MIKE ARMOUR: NO LONGER SINGING SOLO in churches of Christ
Michael Armour: This hostile diatribe against churches of Christ goes on and on and on. We will look at the repeated false charges as time permits. Mike assuredly does not know that Thomas Campbell as the founder of the Restoration Movement back to the Bible was ejected from the Presbyterians because he refused to be EXCLUSIVIST about the Lord's Supper. Mike knows of no church of Christ which has excluded or examined anyone from the Lord's Supper. Mike knows of no church of Christ which has ever 'infiltrated and diverted' and stolen the church house of instrumentalists. Mike knows that INCLUDING instruments deliberately sowed the discord. Mike would take away your liberty to worship WITHOUT instruments.Mike is a fan of Peter Ainslie. Of course the elders may not know about this but you have to identify them with those they support:
NO LONGER SINGING SOLO: THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ISOLATIONISM IN A CAPPELLA CHURCHES
Michael C. Armour, August 11, 2001, Lexington Theological Seminary [Because this document is lengthy, it is divided
into three sections for easier browser loading. The
address was not divided in this way in its presentation.]http://www.disciples.org/ccu/documents/ccudoc.htm
Michael C. Armour: Looking back at the twentieth century, the a cappella Churches of Christ present one of the great ironies of American religion. A Bible-believing people, aggressively evangelistic for most of our history, we have always described ourselves as eager for Christian unity.Yet, by mid-century the broader religious community saw us as exclusivists, thoroughly isolated from our spiritual neighbors.
Nor could we hold ourselves out as a model of unity, for we constantly struggled with our own polarizing divisions.
Never in the history of the Bible are the "people's congregation" forced to assemble to TO worship in the sense of performing superstitious rituals such as SINGING. Singing "at the places of watering" might have been a social practice during the time of Deborah but the Israelites as a nation are never commanded to "worship" because worship, then and now, carried the Babylon or Canaanite sense of using music, food and sex to try to appease or even threaten the gods or goddesses who brought fertility.
Men like Thomas Campbell knew that CHURCH was an ekklesia or synagogue or school of the Bible. He called it A School of Christ. Worship was defined as the ONLY way Paul defined it: to give attention to the public reading of the Word, to discussing the doctrine and exhorting people to obey what they heard.
Paul defined this assembly in Romans 15 as the way to REJECT pleasuring one another and glorify God with one MOUTH and one MIND by speaking "that which is written."
The Stoneites under Barton W. Stone saw church in the "holy spirit" sense of DOING things to stir up the flesh. He approved of the Methodist Shouting as an official Act of Worship.
The REFORMATION under the Campbells and most people in time repudiated the charismatic approach to such worship. They also REPUDIATED the idea that they wanted any unity other than meeting to READ the Word and PRAY. While they held there were believers in all of the SECTS their command was for them to COME OUT OF BABYLON.
Only men on the dole have any earthly reason to try to bind everyone in an ORGANIZED union.
The restoration never sought UNION with denominations which differed on issues such as Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Instrumental Music which was introduced by the DISCIPLES knowing that it would destroy the existing unity. That is, with a high hand they forced instruments into non-instrumental churches and forced those who resisted to REMAIN SILENT or GET OUT of their own property.
Therefore, the unity which existed over the specific issue of MUSIC was based on the Bible and the totality of church history. That unity was broken by the MUSICAL SECTARIANS who radically changed the view "held en toto" and are therefore the heretics or sectarians.
Churches of Christ were ALWAYS a tiny remnant and NEVER thought of unity with the Presbyterians who kicked Thomas Campbell out for offering COMMUNION to Presbyterians NOT of his Presbyterian SECT. The Campbells would have been excommunicated by the Baptists over their view of Baptism. They rejected UNITY in repudiating infant Baptism and therefore could not UNIT with the Methodists or Presbyterians. The repudiate believer's baptism or FAITH only and knew that they rejected UNITY with the Baptists.
In short, the American Restoration Movement-- not out of the Anglican influence-- was COUNTER CULTURAL. They knew beforehand that their views would DISRUPT any unity with ANY group other than themselves. Any UNITY included in Thomas Campbell's DECLARATION AND ADDRESS was defined as NOT a church but an effort to send missionaries throughout the frontier.
Churches of Christ are congregatonal therefore feels no need to work with even their own group very much because a SYNAGOGUE OF CHRIST has its hands full in its own arena.
Michael C. Armour: The bitterness of this irony has long pained me, for the Churches of Christ are my heritage, the source of my spiritual formation. My entire life has been spent in their service, just as I hope to devote the remainder of my years to their nurture.
As a result, I cannot remain unmoved when I see how miserably we have failed in achieving the very unity under whose banner we have marched.
But, the unity sought was unity based on the Bible and not on the REJECTION of the Bible for faith and practices. Churches of Christ NEVER sought UNITY by divorcing their wives so that they could FRATERNIZE with the Shakers. They never sought UNITY by joining a SOCIETY which was a "clergy retirement scam." When the Disciples SOWED DISCORD and created MUSICAL SECTS, the churches of Christ ran from them even leaving to the MUSICIANS the privilege of "stealing the church houses of widows."
Whatever their claims, those who moved out of the Stoneites have a radically different way of interpreting the Bible for faith and authority. Jesus prayed for unity based on the PATTERN that as SON He spoke only what He heard from the FATHER Who was within Him.
Those who SEEK UNITY with the instrumental churches are themselves CONVERTS to the instrumental position. Being ecumenical as at Cane Ridge meant that you exposed your SHEEP to sheep stealers. The arrogant need to AFFIRM others traps the weak into being taken CAPTIVE. There is the morality of an alley cat in taking unlawful and ungodly pay from the Churches of Christ to act as a JUDAS GOAT to lead all of the lambs to the slaughter. You simply cannot trust anyone who would not LEAVE their non-instrumental churches and form new churches or JOIN the music denominations.
Michael C. Armour: But the news is not altogether bad. Today there are fresh stirrings in a cappella congregations, as hundreds of them emerge from decades of isolation--sometimes self-imposed, sometimes thrust upon them--
to open their hearts and their embrace to others who share a passion for Christ-centered spirituality and an abiding respect for God's word. It is a story I look forward to relating in just a moment.
One of the oxymorons of todays NEW STYLE WORSHIP which is as new as Lucifer's rebellion is that we are CHRIST CENTERED when we EXPOSE the musical worship team front and center. For instance, Rubel Shelly along with the Vineyard crew claim that the "team" can "lead you into the presence of God." That means that the TEAM has become the MEDIATOR replacing Jesus. While claiming to present Just Jesus they sing their own infantile "praise songs" which are erotic and errow filled. Therefore, they remove "that which is written" or "the Spirit" or "the Word of Christ" in violation of a direct command.
Music is the most WORKS-INTENSIVE thing one could do and call it worship.
