Time for the Separation of the Restoration Movement and Standard Publishing

I have tried to ignore the state of the Brotherhood lately but a recent trip to ChristianChurchToday.com got me think about it again.

Depressing.

The 9/13/2009 issue of the Christian Standard which was all about research got me thinking. Now I am not opposed to research and making use of what the social sciences can teach us. I just want to be Bible driven not research driven.

Then, I got thinking about Standard Publishing. I went to see what they say about themselves and what the Christian Standard says about itself. I don’t subscribe to it or go to a church that gives it out free so I couldn’t look at an issue.

I could find nothing about the Restoration Movement or even the Stone-Campbell Movement in the pages that described Standard Publishing. There is a list of Core Values that reads like a generic evangelical creed.
What you do find is a lot of talk about the the corporation and it products and marketing plan.

I couldn’t find anything on the Christian Standard’s website.

This got me thinking. They used to exist to promote NT Christianity. Now they exist to make a profit. Nothing wrong with making a profit. I am a capitalist.

However, I have a problem with the driving force in the Brotherhood being a profit driven corporation.

It is time for a separation between Brotherhood and profit. Can a entity really promote the Restoration Movement and profit at the same time? I think not. Profit will drive it to become more generic in order to increase the customer base.

Check out Standard Publishing president’s blog and tell me that profit is not king. You can’t serve God and Mammon.

More on this later.

Making Comments

It has been pointed out to me that people who want to make comments have had to give a name and email address.  I was not aware that this was necessary.  I have changed that setting.  At least I think I have as I ma not that savvy at such things.  People can now comment anonymously.  I have no problem with that.  It is the thoughts that are important.  Of course, good behavior is required.  I have been busy for the last couple of weeks so I have some catching up to do here.

Further Thoughts on the NACC

Immediately after the NACC I was somewhat positive about it. However, after reading what others have written, talking with a few people and some more reflection I am somewhat less positive about it.

Was it a move in the right direction or simple a slowing of the drift? A move in the right direction would mean that the convention truly wants to once again be an advocate of Restoration Movement principles. A slowing of the drift simply means that there was a realization that the NACC was moving toward becoming just a generic evangelical gathering too quickly and thus loosing too many people. The change had to be slowed down in order to keep enough attendees and support to be viable. Of course, a slowing of the drift is better than nothing but let’s not think the direction has changed because they have let up on the gas pedal.

It is actually more complicated than this but in the political world, we have liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Again brushing with broad strokes, the liberals are actually socialists and the conservatives are capitalists. The moderates don’t know what they are or simply can’t make up their mind. However, what they usually end up being is slow moving socialists. When it gets right down to it they don’t disagree with the direction of the liberals just the speed at which they travel. With the moderates you end up at the same place as the liberals it just takes longer to get there. Often times because they are trying to slow the liberals down they get lumped together with the conservatives but they really aren’t.

Back to the NACC. The moderates have slowed things down at the NACC. Gone are some of the liberal aspects of the past few conventions and not in attendance were those advocating them. However, gone are many of conservatives as well. What is left are the moderates. They have slowed things down so it looks like a conservative turn has been taken but I don’t think it really has. It is just time to lay low. Build the convention back up and then a couple years the liberals and more liberal leaning moderates will reappear and push it convention completely into the generic evangelical column.

Liberals never give up. They don’t in politics or in the church. They keep coming back again and again until they get what they want. They may suffer a set back now and then but they just regroup and come back again. It takes a strong resolve on the part of conservative to stop them. But after a while conservatives get tired and just quit. Rather than fight for institutions they let them go and just take care of themselves. Give up on the NACC and just go to family camps etc. Well, that is what I see in my “crystal ball” after a little more reflection on the Cincinnati NACC.

The transformation will be slowed down but the trend is there among the movers and shakers so it will continue. Of course, many will say what is wrong with the transformation? Nothing if you don’t think there is much of a NT pattern to restore and maintain which is what most of the movers and shakers think. But if you think there is something of NT pattern to restored and maintain then you cannot but be saddened that the most important institution, and we could expand that to institutions, that were established to restore and maintain that pattern are drifting away from doing that. Of course that does not have to happen. But I don’t know where any meaningful resistance is going to come from. Do you?

