their error, obviously intending to continue inviting their ministers into our pulpit and to encourage them in their error through other activities of fellowship. Your advertising in bulletins, etc., for trombones, saxophones and other instruments for future church functions is wholly contrary to the language and practice of first century apostolic Christianity.

10. When leadership fails, some "little ones are caused to stumble" (ASV, "offend" KJV, "sin" NIV, Matthew 18:6). Unfaithful leaders in Jeremiah’s day "caused people to stumble ... in the ancient paths. They made them walk in by-paths" not established by Jehovah (this is written for our learning, Romans 15:4; Jeremiah 18:11-19:5). You have shielded some Christian family members from those who have removed themselves from your minister’s preaching and your elders’ oversight, and thus have forced by unbiblical and arbitrary decisions, the painful dividing of Christian families who formerly worshipped together with you in peace and harmony according to biblical patterns. Some are stumbling in these ways: (1) New converts, weak and immature, are separated from the soul-winner who brought them to Christ. (2) Some of us who leave the flock in our confusion and disappointment will fail to find another congregation, and finally Satan will lead some back into the world where they will perish. (3) Others who remain will lose their enthusiasm, holding back enthusiastic participation and financial support, resulting in various losses including noticeable declines in Sunday contributions. (4) Still others are diverted from joyful outreach in seeking and saving the lost, while attending unpleasant though necessary tasks (like writing these twenty-five theses) of "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

11. You tolerate preachers, teachers and elders to affirm openly their belief that all miraculous spiritual gifts are for the church today. Some among the elders without shame affirm they possess the gift of healing while they have no restraint from fellowshipping with modern day charismatic denominations whom they consider to be in the body of Christ the same as we … and whose books and literature they zealously have distributed among members of the church of Christ. For years you have been asked what you and Rick Atchley mean by affirming that "this church (Richland Hills) is NOT A CHARISMATIC CHURCH!"

12. In your pulpit you preach that the silence of Scripture is not prohibitive, even denying that Nadab and Abihu’s and Moses’ punishments were for acts they performed which God "commanded not". We believe you err by affirming that no act in worship is sin unless it is specifically forbidden in Scripture. You are thus inconsistent by not allowing the members to eat cake and pie in the Lord’s Supper if that should happen to be their preference.

13. Concerning your abolition of the office of deacons in the congregation, you cannot deny that Paul told Timothy that the deacon is to be a "one-woman man" the same as is required of the elders. Obviously the woman special servant, or deaconess, cannot fill this role, and to appoint both men and women without distinction as "special servants" is without Scripture warrant. (cf. Atchley’s sermon, January 23, 2002)

14. Fellowshipping with dozens of religious organizations as a co-sponsor of the Dallas/Fort Worth 2002 Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Crusade is to give endorsement to many unbiblical practices and arrangements too numerous to mention. Counselors are instructed by the Graham team in preliminary training sessions that they are to convert sinners, using the "Sinner’s Prayer", a practice and doctrine that we know contradicts the Lord’s plan of salvation. In a warning to Christians, Paul admonished to not be unequally yoked with those who do not believe solely in God’s word: "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing and I will receive you" (2 Corinthians 6:17). He did not say to get as close as you can to false teachers, and perhaps you can deceive their leaders so that some good can come from it. In another place Scripture warns that we not say: "Let us do evil that good may result" (Romans 3:8).

15. In similar fashion, to encourage participation in the multi-million dollar commercial inter-denominational mens’ fellowship known as Promise Keepers is to give endorsement to numerous doctrines and practices which are contrary to "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

16. You have invited men to preach in your pulpit who represent untrue organizations, doctrines and practices. Included among these are such men as Tony Evans from a charismatic denomination in Dallas who preached (with no reproof or correction by leaders of the church) that all denominations, including Richland Hills Church of Christ (with their "Pastor Rick Atchley") make up the one church of Jesus Christ.

