The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

Dave
Dave

November 11th, 2010, 2:30 pm #1

Wineskins
by Jay Guin
September - December, 2010


The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

In the interview, Rick and Chris made a powerful point regarding the future of the progressive Churches of Christ, which is that these churches are plateaued and soon to die if they dont change.

Up until now, most progressive Churches of Christ have operated as hospitals for broken Church of Christ members but not as beachheads of the Kingdom in the world. My own congregation has many members who grew up in legalistic a cappella Churches of Christ, and weve experienced dramatic growth because of they transferred from less grace-centered churches. But were plateaued. Why? Well, in part because you cant grow but so much through transfers, and in part because we arent very evangelistically effective.

Meanwhile, in my home town, community churches that teach a non-denominational Christianity that places scripture above tradition and that study the Bible rather than their denominational history are growing. They stole our playbook!

There is unquestionably a need for a church that nurses and heals those broken by the legalist congregations of our denomination. But that need is quickly ending as the old legalistic congregations are dying. Members my age tell me of their old churches back home being down to 20 members, demanding one more sermon on baptism and the Five Acts. We wont be receiving any more wounded from those churches.

While we still need to help wounded Christians recover from legalism, the greater need is to help heal a wounded world. And we are working to becoming that kind of church. But, yet, one thing remains. We have to become united with the rest of Gods Kingdom. We cant plausibly claim to be a part of the body of Christ while isolated from our instrumental brothers in other congregations. And our members have to decide that we have to give a few comforts up to be more effective in the mission of God.

Recent studies show that evangelical churches arent growing much at all as a whole, but that non-denominational community churches are growing rapidly. That means the denominational churches are losing members to non-denominational churches. And isnt that what the Restoration Movement has always been about? Calling believers out of the denominations to be united on just the gospel?

Of course, it would be woefully inadequate to merely steal sheep from the denominations in order to grow a congregation but not the Kingdom! No, the goal is the expansion of the Kingdom, and that can only be accomplished by uniting the Kingdom which is quite impossible if we insist on being separate.

As Thomas Campbell wrote in 1809

Meantime the truly religious of all parties are grieved, the weak stumbled; the graceless and profane hardened, the mouths of infidels opened to blaspheme religion; and thus, the only thing under heaven, divinely efficacious to promote and secure the present spiritual and eternal good of man, even the gospel of the blessed Jesus, is reduced to contempt; while multitudes deprived of a gospel ministry, as has been observed, fall an easy prey to seducers, and so become the dupes of almost unheard of delusions. Are not such the visible effects of our sad divisions, even in this otherwise happy country. Say, dear brethren, are not these things so.



The goal of the Restoration Movement was to heal divisions. Thomas Campbell and Barton W. Stone had founded the Movement and seen it grow and prosper long before anyone even thought about an instrumental music controversy. The goal was unity, and we cant claim to be promoting unity while insisting on remaining a sect separate from other believers, divided by our anti-gospel refusal to fellowship those who use the instrument.

Finally, our children care nothing about the instrumental music controversy. Theyve not heard the sermons, and theyve not engaged in the debates. To them, the instrument just isnt an issue. And thats true of the children of many very conservative Churches of Christ. In an age when the Bible is available in easy-to-read contemporary English, and when the struggle against the world is vastly more important than the churchs internal struggles, our kids are just not persuaded that we need to divide over the instrument.

Amen.

And this means that theyll find a church that helps them grow in faith and serve Christ without regard to the instrument. And a church thats entirely a cappella may well appear legalistic to the eyes of a young man or woman, even if the church teaches the true gospel. They will look for churches that practice what they preach including unity and including presenting the gospel in terms of the local culture.
Im not saying that an instrumental service is essential to a church today. Rather, Im saying

* Actively and visibly fellowshipping instrumental churches is essential to being the church God calls us to be.
* Choosing to be exclusively a cappella because your members are too legalistic to permit it means you have some serious teaching to do.
* If the world is searching for nondenominational Christianity that puts scripture above tradition and works of service above doctrinal disputation, then God has answered the prayers of the Restoration Movement. We should join in the work of God by making as many churches of this kind as possible.

