To One and All,

Joe Carson Smith is heading an initiative he calls "The Remnant". What do you know about it, and what are your thoughts?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Answers

I believe it is an attempt to bring disunity to the body. It is a legalistic, fundamentalist creedo that goes against the very principles upon which this movement was founded.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Philip -- check out the thread A Letter From Camelback that covers much of this.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

I just read "A Letter from Camelback".... Good stuff, all the way past Joe Carson Smith's EXCELLENT defense of it.... after that, the thread degenerates into a cat fight, as they often do...

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Duane,

I have read through the thread regarding the “letter from Camelback” and was quite blessed with all of the rich insight. A lot of clear thinking went into that discussion. I just wish that all discussions in this forum were like that.

Do you suppose that it would be a good idea to re-introduce this subject again at this point? I notice that there has been quite a response to it already. At least I have a few thoughts to share with you all from the perspective of a second-generation missionary serving full time in northwestern Mexico. I think you guys could use a little outsider perspective on these issues, don’t you think?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

I can only speak for myself (no "we" here), but I say go for it.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001

Duane,

What "we"?

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Philip -- Duane is making a funny ... based on a bunch of stuff that took place on another thread ... that's all.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

yes... darrell is right... indirectly tickling a funny bone, for those who have them, but the "we" is referring directly to the post I responded to, when he said "you guys"... when I use the pronoun "we" there will be no doubt as to the subject it points to.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Philip,

Fire away.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Thank you D. Lee!

I believe that I can generally agree with most of what has been said so far on this subject. However, I find it odd that so called “faithful churches” are assuming a strange kind of neutrality on this issue. While our forefathers were willing to pay the price of separating from the disciples, some of our conservative Christian Churches and Churches of Christ seem to be waiting for miraculous fix that will never come. At least Joe Carson Smith is doing something about it, and I understand that brother Spinnati has also.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Philip,

Can you elaborate a little more?

Thank you,

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001

Philip -- I know some faithful congregations who are not participating because they believe this is sectarian in nature. Some even call it a play to build a denomination, though I'm fairly certain that is not Joe's pov.

I, for one, don't need to wear any title ... "Remenant" ... or whatever. I wear the name Christian, and that is all I need.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Phillip....

I chose not to participate....because to date...my concern was not addressed....namely....that the letter was sent to "Pastors"...at least that is how mine was addressed.

Here we have a guy claiming to separate from the denominational inclinations of our congregations.....himself using denominational terminology.

Such becomes the problem when you take it upon yourself to write a creedo of orthodoxy. Whose orthodoxy??

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

D. Lee,

What I mean is that, while I agree that the “Remnant” may not be the appropriate approach to doctrinal decay in the RM, I sense that those of us who are tired of waiting for change to happen, have grown weary in combat and somewhat unwilling to take our frustrations to the next logical step: namely, to become a separate fellowship.

Darrel,

I couldn’t agree with you more, but what do we do than? Just sit around until things get so bad that they become unsalvageable? How do we break out of this vicious circle?

Danny,

10/4! You come in loud and clear. The campbellian dilemma of “what to call the preacher” haunts us even to this day, and it only does so because we (editorial) have not been consistent with our own plea to “name Bible things using Bible names”.

“Orthodoxy” is not the issue, Danny. The real issue is this: Can we ever come to an agreement as to what is essential and what isn’t? THAT IS THE REAL AND ONLY ISSUE!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Philip ... as you can see from other treads (authority, music, etc. etc) the answer is no ... we can't seem to agree on what is essential and what isn't.

Danny is correct re; the pastor thing. But, what if a "preacher" of a congregation is also an elder ... can he then be called "a pastor" if the other elders use "pastor" as well? And if he does (and it seems a proper biblical use of the word in that context) might there not be problems with people in the congregation, or new folks, or visitors, or ??? who then look to him as THE pastor, even if he doesnt' use that title? And then, would that be enough to "separate" that congregation from the faithful?

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Danny, Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Carson's defense was convincing. Just because he didn't address your pet peeve (and mine) which is the use of the word pastor. Even you, in previous posts, have said that you don't make it a test of fellowship if someone uses the phrase...

In the original post, he answered every objection soundly; so much so that the silence of no rebuttals was deafening; and quickly replaced by the typical forum infighting.

Oh, correction. He answered every objection except why the word "pastor" was used in the letter. Or was it a card accompanying the letter? Whatever!

At least give him the benefit of the doubt to respond to it. He sounds like the kind of person who hates the misuse of the word pastor as much as you or I do.

