Well, like most surprising conversations, you don’t exactly remember how they started. It seems people simply start talking and our language carries us from topic to topic.

This one was more of a push in the pool. I was simply minding my own business, without a care in the world, taking in life’s warm sun rays as they kissed my skin…when all of a sudden, the three culprits creped their mischievous little bodies behind my back and with one great heave–pushed me into the pool landing into a major belly flop.

The culprits would be the phrase and words we all know…

I love you

Now, for most who know me (or have dated me), I’m not afraid of commitment. In fact, I almost challenge it to come around like a bully on the playground. I’m most comfortable in a relationship. But this makes me scared. I’m nervous. I’m nervous for the amount of trust she has in me. No one really knows the damage I can really cause, but I think everyone is about to know soon enough…

Night before last Stephanie and I were on the phone. Suddenly she begins to cry, and I have no idea why. Somehow, someway we got to an emotional topic (for her). After a long, awkward pause she says, “Katie, I love you.”

I was shocked. We haven’t even been “dating” two weeks, and she’s already comfortable enough to tell me those three little words? What happened to taking it slow? What happened to repairing what was broken once before? I’m just so uncertain. I don’t even know where I’ll be in a year! For all we know I could be at Full Sail in Florida or College Station at A&M or Austin at UT. I have so many paths that ours might never cross again. And who’s to say this long distance thing is really going to work? If I go to Florida, I’m not going there with a relationship back here in Texas. I’ll be there to strictly focus on school and my future career. If I go to College Station, it’s plausible we may work, but there are no sure things. IF I make it into UT, the relationship is almost certainly a dead end. But the fact of all these options…I’m not going to set my path because of a girl. I’m not going to risk one decision affecting (essentially) the rest of my life. This is the most selfish times in our lives, but someone has to be…

Not only does the major possibility that we won’t work scare me, but it’s also the fact that she hurt me so bad the 1^st few times around. Who’s to say she won’t just flip out again? We haven’t even addressed any of those speed-bumps. We’ve just simply started “talking” again. But all of this scares me right down to the core.

I’m going to have to talk to her tonight…I can’t just keep this big of an issue inside. Especially if I’m planning to see her next weekend.

God, I’ll probably make her cry…I hate making her cry. This is just all so scary. I don’t like this feeling. I don’t like it at all…

Two nights ago, she appeared again.  This time, she entered my room with him while I seemed asleep but was actually awake, but they left within a minute, only taking time to mock a photo I had up of my family.

It was the evening of the winter formal and I got out of bed and quickly dressed, putting on my crimson knee-length coat before heading out to her dorm to see if she had left for the formal already, to warn her not to go with him.

I was accompanied by a Russian in his late 20s whom I didn’t know but instinctively trusted, a man who possessed the wide, imposing build of a bear but one who had the controlled nature of an animal well-trained.  He wore a long black wool coat with a tail-less fur cap.

I went up with him to the fifth floor of Angela’s dorm in a glass elevator but, even without leaving the elevator, I knew she wasn’t in her room anymore but had made it downstairs.

When we got back to the ground level, he and Angela came out of the other elevator and passed us.  I knew that they were aware of our presence and that I wanted to speak with her, but they made a point of ignoring us.  Like me, she, too, was wearing a red coat, though of a brighter hue.

I could tell Jubeir knew not to act out in front of the man I was with, who I felt intimidated him and he knew could overpower him if provoked.  And so they left the building without a confrontation having taken place and without my fears expressed, except in my frenzied eyes.

It was only when they were outside in the snowy courtyard that Jubeir revealed his knife and brandished it about as if showing off how powerless we were because suddenly we could no longer leave the building, much less defend her.

All the man-bear and I could do was scream through the glass doors and pound on the glass: “He’s going to kill you!  You have to get away!”

But Angela simply laughed as she saw me scream and joked with Jubeir about how ridiculous I was.  She was drunk, I knew, or had taken drugs he’d given her or perhaps had taken nothing at all but really didn’t see or care what was going to happen.

Others in the courtyard heading off to the formal heard us scream and laughed us off as well, as if they didn’t see or take seriously the knife Jubeir wielded before us, so calm in his certainty no one would get in his way.  Why were we being so serious? my classmates’ laughs implied.

And all I could think was, Why was everyone so festive and oblivious, so willfully ignorant to what was going on right in front of them?

On hearing our shouts, one male classmate joked that, even if Jubeir did kill her, “At least she’ll have a service at Memorial Hall.”  Yes, why wasn’t I looking on the bright side?

The only one who did share our concern was Poufpeka, who stood facing me on the other side of the glass entrance, wearing a short, thin gray jacket that didn’t protect her from the cold.  But even as she understood what was about to happen and cared as much as I did, she knew she was in no position to take Angela away from Jubeir or save herself should he attack her as well.  So she stood as if frozen, staring at m with her pleading eyes.

Jubeir continued to circle Angela as if she were prey and she continued to laugh at how funny it all was and then, without a change in his demeanor, he went up beside her, held her behind her shoulders and, with Angela was looking directly at me, he slit her throat.  And I can still see it.  She stood in place for several moments before collapsing.

As if floating above, I watched him take her body around the courtyard and drag her about the brittle bushes, letting her blood stain everything, before he finally stabbed himself in the chest and fell atop her, like her Romeo.

Only after he’d killed himself were we able to leave the building, as if a spell had been released.  As we exited into the cold to see the bodies, the man-bear cloaked me in the large folds of his coat, but what good was his protecting me if he couldn’t help me save Angela as well?

When the detectives arrived, it was determined Angela and Jubeir had fought and dragged each other about the courtyard before finally killing each other.  It was merely a lovers’ quarrel.  Nothing could have been done to prevent it, they agreed.

Within two hours, her parents arrived from Germany to view her body.  They appeared in my room, where I was in bed and was believed asleep though watching them through half-open eyes, just as I’d done when Angela had visited earlier that very day.   Perhaps the parents were touring the places she’d visited just before she’d died.  The detectives accompanying them didn’t make an effort to wake me for questioning, though I was screaming inside, begging them to ask me what I’d witnessed and knew had happened.

But who was I to say it had been murder?  Her parents had long since dismissed me, as had she.  No one wanted to consider any wrong had occurred.  It was much easier to believe me hysterical.  Still, had it not crossed their minds that a girl with a slit throat couldn’t have murdered someone, much less a much stronger individual who’d been trained and employed to harm others?

And that’s all I can remember now, though I know so much more had happened out in the courtyard before she was killed, how Jubeir flaunted his knife as if performing a ritualized dance, forever the Glow Stick King.

