Deconverting from Sectarianism: Being "Liberal" or "Conservative"

In my 12 years of hyper-active sojourn among the (Stone-Campbell) Churches of Christ (CoC) in the Philippines, I had seen how “Liberal” and “Conservative” became hotly debated terms among preachers and used by church members to distinguish the faithful from the unfaithful, true from false teachers, or the saved from the unsaved.

Most of the issues involved under these categories had actually been imported from the USA and continue to be irrelevant to the daily concerns of Filipinos in general. These are collectively “big deal“ only to the CoC and to mostly White American hobby riders visiting or doing missions in the Philippines.

Being once a zealous CoC preacher, I’ve had my fair share of these controversies most notably toward the end of my stay with this group.

I was then with the Baguio Church of Christ where I preached at least one Sunday each month, handled a Young People’s class each Sunday, and taught General Biblical Introduction, Church History ,” or some other subjects at the Philippine Bible College (PBC).

Apparently, I ruffled some fur or feathers by what I considered an even-handed discussion on various issues like the use of musical instruments in church worship.

To cut the story short, I was accused of “Liberalism” or “Saboyism” — actually, depending on which church faction was judging me back then, I was both Liberal and Conservative.

An anonymous “Conservative” sent a text message by phone to the PBC director warning him of the danger I posed to the church and calling for my removal as preacher and teacher.

Since my anonymous accuser would not face me, I faced the church elders with a prepared statement (see below).

My meeting with the three elders was one of the more pleasant experiences I've had during my last year with the CoC. The discussion was done calmly and in a loving manner.

I told them I was prepared to “leave and serve the Lord elsewhere,” but the elders told me there was no need for me to stop teaching and preaching.

Although the most senior of them told me he didn’t agree with some of my convictions (especially on instrumental music as not a test of fellowship nor a matter of salvation), he nevertheless said he agreed with some of the things I had to say, adding that he appreciated my frankness and that he respected my stand on the said issues.

There was a sudden power blackout halfway into our talk and the other two elders lit a candle as we continued the meeting. For me, the candle lighting was highly symbolic of my hope back then that the church will one day break free from the dark, dank dungeon of sectarianism.

Eventually, I left the church and the college and never looked back. Now, over 12 years later, I’ve come to embrace a non-mystical worldview that regards the issues as not only trivial but also unproductive.

Nevertheless, I am posting below the full text of that response in hopes that readers will have a better appreciation of the subjective nature of labels in a specific Christian context and how these labels work as mental shortcuts for exclusion and inclusion.

Some of what I wrote here eventually found their way into my blog posts.

RESPONSE TO CHARGES OF “LIBERALISM”

@ Scott Magkachi Saboy

10.24.07, Baguio City, Philippines

A brother who I was made to understand preferred to be anonymous recently warned the elders of the Baguio Church of Christ (BCOC) of the grave danger I pose to the Philippine Bible College (PBC) and the local church. He charged me of “liberalism” and in proof thereof had enumerated at least seven items.

I am making the following statements in response to the said charges. This I must do in the name of fairness – so that you will be left with no doubt as to where I stand and so that I may not be misrepresented (hopefully) by my self-proclaimed “interpreters.” This can also serve as a basis for brethren to decide on my case in relation to fellowship issues.

Accusation #1. Quoting from denominational or liberal preachers in my sermons.

Truth is truth whoever said it, and quoting someone’s words doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing to all that he or she has to say or approving all his or her acts. I can quote from Hammurabi, Confucius, Plato, Julius Caesar, Augustine, Luther, Shakespeare, Darwin, Lincoln, Campbell, Hitler, Russell, Mao, Marcos, Gandhi, John Paul II, Steinem, Chomsky, Dawkins, Graham, Ahmadinejad, and yes, even the Devil himself, affirm the truth of their statements and yet maintain – without explicitly saying it – that I do not have to agree to every idea they espoused or approve of every deed they committed. I can also quote from them, deny their claims and maintain – without explicitly saying it – that I do not have to disagree with any truth they may have uttered nor condemn any good deed (save for Satan, I guess) they may have done.

Whatever words I quoted from “denominational” or “liberal” preachers were used either to prove, refute, critic, or elucidate a point or idea. I believe I have never used these quotations in place of or to undermine Scriptures but in support of the truths therein.

If merely quoting from people who have been branded with unsavory epithets is heresy, then Paul should be resurrected and burned at the stake for quoting the “pagan thinkers” Epimenides, Aratus and Cleanthes in his speech to the Athenians at Mars’ Hill. Also, a great number of other preachers in the Church of Christ here and abroad should be hanged for quoting “denominationalists” and “liberals” in their private conversations, public lectures and published works.

Were my critic(s) to say that he(they) do not disapprove of my act of quoting per se, but of my seeming support of the dangerous, wrong, unlawful and anti-Scriptural ideas in the material(s) I quoted, may I request that they prove so in my presence and in the presence of the elders and other concerned Christians. I guess it is but proper, in accordance to human and divine principles that the accused should be given the opportunity to face his accuser(s).

Accusation # 2. Reading, using or distributing books authored by preachers who are known as troublemakers among Churches of Christ in the USA.

Name-calling often works well for propaganda purposes, but rarely – if at all – helps in the pursuit of truth and justice. This is a tactic most, if not all, of us are guilty of using from time to time. We must therefore take with a healthy degree of suspicion pronouncements with loaded terms like “liberals,” “heretics,” “digressives,” “progressives,” etc. We must establish the context of these statements and, in that light, examine the truth or falsity, fairness or unfairness, and applicability or inapplicability of the terms.

