Following is a sampling of the results that came after the exposé that I made of AMOR ministries - a para-church leach organization that has even gone so far as to include jesuit preists as co-laborers in their house-building "ministry". What is interesting is that this exercise revealed other central questions that I wasn't even intending to address - namely, neo-evangelicalism, ecumenism, etc. Funny isn't it? "Houston, we have a problem" " 'Houston, we have a problem!' Is that the outer-space equivalent of the expression "Uff-Da" in a Norwegian dentist's chair? (I'm part Swede so I can say that :) If so, what would be the proper saying in religious environment that would best convey the emotion of disgruntlement or acknowledgement of a mistake made? Any suggestions? While I am waiting for your entries, please allow me to share some reactions [both pro and con] that I have received to the following article: "Dearly beloved, I pray that the following information will prove useful to you as you plan for your short-term mission projects each year. It is provided in the spirit of love for God and for His everlasting truth. Sometime ago, I began to notice a rather disturbing trend developing among youth missions teams. I first detected this problem when I noticed that groups from Christian Churches/ Churches of Christ were coming to Ensenada but never made connection with us. As a matter of fact, I discovered that some of them were working at a Charismatic fellowship in Ejido Porvenir, just outside of Ensenada that went by the name "Iglesia Cristiana". I'm personally well acquainted with the pastor of that congregation and he is about as Charismatic as they come. For several years now, I have received first-hand reports of brotherhood youth groups coming to Ensenada on short-term missions trips but that have never made any connection either with us or with any Christian Church/ Church of Christ ministry locally. A few have done this deliberately with full knowledge, as in the case of a visiting group from San Jose Bible College (now San Jose Christian College). When I made several long distance phone calls to enquire further about this particular case, the leader in charge bluntly told me that SJCC was no longer "just a Christian Church/ Church of Christ school" and than hung up. What he failed to acknowledge is that, at least at that time, most of the finances for SJCC were coming from CC/CC sources. Who did they come to "minister" to? Rancho Agua Viva - an interdenominational camp with heavy Charismatic/Pentecostal leanings. Their URL is www.aguaviva.com. Another case involved a youth group from Canby, Oregon who inadvertently got mixed up with this same camp. Who connected them? How did they get involved there? After becoming disappointed with this outfit, the teams leader contacted me and set up a project with us for that following year. Lately, however, I have noticed that a van from Canby has come down again but they have not made any connection with us. Few are aware of the following but "AMOR Ministries" is not strictly a Christian Church/ Church of Christ agency, yet hardly a single church on the West Coast has not been involved with them or continues to work with their program. Though they have been given the endorsement of such notables as Sherman Pemberton (professor at PCC, now "HOPE UNIVERSITY") I have first hand knowledge that they do not teach the New Testament response to the Gospel message - namely, immersion into Christ for the remission of one's sins. Furthermore, AMOR acts more like a clearing house for short-term missions groups from all kinds of different (and questionable) doctrinal backgrounds. If you are in doubt, I would highly suggest that you check them out for yourself. Their URL is http://www.amor.org/ At first, I thought that this trend might be the an unfortunate result of lack of PR on our behalf, but a recent encounter with some CC/CC folk in Oregon made me think otherwise. Their argument went something like this: "The demographics among CC/CC is one that denotes a dying movement. Therefore, new times require new strategies. The new strategy is to adopt any method that works, regardless of doctrine, i.e. the "Alpha Course", Promise Keepers, Women of Faith, etc. Who cares if we commit ideological suicide in the process! Who cares if we condemn CC/CC missionaries to oblivion by our neglect!" Needless to say, I was appalled by this way of thinking. My only prayer is that some of the things I shared with this group will cause them to at least think things through a little better - but judging from their reaction I must say that I'm not intending to hold my breath until they do. My point in all of this is to show you why I believe it is time that we push this issue out into the open. If CC/CC are no longer intending to either assist or support CC/CC missions, in Mexico or elsewhere, then what are we expected to do as missionaries? I know for fact that many of you are intending to remain faithful to the faith of the New Testament and this of course does not apply to you. However, if this trend continues to go unchecked as it has, you may find yourselves in the same situation I often find myself in: alone and confused! In closing, I would like to quote a statement by the late Roger Chambers, former professor of Church history at Florida Christian College: "Where do we go from here? First, we rejoice in all that is healthy and vigorous about our movement. Despite the negative trends, much is well with our soul. Second, we resist the temptation to seek safety in a sterile conservativism that idolizes the I9th century.

Third, we equally refuse to continue the trends toward a sterile liberalism that panders to changing public moods. Fourth, we regain our nerve. The Old Jerusalem Gospel will produce a dynamic Church for ourselves and for our children if we but trust the Word enough to learn it and preach it. This is not the time - never was - to blink when confronted by the modern doctrinal dog-and-pony show. It's time to trust, and contend earnestly for, the faith once delivered. History is not a juggernaut that rolls over and devours us no matter what. God pays us the intolerable compliment of taking us seriously enough to make it so that what we do - or do not do - makes a difference in history, and in eternity."

Yours in the building up of God's kingdom, Phil & Miriam Watkinson"

A follow-up message was also issued regarding AMOR ministries' relationship with RC priests in training (Jesuit novices). I have other documents that shows that AMOR evidently makes a regular practice of working with RC groups who in turn interact with those who AMOR is presumably trying to "reach" with the Gospel (?) The obvious question that comes to my mind right of the bat is, what gospel is AMOR preaching that makes no distinction between Rome's salvation by works and Paul's Gospel of salvation by grace through the imputed righteousness of Christ's death on the cross? It most definitively is not the Old Jerusalem Gospel that the Restoration fathers were attempting to restore. Here are some reactions (the names have been concealed to protect the innocent) PRO: Remark "I appreciated your article concerning groups from the CC/CC that do work with interdenominational or frankly denominational groups, especially when we have work going on in those areas. I've heard of it in other cases and decry it. In some remote cases, it may be the only way we can "get a foot in the door," but where we already have work going on, I see no need to get involved with other groups--unless we are going to do the teaching and preaching during that time. My prayers continue to be with you all in your work for Him. In His love, ___"

Remark "I checked the AMOR website and it is pretty sketchy on the types of churches that it will take on short term mission trips. Do you know of any non Christian groups that they have taken down? JW's, Mormons, etc. Our church supports AMOR and we have never used them for short term mission trips for a number of reasons" Comment "I don't have any knowledge of AMOR working with the cults you mentioned, but there is record of them working with the largest pseudo-Christian cult in the world. The attached article testifies to them working with Jesuits, of all things." Remark "Thanks for the input on the situation with the churches supporting other missions. I hope everyone reads that and considers it. I remembering you speaking of this when we were there and it is very disturbing. I agree completely. I believe someday we will even face persecution over these kinds of issues. We will (and are) being labeled radicals and intolerants. I am always amazed but never surprised with what vehemence Satan comes against baptism. The church is going through more than it is aware I am afraid, as usual, but as usual God is there to guide, protect and preserve. I love you brother..."