Michael C. Armour: I must begin, however, by describing my mixture of emotions on this occasion. I am both honored and humbled to be invited to this podium, to deliver this annual Peter Ainslie Lecture on Unity. The mere fact of the invitation alone still amazes me, given the contrast between Peter Ainslie's efforts toward unity and our own treatment of unity questions in my a cappella heritage.
It is hard to imagine two approaches more strikingly different.
During most of my lifetime, Ainslie's views on Christian unity would have received an unkind hearing in a cappella churches, as they still would in many quarters today. Yet, from what I know of his patient, forgiving, irenic spirit, I believe he would have commended the
Council on Christian Unity for choosing a speaker whose heritage would have treated Ainslie himself dismissively.
Michael C. Armour: I've been asked to talk about unity initiatives in Churches of Christ as we move into the twenty-first century and as we near the centennial of
that famous 1906 census that identified a cappella congregations as a distinct body within the Stone-Campbell movement.
Because churches of Christ are NOT a denomination Mike is not speaking of UNITY INITIATIVES in churches of Christ but INFILTRATING AND DIVERTING movements of the Disciples to GOBBLE up churches of Christ. To that end they were wise in picking the JUDAS GOATS.
Because the NON-INSTRUMENTAL position had been held for 1800 years or more and the American Restoration Movement began out of a CULTURE of denominations which REJECTED instrumental music it can be said that churches of Christ were faithful to the view held en toto for its short existance emerging on the frontier.
The fact is that the Christian churches had alread made their OWN census which excluded churches of Christ. Therefore, if MAJORITY WINS then the Christian churches were held to be A DISTINCT BODY outside of the Stone-Campbell churches.
But the SHOOTER has always blamed the SHOT for the blood.
WEST: "Apostasy in music among 19th century churches that had endeavored to restore New Testament authority in worship and work
began, in the main, following the American Civil War'
In 1868, Ben Franklin guessed that there were ten thousand congregations and not over fifty had used an instrument in worship." (Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 2, pp. 80, 81)
The Christian Chronicle as the organ of the CHANGE movers laments that only 5 congregations out of 13,000 have added instruments even into a "third" or alternative service. By his statement Mike Armour defines all of the non-musical churches as being the sowers of discord among a UNITY which never existed any closer than unity could exist with Baptists.
Choate/Woodson note that like David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell worked for the Gospel Advocate to earn a living and preached for the Woodland Street Church in Nashville. He received little for his preaching. A new building was constructed in 1880 and Sewell was asked to preach there longer and devote more time.
"From the North, where the Society system was deeply imbedded in the churches, people moved into Nashville and many filled the Woodland Street church. By the end of 1882, a woman from Kentucky asked Sewell about forming an auxiliary society to the Christian Woman's Board of Missions. Sewel objected, and gave his reasons.
But as always, when a group in a congregation wants something, and the preacher stands in their way, there is only one thing to do: dismiss the preacher. Sewell was ousted and at the beginning of 1883, W. J. Loos, son of C. L. Loos, president of the Foreign Society, was hired. In the fall of that year young Loos attended the annual convention at Cincinatti, telling them with some embarassment that he was ashamed to admit he was from Tennessee for the churches of his state were doing nothing."
J. E. Choate and Adron Doran in The Christian Scholar note that:
In 1890 the first convention was called at Chattanooga to organize the state society. The only churches in the state of Tennessee were those who had already adopted the organ in their worship. The Christian Standard pumped up the news and "it is reported that the brethren in Nashville, Tennessee are desirous of entertaining our National Convention next year." This of course was just two congregations. A survey showed that out of 2500 members in Nashville, less than one hundred wanted the society. Lipscomb noted that among the Society people "the Bible is as popular as last year's almanac."
And...
"The supporters of the missionary society organized the Tennessee State Missionary Convention on October 6, 1890, with one purpose in mind, as stated by J. H. Garrison. He said at that time:
"We will take Tennessee for organized mission work...within five years."
A. I. Myhr was dispatched to Tennessee to head the new state society despite the protestation of David Lipscomb that Tennessee was not a destitute mission territory. Myhr and his supporters moved resolutely ahead to accomplish their mission.
"Their efforts met with some success and the intent was clear. Myhr was aggressive and abrasive in his operations. His actions were of such a nature, in promoting the missionary society, that he came under the direct attack of E. G. Sewel and David Lipscomb. And as later event proved, Myhr was no match for Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate.
The Federal Religious Census of 1906 acknowledged the separation between Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ (who commonly used the name Christian Churches) even though many congregations did not decide which they were for some years.
Michael C. Armour: As a corollary to that assignment I want to look back at those ten decades of formal separation and trace some of the factors that
led Churches of Christ into increasing isolation during the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.
Then I want to note how that tendency reversed itself near the end of the century. My goal is to offer those outside the a cappella tradition a fuller understanding of who we were in the past and who we are today. And from that story we may also discover some valuable lessons for unity-loving people of any era.
-------------------------------------- Michael C. Armour: Long before the 1906 census we had already set a trajectory that would eventually take us on our course of isolation. From hindsight today it is easy to see a converging pattern of developments and attitudes in the late nineteenth century that
together resulted in our isolation, even within the Stone-Campbell movement.
Not the least of these developments was a critical change in the way we applied principles from Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address.
Campbell had identified three sources of Biblical authority: direct commands, apostolic precedent, and inferences properly drawn from commands and precedents.
It seems that all error just popped up during the time of the American Restoration movement; and all forms of interpreting the Bible is uniquely and divisively the product of the Campbells. Hitler's propaganda minister said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
Only ignorance of the Bible and all of church history [as well as all literate people] which proves that you transfer authority by direct commands, examples and necessary inferences. For instance, if we see Jesus CASTING OUT the musical minstrels as one EJECTS DUNG we MIGHT INFER that Jesus does not want singers and instrumentalists present when HE is present to be out ONLY teacher through His Word.
Part of the pack often scream the mantra against the use of commands and examples and the law of silence. However, the Bible and the world's theologians before the Disciples "high church" or Catholic right to make new laws honored the commands of Scripture as the ONLY RESOURCE for establishing faith and practice. To do otherwise is to LAY CLAIM to inspiration equal to Jesus Christ:
Clement of Alexandrian concurs:
Plainly, then, the other kind of discourse, the didactic, is powerful and spiritual, observing precision, occupied in the contemplation of mysteries. But let it stand over for the present. Now, it is incumbent on us to return His love, who lovingly guides us to that life which is best;
and to live in accordance with the injunctions of His will,
not only fulfilling what is commanded,
or guarding against what is forbidden,but turning away from some examples, and imitating others as much as we can, and thus to perform the works of the Master according to His similitude,
and so fulfil what Scripture says as to our being made in His image and likeness.
For, wandering in life as in deep darkness, we need a guide that cannot stumble or stray; and our guide is the best, not blind, as the Scripture says, "leading the blind into pits." [Matt. xv. 14]
We might have adduced, as supporters on this question, the philosophers who say that only the perfect man is worthy of praise, and the bad man of blame.
