i was just surfing for c of c and found this

Joined: March 1st, 2004, 6:44 am

March 1st, 2004, 6:44 am #1

i was just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings and somehow ended up here!!!!! i'm sorry i did i'm not sure what you all are disagreeing about???? but just keep in mind we have but one judge sometimes silence and prayer are better!!!! i wish you all luck. you do not seem to be representing the church of christ very good here guys!!
Quote
Like
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

March 1st, 2004, 5:33 pm #2

dear surfer,

you have just raised the level of my curiosity. why were you “just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings”? you see, some “surfers” look for a local congregation where they can attend a worship assembly while on vacation or tour. anyway, you seem to be young and searching for something. i agree with you on the “one judge” and “prayer”; but i don’t think “silence is golden” at this stage of the church’s life—in the 21st century. believe me … we’re still representing the “silent” majority. please continue surfing. there are a lot of things about the truth that can be learned from this site—lots of fine articles with scriptural references and written by those well grounded in the truth. ignore the arguments and disagreements (part of human nature) for now and just concentrate on the fine lessons. later on, your assessment of this website’s objectives and goals will become crystal clear to you. i wish you luck.

donnie cruz
Quote
Share

Jan
Jan

April 7th, 2004, 1:44 pm #3

i was just surfing around for church of christ news or happenings and somehow ended up here!!!!! i'm sorry i did i'm not sure what you all are disagreeing about???? but just keep in mind we have but one judge sometimes silence and prayer are better!!!! i wish you all luck. you do not seem to be representing the church of christ very good here guys!!
Iagree. I was looking for info on the lord's church when I came across this. I am saddened and appalled by all this. I'm sure satan is very happy! You people had better re-read the scriptures and understand why our savior died on the cross! All man's petty jealousies only put them on the broad way. SHAME,SHAME SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

April 8th, 2004, 12:04 pm #4

Jan,

How were you looking for info on the “lord’s church”? Were you doing a search on “LORD’S CHURCH” or on “CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on “FORMERLY CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on whatever words and phrases that came to mind?

I was just wondering if, in your searches, you were able to find the following:
  • Oak Hills Church … “A Christ-Centered Fellowship” … San Antonio, TX … (formerly: Oak Hills Church of Christ)
  • Family of God at Woodmont Hills … [http://www.woodmont.org/] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Family of God] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Church of Christ”] … Copyright © 2003 Woodmont Hills Church of Christ
  • Christ's Community Church … in Logansport, IN
  • Christ's Community Church … in Tulsa, OK
  • Or did you find other “cute” variations with the name “of Christ” MISSING … as follows:
    • Boyertown Church … Boyertown, PA
      Called Out of God … Roswell, GA
      Carpenter's Church … Lubbock, TX
      Comptom Road Church … Murfreesboro, TN
      Covenant Fellowship Church … Searcy, AR
      Gateway Church … Woodbury, NJ
      Grace Chapel Church … Cumming, GA
Jan, I listed the last few churches above to illustrate my point in your search as to how you ended up finding the website for “concerned members” of the Lord’s church. Those congregations are probably mini-churches that not many people hear about. My other point is for you to note that Rubel Shelly’s church has been officially changed to “Family of God at Woodmont Hills” because of the negativity attached to the words “Church of Christ.” Similarly, here’s what one writer said of Max Lucado’s church:
  • <font color=blue>Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” . . . Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”

    What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)!
    </font>
Honestly, you are saddened and appalled by the wrong thing. You should be saddened and appalled by the “Acts of the Apostles” of change, a.k.a. “change agents.” Max and Ruby have revised portions of the contents of the New Testament to conform to certain doctrines that they have borrowed from their denominational neighbors. It is about time that even just a handful of the many, many conservative preachers of the gospel let their voices be heard. Max and Ruby have become too loud and busy transforming the New Testament church into something else it shouldn’t be. I doubt very seriously that preachers outside of the Max-Ruby kingdom are jealous of their popularity and misguided objectives for the church. Max and Ruby, busily disturbing the peace and unity in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ, ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Re-read the scriptures … did you say? We’ve already done that so many times. The Concerned Members site is not a church—it has not changed the truth and is not teaching a new doctrine. Instead, we find certain teachings and beliefs of Max and Ruby to be fallacious and inconsistent with the truth. Perhaps, you could help them by re-reading the scriptures to them.