Go to the NACC and vote “No.”

It is good to see new posts on the “The Discipler” blog. In a recent post, “The NACC and Me” (http://thediscipler.blogspot.com/2008/06/nacc-and-me.html) the author shares something worth considering especially for those of you who have stopped attending the NACC because you are dissatisfied with it. He says, “I always vote “no” for the slate of officers even though my voice is never heard when the vote is taken.” He is referring to the fact that each year at one of the main sessions, it has been awhile so I can’t remember which, there is a voice vote taken of those in attendance for the new continuation committee members. And, even though we know little about them, we vote “yes.” Although I never heard a “no” vote apparently there is one who always votes “no.” My guess is that his vote is not about the particular people who are being voted on but as a way to express disapproval for the general direction of the NACC.

Well, reading what he wrote got me thinking. How many people are there out there who would like to express their disapproval but have never known how to do it? What would happen if there were enough “no” votes to be heard? What if there were more “no” votes than the “yes” or least close enough to require a revote? Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?

Those of you who are planning on attending should give it some thought. Maybe voting “no” and doing it loud enough to be heard might be the start of building the momentum for change. And if you have given up on the NACC and weren’t planning on going this year, maybe you should go one more time. Before completely giving up on the NACC, make one more effort to change its directions. Go and vote “no.” Although some may feel they have tried to change the NACC before abandoning it, I don’t think enough of a broad based effort to change the NACC has yet been made, at least not enough of one for there to be a complete abandonment of the NACC. How about one more try to change the NACC? Let’s all go to Cincinnati and let’s vote “no.” After reading the “The Discipler” I think that is what I will do.

Evidence of the Shift on Baptism #5

Evidence of the shift is seen in the churches and organization which are promoted in our Brotherhood by the influential organizations. The www.ChristianChurchToday.com (CCT) website is one such influential organization. Recently an article entitled, “Church planting, Oui!” was featured. It can be found here: http://www.christianchurchtoday.com/articles/articles.asp?id=4904

The article points out that “Churches like One Life Christian Church are working with Christian Associates International to develop high-impact churches and church leaders throughout Europe–an area with rich spiritual heritage but growing numbers of unchurched, unbelieving people.” In posting this article, CCT promotes both One Life Christian Church and Christian Associates International.

In the past we could assume that both the church and organization held to the Biblical view on baptism because they are being promoted by a prominent Brotherhood organization. However, because there is a shift on baptism we can no longer be sure of that. Thus, let’s look and see. Here is what we learn about the church and Christian Associates International by following the hyperlinks in the article.

First, Christian Associates International.

Their doctrinal beliefs can be found on a page entitled “Faith.” http://www.christianassociates.org/?p=27

Under “God’s Plan to Save Man” they say this, “God regenerates those who repent of their sins and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, declares them righteous, forgives them of their sins, adopts them as His children, baptizes them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their future resurrection and inheritance with Christ, incorporates them into His Body and empowers them for His service.” We can applaud their inclusion of repentance and confession but notice that baptism is missing and thus not deemed necessary for forgiveness.

Under “The Church” they say this, “The Lord Jesus Christ committed two ordinances to the church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We respect the variations of practice of these ordinances and affirm the unity of Christ’s Body.”

What can we conclude? Christian Associates International does not believe that baptism is a condition of salvation nor do they believe that either the mode of or candidate for baptism is important enough to take a position on. The promotion of such an organization would be evidence of a shift on baptism. CCT does that.

Second, One Life Christian Church.

Their doctrinal beliefs can be found on a page entitled “What We Believe.” http://www.christianassociates.org/?p=27

Under “In Salvation by Faith Alone” they write this, “We believe that men and women can be saved from the consequences of sin, which is eternal death; by the grace of God through his or her faith in Jesus Christ, and in their repentance of sin. We are justified through Christ’s death on the cross, His burial, and resurrection.” Although we cannot conclude that they don’t hold the Biblical position on baptism, they fail to mention it under salvation and use a code word “Faith Alone” which is often used to exclude baptism. For a Christian church/church of Christ to fail to mention baptism when the plan of salvation is discussed is a shift on baptism. CCT promotes such a church.

