Innovative or Unscriptural? If You Have to Ask…
The September, 2024, issue of The Christian Chronicle (or so it alleges) contains an article titled: "Is This Church Plant Innovative or Unscriptural?" Faithful brethren could answer that question without reading a word of the article, since the picture accompanying it shows three individuals (two women and one man, also called the praise team) playing instruments of music and singing on stage. How much of a clue does anyone need to answer the question posed in the title?
When one does read the article, beginning impressions are validated. Bobby Ross, Jr., who writes these types of articles for the Chronicle, suggests that this fairly recently-established group is not trying to be "a traditional Church of Christ" (15). It would be more accurate to say they are not trying to be a Scriptural church of Christ. They certainly know that nothing in the New Testament authorizes the use of musical instruments in worship (Col. 3:17); they obviously do not care.
And their defense of the practice is, uh, well, lame. They say they want to be known for what they are for instead of what they are against. Did churches of Christ ever start a campaign amongst the population that went something like this: "Hey! We're the religious group that is against musical instruments in worship"? While it is true that visitors often notice that about us; it's not what we try to impress people with.
So, what are they for? It would seem that they are for praise teams playing and singing songs on stage. Isn't that what just about all other religious groups are known for? That ought to grab people's attention.
But they serve food to their neighbors and help out the community in various ways. Those activities may all be good, and it may give them a good reputation in the area. But have any of these activities caused people in the area to want to study the Scriptures? Feeding people is a noble endeavor, but the church's main goal is to preach the gospel.
The problem is that even if they are successful, they are failing. It will not do anyone any good to leave the world behind and wash away one's sins if he then worships falsely. True worshipers will want to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:20-24). And those who teach them have a responsibility to teach them the truth (James 3:1).
Connections
After providing some history of this group, Ross unexpectedly reports that this new congregation "became a branch campus earlier this year of Nashville's Woodmont Hills Church, which also has a heritage in Churches of Christ" (15). Perhaps a more scholarly individual than your congenial editor will know this: What Scripture mentions "a branch campus"?
Campus does not appear in the Bible. Someone might say, "Neither do we read about a songbook or a communion tray." True, but those are expedients which help carrying out a command. We do not need a songbook, but our singing would be less varied. A songbook or a PowerPoint just makes it easier to see the words and the melody. Technically, we do not even need notes, but they expedite the singing—although we have on occasion heard a congregation make up the tune as they went along. With a number of people present, there must be some kind of container to hold the fruit of the vine. So, these are expedients; they assist us in doing what we are commanded to do—sing and observe the Lord's Supper.
Having a "branch campus" is not an expedient. What exactly is its purpose? Is it its own church or not? Does it have its own elders? If the Woodmont Hills elders are over the branch campus, then they are presiding over more than one church in the area. What Scripture authorizes that practice? They say it is advantageous for the two groups to work together. Congregations get along with and encourage each other all the time—without being a branch campus.
We find out further a husband-wife team serves "as the shepherding couple assigned" by Woodmont Hills (16). Where in the Scriptures does one find qualifications for a "shepherding couple"? What has been established here is a group of people who, if they convert anyone, will bring them into an unscripturally organized congregation that practices false worship.
Heritage
What is the point of referring to "a heritage in the Churches of Christ"? Are we supposed to enthusiastically respond to having once been one body or once having been affiliated? By that logic, we should have a heritage with the Mormons since Sidney Rigdon was once associated with Alexander Campbell. Consider what Wikipedia says about another religious group:
The Christadelphian movement traces its origins to John Thomas (1805–1871). He initially associated with emerging Restoration Movement in the United States but later separated from them.
Faithful congregations do not associate today with the Christian Church or the Disciples of Christ, either, though there was some heritage associations there as well. Perhaps the most appropriate response about former heritage associations is, "Big deal." There were some of these in the first century, also. John wrote, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us" (1 John 2:19). What used to be matters not nearly so much as where one is now.
Responses?
Before quoting those mentioned in the article, another point might be made first—if the reader does not recognize the name Woodmont Hills (in Nashville). Rubel Shelly preached there from 1978, when it was known as Ashwood until 2005. When he first moved there, Shelly was known as Biblically sound; brethren admired him far and wide. But then he earned a Ph. D. at Vanderbilt and then began his descent into liberalism. For more than four decades now, he has been associated with liberalism. He fellowships various denominations and thinks it is impossible to restore the first-century church. Woodmont Hills seems to be following on the pathway begun all those years ago.
