A Letter to my Heritage (Pathways Project #2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Steven J. Brice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abilene Christian University

 

Readings in Christian Spirituality

 

Professor Jeff Childers

 

4/5/13

 

Dear African American Churches of Christ,

            I extend the warm peace and grace of God through Christ to you all. God has blessed us richly and continues to use us for His glory in this world. I praise God that God has and continues to use us for His glory through our efforts in sharing the gospel of Jesus. Our rich heritage has a reputation of being very diligent and passionate in sharing the good news to those who are not in a reconciled relationship with God.

            My beloved heritage, it was you who birthed me into my spiritual journey and it was you who raised me while on the journey. Thank you for teaching me about Jesus. Thank you for being a firm foundation. Thank you for the investment you have made in the lives of many young people like me. You have taught me to study Scripture and have integrity with it. You have taught me in many ways to trust God at any cost. You have taught me to be a defender of truth at any cost. Thank you so much for the foundation that you have laid for me to walk in.

Early Stage of my Journey

            Throughout my journey, I have been in awe of the pulpit icons within our heritage. I have been impressed with the great defenders of truth, as well as the astonishing expositors within our heritage. And since I strongly desire to be a preacher, I have always patterned myself after the great pulpit icons. I remember quite vividly, attending many debates and gospel/tent meetings which were focused on “exposing truth and error, “[1] while calling those who were in error to leave their denominations and to join the “one true church”[2]. As a result, I have witnessed many people come to Jesus in response to such strong passionate sermons focused on the one true church.

I remember a few years after I accepted the call to preach.  I attended an event where a popular evangelist was preaching at a well-known African American Church of Christ in Dallas. The preacher was well dressed, covered with jewelry, and had a smooth persona. He spoke with a deep bass voice, words of scripture, and persuasive rhetoric all flowing of his mouth with regard to the churches of Christ. After about an hour and a half of preaching, ten people responded to his invitation and committed their lives to Jesus in baptism.  By the end of the gospel meeting, a total of forty-six people all decided to be followers of Jesus.  As a young man, witnessing such moments deeply impressed me and created a passion which likewise called me to be a strong and persuasive defender of the one true church.

I enjoyed many such remarkable experiences during the early stages of my journey of faith and benefited by sitting at the feet of outstanding expository preachers in churches of Christ. Eventually, I too was baptized and raised in a congregation of the churches of Christ which was led by one of the leading expositors in our heritage. In fact, when I informed him that I wanted to become a preacher, he personally mentored me and introduced me to expository preaching.  Expository preaching, at the time, was thought to be radically different from the style of older preachers who were considered defenders of truth whose style was more topical.  Indeed, these differences—between expository and topical preaching—led to real tensions between stalwart “defenders of truth.”  I entered the fray by accepting expository preaching as the most honest and rigorous approach to Scripture. I still harbor this belief today.

Throughout the earlier parts of my journey, dear churches of Christ, I have observed you carefully. Like a child committed to her or his parents, I have entrusted you to rear me in the ways I should go.  I have watched how you chastised nonbelievers using our interpretative style to send them to hell. I have seen how you invested money, attention, and time into gospel meetings, lectureships, and Southwestern Christian College. I have appreciated how you went door knocking and asked people if they believed in the Bible, if they believed that Christ has built one church, and if they wanted to be added to the church. In these things I witnessed your heart to save people and your courageous defense of the truth.

I also observed how preachers in our heritage fought against one another over worship styles and personal morality. I read letters, unloving letters, written by Preachers and sealed with the closing “said in love”.  Dear Preachers, I even noticed how some of you marginalized preachers’ sins, but magnified other preachers’ sins.  You played the game of favoritism with one another.  You isolated those who did not agree with your beliefs.  Consequently, you encouraged our heritage to speak truth with aggressiveness, conning persuasion, but not primarily in love.  My beloved heritage, I watched you, and I imitated you in so many ways.

My Current Journey

            Beloved heritage, I am currently at Abilene Christian University. It too is closely connected to our broader heritage of the Churches of Christ.  To be sure, among the African American heritage, Abilene Christian University had a reputation for being racist (as witnessed in past events); however, today it has a new reputation. It is much more inclusive, but Abilene Christian University is also viewed as a liberal school which has left the faith by a great number of African American Ministers, leaders, and members.   For example, during a lectureship at Southwestern Christian College, I remember discussing with one of our “defenders of the faith” my desire to attend Pepperdine University to complete a Masters degree in religion.  This preacher informed me “to be very careful with schools like Pepperdine and Abilene Christian University – which have left the faith and whose teaching can persuade you to do the same. These schools have stolen some of our brightest young man, and since you are a bright young man with a promising future, I would hate to see you leave the faith.”[3] I informed him of my commitment to the faith. Subsequently, I decided to attend Abilene Christian University rather than Pepperdine University.