But when I awoke, it was 8 a.m. and my body refused to move, though my mind was frantically clutching at images that, each moment I couldn’t get myself up, were falling through the net of my collected memories.  And when I did manage to get up, I knew it was too late.  I’d lost most of it.  And my mind, now fully awake, screamed at itself for my not having had the energy to record everything immediately, as if the details mattered as much as if it’d been a real crime scene.

But it was just a dream and she doesn’t need me to protect her and, even if I did everything I could, she doesn’t want anything to do with me, so I have nothing to blame myself for, which I understand and was certain I accepted, except my dreams tell me otherwise.  But that, too, is beyond my control.

P.S. “Some of them want to use you / Some of them want to get used by you /  Some of them want to abuse you / Some of them want to be abused.” (Eurythmics – Sweet Dreams 1983)

Annie Lennox

It had been a rough day for her. She woke up late for work because she got drunk that night. Why was she drunk? She just got dumped. Well, it wasn’t like getting “dumped” exactly. Her girlfriend just didn’t feel like continuing their relationship anymore. They had a fight a day before that night and all hell broke loose. Her girlfriend didn’t want to talk to her after that fight because of a misunderstanding. That’s what she thought. When she cleared the misunderstanding, that didn’t help getting her girl back. They were both hurt, but her girlfriend wasn’t able to endure it anymore. It had been rough between the two for almost a month now.

Why did they got into a fight that day? What really happened?

It was because of the  ‘bes’ word. That started it all. That word means best friend. They were arguing about calling each other ‘bes’. She agreed that it’s not bad to consider their selves as best friends because, she thinks that they really are one. She considers their relationship not just lovers but best friends too. Can’t lovers become bestfriends? Sadly, her girlfriend misunderstood. Her girlfriend started calling her ‘bes’ in a sarcastic and annoying way. Then their conversation turned ice cold.

She told her “I love you”, but her girlfriend acted as if hearing nothing. No reaction from what she just said. That broke the remaining patience left on her. She snapped and got angry on how their conversation is going. She told her girlfriend that she was angry, asked if her girlfriend knows the reason why. But her girlfriend told her no, that added to her frustration. She didn’t wanna talk anymore, she wants to cool her head first before talking to her girlfriend again. Unfortunately, they didn’t share the same opinion about it. Another clash came, a mixture of anger, pain, and pride.

That was how their fight went.

(After narrating their fight, I realized that it’s better to use names. The names that will be used from here are all fiction based. Any resemblance in real life is coincidental.)

Now, Andy feels empty. She wants to hear Lana’s voice. She told Lana that she’ll be waiting for her decision. That means waiting for Lana to come back to her. “I still love her”, that’s what her heart feels. Andy was feeling very lonely without Lana. She miss seeing her smile and hearing her laugh. Everytime she remembers Lana’s face, tears starts to fall down from her eyes. The pain starts to emerge after subsiding.

She asks herself, “how can I survive the days without you?” It’s too painful, not being with you.

The question still hunts Andy every moment that her minds get blank. “Will you come back to me?”

They still text eachother, but it’ve been colder by the time. Andy is still hoping for Lana to come back and start all over again. She’s embracing the pain of being alone, waiting for her.

(Will she be able to hold on and continue the waiting? We will know by the next post.

~ her story teller|)

There is the right song for every situation.  There is music for every mood.  And everyone’s musical library should include a good collection of quality break-up songs.  Country music provides plenty of options for this category.  My go-to-guy for heart-wrenching, gut-punching break-up songs is without question Chris Isaak.

I bought Chris Isaak’s Forever Blue album back in ‘95 when I was 16-years old.  Every single track is a tale of romantic woe, heartache and a hopeless outlook on love.  Isaac’s matchless Elvis-Orbison-like voice and soothing acoustic guitar makes this otherwise painfully depressing collection of songs enjoyable.  My friend, Peter, is still upset a decade and a half later that I made him listen to the entire album start to finish in my car as part of his “healing” the night he broke up with his girlfriend.  I thought it would provide some solace and sympathy reminding him he wasn’t alone.  He claims it was pure torture and only threw salt on his wounded heart.  

The stars have all stopped shining, 
the sun just won’t break through. 
Each days the same, more clouds more rain. 
You’re left forever blue. 

(Chris Isaak, Forever Blue)

On second thought, maybe he was right.  

Unfaithful lovers.  Wounded hearts.  Longing and regret. Fighting and forgiveness.  Pain and sorrow.  Long, lonely nights. All core elements of a good break-up song and all part of the universal human experience — going back thousands of years by the way. As we continue our melodious trek through the Bible, tracing the theme of The Father’s Song, we come now to the books of the prophets of Israel.  

The prophetic books of the Bible are filled with emotional outpouring.  Every mood is captured.  Still I believe we are not too far off base to call the prophetic books the “country break-up songs” of the Hebrew tradition.  Over and over God is portrayed as the Wounded Lover chasing after his unfaithful bride, Israel, who keeps running after other lovers.  Philip Yancey’s well-known description captures this image well:

“The powerful image of a jilted lover explains why, in his speeches to the prophets, God seems to “change his mind” every few seconds. He is preparing to obliterate Israel — wait, now he is weeping, holding out open arms — no, he is sternly pronouncing judgment again.  Those shifting moods seem hopelessly irrational, except to anyone who has been jilted by a lover.  The words of the prophets sound like the words of a lovers’ quarrel drifting through thin apartment walls” (Philip Yancey, Disappointment With God, p. 99). 

Like a junior high girl delivering her friend’s break-up note to the poor boy at his locker, so the prophets serve as the unlucky messenger bringing tension-filled, heart-felt words back and forth between God to unfaithful Israel.  Hearts are broken. Love is betrayed. Tempers flare and tears flow. Forgiveness and reconciliation hang in the balance.  Israel’s collection of break-up songs sound a lot like today’s sad country songs except for the stereotypical rusty trucks, booze and dying dogs.

The prophet Hosea is a living parable of God’s strained relationship with unfaithful Israel permeating the prophets.  Hosea is told by God to marry Gomer, an unfaithful wife, and to continue to lavish his love on her despite her adulterous ways.  Through Hosea God sings forth his broken-hearted song of betrayal but with a hopeful twist in the tail: 

      She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; 
       she will look for them but not find them. 
       Then she will say,  ’I will go back to my husband as at first, 
       for then I was better off than now.’ 

       I will punish her for the days 
       she burned incense to the Baals; 
       she decked herself with rings and jewelry, 
       and went after her lovers, 
       but me she forgot,” 
       declares the LORD.

      ”Therefore I am now going to allure her; 
       I will lead her into the desert 
       and speak tenderly to her.

       I will betroth you to me forever; 
       I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, 
       in love and compassion.

       I will betroth you in faithfulness, 
       and you will acknowledge the LORD.