But since some slander beatitude, as neither itself taking any trouble, nor giving any to any one else, thus not understanding its love to man; on their account, and on account of those who do not associate justice with goodness, the following remarks are added.
For it were a legitimate inference to say, that rebuke and censure are suitable to men,
since they say that all men are bad;
but God alone is wise, from whom cometh wisdom, and alone perfect, and therefore alone worthy of praise.Now, for Mike Armour's information, that was long before te 20th century!
And on the Law of Silence;
Michael C. Armour: But he ascribed far greater weight to direct commands than to teachings derived from precedents and inferences. Lines of fellowship, he cautioned, should never be drawn on the basis of doctrines supported primarily by precedents or inferences.
Otherwise salvation depends on proper deductions from closely reasoned arguments, which would put salvation beyond the reach of those with simple minds or limited intellect.
Yet, in the wake of the instrument controversy Campbell's distinction generally disappeared in churches supporting a cappella worship.
There is no way that one could get a hint of a whisper of a glimps that one can worship a SPIRITGod in the PLACE of the human spirit by using rhetorical performance preaching, singing or playing instruments without MARKING one as saying to God: "We WILL NOT listen to your words."
7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths,
and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors,
be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning,
and of course must contain many inferential truths,
they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion;unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church,
but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.
8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all Divinely-revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge;
but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ,
accompanied with a profession of their faith in and obedience to him, in all things, according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.
This view of Thomas Campbell focuses especially upon those who would use INFERENCES to introduce new doctrines:
11. That (in some instances)
a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God,
and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion,
by introducing them into the constitution, faith, or worship of the Church,
are, and have been, the immediate, obvious, and universally-acknowledged causes, of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.
It is always the error of those who INTRODUCE something which is not absolutely necessary into the fellowship to which there are Scriptural objections.
Of course, literacy 101aaa grasps that IF I force a choir or organ into YOUR congregation and you, being Biblically and historically literate, KNOW that it is a sin by DIRECT SCRIPTURE. And THEY insist that if YOU object then YOU are sowing discord (recent example in Seattle) and would probably be a racists or fire bomb restaurants. And THEY know that they are OFFENDING perhaps half of the congregation. But with a high hand they replace the ONE ANOTHER teaching of the word in song with a THEATRICAL PERFORMANCE TEAM and expert MUSICIAN. Then THEY have added made HUMAN OPINION AND INVENTIONS a term of communion and FORCE you to leave. John Locke spoke of that evil.
Let us note that a cappella is ala the Pope's castrated choir for the Sistine Chapel and is not remotely related to the direct command of Paul to TEACH the inspired Word with no hint of a musical content.
Michael C. Armour: The non-instrumental position depended
entirely on historical precedents from the first century
and on inferences drawn from the handful of Biblical passages that mention music in the early church.No, most Biblical scholars grasped that there is no MUSIC word used in connection with the worship under the Old or New Testament. Blowing 120 trumpets in unison is not music.
Next, they understand that church is not a pagan worship center but like the synagogue A School of the Bible. Or in the words of Thomas Campbell A School of Christ. There simply is no rationale in a classroom.
Next, Bible scholars grasp that the serpent (nachash) was not a snake but a musical enchanter or soothsayer. The personification of Lucifer as the king of Tyre who was in the garden of Eden "came equipped" with musical instruments: he is called the harp-playing prostitute.
The totality of the Patristics DENOUNCES instruments based on their use under the Law of Moses which was "added because of transgression." That transgression was MUSICAL IDOLATRY at Mount Sinai.
This, in turn, acknowledged that worship or religion in the sense of the Greek threskia USED music and musicians because they knew that they could subvert and pervert people into a charismatic or sexual and homosexual experience.
Then, scholars grasp that all instrumental passage show that music is the MARK of those who tell God that they do not want to hear any more from His Word.
Jezebel's PROPHETS by their very name used INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC to bring on the "bowing to Baal." As a result, she is prophetic:
And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her. And he opened the door, and fled. 2K.9:10
And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel. 2K.9:37
When Jesus CAST OUT like DUNG the minstrels, pipe players of flute players as the common pagan MUSICAL WORSHIP TEAM as a fulfillment anti-time of all PAGANISM where musicians were prostitutes or Sodomites. The word describing this is:
Skubalon (g4657) skoo'-bal-on; neut. of a presumed der. of 1519 and 2965 and 906; what is thrown to the dogs, i.e. refuse (ordure): - dung.
Kuon (g2965) koo'-ohn; a prim. word; a dog ["hound"] (lit. or fig.): - dog.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Mt.7:6
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Ph.3:2
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Pe.2:22
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Re.22:15
Musical worship team and instrumentalists demand the "idolatry of Talent." Clement noted:
I do not think, if one were to say to a king, `I give you an equal share of honour with that which I give to corpses and to worthless dung'-I do not think that he would profit by it. But some one will say, Do you call our objects of worship dung? I say Yes,
for you have made them useless to yourselves by setting them aside for worship,
whereas their substance might perhaps have been serviceable for some other purpose, or for the purpose of manure.
"And thou shalt pollute the plated idols, and thou shalt grind to powder (like "melody" in Greek) the gilt ones,and shalt scatter them as the water of a removed woman, and thou shalt thrust them forth as dung. Isaiah 30:22 LXX
"Then shall there be rain to the seed of thy land, and the bread of the fruit of thy land shall be plenteous und rich: and thy cattle shall feed in that day in a fertile and spacious place. Isaiah 30:23 LXX
The Greeks, especially, would understand the connection between the flute girls, prostitutes and the DUNG heap:
Aristotle, Athenian Constitution
L. These then are the matters administered by the Council. Also ten men are elected by lot as Restorers of Temples, who draw 30 minae1 from the Receivers and repair the temples that most require it; and ten City Controllers, [2]
five of whom hold office in Peiraeus and five in the city;
it is they who supervise the flute-girls and harp-girls and lyre-girls to prevent their receiving fees of more than two drachmas,
and if several persons want to take the same girl these officials cast lots between them and hire her out to the winner.
And they keep watch to prevent any scavenger from depositing ordure (dung) within a mile and a quarter of the wall;
and they prevent the construction of buildings encroaching on and balconies overhanging the roads, of overhead conduits with an overflow into the road, and of windows opening outward on to the road;
and they remove for burial the bodies of persons who die on the roads, having public slaves for this service.
See Aristot. Ath. Pol. 7.3. A drachma (say 9 1/2d. or 1 franc) was a hundredth part of a mina (say 4 pounds.)
All rhetoricians, sophists, singers and instrumentalists (prostitutes) pretended to be sorcerers or soothsayers. For instance, the can "bring the worshiper into the presence of God." In reality they were known as PARASITES because they contributed nothing:
citharizo , a-re, v n., = kitharizô, to play on or strike the cithara, Nep. Epam. 2, 1; Vulg. Apoc. 14, 2..