            It was the year 2011, when I enrolled as a full time student at Abilene Christian University to work on a Masters of Divinity in Missions. Knowing the reputation of this school as a result of my heritage, I was determined to protect my faith. I held strongly to this endeavor to guard my faith until receiving numerous lectures from various professors during orientation day. At a certain point, a professor said something profound which challenged me to remove the shield buffering my faith. The professor said, “this education will deconstruct you, but one of the benefits of this deconstruction is that it will humble you.”[4] Humility, in my opinion, was rarely taught within my heritage, and I desired to be humble. I wanted to stop acting and believing that I mastered the faith and I had it all together. I desired to grow, to learn more, and I wanted to be a student of the faith. I desired to expose faith to those outside my heritage. After all, if faith is to be proven true, it must be tested. 

            As I journeyed throughout seminary at Abilene Christian University, I have learned many things which were not taught in my heritage; and perhaps some of these things have been hidden or obfuscated from me by African American Church of Christ preachers.  Perhaps I am being to strong here; nevertheless, I will mention one or two things as examples.  First, as a result of my studies here at Abilene Christian, I realize that the core of Christianity is not focused or centered on ecclesiology (the church). The core of Christianity is the story of God’s love for humanity expressed in the redemptive work of Jesus. The story of Jesus Christ, which was forecasted in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the writings of the New Testament is the foundation of biblical faith.  In addition, human faith has God himself as the foundation. I have learned that the Bible is not God and God is not the Bible. The Bible shares glimpses of who God is and what He has done, and what He plans to do, but the Bible is not God.

            If the above notion proves to be true, then there are countless things which need to be evaluated within our heritage. Still, in order to remain focused on the theme of this letter, I will only discuss the core of Christianity and elaborate how this core identifies us as the church.  In fact what is this core?  I believe the core of Christianity is the story of God loving sinners to the point that God sacrificed His position in Heaven to dwell among us in a fallen world in order to restore us back to Him. This is the gospel my beloved heritage. This is the gospel we should preach!

Our Reality

            As I continue to remove the shield that protects my faith during my experience in the seminary and the world, I am beginning to see the many cultural shifts that are transpiring. The modern world is rapidly moving away from God. It is changing. Church and tradition are not as important in a postmodern world.  Indeed, why are we still attending expensive lectureships, flashing our cufflinks and preaching hell-fire and brimstone sermons while the worldly is ignoring us? Why are we still fighting over worship preferences when the people in our pews are dealing with some deep existential crises? Have we forgotten that to be like Jesus means to walk the streets of ghettos? Have we forgotten that Jesus led His disciples to the despised and rejected rather than to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Are we not more like the Pharisees who viewed themselves as religious icons while acting hypocritically? Are we more like the Pharisees and Sadducees who spent most of their time in the temple arguing about doctrinal differences while lepers, homeless people, and others outside the temple were living hopeless lives? Does this sound more like us today?  Preachers in fact waste too much time at lectureships, conferences, preachers meetings wrangling over issues of church polity and finances while the marginalized people of today are despised and rejected and living in a world of hopelessness? When will the messiness and authenticity of the gospel become a reality within our churches?

            Will we wake up and realize that the reason why the world has turned their backs on God is not simply because of sin, but also because of our hypocrisy? When will we realize that we were called to be light and salt of the earth? When will we realize that God is not primarily concerned with what we do on Sundays than what we do for those who are living hopelessly in the world? For instance, when discussing the judgment of Sheep and the Goats in the NT, notice what is stated about those who did not participate in providing hope, love, and care to those who are lost in the world,

“Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’  Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[5]

Dear brothers, I am a firm believer (and I am sure you are as well) that Jesus meant every word he mentioned in the passage above and the broader text. Jesus was serious about this just like he was serious at the end of the book of Matthew when he told his disciples to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.[6] Will we take Jesus as seriously as we take Peter when he told the mass audience to repent and be baptized?[7] Will we take Jesus as seriously as we do when we discuss how he will build his church?[8]