        - Hosea 2

Yes, The Father’s Song is not without it’s southern twang and somber notes.  Like Chris Isaak after a devastating break-up, or Patsy Cline on a cold, lonely walk after midnight, or Alanis Morrisett after a heated argument, the prophets refuse to sugar coat the messy, complicated nature of the relationship between God and wayward human beings.  They speak with raw, gut-level honesty to the incriminating truth that we are the one’s who are in the wrong, we are the one’s who “started it”, we are the ones who are guilty of unfaithfulness, and we are the one’s running out the door rather than facing our Lover and working out the problem.  

Yet, contrary to the message of Chris Isaak, the prophetic blues do not leave the listener without reason for hope.  In the ever-changing, still-unfolding song of God there is no reason anyone should remain forever blue.  Brighter days lie ahead.  As we leave the Old Testament and move into the New, we shall see that The Father’s Song, while filled with many ups and downs, has an upward trajectory that the attentive ear will anticipate.  The Father’s Song is a love song at it’s core, and as we shall soon see it ends not with a messy break-up but with a joyous wedding banquet and song.  

But we must not get too far ahead of ourselves.

One of my favorite players to ever play the game, Steve McNair was one of, if not thee, toughest quarterback that I ever got a chance to see play. McNair was found on July 4th, 2009 shot dead with 2 gunshot wounds to his chest and 2 to his head. Alongside him Sahel Kazemi was also found dead on the floor on top of a semi-automatic handgun with a single gun shot wound to the head. More than likely a murder suicide ruling will be confirmed after autopsy results are returned. McNair leaves behind his Wife and 4 sons.

Felt unknown to the world, that gave me birth. Wondering aimlessly through a life, Do they see my value or talent?. What am i doing here, not recognized and unseen, how do i stand up, and why would I want to stand out?

” But be careful, don’t be ego-driven. the quest for significance can be misleading.”
As my quest for love and life, had been fulfilled that i forget its weight in gold.

On the 21 April, the year of first love, He asked me out. He spoke words in tender softness and stated  “I love you”, and he said “I think you beautiful, in every single way”,as he clutches my unpainted face. Which he pauses by the realization of the depth of his speech and consequences of the question going to be asked, but to my amazement he continues by whispering, “all i want is to make you happy, so please…. gave me a chance, for you to be mine.”
Undoubtedly, I reacted with a childish giggle and uh huh…. My fear of commitment has faced me once again, before with my God now with a man i hardly know in Christ. But Yes, was all that could have been said, God has brought me a man, hardly seen around these days, a man of integrity, a man of thought, and a man willing be wait for marriage.

Now as Christ, thought nothing for himself, i shall to aim for this… be a girlfriend ( as how much this role scares me).

” ….Each one should retain the place in life… to which God has called him..”, i see me time has called me to be by Sam’s side…and it will be the east side, because that is the right side.

Garrett’s twelfth and final wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us be a colony of heaven — Cross-shaped, grace-oriented, Spirit-filled.

There’s too much to say on this, so I’ll just quote Garrett –

My favorite image of the church is that of “We are a colony of heaven,” as one modern version renders Philippians 3:20. Other versions read, “Our citizenship is in heaven.” The apostle Paul may have been drawing an analogy between the city of Philippi, which, as a Roman colony, was to reflect the glory of Rome, its capital, and the community of believers as an outpost of heaven. As Philippi was a colony of Rome, the church was to be a colony of heaven, reflecting its goodness and beauty.

That sums up what I see as the ongoing reformation of the church. We are always in the crucible of becoming more like Christ. The ultimate destiny of the church is Christlikeness, both in this world and the next. As a colony of heaven we await our Lord’s coming, who at that time will transform our bodies into the body of his glory. We, therefore, will eventually be like him in body as well as in spirit.

That makes us Cross-shaped, a people crucified with Christ and crucified to the world. It means we are grace-minded and grace-oriented, a people who are what we are — a redeemed community — only by the grace of God. As a Spirit-filled people we bear the fruit of Christlikeness — his love, longsuffering, forgiveness.

This is what I want for my people in Churches of Christ: to be a people who bear witness to the Cross by being themselves a cruciform church; to be a people saved and sustained by God’s grace; and to be a people not drunk on the wine of self-importance, but filled with the Holy Spirit.

Garrett’s eleventh wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let there be renewal in our assemblies.

We must find ways to make our assemblies more exciting and fulfilling. …

Our preaching often lacks passion and a sense of urgency, and even when it is soundly biblical, it may be neither relevant nor interesting. ..

We don’t take the public reading of the scriptures seriously enough, and we don’t do it well enough. …

It is not all that different with our public prayers. It’s not just anyone who can take a congregation before God’s throne in prayer. …

[I]f we do not get with it in our singing, we will be left behind. This might call for special music, which challenges one more of our sacred cows. …

[The Lord's Supper] is not a call for repentance and forgiveness, but of fellowship and celebration. …

Finally, the assembly must somehow be rescued from the predominance of the professional minister … .

It’s a longer quotation than usual because there are so many ideas in Garrett’s book. Most would be familiar to anyone familiar with trends among the progressive churches, but Garrett wrote 7 years ago. Let me just add a few points.

I’ve heard scriptures read very well and very badly. The ratio is about 5% to 95%. Good reading requires practice and an understanding of what’s being said. And an emotional attachment, not only to the fact that God is speaking, but the fact that this passage matters to this church right now.

Sadly, it’s done well so rarely that few of us have any concept of how well it could be done.

Some time ago, for Easter, I believe, we gave microphones to men and women to read the resurrection passages, with women voicing the women’s parts and men the men’s parts. The participants practiced — and they were chosen for their voices. It was riveting (and no one complained that women were speaking in the assembly, but then, they were sitting and facing the front).

Practice. Choose people with the right voices who respect the scriptures.

Similar thoughts go for public prayers. Here are the rules –

* Be brief. Jesus condemned long prayers and vain repetitions. God isn’t stupid. Say it once and move on. Keep it short.

* Don’t preach. Don’t quote scriptures (God knows them already.)

* You get two “Lord”’s per prayer. If you have to say “Lord” every time you catch a breath, you can’t lead a public prayer  (unless you’re 18 or younger).

* Don’t ask for your sins to be forgiven more than once per service. Besides, they were forgiven when you were baptized. Don’t dare ask for forgiveness before each element of communion and the contribution. I mean, just how much do we sin during communion? And why doesn’t the prayer at the end of the service handle that? (Imagine having a houseguest who asks for forgiveness between each course of each meal. You’d worry about their mental health!)

* Be specific. If someone asked for prayers, mention them by name.