Jan, understanding “why our Savior died on the cross!” as you stated earlier is NOT the issue—you know better than that! Transforming or restructuring the New Testament church into an apostate church or denomination according to the “Lucado-Shelly Doctrine” is wrong—SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz
Last edited by ConcernedMembers on April 8th, 2004, 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Robin Guidicy
Robin Guidicy

April 8th, 2004, 3:37 pm #5

In the narrow context in which the founder's and those
that represent the "old path" speak, it purely from
a loss of power.
Their day has passed.
They have refused to change.
They have become the pharisee of modern day christianity.
Their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way."
What you won't see reported here, is that numbers are on their way back up.
You won't see that the body is unified, and that Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony,
sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.
Another point of good news is that churches that were withering away around Madison are again growing.
Christians that wanted a less celebrative style of worship have gone elsewhere, and apparently are making contributions.
I think you'll find too, that those who have removed
"church of christ" from their signs reached a point of honesty.
The honesty is not what we want to hear.
Basically, this isn't a fellowship.
Who can blame them?
Character attacks, mistruths, half-truths, slander, etc.
If this represents the "church of christ" then count me out.
So, the road signs are clearly marked.
Whether we recognize the liability our name now carries
is up to us.
It has been my experience that nothing is more corrupting than a little bit of power.
These men, "concerned members" are desperately looking for it, and it is only here, in the shadows that they find it.
Life's evening sun is sinking low....low, indeed.
To depth's not previously seen.

Robin Guidicy
Madison Member

Quote
Share

Tom Brite
Tom Brite

April 8th, 2004, 3:43 pm #6

Jan,

How were you looking for info on the “lord’s church”? Were you doing a search on “LORD’S CHURCH” or on “CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on “FORMERLY CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on whatever words and phrases that came to mind?

I was just wondering if, in your searches, you were able to find the following:
  • Oak Hills Church … “A Christ-Centered Fellowship” … San Antonio, TX … (formerly: Oak Hills Church of Christ)
  • Family of God at Woodmont Hills … [http://www.woodmont.org/] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Family of God] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Church of Christ”] … Copyright © 2003 Woodmont Hills Church of Christ
  • Christ's Community Church … in Logansport, IN
  • Christ's Community Church … in Tulsa, OK
  • Or did you find other “cute” variations with the name “of Christ” MISSING … as follows:
    • Boyertown Church … Boyertown, PA
      Called Out of God … Roswell, GA
      Carpenter's Church … Lubbock, TX
      Comptom Road Church … Murfreesboro, TN
      Covenant Fellowship Church … Searcy, AR
      Gateway Church … Woodbury, NJ
      Grace Chapel Church … Cumming, GA
Jan, I listed the last few churches above to illustrate my point in your search as to how you ended up finding the website for “concerned members” of the Lord’s church. Those congregations are probably mini-churches that not many people hear about. My other point is for you to note that Rubel Shelly’s church has been officially changed to “Family of God at Woodmont Hills” because of the negativity attached to the words “Church of Christ.” Similarly, here’s what one writer said of Max Lucado’s church:
  • <font color=blue>Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” . . . Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”

    What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)!
    </font>
Honestly, you are saddened and appalled by the wrong thing. You should be saddened and appalled by the “Acts of the Apostles” of change, a.k.a. “change agents.” Max and Ruby have revised portions of the contents of the New Testament to conform to certain doctrines that they have borrowed from their denominational neighbors. It is about time that even just a handful of the many, many conservative preachers of the gospel let their voices be heard. Max and Ruby have become too loud and busy transforming the New Testament church into something else it shouldn’t be. I doubt very seriously that preachers outside of the Max-Ruby kingdom are jealous of their popularity and misguided objectives for the church. Max and Ruby, busily disturbing the peace and unity in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ, ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Re-read the scriptures … did you say? We’ve already done that so many times. The Concerned Members site is not a church—it has not changed the truth and is not teaching a new doctrine. Instead, we find certain teachings and beliefs of Max and Ruby to be fallacious and inconsistent with the truth. Perhaps, you could help them by re-reading the scriptures to them.