17. Another denominational "Pastor" and his wife who came, both preached at Banquet meetings on two occasions, then took up collections amounting to several thousand dollars each time, for their Victory Temple, a Pentecostal type assembly which sponsors a home for recovering drug addicts. Their many testimonies of salvation by faith alone with no mention of obedience in baptism, followed by distribution of his book, Outcry In The Barrio, was with apparent full endorsement by the Richland Hills church leadership. His name, Freddie Garcia of San Antonio. (cf. II Corinthians 6:16)

18. Max Lucado, former college roommate and close friend of Rick Atchley, has been a regular guest preacher at Richland Hills church, despite the common knowledge that his books which circulate in the hundreds of thousands, teach that salvation is by grace alone, and that obedience in baptism is not essential to salvation from sin (cf. Christian Chronicle interview, July, 2002). At Promise Keeper mass meetings he has been a favorite guest speaker because he eloquently tells his applauding crowds that all denominations are united in Christ like passengers occupying separate rooms (with their "insignificant" differing doctrines and opinions) on a great ship of salvation sailing to the eternal shores of heaven. In a recent interview at a Baptist Seminary where he received special honors, he said he happened to have been reared in a Church of Christ family, and that though he now preaches for the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio where he is allowed to preach whatever he desires, he would probably preach for a Baptist church if he should lose his present. pulpit job (cf. II John 10-11)

19. The steady roster of guest speakers who are invited by Rick Atchley happen to be almost without exception men who are known in the brotherhood of churches of Christ by the self-styled term "Change Agents". The articles, books and preaching of such men have earned for them this identity because their common agenda, while denying what they term as "Patternism in Christianity", is to bring about sweeping changes in doctrine, worship styles, teaching on the way of salvation, etc., working to eliminate the remaining vestiges of the now obsolete, legalistic and outdated practices in the churches of Christ. Among these who are regularly invited to occupy the Richland Hills pulpit are such men as Jeff Walling, Rubel Shelley, Mike Cope, Lynn Anderson, Max Lucado, Randy Harris and Milton Jones.

20. Verification of the above statement can easily be made by observing the Richland Hills website ( resources section) where the church styles itself as a Progressive Church of Christ. It further identifies itself by advocating WINESKINS MAGAZINE and other similar resources that are not representative of churches of Christ of the restoration heritage who have fought their way out of the maze of sectarian error by diligently searching the Scriptures through the last two millennia. The New Testament warns about "going onward" or "progressing" and not abiding within the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-10. The Greek term proago means to "go beyond" or "progress", here used to describe false teachers).

21. Thousands have studied their way out of sectarianism and human traditionalism by means of honorable public and private disputation, even as Paul disputed daily (Acts 9:29; 17:17) concerning his faith in Christ. He even "withstood Peter to the face" when he was in error. Some are preaching that "the days of debating are over in churches of Christ." Members are told by the Richland Hills leaders now that any controversial subject is "not open for discussion," that "opinions should be held to oneself." Members are but sheep where all decisions are the sole responsibility of the shepherds (elders) who alone bear responsibility for all activities in the congregation. "Unity with diversity" is the appeal, not only in matters of indifference or opinion where the Bible has not given direction, but also in matters of doctrine where the Scriptures have spoken. (cf. I Corinthians 1:10ff where all are to "speak the same things")

22. The elders have rejected opportunity to acquaint themselves with the dangers of religious divisions among us in the past, refusing an offer of one of the best books on the cause and cure of religious division, a book entitled A DIVIDED HOUSE, by Arlie Moore. For over four months, enough copies of this excellent book for each elder and minister to have a copy (about 30 copies) were offered and made available to them free of charge, but few if any were accepted by them. Finally they were returned after a minister said, "I would recommend you take them back; I think the elders have discussed this matter (of instrumental music, one of the major causes of division in the brotherhood) all they are going to." While it is true that books of history cannot take the place of the Word of God, nevertheless there is value in reading them to aid in ministry. (cf. Acts 17:28; II Timothy 4:13)

23. One verification of such conflicts that exist is that an elder who now serves affirms that he is willing to debate (but not publicly!) in favor of the use of instruments in worship. With such confusion in leadership, members are left pondering whether to go or stay.
[Lot, a righteous preacher in the Old Testament, was vexed by his unrepentant environment … but he "lingered" there. Finally, after the pleadings of a caring relative, God sent an angel who took him by the hand and rescued him before destroying the place (Genesis 18 & 19, II Peter 2:7-8). We do not suggest this church is a place of gross sinfulness like Sodom, but only to say that possibly the many righteous persons there can become comfortable and insensitive to gradual and subtle departures from God’s patterns. Many of us have painfully left despite our admiration of the good works and our love for the people that remain there. Fortunately there are 100 other Churches of Christ in the greater Fort Worth area to choose from as alternate places of work and worship.]