* Don’t spend much prayer time in praise unless you’re in a special praise service. Contrary to much teaching, Jesus didn’t begin the Lord’s Prayer with praise. “Hallowed be thy name” is a prayer that the world hallow (revere as holy) God’s name. It’s parallel with “Thy Kingdom come.” There’s nothing wrong with praise, but we have this annoying tendency to think we have to butter up God before asking for something, and that’s just so wrong. He loves us. He wants our prayers. We should approach his throne with confidence.

* No King James English. No “Thee,” “Thou,” or “Thy.” When we talk like that, we act as though God wants us to speak in code. The New Testament is written in koine (common) Greek, not classical Greek. Classical Greek was to the First Century as Jacobean English is to us. And never end a verb with “-eth.” No one gets it right. It just sound affected — and ignorant. Speak in simple, contemporary English.

* Don’t try to sound eloquent. Very few of us are. You won’t fool anyone. Besides, simplicity and brevity are essential elements of eloquence.

I’ve mentioned my ideas on how to improve our music service before. I’m proud to say that my thinking is very similar to Garrett’s.

After our singing, our communion practice is likely the area where we could stand the most improvement. Again, I’ve written on this subject at length before. I wrote this one two years ago when I had a readership of one. It’s still among my most widely read posts, and I have to figure it’s because we really do a bad job with communion. And, again, my pet peeves closely match Garrett’s.

Not necessarily preacher focused

Finally, Garrett, like many of my readers, is concerned about the professionalization of church. He wishes there was a way to get away from professional preachers. I don’t entirely agree. Really.

You see, I’m spoiled. We have a great preacher. And I’ve heard other great preachers at lectureships and on the internet. I can’t imagine denying our churches the blessing of hearing such Godly, talented men.

On the other hand, I’ve heard some pretty awful preaching, too. And I’ve seen churches ruined by small-minded, caustic preachers. But the problem isn’t the choice to have professional ministers. I mean, those churches that have no preacher almost always wish they had one. The problem is bad preachers. Better no preacher than a bad one.

But I agree that it’s not necessary to center the service on the preacher. In fact, for its first 1,500 years, the church did not. The service was centered on communion until the Reformation. But the great Reformers saw the very real need for the people to be better instructed, and so the sermon grew in prominence. Now that we have classes twice a week, at least, in additional to the assembly, the sermon doesn’t carry the urgency it did when Calvin was preaching (for hours!) in Geneva.

In the 19th Century, the great frontier missionaries, such as Charles Finney and Barton W. Stone, preached in a style called Frontier Revivalism, all designed to bring people to the front in repentance. This was the beginning of the “invitation” and “responses.” There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not apostolic. And it’s not required.

Therefore, it’s quite okay to do things in a different way.

For example, we might preach first and aim the sermon and the song service toward the communion, which would be at the end.

We might move the contribution to another time of the service (to bring greater emphasis to communion).

We might focus an assembly on prayer, with very brief messages reminding us of, for example, the persecution that our missionaries and converts are suffering in other lands, and then having someone lead a prayer for just that one thing. And then pick up several other issues of importance.

In the right facility, we might even ask our members to break up into prayer circles and pray among themselves.

We might set up prayer stations where people can meet with a minister or elder for private prayer.

We might have a time of sharing, where people come forward and tell the congregation what God means to them. Or you might have a time of “cardboard testimonies” –

This video has had nearly 2,000,000 hits on YouTube. Why? Because it’s the sort of thing people are hungry for.

You might show inspirational videos — in between or during songs or in the sermon. We live in a visual age. People love these, and many large churches produce them and make them available for free.

You could have a missionary lead communion by internet feed — live. Or much better, have a new convert from a foreign land do it. (It’s easy to do nowadays.)

Have testimonies. Let the members tell their stories. Sometimes it helps to videotape them and show them on screen, especially if you have multiple services, if the member has trouble speaking before a crowd, or is  a woman (some churches are fine with a woman speaking on tape but not live) (sharing what God has done in your life is not teaching or leading. It’s what Anna did in the temple courts and the women did when they found the empty tomb and what the Samaritan woman did when she met Jesus).

Or focus the service on the contribution. We do this on what we call “Missions Sunday” when we have an offering for missions. The contribution is last and everything points toward it and why we do it.

Don’t push people to do things they think are wrong, but neither should you be scared of your shadow or that one obnoxious members who complains about all change of any kind.

Be sure you have the elders on board first — insist that they back you afterward as much as before.

Introduce new elements slowly, and once you’ve made the leap and done it, do it again and again. Don’t make people deal with change only to never repeat the experience.

And go and have yourself some renewal.

Garrett’s tenth wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us bring women into the church as equals; let us cease being male-dominated.

I’m on record on this one. The Bible does not teach male domination of women. Rather, the Bible teaches that male domination of women is part of the Genesis 3 curse on the Creation that Jesus came to reverse. I’ll not repeat the scriptural arguments here. They are laid out in detail at Buried Talents.

It is not an easy task to reverse our long-standing discrimination against women. Any church with a woman in a leadership role has to contend with at least two serious problems –

First, so many of us have grown up in the churches where women could not be leaders that we instinctively recoil at the thought — even when we intellectually know we shouldn’t. Even some women struggle in this area.

Second, there have been some studies that suggest that one reason churches tend to be largely female, despite the largely male leadership, is that we’ve unconsciously feminized our churches, centering our spirituality on practices that are very un-male in contemporary culture. Having more women in leadership can, if we’re not careful, deepen this problem.

Now, the solution isn’t to deprive women of the opportunity to use their God-given talents. Rather, it’s to think long and hard about how to make church a place that men can feel useful and fulfilled. In other words, how can we best use the talents God tends to give to men? I’m not speaking of the pulpit. I’m speaking of the men in the pews, the guys who have no interest in classes on relationships or such.

And so, I think, to move to greater egalitarianism in church, we have to first re-create a more manly church. And it just happens that what God wants from our churches is much more along the lines of masculine preferences than what we often have. You see, most churches are actually social clubs. They are great places to make friends. And women are all about relationships. (Yes, I’m generalizing, maybe even stereotyping, but it’s true.) And preachers teach relationship-evangelism, and most men are pretty weak in this area.

I’ve seen men’s groups that figure the solution is to go out and shoot guns and cook red meat over fire. And this is fine. But it’s not really what being a man is all about. And it’s not the solution (although I’m all about the red meat).

Why do men volunteer to join the army, knowing they’ll likely be killed? Why do men gladly work to support their families, seeing nearly all their paychecks go to benefit their wives and children? Why do men so enjoy team sports?

Men, I think, need a mission. They want a larger purpose and a task. Men find fulfillment in their work — not necessarily their 8 to 5 job, but in what they do. This is one reason men enjoy hunting and fishing and competitive sports. They like striving to accomplish something. They like killing their own supper. They like competition. They like being part of a team trying to achieve a goal.