An Example of Christ

                Once in the life of Christ, Jesus and John had a dialogue. It went like this,

“John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.  For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”[9]

While this text has been refuted and redefine by some to argue against those who are not a part of the Churches of Christ are not with us and/or are not Christians, it is clear that Jesus is concerned about people who carry the name of Christ (whether in the churches of Christ or not) are doing good deeds. While the immediate context is referring to casting out demons, Jesus gives us a practical example and application by stating, “Whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”[10]

Mother Teresa is a prime example of someone who does not have a Church of Christ heritage, but who has been a light of world to many who have lived in darkness. In her earlier years, Mother Teresa served as a teacher at the Loreto school in Entally, eastern Calcutta. She served this school for nearly twenty years. Although she was satisfied with her career at the time, she was highly disturbed by the growing poverty within her purview. She is believed that she received a call to leave the school and to serve Jesus among the poor. She writes,

“It was a vacation to give up even Loreto where I was very happy and to go out in the streets to serve the poorest of the poor. It was in that train, I heard the call to give up all and follow Him into the slums – to serve Him in the poorest of the poor … I knew it was His will and that I had to follow Him. There was no doubt that it was going to be His work.”[11]

Who reflect the story of the gospel more closely? Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to the poor or Christians or those who define Christianity as an event that all “faithful” Christians attend on Sundays? For her every human being carries the image of God. God can be seen within every individual. Therefore, not only do we, as Mother Teresa has done, carry the light of Christ to people, we, like Mother Teresa encounter Christ in the messiness of people’s lives. Kolodiejchuk writes, “not only did Mother Teresa bring the light of Christ to the poorest of the poor; she also met Christ in each one of them. Jesus chose to identify Himself with the poor and with all those who suffer…”[12] What kind of people did Christ identify Himself with? Who do we identify ourselves with in comparison? Are we a people accused of being among the poor, the rejected, and marginalized? Or are we people who are accused of being among people who think like us? Was Jesus not accused of eating with sinners? When was the last time we were accused of eating with outcasts?

A Call to Repentance & Restoration

            Therefore my beloved heritage, I am calling you to repentance. I am calling you to turn away from the contribution we have made in defining Christianity as merely an event that people attend on Sundays. If Jesus’ life and ministry has its locus among the poor and the oppressed, then the heartbeat of our life should reflect Jesus’ ministry. When people were looking for Jesus, they didn’t contact Jesus’ secretary to schedule an appointment. Jesus was found in the streets of the poor, oppressed, and rejected. When people are looking for us, will they find us in a nice looking building or will they find us in the streets like Jesus?

            I am calling my beloved heritage to be restored back to authentic Christianity, to be a community of believers who are called family, exercise filial responsibility. The greatest calling that Disciples of Christ are called to is love. It is by our love that the world will know we belong to Jesus.[13] We are called, my beloved heritage, to be salt and light to those who are suffering within hopeless situations. We possess the hope that is within Jesus; therefore, let us exercise the hope we cherish. Will we be like Mother Teresa, who “grasped the depth of Jesus’ identification with each sufferer and understood the mystical connection between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of the poor? Will we embrace her humble service and endeavor to ‘bring souls to God – and God to souls.’”[14]

Conclusion

            I am fully aware my beloved family members within the churches of Christ can read this letter and criticize the core of Christianity to which I hold firmly. I acknowledge those unsaid things, positives and negatives, which should be said. I am mindful of the things I have mentioned within this letter and the possible errors within my belief.  I welcome dialogue, corrections, and instructions. Such healthy, respectful, and loving conversation can be illustrative and expose the things we are ignorant about.  However, the purpose of this letter is to awaken us to the realities of God, Christianity, and this world. It is my intention to generate healthy dialogue which will challenge us to re-imagine the church in a postmodern society.  Therefore, my beloved heritage, let us all be humble, pray, discuss, and grow.

Reflections from Practitioners

            I have decided to share this letter with a couple of practitioners within the African American community of the churches of Christ. Stanley Talbert is a native of Mount Pleasant, Texas who is a graduate of Southwestern Christian College, Pepperdine University, and currently a student at Union Theological Seminary working on a Masters of Divinity in Systematic Theology. He is currently an assistant minister at the Kings Church of Christ in Brooklyn, New York. Dr. Jerry Taylor is a graduate of Southwestern Christian College (B.S), and Southern Methodist University (M.Div&D.Min). He is a professor at Abilene Christian University. Dr. Raymond Carr is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University (B.A, M.S) Pepperdine University (M.Div), and Graduate Theological Union (Ph.D Systematic and Philosophical Theology). He is currently a professor at Pepperdine University.