Under “In Baptism” they write this, “We believe in Baptism by immersion. One models his or her faith in Christ by being baptized. Immersion is a picture of death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as well as a picture of the new birth that one has experienced. We believe baptism serves as a demonstration of our living faith in Christ.” Baptism is described as “a picture of the new birth that one has experienced.” In other words, one experiences new birth prior to baptism and then what has already happened is pictured in baptism. Thus, baptism is not a condition of forgiveness or the new birth but a picture of the fact that those have already taken place. This is not the Biblical position that has been held by our Brotherhood. It is a shift on the doctrine of baptism. I think the working together of a Christian church/church of Christ with a organization that does not take the Biblical view of the purpose, candidate, and mode of baptism is a shift but since the church has made a shift that would not be surprising.

However, the biggest evidence of the shift is that the church and organization are promoted by an influential Brotherhood organization. In a sense, CCT is saying that these issues no longer matter so we can promote those entities that do not hold to the Biblical doctrine. That is not only a shift but is a form of advocating a Brotherhood wide shift.

I find it interesting that note that One Life Christian Church is a daughter church of Adventure Christian Church a church a noted for making a “Good Faith Effort on Baptism.” One Life was planted by Stadia, one of the sponsors of CCT, in 2002.

I do not doubt the dedication or sincerity of anyone I have mentioned. It just needs to be said that there is a shift on baptism and here is evidence of it.

Good Faith Effort on Baptism #1

I am going to highlight some churches that seem to be making a “good faith effort on baptism.” By that I mean they are trying to be faithful to the Bible but also present the Bible’s teaching on baptism in fresh way. There are some churches that present the Biblical position in a straight forward traditional way. That is fine but there is not a need to highlight them.

By mentioning them, I am not endorsing what they say just wanting to draw your attention to them. I will mention some things I think are good and something I think are not good about them. The point is not to criticize them but help us all to better understand how to present the Bible’s teaching on baptism in faithful by fresh ways by looking at how some are doing it.

Please let me know of churches that you think are trying to that whether you think they are doing a good job of it or not.

Here is the first example I want to share of a church making a “good faith effort on baptism.” It is Adventure Christian Church in Roseville, CA. Rick Stedman is the senior minister. The church’s “What We Believe” page is not very detailed but I want to point you to two sermons Stedman recently preached on baptism. I think they are “good faith efforts.” Here is how you can listen to them and download the notes for them.

Go to the church’s website which is http://www.adventurechristian.org/

Click “Resources” on the left hand side. Click “Audio Sermons.” Then click on these two sermons:

2008.03.09.mp3 The Believer and Baptism: Who should be baptized?

2008.03.02.mp3 The Beauty of Baptism: Why is Baptism Important?

For the notes on the “Resources” page click “Sermon Notes.” Then click on these two files:

2008.03.09.pdf Rick Stedman The Believer and Baptism: Who Should Be Baptized?

2008.03.02.pdf Rick Stedman The Beauty of Baptism: Why is Baptism Important?

I am not going to do a critique of the sermons other than to say that he doesn’t say everything exactly the way I would but sometimes he says it better. He is trying to be faithful to the Bible and does a good job while still presenting it in a fresh way. I benefited by listen to his sermons and will do a better job of teaching on baptism because of it.

Evidence of the Shift on Baptism #4

Overlake Christian Church (http://www.occ.org/index.asp) has a great history of reaching out to the lost in the state of Washington. It started as a Restoration Movement church and was listed as one of the Brotherhood’s megachurches in a recent issue of the Christian Standard. It is interesting to read what Overlake says about salvation and baptism on their Vision and Beliefs page of their website. http://www.occ.org/about/believe.asp

“Salvation is a free gift, bestowed by God’s grace and received by faith Ephesians 2:8-9. Immersion in water of a professed believer is the Bible baptism Acts 8:36-39 and such baptism is symbolic of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection Romans 6:1-4. A believer’s salvation is secured by Christ alone John 10:27-28”

Is this the position of the RM on baptism? Or even more importantly is the Bible’s position?

While some in the Brotherhood might say that this statement is neither Biblical nor consistent with the RM. Others will say, “That is a fine statement. There is nothing wrong with it. Quit nitpicking. They say baptism is important.” When asked why the statement lacks any reference to baptism for the remission of sins one will be told that “Just because they don’t say it doesn’t mean they don’t believe it.” The who raises the question will be told that they are just on a witch hunt and that lots of church leave such things vague in their public statements but in reality teach baptism is for the remission of sin.