The same in Greek:
parasitor . a-ri, v. dep. [id.] , to play the parasite, to sponge: parasitarier, Plaut. Stich. 4, 2, 54 : parasitando pascere ventres suos, id. Pers. 1, 2, 3
Michael C. Armour: By refusing fellowship with those who used instruments,
a cappella churches were effectively elevating "necessary inferences" and apostolic examples to a new plateau of authority.
Now disagreements over inferences and examples, no less than violations of direct commands, could justify a withdrawal or withholding of fellowship.
The notion of FELLOWSHIP REFUSED is the big lie that one who believes in instrumental music cannot attend church, make comments, take communion and do ALL of those things which fit the PATTERN of a school of the Bible. No one is ever asked about their beliefs and no one is refused COMMUNION (fellowship with Christ).
In writing on FELLOWSHIP, the Campbells and others never hinted that people should ASSEMBLY WITH and endorse those whom they believed to teach a sinful dogma. OTHERS refused to fellowship the early Reformers and NOT the other way round. See Alexander Campbell on FELLOWSHIP.
He did not mean or say that one should fellowship those in error by allowing THEM to intrude things like instruments or choirs. He meant that he would not EXCLUDE one from meeting peacably even though they may believe something non-essential.
However, MUSIC was not on the horizon at the time. When it reared its ugly head nothing he ever said could be twisted into forcing him to say that he would FELLOWSHIP with instrumental music forced into his church.
In many of the early introductions of instruments with NO thought of Biblical authority, the instrument was FORCED IN and the organist went to work to collect the big contributors. The non-instrumentalists known as the church of Christ from the beginning ADDED NOTHING and were simply forced OUT to meet in buildings while those they had paid for were confiscated.
The Bible contains MANY direct commands about what the church or ekklesia or synagogue should be: it should NOT do anything which would arouse spiritual anxiety. The word MELODY or the Greek PSALLO was not a worship word but a WARFARE word. it was derived from twanging bowstrings to send singing arrows to grind (make melody) out of the enemy's literal heart.
The CORE GOSPEL where all has been stripped out of the Bible except seven factual statements ABOUTJesus ridicules and eleminates the epistles form being inspired.
Jesus in Person taught them.
He promised to guide them into all truth.
The writers THOUGHT that they were inspired.History before the seven merry men of th end times and others STILL consider them inspired.
The Discorders USE the letters whether they are believers or not.
Unless we are on the dole with too much time to, like J. H. Garrison, lust to set up a society to encompass all of Christendom based on--
J.H.Garrison: "There is God and Jesus: all the rest is opinion."
Or: Rubel Shelly: "Outside the essence of the gospel, there are other features that reflect our history and consensus interpretations of the larger biblical message."
Most of us have time only to fellowship a small fraction of our own congregation.
Furthermore, the command to externally TEACH OR PREACH with the Word of God with the singing (Greek secular) and make melody (abrading you into a fine powder re. the Sop Jesus fed Judas) left in the heart was meant to make fellowship with diverse background.
This is also the big lie of the Guilt Clause: "You shoot me in the heart, I spurt my dying blood on your clergy garb, and you curse me for messing up your clothing." Or from Abraham Lincoln
A highwayman jumps out in front of your horse, shoves a gun into your chest and yells, 'stand and deliver or I will shoot you and that will make you a murderer."
Michael C. Armour: This proved to be a fateful turn,
for viewpoints that our movement would have previously relegated to the realm of private judgments and opinions
were now to be taken by some as core doctrines and essentials of the faith.
Like most of those "among the scholars" Mike invents the evidence and then draws unnecessary inferences. Neither the Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians would permit the organ as part of "worship." Therefore, Mike has no EVIDENCE to build upon. When the organ was forced in men like J. W. McGarvey and others OBJECTED. It did not OCCUR to them that anyone would introduce an instrument as it would be unthinkable that they would introduce a naked dancer--which in the literature is included. Their PRIVATE JUDGMENT forced McGarvey to cease fellowshiping the STOLEN churches even though he would preach the truth to them.
The INTRODUCTION of the organ was by men who KNEW that it would sow discord while they KNEW that it was not a CORE DOCTRINE. However, the MADE it a core doctrine. You either FELLOWSHIP with their theatrical performance or YOU are effectively disfellowshipped. John Locke would define such an introduction of what became THE CORE of musical churches as HERESY.
Unfortunately, "among the scholars" there is not time nor felt need to read the evidence. Music was the fatal flaw at Mount Sinai and was a MARK that Israel had repudiated the rule of God in favor of a king "like the nations" so that they could "worship like the nations."
Mike doesn't there for grasp or is just bluffing because the church fathers and founders of denominations repudiated instrumental music because they knew that it was the MARK of those who did not want to listen to the Word.
When the Catholics added instruments it was never for the accompaniment of congregational singing. The organ played preludes, interludes or recessionals. At the same time the MUSICAL WORSHIP MINISTER or chanter CHANTED the Biblical Psalms or other material suitable as SERMON or PRAYER. The congregation was FORBIDDEN to sing. That meant that the COMBINATION simply was not acceptable in the Mass.
At the Reformation the goal was to RESTORE congregational singing of the Psalms and naturally CAST OUT the organ as Jesus CAST OUT the musical minstrels. They had never been A MATCHED PAIR with congregational singing and the acceptance of ONE implied the rejection of the OTHER.
When the Restoration Movement, NONE of the groups which left their old denominations practiced instrumental music because they KNEW it was wrong. You will find that before the Civil war it was black Methodists who were the first to added small instruments BECAUSE financial trouble showed them just how valuable MUSIC was in collecting unlawful and ungodly money from the widows and honest working people.
The Presbyterians out of which the Campbells Came:
And when instruments were added, primarly post Civil War, it was because the huge wealth in the North made carnal men see that if they were gonna get their fair share they would have to institute seculat entertainment: none of them used any form of Biblical authority. History, namely Zwingli, note that the RELIGION which sides with the CIVIL STATE which wins the war ASSUMES the right to ALSO win the CHURCHES. This is exactly what happened after the Civil war when the ladies primarily presumed the right to add the society and Organ. Some went to the Law to steal the church houses.
They also did it with a high hand knowing that they were sowing discord but effectively telling opposition faithful for 1800 years to get run over or get run off.
The fact that I leave when someone throws a skunk into my car would, in the Armour theology, make me the GUILTY PARTY.
Michael C. Armour: This change in climate made additional ruptures all but inevitable.
The twentieth century saw something like 20 recognizable lines of division among a cappella churches. And all of them resulted from disagreements over inferences from Scripture or the normative force of specific New Testament examples. Implicit in these divisions was the concept that fellowship is possible only in settings of extensive and detailed doctrinal agreement.
Since there never was an Armourish Denomination called "The A Cappella churches of Christ" then it would be impossible to rupture that which never existed. The Armourites are "among the scholars" or dominant pastors who, like all bullies, want their own turf and to be Top Billy Goat on Mount Polemic." Most officialdom recognizes three divisions in the Restoration Movement although there is little in common between churches of Christ and even conservative Christian Churches. There are more divisions than Armour is aware of. For instance, on the direct operation of the Holy Spirit as in Western Christian churches.