Remark "I have been receiving your e-mails and appreciate the up-dates on your ministry. Thank you for your tireless efforts to spread the gospel." Remark "Dear precious brother, Thank you Thank you Thank you. I write you from Georgia. On the east coast, many short term mission groups from churches and from campus ministries go to Casas Por Cristo in Cd. Juarez, Mexico. We all now know this mission group does an incredible job building houses for destitute Mexican families. They also receive great promotion at the National Missionary Conventions. But... I am grossly concerned that the groups going to Juarez with Casas to worship with, stay with, and build for congregations that are not within the fellowship of CC/CoC's. A young mission recruit from our neighborhood from the Loganville Congregation represents the best of Georgia and the best of Atlanta Christian College. He is now fulltime with Casas. But before he left, he and I were talking about the new work in the primitive area of Anapra, Mexico, where Rafael Burciaga and Narciso Vasquez have been working and starting a new congregation. He told me that their mission had been building houses in Anapra. I was excited. I asked him, "Did you work with Bro. Rafael? With Narciso?" I named some others. He answered no and then asked if I knew some of the brethren he had built for. No, I didn't know the men he mentioned. I asked if they were of the Christian churches. He explained, that no, the churches they had assisted "...were Christian churches, but Pentecostal Christian churches." My Brother, we have a problem. I read a mission report in Horizons from Ireland some time back of people "receiving Christ." The concept of "Receiving Christ into your heart to be saved" is utterly absent from Scripture. The book of Acts begins with (Acts 2:38) and ends with (Acts 22:16) the radical concept of Christian baptism.

Brother, let's get vocal.

Remark "Looks like you have noticed a trend that is insidiously stealing the genius of the restoration movement. It is also present in our mega churches. The cyclic nature of history tends to indicate that there will be a need for another renewal movement in about 80 years because we will have totally lost the truth and God will have to find a new source to proclaim it." Comment "Thanks ___! As much as I try to find a way around controversial subjects like this one, sooner or later I feel forced to deal with them at the expense of my PR. But since I never took the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" course, I suppose I am "predestined" to this role :)" CON Remark "Thank you for the information. I must tell you that I am quite concerned about your negative approach that you have taken with this lengthy note. I am also concerned about your view on many of the organizations that you have "put down." I am not sure what's going on with your ministry, but I must up-front with you and tell you that I disagree with the "attacking" approach that you have taken. Please remove my name from your mailing list and please do not send this church any more information. I pray that God will soften your hearts and that He will guide you back on His path that I have found to be full of grace and love. Sincerely and with a heavy heart, _____" Comment "Dear ___,

Thank you for your legitimate concern regarding my approach to this issue. My intention was never to "put down" or "attack" any one person or institution but rather to underscore an ongoing problem in the movement that seems to be spreading all over, judging from the emails I have received from various sources.

I wish there was someway I could separate my persona from the evident trend I mentioned in the message, but I can't. Therefore, that leaves me open and vulnerable to criticism. Unless you can suggest some other way of objectively presenting my case, I'm pretty much stuck with the stigma. In any case, please refrain from judging my motives especially after I have made a determined effort to clarify my motivation in the opening statements.

I agree with you that we need to be about the Lord's work with love and grace, but you seem to have forgotten TRUTH in the process. Our love for God's truth is just as important as our love for the sinning brother. If we can't keep those two elements in balance than we have no business passing off as ministers of God's grace. Well it is true that we can tolerate differences of opinion in love, that does not mean that we are free to re-invent God's plan of redemption according to "St. Barna", if you know what I mean. Immersion into Christ is an important part of God's plan to redeem mankind - at least that is how my Bible reads."

Remark "You have no idea what you are talking about. Please remove my name from your mailing list. We would never invite someone so divisive into our midst." Comment "Divisive? Hardly! I'm sorry you feel that way and that you have judged my motives without even knowing who I am. AMOR is the one who is divisive by introducing its false social Gospel and inserting itself almost into every level of the brotherhood - all the way from the NACC to HOPE University (Gayla is a professor there). I have proof that AMOR ministries has been working side by side with the Roman Catholic church - to promote what? The New Testament Gospel of justification by imputed grace? You got to be kidding! Please reconsider the facts and then tell I am divisive." Remark "Just out of curiosity. I just was at Willow Creek’s leadership summit today at Mariners Church in Irvine. Do you find me in error to be affiliated with that ministry? At that summit over 100 of the largest churches in our brotherhood participated, along side 27,000 Christian leaders across the country from 80 denominations. Churches like Christ Church of the Valley in Arizona (last years NACC president), Central Christian in Vegas, Community Christian in Illinois, Northeast in Kentucky, all hosted this satellite conference. Churches like Knott Ave, Parkland, Eastside all there. Are we wrong to do this?" Comment "Oh brother!!! D-day is here!!! Like Luther, my mind is captive to the Word of God!!! Of course, you probably don't anything about Luther since you seem to ignore church history all together. We never learn from the past do we? The dear elder Campbell must be turning summersaults in his grave! Neither the father nor the son ever envisioned such flagrant display of ecumenism! Such licentious apostasy! such unrestrained spiritual fornication! :( :( :( " Remark Philip,

While I am not the defender of Amor ministries, I believe that their fruit is how we should judge them; I thougt I would comment on your recent email. Amor has housed thousands of homeless, feed thousands of hungry, clothed the naked, and I have been there to see it happen. Amor is not perfect! I don’t know of any organization that is. Yes, they have extended their reach to groups that many conservative Christian Church people get upset about, however Jesus did as well. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Amor had the opportunity to impact one of these groups by getting them to do God’s work. Sure, we wouldn’t want the Mormons helping out homeless people (or would we?). If Amor is there to sieze the open door and connect the families to a local Christian church or get a house built for a Christian family in Mexico using Jesuit labor – Praise the Lord! (Philippians 1:18).

I certainly appreciate information about what’s going on in Mexico with the other ministries I just hope we can find a way to encourage the ministries to remain faithful. Have you asked Amor about this? I would hope that you have before informing all of us about their “questionable practices.” (Matthew 18).

These are just a few of the reactions I have received so far, Lee. I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on this matter. How far down the "slippery slope" are we anyway?"