How do we know who is right? The one who questions the statement or the one who defends it?

Unlike most church that make similar vague statements Overlake has additional information about baptism on their website. On another page entitle “Baptism” http://www.occ.org/resources/christianfaith/baptism2.asp we find this:

“What Is Christian Baptism?
Christian baptism is immersion in water as a public statement of one’s new identity in Christ, having received Him by faith as Savior and Lord. Baptism does not save a person. Rather, baptism is the first act of obedience for one who has been saved. The model given to us in the Bible is that baptism immediately follows conversion.”

Regardless of what one wanted or hoped the words in the Belief statement to mean, the Baptism page makes it clear that in Overlake’s understanding baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins. As such it is not what a sinner does moving toward salvation but what a saved person does move forward after salvation. This is neither the Bible’s nor the Restoration Movement’s position on baptism. It is clear evidence of a shift on baptism.

However, once again we should see evidence of the shift not just in a former RM church changing its position on baptism but in the Brotherhoods’s response to a church that takes a non-Biblical and no-Restoration Movement position on baptism. The response? No response. The change is fine. The church is treated as if it holds the Biblical position on baptism. It continues to be listed as a Brotherhood church. What does that mean? It means it is okay to take a position on baptism that is contrary to Scriptures. That is a major shift on baptism.

In the 1920s the shift on baptism by some that was expressed in Open Membership and led to a parting of ways among the Disciples of Christ and the independent Christian churches. The leaders of that day would not stand for a shift on baptism. Today’s leaders are different. Rather than challenging the shift they give it the stamp of approval by continuing to list the churches that have shift as “one of ours.”

Most churches in the Brotherhood that have made a shift on baptism are not as open about it as Overlake. I appreciate Overlake’s honesty. If only more churches were as honest.

Evidence of the Shift on Baptism #3

The phenomenal growth of Real Life Ministries in Idaho caught my eye years ago. I was always curious as to what was behind their success. Jim Putnam the minister who started the church spoke at the 2007 NACC so I was eager to hear him. As best I can recall it was a good sermon. It didn’t answer my questions about the church’s success but it did further increase my interest. Thus, when Jim wrote a book, I bought it hoping to learn more. I don’t know that there is anything revolutionary in it but it is a good book mixing Real Life’s story with their philosophy and practices. I am glad I bought it.

I am posting about it because in the book there is a brief discussion of baptism. You were waiting for that weren’t you? This brief section does two things. It gives evidence to the shift on baptism and how the new Christian Church Movement thinks about baptism. From what I heard and read I like Jim. He is a no nonsense guy who does not seem to be into church fads. However, that does not change the fact that his writing gives evidence to the shift and change in our Brotherhood.

Here is the quote from Church Is a Tem Sport by Jim Putman pages 195-197;

“Avoiding Nonessential Divisive Theology

Let me give you an example of how theology can be divisive. The Scriptures tell us that we are to be baptized. Often the debate has not been about doing it, but why you must do it. The Church of Christ emphasizes Acts 2:38. They tell us that baptism is for the remission of sins, so you will receive the gift of the Spirit. They teach that baptism is essential for salvation since you receive the Spirit afterward, and you receive forgiveness through it. Baptists would say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. Salvation comes by grace through faith and faith only. You are baptized to become part of the body of Christ: the church. It is an absolute command that is to be obeyed, but not for salvation. I am not here to argue any particular side, though I have my opinions. All the sides believe you must be baptized in water. They agree disciples must baptize because they have been sent by Jesus to do so. However, they disagree on the reasons for and, in some cases, the mode of baptism. Countless fights have taken place over this issue throughout the centuries—usually because someone attached salvation to the discussion. In other words, a teacher claimed that if you do not agree with me you are lost.

Unfortunately, in many cases, Christians fight each other rather than the enemy. Meanwhile, our unsaved neighbors are hurting. They are dying unsaved because we are more consumed with arguing with each other than sharing our faith with them. We fight. They watch. We lose. They lose more.