Stanley Talbert Reflections

            After reading the letter addressed to African American Churches of Christ by Steven Brice, Brice has offered some compelling challenges that will be beneficial for some of those churches.  While much appreciation can and should be shown to Brice for his diligence to carry out the mission of God as God’s prophet and God’s man, there are some areas in which I will challenge my brother, Steven Brice.

            First, Brice’s usage of his personal narrative is a great place to begin this letter.  He shows that he was birthed and taught in the African American Churches of Christ.  Not only was he birthed and taught in the African American Churches of Christ, but also that is where he began to preach the Gospel of Christ.  Furthermore, Brice shows that it is within the African American tradition of the Churches of Christ that he learned about expository preaching, and he notes that he is still an expository preacher.  Steven Brice first honors the tradition that he came out of.

            While Brice honors tradition, he has a prophetic word for the same tradition that birthed him.  He calls this church to repentance, to adhere to the gospel that is Christocentric instead of a gospel that is primarily bound in ecclesiology.  Brice is tired of the hypocrisy that is embedded in the life of the African-American Churches of Christ and he wants to see that changed.

            Although I support Brice in his call to carry out God’s mission, especially to the African American Churches of Christ, I wrestle with some of the things presented in his letter to the African American Churches of Christ.

            Brice addresses his letter to “African American Churches of Christ.”  I question the generalization that is placed on “African American Churches of Christ.”  Which African American Churches of Christ is Brice referring to?  Are all African American Churches of Christ the same?  Do all African American Churches of Christ fit into the categories named by Brice who need to repent? 

            Even though Brice honors the African American tradition, I question his methodology of calling them to repentance.  I am reminded of the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 37 when he was to prophesy to God’s people.  This text says,

The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. ²He led me all round them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. ³He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord God, you know.’ ⁴Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.[15]

It is interesting that this text identifies Ezekiel’s location in the middle of the valley the valley that was full of bones.  Ezekiel is not prophesying from a mountain apart from the bones, but he is prophesying in the midst of the bones that represent Israel in exile.  Scholarship has it that Ezekiel prophesied to Israel as a prophet who was taken into exile with the people.  The point that is made here is that Ezekiel is with the people that he is calling to repentance.  I question if Steven is with, or willing to stay with the tradition that he is calling to repent.  If Brice wants this tradition to repent, how is this repentance to take place?  Does it come by articulating their sins, or does come by supporting the weak?

            Also, Brice appears to “other” the African American Churches of Christ and critiques the African American Churches of Christ from a disposition of safety.  It appears that he has created a hegemonic paradigm between African American Churches of Christ and the broader heritage of Churches of Christ.  While churches in the African American tradition have its problems, many Churches of Christ in the broader heritage of Churches of Christ have their problems to.  Many of the problems that Brice named in regards to the African American Churches of Christ are not exclusive to African American Churches of Christ, but are prevalent throughout the Churches of Christ as a whole.

Jerry Taylor’s Reflections

Steven’s paper reminds me of my own personal journey in African American Churches of Christ.  The tremendous influence the older ministers had upon Steven’s formation is the same influence that impacted my own formation.  The older preachers’ ability to preach a convincing message about salvation being only in the Church of Christ was incredibly impressive to a young mind not trained in the practice of critical thinking.  The preachers often spoke with fiery passion coupled with practical commonsense reasoning.  The style of preaching could be characterized as parental and authoritarian.  There were times the preacher would open the floor for questions from the audience.  It was commonplace for the querist to be ridiculed and embarrassed if he or she was perceived as challenging what the preacher had taught.

As Steven writes I am astonished about how someone so young was impressed in similar ways by the same influential preachers as someone twice his age.  It is now clear to me that the sealing of the message in both our minds took place early in our religious development through such things known as gospel/tent meetings and lectureships.  These events that shaped and disseminated the single message in African American Churches of Christ have been consistent from coast to coast since the days of Marshall Keeble, Richard Nathaniel Hogan, J.S. Winston, Levi Kennedy, and G.E. Steward.  The message for the most part has gone unchanged for the last 60 or 70 years among African American Churches of Christ.  Anyone who dared to question or offer a deeper interpretation of the message became an instant outcast.  Only those preachers who have proven that they are willing to speak the authorized message in African American Churches of Christ are given the stamp of approval.