And what the church is desperately needing today is a sense of mission.

Now, when most people hear “mission” they think “missionary” and “evangelism.” And these are relational things that most men find uncomfortable. They really don’t want to talk to their neighbors about Jesus. Or about anything other than football or such like. It’s not what men do well (as a whole. And, yes, I’m stereotyping.)

But if the mission were building affordable houses for people who really deserve it, well, men can get into that. Or if it’s digging wells in Africa. Or if it’s coordinating all the churches in town to take the community for Jesus. Or to start night basketball for kids at risk of joining gangs. You see, men love to strategize and work together toward a common goal — a tangible, achievable goal.

Ironically enough, if the church were more faithful to God’s mission, it would be far more attractive to men. 

And in a more masculine church, tasks would be assigned based on talents — because getting the job done is far more important than some preacher’s persnickety preferences over whether a woman oversee the work crew that paints the house. (Men understand well that the best player starts.) Nobody worries about women’s authority when it comes to actual mission. And if we were about the actual mission, the worship service would no longer be central to our vision of what church is.

And when we finally push the assembly from the middle of Christianity and replace it with the mission, well, our attitudes toward women will change. As will men’s attitude toward church.

You see, it all fits together.

By the way, once you see this, it changes your understanding of what preachers should be trained to do.

Historically, we’ve trained preachers to defeat false teachers through powerful arguments. This has made doctrine a replacement for war, and has made the church down the road the enemy rather than Satan. And men can really get into war-substitutes. This has been a huge distraction for our male church leadership.

More recently, we’ve trained preachers to be counselors — and they preach sermons about relationships because that’s what they studied in school. Christmas sermons tend to be about the members who are miserable because of lost loved ones. And men hate these sermons. (And Father’s Day sermons that tell men how sorry they are at being fathers.) We need good counselors, for sure, but it’s a mistake to define Christianity in terms of healing broken relationships. It’s bigger than that. It is that. But it’s more.

And so, if we would just train our leadership — elders and ministers both — to be equippers to do good works (as God told us to do in Eph 4), well, that would change everything. Not surprisingly, what the church needs is what the Bible prescribes.

And, ironically enough, it would naturally and easily allow women to assume their proper roles.

Garrett’s ninth wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us cease shooting our own wounded

We sometimes reject our sisters and brothers in Christ when they need us most. It may be when they are going through a divorce, or when once divorced, they plan to marry. …

We’ve been known to shoot our missionaries in the field if they become “liberal” or depart from the party line through exposure to the larger Christian world, leaving them to get home the best they can. …

We haven’t been pastoral to our troubled people. A preacher with gnawing doubts has to keep to himself.  …

Our Lord sought to redeem the wounded rather than to condemn them. We was compassionate and merciful towards the ostracized of society. He even died for them. We must learn to be like them.

Ahh … you see, our understanding of Jesus is highly distorted. Jesus ate with prostitutes and other sinners. We tell them they’d be more comfortable somewhere else — meaning, we’d be more comfortable if they’d leave. 

This comes from several things. It comes from centering our faith on Acts rather than the Gospels. It comes from beginning with a legalistic paradigm. It comes from seeing ritual and liturgy as the center of Christianity. It comes from seeing our mission as adherence to a pattern of worship and organization rather than mission to those in need. It comes from finding our identity in our practices rather than in our Savior.

The tragedy of this is that it justifies some very un-Christian behavior justified by a feeling of superiority derived from knowing all the rules.

Garrett’s eighth wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us realize who the enemy really is.

I doubt that I need to explain this one. We savage sister congregations that are trying their best to honor God. We destroy the reputations of preachers who are just a smidgin less conservative than us. We rally opposition to institutions that do tremendous good because they dare be less perfect than us.

Yes, we often spend far more energy attacking one another than attacking Satan.

Do you recall the story of Gideon? 

(Judg 7:22a)  When the three hundred trumpets sounded, the LORD caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords. 

How does God deal with his enemies? By encouraging them to attack each other. We seem to be using the wrong strategy altogether. We may not even be in the right camp.

Garrett’s seventh wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us become more responsibly biblical.

We have supposed that the New Testament produced the church, when in fact it was the church that produced the New Testament. …

The New Testament is more descriptive of what the church should be (or not be), than prescriptive, as if a code of law. … 

I suggest one basic rule of interpretation, a negative one, that I call “the spirit of Christ rule.” I think it will prove to be liberating, especially for us in the Churches of Christ: No interpretation is to be accepted that runs counter to the spirit of Christ.

(emphasis in original).

Garrett is certainly right that it’s been a colossal mistake to read the New Testament as though it were a code of law. I’m a lawyer. I’ve written quite a few state statutes. I know how codes of law are written and how to interpret them. The Churches of Christ are more “legalistic” than lawyers! I mean, we lawyers would be embarrassed to take some of the positions our preachers take routinely.

In law school, we’re taught to interpret statutes consistently with something called “public policy,” that is, the legislative purpose behind the rule. And this is much of what Garrett is arguing for. We shouldn’t let a hypertechnical reading contradict the reason for the rule in the first place. And we certainly shouldn’t turn non-law into law.

For example, Acts 20:6 mentions the fact that the disciples in Troas met to “break bread” on a Sunday. Some of my brothers take the position that this command (command?) bars taking the Lord’s Supper on any other day of the week, even though Jesus instituted communion on a Thursday night! 

Common sense tells us that Acts 20:6 was not written as a command, much less as an exclusive command. And the “public policy,” that is, the divine purpose behind communion is to remember and declare Jesus’ death. Why wouldn’t Jesus want that to happen as often as possible? 

Now, Garrett suggests that we can deal with these issues by asking whether Jesus would have agreed with such an interpretation. He’s right, but he’s wrong. You see, a large part of our problem is that we’ve distorted our understanding of who Jesus is in order to justify our pet doctrines. We’re glad to discuss grace, love, and Jesus’ sacrifice, except when the context is weekly communion, instrumental music, or such like. Then we are only interested in the wrath of God against disobedience.

I wish that we had such a Christology that we could ask “what would Jesus interpret?” and get a sensible answer, but my observation is that it just won’t work until we’ve let go of our obsession with being saved by obeying rules of doubtful existence.

Garrett’s sixth wish is –

Let us reject our radical congregationalism and become more responsibly organized for the tasks before us.

No local church, nor group of area churches, can do what the church as a whole can do. We have paid a heavy price for what we call “congregational autonomy,” given all our duplicate programs, ineffectiveness, and work left undone. …

If we were properly organized for missionary and benevolent work — with centralized ministires responsible to the congregations — the results would be remarkable!

Now, this isn’t as radical as it sounds. But it is pretty radical.

Let’s consider the alternatives.