The Progressive Church of Christ

http://www.piney.com/The.Progressive.Ch ... hrist.html

Last edited by Ken.Sublett on December 21st, 2010, 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 11th, 2010, 10:58 pm #2

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

First, do you ever click "Preview" or "Edit" before you click "Respond" to submit your post? As you know, previewing or editing is really helpful as it ensures a more accurate reporting and better readability (such as a blank line between paragraphs). If in previewing, certain punctuation marks "disappear," use Notepad to locate and replace the marks (single quotation mark or apostrophe, double quotation mark, dash, etc.). Many of these marks are missing in the article above.

I gather from the article above that Jay Guin no longer believes that the church that Christ established at Pentecost was/is still not a denomination. He has gravely mistaken the expression "interdenominational" or "interdenominationalism" for "non-denominationalism." Jay Guin's misuse of the expression is apparent as he essentially espouses "unity" among various denominations -- the correct expression that Mr. Guin should use is "interdenominational" as that would indicate a merger or affiliation with any denomination of any size, color, doctrine or practices. In a stark contrast, the Restoration Movement emphasized leaving (not embracing) "dehominationalism" behind and restoring the New Testament church, New Testament Christianity and abiding by New Testament principles and directives. The men and families of the Restoration Movement left their respective denominations and their denominational creeds, beliefs and practices to become members of the "restored" church of the first century. They DID NOT found another denomination. Jay Guin has insulted Christ by asserting and claiming that the church He established is a denomination.

There's so much more of Jay Guin's opinions to be debated, but let's reserve for a more thorough discussion the many assertions and proposed ideas of this change agent that are contrary to the unity, doctrine and truth that Christ and His apostles taught in the New Testament.

Meanwhile, here's more information concerning Jay Guin, a change agent among others who are determined to restructure and reorganize the church of our Lord. If we follow and continue with Guin's proposal, we will reach a point where the "church of Christ" is just another denomination. In fact, that is his intention and mission. Interestingly, he identifies the church or congregation that he has "converted" as a "PROGRESSIVE" church of Christ. Wow! Is that just the politically correct way of referring to the LIBERAL Church of Christ? So there is a perpetration of LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE agenda not only in politics but also in the church of our Lord.

As the author of "One in Jesus," a writeup from one of his sites provides the following information about Mr. Guin [with emphases mine, d.c.]:[/color]
[In his congregation in Alabama:] They made Jay an elder in 2003.

Jay has recently spoken at the Pepperdine Lectureship, ACU Lectureship, the Harding University Lectureship, the Lipscomb lectureship (called Summer Celebration), and at ElderLink programs in Atlanta. (Outlines from these lectures are posted on this site.)

Nothing in this book represents the official or received position of the eldership of the University Church of Christ Jay speaks for himself only.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Indeed, we should be glad that "Jay [Quin] speaks for himself only." Hmmm, what's going on with the other elders not speaking WITH him?.

We do not prohibit the other side from posting its arguments and opinions, but you said nothing of Jay Guin's background. So, I will do that in order not to misled the reader.

In my response to Sonny's article titled "A Brief Historical Timeline Of The Genesis Of Change Agents In The Church Of Christ" [which is currently in a "locked" status], I listed a few of the "change agents" operating in the brotherhood as follows (and I will highlight Jay Guin's name -- the author of the article you've submitted for discussion):[/color]
-- Rubel Shelly
-- Max Lucado
-- Leroy Garret
-- John Mark Hicks
-- Joe Beam
-- Rick Atchley
-- Al Maxey
-- John York
-- Mike Cope
-- Ronnie Norman
-- Jay Guin -- author of above article
-- et al
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]The list of "change agents" is not complete by all means. The "et al" simply indicates there are more "change agents" not on the list.