Steven points out how this religious system gives honor to the necessity of studying the bible for one’s own understanding.  People in other denominations are openly criticized for not thinking for themselves.  However, when ministers actually take this advice to heart and begin to do a genuine exposition of the biblical text they are immediately chastised for going beyond the established traditional interpretation of the text.  As Steven points out, at this point the minister must decide what his response is going to be to the elder ministers’ criticism.  One can either remain true to the conclusions he has arrived at or he can become dishonest by saying what is expected of him.  If he decides against his integrity this could lead to a lack of integrity in every other area of his personal life.

Steven is also accurate in his observation of the inconsistencies that exist within African American Churches of Christ.  He says, “Preachers, I watched how some of you covered some preachers’ sins, but magnified other preachers’ sins.”  It is true that in some cases a minister receives greater compassion when he engages in immorality than a minister who commits the sin of stating publicly his convictions about biblical teachings that differ from the established interpretation authorized by Church of Christ officials.  In fact prominent black Church of Christ preachers hardly ever proactively address immorality among their fellow preachers.  It appears to me that the highest standard of morality in black Churches of Christ is the preacher’s loyalty to preaching and teaching the authorized and approved interpretation of Scripture.  Steven provides an accurate description of the disposition of aggression and mean-spiritedness these ministers use when attacking someone who disagrees with them.  It is a vicious spirit to witness.  To say the least it is a “fellowship” that is unforgiving of those who dare to speak truthfully.

Steven is correct in drawing attention to how these leaders seek to dissuade young African American ministers from attending ACU.  The underlying fear that motivates these older preachers is the fear that the younger generation of ministers might be exposed to knowledge and information at white schools that will serve to undermine the teaching established and handed down by senior black ministers.  The fear is that the doctrinal foundation of the African American Churches of Christ will suffer erosion.  When its foundation is eroded so will the power of those in control be eroded.

There is a racial divide that undergirds black ministers’ anti-ACU sentiment.  Major black ministers in African American Churches of Christ admit that there are two churches, one white and the other is black.  They go as far as to say that their only concern is for what goes on in the black church.  It is said that the white churches and their schools are in a state of apostasy.  Any African American minister who decides to work or study among whites will run the risk of being rejected by leaders in black Churches of Christ.  He will most likely be labeled an Uncle Tom, a sale out and a traitor.  In many cases he will not be invited to speak on the major events in African American Churches of Christ because he is viewed as having crossed over to the side of the white enemy and is no longer one of “us.”  What they are really saying is that racial segregation still has a place in Churches of Christ.

Schools like ACU and Pepperdine fail to adequately understand the tremendous suffering that sincere young African American ministers experience as a consequence of studying and working at white schools in the Restoration Heritage.  Young ministers and scholars that attend these schools often end up as people without a country or believers without a fellowship.  The black churches refuse to accept them back into their fellowship and the white churches refuse to think deeply and seriously about finding places within their structures for these young people to serve and offer their gifts.

It is a travesty what both black and white Churches of Christ and their schools are doing to young African American potential church leaders.  These young ministers simply want to get the best training and equipping that will enable them to serve and minster to the people of God.  White schools and churches feel the black students should after graduation go back to do ministry among their own kind.  Black churches on the other hand believe that any young black person that graduated from a white school such as ACU should be marked and avoided because he has been contaminated or poisoned doctrinally.

I applaud Steven’s courage to pen what he has written.  It is apparent when reading his paper that he sincerely desires to be a person who responds honestly to faith, reason, and tradition.  I trust he will continue to search through these major issues and that he finds the strength to encourage others to do the same.  His mind and voice are critical to the ongoing spiritual evolution of both black and white Churches of Christ.

Raymond Carr Reflections

Dear Steven Brice,                                                                                          April 5, 2013

            I was pleased to read your letter to your heritage, and I have read it more than once with great interest.  Offering a response to such a letter is naturally a difficult endeavor, because your letter primarily represents your experience; and yet it also represents your experience.  I will extrapolate on this “wordplay” in my response below, but first allow me to commend your professor for assigning this letter since it has clearly instigated important reflections on your theological self-understanding and history. 