24. It has been observed that those who do not learn history have a way of repeating it. Moses E. Lard wrote 135 years ago in October, 1867 (Quarterly, Vol. IV), a prophecy which sadly came to pass in ensuing years among churches of Christ. He wrote, "Our brethren are introducing melodians into their Sunday Schools. This is but the first step to the act, I fear. As soon as the children of these schools go into the church, in goes the instrument with them." And so it happened. It is just a matter of time. Now elders and ministers are allowing mechanical instruments of music in the classrooms and other activities of the church, deceiving themselves while leading others into thinking it will not come into the public worship services. They advise the older brothers and sisters who are offended by this, "If you don’t like it, just don’t go to those classes and activities." Brethren, please do not stop your ears and turn your backs on the warnings from the history of what happened among our own brethren.

25. We conclude with words from the Holy Spirit: "Do your best to present yourself approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." (II Timothy 2:15) And from Jesus: "There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."
(Matthew 10:26)

++++++++++

We wish to make known that we find the above things of grave concern, and implore in the name of Christ that we be shown that they are in harmony with God’s revealed will or that they be renounced and properly corrected. We do not insist on our own will, but that God’s will be respected.

Unquote.

The above was signed by several members of that church, and the stand they took was a good example of how some members of a local church need to take a Martin Luther type stand against apostate concerns. There are hundreds of churches that have indeed become a denomination, or they are rubbing elbows and chumming up to the denominations. If this is what LaGard has in mind, he had plenty of room to say it, but chose to focus on four things that we will discuss shortly. The above document speaks of "the largest congregation among us", which tends to employ the same denominational concept that LaGard peddles. But, the push toward reformation within that local church is commendable. To the extent that Luther challenged the unrighteous pope, he is to be commended, but to the extent that Luther failed himself to preach and teach the righteous principles of Christ, he fails to deserve respect much less the respect of being considered a restorationist of New Testament Christianity.

II. THE CAUSE OF RESTORATION VERSUS THE CAUSE OF CHRIST? p.57

I fail to see how that ‘the cause of restoration" could be considered something different from "the cause of Christ". LaGard says and implies that there is a difference, but again he did not tell us HOW. How can there be a difference? What kind of restoration does not have in mind a restoration to Christ and His will? We are made to wonder if LaGard’s father, Frank Smith, would have any idea what LaGard is talking about? It seems that LaGard has been somewhere unfamiliar to me, and somewhere unfamiliar to several others I’m sure. We would ask the reader, Has preaching where you attend been about restoration and NOT the cause of Christ? If so, please restore that preacher to Christ. There can be no restoration apart from Christ. If any says otherwise, let them be accursed for preaching a different gospel.

III. "OUR DENOMINATIONAL STATUS QUO"? p.58

On page 58, LaGard speaks of "our denominational status quo", and I wonder who he is speaking of? and who is he speaking FOR? We would also ask WHEN is it "status quo"? IS it status quo when you are a member of the church at Corinth? While Corinth was full of carnally minded brethren (1 Cor.3:1ff), were they part of LaGard’s "denominational status quo"? Was the church at Ephesus with their elders (local organization) a part of LaGard’s denominational status quo? How about Philippi? Sardis? While all of these local churches had their share of local problems, there was no "denominational status quo" that we can surely identify. We would freely admit that you can find problems in local churches today just as surely as we can read of local churches in the first century having different problems. But, keep in mind that LaGard is not claiming that local churches often have problems. What he is claiming is that there is a denomination called the "Churches of Christ" (something larger than the local church but smaller than the universal church). He is claiming to be a part of that denomination, and he is insinuating that anyone who has "restoration" concepts is likely a part of this denomination. There were many local "churches of Christ"(Rom.16:16), but they were not part of a denomination, and there are many "churches of Christ" today who are not part of a denomination.