Uncluttered Christianity says that we do what the Bible says to do, the way the Bible shows us to do it. Yes, in our church we baptize by immersion because we believe that the Scriptures tell us to do so. To baptize means to immerse. That is the definition in the Greek, and was the method of the first church. The disciples did it. All the early fathers did it. The Reformers taught that we should do it. The battle over why is answered simply: because the Bible says so. Quit arguing! Zip it! And just do it! Let’s get on the same team, give the same message and work together to get some work done for the kingdom!

The goal of our church is to reach the lost with the saving mes­sage of Jesus. How can we be a team if we don’t give the same message? We share as a body that we are saved by grace, through faith. Faith leads to repentance and confession, baptism, and a life lived for Jesus.

One team, one message, glorifying God by doing what He says … together.

There are many issues we can highlight that fit into the same discussion: eternal security, eschatology, the gifts of the Spirit, and more. Can you be saved, no matter what side of the debate you take on these issues? If the answer is yes, let’s concentrate on things we can agree on and get the work of the church done.”

I accept Jim as my brother in Christ. He may not accept me, but I accept him. This is not about whether he saved or not, a devoted Christian or not.

This shows the shift on baptism. Note the following.

The teaching and practicing of the Biblical purpose of baptism is not important. To do so would be divisive. Rather than the goal being to restore the New Testament’s understanding and practice, the goal is to reach lost people. Total accuracy is sacrificed for effectiveness. We can all agree that minor issues can be ignored to do this but it is a shift to make the purpose of baptism a minor issue. I don’t understand why, if they can make the meaning of baptism a minor issue, they can’t make the mode of baptism a minor issue. How can they be so dogmatic about the mode and not the meaning? Does the Bible speak any less clearly about the meaning than the mode? There are Presbyterian scholars who would argue that sprinkling is the preferred mode or at least an equally valid mode. Is the mode essential to salvation? If not, why make that a non-negotiable? If one takes this approach there is no consistent reason not to accept all modes of baptism for the sake of unity and increased evangelistic effectiveness. It is a shift on baptism not to see teaching and practicing of baptism for the forgiveness of sins to be essential to the restoration of NT Christianity. Here is an important point. The fact that many in the Brotherhood include Jim as “one of us” is further evidence of the shift on baptism. They have decided that simply being born into the RM is enough and holding the Biblical and RM position on baptism is not required to be “one of us.”. They have decided that it is not necessary to hold the Biblical position on baptism to be a main speaker at the NACC as Jim was in 2007. You may agree with that position and you have a right to do so. But please have the integrity to admit that it is a shift. Argue for the validity of the shift rather than pretend it has not and is not taking place.

Jim’s quote also shows the nature of the Christian Church Movement as opposed to the Restoration Movement. Note the following.

I don’t know if Jim considers that he is part of the Brotherhood or Restoration Movement. I really don’t think Jim would identify himself or his church as “one of us.” I don’t recall anything in the book or anything on his church’s website that would indicate that he does. I think Jim is simply an evangelical that grew up in a Restoration Movement church and environment so he has lots of contacts with the Brotherhood. The result is that we “claim” him more than the he claims us. I don’t think Jim perceives himself to be part of the old Restoration Movement or the New Christian Church Movement. He is an independent Evangelical and so is his church. However, the fact that he is claimed by some of us reveals the nature of the Christian Church Movement. Jim’s church is what the CCM holds up as a model. Church growth is a higher value than the restoration of NT Christianity. Some issues previous thought essential to restoring NT Christianity are no longer essential. Surprising immersion is still essential to NT Christianity but baptizing for the remission of sin is not. I will explain why in another post. The Christian Church Movement sees itself as an evangelical movement with four distinctives that set it apart as a sub-set of evangelicalism; distinctive characteristics that it has that some but not evangelicals have.

1. Doctrinal minimalism. Doctrine is divisive so determine the bare minimum needed and do not emphasize it beyond that. Complete faithfulness to Scripture as in the old RM is not as important as increasing market share.
2. Baptism by immersion. Most of the evangelical church shoppers who are potential customers think immersion is important so we will keep that. Watch for this to jettisoned as soon as there is a sufficient shift in the market preference.
3. Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. This will go first and already is. It takes too much time in the service.
4. Local autonomy. I think this will stay.