Someone has identified 146 distinct ORGANIZED bodies of Baptists. That is down from 321 which developed out of the First Great American Awakening where UNITY proved ot be DIVISIVE. When you have those like J. H. Garrison who tried to force a united denomination encompassing "all of Christendom" financed by siging up even children for "life memberships" on the one side, and congregational autonomy then this brain warp can see a thousand divisive groups if there are a thousand congregations.
The church as Christ left it by instructing Paul does not need to have the "fellowship of bonding buddies of the priesthood" to do its own work in its own assigned area.
Michael C. Armour: This in itself was a major departure from the efforts of Stone and Campbell to allow broad latitudes of opinion and to build unity on a small core of essentials. Once we preconditioned fellowship on far-ranging doctrinal agreement, we reduced the perimeter of fellowship markedly. By the middle of the twentieth century the perimeter had become so small that we had little communion with anyone other than our own congregations.
No, almost without exception the scholars have not read the facts. Thomas Campbell learned something valuable from John Locke as did Thomas Jefferson and our entire culture of religious and political freedom.
RMDeclarAddress.html
To you, then, we appeal,
NONE of the Restoration Movement leaders remotely thought in terms of instrumental music in the church.
The "schema" was this: We all have different opinions about every different "doctrinal item." Therefore, this is what we do: we set those parts of our cultural baggage or absolute truth into another compartment for the assembly. You might believe that instrumental music is "commanded by God" according to the Shellyites. I might be Biblically literate and able to read Jesus' EXAMPLES and inferences and Paul's absolute command and repudiate any "worship by the works of human hands."
Did you know that Numbers 10:7 makes a law against the word TRIUMPH OVER when the group is to be assembled or SYNAGOGUED?
However, because the Bible does not define "church" as pagan worship center or even ekklesia but "synagogue" for "giving attendance to the public reading of the Word, to doctrine to exhortation." We can assemble so that Preacher One Cup is silenced and Preacher Many Cups (brought about slick marketing and TB) is silenced and we can "do communion" any way we like as long as it is Christ being honored.
In the earliest history, communion was not for the infidel "seekers of entertainment from the sermons which didn't yet exist" but the believers went into private session to eat the Supper which is for believers.
Michael C. Armour: At the same time the instrumental controversy was coming to prominence,
a narrow view of baptism took root in a cappella churches.
It resurrected an earlier controversy from the 1830s sparked by Dr. John Thomas, who ultimately left the Disciples and began the Christadelphians.
The Believer's Baptism accepted by some Christian Churches and Mike Armour is called Believer's Baptism. It is an ancient pagan baptism restored by Zwingli in 1525. Because everyone before him believed what Jesus commanded, this is again a FALSE ACCUSATION.
While we are always advised NOT to take these quotations as the truth, it is a fact that Thomas Campbell understood that baptism was not a CATHOLIC sacrament which had no meaning other than that they get a bit of water splashed on their heads. Jesus insisted that baptism was to respond to the invitation (election) of Jesus to be a DISCIPLE to "come learn of me."
Therefore there can BE no baptism unless the person has the INTENTION of repenting and becoming a STUDENT of Jesus in His synagogue or school of the Bible.
If one REJECTS baptizing those who DID NOT UNDERSTAND then Mike Armour insists that it is a MAGICAL SACRAMENT and is not for the purpose Jesus designed it.
Thomas insisted on rebaptizing anyone who had been immersed without an explicit understanding that baptism was for the remission of sins.
Alexander Campbell stoutly resisted Thomas in this matter and even issued two extras of the Millennial Harbinger to deal with it. From the beginning both Stone and Campbell had accepted Baptists into their fellowship without reimmersion. And in the John Thomas affair Campbell once more built the case for their practice.
Did Alexander Campbell Endorse the Baptist Church? -
Baptism is, then, designed to introduce the subjects of it into the participation of the blessings of the death and resurrection of Christ; who "died for our sins," and "rose again for (not because of) our justification."
But it has no abstract efficacy. Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God,
neither immersion in water, nor any other action, can secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing.
Still to the believing penitent it is the means of receiving a formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release from guilt.
Baptism was never seen as a PUNCHED TICKED to heaven. Peter at Pentecost promised the gift of A personal spirit made holy by God in Christ. In 1 Peter 3:21 he rejected baptism as a magical act but declared that in baptism we REQUEST A clear conscience or consiousness. Our obedience in baptism is the only way to express faith. This is exactly what Walter Scott taught.
Therefore, none but those who have first believed the testimony of God and have repented of their sins, and that have been intelligently immersed into his death,
have the full and explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon.
To such only as are truly penitent, dare we say, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord," and to such only can we say with assurance,
"You are washed, you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God."
But let the reader examine with care our special essay on the Remission of Sins, in which this much-debated subject is discussed at considerable length.
Michael C. Armour: The issue never went away, however, and David Lipscomb repeatedly applied himself to the subject in the pages of The Gospel Advocate, basically echoing Campbell's views. In 1884 those who argued for rebaptism decided to create a journal that would advance their own persuasions. The result was The Firm Foundation, launched in Texas as a rival to The Gospel Advocate and destined to become one of the most influential journals in a cappella circles, even briefly surpassing The Gospel Advocate in circulation by 1930.
If Mike wasn't SPRING LOADED against those who pay his bills he would be aware that the REBAPTISM issue began primarily by Zwingli after the year 1500. That was TOO EARLY to blame on NOT being forced to worship with IMPOSED musical instruments and choirs.
Like John Thomas, The Firm Foundation accepted no baptism unless it was performed with an eye to the remission of sins.
If a person had been baptized or sprinkled because they believed that they were HAND PICKED by God and could not even believe the Bible unless God sent the Holy Spirit "person" to feed faith into their heads. Then they were baptized BECAUSE they had been saved by predestinated and infused faith and only if RATIFIED by the congregation and then enable to FELLOWSHIP in the sense of being authorized to commune and participate in the work of the church.
Wouldn't be be CRUEL and unChristian not to teach them as if they had never obeyed the gospel? Then, they would be treated like any other person who could FREELY FELLOWSHIP without being baptized but neither they nor congregational youth would be able to TEACH or take a leading role. And, indeed, not even Mike would permit a person who was OPPOSED to musical worship to stand in HIS pulpit or High Place and preach AGAINST the use of "praise teams" or choirs of effeminate and effeminizing theatrical performers.
Would he allow a young boy who had never been baptized the FIRST TIME to take a leadership role? Then, he cannot bad mouth those who believe that unbelievers should be taught so that they understand whether they had been baptized for the correct reason or not. By analogy, is is WORSHIP if people come to church without knowing the meaning of worship?
This PROVES that Mike would not fellowship or permit to fill his shoes a person who INSISTED that one should be baptized the FIRST time if they did not comprehend the meaning of REPENTANCE and DISCIPLESHIP to Christ through HIS words "as they had been taught."