First, we could organize missions as we do. One church selects a missionary as his sponsoring congregation. Other churches send the missionary money via the sponsoring church. The missionary comes home once a year and visits all the supporting churches. Some withdraw support because they have other budgetary priorities or split or are unhappy that he believes in the Holy Spirit or whatever. He goes around finding support from other churches. 

Meanwhile, his sponsoring church has no expertise in supporting a missionary. They can’t help much with tax issues, with his struggles to learn the local culture, or even give him adequate financial support when the exchange rate goes south.

Some other missionary may well show up in his town and start competing with him, even teaching a different doctrine and declaring him apostate.

Or he may desperately need help from a couple of additional missionaries but have no means of recruiting the help.

Second, we could do what the Churches of Christ are beginning to do. We could have a nonprofit organization recruit and support missionaries. The nonprofit would have on staff experienced former missionaries who coach and counsel the men and women in the field. The nonprofit would handle most of the fund raising. And the nonprofit would assure that missionaries are sent where they are most needed.

The nonprofit helps match the missionary up with a sponsoring congregation, which not only helps fund the work but provides support by sending members to visit and assist. The missionary is thus under the oversight of an eldership, but the eldership is supported and equipped by an organization with genuine expertise.

It’s not really a missionary society as there’s no voting and no meetings. Congregational participation is strictly voluntary, and if the churches get unhappy with their work, they’ll withdraw support and support another nonprofit or go it alone.

Third, we could do what the Christian Churches do (correct me if I’m wrong). Churches would band together to form a missionary society, which would be run by the churches. Staff would do much the same thing as described regarding nonprofits, but the staff would be answerable to the member congregations.

Most of the churches in a given state or region would all work together to form a single society and to cooperatively send missionaries together.

Now, this is precisely the sort of organization that Alexander Campbell helped form late in his career and that he very actively promoted and supported. It’s also the very sort of organization that helped lead to the split with the Christian Churches in 1906.

The advantage (or disadvantage) of this structure over the nonprofit structure is that the congregations exercise more direct control and there’s more of an expectation that congregations participate and support the society. 

Fourth, we could operate as the Baptists do. They form state-level conventions, which have no authority over congregations at all. But they all help pay for the convention’s work, which is to oversee various ministries that the Baptists do together — missions, affordable housing, orphanages, etc. Participation is voluntary, and the churches appoint representatives to meet annually to set policy. Sometimes the churches dramatically restructure the convention when the central office loses touch with the congregations.

Now, the advantage of the Baptist model is that you effectively have one-stop shopping. The churches oversee the convention and the convention oversees the ministries. The disadvantage is that when the convention goes bad, everything goes bad. 

All these models preserve congregational autonomy. And all these models have disadvantages. But the last three are all demonstrably superior to what we’re doing now.

And the problem is about to get worse. You see, big churches don’t really need the nonprofit, society, or convention to do a good job with missionaries or whatever. They can do all this themselves. And it’s easy to find examples of large churches withdrawing from cooperative efforts so that, for example, they support a missionary all on their own. This works well for the missionary and the church — but not so well for missions in general as no one is assuring that missionaries are being sent where they are most needed or providing the level of expertise that only a large church or a regional or national organization can offer.

As the bigger churches withdraw from cooperative efforts, the smaller churches get left trying to take on projects that they just don’t have the resources to handle. We’re a church of 680, and we struggle to find the volunteers and expertise we need to do a proper job with missions, etc. We need help. Therefore, most churches need help.

In looking at cooperative models, the easiest is the nonprofit model. It requires only that someone with a vision start the organization, hire staff, and find people willing to support it. The problem is one of accountability. How do you know how well your money is being spent? What doctrine is being taught? What success the organization is having?

The problem with the society and the convention models is the tendency of congregations to use these organizations as places to debate doctrinal disagreements. The Southern Baptist’s national convention has had its internal disputes widely publicized because of this.

As a result, my inclination is to go to the nonprofit route, even though it tends to create competing organizations. But then, competition is not always a bad thing. It forces the competitors to do a better job.

My biggest reservation is that there is no assurance that much-needed organizations will be formed. While we have organizations that do missions in some locations, I’m not sure the globe is covered well. And I’m afraid there are a number of very weak organizations that should be killed, but donors have no basis on which to judge them.

The solution — were it possible — would be to have a vigorous church press that not only cheerleads for the strong organizations but also challenges organizations to demonstrate their merits. I mean, if the press doesn’t insist on audits and proof of results, who will?

Garrett’s fifth wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us become part of the body of Christ at large, cooperating with other Christians in the work of redeeming the world.

We can do this without surrendering any truth we hold, and without approving of any error on the part of others. We can work with other believers, not because we agree on every doctrinal issue, but because of our common devotion to Jesus Christ. …

As we experience unity in mutual service with other Christians, we may all come to see the inappropriateness of our sects and denominations. Like Barton W. Stone, we may eventually be willing to say of our own Churches of Christ, “Let this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the body of Christ at large.” When that day comes — no more denominations, just the body of Christ — we will have realized the dream of our pioneers.

There are certain tensions here we’d do well to acknowlege.

First, if a church that agrees with Garrett too quickly surrenders its identity as a Church of Christ, it loses much its influence within the Churches of Christ. If the progressive-minded leaders all leave, what will happen to those left behind?

Second, if a church too quickly leaves the Churches of Christ, important institutions lose essential support. If we’re not thoughtful about this, we can leave missionaries, campus ministries, and church plants, for example, stranded and bankrupt.

Third, if a church too quickly leaves the Churches of Christ, it may not have had time to figure out what God wants it to be. I mean, knowing you want to leave the sectarianism of the past hardly defines your mission for the future.

Now, “leaving” means different things in different contexts. If a church changes its name to avoid a local stigma associated with “Church of Christ,” the church may well still be highly involved in inter-church efforts, missions, etc. I really have no problem with churches that adopt a new name but continue to be involved in the Church of Christ community. I have far more trouble with churches that keep the name and do nothing with other churches (including those conservative churches that contribute nothing to the community of congregations).

Ultimately, I think the most important reason to continue to cooperate and work with other Churches of Christ is to have influence within the Churches. There will come a point where that need disappears — but it’s not quite now. 

All that being said, nothing prevents our working closely with other churches — not just Churches of Christ — today. Readers from evangelical churches may well be thinking they’ve been doing this for years — and they have. However, I think we should all be doing even better.

Rather than having a countywide Baptist association, for example, we should have a local association of all willing Christian churches. Rather than the Methodists in the county getting together to coordinate evangelistic efforts, all the churches would work together this way.