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2002

Answers

Philip,

Just a couple of questions in reaction to the above:

1) Who do you consider your brothers and sisters in Christ?

2) Does a person have to be a part of the Restoration Movement to be saved?

3) Can we only support ministries that we agree with in every single way, or is there room for differences on some issues?

In Christ,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2002

Barry, You asked

1)“Who do you consider your brothers and sisters in Christ? “

All who have obeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed by Holy Spirit to the apostles in the New Testament, and are striving to live out their remaining existence in obedience to God’s word according to the light they have received. I do not count Universalists, christo- pagans, modernists, ecumenists, etc. as true brethren in Christ but as false teachers who have deceived and decimated the flock of Jesus Christ.

2)“Does a person have to be a part of the Restoration Movement to be saved? “

OF COURSE NOT, If what you are referring to is the 19th century American “Restoration Movement”. I thought I made this point perfectly clear in the article. If not, I apologize. I assume that you read it in its entirety. The whole point of the article, of course, was to point out a localized problem having to do with the mission work in Baja. I just happened to stumble on the “bigger picture”, so to speak.

3)"Can we only support ministries that we agree with in every single way, or is there room for differences on some issues?"

As long as we are in a democracy and a free society you are free to do pretty much as you please. However, if we are going to be consistent with our convictions regarding the authority of the Scriptures, it only makes good sense to support those mission endeavors that we feel are doing their best to apply the New Testament teachings on any given matter. In our blatant inconsistencies as CC & CC, we have shot ourselves in the proverbial foot and we have condemned NT missions to oblivion in the process.

In Christ, Phil

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2002

Hi Phil,

Thanks for answering my questions. I have a couple of follow-ups if you have time?

I asked: 1)“Who do you consider your brothers and sisters in Christ? “

You answered: All who have obeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed by Holy Spirit to the apostles in the New Testament, and are striving to live out their remaining existence in obedience to God’s word according to the light they have received. I do not count Universalists, christo- pagans, modernists, ecumenists, etc. as true brethren in Christ but as false teachers who have deceived and decimated the flock of Jesus Christ.

Follow-up: Since below you said that a person did not have to be a member of a Restoration Movement church to be saved, I am assuming you could name some people that are not in the Restoration Movement, but fit your description above? Who do you believe fits this description outside of the RM?

I asked: 2)“Does a person have to be a part of the Restoration Movement to be saved?"

You answered: OF COURSE NOT, If what you are referring to is the 19th century American “Restoration Movement”. I thought I made this point perfectly clear in the article. If not, I apologize. I assume that you read it in its entirety. The whole point of the article, of course, was to point out a localized problem having to do with the mission work in Baja. I just happened to stumble on the “bigger picture”, so to speak.

Follow-Up: No Question here. I am not familiar with this particular group and have no reason to doubt that those on the mission field have to deal with these type of issues.

I asked: 3)"Can we only support ministries that we agree with in every single way, or is there room for differences on some issues?"

You answered: As long as we are in a democracy and a free society you are free to do pretty much as you please. However, if we are going to be consistent with our convictions regarding the authority of the Scriptures, it only makes good sense to support those mission endeavors that we feel are doing their best to apply the New Testament teachings on any given matter. In our blatant inconsistencies as CC & CC, we have shot ourselves in the proverbial foot and we have condemned NT missions to oblivion in the process.

Follow-up: I agree that we have to support those that we believe are best doing the work of the NT. I am just curious as to which mission groups outside of the CC/COC you would deem worth supporting, if any?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2002

Barry,

I have not been able to access the forum today to respond to your "follow-up" questions, so a simple email will have to do for now.

"Since below you said that a person did not have to be a member of a Restoration Movement church to be saved, I am assuming you could name some people that are not in the Restoration Movement, but fit your description above? Who do you believe fits this description outside of the RM?"

R: Of course, God is the ultimate judge of each and every soul, is He not? Nevertheless, Paul did not hesitate to name the names of those he knew to be false brethren, and he spoke ever so boldly against their practices and teachings - something that we do well to imitate in this age. Yet, Paul had no problem in embracing Apollos as a true brother in Christ in spite of the fact that the latter was in error on his views on baptism, especially as it relates to the role of the Holy Spirit. Apollos was only acting on the revelation that he had received, but when Paul's collaborators (Priscilla and Aquila) corrected Apollos, he did not resist the truth - unlike many in the church today who are knowingly compromising God's truth in exchange for bigger crowds and acceptance among the gurus of church-growth.

"I agree that we have to support those that we believe are best doing the work of the NT. I am just curious as to which mission groups outside of the CC/COC you would deem worth supporting, if any?"

R. Barry, that is a loaded question if there ever was one. It's like someone asking, "do you still beat your wife?" when the interlocutor has never engaged in such conduct. But to answer your question, I'm not the one who has to make that decision - you are. I'm on he receiving end here.

In Christ, Phil & Miriam Watkinson

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2002

Phil,

If you believe there are Christians outside of the Restoration Movement, surely you can name one of them?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2002

Albert James Dager of Media Spotlight

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2002

Well, I guess I'm curious when this thread will start addressing its topic issue -- Are we heading for another split in the movement? The fact that the question was asked implies that someone thinks so. How 'bout it?

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2002

Lately, I have been afflicted with an intense sense of urgency concerning the accelerated decay of our core values in the RM, especially in connection with direct-support independent missions. After spending part of this past summer among churches in Oregon, I have discovered that things are much worse than I had thought they were. While the membership is hungry for solid biblical teaching, the leadership has long since abandoned reason and is only interested in "what works" - the all-American idol of SUCCESS. I noticed that they are into all kinds of stuff like the Perspectives course (Fuller Theological Seminary), the Alpha Course, et al. The list goes on and on. All this has created an atmosphere of ecumenism, universalism, modernism, charismatism; etc.- e.g. the Perspectives course is clearly an apologetic for the gospel of universalism. Leroy Lawson (among others associated with him and his school) endorses this material. But what got my blood pumping was a discovery a made that has to do with how churches in the U.S. are re-defining missions. The "World Christian Movement", of which the Perspectives course is a part, has a clear social and ecological agenda that follows that of the UN and the Vatican. In clear violation of the Great Commission, these "world Christians" are convinced that the role of the Church is to "save the world" of all of its evils, particularly those that have to do with political, environmental and social issues. The World Christian Movement is not an institution but a network of organizations and individuals working together for the common cause of "Christianizing" the nations. Similar to the Roman Catholic church, the WCM is not so much concerned about the quality of the Gospel presented as it is preoccupied with "establishing a Christian presence" among the various ethnic groups. To accomplish this, they have jettisoned nearly all doctrinal distinctions. This is no new phenomenon; rather, it was already in full force back in mid 20th century when Billy Graham was in cahoots with the National Council of Churches, and so on.