This view was not readily accepted and was still fiercely debated into the 1920s and beyond. Yet, in time the more restrictive position of The Firm Foundation gained increasing sway, until in most parts of the country it became the consensus view (although never the universal one).
This was clearly a move in the direction of exclusivism and added significantly to the resentment of Churches of Christ and to their isolation in the twentieth century.
Why should anyone be offended and have a resentful attitude toward churches of Christ if they do not BELIEVE what they believe? Why would anyone be received into fellowship meaning full participation including teaching if they harbor the goal of DOUBTFUL DISPUTATION? Isolation has no meaning to those not underemployed. Most Christians simply do not have the time nor inclination or MEMBERSHIP FEE to fellowship their own congregation. Where does Mike get the idea that I care whether a Catholic church in the town resents ME because I don't fellowship THEM? This is the old Hegelian Dialect well documented by Adolph Hitler and used by the Postmodern minds--if that isn't an oxymoron. First, you have to get people to HATE their old church. You tell them that "EVERYone believes that you are a wacko because YOU don't agree with a Baptist who does not agree with YOU." Once you have driven them into the stated goal of creating "schizophrenia," then you fill up the empty head with YOUR OWN views. Mike's views are EXCLUSIVISM because being a Bible student proves to me that I could not listen to such kilo-buck sermons.
Michael C. Armour: Prior to the 1906 census, then, two major moves were underway that would serve to narrow the sense of fellowship in a cappella circles: a willingness to withhold fellowship on the bases of inferential truth and a restrictive definition of acceptable baptism.
That is a fact. However, it had not occurred to anyone to HEAD OFF the forceful, carpetbagging called instrumental music. When instruments were FORCED and churches stolen the CIRCLE or call it a NOOSE became visible and Bible literate Christians refused to be FORCED into a full-fledged denomination which the Christian churches PLANNED to ingulf ALL OF CHRISTENDOM. The liberals and those who based their faith and practice on the Bible already met in SEPARATE, congregationally-organized groups. SOME added instruments, others did not. Instrument imposers did not sell their organs and FELLOWSHIP non-instrumental churches and non-instrumental churches DID NOT force an organ into their congregations. The churches of Christ NEVER MOVED AN INCH from the Bible ad the totality of church history repudiating MUSIC as suitable for Christian assemblies meeting as schools of the Bible.
Michael C. Armour: By taking these two directions, Churches of Christ were slipping away from a delicate balance point that our forefathers in the Stone-Campbell movement sought to maintain, a balance between the principle of inclusiveness and the principle of exclusiveness.
It is a fact that long before the Christian churches had separated by getting special privileges for what they called "OUR preachers." THEY began the census by including EVERYONE something like a PREACHER'S COUNT. The census taker knew that the non-instrumental churches had been DESERTED by the instrumentalists and asked David Lipscomb. Lipscomb confirmed that the instrumental group could not BLOAT their numbers by including those whom they had effectively disfellowshipped.
For instance: I know that you had no earthly comprehension of baptism as the conscious effort of one abhoring their sins and ready to publicly "die to them" by identifying with Christ Who "set aside his glory and took on the body or clothing of a slave."
However, if I make the judgmental decision that YOU ARE OK why is that "inclusiveness" less judgmental than teaching people that baptism is not part of the Disciples "high church heritage" and therefore being an "infant" in understanding is ok with us.
This makes baptism into an ordinance whose efficacy is based on the water rather than a "reckoning your body dead" identification with Christ. I would say that Mike shows contempt for the sould of the person and REJECTS the counsel of God just as did the Pharisees.
If we are "congregational" but you are "denominational" then and only then should you RESENT what one congregation does to accept baptized believers into fellowship. Otherwise, the fellow is going to bring his own 'experience' into the fellowship and teach that view.
If you accept those you "feel" are ok then why is it that being A Cappela does not make others RESENTFUL of you. I resent the high handed distortion of truth by those flying the ANTI-instrumental logo but in fact a MEMBER of an instrumental sect.
However, in this writer/s 71 years we have never heard any questions if the person is happy with their baptism. And certainly being Christiadelphian did not invent the long standing Baptist position of doing their "dipstick" of your validity as a Christian and then voting to admit you as a member. Churches of Christ will not confess that you have been ADDED TO CHRIST unless you did what Christ commanded that you do or be damned. Baptists will not accept you unless you can VALIDATE your salvaition by some kind of subjective EXPERIENCE. Why are they not EXCLUSIVE when they frequently call me a CULTIST for preaching what Jesus commanded, Peter and Paul practiced and everyone believed prior to Zwingli's Believer's Baptism in 1525 which is pagan baptism.
Did not playing instruments cause the Puritans to not accept you unless you could prove that God had worked over your miserable hide by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Didn't Baptists and Presbyterians of that time demand some testimony? Would a Baptist accept a "sprinkling baptism" of the Presbyterians as valid?
Michael C. Armour: The restoration plea itself forced us to manage this balance, with its call for unity on one hand and the restoration of New Testament forms and practices on the other. By its very nature the quest for unity pushes us to think and act inclusively.
Yet, the more we press for restored New Testament patterns,
the more we tend toward exclusivism,
especially if we cut ourselves off from those who treat New Testament patterns differently, as Jim North eloquently demonstrated in the most recent meeting of the Stone-Campbell Dialogue.
By its very nature, Christianity is not a BROAD WAY. Jesus was so exclusive of the Jews, especially the clergy, that He refused to even speak to them. When the "multitudes" assembled to "fellowship" with Him why He began "speaking in tongues." That is, He spoke in parables to actually prevent them from hearing the Word. (Matt 13).
Armour has forgotten the course on REFORMATION HISTORY. Much of that movement was a RESTORATON MOVEMENT. John Calvin was more explicit in defining his MANY corrections as a Restoration Movement. Luther and Calvin and EVERYONE taught that the church NOW should be based on the PATTERN of the NEW TESTAMENT. Click to see a four-part paper by John Calvin defining a Restoration Movement based on New Testament Christianity.
When people "rejected the counsel of God in John's baptism" Jesus had nothing more to say to them.
When the Jews got too ugly Paul cut his assembly off from them and moved to the public place for education, perhaps like a Cummunity Club built by the Tyrant, Tyranus for public use.
When Paul in 2 Cor 6 saw believers too connected with the pagans he demanded that they "divorce themselves" in order to continue to be children of God.
There is NO WAY the Bible in any of its parts can be TREATED to allow instrumental music when it breathes condemnation through every pore of its being.
Michael C. Armour: To effect the restoration plea, then, we are compelled to maintain a balance between the inclusivist principle in unity and the exclusivist tendency of restorationism.
The church is the Bride of Christ. Now, I refuse to be Hegeled or Hitlered by Mike into believe that an EXCLUSIVE BRIDE is an ignorant, evil patternism.
Restorationism, as articulated even by John Calvin, intends to be INCLUSIVE by NOT doing anything in the weekly assembly which would drive away others.
