The topic of the discussion is “What Will It Take to Be ‘Together Again?’” Of course, the central issue is the use of instruments in worship. Dr. Gilmore expresses his desire for unity this way:
Although there are other differences in addition to the instrument, most would recognize that it is a major, if not the major, barrier. I would like for us to be able to worship together again and work together again. And I would like to think that, for the sake of unity, they (the Independent Christian Churches), would lay the instrument aside.
Gentle readers who would like to become gentle listeners for this occasion can do the streaming audio thing via the FHU web site. Discussion begins at 9 a.m. CDT (10 a.m. EDT, or 1400 GMT, for our global audience) on Saturday, October 14.
7 comments:
I suppose no one is planning on suggesting that Dr. Gillmore adopt a more appropriate hermeneutical strategy "for the sake of unity." Another interesting note, the word verification promt at the bottom of this page actually spells out an obscenity, but perhaps only undergrads are amused by things like that.
While I applaud attempts at discussion, I often find that it ends up being merely words and no subsequent action. It encourages me that Dr. Faust would choose to dialogue with our brethren in the non-instrumental church, however, would he also be willing to dialogue with our previous compatriots in the Disciples of Christ? It seems that all too often we like to discuss unity within the confines of those we most closely agree with, yet refrain from it with those with whom we might have greater disagreements. Is there ever an opportunity to simply believe that God is a god of unity, and there's room for more than one belief structure?
May answer is "I hope so."
i find this entire tension between instrumental and non-insturmental churches quite puzzling. i guess its more of a "who cares?"- i dont see how two guys exchanging a bible (like what was done at the NACC) changes anything, and...once more...who cares?? if two people duke it out here and come to common ground, it doesnt change anything with churches in the rest of the world (hence non-denominational...independent....
they can do what they want) AND are there not much more important hills to die on, battles to fight, or better investment of our resources??? i dont know...i think it might be a generational thing...for younger pastors and churches....they dont really care and they dont really have any tension with non-instrumental churches. enough said...am i way off base?
Justin,
Regardin the NACC action, I think at times a symbolic act can be the catalyst for change. Yet, if it is just an empty gesture, done for show, then it is truly meaningless. Although, someone correct me if I am wrong, but was this not the first time in quite awhile that individuals from the aforementioned non-instrumental church attended the NACC.
Also, Christian unity is a very important issue, not just to us, but to God. Inherently much of the problem the world has with the Church is disunity and the bickering which occurs. We do more of a disservice to the name of Christ when we split.
Thus, it is an extremely important issue.
Interesting comments all.
Might I add that there is lots of behind-the-scenes talk between Independents and Disciples? Stone-Campbell Journal, edited and published by Independents, has sought and received multiple submissions from Disciples. Many Independents in academe maintain contacts with Disciples in academe. More particularly, members and leaders of Disciples Renewal, the evangelical movement within the Disciples, are often in contact with Independents.
On the latter score, the problem of larger unity is that many in Disciples Renewal are in churches with immersion-optional membership policies, and so they don't find themselves comfortable among the Independents, where dunking is de rigeur.
More broadly, unity between Disciples and Independents has been difficult because their understanding of what constitutes the nature of the gospel has become so different. It is only natural to find discussions of unity easiest with those closest and harder with those farther away.
I would add that in for some in mainline churches, unity with evangelicals is socially off-putting, regardless of their desire for it. They just can't stand the trappings of revivalism.
Interesting, your last comment, because many in the noninstrumental churches can't stand revivalism either (though things seem to be changing a little in that respect).
So who won--I mean--who debated the nicestly?
Post a Comment