Shelly was not mentioned in this article or consulted for comments, but Phil Sanders was, and to his credit he also pointed out the futility of converting someone only to have them participate in false worship. He also said the group was trying to accommodate culture (16).
Ross asked the opinion of John Mark Hicks, retired professor from Lipscomb (also a heretic). He showed himself to be a master of spin by saying that the new group formed under the auspices of Woodmont Hills was "an authentic heir of what we call Churches of Christ" (16). Surely, he can't expect to get much agreement with that kind of verbiage. Generally speaking, most churches are either faithful or apostate. Neither Woodmont Hills nor the new group fits the former description. The phrase, authentic heir, is so much balderdash.
Hicks continues by calling the new group "a new expression of the trajectory of Restoration Churches." No, it's not, but it sounds like something Jeroboam might have said after changing the worship of northern Israel four different ways. Setting up golden calves was a violation of the commandment against graven images. He changed the center of worship from Jerusalem to Dan and Bethel—without authority from God to do so. He changed a feast day to a month later than the time God had selected, and he made priests from any tribe except the one God had specified, which was Levi.
When God allowed Assyria to take the Northern Kingdom captive, God caused it to be written that (over 200 years previously) "Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin" (2 Kings 17:21). Probably, Hicks would have called the Northern Kingdom (in all of its apostasy) an "authentic heir" of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jeroboam was just on "a different trajectory"—a visionary with fresh ideas.
Hicks goes on to mumble that many churches do not want to "disconnect" from the ideas of congregationalism, baptism, and having the Lord's Supper each week (16). Well, whoopie! The northern tribes clung to the land they inherited, too. They might have kept a few commandments, such as those against adultery and theft. So what? They remained in sin, and their worship was vain. Just because someone holds on to a few godly precepts does not mean they are pleasing to God.
Hicks says he values what he grew up in, but "the mission of the kingdom has led us to seek a new expression of that old common ground" (16). Did something change in the mission God gave the church—to evangelize, for instance (Matt. 28:18-20)? Isn't correct worship still a goal (Col. 3:16-17)? How about edification (Acts 2:42)? What has changed that we now need "shepherding couples," women in leadership roles, and contemporary Christian music. Sanders is right. These are nothing more than cultural accommodations.
The Proper Emphasis
While it is true that we occasionally get a visitor who wonders where the music is, many people do not question it fiercely, if at all. For every individual who says, "I can't worship God without music, there are ten who quietly inquire and accept the answer that the New Testament does not authorize it. Young people do not need to be entertained to desire to be part of the church. The ears do not decide these matters; the heart does.
Sanders claimed that people are drawn to the Lord's church because of the "distinctive doctrines" that we teach. They are attracted to them (16). Maybe it is also the fact that we are not like the WOKE denominations of our day, who fall all over themselves trying not to offend various aspects of culture. We take firm stands on moral issues, and some people find that refreshing. Oh, there we go, being known for being against things.
But we are. We oppose sin and promote God, holiness, and righteousness. We have always challenged sin when we have had the opportunity—whether it was gambling casinos, abortion, or homosexuality in the world—or liberalism in the church. Rubel Shelly once fought against what he has now become. He was previously a soldier fighting on the battlefield for truth; now he is nothing more than a wizard of wishy-washiness. He went from upholding Biblical authority to mocking it.
He once made the point that children understand authority in the game, "Simon says." If Simon says, "Play the piano," he has provided authority to play that instrument—but not to sing. If Simon says, "Sing," no child would dare go over to the piano and play it to accompany a song—because Simon did not authorize it. Shelly understood this authority principle prior to 1980—and taught it. But then he "matured" and changed his tune. He turned his back on the truth and said of the same churches he once preached for, "My children will not grow up to become part of an irrelevance," referring to the Lord's church. Thus, he turned to the dark side and became a champion of compromise.
Others are eager to walk on the same path that brought him to where he now is. Woodmont Hills and its satellite congregation, with their "shepherding couple" and weekly floor show, will not save anyone. The way to please God is to do what He has commanded. Doing what is popular and culturally acceptable has never been the way to curry favor with the Lord. How much simpler is it to keep His commandments and be blessed!