LaGard may very well be in some denominational status quo, and if he is, he should get out. But, we would warn him that his house-church-meal-eating-denomination can have its own "denominational status quo". In fact, we are sure that there are many house-church-meal-eating seditions and heresies that would be tickled to get LaGard into their denomination. When LaGard speaks of "our denominational status quo", we want to let the record show that we do not know for whom he could be speaking except for himself.

IV. WHO CLAIMS TO BE "THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH FULLY RESTORED"? p.58

Perhaps in some tract or bulletin somewhere there is a misguided statement that "we are the New Testament church fully restored" (LaGard puts it in quotation marks as if he is quoting a common expression). If so, we will be the first to say the man who says such is mistaken. However, I do not know of ANYONE who thinks they can identify a group of people or churches as "the New Testament church fully restored". The best that any local church can claim is that they have restored some of the elements of common participation to the pattern seen in the New Testament. Not even the very first local churches were fully developed or perfectly all God wanted them to be. We can say that a Christian should be able to participate with us in the things we do together as a church or assembly. We can say that we (in a local church) are patterned in organization and/or in assembly after the approved pattern revealed in New Testament churches. We can say that we are patterned after the approved pattern of New Testament churches in the doctrines we express and teach, but claiming that every member in a local church or a group of local churches is "the New Testament church fully restored" is not a claim that can be made in the first or twenty-first centuries. The one universal church is not a functioning unit and cannot be destroyed or restored. The local church is composed of sincere, insincere, weak, and strong members. Some who are accepted in a local church may not really be accepted by God. He knows the heart and the truth about each one. Some who are accepted by God (Acts 9:26), may not be accepted by a local church. Local churches are imperfect units. We do not know of an organization of these units or churches. Therefore, it is not possible to claim to be "the New Testament church fully restored".

I would hasten to ask that even if LaGard succeeds in getting house-church-meal-eating groups together, would he claim that NOW "we are the New Testament church fully restored"? I dare say, that he would not. Therefore, he is inventing a straw man. The essence of his book is to build a straw man and tear it down, and whoever gets caught in the rhetoric gets swept into dissatisfaction and apostasy into a new house-church-meal-eating-fully-restored-New-Testament-church-denomination. If he denies this, then he is shooting his own argument in the foot.

V. DID THE LORD’S CHURCH EXIST BETWEEN THE FIRST AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES? .p.59

Lagard is building an argument on a false premise. If he is asking for evidence of some organization larger than a local church but smaller than the universal church, then "the Lord’s church" is not what he is really asking about. Of course the Lord’s church has always existed. It is a kingdom which cannot be destroyed. Local churches come and go. For example the church at Ephesus, Corinth, etc. cannot be found today. But, it is safe to say that scriptural local churches have always existed somewhere. Finding them mentioned in some historical archive is not very likely. I doubt that the records of history will notice the local churches of which I have been a part. We are not headline news, and historians of the future would have to do a lot of exploring to notice the few available details that included mention of a particular local church of Christ. It does not mean that we were not here. It means only that we were more of a hidden leavening influence in society rather than a more up-front political machine. There are evidences of local churches from the first to the twenty-first centuries, but we do not have a lot of public material about them. I doubt that LaGard’s house-church-meal-eating units can be spotted from the first to twenty-first centuries, but will he now say that they did not exist? If so, then he has no point.

VI. "AS WE KNOW THEM"? p.59

Again, LaGard begs the question when he says, "Certainly, beyond all doubt, the "Churches of Christ" as we know them did not exist" (p.59). His assertion begs that we (his readers) ask, How do we know them? How do we know they did not exist? I suspect that LaGard’s father, Frank, did not "know them" in the same way that LaGard says that he knows them. Did the "churches of Christ" as PAUL knew them (Rom.16:16) exist from the first century to the nineteenth centuries? We would certainly not say that they did not exist. They may change locations, but local churches that Paul could conscientiously identify with have been around. Some may have been weak and carnal like Corinth and may have had their lampstand removed (Rev.2-3). Some may have had to meet in secret places during periods of persecution. Some may have been small in size, but "we have known them" in various strengths and weaknesses from the first century through houses and caves and public meeting-places.

