The 2010 Tulsa Workshop continued the denouncing of the basic ideals of the restoration movement as begun in previous workshops. Several speakers urged “church of Christ people” to be more receptive to doctrinal ideas that differ with us. Here is a letter I wrote to one of them who has been a friend of mine for many years, Al Maxey.
“Please tell me whether I understood you correctly or not. Here is what I understood you to say and my comments.”
1. You said: “God gave His Son to purchase a relationship with man, not to establish a religion.”
My comment: I think this is a fundamental mistake that underlies your entire thesis. John 3:16 says that the purpose in giving His Son was salvation. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Yes, a relationship is created and is important, but a relationship would not require the death of Jesus to purchase it. God had a relationship with Abraham, with Moses, with David etc. before and without the death of Jesus. It was salvation from our sins that made the cross necessary. I say again, we’re talking about explicit Bible statements, not opinions. I am not being tedious. Making fellowship the primary aim of the Gospel is a serious mistake.
In the dictionary the first definition of “religion” is “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe.” This is what we believe. In James 1:27 God’s word refers to “Pure and undefiled religion before God.” It is a grave mistake to think that Jesus bought only a relationship, not a religion.
2. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” is an exhortation to fellowship, not a command.”
Here again the priorities are inverted. Fellowship is involved, yes. But this is first of all a command of God. (Heb. 10:25) The next verse says that to forsake it is to “sin wilfully.” The verse following that says the result of that is “a fearful looking for of judgment and of fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” I would say assembling together is something more than a choice based on taste or personal preference.
3. “Faith response is required. Repentance and baptism are faith responses.”
This is Biblically correct. You illustrated it with the $20 bill scenario. But it does not seem to fit with your over all thesis and with what you have been saying in your “Reflections” articles, i.e. that people who sincerely call on the Lord in words and invite Him to come into their hearts, are in the kingdom and we should recognize them as our brothers and sisters. Here you seem to say that these commands are essential to being saved. I agree. But your premises on other points belie this.
4. “Religion is sectarianism. Jesus did not come to earth to establish a religion.
You seem to always be taking non-essentials such as communion procedures, and making of them an illustration of sectarianism. You seem to make dividing over such things as that a parallel to dividing because you refuse to compromise on a clearly stated truth. For instance, in your first speech you said that a Catholic priest was your partner in baptizing the man on death row. Jesus expressly said, “Call no man your father on the earth,” and the context makes it clear He was talking about a religious title, not a father in a natural family. But this man wears that title. In this and many other things he teaches and practices flagrantly the opposite of what the Bible says. Yet you give this as an example of toleration on incidental matters.
5. “Its all about unity in diversity, fellowship. That’s all God wants, just to put His arm around His child…”
You illustrated with the body parts of 1 Cor. 12. But those body parts are not different in the sense you were talking about, i.e. marching to the beat of a different drummer. The eyes, the ears, the hands, etc. are all directed by the one head. You mentioned this but continued to say that “we are all different.” In what way are we different, in whom we obey? In what doctrine we believe? To be workable the parts have to function under the same head.
6. In the Lord’s supper we reflect our unity…”
Inaccurate again. Paul said that what we reflect in the Supper is “we show forth His death til He comes again.” Here you said that to have unity “We must defer to one another.” But the Bible says, “The wisdom that is from above is first pure and then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated.” (James 3:17) Inverted priorities again.
7. “In the church of Christ they are good people but they have simply lost sight of the goal.”
It appears that someone has indeed lost sight of the goal, yes. But comparing what is being said on the lectureships with the scriptures it looks to me like you have changed the goal. The original goal, commanded by Jesus, is “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have said to you.” (Mat. 28:19-20) But you are making the goal to be “unity” and acceptance of everyone.
My beloved friend, Paul said he feared that Satan might be able, by craftiness, to corrupt our minds from the simplicity that is in Christ, (2 Cor. 11:3) particularly if we are too influenced by our own desires, what we want. (2 Tim. 4) I suggest that the only way to prevent that is to measure everything by what the Bible says exactly as written, and reject human theories. “In doing this you will save yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Tim. 4:16) These words of scripture will meet you at the judgment. I sincerely hope that before that time you will realize they are true.
With brotherly love;
Olan