But does anybody have a rebuttal for the other points he handled? Not a rehash of the same old stuff. You're not listening. Read it again. He answered our objections and all we can say is, "uh, but you said the p word"

Just because I want to be counted among the faithful who still believe the Bible, doesnt mean I want to start a creed. And just because I associate myself with a group that gives itself a name, does not mean I intend to substitute that name for the name of Christ, or Christian. Hear again some of his post:

"people in serious, continuing, and stubborn error about baptism are unqualified for leadership in the church"

"The purpose of the Remnant project is to identify leaders who are committed to its statement. "

"The truth of God will prevail. The Remnant just suggests that we tell it"



-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Duane...

Thanks for enforcing my point!!

Joe did not meet my expectations of orthdoxy. Does that, therefore, mean that he is not one of the "Remmant?"

And just because someone does not meet his definition of orthodoxy....does that mean they are not one of the "Remnant?"

I utterly reject any attempt at creedal theology. You can call it anything you want...but that's what it is...i.e., "sign this creed...or your're out!!"

Please point out to me any time that the Campbell's or other early Restoration leaders had a "sign on the dotted line" creedal statement.

If you want to know if a man, or a church is faithful to Scripture...and whether or not you can refer someone to that congregation...it's simple....pick up the phone and call.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Take your tongue out of your cheek, buck boy! You don't really make the p-word a test of orthodoxy anyway.

And what's the difference between a list and a phone call?

You call preacher Bob and what kind of questions are you gonna ask him? The same kind found in Carson's "creed". If he answers in the affirmative, and satisfies your test of orthodoxy, has he not just committed to a vocal creed? We do have a creed, remember? Christ! (meaning the facts about Him to be believed and the commands from Him to be obeyed)

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2001

Uh....I believe what I would do...would come under "testing the spirits?"

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

I agree with the "creedal" problem of signing on with the remnant, or any other group. But the main reason I didn't care for the statement, outside of the creedal thing, was that it sounded like a call to baptismal regeneration.

Now, I don't believe that Joe and the rest meant it in that fashion. But take a look at the points;

1. Name of group (Do we need any other name but Christian?)

2. Broken down into seven items. The first was an agreement in a belief that the NT was true .. what about the OT? The next five items dealt with baptism. They were followed by the last point stating that leaders in the church should believe and teach these things … five out of seven being about baptism.

Now, I understand that the immersion issue has been called into question by some congregations … and while that is nothing new, it MIGHT be more of a problem today than in the past. But reading their items makes it SOUND as if we are baptismal regenerationists.

We received that moniker years ago, and it has been hard, if not impossible, to lose it, even if it isn’t true.

Why not have a remnant that is as worried about congregations where the leadership doesn’t teach or practice the biblical concept of women and leadership? that is worried about the unbiblical problem of gossip in congregations that destroy ministers, leaders, and others? that is worried about ministers who refuse to call “sin” sin” And on it goes.

Danny is correct. When I have students who graduate IUP and head out into the world, I try to provide them with a list of congregations that I believe are faithful to the Scriptures. I do that by making some phone calls, asking for copies of worship folders, new member packets, etc. That usually takes care of the problem.

And … what about wearing a pin/emblem that associates you with the remnant? While I can’t quite put my finger on why, I find that to be a bit of a problem. Maybe just my personal hang up. Can'tyou just see members of the remnant at the NACC, state conventions, etc. As they walk around, they are checking to see "who's with 'em, and who's not." And when they see someone else with "the pin" they acknowledge each other ... maybe secret handshakes or special high-fives are next.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Well said Darrell!!!

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

True dat, homey! Instead of a remnant pin, they should make it an earring...we could attract the younger generation.

I kinda like the high five idea. Or maybe something like one of Flip Wilson's shake routines...

You guys make some good points. I merely add the point that the things he is saying and doing, some of you are doing anyway, as evidenced by your posts. We do not choose to visit denominations each Sunday to meet with other believers and try to teach them the way more perfectly. Instead we choose to gather together those individuals who are in agreement about Christ and His demands on our lives.

Carson is just looking for a way to bring attention to what he is doing and invite others of like mind to identify themselves as such.

Summitt Theological Seminary is a group of like-minded Christians with a goal. They put a name on their entity. By doing so they do not mean to imply that they are no longer Christians only.