LaGard assumes that we all have known them in the same denominational sense that he has attached to such churches. We question how he has "known them", if, in fact, he can truthfully say that these churches "did not exist" from the first to the nineteenth centuries. There is some entity that LaGard feels himself to be a part of that is NOT the church of Christ in the biblical sense. Of this "church" he says it did not exist until the nineteenth century. If this is so, he should get out of it and be only a New Testament Christian. Of his denominational church he says, "we ourselves perpetuate numerous vestigial remains which we have inherited from both Catholicism and Protestantism"(p.59). We would encourage him to get out of that church and quit perpetuating the remains of Catholicism and Protestantism.

VII. FOUR ASPECTS OF LAGARD’S CHURCH OF CHRIST DENOMINATION.

A. An "Undeclared clergy-laity" distinction ? p.60

What LaGard is saying, is that there is a clergy-laity distinction even if it is denied or even undeclared. It may be "undeclared" but it is real, at least in LaGard’s assessment. In order to prove this point he will need to define his terms. He failed to do so, although he gives the impression that elders and preachers are "clergy" and the other members are "laity". However, the early church had elders and preachers. Timothy was a preacher who appointed elders. We would ask if Timothy (a good minister and preacher at Ephesus) was involved in this so-called "undeclared clergy-laity" distinction? Does serving in a different role among spiritual priests (every Christian is a priest), make an automatic but undeclared clergy-laity system? If so, did they prevent this in the first century? And, can we prevent it now? LaGard gave a scatter-gun blast into his audience, hitting everyone, but giving no reason for the sudden and unexpected blast. Then, he runs out saying "I gotcha". He has given us no proof of anything. He merely asserts and expects his readers to agree with his assertions. I have seen no "clergy-laity" distinction among the various local churches I have associated with through the years. Therefore, LaGard is building assumed premise upon assumed premise. All he can get out of this exercise is more assumption, but no fact or truth.

The term "clergy" comes from Late Latin clericus, a priest. Lay means the people. Thus, a clergy-laity system involves a priesthood apart from the people. The Old Testament had a preisthood apart from the people. From the Tribe of Levi and from the sons of Aaron, a separate priesthood offered on behalf of the people. Preachers and elders are not a special priesthood. All Christians are priests (1 Pet.2:5-8). Any congregation that teaches and believes in the priesthood of all believers is a church that does not have a clergy-laity system. LaGard can claim that there is an "undeclared" one all he wants, but he is not helping his credibility.

We would ask if LaGard sees himself in the "clergy" or the "laity"? How is preaching or shepherding or writing books and speaking to large audiences creating a separate priesthood from the priesthood of all believers? We fail to see any validity in his line of argumentation that there is a "Churches of Christ denomination" that has borrowed from the Catholics and Protestants a clergy-laity distinction. If there is one, I don’t see myself or any brethren I associate with as part of this thing he is describing. I know LaGard’s father would not see himself as part of a denomination with a clergy-laity system. That leaves us to wonder WHO LaGard has been hanging around!

B. Organization and Administration. p.60

LaGard’s second complaint is about organization and administration. He is vague about what is wrong with organization and to what extent he complains about it. We are made to wonder if he objects to the apostles organizing in Acts 6:1-6? There was organization (choosing seven men of certain exclusive qualities) to handle the daily "administration"(how about that?, the very thing that LaGard wants to eliminate). On top of that we find Paul WANTING both Timothy and Titus to give MORE (not less) order to the churches of Ephesus and in CRETE. See Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. To the church at Corinth Paul argued for MORE order (not less) in their assemblies. The tongues’ speakers wanted to be "spontaneous" and Paul wanted them to be quiet if there was no interpreter. The prophets wanted to be "spontaneous" and Paul wanted them to be more orderly and wait in turn. (1 Cor.14). We fail to see how LaGard is arguing for real "radical restoration", while arguing for the very opposite of what the inspired apostles argued for. Therefore, we cannot agree with Paul and LaGard at the same time. There needs to be a lot of order in organization, administration, and in the worship assemblies. To point the people to a need for less order is what created denominationalism. There are no limits to disorder. I would not want to be a part of a house-church-meal-eating-unorganized-spontaneous denomination. I cannot imagine how LaGard can point people in this direction and think this is actually "radical restoration". It is clearly radical apostasy.