Jan, understanding “why our Savior died on the cross!” as you stated earlier is NOT the issue—you know better than that! Transforming or restructuring the New Testament church into an apostate church or denomination according to the “Lucado-Shelly Doctrine” is wrong—SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz
Donnie, one of the things that I remember most from my Sunday school education in a conservative church of Christ is that while "church of Christ" or "Church of Christ" was A name for the Lord's Church, that it was not THE name for the Lord's Church, at least from a biblical standpoint. So, it seems strange to me that you are more, or at least, equally concerned about the name of certain churches as you are the doctrine of those churches.

You do not have to talk to many people to come across those, who rightly or wrongly, have a very negative impression of the name "C(c)hurch of Christ" because of past events. I can tell you that there were several times in my youth when I had invited friends to church with me when it did not take too far into the sermon for me to be embarrassed that I had asked them to come with me. While we in the C(c)hurch of Christ have not viewed ourselves to be a denomination, that is exactly what the outside world has perceived us to be. It seems to me that by insisting that we must call ourselves C(c)hurch of Christ that WE HAVE made ourselves into a denomination that must be known by those three words. Personally, I think your statement that those words were removed from the sign at Woodmont Hills, Oak Hills or any of the other churches listed because they were ashamed to wear the name of Christ to be shallow.

So, I guess my question would be this: Are you saying that the only name that a gathering of the Lord's people can be know as is "C(c)hurch of Christ?" If your answer is "no," then please explain why you are taking to task these congregations for making these changes. I would appreciate your comments so that I can better understand your thoughts. Thanks!
Quote
Share

jd
jd

April 9th, 2004, 2:10 am #7

Jan,

How were you looking for info on the “lord’s church”? Were you doing a search on “LORD’S CHURCH” or on “CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on “FORMERLY CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on whatever words and phrases that came to mind?

I was just wondering if, in your searches, you were able to find the following:
  • Oak Hills Church … “A Christ-Centered Fellowship” … San Antonio, TX … (formerly: Oak Hills Church of Christ)
  • Family of God at Woodmont Hills … [http://www.woodmont.org/] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Family of God] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Church of Christ”] … Copyright © 2003 Woodmont Hills Church of Christ
  • Christ's Community Church … in Logansport, IN
  • Christ's Community Church … in Tulsa, OK
  • Or did you find other “cute” variations with the name “of Christ” MISSING … as follows:
    • Boyertown Church … Boyertown, PA
      Called Out of God … Roswell, GA
      Carpenter's Church … Lubbock, TX
      Comptom Road Church … Murfreesboro, TN
      Covenant Fellowship Church … Searcy, AR
      Gateway Church … Woodbury, NJ
      Grace Chapel Church … Cumming, GA
Jan, I listed the last few churches above to illustrate my point in your search as to how you ended up finding the website for “concerned members” of the Lord’s church. Those congregations are probably mini-churches that not many people hear about. My other point is for you to note that Rubel Shelly’s church has been officially changed to “Family of God at Woodmont Hills” because of the negativity attached to the words “Church of Christ.” Similarly, here’s what one writer said of Max Lucado’s church:
  • <font color=blue>Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” . . . Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”