Joe Carson Smith wants to form an a association of individuals who share a common purpose. They choose a name. Big deal. They make a statement of purpose. Big deal. We don't have to join their club to be considered their brothers, and we can move on to the content of what they are saying. Can we join them in the propagation of the truths that we find in their statements?



-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

One thing I don't like about the Remnant idea is the focus on churches, or congregations as members, instead of a membership of individuals. In the typical congregation, even among the leadership, you may have varying levels of doctrinal knowledge and "purity" so to speak. You may have a congregation where some of the members are not yet doctrinally grounded; or there may be an internal leadership doctrinal struggle going on, but there are still a lot of good strong christians in the body, and possibly good reasons for you to recommend someone to worship there.

So I might join as an individual member, and have the option to list the congregation where I worship if I choose, along with some other caveats:

Add an agreement in a belief that the New Testament AND THE OT was true

Eliminate the use of the word pastor to designate preacher

In addition to the insistence on baptism, equal time would be given to "Why not have a remnant that is as worried about congregations where the leadership doesn’t teach or practice the biblical concept of women and leadership? that is worried about the unbiblical problem of gossip in congregations that destroy ministers, leaders, and others? that is worried about ministers who refuse to call “sin” sin”

And finally, come up with a cool "True Israel" secret handshake.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

I have to give credit where credit is due here. Although I (unwisely) teased E. Lee in another thread, he is the only one in the "A Letter From Camelback" thread who found good reasoning in many of Smith's statements while objectively disagreeing in other areas.

That brings up another question. I wonder if Smith sent this letter to any of the Church of Christ accapella brethren. There are some areas where I would choose to worship with one of these congregations in a town where there was no "instrumental" church of Christ, or where there was one that was not following the New Testament.



-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Duane -- Summit is a para-church organization, for lack of a better term. So is Jamaica Christian College, CIY, etc.

My problem is with coming up with a name for an exclusive group ... and a group that, at least by what they say, is trying to re-restore the RM ideal, at least in the way they handle baptism. A new name for the church, so to speak.

And if we are going to call bible things by bible names, let's call it immersion.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Duane -- Summit is a para-church organization, for lack of a better term. So is Jamaica Christian College, CIY, etc. (And so is this group?) My problem is with coming up with a name for an exclusive group ... (Isn't Summit exclusive to those who share their purpose?) and a group that, at least by what they say, is trying to re-restore the RM ideal, (not a bad idea; they are in good company)at least in the way they handle baptism. (Amen to that!)A new name for the church, so to speak. (says who?)

And if we are going to call bible things by bible names, let's call it immersion. (agreed)

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Actually baptism is a Bible name. It's in my Bible. Stick with me on this for a second: The real problem is not the Bible name. It is the Bible definition which has been neglected, and the terrible tendency of historical "Christendom" to ADD unbiblical definitions to this beautiful name.

For years, faithful folks have called Bible things by Bible names and properly used the word baptism, without substituting the word immersion.

But the second part of that slogan "do Bible things in Bible WAYS" refers to the Bible definition of baptism, or baptizo, which is of course, immersion.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

We could use the words "dipping" or "plunging" for immersion. He that believes and is dipped shall be saved. All who have been plunged into Christ have put on Christ. Although I don't know how John the Plunger would like it.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Maybe people would call him "John the Dip" -- not good!

My worry is that this exclusivness will lead to a split or a new non- denominational denomination, if you know what I mean.

Maybe that's what we need. Anyway, he never sent me anything, so maybe I'm not invited.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

You guys are still raising objections like they were never answered, so I post again for your thoughts Joe Carson Smith's answers to our objections:

Answer to Objections to the Remnant Project

Joe Carson Smith

A number of objections have been raised to the Remnant project. The notable ones were anticipated.

The most predictable was that a "creed" was being proposed for our churches. This is not true. The statement of belief and commitment for the Remnant is not used or presented to people at Camelback Christian Church as a condition for membership or acceptance in fellowship in the church. What the Remnant statement is for is to identify leadership that will stand for what it says. That is all it is intended to do, but it is intended to do that.

It should not be assumed that peop0le who do not sign on to the Remnant project do not believe the Remnant statement. It was anticipated that many who believe what it says would not believe that it is a good idea, or they would be inhibited by the strong but relatively amorphous Restoration tradition about creeds. In fact, the most common negative reaction has been, "I believe everything in the statement, but I won't sign a creed."

People who do sign on are identified publicly as believing what it says. The statement means exactly what it says, not more or less. It does not, for instance, make any judgment about the eternal destiny of people who are ignorant or in error about Christian baptism. In the view of its author, that final adjudication is in the hands of God alone. The statement does say that people in serious, continuing, and stubborn error about baptism are unqualified for leadership in the church.