Lagard argues against organization and administration and states it as one of the reasons why he calls churches of Christ the "Church of Christ denomination". However, all that could come of such is disorder and lack of administration which becomes every kind of denomination. Paul told Titus to "set in order" the things lacking (Tit.1:5), but LaGard would write to prevent Titus from setting organized order in the churches. This is surely not restoration, although it may be radical.

C. Formalized Ceremony Instead of "Fellowship Meal". p.61

The third thing that LaGard offers as proof of a "Church of Christ denomination" that has borrowed it’s heritage from Protestants and Catholics is that we do not bring the supper elements out during a common meat and potatoes meal. He would argue that the meal was always "informal" (although he never proves it), and that at some non-ordered time while brethren have butterbeans, slaw, biscuits, chicken, and ham in their mouths someone pulls out the juice and unleavened bread and says an informal word about Jesus. I suppose that we all continue eating the chicken and barbeque while we pass around the grape juice and unleavened bread, and if the chicken has made us full, it would be all right to pinch off a very small amount of unleavened bread. We want to be sure not to get "formal" in our "fellowship meal" because LaGard says that is a no-no.

If the above possibility does not scare you, it should. It was lack of formality, not formality, that was the break-down at Corinth. Lack of formality (form and order) breaks down into more problems and disorder. This is what we see happening at Corinth. They had no order, so some were eating ahead of others. Formality would give them a set time to participate in the Lord’s Supper together. Lack of formality does not encourage meditation and reflection and communion. It is order and formality that encourages a concentrated moment of reflection together. Eating a meal of corn, squash, potatoes and gravy does not automatically call for reflection on Jesus’ body and blood. You have to call for some OTHER formal proceedings to shift the people from feeding their stomachs to feeding their minds. But, this is what LaGard argues that should not be done. If he argues for formalized reflection at any moment during this meal, then he has defeated his own argument. For then, it will be "formalized ceremony" that makes the meal special, and not the meal itself. But, if the formal ceremony is the main thing, then the meal is more of a distraction than anything. If the grape juice and unleavened bread had to be formalized to even get us to put down the chicken leg, then the chicken leg is more of a hindrance to that formal reflection on Christ. If it depends entirely on what you bring in your heart to the occasion (and it does), then the meal of chicken legs and peas is not relevant and is likely a hindrance to getting the mind on the right thing at the right time. Anything can be without proper spirit, including the meal situation (yes, ESPECIALLY the meal situation). In fact, it was the "meal" situation that did not work at Corinth. Paul encouraged eating meals at home and avoiding the stomach filling occasion being mixed with the heart and spirit filling occasion of the Lord’s Supper.

The implication of "you have houses to eat in" is just that. We can fill our stomachs with meals at home. The Lord’s Supper is not about a common meal. It is about filling our hearts, not our stomachs. It is about communion and fellowship with Christ. It is a feast of love or a love feast. We feast on His love. It was expedient to get away from the extensive eating and drinking. The way we do it here guarantees that we remember Christ through the particular elements He selected and that we do not make the supper a meal such as could be eaten at home. It is a most expedient way of avoiding the errors that the Corinthians got into. LaGard’s way opens the abuse and error back up.

The Bible never speaks of a "fellowship meal" as LaGard keeps repeating. I suppose repetition can get to sounding scriptural after a while, and that is the best a faulty argument can do. He says what all churches do today is an unscriptural formalized ceremony "instead of the fellowship meal". It is clear that he thinks that "fellowship meal" of which he speaks is scriptural and excludes taking small mounts of unleavened bread only for memorial purposes. He thinks there ought to be leavened rolls, biscuits, and peas and that the unleavened bread be brought out "informally" from the midst of this common meal. He thinks there ought to be tea, coffee, and cokes, and that the grape juice ought to be brought out informally from the midst of all this common drink. But, he cannot prove this is what the early Christians did. And, when it gets right down to it, he has yet to believe his own arguments enough to put them into practice, and further, if he ever does, it will only become a new "ceremony" which time will mark out, and a different ceremony that has to invent it’s own formalities in order to know which portion of food is to be done in Jesus’ memory and which portion of food is only for appetite. More attention will be given to this later. We simply deny that there is anything wrong with "formalized ceremony" (things can be formalized, even the meal ceremony of which LaGard speaks, without being a mere "formality", even the meal ceremony of which LaGard speaks). We also deny that the early churches had a common "fellowship meal" from which the Supper sprang in an informal way. Therefore, LaGard uses faulty arguments to refute an imaginary "Church of Christ Denomination".

