The Poisoned Wells of Digression

A parable: A wise king once lived. He was feared for his might and loved for his wisdom. Now in the heart of the city, there was a well whose waters were pure and crystalline from which the king and all the inhabitants drank. When all were asleep, an enemy entered the city and poured seven drops of a strange liquid into the well. And he said that henceforth all who drink this water shall become mad.

All the people drank of the water, but not the king. And the people said that the king is mad and has lost his reason. So the people said we cannot be ruled by a madman, and the king must be dethroned. That evening, the king ordered a golden goblet to be filled from the well, and he drank deeply. There was great rejoicing among the people who proclaimed the king has regained his reason.

Poisoning the Wellspring of the Restoration Movement

It is obvious to an informed and observant student of the history of the Restoration Movement that general confusion reigns in churches of Christ in many places. Why is this so? Nietzsche wrote — "Insanity in individuals is something rare — but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule."

Eric Fromm phrased the idea in another setting — "Paranoid thinking is characterized by the fact that it can be completely logical, yet lack any guidance by concern of concrete inquiry into reality; in other words, logic does not exclude madness."

We have been overwhelmed in recent years by religious horrors and mass suicides all in the name of Jesus. Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart mesmerized millions with their "pious pitches" about Jesus. (Might it be that our liberal brethren have adopted their own special forms of religious madness in their reading the "tea leaves" of the future?)

William James rightly understood that the gap between the maniac and the sane man is small indeed, and who rightly understood that the "hour" can strike for any of us — "Remove a few of the walls of illusion, and the sane man becomes insane."

These things are said to raise a question: How is it that a coterie of our liberal brethren would leave the impression that they know all about the changes churches of Christ must make just to survive into the 21st century? They hold doctorates in jurisprudence, philosophy, liberal arts, and the sciences. They talk about "changes" in the church as if they know all about it. What is that thin, dividing line which separates them who know all these things from equally qualified brethren who do not?

The first issue of Wineskins (a magazine published by liberals) phrased the editorial intent of the magazine, "Wineskins is committed to the stimulation of bold but responsible change in the Church of God." But their commitment is not to the church of Christ which started on Pentecost A.D. 33. They say instead, "Our background and commitment is to the Church of Christ that was born of the American Restoration Movement."

It is not change that our liberal brethren seek. Instead, they would drive us back into the same old tired digressions and innovations which have divided and torn the Restoration churches for 150 years. When our liberal brethren join with the digressives (Independent Christian Churches and Disciples) in the "Restoration Forums," and share their pulpits, they endorse with the same time-frayed rhetoric every form of scriptural digression in the whole course of the Restoration Movement.

The American Christian Missionary Society was organized Oct. 23-28, 1849, in Cincinnati, Ohio, with Alexander Campbell elected the first president. The primary intent was to bring about the organized cooperation of the churches on a larger scale. Alexander Campbell abhorred the old world state control of the churches, and he despised an entrenched clergy. However, control and manipulation through organized societies and conventions has been behind every problem in the Restoration churches.

Instrumental music did not become a fixture in the 19th-century churches through any formal decision made by delegated church leaders. The introduction and adoption of instrumental music into the meeting house would gradually take shape over a 30-year period (1860-1890). Alexander Campbell never entertained a moment's thought that the organ would ever find its way into the worship of the church. He associated the song book with notes on the printed page with tavern music and other secular music. This was really the prompt for his remark that instrumental music in the worship would be as foreign as a cowbell in a concert.

Open membership (fellowshipping denominations and receiving their members as saved) is a matter which has been on the table since 1837 as phrased in Campbell's Lunenburg letter. Campbell thought to leave the matter in the hands of God. Isaac Errett responded to a letter in 1861 that the Disciples existed for the purpose of re-uniting the scattered people of God, and were under no mandate to "unchristianize" the pious unimmersed.

John W. McGarvey wrote that he thought some unimmersed believers in Christ who die will be saved. Lipscomb then told McGarvey that he [McGarvey] owes it to God and those believers to tell which ones would be lost and which would be saved (GA, 1876, p. 276).

Liberal theology today is all that it was a hundred years ago and carries all its baggage. Our contemporary, liberal brethren are mesmerized by the concepts of postmodern theology. They are engaged in a conscious mutilation of the real meaning of Scripture. Most of them seem to be ignorant of the fact that liberal theology as understood today has its roots in the old modernism which dominated the theological scene at the turn of the century.

Robert C. Cave made national headlines in 1890 with a sermon given in the Central Christian Church building in Saint Louis. He denied the virgin birth and said that the Bible is an evolution, not a revelation. There are the likes of Robert C. Cave in the pulpits of churches of Christ and college classrooms today who use principles of postmodern theology without the slightest compunction of conscious remorse.

1. Jesse B. Ferguson was the first in a long line of preachers who troubled and divided churches in the Nashville area by teaching false doctrines. Ferguson went into spiritism and taught the "second chance" after death. When challenged for a debate by Campbell, he refused, saying William Ellery Channing spoke from the grave telling him not to do so. The church of Christ in Nashville was almost decimated by him. The time was 1856.

2. In late 1859, Dr. L.L. Pendleton forced the melodeon into the worship of the Midway, Ky., Christian Church and boasted the rest of his life that he had done so.

3. Isaac Errett is the architect of both the Independent Christian Church and the liberal Disciples of Christ as known today. He won the battle for the organ in the meeting house while denying that he was doing so (CS, 1880, p. 196). Isaac Errett and his biographer, J.S. Lamar, paved the way for the organ in the worship. Both said that they would not force the organ into a church, but regarded the organ as an aid to the singing as a tuning fork. Lamar phrased the "guilt clause" that to divide a church over the organ was to commit one of the seven deadly sins.

4. The name of A.I. Myhr will always be associated as the man who did more to divide the church of Christ/Christian Church in Tennessee than any other. For 20 years (1890-1910), Myhr served as the paid agent of the Christian Church to sell the organ and societies into Tennessee churches of Christ. In that period, Myhr sowed seeds of bitterness, alienation, strife, and division across the state. However, he never won over a single church of Christ in Middle Tennessee. It is different this time as increasing numbers of churches of Christ fall to the "change agents."

6. The name of R.H. Boll is chiseled deep in Tennessee church history as the man who introduced the doctrine of premillennialism into churches of Christ. The results of the bad feelings of that time (1917-1940s) have not diminished to this day.

7. The names Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside will endure as the main representatives of the most extreme positions of liberalism. Some of their persuasion have managed to escape the onus of being chief "troublemakers" of the church and have cashed in by leaving the antis and taking up residence among loyal churches of Christ. They are now positioned in high places in our schools and churches to do great damage to conservative churches of Christ.

8. And Rubel Shelly — who is not made weary by the very mention of Dr. Shelly's name? — is not only the cause of the deepening troubles and divisions in the churches of Christ across this country, but is its deepest symptom. There is little comparison between the "cultic" Don Finto and Rubel Shelly. Finto claims God personally called him to be an apostle equal to the 12 with all their authority and power. Dr. Shelly plays the role of a fanciful "second reincarnation" of Elijah by adopting the "Saviour Complex" that he alone can save the churches of Christ from extinction.

Just who are the enemies of the churches of Christ who are poisoning the virgin waters which flow down from the heights of Mount Hermon? Know them by name and the false doctrines they preach. They do not evangelize and build churches. They are "pious scavengers" who work and sleep neither day nor night as they infiltrate and take over the churches one by one. The church where you meet may already be targeted.