The strategy of the Remnant is that if people will come straight about the truth of the Bible and about Christian baptism, they will come straight about many other things. The statement refers only to the New Testament because that is adequate to the purpose. If people believe the New Testament to be true, it follows that they will accept the Old Testament. The definition of truth in the statement has been variously attacked. The philosophically sophisticated will recognize it as a simple assertion of the correspondence theory of truth; that is, that truth is that concept or expression that corresponds to reality. The assumption of the statement is that the whole human race understands that, as in C.S. Lewis' "Tao." When God sent Moses down from the mountain with the commandment, "Thou shalt not lie," He did not instruct Moses to establish continuing seminars in epistemology. God knew perfectly well that they understood what the truth was.

In the late 1950s the author of the Remnant letter successfully defended for three hours a paper on the "Resurrection Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels." The professor who presided over that doctoral seminar at the University of Southern California subsequently became one of the participants in the "Jesus Seminar." As the frontiersmen said in the 1800s, the Remnant author "has been over the mountain an ddown the river" in matters of historical-critical methods. It is his conviction at the end of the day that the New Testament is true. Our longstanding objection to creeds should be examined. A creed as repudiated by the Restoration fathers was a comprehensive and theologically complicated statement of faith, adopted by an authoritative ecclesiastical body like a council or synod, and often assumed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore equal to the Word of God. Such a creed was employed as a condition of fellowship with the church, even of recognition as a Christian. It often included a stated or implied anathema for those not subscribing to its tenets. Such devices were properly repudiated by the Restoration fathers.

In two hundred years, a curious thing has occurred. A Restoration tradition has developed that says that it is outrageous and divisive to write down anything that should be believed and taught by Christian leaders, even an exact quotation of scripture. This writer has observed this on many occasions. Two are cited. In the 1980s, in response to a well-known problem, it was proposed in a board of directors meeting of a Christian service camp in Arizona that in camps operated by our churches, ministers identified as ministers of Christian churches should believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. It was stipulated that people from other orientations might be used, only that they not be presented as representing our churches. This policy was attacked as a creed and voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had been made to trump an express statement of scripture in the practice of the church. At the second Forum on the Future of The Christian Churches and Churches of Christ held in St. Louis in the 1980s, the Double Vision project was launched. It was designed to double the number of our churches in the USA by the year 2000. Barton McElroy, Ph.D., sometime missionary to the Philippines and Dean of Manhattan Christian College; Mark Maxey, veteran missionary to Japan; and this writer, engaged in a little conspiracy. We caused three of the eight "breakout groups" to report back to the floor of the meeting that leaders of the new Double Vision congregations be expected to believe and teach that baptism is for the remission of sins. This proposal was viciously attacked from the floor of the meeting as "binding this creed upon these new churches." It was voted down. A Restoration tradition about creeds had trumped an express statement of scripture in the policy and practice of one of our parachurch organizations.

At the very least, brethren who do this are all tangled up in their Campbellite shoe laces! To quote scripture is to be put down as legalistic or fundamentalist--remarkably pejorative and non- specifidc terms of propaganda. It can now be safely stated that we often follow a tradition which says that to write a policy for the operations of a church or parachurch organiation, even if it is an exact quotation of scripture, is forbidden because it is to adopt a creed. If someone doubts this, let him try it and see what happens. This tradition is subversive of the promotion of New Testament Christianity and of the good order of our churches. In respect to other objections: No, the Remnant list is not intended to supplant The Directory of the Ministry. The brethren who publish that useful item do a good job. The Remnant project intends to identify brethren who are committed to its statement. That this is needed is evident from the reports of many people who are signing on to the Remnant.

It is remarkable that some people are saying that the "Brotherhood" will be split by publishing or signing the Remnant statement. Many of the same people say with great heat that there isn't any problem anyway. Lurking in those two assertions there woul dseem to be an inconsistency.

