You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 2

"Radical" Sounds Terribly Radical

LaGard Smith has a wonderfully challenging and thought-provoking chapter that is only undermined by the inherently flawed premises. If it were not for the fact that his premise is assumed, and for his own confessions that he is not sure that even yet he himself has "radically restored" pure and simple Christianity, this chapter would be outstanding. There is so much to commend to personal examination and personal challenge. I hate to even take away from the value of this chapter, because there is so much that I agree with. I find kindred faith and conviction and sentiment to most of what LaGard says. However, I must comment on the fundamental errors I see in LaGard’s argumentation.

First, he speaks of "the system" and does not identify what this "system" is. He tells us that "the system is fundamentally flawed" (p.34), but never gets around to telling us who is in this so-called system and how it is fundamentally flawed. We are supposed to guess that "we" might be in this "system" and then believe that we are therefore "fundamentally flawed" in our basic outlook. On page 35 he calls for an examination of "the very nature of our movement". But, he never told us who was in this "movement" and "system". He talks about "the history of our movement"(p.35), and just assumes that all of his readers will know what he is talking about. I must ask the question: What is this movement and system that is fundamentally flawed?, Who is in it? How do people get in it?, and how do they know when they have left "the system" and "the movement"? If I do not see myself in an unscriptural "system" or in an unscriptural "movement", how can Smith’s book be of benefit to the function of the local church of which I am a part? Apart from improving individual faith and conviction and enthusiasm, how will the "function" of the local church change? On page 37 he speaks of "rudimentary concerns which....cannot be resolved without radically restructuring the church as it presently functions". We cannot tell if he is talking about some mysterious denomination (grouping a definite number of local churches into a whole system and movement) that has "function" as a unit, or if he is talking about the local church of which he has found himself a part in most every city in which he traveled. He cannot be talking about the one universal body of Christ, because he cannot effect it in "structure" or "function". Therefore, we are left with a chapter that inspires a lot of fervor and self-reflection, but gives us no practical substance about what to do about a "system" and "movement" that has some kind of "structure" and "function" we cannot identify.

Secondly, he says "the early church....was...less dependent upon formal structure and more spontaneous in action"(p.37). It makes me wonder WHO he has been hanging around. Who among his associates are depending on a "formal structure"? What is this formal structure that they are depending on? How are they depending on it? We are made to guess. I hate guessing games of this sort. It is like a brother seeming to act mad at you and you are supposed to guess what or IF something is wrong. Then YOU are supposed to approach the brother and try to pull it out of them when they should tell you the issue to start with. I cannot guess about WHO LaGard is talking about that "depends" on "formal structure", nor can I guess what this formal structure involves. I do not have a clue about what he means by the early church being "more spontaneous in action". They had a set time to meet (a time when the whole church knew to come together), they had an order to their assembly (1 Cor.14), and they were exhorted to do whatever God taught. That is what must happen today. What is "spontaneous"? LaGard only reveals his own discontentment with something (who knows what for sure?) in his experience, seems to blame some of the problem on some "formal structure" he has experienced and on a lack of "spontaneity". I like to know that the assembly I am in is going to do things decently and in order. I want there to be enough "structure" so that I can know what to expect, and I want all members to bring spontaneous conviction, faith, and praise to the whole of every aspect of the assembly. When a man prays I want to be spontaneously engaged with every word of that prayer. When a teacher teaches the word, I want to be spontaneously involved in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. When the communion is engaged, I want to be spontaneous in my reflections on the body and blood of my precious Savior. Why are we having to guess at what LaGard is talking about? Does "spontaneous" mean that a man should get up and talk without first thinking about what he needs to say? Is LaGard writing spontaneously? What does he mean? I hate having to guess.

Thirdly, LaGard says that he is talking about "the collective body of believers we know as the church, and how that body might be radically restored"(p.40). But, the only "collective" body of believers that I know anything about, are in "the body" only because they HAVE been radically restored. If they are not radically restored, they are not in the collective body of Christ, and if they are not in the body of Christ, they have not been radically restored. There is no way to restore the collective body of Christ. They are what they are by reason of restoration from individual sinners to full reconciliation. All restored people are the body of Christ. You cannot restore what is restored. Individuals within the restored body may grow or weaken and fall out of Christ, but we cannot do anything to "the collective body" to "radically restore" it. A local church such as Ephesus, Sardis, or Laodicea may effect a together resolve to repent of together, common, problems, but the collective, universal body of Christ cannot sin together, function together, or have a "system" of common function in a collective capacity. LaGard betrays his own denominational concepts in this chapter, and these very concepts mean that his premises are flawed, "fundamentally flawed". Those who are in a collective system or movement that is larger than a local church need to get out. Those within a local church who need to "repent" or "wake up" must be encouraged to do so. Every Christian must be self-critical in order to grow. But, if the together activities of the local assembly are scriptural, do not pretend that there is something "fundamentally flawed" with every assembly that has order, structure, or form. There is something fundamentally flawed with the spirit that imagines that no one else in the assembly is as fundamentally sound in spirit as you. It is as fundamentally flawed as the spirit of the Pharisee toward the Publican. Let us restore ourselves to personal passion, conviction, and fervency of spirit, but let us not suspect that no one else in the assembly is as passionate and as sincere as you. Let the fruit of the lips and the fruit of the life reveal what is what. There can be a fundamental flaw in each one of us, but it is not so that just because F. LaGard Smith says it that therefore it is so that "we" have a "system", a movement, and a fundamental flaw . Let each one examine our own heart and strive to progress in our Kingdom fervor and practice.

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net

Click Here to go to the Next Article in This Review