    What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)!
    </font>
Honestly, you are saddened and appalled by the wrong thing. You should be saddened and appalled by the “Acts of the Apostles” of change, a.k.a. “change agents.” Max and Ruby have revised portions of the contents of the New Testament to conform to certain doctrines that they have borrowed from their denominational neighbors. It is about time that even just a handful of the many, many conservative preachers of the gospel let their voices be heard. Max and Ruby have become too loud and busy transforming the New Testament church into something else it shouldn’t be. I doubt very seriously that preachers outside of the Max-Ruby kingdom are jealous of their popularity and misguided objectives for the church. Max and Ruby, busily disturbing the peace and unity in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ, ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Re-read the scriptures … did you say? We’ve already done that so many times. The Concerned Members site is not a church—it has not changed the truth and is not teaching a new doctrine. Instead, we find certain teachings and beliefs of Max and Ruby to be fallacious and inconsistent with the truth. Perhaps, you could help them by re-reading the scriptures to them.

Jan, understanding “why our Savior died on the cross!” as you stated earlier is NOT the issue—you know better than that! Transforming or restructuring the New Testament church into an apostate church or denomination according to the “Lucado-Shelly Doctrine” is wrong—SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz
Who are you to dictate what churches put on their sign? You are a DEAD breed. Get over YOURSELF.

Carpenter's Church is an OUTREACH arm of Broadway Church of Christ. They minister to the drug addicted, prostitutes and down-trodden in the inner city of Lubbock, Texas. And, I am sure that you know ALOT about that Donnie considering the things you post here. The name of their church is NOT your concern. Take care of your own and leave us ALONE.

Your constant ranting is getting very BORING. You do not see the CHRIST for what he REALLY is.

jd
Quote
Share

Jan
Jan

April 9th, 2004, 5:30 am #8

Jan,

How were you looking for info on the “lord’s church”? Were you doing a search on “LORD’S CHURCH” or on “CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on “FORMERLY CHURCH OF CHRIST” or on whatever words and phrases that came to mind?

I was just wondering if, in your searches, you were able to find the following:
  • Oak Hills Church … “A Christ-Centered Fellowship” … San Antonio, TX … (formerly: Oak Hills Church of Christ)
  • Family of God at Woodmont Hills … [http://www.woodmont.org/] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Family of God] … [formerly “Woodmont Hills Church of Christ”] … Copyright © 2003 Woodmont Hills Church of Christ
  • Christ's Community Church … in Logansport, IN
  • Christ's Community Church … in Tulsa, OK
  • Or did you find other “cute” variations with the name “of Christ” MISSING … as follows:
    • Boyertown Church … Boyertown, PA
      Called Out of God … Roswell, GA
      Carpenter's Church … Lubbock, TX
      Comptom Road Church … Murfreesboro, TN
      Covenant Fellowship Church … Searcy, AR
      Gateway Church … Woodbury, NJ
      Grace Chapel Church … Cumming, GA
Jan, I listed the last few churches above to illustrate my point in your search as to how you ended up finding the website for “concerned members” of the Lord’s church. Those congregations are probably mini-churches that not many people hear about. My other point is for you to note that Rubel Shelly’s church has been officially changed to “Family of God at Woodmont Hills” because of the negativity attached to the words “Church of Christ.” Similarly, here’s what one writer said of Max Lucado’s church:
  • <font color=blue>Max Lucado and his apostate followers at the Oak Hills church in San Antonio, Texas, have just recently officially dropped the name “church of Christ.” . . . Lisa Harrison Rivas, staff writer for the San Antonio Express-News writes in the Saturday, September 6, 2003 paper these words: “Max Lucado hopes renaming his church, opening new campuses and adding musical instruments to the worship service will help bring more people to Christ.”

