Customer Reviews

The Crux of the Matter: Crisis, Tradition, and the Future of Churches of Christ

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this clearly written, thought provoking book. It was especially meaningful to me because I know and respect Dr. Foster. Not growing up in the church of Christ, the brief history of the church's beginnings was very helpful in bring me up to speed and the authors made clear and easy to follow conclusions about why our history is vital in understanding the crises we face today. The ideas of pre-modern, modern, and post-modern (which can be difficult to grasp, at least for me) were expained in terms that made them obvious. It was not only informative, it was challanging. The authors managed to appeal to both the "traditionalists" and the "progressives" with out riding the fence themselves. As a post-modern woman in a rather conservative church, I was surprised that the authors were able to make me see the other side of the story (that of the more traditional member) and give me a larger respect for them. Their style of writing is so easy to read and their hearts seem to flow through their words. I recommend this book highly to anyone in the church of Christ who is looking to understand the problems we seem to be facing today. The book is a quick read and is not written in an "academic" style that might seem off-putting to a layperson. It is so relevant that I am hopeful we, at our church, will be able study it in a bible class in the near future.

The authors provide a stimulating discussion of the need for reassessment and redirection within churches of Christ. Beginning with the perceptive observation that the church most of us know came of age in the 1950's, they highlight the growing sense of disorientation felt by many in an increasingly post-modern world.

Before suggesting directions and solutions, they provide helpful perspective by taking a giant step backward and tracing our modern roots from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century through the American Restoration Movement of the 19th century. In doing this they demonstrate that at least some of our perspectives and distinctive doctrines were influenced by people and historical forces much more recent than the first century.

After that, the authors get to "the crux of the matter," retrace the current crisis of identity, diversity, and change in the church, and attempt to offer some directions for the future. Chief among these is a call to re-focus attention on the "core" of the gospel: "the story of our creator God's actions to save us from sin and death, culminating in the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Christ." This focus, they submit, provides the best platform for biblical interpretation, individual growth and congregational unity.

On the issue of biblical interpretation, for example, the authors contend that good interpretation acknowledges the core as a "center of gravity, allowing that core to govern both the reading of the text and its application." This approach de-emphasizes a search for "rules" and "patterns" and re-focuses on broader aspects of the text: purpose, theme, genre, context, and principle.

The authors acknowledge that the book is not intended as a fully-developed theology, but as a starting point for further thought and discussion. From that standpoint, I would highly recommend it as a very interesting and thought-provoking read.

This book is inspiring, insightful and riviting. it describes the changes that have taken place in the Churches of Christ over that last 50 years (1950 - 2001) and does a great job in portraying its true values. This book is a real page-turner and should be read by all in the COC and some outside this fellowship as well. Perhaps it may shed some light on some misconceptions within this movement. Read it, love it and apply it.

I too remember the way things were in the church of the 50's & 60's. Wherever one
went, abt the only difference was things like - some places had the Lord's supper
before the sermon, most after. Also the larger places would have air onditioning,
the smaller ones (country churches) had hand-fans. While the teaching was done by
different people, the authority of the Bible went unquestioned, & all required
a "thus saith the Lord" for doctrine.

I had more trouble with this book than most figuring out where the authors were
going, but it appears from the final chapters, they are for "unity in diversity"
if I read them right (unity @ the expense of truth?). They were always saying
for instance that "these things are important", then turning around & saying they
weren't that important such as rules (commands). They say they always advocate
a cappella singing, but then give all the same reasons I've heard for decades
for instruments of music. Do they want it both ways?

One thing they said many times is that people ought to talked abt the "core of
the gospel" i.e. the cross of Christ. True, there's no way we could be saved
w/o Christ shedding His blood on the cross, but it's an obedient faith that saves
(ROM 1:05; I JOHN 2:03-05). The Bible does NOT say that commands aren't that
important. The first sin was disobeying a command. Jesus said that if we love
Him, we'll keep his commandments (JOHN 14:15) & why do people call Him Lord &
not do what he says(LUKE 6:46). In so many passages abt the judgement, what
will count is what we DID in the body (2 COR 5:10), & what we said (EPH 4:29-31;
MATT 12:33-37 etc, also see JOHN 5:28-29; MATT 25; REV 20; ECCLE 12,etc.) Jesus
said in MATT 7:21-23 that people can call him Lord, teach in His name, & do many
works in His name, but still be lost eternally.