John Calvin wrote of many things RESTORED
I am willing, however, that all the advantage which the church may have derived from our labors shall have no effect in alleviating our fault, if in any other respect we have done her injury. Therefore, let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administering the sacraments (MEANS of Grace), and our method of governing the church;
and in none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change upon the ancient form,
without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the word of God.
To return to the division which we formerly adopted.
All our controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate worship of God, or to the ground of salvation.
T. Campbell intended that the assembly be A SCHOOL OF CHRIST and everyone could be included by just showing up since one was never counted in a denominational sense and forced into becoming LIFE MEMBERS of the society.
Then, he defined 'WORSHIP' exactly as did Jesus in John 4 and by Paul as to GIVE HEED to the Bible. That's it with the addition of the Lord's Supper which did not ENTER into the Campbell's initial view. The second you ADD things like preaching, collecting, professional singers, instrumentalists or having sex in the "holy place" you FORCE yourself to be EXCLUSIVE by EXCLUDING those know that you are a false teacher and not competent to be a SPIRITUAL ELITE which is the meaning of a Pharisee.
The Restoration Principle is to become Christian by obeying the Bible as our only resource about Christ and the church. It DOES NOT place 'union' over Biblical principles as Stoneites confessed that they did to "unite."
By adding instruments and a secular structure about half of the people were AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED and many were done so forcefully if they persisted in teaching the clear Biblical outlawing of BODY WORSHIP. It is clear that the "societies" intended to build a PAPAL state with everyone paying dues, being SEND preachers and having Sunday School material PRESCRIBED out of Standard and administered by a society above and beyond the reach of the elders.
Michael C. Armour: Among those who are heirs of Stone and Campbell, the Lord's Supper and baptism are another instance of inclusivist-exclusivist tension.
Prior to our own history, churches tended to view the Lord's Supper in exclusivist terms, giving rise to closed communion. Early on we opted not only for weekly communion, but open communion, as well. The Lord's Supper would symbolize our desire to be as inclusivist as possible.
Michael Armour -- No Longer Singing Solo ... 2
Inherent in baptism, however, is a principle of exclusion. Baptism connotes a boundary, a line of demarcation. One either is or is not a baptized believer. As a line of demarcation, baptism calls attention to the divide between those who have taken this step and those who have not.
Thus, to promote the critical balance between inclusiveness and exclusiveness, it is vital to maintain an equally critical balance in the emphasis we give to the Lord's Supper and baptism.
In the developments I've cited from the late nineteenth century, the Churches of Christ began tilting toward the exclusivist side of this balance.
By elevating inferential truth, so that practices derived from inferential arguments became weighty tests of fellowship, the principle of restoration took on a much higher value than unity. It was now restoration first, unity second, not both pursued in a balanced tension.
In spite of a Bible and history filled with associating music with telling god to SHUT UP and with sexuality and perversion, the INSTRUMENTALISTS inferred by the LAW OF SILENCE that if God has not said "thou shalt NOT play and organ" then we gonna do it 'spite of hell and INCLUSIVISM.
Additionally, the narrower view of acceptable baptism was the first step in what eventually became a much greater preoccupation with baptism in Churches of Christ than with the Lord's Supper. This allowed the pull toward exclusivism, made all the more pronounced by a restrictive doctrine of baptism, to gain far more strength than the pull toward inclusivism in the Lord's Supper.
Not that we abandoned the Lord's Supper or purposefully minimized it. To the contrary, it continues to be a prominent part of our weekly worship.
The Stoneites continued to reject the weekly communion idea even when there were some congregations meeting jointly. However, churches of Christ have always observed the Lord's Supper weekly and often again on Sunday night to those who couldn't make it in the morning. Each time the Lord's Supper is observed, every kind is taught exactly what the meaning is. I don't know where mike was in order to make the statement:
Michael C. Armour: But in a cappella churches of the twentieth century the Lord's Supper received only a fraction of the focus that devolved on baptism.
Although we produced scores of books on baptism, only one or two works of substance were devoted to the Lord's Supper.
Duh? I would like to see Mike's scientific polling data. I have often visited MUSICAL Christian Churches and it seems to me that they DO COMMUNION about the same way. It would appear that teaching about BAPTISM didn't HAVE to keep the emphasis off the Lord's Supper. Maybe he means SERMONS PREACHED or BOOKS WRITTEN. But, that has no connection to REALITY. Perhaps by not being dissociated or mind-altered by MUSIC such churches were able to WALK and CHEW GUM at the same time. I think that the Lord's Supper from the time I was a two-glasser before TB converted us has had WEEKLY focus by men trained to teach about what Jesus and Paul taught. Because it is a memorial and not a sacrament the remembering of the Death of Christ has happened about every Sunday of my life. On the other hand, baptism gets mentioned only as part of an "invitaiton."
Mike should be advised that churches of Christ--long before the dominant preacher takeover--got its information SOLELY from the Bible which most of us can about quote. People buy books but it is still a stated fact that in the face of men selling millions of books [Max Lucado] most of them are never read. Therefore, we are not pagan just because we never read the books. I will bet that most churches had Sunday school material which discussed what little there is to know.
And until the worship renewal initiatives of the 1990s, the observance of the Supper in many congregations was a rather perfunctory affair, with little forethought, planning, or devotional reflection.
Oh, Lord help us. Some of the baby boomers (Infantile Drummers) at Madison Church of Christ in Nashville believe that they invented the Orphan homes. This was their rise to spiritual supremecy to the old decadent and deleterious exclusivists pharisaical a cappella trash. Now, with their RENEWAL initiatives they can hum, whistle, clap and therefore MOCK Jesus. It takes no PLANNING MINISTER.
Worship Renewal Initiatives were BRAND NEW: that is when Nimrod had the same sacrificial festivals at the Foot of the Old Rugged Tower of Babylon. I have it on the authority of Jesus Christ and if Mike cannot grasp it the loose woman of Samaria could that worship is not in a physical PLACE so that an expert can RENEW IT. Worship is in the new PLACE of the human spirit as it GIVES HEED to the Truth or the Words of Christ.
Worship in terms of PRAISE TEAMS or DANCE GROUPS used as a "platform upon which god lands" is as grossly pagan as the Abominaiton of Desolation standing in the Holy Place (podium-pulpit). See how that worked in the Jerusalem Temple. The SINGERS and MUSICIANS in all paganism were happy to be THE HAREM OF THE GOD.
So far this RENEWAL of the wineskin scam which is the Vineyard scam INTENDS to force the "audience" into a sexual climax with the Spirit. This is just before the final ACT which is "giving of means."
Count the bodies of literal dead people who have prematurely left life perhaps because at least one RENEWAL effort met to PRAY that they would leave or die so "we can take over." Count the dead or dying churches where thousands of people have been deliberately DISCORDED by grown men fulfilling Revelation 18:22.
The 1999 "Dialoge" which was a MONOLOGUE.