That a new division among the ranks of the “independent” or “undenominational” Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is forthcoming, no one in his right mind could possibly deny. The issue is not “if” but “when” it will occur. The history of the church (throughout the ages) has always been cyclical and division among professing Christians has been with us since the church’s genesis (1Cor. 1). In this age of political correctness, many sincere but misguided believers deem controversy in the church as anomalous and tacky. Yet, to deny that controversy is part of the business of the church (along with love and evangelism) is to deny the ministry of the apostles and even Jesus himself. There is no time in the history of Christianity that the church has been exempt from “fighting the good fight”. We live in an age of easy-believism in which the church is in a desperate hurry to “tear down the walls of division” and refrains from making any doctrinal distinctions whatsoever. This is not true Biblical Christianity, but rather a forerunner of the one- world merger religion that will be headed up the antichrist himself. ( For a Biblical explanation of the New Testament doctrine of seperation, please browse the following URL’s: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/sepafbns.htm; http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/biblicalseparation.html

What specific developments in the CC & COC are legitimate causes for division? I’m glad you asked. As Roger Chambers would have said, there were many “conservative” Disciples that remained in the CC & COC fellowship even after the split with the Disciples’ denomination. These leaders and false teachers continued to inculcate the core values of liberal theology in our schools, three of which have had a decisive impact on our brotherhood today:

1.The denial of the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures. 2. The denial of the authority of the Scriptures over the church (a theology of historicism). 3. The denial of God’s plan of redemption (including, but not limited to, believer’s immersion).

Any one of these precepts would merit the need to separate ourselves from these false brethren (1Corinthians 11:13,14; Romans 16:17), but all of them together obligate us to think seriously about where we stand in light of these disturbing trends.

Several efforts have taken place already to steer the fellowship back to its original bearings with little or no success so far - e.g. “The Remnant Project” initiated by Joe Carson Smith of Camelback Christian Church, Scottsdale, AZ.; Lee Mason’s struggle with the leadership of the NACC and NMC; et al. There are many younger leaders who are gaining momentum in their efforts to stem the tide of internal apostasy, even as we speak. I firmly believe that the time is more than ripe for such a break as stiff-neck apostates resist any call back to the Restoration plea.

What is keeping these and many others from making a move? Two things:

1. Love for the innocent among the “wolves”. 2. Lack of organization.

As soon as these two obstacles have been removed, I harbor no doubt in my mind that the separation will come.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2002

I live in a state (LA)where most all of our churches (about 18 of 23 are under 50). So many have so much to say about how a church can grow. And often it seems to call us to compromise who we are, to look like who we are not.

All I can say is that I am devoted to the one and only true Word of God. How I serve and what I do, to the best of my ability I find in scripture a reason for or direction.

About the RM, sometimes I feel like I can take it or leave it. I believe in the priniciples of doing it the way of the 1st century church. But the stuff that is going to down in our brotherhood, especially unloving and unforgiving attitudes, I cannot stomach. We shoot our wounded, blame lack of growth on the preacher and we fail to repent much less acknowledge we may be wrong in our attitudes (or other non-scriptural issue). So I submit to you, I believe in one brotherhood, that we are Christians only but not the only Christians, that we have no creed but Christ, one true Word of God and one way of salvation (as Jack Cottrel said: We are saved by grace through faith at baptism to do good works).

Just my feeble POV, Bill

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

How can we split if we are not a denomination? The very fact that Philip raises this question means that he believes we are united in some form of a denominational group. I would agree with that, but expect him to disagree with my assessment.

If we are truly the church of Christ made up of all Christians as most in the RM claim, then there is no way to split, because we are united as the church universal.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

Barry,

Regrettably, we “is” a denomination of sorts – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Surprised? You shouldn’t be Barry; after all, I have had the advantage of seeing your little semantical debate already in print within this forum and I am not falling for it. Way too many in CC and COC leadership are talking duck-talk to be ignored, and I wonder if you aren’t one of them. As the late Roger Chambers warned, “I believe that some want to have the movement certified ‘dead’ so they might resurrect it to their own vision”. The genius of the RM was its call back to simple New Testament Christianity, without the pomp and circumstance of the denominational variety. Oddly, modern heirs of that ideal have long since abandoned it and are embracing all the trappings of denominational prestige and status quo. Unless we make a deliberate effort to reinforce the NT concept of the local church as the only church that gets to be the church, then we will inevitably fall for the seduction of modern worldly neo- Evangelicalism.

On the other hand, I find quite odd that at a time when a good number of professing Christians are re-discovering the NT teaching regarding the autonomy of the local church, guys in our RM are in a desperate hurry to be certified as a denomination. Maybe, just maybe, God is through with us as distinguishable movement within Christendom and He is moving on to more worthy vessels, do you suppose?

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

Phil,

I am pleasantly surprised to your agreement that we are a denomination. I do not know which "semantics" you're referring to? Perhaps you could refresh my memory.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

Phil,

Could you share with us Albert James Dager's church/denominational affiliation?

Thanks,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

No denominational affiliation.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

Phil,

So he doesn't go to church anywhere? That doesn't sound like someone I'd be endorsing.

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

I don't "endorse" anyone, and that includes you. First of all, get your facts together before you start playing these mind games with me. Brother Dager is highly regarded among cult experts and researchers. His ministry has been arround for a long time and he is well known by people like Dave Hunt and others. No, he does not "go" to a denominational church, if that is what you mean. He belongs the THE church, of which I am also a part. You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept because you are still in the denominational mode - a very carnal mode at that, I might add.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2002

Phil,

Is it possible for you to have a dialogue with someone without attacking them? I have not said one thing derogatory about you or your position. I have simply asked a couple of questions, but you are so immature you don't have the ability to deal with any issue on an adult level.

I simply asked: "Could you share with us Albert James Dager's church/denominational affiliation"

For some reason you do not want to share this, I don't know why, and I don't really care.

BTW, in what way have I shown myself to be "carnal"? It would seem that you might want to take a good look in the mirror.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

I noticed in one of Phil's response a phrase I've heard often..."THE church". Well, what does that mean? THE church. THE church certainly must be different than Christ's church because Christ's church is quite the hybrid concoction of ragamuffins who choose all kinds of names and stripes.

I really believe I don't ever want to be a part of THE church of Phillip Watkinson's because there isn't a place for me there. Christ's church has all kinds of room and is so much more accepting than those from THE church could ever even possibly dream.