Let me try to wrap this point up. The old RM would draw a line and someone who did not embrace baptism for the remission of sin would not be seen as “one of us.” However, the new Christian Church Movement mindset is in control and anyone or anything with a connection to us is one of us. Thus, a church that rejects the Bible’s teaching on baptism can be listed as “one of our” largest churches.

Let me again make this finally point. I do not question Jim’s salvation or devotion to the Lord. From what I can tell he has started a good church. I don’t know if he started the church think it would be part of the Brotherhood, I actually doubt it. In fact, he may have already adopted his current beliefs about baptism before starting the church. In the end this post less about him and the his church than what is says about our Brotherhood, its leaders, and direction that they include Jim and Real Life Ministries as “one of us.”

Evidence of the Shift on Baptism #2

In 2002 the Orchard Group (formerly “Go Ye” Chapel Mission) helped plant a Southern Baptist Church in New York City. They did this by providing funding for an intern and a staff member. The church, Mosaic Manhattan, does not hold the biblical view of baptism as a condition for salvation. Here is what their website says: “Eternal life begins the moment we invite Jesus Christ to forgive our sin and lead our life.” There is no reference to baptism in salvation section. Here is what they say about baptism “Baptism is a Christian’s public identification with Christ and His church, a physical symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our participation in them.” That is a typical statement by a Baptist church that does not connect baptism with salvation but with obedience that follows salvation. They see it as something done by a Christian to identify with Christ publicly not something done by a sinner to become a Christian. That is the 10% we see. Let’s see if we can find the 90% that is below the surface.

The partial funding of this Baptist church plant by a Brotherhood organization shows that the organization believes that the Baptist view of baptism is just as legitimate as the biblical (RM) view of baptism or at least the difference is not significant enough to make any meaningful distinction. Surely they would not fund a position that they don’t think is a legitimate biblical position especially when it contradicts a defining doctrine of our Brotherhood. This would seem to be true not only of those that made the decision at the Orchard Group but those Brotherhood churches that funded the people on staff. Funding for the additional people on the staff came in part from the largest church in our Brotherhood. Apparently, they feel that the Baptist position is just as legitimate as the Biblical (RM) position as demonstrated by partially funding the project. Justification was made that they were just funding an intern so he could learn from the experience but further examination shows the involvement was much deeper than that.

The leader (director) of the Orchard Group is also an editor of the CS, the most influential publication in the Brotherhood. Thus, we have one of, if not the. most influential people in our Brotherhood who also leads another major Brotherhood organization, using Brotherhood funds, and Brotherhood staff to start a church that contradicts defining doctrines of our Brotherhood, baptism for the remission of sins and weekly communion. The acceptance of these positions as legitimate options is further seem by the editor/director being a guest speaker and teacher at the Southern Baptist church plant. Funding the additional staff person also shows the involvement was deeper than just an intern.

Initially, the Orchard Group presented the church plant as their church plant. In their early publications reporting on it there was no mention of the Southern Baptist connection. Only later when they were challenged by the Restoration Herald about planting a “faith only” church did they begin to say it wasn’t really one of their church plants but they were just funding an intern there. Although the later story is perhaps more accurate, it understated the level of Orchard Group involvement. The way the story unfolded made the Orchard Group appear to be deceptive.

Let me now discuss the most important part of this whole story.

When the Restoration Herald brought this to light what was the result? Nothing. There may have been unseen consequence but nothing public. It should also be noted that events like this and the lack of meaning response to them is why many are withdrawing from events like the NACC and dropping their subscription to the CS. The latter is what I did.

Since key brotherhood leaders and institutions help plant a church that contradicts defining Brotherhood doctrines and practices without there being in meaningful consequence, our new understanding of baptism as been defined by default. It is now acceptable in the Restoration Movement to see baptism as an act of obedience for the believer. This is a very important point so let me say it again. If brotherhood leaders and institutions are able to plant churches that hold a view of baptism that is at odds with our view of baptism then it become acceptable to hold that new view of baptism. The failure of the Brotherhood to exercise discipline on this occasions makes the new view acceptable. The failure of the movers and shakers to correct the act is a de facto support of it. It redefined our doctrine of baptism and changed the Restoration Movement into the Christian Church Movement. Thus, those that want to continue the old Restoration Movement are forced to withdraw weakening the resistance to the shift. Once the boundaries and definitions were changed by the lack of response it made it possible for them to be further moved. I will post about that later.