In 1999 members of the dialogue included: From the Churches of Christ -- Mike Armour, pastor, Dallas; Doug Foster, professor, Abilene, Texas; Jimmie Sites, pastor, Nashville, Tenn.; Phillip Morrison, editor, Franklin, Tenn; and David Worley, professor, Austin, Texas.
Doug Foster identified five things that Churches of Christ might have done differently:
We might have refused to allow the issues of missionary societies and instrumental music in worship to push us to vilify and excommunicate each other.
We might have realized that the controversies were complex and went well beyond the surface issues of instrumental music and missionary societies. We might have avoided the vitriolic, inflammatory language that impugned the motives of fellow believers. We might have held more strongly to our heritage of seeing ourselves as 'Christians only but not the only Christians'
instead of adopting a sectarian exclusive understanding of the church. We might have refused to act as if assent to a set of doctrines IS Christianity and the Christian life.
Doug Foster as a scholar has a very divisive and false view of the Restoration Movement and of History. Too bad that Doctors of the Law--fired by Jesus--quote scholars who quote scholars and NEVER read the original scholars or, it appears, even the Bible.
This writer can remember great effort from about 1957 onward in different states spending lots of time on the Lord's Supper. Now, the Lord's Supper is not so complicated that it needs a Phd to ritualize.
Michael C. Armour: Worship planners were even known to discuss the most expeditious way to serve the Supper so that it took up no more time than necessary.
He means, "At least in the church I attended." Isn't it just too grand that we project our limited views into a total repudiation of those who try to keep the "servers" off the performance floor.
Sense and lust blinded their minds in some, and a careless inadvertency in others, and fearful apprehensions in most
(who either believed there were, or could not but suspect there might be, superior unknown beings)
gave them up into the hands of their priests to fill their heads with false notions of the deity,
and their worship with foolish rites, as they pleased;
and what dread or craft once began, devotion soon made sacred, and religion immutable. John Locke
I know a church in Seattle afflicted with "worship renewal" which removed the Lord's Supper Table which said "in remembrance of me" to allow more theatrical performance room for their musical worship team trying to facilitate with noise the silent, in the heart mediation of the Supper.
Added musical worship teams.
Michael C. Armour: Added to this, the prevailing theology of the Lord's Supper in Churches of Christ underscored the need for individuals to examine themselves in light of 1 Corinthians 11:28 and to see communion as a shared moment between the worshipper and God.
There is no earthly connection between the Lord's Supper as buddy bonding as in the Agape. Paul put the common "one another" meal out of the assembly because thinking about "me" or "thee" would deliberately and with a high hand take the emphasis off Christ Who shed the blood and died. That is the meaning of the Lord's Supper, no more, no less.
Anything else is just the urge to project self into honoring the Lord.
Michael C. Armour: Little, if anything was said about the Supper as a koinonia in which we pledge ourselves to one another as one people, one body. Indeed, for years when I preached the concept of the Lord's Supper as renewal of koinonia,
many in my audience invariably saw it as a somewhat novel idea.
As a result, in most a cappella congregations the Lord's Supper assumed more of an individualistic air than the air of a covenant meal with other believers.
That is because only Phds would fall sucker to the idea that the Lord's Supper was a Covenant Meal. In the words of John Mark Hicks, the Lords Supper should be accompanied with JUBILATING because God attends and eats and drinks with us in th COVENANT RENEWAL LEGALISM. A Cappella people see it as a memorial to the DEATH OF CHRIST and not in terms of an Animal Sacrifice. Somehow I don't believe that the Christian churches I know about would HIRE Mike to preach a restoration of the PRE CROSS animal sacrifice.
The LOVE FEAST as Agapae was like the Marzeah, an ancient musical festival WITH and FOR dead ancestors. That is what God through Amos condemned in Israel. When women participated in the pagan Agapae, you would be SURPRISED what the men ate and drank during the phases of the moon.
I don't know how one can COLLECTIVELY DISCERN THE BODY. If Mike will tell us ANYTHING which can be added to the supper without DISTRACTING attention from the DEATH of Christ without ADDING a performance person then good luck.
We see further evidence of this in the almost universal practice of having a Sunday night communion, not for everyone, but for those who missed the morning assembly.
This is not based on "a cappella theology." Individuals feel the need for the Supper and therefore the fellowship accomodates them. And this, like inventing the Koinonia Supper to replace the Lord's Supper was based on the preacher's view that the Lord's Supper was an ordinance from which one gets spiritual or magical value. Some preacher taught them that it was a law and we betcha that this is not different just because Fanny Plays on.
Baptism is a ONE-TIME acknowledgement that Christ died for ME. We are not baptized COLLECTIVELY and we do not REMEMBER or show forth or preach the death of Christ as a COMMUNITY wich is to say commune. We will let Mike look up Justin Martyr to see that he lived a long time before the a cappella congregations fouled up Mike's view of a COLLECTIVISM in Communion.
Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended,
bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;
and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
They could put you in jail if they found you drinking wine which had not been diluted. A typical perverted symposium where the flute-girls played might add one part wine to three parts water. That got them drunk unless they VOMITED periodically. SOBER people might mix any fermented wine 20 to 1.
Michael C. Armour: This second communion service is most commonly part of the Sunday evening worship, with perhaps only two or three people partaking of the Supper while everyone else looks on. Or it may be done in a separate setting, attended only by those who missed the morning observance.
In either event, this practice overtly downplays the sense that the Supper is a communion of the entire body
in which we renew our commitment to oneness, community, acceptance, and forbearance.
Bunk! Those living almost within the time of the apostles BEG TO DIFFER.
Thus, although we continued to emphasize the Lord's Supper, it lost much of the inclusivist symbolism that open communion invites. In the critical balance between inclusivism and exclusivism, we tilted toward exclusivism in the way we handled baptism and communion.
Isn't it intriguing that the Churches of Christ, who put the weight of their energy and identity on baptism rather than the Lord's Supper, slipped into exclusiveness and isolation, while the Disciples of Christ, who chose the chalice as the central symbol of their fellowship and prominently built the language of the table into their ecclesiology, became leading ecumenists?
Jesus probably used a MUD VASE and not a CHALICE filled with WINE. This is the Disciples symbol and not the Biblical Symbol. I notice that the Disciple's chalice is filled with REAL WINE. History says that if they used that even for the drunken festivals they might get jailed.
Especially the Romans and most of that society absolutely OUTLAWED any wine drinking for women. THEY could teach the Disciples about even tiny quantities of alcohol can produce birth defects if the timing is bad.
Are the Disciples ONE CUPPERS? Then, the logo is hypocritical.
Most churches of Christ have DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME visible during the Lord's Supper. Mike's friend, Rubel Shelly, notes that they REMOVED that.
Richard Hamm, the HEAD of the Disciples of Christ informs us that they DO NOT see the Bible as authority in the historically recognized way. We assume that Mike Armour also rejects the Bible as authority as part of the CORE.
No anti-lord's supper books there fo