D. Structure Is Not Spontaneous, or Intimate. p.61

LaGard’s final argument in this section is that the early church was always "spontaneous" not structured. He argues that structure in worship prevents intimacy and spontaneousness. However, he does not prove that structure was avoided in the early church, and quite the opposite is argued by Paul in 1 Cor.14. Paul did not worry that order might prevent intimacy and he sure was not worried that the ones who wanted to act "spontaneous" instead of "orderly" might be spiritually injured for life. LaGard does not define what degree of spontaneity he thinks the early churches had as opposed to modern churches. It seems that people then and now could be as involved or uninvolved with worship as they want/wanted to be.

The structure of Acts 20:7 did not harm intimacy with God. Nor does it harm it now. One can be involved with the man preaching, or go to sleep and fall out a window. Intimacy is decided on the individual level, not on the surroundings. The tongues’ speakers of 1 Cor.14 may have wanted to be more "spontaneous" (talking whenever they felt the urge), but Paul wanted order over personal spontaneity.

There seems to be order and structure in Acts 2:42. Whether it be listening to the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, breaking bread, or prayers, we each determine the level of intimacy with God, the level of response to each, and the level of spontaneity by which we participate in the ordered service. I do not see that lack of order and structure can help me be more intimate with God or His people. I do not see how an informal common meal can give me a better platform for intimacy. Therefore, I would disagree with LaGard on this point. I am certainly not in a "Church of Christ denomination" just because LaGard would like to see the assemblies I am in to be less structured.

I am glad to know that a false teacher cannot come in easily and act "spontaneously" to say and do what he wants when he wants. I like the fact that the things we do are scriptural and ordered, and I enjoy the level of intimacy we are each free to bring to the scriptural acts of edification and praise. When a song leader leads a song, I like to engage "spontaneously" with the words and sentiment of that song. When a brother leads in prayer, I like to engage my spirit spontaneously with that brother to lift my mind into that special throne-room with our mutual petitions. When we give, or when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, I like to be spontaneously engaged with the Lord. When a lesson is presented, I like to be spontaneously involved with every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. I do not see that order and structure hinders intimacy or spontaneity.

I certainly disagree that less order is necessarily better, and I disagree that order is what makes a "Church of Christ denomination". I know that I have never consented to be in a "Church of Christ denomination", I do not personally know anyone who is in such a thing (although there might be a real one somewhere unknown to me), and I do not think that an imagined lack of clergy-laity, lack of order and organization, lack of formalization and structure, can save anyone from being in a denomination, if imagination is what determines if we are in one or not. LaGard has offered a lot of imagination. I simply to not agree with his imaginations.

VIII. Let’s Be Honest?? p.61

LaGard closes this chapter with an assertion to me and an admission to himself that he is in a three-pronged "hybrid" of Protestant, Catholic, and Restorationist denomination. Can we be honest without admitting to being in a Protestant denomination? LaGard says not. I would say LaGard is generalizing his arguments beyond legitimacy. Can we be honest without admitting to being Roman Catholic? LaGard strongly implies that we are less than "honest" if we say that we have no association with the Roman Catholic church. His third prong is the "fully restored New Testament Church". He says that "we" are this too! But, this is bad math. One cannot be "fully" a thing of which one is also only one third. Let’s be honest! We can be scriptural without being an organization that is "the fully restored New Testament church". Let’s be honest again! We can be scriptural without being a Protestant denomination or a part of the Roman Catholic church. A local church can be scriptural in it’s together activitites without claiming that ANY among them are perfect, much less a "fully restored" something or other. One final note. We can be "honest" and believe strongly that LaGard has made several key mistakes throughout this chapter and throughout his book. I honestly believe this is the case.

Terry w. Benton

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net