Here is a very important point. The shift is reveal not only by the actions of the Orchard Group but more importantly by the response in the Brotherhood. The Orchard Groups actions revealed the shift and tested it. The failure of the Brotherhood to correct those actions legitimized them and reinforced the shift making it possible for the shift to continue and accelerate. A shift has taken place. Those with eyes can see it.

 Update:  I am adding a link to the 2004 Editorial in the Restoration Herald that deals with this.  It is in July and is titled “An Open Letter . . .”

http://www.thecra.org/2004%20Editorials.htm

Evidence of the Shift on Baptism #1

There has been a shift in our Brotherhood concerning the doctrine of baptism.  In the past we taught that baptism was a condition for salvation.  Now many are teaching that it is an act of obedience that follows baptism.  The evidence of the shift in the Brotherhood on baptism is so obvious to me that I find it hard to believe others cannot see it.  But there are people of good will who don’t so I will try to document it for them.

 

These kind people of good will that I am talking about see some evidence of the shift but they think that all they see is all there is and often think that what they see is magnified beyond what is really there.  They may be well meaning but they are looking away from rather than at the evidence.  They are missing the iceberg principle.  Although you only see 10% of the iceberg, you know there is 90% more below the water. It is hard to get a handle on the depth of the shift because people and churches are hiding it by not talking about it or speaking about in vague or deceptive terms. Also, one may not run in the right circles to see it. And, very importantly, no one is stepping up to the plate to point it out. I will try to do that but must admit I am apprehensive about doing so.  It is not a pleasant thing to do even if one thinks it is necessary.  I will start but only continue as the Lord enables me.

 

Here is my first example of the shift on baptism. I initially post it on a thread at www.christianchurchtoday.com and repeat it here only to have all the examples together.  The rest of the examples I plan to only post here.

Roughly five years ago two ministers from our Brotherhood, Gene Appel and Mike Breaux, left us to be teaching pastors at Willow Creek Community Church. They were the senior ministers at two of our five largest churches and well thought of rising leaders in our Brotherhood.  The RM in North America has believed that baptism is a condition of salvation. However, here is a statement from Willow Creek’s website, “You do not have to be baptized to have Christ in your heart any more than you must exchange rings to be pronounced man and wife. But if the inner commitment to trust Christ alone for salvation has been made, then the outward symbol of Baptism should be as valued and as visible as the gold ring on a newlywed’s finger.” They went to a church that held a different doctrine of baptism. How do you have two of your top pastors change their opinion on a defining doctrine and it not be a widespread problem? If you see 10% there is 90% you don’t see.

Now according to Brother Appel this was not a change of doctrine for him. In a Christian Standard interview he said, “I have always believed that when a person sincerely comes to trust Jesus Christ as leader, forgiver and Savior, and repents, the first step of obedience is to be baptized into Christ. That is what I have always taught, believed, and practiced.” So for the 20 or so years he was a brotherhood preacher he taught that it was the first step of obedience for the saved person as opposed to the last act of obedience of an unsaved person. How does he get by with this if it is not a widespread belief, at least among the movers and shakers in the Brotherhood? Or perhaps it is because that belief has become just as acceptable as the usual RM belief? If you see 10% there is 90% you don’t see.

Even after departing the Brotherhood and embracing a different non-biblical teaching on baptism both Appel and Breaux spoke at the NACC. Appel in a morning main session and Breaux in youth sessions, I believe. I do not think a person who did not hold the biblical (Restoration Movement) position on baptism had ever been allowed to preach in a main session before. Appel and Breaux may have been invited before the change was made known, but the decision to go ahead and let them speak communicated that their new position was acceptable. It had to have been a decision not just by the president but by the Executive Committee and Board of Stewards. That is a pretty significant group in numbers and influence that supported the decision. That could not have happened unless for the 10% you see there is 90% you don’t’ see.

I guess the only way to know for sure how widespread the shift is is to do a survey but I don’t think that is necessary to see the shift and the speed it is picking up. I will give more examples later. However, I hope we can see the 10% and know there is another 90% with out running into it and sinking our ship. That is if we haven’t already done so.