THE church has become so stuffy and pretentious that it has moved very far from what God ever intended for His church to be. But what I believe is the greatest of ironies is that those in THE church claim to be restoring the church to what it was in the first century. Well, mission accomplished...job well done, because we are just as screwed up and messed up as the first century churches were.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Great speech Michael!! What latest "church growth" seminar did you get that from??

Pretty egotiscal don't you think to believe you can do it better than the first century model??

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Michael,

Of course, THE church according to Philip is the church of the Restoration Movement. THE church according to the Bible is made up of all those who have placed their trust in Christ.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Danny...it's from my heart, no seminar. I think that God's original design for the church was to look something more like Alcoholics Anonymous than the stuffy, pompous places they can be today and most fail to see that.

God never intended for religion (and I most sincerely include the Restoration Movement in that word) to become as powerful, or as wealthy, or as rigid as it has become. I know he certainly never intended it to do the damage that it has done to some.

When a person comes to church this is what they should find...they should first be drawn there because that is a place where people seek and find God. And they should see love for one another and kindness to everybody. That person should experience non-judgmental acceptance by people who are themselves committed to purity and holiness and that seeking man or woman should see and sense peace and joy in the church, not guilt and certainly not meanness.

They should find such an atmosphere that they know immediately they can be honest there about everything in their life and also that they won't be made to answer to a set of legalistic expectations imposed by the group but will be allowed to grow at his/her own pace as the Holy Spirit enables, empowers...and all of that within the context of encouragement, teaching, and accountability.

And listen, in a church like that, worship is going on in every aspect of it's being. Every thought of those people is consciously being surrendered to Christ as they learn to read the world through Jesus' eyes and to react to it with Jesus' heart.

That is Christ's church...the church I want to be a part of. No seminar material here Danny. But maybe, just maybe, if you and Phil could let go of your deified doctrines of Restorationism then your church might grow and the kingdom and Christ would finally be honored.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Praise God...Glory Hallelujah!!!

Thanks to the tactics produced by the many church growth books and seminars and the semantics of Michael Demastus....the Church of Jesus Christ can, as in his words..."finally grow."

Michael's got it all figured out. Shouldn't be long before we hear him preaching at the main session of the NACC!!

All you have to do to be a "growing church today"....is follow the Rodney King seminar on church growth....."Ccccccaaaaaaan't We All Just Get Along!"

Seriously Michael....if you ever leave where you currently are to seek another position in the Christian Church....I hope you are honest with them enough to admit how much you loath the Restoration Movement....instead of "sneaking in" and then springing it on them later.

Sorry Michael....all your self righteous "Spirit filled" talk doesn't gain you any advantage or corner on the "growing church" market.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Ohhhhhh...by the way Michael....you stated...."That person should experience non-judgmental acceptance by people who are themselves committed to purity and holiness and that seeking man or woman should see and sense peace and joy in the church, not guilt and certainly not meanness."

That must not apply to Phil right?? Cause all you have done is judge a man who has spilled his heart and shared a concern. Whether you believe it or not....shouldn't matter. Remember....you should show acceptance to Phil.

By the way....have you changed political persuasion as well?? You would make a great Democrat!!! You know the rhetoric...."Those mean Repbulicans"....as if only Democrats have the corner on compassion.

In other words....you accept everyone as long as they agree with you???

How contradictory can you be!!

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Barry, please forgive my “immaturity”. It was never my intention to “attack” you in any shape or form. Since you are the “adult” in this exchange of ideas, let me ask you an honest question: Does the church universal exist at all in your mind, or is the church only made up of various denominations as you seem to suggest? Regarding Albert James Dager's church/denominational affiliation, I believe I have answered that question already. DAGER is a New Testament question with no denominational affiliation – period. If that causes a short circuit in anyone’s thinking, I’m sorry.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Oh...and another thing Michael...you stated..."I think that God's original design for the church was to look something more like Alcoholics Anonymous than the stuffy, pompous places they can be today and most fail to see that. God never intended for religion (and I most sincerely include the Restoration Movement in that word) to become as powerful, or as wealthy, or as rigid as it has become. I know he certainly never intended it to do the damage that it has done to some."

I've never met Philip in my life before. But I'm going to take a stab at it and guess....that being a missionary in Mexico for all these years.....he has forgotten more about accepting the downtrodden and the poor.....then you will ever remember.

The same could be said about my 10 year of work in Jamaica. Walk through a squatter village sometime striving to reach people for Christ.....and then come tell me and Philip about how you and the other "church growth" gurus....care so much more!!

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Phil wrote:

Barry, please forgive my “immaturity”. It was never my intention to “attack” you in any shape or form.

Barry's reply:

Thanks Phil. Apology accepted.

Phil wrote:

Since you are the “adult” in this exchange of ideas, let me ask you an honest question: Does the church universal exist at all in your mind, or is the church only made up of various denominations as you seem to suggest?

Barry's reply:

The church universal exists in every heart that has trusted in Jesus Christ, whether in a denominational group or not. I didn't suggest anything like what you are stating.

Phil wrote:

Regarding Albert James Dager's church/denominational affiliation, I believe I have answered that question already. DAGER is a New Testament question with no denominational affiliation – period.

Barry's reply:

So does he or does he not attend a specific church? If so, what is the name of the church? Why is that such a hard question to answer?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

FIRST CHURCH GROWTH GURUS NAMES: JESUS, PAUL, PETER

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Michael,

Excuse me for using the expression “THE church” as it has apparently caused some confusion. What I mean by this phrase in the Church universal – the called-out-ones from all tribes and nations (I believe that is how the book of Revelation states it). Some of these folk must exist among the denominational landscape, otherwise why would God ask them to “come out from among them”? The distinction you seem to make between “THE church” and “Christ’s church” simply does not make any sense in my mind, for they are one in the same. As for the rest of your post, I generally agree.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Michael, If you knew anything about the AA you would no better then to make such a bizzare statement as this: “I think that God's original design for the church was to look something more like Alcoholics Anonymous than the stuffy, pompous places they can be today and most fail to see that.” I jumped the gun in my last post when I said “I generally agree”. This statement was made in relation to your first post only. Barry, You to say “Of course, THE church according to Philip is the church of the Restoration Movement.” You have just put words in my mouth that I never said at all”. And, HEY! I do not “deify” the RM, OK? To compare Jesus, Paul, and Peter with any “guru” is nothing short of blasphemy – it proves just how debased you have become in your insatiable thirst for having the last word in an argument. As far as I know, Dager belongs to home church movement with no particular name – to clarify; it is not the “no-name” church either. But you can ask him if you are interested in joining. This will my last post addressed to you in this thread, Barry.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

To one and all,

Please excuse my spelling errors! I was writing in a hurry in order to catch up with all the posts.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Phil,

Just had to have the LAST WORD. You know, with my unsatiable thirst for it, I just can't help myself! Oh, brother....