It has been objected that the letter proposing the Remnant unjustly accuses the NACC and the Christian Standard. People who say this simply don't know what has been going on around them. Some irate letters have been received demanding specifics. People may consult page 6 of the March 11, 2001, issue of the Christian Standard, which presents a list of "Our Megachurches." Listed there is the Overlake Christian Church, now located in Redmond, Washington. In 1980 its then minister was presented as the featured speaker in the closing session of the NACC in Seattle. It was well known in the churches of that area that he had left the New Testament position and was aggressively advocating the common Baptist view of conversion. He aggressively lobbied the administration and board of Puget Sound Christian College to dismiss Dr. Harold W. Ford from its faculty as a condition of Overlake's support of the college. Dr. Ford was one of the leading historians of the Restoration Movement in the 20th Century. That minister as subsequently and repeatedly promoted and defended in Arizona into the late 1990s as a leader to be emulated. This sort of practice effectively indicates that our Brotherhood is now a sort of umbrella of churches who hold to New Testament Christianitya nd other churches that hold a Baptist or solifidian view of conversion. If those who set editorial policy for the Christian Standard do not know the facts stated above, they are brain-dead.

This writer has written extensively on these matters for many years. Additional materials will be provided on request for the cost of reproduction. In response to he allegations that he is an "isolationist" opposed to association with people outside "out gans," the author of the Remnant letter has participated in all of the two-week conferences of the C.S. Lewis Society at Oxfort and Cambridge Universities (1988, 1991, 1994, and 1998). At such conferences one associates in little groups. They don't include our people. Our "intellectuals" are curiously absent. Among those in our group in 1991 was a Roman Catholic priest who teaches in one of the church colleges in Rome. He was a sharp and lovable gentleman. This might lay me open to a charge of questionable associations by some of our people. The charge of bigoted isolationism won't work! (Well, actually, there was one of our intellectuals hanging about the University in 1988. He made no visible contribution to the proceedings of the conference that year on the decline of the influence of Christianity in the universities of the western world, but he did fill the pulpit on a Sunday morning at the Church of St. mary the Virgin, on High Street in Oxford. He was billed as a gentleman from Tennessee. He delivered a harmless little homily, heavily draped in the rags of academic respectability. It wouldn't ahve offended the Devil himself. It was delivered from the same pulpit from which C.S. Lewis delivered his famous sermon, "The Weight of Glory," a half century before. Sic transit gloria.) The purpose of the Remnant project is to identify leaders who are committed to its statement. That is its exact purpose and its entire purpose. It is preposterous to assert that it will divide a Brotherhood united in believing what the Remnant statement says. Someone said to Billy Sunday one time tha he didn't like the way he did evangelism. Billy responded that he didn't much like it either, but he liked it better than he liked the way that his critics didn't do it!

So it is with me and my critics about how I choose to defend and promote the truth of the Bible in the Christian churches and Churches of Christ.

When Alexander Solzhynitsyn won the Nobel prize for literature he was a prisoner in the Soviet Union. The communists wouldn't let him go to Oslo to deliver his lecture, so he sent it to be read. It is a touching and profound document of thirty-three pages. He closes his Nobel Lecture by quoting a Russian proverb: "One word of truth outweighs the world!" His release and the fall of the Soviet communist empire were a dramatic vindication.

The truth of God will prevail. The Remnant just suggests that we tell it. Without unity the Church is damaged. Without fidelity to the truth of the Word of God, it will cease to exist.

-- Cheri Smith Sims (csmithsims@AOL.com), June 18, 2001.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001

Darrell,

You ask: “what about the OT?”

Mr. Smith’s response: “The strategy of the Remnant is that if people will come straight about the truth of the Bible and about Christian baptism, they will come straight about many other things. The statement refers only to the New Testament because that is adequate to the purpose…”

You understand that the immersion issue has been called into question by some congregations? And it MIGHT be more of a problem today than in the past?? I’ve only been a Christian for about 10 years, and even I can see the downhill slide that issue has taken in the church. It is more widespread than you think.

You ask: “Why not have a remnant that is as worried about congregations where the leadership doesn’t teach or practice the biblical concept of women and leadership? that is worried about the unbiblical problem of gossip in congregations that destroy ministers, leaders, and others? that is worried about ministers who refuse to call “sin” sin” And on it goes.”

Because the FIRST step is to find out if a congregation even teaches how to get “into Christ”. If they do not teach that biblically, it does not matter what the leadership teaches or practices concerning women in leadership, gossip, or refusing to call sin – sin. You say: “My problem is with coming up with a name for an exclusive group ... and a group that, at least by what they say, is trying to re-restore the RM ideal, at least in the way they handle baptism. A new name for the church, so to speak.”

Was/Is the name Restoration Movement a name for an exclusive group? Is it considered as a name for the church?

I took Mr. Smith’s phone number down, and will try to get a copy of the 22-page response that was sent out. Maybe that will answer more of your concerns.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2001