First, your letter represents your experience and as such does not fully capture the scope, the grandeur, or the multidimensional nature of the ecclesia sancta catholica.[16]  Interestingly, I noticed your repeated use of “church of Christ” to distinguish our churches in which your experience has occurred, and I am quite familiar with this construction.  What this construction typically signifies is that you are not speaking of the church as a denomination, but of the church of Christ, the one true universal church.  Such thinking reflects the subtle influence of your fathers.  It is the leftover residue of your fathers, and it now appears to be part of the problem for you; moreover, to some degree it represents your fathers’ foundation left for you.

I sense in your letter, however, that you are no longer satisfied with these foundations, and I commend you on this. A christological foundation, to be sure, challenges any sectarian understandings which would identify the modern Churches of Christ as the one representative of God without realistically confessing the multiplicity and disunity in all churches, which are born out of human provisionality, ambiguity, and infidelity to Christ.  To think otherwise, does a disservice to the ecclesia sancta catholica, especially when not attended by faith exercised in the Holy Spirit who incorporates us all into Christ (1 Cor 12:13).  Still, notwithstanding your criticism of your fathers, have you unwittingly turned away from the saving efficacy of Christ? Do you risk reifying the same sectarian spirit, rather than truly following Christ?  Perhaps, this is a risk you must take, but should you not acknowledge while taking this risk the inability of any church to escape the tension of the church in the world, especially since the empirical reality of the church always suffers from ambiguity to some extent?  And ironically, to what degree have you overlooked the agreement between your church and others?

These questions are aimed at pointing to the limitations of your experience.  In other words, your introduction to other christological viewpoints is not the answer to the church’s problem in the world.  Christ is decisive for the church! And a theology adopted from the dogmatism of Churches of Christ, the sociality of Mother Teresa, or the experience of Steven Brice will never suffice as the model for how God calls his people today. Certainly you did not intend to suggest otherwise, but your strong contrast of the inadequate church of Christ theology with Mother Teresa’s emphasis on paschal mystery certainly seems to suggest it. 

            With that said, allow me to briefly address your experience. In other words, I am referring to the religiopolitical context of modern Churches of Christ.  As David Tracy has pointed out, we “belong to language and history more than they belong to us.”  As a result we must always be prepared to confront the brokenness of our history and the often paradoxical way in which we participate in it.[17]  Steven, you approach this with the boldness of a young lion. In identifying sectarianism as the primary problem in Churches of Christ, you have placed your finger on the pulse of a major problem in many African American Churches. 

As you may know, a sectarian viewpoint is one which makes exclusive claims concerning the truth of God, and such claims have been the touchstone of the Restoration Movement of which you and all of your respondents are heirs.  This sectarianism has its roots in a philosophy called Common Sense Realism, which uses Lockean epistemology as its point of departure.[18]  As a result, our philosophical approach is camouflaged under the auspices of common sense, ideologized in reading the bible in a way that constricts the biblical witness to revelation so as to render it consistent, literal, and often simplistic. Without a hermeneutical approach that allows for a radical openness to the Spirit of God—honoring the dynamic subject matter of scripture—Churches of Christ seem destined to continue the spiral of disintegration which seems to be plaguing our churches in what you call the transpiring cultural shifts (6). 

            I would suggest that the answer to the problem is not seen in a contrast between hypocritical religious exprience and socio-political engagement.  The conservative American penchant to understand biblical faith as a type of puritanical pietism (although hypocritical), and the liberal penchant to view biblical faith as a type of radical socio-political engagement are two sides of the same coin.  The problematic is not simply a question of true religion on one side and real engagement on the other.  The problem is that these two extremes have become substitutes for the Gospel of Christ.  The work of Christ transcends such particularities and identifications in your experience.  A true christian is not distinguished by either of these things. A true christian is not distinguished by any experience adopted from religious pietism, social engagement, or Steven Brice.  S/he is distinguished by the incarnation and the transcendent witness of the resurrection of Christ in the common life of the world.  It is the inability of Church of Christ preachers to engender this radical discernment which sets its hermeneutical commitments in bold relief as an ideologizing of the Gospel of Christ.  In fact, any re-imagining of the Churches of Christ should be seen in an effort to transcend both ‘your experience’ and ‘your experience’ by a radical turn to the eschatological presence of the Holy Spirit, who sets a limit over against all of our experiencing of God in the common life of the pre-modern, modern and postmodern world, for Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). 

Yours,

Raymond Carr