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Danny...

No I don't accept only those who agree with me. In the congregation I preach in I have some from the "One cup movement" in the a capella tradition and some from the Ottumwa Fellowship and even a few King James Only advocates...and we also have a couple of practicing homosexuals and some, smack dab in the middle of divorce, a few adulterers and those are just the sinners I know about. In that list there isn't one that I'd say I'd agree with, but all are welcome.

As far as the glaring inconsistency you seem to point out in my philosophy because I attacked such a loving, peace-making, never- contentious person, such as Phil has consistently displayed...well, that's a big load of Barbara Streisand.

And you seem to think I loathe the RM...I never said I did. What I loathe are those who view the RM in such pristine naivete that an untrue caricature is painted about who we are. And listen, the fact that you might be able to cover up your mud with a suit coat doesn't mean your mud isn't any less dirty than mine or any other ragamuffin. I just don't pretend and play games with theology and point out who's going to hell and who's going to heaven because of the sign out front of the church building.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2002

Way back in the wonder years, while sitting in a class taught by none other than Roger Chambers himself, several of the FCC travelling singing group (I forget what they called themselves) were discussing the various experiences they had over their summer touring. They had mentioned that at a particular Church, there were several pmphlets and handouts teaching the "Pray Jesus into your heart" fiction of forgiveness. When the preacher was asked about it he didn't think it was any big deal. After a moment or two of discussion, someone said, "Why can't we just kick them out?" Chambers then said, "Kick them out of what?" I have never forgotten that.

The reality is that there is nothing to split. Restorationism is a principle - nothing else. No one would accuse me of dispising the RM, but many of you on this thread are talking about it as though Barry were correct. We are NOT a denomination. We are a group of Churches that hold to a principle. That common thread brings unity and fellowship to those who follow it. It's a great idea - restore the Church as it was in the first century. And there are those that seek to distort that principle (and those who hold to it) by insinuation and straw men.

This thread is simply marching to the beat of those, like Barry, who say that we are just one of the denominations so let's just join 'em and be like they are and get rid of the hassles of trying to be what the Church should be, and just be what the "church" is.

I for one want no part of it. The United States is the great melting pot, not the Church.

And it's not up to me to determine whether or not there are Christians outside the RM. I simply don't know and neither does anyone else. It is my responsibility, as it is yours, to preach the truth without compromise. I will not knowingly join forces with those who water down the Gospel (and yes Barry, the Gospel includes baptism). We are so careful about not adding to the Scripture, we neither have the right to take from it.

Restorationism is a great principle, and there were great men who developed the principle. And they have been getting slandered by revisionists. But the principle has not become a denomination. So please let's quit talking as though it has.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

One other thing (or two),

In the NT there is no such thing as "seekers,""Churched," or "Unchurched." People are saved or people are lost. Cut and dry. Evangelism was done outside the Assembly. Then the newly saved assembled with the rest of the saints. To do otherwise could/would bring death the the entire body. We need to lose programs and start evangelizing - OUTSIDE the Assembly - if the Church is to restore her rightful growth rate.

Also, we are to accept people where they are, as Jesus does, and bring them to the truth. Acceptance does not mean they're Christians. But we are to work with them so that they may be. This is what I believe Michael is getting at.

However, that doesn't mean we view as Christian those who are close to truth and act the way we think a Christian should act. A person is a Christian only when He has fulfilled what God has said he must to be a Christian. To be close to the truth is still to be outside of the truth. Just because Baryy or I or anyone may view someone as Christian doesn't mean that they are. God determines that.

To go to far either way is to do God, and the people we're dealing with, a great injustice.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

Scott,

I think we are in agreement that for the RM to split it must be joined together in some form of denomination or fellowship first. I believe that we already are, you believe we are not. That is the real point of disagreement.

I would also have to disagree with you on two other points:

1) You stated that the worship service was not for evangelism. Yet Paul states the following:

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!" 1 Cor 14:23-25 (NIV)

It is obvious that Paul did not want the unbelievers in the worship service to be distracted by tongues. Instead he wanted to worship service to be used in a way that would lead them to the Lord.

2) You are still stating that baptism is part of the Gospel. You have yet to give one Scripture verse that states or implies such. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - Period! Baptism is a response to the Gospel. To add baptism to the Gospel is to add to Scripture and to say that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection were not sufficient.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

Scott,

You’re absolutely right! The RM is a principle – nothing more, nothing less. Upon further reflection, I can see where I got sidetracked with my reasoning. Since nearly all of the mega-churches that once identified with the RM principle have long since abandoned it, my emphasis was erroneously placed on them instead of on the Lord’s remnant church. My perspective was all out of whack. I need to see things as God sees them and leave it at that. When God looks down from heaven, what does he see? He basically sees two separate groups of professing believers: the faithful and the apostate. It is up the individual to decide to which one of these two camps he is going to identify with. I apologize for the confusion caused by my original question. I can now see where I was walking straight into a trap.

It is very evident that it is the churches who have joined the great apostasy who are the ones that are at odds with God’s divine authority. It is the Willow Creek crowd who are deliberately and intentionally splitting the brotherhood, both within and outside the RM. I must emphasize that we are not the only ones facing this conflict. Almost all “fundamentalist” groups are struggling with these same issues. The buzzword for the church-growth groupies is “mobilize or fossilize” – it doesn’t really matter which direction you take as long as you’re moving. It is the god of pragmatism that they worship.

Now, in practical terms Scott, how do you see all this playing out in the near future? It took years for the separation between “independents” and Disciples to crystallize (to the detriment to the church I’m afraid). Our generation does not move at that pace anymore. If those of us who are concerned about the direction in which the church is moving do not organize and mobilize the faithful, will there even be a recognizable fellowship of Christian Church & Churches of Christ that continue to hold fast to the plea? I, for one, do not intend to wait it on dangling on the fence of indecision. I will continue to pursue this issue until I see some cohesion among those of us who still believe in the restoration plea and in direct support missions.

Instead of asking “ARE WE FACING ANOTHER SPLIT IN THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?”, I should have asked, “ARE THOSE CHURCHES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE WILLOW CREEK ASSOCIATION STILL PART OF THE RM?”, or something to that effect. I’m sure you understand what I am trying to say.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

Barry,

The passage of Scripture you quote is a good one. I did not mean to imply that there was no place in the Assembly for evangelism. But for too many Churches, the Assembly is the exclusive place for evangelism. The main purpose for the Assembly (besides corporate worship) is edification, i.e., the building up of the believers. Evangelism is to be done primarily (not exclusively) OUTSIDE the Assembly.