Now, my home county already has some of this. It’s involved in disaster relief and in cooperative efforts to strengthen marriage. But it doesn’t coordinate local evangelistic efforts. That only happens at the denominational level. And it doesn’t do much to coordinate relief for the poor and needy. Some churches do this on an ad hoc basis, but there’s no countywide coordinating effort.

My admittedly limited observation is that we all tend to put more energy into our denominational affiliations than into our local community of churches — and the result is a very weak effort local effort for evangelism and benevolence. And the numbers confirm that conclusion.

If we were to actually work together locally and intensely, there would be huge, difficult transitions from denomination-centered works to community-centered works, but I think this would be a big step toward Kingdom mission.

This would not be the end of denominations. But it would greatly limit what is done at the denominational level.  For example, imagine that all churches (not just Churches of Christ) in Tuscaloosa County sponsored a lectureship much like the Pepperdine lectureships. We’d have more people attend from West Alabama than Pepperdine gets from across the globe! There are far fewer Christians in Tuscaloosa County than in the Churches of Christ, but because the effort would be local, organized by people we know, it would do very well indeed.

Garrett’s fourth wish is –

While we are to continue to be Churches of Christ, let us become what Churches of Christ truly ought to be — in the light of Scripture and our own heritage

I disagree with those progressive, avant garde Churches of Christ who seek to escape legalism and sectarianism by leaving their heritage and becoming some other kind of church. … If one’s mission is to help renew and reform the church, it is a mistake to leave. Changes are best effected from within.  …

We do not help our people by leaving. Those we can help the most are our own people.

Amen.

One my most formative experiences as a Christian leader (I was no leader at the time) was watching the men of my church some 30+ years ago challenge the minister and elders in a deeply loving and scriptural way — and by so doing, build a foundation for a vastly improved, much more spiritual congregation. 

For years, people unhappy with the way things were simply transferred to another congregation in town. There were plenty of other places to worship — why stay there and deal with the problems? But the families that decided to stay ultimately made all the difference in the world. They changed things. You see, things only change when people stay.

As a result, nothing motivates me more to stay in the Churches of Christ than when people ask me to leave. More than once I’ve received an email or comment saying, in effect, if I’m so unhappy with how things are, why don’t I just leave? Well, because I love the Churches of Christ too much to leave.

I could do some good, I suppose, in a community church or some such place, but God has put me in a place where, with his blessings, I might make a much bigger difference. And who am I to tell God he was wrong to have done so?

And I’m harldy unique. Lots of people in the Churches of Christ are positioned to make a difference that could even resound across the planet. Where could we go to be of greater service to our Maker?

Garrett’s third wish is –

Let us, in particular, repudiate our historic position of making instrumental music a test of fellowship and a cause of division.

Obviously, those who claim to stand in the shoes of Thomas Campbell while damning those who use instruments (such as the Gospel Advocate) never read Campbell. As shown in the previous post, Thomas Campbell saw the path toward unity as including a rejection of division based on inferences. And the teaching that instrumental music is sin is an inference. (If it’s not, where’s the command or the example?)

And yet, contrary to our heritage, we decided to divide over the instrument — not just into a new denomination, but into a denomination that damns those who use the instrument. Stone, the Campbells, and Walter Scott would have all disagreed. Indeed, Alexander Campbell would have declared such thinking heresy.

The views of these men on heresy are explained in article in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Simply enough, disagreeing with Campbell, for example, on doctrinal issues was not considered heresy — not even universalism — so long as the person confessed faith in Jesus. But if the person disagreeing were to make his disagreement a test of fellowship, well, that was heresy.

Thus, when John Thomas denied salvation to Baptists because they were baptized unaware that they were being immersed for the remission of sins, Campbell declared him a heretic. He was, in Campbell’s eyes, dividing the church by denying the salvation of believers in Jesus who’d obeyed the scriptures to the extent of their knowledge.

In short, our division over the instrument is wrong — heresy, really — not because we are wrong about music but because we are wrong to divide over the issue.

Now, I should add that we are also wrong. We aren’t wrong to worship a cappella. My own congregation is a cappella. We are wrong to argue that the Bible requires this. It doesn’t, for reasons I’ve explained here and here. 

But we won’t unite by arguing over the instrument. Even if we were to agree on that, we’d just find something else to disagree about. People are like that. Rather, unity comes from extending to others the same grace God has extended to us. When we finally understand this, then we won’t have to fight over the instrument.

Leroy Garrett’s second wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us resolutely and absolutely renounce our more recent sectarian heritage

It’s not unusual for us to have four or five different kinds of Churces of Christ in the same community, none of which have any fellowship with the others. We often “solve” problems by dividing. We have divided over both opinions and methods, which is contrary to the principles that gave us birth as a people.

Garrett reminds us that the Restoration Movement began as a unity movement. The original plan certainly wasn’t to create three new denominations, with one divided into dozen of sub-denominations that consider the others damned.

Our true heritage is founded, and well stated, in Thomas Campbell’s seminal “Declaration and Address” –

Instead of her catholic constitutional unity and purity, what does the church present us with, at this day, but a catalogue of sects and sectarian systems; each binding its respective party by the most sacred and solemn engagements, to continue as it is to the end of the world; at least this is confessedly the case with many of them. What a sorry substitute these, for christian unity and love.

Campbell describes what he wishes to end — bickering factions of Christians. And here we are today, 200 years later, being exactly what Campbell worked to eliminate. To quote Pogo, “We’ve met the enemy and he is us.”

The goal, of course, was to unite the denominations, not to create even more! The means of so doing was to eliminate unscriptural distinctions and unite solely on faith in Jesus –

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 thro’ 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.

It’s enough, Campbell wrote, if someone professes faith in Jesus and commits to obedience to him as Lord. Therefore –

That although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God — therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the churchs’s confession.

Campbell concludes that inferences may not be tests of fellowship. We may not consider an inference “binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection.” The reason is simple enough. An inference is a human work. Our salvation cannot depend on such things. Even though an inference, properly inferred, is a truth from God, we cannot judge one another based on how well they do logic –

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.

You know, it’s astonishing when we have preachers who work through elaborate syllogisms, showing great learning and education, to reach some inference or other — and then declare as damned those not blessed with their same level of learning.

It’s all the more astonishing when we discover how often these men, despite their intelligence and schooling, are wrong.

You see, all that’s really required for unity is a little humility.

Garrett’s first wish for the Churches of Christ is –

Let us recover our heritage as a unity people

The Restoration Movement was “born of a passion for unity, and unity has been its consuming theme,” as Robert Richardson puts it, and its mission was “to unite the Christians in all the sects.” …

Once we see ourselves as the unity people we are supposed to be, we will position ourselves to be a blessing , not only to ourselves but to the larger church as well.

Notice that Garrett urges us to do two things: be united among ourselves and to help bless the larger church with unity as well. And he’s right.