    What a sordid mess and a stench in the Lord's nostrils! How it must grieve the Savior to have traitors boast of loving Him while changing the sign because some are embarrassed by the name church of Christ. Who died for the church? Was it Max? I think not (Acts 20:28)! Who is the head of the church? Is it Max? No, it is the Lord (Eph. 1:22-23)!
    </font>
Honestly, you are saddened and appalled by the wrong thing. You should be saddened and appalled by the “Acts of the Apostles” of change, a.k.a. “change agents.” Max and Ruby have revised portions of the contents of the New Testament to conform to certain doctrines that they have borrowed from their denominational neighbors. It is about time that even just a handful of the many, many conservative preachers of the gospel let their voices be heard. Max and Ruby have become too loud and busy transforming the New Testament church into something else it shouldn’t be. I doubt very seriously that preachers outside of the Max-Ruby kingdom are jealous of their popularity and misguided objectives for the church. Max and Ruby, busily disturbing the peace and unity in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ, ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Re-read the scriptures … did you say? We’ve already done that so many times. The Concerned Members site is not a church—it has not changed the truth and is not teaching a new doctrine. Instead, we find certain teachings and beliefs of Max and Ruby to be fallacious and inconsistent with the truth. Perhaps, you could help them by re-reading the scriptures to them.

Jan, understanding “why our Savior died on the cross!” as you stated earlier is NOT the issue—you know better than that! Transforming or restructuring the New Testament church into an apostate church or denomination according to the “Lucado-Shelly Doctrine” is wrong—SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz
I really need to apologize for my earlier comments on this website. I had hastily read some of the comments without understanding what was really being discussed. I arrived on this site while looking for congregations in the Florida area. Our son has recently moved there and I was searching for congregations that appeared scripturally sound. I suppose the key word is "appears" since one cannot tell any more simply by the name. I am a christian, a member of the Lord's church, and I am so saddened by all the apostasty. I apologize for my misunderstading of the matters at hand and add my prayers to all the others for Satan to be defeated. Jan
Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

April 9th, 2004, 12:09 pm #9

In the narrow context in which the founder's and those
that represent the "old path" speak, it purely from
a loss of power.
Their day has passed.
They have refused to change.
They have become the pharisee of modern day christianity.
Their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way."
What you won't see reported here, is that numbers are on their way back up.
You won't see that the body is unified, and that Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony,
sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.
Another point of good news is that churches that were withering away around Madison are again growing.
Christians that wanted a less celebrative style of worship have gone elsewhere, and apparently are making contributions.
I think you'll find too, that those who have removed
"church of christ" from their signs reached a point of honesty.
The honesty is not what we want to hear.
Basically, this isn't a fellowship.
Who can blame them?
Character attacks, mistruths, half-truths, slander, etc.
If this represents the "church of christ" then count me out.
So, the road signs are clearly marked.
Whether we recognize the liability our name now carries
is up to us.
It has been my experience that nothing is more corrupting than a little bit of power.
These men, "concerned members" are desperately looking for it, and it is only here, in the shadows that they find it.
Life's evening sun is sinking low....low, indeed.
To depth's not previously seen.

Robin Guidicy
Madison Member
Robin, you said: In the narrow context in which the founder's and those that represent the "old path" speak, it purely from a loss of power. Their day has passed. They have refused to change. They have become the pharisee of modern day christianity. Their slanted take on faith is from the idea, that "we have always done it this way." <font color=blue>[My response is in blue.] </font>

<font color=blue>I gather that you were making a comparison between: (1) the group of those who continue to “seek the old paths” [Jeremiah 6:16] and (2) the group of “change agents” with their proponents OPERATING with the agenda to subvert and create havoc as they attempt to “transform” congregations in the brotherhood of the churches of Christ. Admit it or not, the Madison congregation is unfortunately one of the victims. Robin, it is evident which side you’re on from some of your comments—which really are nothing new. Honestly and with all due respect, I think you needed a lot of help with your comments. So, let me help. (For more details, please see the thread: “A New Big Picture: ‘The Change Agents Are Coming! The Change Agents Are Coming!’ ”) So, here are a few additional characteristics of the change agents who have no desire to “represent the ‘old path’”:

--- Men who do harm to the body of Christ while being supported to build it up.
--- Men who claim to be helping the church while fomenting chaos and strife within.
--- Men who rush forward to offer a fix for the problems they themselves have created.
--- --- They offer staff services to help churches resolve the conflicts caused by their changes.
--- Men who seek to build their status and influence by bashing and attempting to discredit the godly …
--- --- preachers who blazed the trail before them and built the congregations where they now serve.
--- Men whose teaching and practice lowers respect for the authority of God’s Word.
--- Men who refuse to recognize and honor the church of Christ as the body of Christ.
--- Men who think they know more about how to worship God than did Christ . . .
--- Men who undertake to change the unchangeable kingdom of Christ.
--- Men who presume that the new is better than the old in the realm of faith.
--- --- They care nothing for the old paths (Jer. 6:16) .
--- --- They are like the pagan Athenians, always searching for something new or different.
--- Men who’d rather not speak boldly of Christ as the “founder” of the church of Christ.
--- Men who prefer to speak of Campbell and Stone as founders of their denomination.
--- Men whose favorite word is “grace” to mean salvation without obeying its conditions.
--- Men who love to speak of “freedom” to ignore Bible teachings on worship restrictions.
--- Men who love freedom to fellowship and be accepted by denominational bodies.
--- Men who speak of “patternism” as a sarcastic put down of the brethren true to God’s pattern.
--- Men who thirst for an emotion-based worship in the electronic churches of the televangelists.
--- Men who say that we are narrow, bigoted, and legalistic—they’re not.
--- Men who label us as “traditionalists” for our unwillingness to change.
--- Men who have abandoned the concept of restoring the original New Testament church.
--- Men who are busy rewriting our church history to: . . .
--- --- Paint a different picture of the goals and intentions of our forefathers and
--- --- Wish to cast their efforts as a “unity movement” and
--- --- Depict them as seeking fellowship with and not rejecting denominationalism.
--- Men who believe transition is a long-range mission accomplished after passing of older generation.
--- Men whose goal is conquest and dominance of the entire brotherhood.
--- Men who resort to warning the non-accepting brethren to “get over it”
</font>

Robin said: What you won't see reported here, is that numbers are on their way back up. You won't see that the body is unified, and that Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony, sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.

<font color=blue>———————————————————————————————————————————
Note: [2002 census shows MCC with 3,142 members; 4,730 adherents]
*Sunday School Drive on October 19, 2003; **”The Passion…” Movie Drive in Feb-Mar 2004
———————————————————————————————————————————
<font face=Courier color=indigo>
--- 2000 — Attendance: 3,000+ [est. weekly worship attendance, both assemblies]
JAN 2001 — Attendance: 3,000+ [est.; upheaval begins . . .]
2001 MAY__________________ 2,498___2,675___2,403___2,348
2001 SEPTEMBER____________ 2,163___2,335___2,577___2,096
2001 DECEMBER_____________ 2,148___2,008___2,039___2,134___1985 [Bruce White, minister]
2003 JULY_________________ 1,483 (July 20)
2003 AUGUST ______________ 1,702___1,759___1,726___1,742___1,732
2003 SEPTEMPBER __________ 1,782___1,722___1,629___1,498
2003 OCTOBER _____________ 1,681__________*2,028___1,643
2003 NOVEMBER ____________ 1,708___1,664___1,526___1,637___1,596
2003 DECEMBER ____________ 1,554___1,534___________1,557
2004 JANUARY _____________ 1,725___1,712___1,640___1,715
2004 FEBRUARY ____________ 1,746___1,606___1,608___1,647___1,816**
2004 MARCH _______________ 1,819**_1,718___1,738___1,698</font>
———————————————————————————————————————————

Your report that “numbers are on their way back up” is an admission that a major upheaval did occur in the early part of 2001. Remember when the leadership announced—“GET OVER IT … WE MUST MOVE ON”? Your report is based on the accumulative count of those you have seen come forward to respond to be baptized or to place membership—but don’t forget those who have left. Your figures do not compute versus the counts in the Marcher.