If someone wishes, as you do, to be considered as part of a RM denomination, by all means, join with the Disciples of Christ and be happy. Dont try to make me a part of something I'm not. I follow the principle of Restorationism. If I can have fellowship with a body of believers who hold to the same principle, that does not make us a denomination. We are, as seen in the NT, independant Churches having fellowship because we each hold to the Truth. That and nothing more.

And concerning your limited view of the Gospel, I thought I dealt with your statements more than well enough in whatever thread we were in before. However, Galatians 1:8 states: "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."" I dont see the death, burial or the resurrection in there yet the Gospel was preached. Phil 1:5 mentions how the Philippians participated in the Gospel. If your limited view is correct, how could they have participated in what Jesus did? Answer, there is more to the Gospel than what you are allowing.

It suits you to limit the scope of the Gospel so you can continue to fellowship with those who teach a different gospel. Indeed the Scripture does tell us how we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:3-7 which states, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin."

BTW, with your limited view of the term Gospel, there is no obedience, just a belief or acceptance. Yet both 2 Th. 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17 condemn those who do not obey the Gospel. In your definition, there is nothing to obey.

The Gospel is more than just what Jesus did. It is also how what He did applies to me (or anyone else). I freely admit that the term Gospel is used as you say, i.e., the death, burial & resurrection, but it is not limited to that. The term Gospel encompasses much more than you give it credit. And we must teach the whole Gospel, not your limited version of it.

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

Phil,

I don't know how things will work out. We shouldn't be surprised at what is happening. Satan is good at what he does.

The best thing any of us can do is to preach the Truth and preach it hard. I must make sure that me and mine are remaining faithful. Then move outward. I just presented a 10 year plan to our leadership here in Seattle. It starts at home and then expands out. We get own selves in line and then establish Churches around us to do the same.

There is good that can be found. The Family Camp movement (for lack of a better term) is tremendous. There are some great things happening in them. Hillsboro, OH, the Northmen in MI, Grundy Prayer Clinic, out here we have New Life Northwest, and I'm sure there are more. Here you have believers from all across the country coming for fellowship and great preaching (usually). No denominational guys are forced on the people. No one is embarrassed by preaching or hearing hte message in it's pure form. Wonderful stuff. There are many faithful Churches. You just won't read about them in the Christian Standard (WisN.) or hear their preachers at the conventions. They would cause too much controversy. Why is it that Ed Bousman, who has almost 60 years in ministry, been on the radio most of that time and can be heard by about half the globe, has never spoken at the NACC? It's because they're afraid of what they'll hear and they won't like it. Give 'em Chuck Colson instead. Ooooohhh!

The Willow Creek Gang is the antithesis of the Restoration principle. Whatever works to fill a seat is what's right. It matters little what the early Christians did in the past. And there's no problem in winking at a few Scriptures if it'll make us a larger group.

On whole, I have no idea where this stuff will end up (in this life). We just keep preaching & teaching while teaching others to do the same (2 Tim. 2:2).

-- Anonymous, August 28, 2002

I guess my point was, can we afford to wait another 10, 20, 30, or 50 years to draw a clear demarcation line and send a clear rallying call all across the land? Can independent New Testament missions afford to wait for that length of time? If memory serves me right, the last time we waited things out we had the comity agreement fiasco. The work in Monterrey, Mexico was all but lost to the Methodist denomination. Missionaries need to know where to direct their plea to if we expect them to remain faithful to their respective fields. Otherwise, we are condemning them to oblivion and a rather prompt demise. How does one get invited to speak at Hillsboro, OH, the Northmen in MI, Grundy Prayer Clinic, or New Life Northwest?

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Scott,

I think I'll stop with the "what is included in the Gospel" argument before it begins. You obviously think I limit it in what I propose and I obviously think you add to it by what you propose. We've been down this road before...

I do think you misunderstand my position about the RM being a denomination. I do not want it to be one! But I do believe that is what we've become. I am just being honest and calling a spade a spade. I see no need for it to be a denomination, it is just what has evolved over the years.

On another issue -- I find it hard to believe you've ever read anything by Willow Creek or attending any of their conferences. I don't expect you to be a cheerleader for them and am sure you have some doctrinal differences but to accuse them of doing whatever they need to do to fill a seat is really over the top. I have been to Willow three times, am a member of the Willow Creek Association, and have read most of their material. While I do not agree with everything they say and do I could not disagree with your assessment more. I was at a Willow Seeker service. The Scripture text was John 3:16. The message was more hell fire and brimstone on the need for repentance and what Jesus did on the Cross than I've heard from anyone in the RM in a long time. There was no compromise whatsoever! Hybels flat out told the crowd of lost people that if they did not accept Christ as Lord they would go to hell for eternity.

I really wish you guys would investigate further before making false accusations.

One other thing, I find it kind of ironic that we take potshots at guys like Hybels who actually are non-denominational! Willow Creek has no denominational affiliation whatsoever -- never have. It reminds me of a discussion I had with John Caldwell a few years ago. He had been the president of the NACC. Tony Evans was one of the main speakers. John got stacks of hate mail for inviting a denominational speaker. The problem is, the church Tony Evans preaches for is completely independent, like Willow Creek. What the hate letters really meant was "He is not a part of our denomination so he is unacceptable".

IHS,

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Hi to all. I preach in an independent Christian Church in Alabama and recently went through this problem. An elder and his wife were sinning and I held them accountable with the desire they would repent and come to their senses. They did not. They left the Christian Church and went into a local denominational group. If the Restoration Movement and its plea is no different than any other denomination, then who cares where these people go and what they do. Its all one big happy church, isn't it? But if the Restoration plea is viable and Scripture based, then it does make a big difference as people are trading the truth for lies that are simply cloaked in truth. It cannot be both ways. In fact,if the Restoration plea and principles are not viable in attempting to be true to NT teaching and principles, then why don't those who think there is no distinction between RM churches and denominational churches make a concerted and active effort to stop playing church through the name CC/CofC and merge with/come under the umbrella of/convert to whichever denominational system they think best fits the purpose and plan of God. At least those in the CC/CofC would be free of those on the "fringe" who believe they can have their cake and eat it too. We would be free of those who point fingers and cry that the RM is just another denomination and is no different than anyone else. I can understand and even appreciate the denominational ministers I know (even though I am adamantly opposed to the majority of their theology) but I tire of those in the Christian Church who understand the Restoration plea for NT Christianity and yet, seek to undermine and sometimes, even trade that plea for something other than what God intended in His church. The RM plea is not the church and the RM never saved anyone, but it is a longstanding and honest desire to do Bible things Bible ways in attempting to fulfill God's general and specific purposes on earth. When we are doing that, then why would we need to merge with or split from anything?