Our usual vision is just to get our own congregation to unite within itself! It’s hard enough to get a few hundred people to get along. How on earth do we get a few million to unite?

Well, we can’t. Only God can, but he gives us his Spirit for that very reason.

(Eph 4:3)  Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

We’ve preached the 7 ones of Eph 4:4-6 for nearly 200 years, but we almost always ignore the fact that unity is from the Spirit — not us. God gives unity. We need only accept it. 

To similar effect is –

(Rom 15:5-6)  May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul concluded his arguments in Romans by urging unity — from God. 

In short, we aren’t going to be united by means of ecumenical councils, white papers, and negotiations. We aren’t going to be united because some university hosts a unity conference. And we sure aren’t going to be united by all of us agreeing on every point of doctrine. These aren’t so much wrong as the wrong direction. Unity comes only by a change in our hearts. Unity comes from accepting the unity that God has already given us.

Here are the steps –

* Teach our more conservative brothers grace — in terms that speak to their legitimate concerns. Don’t condescend. Don’t skip steps. Patiently and lovingly explain why God’s grace does not violate their very proper concern for obedience and loyalty to the scriptures. This is the easy part.

The hard part is finding a platform that will allow us to be heard. Presently, there is virtually no means of communication between the progressives and conservatives.

* Teach all of us why baptism is not a barrier to fellowship, even though baptism of believers by immersion is the biblical teaching. This is surely the one biggest reason we so struggle to treat those outside the Restoration Movement as saved, and even the progressive movement struggles in this area. We need to sort out our theology in terms that are easy to teach and defensible to the strictest reading of the scriptures. I’ve tried my hand at it. We need more work in the area.

* Work for fully realized unity. I don’t have that much concern to “merge” with the Christian Churches, mainly because I’m afraid we’ll just take our sectarian attitudes and expand them by allowing for the salvation of only those within the Restoration Movement. That’s good. But it’s not good enough. We need to be thinking  much, much bigger.

Realized unity is both hard and easy. It’s easy in that most evangelical churches already consider most other evangelical churches saved regardless of denomination. Most would think much more broadly than that. They are already quite willing to consider us saved if we’ll just return the favor. In other words, just by changing our own attitudes, we can be immediately united with a very large part of Christendom. It’s that easy. 

On the other hand, Christendom continues to be denominational. So are we. And there are reasons for denominations, but they are quickly fading. The evangelical world is rapidly moving to a post-denominational age, with many mega-churches becoming virtual denominations unto themselves.

This leads to an important conversation that’s only just beginning. In light of the creation of so many truly non-denominational churches, and in light the increasing irrelevance of many of the doctrinal questions that once divided denominations from each other, what should come next? Do we devolve into autonomous churches with no denominational affiliation at all? Do we re-organize around really big churches? How will we cooperate to do things too big for one church to do? How will we coordinate missions? Hurricane relief? How will we plan to evangelize a city or a state?

My own thinking is simple but just a little radical. I think we should band together with other congregations in our home towns — cross-denominationally — for as many things as possible. I think churches should be closer to the churches in their towns than to churches in other towns that happen to share a name or a bit of history. After all, the best way to organize to help the poor or to convert the lost is at the community level.

There are, of course, difficulties with this approach, but I think this should be the vision of the Churches of Christ that we share with the other churches in our towns. Stone, the Campbells, Walter Scott, and the other early Restorers would be proud. You see, we’d simply be replicating much of the work of the old Mahoning Baptist Association that Alexander Campbell had his first congregation join — despite not being quite Baptist. This is the association of churches that sent Walter Scott out as the Movement’s first missionary. It’s a good model.

Several months ago, the Abilene Christian University bookstore found a stash of old inventory and put it on sale for next to nothing. I ordered one of everything, and to my delight, got Leroy Garrett’s autobiography, A Lover’s Quarrel, for 50 cents. What a bargain!

Many have likely never heard of Br. Garrett, but he is one of the founders of the progressive movement in the Churches of Christ. He was a change agent before there were change agents.

Many of his writings are now on the internet. His most significant book is The Stone-Campbell Movement, which is the most influential of all the Restoration Movement histories. If you haven’t read this book, find it and read it. 

The book is beautifully written and well-researched. It’s far more honest than most of its competitors, many of which are  highly biased. 

Garrett invented the term “Stone-Campbell Movement,” giving due credit to Barton W. Stone and the fact that many other American denominations consider themselves restoration movements.

But back to his autobiography. My favorite part is the story about Garrett being arrested on the orders of the leadership of Freed-Hardeman College just to keep him from talking to their students. 

Garrett and Carl Ketcherside started what is now sometimes called the progressive movement. All they did was teach the scriptures on unity and grace — and they were branded liberals, heretics, and apostates for their trouble.  We owe much to these men.

Anyway, the autobiography ends with an appendix called “What I Want for Churches of Christ,” and there he makes several pleas for our future. And these pleas are well worthy our attention. We’ll take them up in the next several posts.

Look what I found! A tasered redneck! At a truck stop no less!

Via TheTrucker.com

Lovers’ quarrel leads to taser treatment at truck stop

[snip]

…43-year-old Christopher Reich then locked himself in his cab and threatened to harm himself with a knife. He also covered himself in lighter fluid. Deputies said they tried to talk him out of the truck, but that he continued to taunt them.

The dispute ended when the Reich leaned out the window, and a deputy hit him with a stun gun. No charges have been filed in the incident yet.

Is that anything like The Bartender Song by Rehab?

I decided to tell Miel how I feel whenever I don’t get his full attention. (see previous post) I was hesitant at first so I assessed what I was really feeling at the time jealousy hit me. I wasn’t really jealous of his previous relationships. I wasn’t really jealous whenever he talks with someone. I wasn’t really jealous of his female friends. I realized, I just wanted his full attention. I realized that I don’t want to feel out of place.

I sent him a text message. It could make or break his day.

Me: Honey, I have something to tell you but I’m not sure how you will react. This is my first time to tell a boyfriend how I feel about something.

He: Okay, tell me.

Me: Honey, it annoys me and sometimes, hurts me whenever I don’t get your full attention. I feel out of place whenever you talk with acquaintances and I’m left in the background.

He: Actually, I feel the same way, too. Now that I know that we both feel the same, I won’t do it anymore. I’m yours exclusively, honey.

Me: You’re not mad? Why are you not mad?

He: It’s better if we tell each other how we feel no matter how good or bad.

Me: I’m not used to it. The last relationship did not allow me to express.

He: I love you, honey. I’m a gentleman. I won’t be dishonest to you.

Me: Thank you, honey.

He: For what?

Me: For loving me.

He: I love you so much.

Me: I so love you, too!

Happy ending. =)