The body that you claim is unified is only in your dreams. And the leadership continues to announce and advertise by making that distinction between the “traditional” group at 8:00 and the “contemporary” group at 10:30. The “Easter Festival” is celebrated only during the contemporary worship gathering at 10:30 with the “interactive worship drama” in place to be experienced. And why not provide the same opportunity for the old “traditionalists” to experience the same “interactive worship drama”? Are the dramatists afraid that more traditionalists will be driven away from this experience?

So, “Donnie remains the lone voice in the balcony, sliding in in after services begin, and slithering out before they end.” Lone voice … OK … but I would like to know why you even bothered to post [which, of course, is gladly received] with the expectation that I would [probably] respond. Perhaps, I’m misunderstanding your statement. Or, are you implying that there are now many empty pews in the once-usually-crowded balcony?

Coming in late and leaving early? I thought you would be glad [ ] as that should deter me from making “too many negative and judgmental notes” about the performers doing their choir stuff with the accompanying rhythmic handclapping exercises. You see, Robin, most of the “MUSICAL WORSHIP” is at the beginning of the assembly period and it appears that during that stretch God can “hear” ONLY the elite musical group holding their microphones [that implies performance, doesn’t it? … or else everyone else should have a microphone, too, right? Amen? Amen!] Then at closing, I really have no use for extraneous singy-clappy songs like “I Belong to Jesus!” [please don’t let the title mislead you] or “Ain’t No Rock … Ain’t No Bird … Ain’t No Tree” or “I Was Made for This … to know Your tender kiss …” or “If You Miss Me” —just to name a few. </font>

Robin said: Another point of good news is that churches that were withering away around Madison are again growing. Christians that wanted a less celebrative style of worship have gone elsewhere, and apparently are making contributions.

<font color=blue>It is more likely that churches around Madison benefited from the upheaval at Madison. More likely they did not care at all for any “celebrative style of worship” [innovative enough to change worship content]—not even “less celebrative.” So, what should the leadership do now to bring them back to Madison?

(Robin, thanks for posting. I’ll try to address the rest of your comments when I respond to Tom Brite’s question).

Donnie Cruz</font>
Last edited by ConcernedMembers on April 9th, 2004, 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 9th, 2004, 12:58 pm #10

Donnie, one of the things that I remember most from my Sunday school education in a conservative church of Christ is that while "church of Christ" or "Church of Christ" was A name for the Lord's Church, that it was not THE name for the Lord's Church, at least from a biblical standpoint. So, it seems strange to me that you are more, or at least, equally concerned about the name of certain churches as you are the doctrine of those churches.

You do not have to talk to many people to come across those, who rightly or wrongly, have a very negative impression of the name "C(c)hurch of Christ" because of past events. I can tell you that there were several times in my youth when I had invited friends to church with me when it did not take too far into the sermon for me to be embarrassed that I had asked them to come with me. While we in the C(c)hurch of Christ have not viewed ourselves to be a denomination, that is exactly what the outside world has perceived us to be. It seems to me that by insisting that we must call ourselves C(c)hurch of Christ that WE HAVE made ourselves into a denomination that must be known by those three words. Personally, I think your statement that those words were removed from the sign at Woodmont Hills, Oak Hills or any of the other churches listed because they were ashamed to wear the name of Christ to be shallow.

So, I guess my question would be this: Are you saying that the only name that a gathering of the Lord's people can be know as is "C(c)hurch of Christ?" If your answer is "no," then please explain why you are taking to task these congregations for making these changes. I would appreciate your comments so that I can better understand your thoughts. Thanks!
Since this is an open forum, I'll ask Tom a question while we wait for Donnie's response. It pertains to your statement, "I can tell you that there were several times in my youth when I had invited friends to church with me when it did not take too far into the sermon for me to be embarrassed that I had asked them to come with me."

Unless I infer incorrectly, you had invited guests from another denomination(s). Would you please describe those specific elements of the sermon or the service that embarrassed you before your guests?
Quote
Share