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Thanks Josh,

There is a difference. And we can have a fellowship, or a brotherhood, without it being a denomination. Most of us here know that.

Barry, could it be the uproar over Tony Evans was the fact that he is a false teacher (false=faith-only). I ask again, why on earth would they ask Tony Evans and ignore a stalwart of the faith like Ed Bousman? Ed's broght more people to Christ, i.e., preached the entire Gospel, than Tony Evans has brought only partially there. What amazes me is that your upset with the wrong people.

You are correct. I've never been to Willow Creek or to one of their gatherings. I have read their literature enough to know of their falsehood. I dont need to wallow in the mud with pigs to know pigs are dirty.

BTW, Interdenominational (which is what WCA is) is not the same as nondenominational, although that is how the word is being used of late. I am un-denominational. Willow Creek can accept any and all denoms because it is the method, not the message, that matters. If they can consider any and all faiths to be true, then in reality they do not consider any to be true. Just fill out the form and send the check.

Yes, Josh, there is a difference and it does matter.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Scott,

You're view of Willow Creek makes it very obvious that you really know very little, if anything, about them. Why does the NACC choose Tony Evans over Ed Bousman -- I don't know, I've never been on the committee. Maybe Tony is just a much better preacher? If I had my choice, I'd pick Tony, although Ed is an excellent orator also. I just think Ed is a little too focused on baptism and not focused enough on Jesus. But that goes for most of the legalists in the RM. PTL there are fewer and fewer of their number and we are beginning to understand grace!

IHS,

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

I mean "your" not "you're". I really need to proof these things before I post.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Barry....your neo-orthodoxy is glaring in this statement..."I just think Ed is a little too focused on baptism and not focused enough on Jesus."

Question Barry.....how is it that in the account of Ethiopian Eunuch when it says that Philip "preached Jesus to him"....that the very next question was....."Look...here is water....what prevents me from being immersed??"

Why didn't he ask....."Why can I not now invite Jesus into my heart?"....."Why can I now not have faith in Christ and be saved?"...or...."Why can I not now say the sinners prayer??"...or "Hey....let's go to Willow Crick?"

It appears to me that anyone who reads the text...and many others...without looking through the "Willowcrick Looking Glasses".....can see....you cannot preach Jesus without preaching the baptism that Jesus commanded.

I so heartily agree with Josh....and it is even what I indicated to Michael. If you folks have become so disinchanted with the RM....then drop the name of Church or Christ...or Christian Church on you church sign....and become what ever "denomination wannbe"...you wannabe.

And Scott....you know good and well why Ed B. has never been asked to speak at the NACC. It's the same reason any conservative brethren from our brotherhood are not allowed to speak. The people on the "committee" have an agenda....and those boys don't fit into that agenda.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Which by the way Philip....really answers the question you raised on this thread....i.e., "Are we headed for another split??" Answer....NO!!!...WE ARE ALREADY SPLIT!!

Evidence?? The above discussion concerning the NACC. Moderates and those to the left are the only ones asked to speak there....outside of being given a "token worshop" sheduled at the odd hours...like 1:30 AM or something like that.

And....my guess is....Hillsborough Camp will not be asking Barry to speak anytime soon.

So yes.....we are already split. So the question really becomes....how deep will the chasm become.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Danny,

Again, how can we split something that is not joined together? How can a non-denominational church split from another non-denominational church?

In addition, I did not say or imply in anyway that we should not preach baptism. I said it shouldn't take precedence over Jesus. Baptism is a response to Jesus, it is not Jesus Himself.

BTW, Willow Creek baptized 900 people into Christ last year (by immersion). I suppose you are opposed to that too?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Barry.....you stated..."BTW, Willow Creek baptized 900 people into Christ last year (by immersion). I suppose you are opposed to that too?"

My response is Barry....so what?? In light of the fact that the Mormons probably immersed 20 times that many just in the US....what does that prove??

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

Danny,

Are you actually equating the Mormons with Willow Creek?

Why can't you just praise God for the souls that have been saved?

In addition, why can't you answer my question about how we can split if we are not joined?

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2002

To one and all,

If those who were baptized at the Willow Creek church did so with full knowledge of the true Gospel, than they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Since I know for a fact that Hybles does not preach the true Gospel, I highly suspect that his disciples never have the opportunity to respond to the real thing.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Philip,

The true Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I can assure you that Hybels preaches this. If you add anything to the above, you have a pseudo-gospel with no power to save.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Barry,

As one great conservative once said to a not so great liberal, "There you go again." Quit abbreviating the Gospel. Barry, how do you seperate Jesus from His doctrine? or Jesus from the Apostle's doctrine?

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Scott,

I'm not separating any such thing. I just get tired of hearing people adding to the definition of the gospel with responses to the gospel.

Scott, I asked you this once before and I have no idea where the thread is so I'll ask again. Is repentance the gospel? Is faith the gospel? Is confession the gospel? Is holiness the gospel?

I'll give you my answer one more time -- none of these things are the gospel, they are all responses to the gospel. To use your logic, helping an old lady across the street would also be the gospel. You are watering down the Word of God by adding to it. None of these responses are the "good news", they are all things done because we have heard the good news and are responding to it accordingly.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Scott,

If Mr. Barry would just do his homework, he would know that a true Gospel will inevitably evoke a true Biblical response. A false or halfhearted Gospel will inevitably evoke a false or halfhearted response. The Gospel is the “cause”, while the response is the “effect”. The true Gospel that was preached on the Day of Pentecost evoked the true Biblical response in Acts 2:38, unless the sola-fideans among us want to redefine this passage as meaning anything but it clearly says, as the editors of the NIV have done.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Barry,

I dont remember where the thread is either, but I have answered that question, a few times now. Yes, all of it, faith, repentance, baptism, abiding in Christ, is all a part of the Gospel. On that other thread I also listed several verses that demonstrated there was more to the Gospel than what you desire there to be. Which your response was something the effect of, we've covered this before and we'll simply have to disagree.

As far as helping the old lady cross the street, I'll do it. Not because it is part of the Gospel, but because I have heard and obeyed the Gospel. As I pointed out before, according to your exacto knife version of the Gospel, there is nothing to obey. The Scriptures teach differently.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002