Now that we have identified with which side Jay Guin aligns himself, another of Dave's favorite change agents (besides Al Maxey). let the discussion begin as many of Jay's statements are debatable.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

November 12th, 2010, 4:59 am #3

http://www.piney.com/New.Wineskins.Jay. ... idman.html

"The development both of religion and of the arts can be traced back in a continuous line to the hunting era. The group ritual of the primeval tribesmen were the origin not only of all religious ceremonial, but also of the drama and of poetry and music, while magic gave birth to the visual arts." (Parkes, Henry Bamford, On Gods and Men, p. 30).

"Awed by the mysteries of his own spirit no less than by those of nature, primitive man was likely to attribute to divine influence

any abnormal emotional state, whether above or below the usual level. Medicine men customarily went into states of trance in which they were believed to be in communication with the gods,

and many tribes supposed lunatics and sexual deviants to be divinely possessed.H. Bamford Parkes, Of God and Men.


I believe that everyone would feel better if they just wore their ribbon and got over the shock.
Quote
Like
Share

AM
AM

November 12th, 2010, 5:11 am #4

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

First, do you ever click "Preview" or "Edit" before you click "Respond" to submit your post? As you know, previewing or editing is really helpful as it ensures a more accurate reporting and better readability (such as a blank line between paragraphs). If in previewing, certain punctuation marks "disappear," use Notepad to locate and replace the marks (single quotation mark or apostrophe, double quotation mark, dash, etc.). Many of these marks are missing in the article above.

I gather from the article above that Jay Guin no longer believes that the church that Christ established at Pentecost was/is still not a denomination. He has gravely mistaken the expression "interdenominational" or "interdenominationalism" for "non-denominationalism." Jay Guin's misuse of the expression is apparent as he essentially espouses "unity" among various denominations -- the correct expression that Mr. Guin should use is "interdenominational" as that would indicate a merger or affiliation with any denomination of any size, color, doctrine or practices. In a stark contrast, the Restoration Movement emphasized leaving (not embracing) "dehominationalism" behind and restoring the New Testament church, New Testament Christianity and abiding by New Testament principles and directives. The men and families of the Restoration Movement left their respective denominations and their denominational creeds, beliefs and practices to become members of the "restored" church of the first century. They DID NOT found another denomination. Jay Guin has insulted Christ by asserting and claiming that the church He established is a denomination.

There's so much more of Jay Guin's opinions to be debated, but let's reserve for a more thorough discussion the many assertions and proposed ideas of this change agent that are contrary to the unity, doctrine and truth that Christ and His apostles taught in the New Testament.

Meanwhile, here's more information concerning Jay Guin, a change agent among others who are determined to restructure and reorganize the church of our Lord. If we follow and continue with Guin's proposal, we will reach a point where the "church of Christ" is just another denomination. In fact, that is his intention and mission. Interestingly, he identifies the church or congregation that he has "converted" as a "PROGRESSIVE" church of Christ. Wow! Is that just the politically correct way of referring to the LIBERAL Church of Christ? So there is a perpetration of LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE agenda not only in politics but also in the church of our Lord.

As the author of "One in Jesus," a writeup from one of his sites provides the following information about Mr. Guin [with emphases mine, d.c.]:[/color]
[In his congregation in Alabama:] They made Jay an elder in 2003.

Jay has recently spoken at the Pepperdine Lectureship, ACU Lectureship, the Harding University Lectureship, the Lipscomb lectureship (called Summer Celebration), and at ElderLink programs in Atlanta. (Outlines from these lectures are posted on this site.)

Nothing in this book represents the official or received position of the eldership of the University Church of Christ Jay speaks for himself only.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Indeed, we should be glad that "Jay [Quin] speaks for himself only." Hmmm, what's going on with the other elders not speaking WITH him?.

We do not prohibit the other side from posting its arguments and opinions, but you said nothing of Jay Guin's background. So, I will do that in order not to misled the reader.