2 final points in regard to why so many of us are "stubborn" when it comes to
a "thus says the Lord", and, is all division bad? Nature often teaches spiritual
lessons. I wonder how many bridges have collapsed or how many dams have failed
from what started as a small crack or a small trickle of water. Like leaven
(I COR 5:06), a little error that's allowed to go unchecked can eventually
"permeate the whole lump", then anything at all goes. As to the 2nd point, I've
never had to go thru losing an arm or leg, but it must be tragic. BUT, suppose said
arm is dying? Likewise, it's tragic for a church to split, but if some insist on
something that's not authorized by the Bible, and refuse to repent, then like an
arm or leg, separation is necessary, as painful as that is (1906 for instance). If
people will follow the restoration plea - to speak where the Bible speaks, & be
silent where it is silent, insist on a "thus says the Lord",& follow the pattern
that was given in the NT as to worship & doctrine, then there will be unity (but
to repeat a line, people want what they want, that's why we have 350+ examples
of disunity in the land).

I'm writing this review with 20 years of direct experience with the target audience of this book. That is, the Church of Christ "lifer", the person who was born and raised in the body of churches known as the non-instrumental Churches of Christ. This person's family history likely goes back several generations with the Churches of Christ.

This person has a lot of his/her worth as a Christian based on being part of the "heritage" of the "restoration movement". And that means being a Christian within the non-instrumental Churches of Christ.

This book is about helping these people deal with change. In particular, changes within the Churches of Christ. Apparently in decades past it was possible to walk into a Church of Christ anywhere in America and know what to expect, like ordering a hamburger at McDonalds. But things are changing now, and many in the Churches of Christ are becoming disoriented by these changes and the increasing diversity among Church of Christ congregations.

To deal with this, the author focuses the reader on the core of the Gospel and what it means to be a Chirstian. He does a great job of this throughout most of this book. The idea being that diversity is not necessarily bad as long as we focus on the crux of Christianity. Then we can be different and all get along. Sounds great to me!

Though a great read, I gave this book only three stars for the following reasons.

1. The author blames these changes on "post modernism". Blaming problems in Christian churches on "post modernism" is starting to get cliche. Change happens all the time, and the religious landscape in America has been volitle throughout most of its history. What did church leaders blame change on before "post modernism"? I forgot.

Is it possible that some of these changes in Churches of Christ are occuring because church members, like all of us, have access to more information that ever before and through their own studies have determined that some of the Church of Christ teachings are little more than traditional dogmas with little scriptural support? (To his credit, the author does sort of lead the reader to that without actually coming out and saying it.)

2. After doing a great job of focusing the reader on the crux of Christianity, the auther then decides at the end that weekly performance of the Lord's Supper is a "non-negotiable" part of being a Christian. What does "non-negotiable" mean exactly?

And, where in the New Testament is there any explicit directive concerning the frequency with which a Christian must partake of the Lord's Supper? There isn't. So after all is written and read, the author showed me that he really hadn't progessed in his thinking as far as I had thought.

Still, for the target audience this is one of the best books out there.

This is a good discussion of a complex problem in Churches of Christ. I mean, just where are we going? Where did we come from? Overall, the discussion was adequate and worthwhile. Sometimes, it seems that conclusions are reached simply to be consistent with our heritage - not that that is all bad - but sometimes other conclusions are just as valid. Worth the time to read.