In my response to Sonny's article titled "A Brief Historical Timeline Of The Genesis Of Change Agents In The Church Of Christ" [which is currently in a "locked" status], I listed a few of the "change agents" operating in the brotherhood as follows (and I will highlight Jay Guin's name -- the author of the article you've submitted for discussion):[/color]
-- Rubel Shelly
-- Max Lucado
-- Leroy Garret
-- John Mark Hicks
-- Joe Beam
-- Rick Atchley
-- Al Maxey
-- John York
-- Mike Cope
-- Ronnie Norman
-- Jay Guin -- author of above article
-- et al
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]The list of "change agents" is not complete by all means. The "et al" simply indicates there are more "change agents" not on the list.

Now that we have identified with which side Jay Guin aligns himself, another of Dave's favorite change agents (besides Al Maxey). let the discussion begin as many of Jay's statements are debatable.[/color]
Jay's interviewed Rick Atchley, as noted on his web site. I have heard people refer to the Change agents as followers of Rick. The main reason for that is, some churches pass around a DVD that Rick made to help foster his movement. The DVD talks about his dad and how his dad could not find a reason in the Bible not to have a children's choir in church. The DVD was filled with a lot of simple ideas. More and more I hear the Atchlians are out to take on the Christians. Jay is a Legal Atchlian unable to defend the example of Christ and he stand ever ready to defend the example of what Christ is not. Jay Guin's visit to Christian Colleges will keep many people from encouraging kids to attend these schools.

Something about Rick that intrigues many people, is how warm he is when he speaks. But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth. In fact he is cold and unable to relate to people. Why is that? For a man to be teaching us about the Love of God, he does have a difficult time expressing it. We are known by the Fruit of our spirit and Preaching skills are not listed as a fruit of the spirit. I guess Rick's personal journey is leading him to a more fruitful job experience. He can show people first hand how that making his salary, from his knowledge of Christ, is the way to go. Although, that is the same way Judas would show us.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 12th, 2010, 9:37 pm #5

AM, when you make the claim...."Something about Rick that intrigues many people, is how warm he is when he speaks. But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth. In fact he is cold and unable to relate to people," then I expect that you have met him personally.
That is the ONLY way you could lay hold to what you have claimed.
Please provide said experience, and I look forward to your response.
Quote
Share

AM
AM

November 12th, 2010, 10:51 pm #6

"then I expect that you have met him personally." YES


"That is the ONLY way you could lay hold to what you have claimed.
Please provide said experience, and I look forward to your response."Church

Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 12th, 2010, 11:26 pm #7

Perhaps Dave was waiting and hoping that AM would say, "No, I never met Rick personally" so Dave could pounce like a cat.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 14th, 2010, 5:22 am #8

"then I expect that you have met him personally." YES


"That is the ONLY way you could lay hold to what you have claimed.
Please provide said experience, and I look forward to your response."Church
AM,
When you say something a personal claim about someone, as you did with Rick Atchley by saying..."But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth" ....and you respond with a one word answer of "church" when I ask for substantiating your claim.....well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?
It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.

Is that what you were looking for William? The pounce you were expecting?


Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 14th, 2010, 3:52 pm #9

Of course, we know that when Dave asks for "proof" from someone with whom Dave disagrees and that someone gives it, Dave has no intention whatsoever of accepting it. That's an old argumentative tactic of denial. Even if someone gave Dave a long, elaborate dissertation, Dave would say, "Nope, not good enough!" AM stated that he had personally met Rick at "Church." Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well. Even then, Dave would still say, "Nope, AM has not supported his statement." It amounts to this: If a conservative told Dave that the earth was round and showed him pictures of the earth from space, Dave would flatly deny that just to be argumentative. Needless to say, we need not take Dave very seriously.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 15th, 2010, 1:08 am #10

William said about me....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."

Calm down William. When you say 'as much' what does that mean? Since I did not say what you accused me of....would that mean that you can read minds now? If you can't read minds....then the ONLY other possibility and conclusion that can be reached here is that you aren't telling the truth...again?


Quote
Share