[...]My continued thoughts:
It is interesting that many books that are designed to help us "weather the storm" today quote from Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone as authoritative. These authors quote from these two brothers, citing them as the "founders" of Christ's church. I would remind all Christians that Jesus founded his church, not Stone or Campbell. The church of Christ is not a denomination - the church of Christ includes every single Christian throughout history. You see, the term "church of Christ" is not a title, but a designation of relationship. When men believed and responded to the Gospel in Acts 2, they were "added to the church" by the Lord, not by a man's "church roll book" (cf. Acts 2:41). There's no difference in saying "the church of Christ," or "Christ's church," or "the assembly of the blood-bought, purified, sanctified, which has been translated into the Kingdom of the Son of His love" (cf. Colossians 1:13) Just one takes up more space on a marquee sign than another. I admit that there are men who consider themselves members of the Church of Christ, rather that the church of Christ. When they say "Church of Christ," they mean the Church of Christ [denomination] in contradistinction to the Baptist denomination, or the Presbyterian Denomination, etc., ad nauseum. This is a flawed understanding of the Scripture's teaching, though, on the Body of Christ. Ephesians 4 tells us that there is but one body, not many bodies, and that Christ is the head of that body. When you understand the body concept, you cannot call yourself a member of the Church of Christ and think that it means anything. There isn't a Church of Christ Room and Catholic Room and a Episcopalian Room up in Heaven; there is but a place for Christians. All men who are members of the church of Christ will be there; however, not necessarily everyman who counts himself a member of the Church of Christ will make a showing in Heaven.

This, then, begs the question - what does it take to become a member of the church of Christ. The saved are the church and the church is the saved, so the answer fits for both. Now, go get your Bible (seriously, go get it. How can you expect to judge books about the Bible if you won't compare them to Bible itself? OK, now that you have it, look at Acts 2). Let us, then, look at Acts 2 again and see how these Jewish men went from condemned Messiah-murderers to being "added to the church." Peter preached (i.e.., they heard the message). They believed his message that they were guilty sinners and this had separated them from Jehovah. Their desire unto repentance is shown in their distress over what they had done and their cry to Peter for a solution to their problem. Peter spells it out for them in 2:38f, saying, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" (ESV). Everyone whom God calls to come to Him will come this way, via this promise, through repentance and immersion, according to the authority of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness/remission of his sins. That's what God's promise was. ... but wait a sec', I thought _JESUS_ was the "only way to the Father" (cf. John 14:6). Yes, that is true. In John 3:5 Jesus says that new birth, though water and spirit, is the only way to Heaven (because it is the way that He taught). Also, in Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus reminds His apostles that He has "all authority on heaven and on earth," and "therefore," they should "go," and 1) "make disciples of all ethnic groups" and, consequently, 2) baptize them into the possession of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit ... In Matthew Jesus gives the order to baptize believers in him so that they will become his possession and in Acts that's just what Peter does, he cites Jesus' authority in commanding baptism. It is upon baptism, after discipleship, that salvation occurs, it is then that we become His, it is then that are sins are forgiven. When someone has done this, in good faith, it is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5).

Why is this man now saved? Because he did not trust himself for his salvation, because he did not trust in any pastor or preacher to "add his name to the roll," but he trusted in God to save him. Immersion is nothing to earn salvation, as it's only physical value _might_ be taking some dirt off your body (cf. I Peter 3:21). Immersion is Jesus' way, immersion is the apostles' way -- repentance and immersion unto the remission of our sins must be our way.

For those of you who have followed Jesus' [only] way, I'll see you in Heaven one of these days. If you have questions about this, though, please feel free to email me (ledsi@cox.net) and we'll talk about it. I'm interested in sharing the Gospel, and the Gospel is that Jesus died on our behalf to satisfy the justice of God, the promise of this salvation is to you and me and once we have it we can walk in the light, basking in the grace and mercy of God. And as we walk, he is faithful to that promise and the blood of his son continually cleanses us from our sin, because of our fellowship (relationship) with God as His people, a relationship we gained at our immersion.

I don't want to be immersed into Alexander Campbell's church, or John Wesley's, or Martin Luther's. I want to be immersed into Jesus' church, the church of Christ.