When we hear of preachers here or overseas being branded as “troublemakers,” for example, it is incumbent upon us to ascertain the veracity of that claim. We can start by asking, Who are these troublemakers? What made them troublemakers? Who branded them as troublemakers? The first question causes us to correctly identify the accused, the second to investigate the accusations, and the third to probe into the background of the accusers.

Answering these questions establishes safeguards against misrepresentation and unreasoned judgment. We must withhold judgment until we shall have exhausted every possible means to read the works of both the accused and the accuser (and yes, even those of disinterested parties, if any) and to understand the ideological milieu they are speaking from.

We must resist forming our conclusions based merely on the information provided by our favorite magazines, books or websites no matter how much they are regarded as “guardians of orthodoxy.” I used to take as Gospel truths whatever I read in the Spiritual Sword, Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ, or any other publications canonized by the so-called “Mainline Churches of Christ.” I later realized that however learned or sincere the people behind these publications are, they are still fallible beings. This especially became evident when I discovered that not every respected writer in these publications agreed with one another on every doctrinal point, and, through the years, some of them have, in fact, “fallen from grace” – at least in the estimation of those who think they have maintained their balance on that great plank of grace and truth.

Further, as I came across some writings of those they charged of heresy, I was struck by the contrast between the negative image painted of them by their more militant critics, and the positive messages I culled from these supposedly “subversive” writings. I have come to believe that these “digressives” or “change agents” (at least those whose writings I have read and with whom I have corresponded by snail mail or email) were simply seeking a return to our historical roots as a religious movement, searching answers to questions stemming from their application of our hermeneutic to the issues of daily life, following their quest for truth wherever it may lead them, standing up for their convictions, and striving for unity based on basic principles rather than on the specifics of law.

At any rate, I have come to believe what I now believe not simply after reading the works of these Americans for even before I had the chance to get acquainted with their writings, I had already found myself struggling with the same issues they faced and came to conclusions some of which are similar to theirs. I have found some parallels of their religious experiences with mine and I have profited from reading their testimonies. I have also found that other brethren in the Philippines have been making an honest assessment of their convictions and have agonized over what they perceive as inconsistencies and dogmatism in our teachings and practices. A few of them would eventually leave our fellowship. Understandably, some others would not publicly express their newly found convictions either for fear of stirring a hornet’s nest, causing undue division in our already divided churches, getting ostracized, or losing their pocketbooks.

Since these “troublemakers” were not named in the anonymous text message sent to the Director of the Philippine Bible College (PBC), I might as well venture naming the possible “culprits.” I have distributed to some brethren copies of Cecil Hook’s books, gave away several bestsellers of Max Lucado, passed around the articles of John Clayton, Edward Fudge, Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, Al Maxey, Rubel Shelly, et al., and referred some brethren to their websites. I believe the recipients of these works I gave out were made aware that any form of literature must be “weighed and considered,” not instantly swallowed hook, line and sinker.

If this is an act of treason against the high command of our fellowship, I plead guilty. And to stem the proliferation of these perverse literature, may I suggest that every library of our training schools and the private libraries of all members of the Church of Christ throughout the archipelago be searched for sermon outlines, pamphlets, commentaries and other books not authored by the “sound scholars” of the mainstream Church of Christ. To ensure the success of this clean-up drive, implementers must have a ready list of these privileged writers and thinkers. All confiscated or surrendered materials must be publicly burned so that the monstrous fires can aptly warn the faithful of the severity of hell-fire. Those who refuse to surrender suspicious documents and who have shown the slightest indication of being brain-washed by the traitors should be thrown into that great conflagration as well.

“So shall our souls be pure within, our lives be pure without.” So shall our store of literature be small and sound. So shall we dramatize the truth that narrow is the gate to redemption and broad is the way to destruction.

Accusation # 3. Believing that the Church of Christ was founded by Alexander Campbell.

I believe that Jesus Christ founded his church in Jerusalem. The church of Jesus Christ is the universal, undenominational body composed of all the saved from past to present. It has never died and will continue to exist, looking forward to a new heaven and earth.

On the other hand, I recognize that the Church of Christ with which I have been associated in the last 12 years traces its roots to what has been known as the “American Restoration Movement” (ARM) which was founded primarily by Barton Warren Stone and Alexander Campbell (hence the increasingly popular term, “Stone-Campbell Movement” or SCM) and which gave rise to two other distinctive religious groups – Disciples of Christ and Christian Church. Although I take pride in the many distinctives of the Church of Christ in its effort to capture the spirit of “New Testament Christianity,” I have come to believe that this group of Christians I have chosen to be in fellowship with is a part of and does not solely constitute the universal, undenominational church of Jesus.

Accusation # 4. Teaching that the Church of Christ is a denomination. From what little I know, the term “denomination” has been defined by Christian thinkers in at least three ways. Popularly, a denomination is seen as a group of believers wearing a distinctive name, holding common distinctive beliefs and practices, and associated with certain religious publications, institutions or programs. Closely related with this is the idea that a denomination is “a religious organization larger than the local church” and smaller than the universal body of Christ. Among church growth experts, a denomination is defined in contrast to a sect: a denomination is a group of believers that does not claim to be the “One, True, Church” and thus maintains fellowship with other Christian groups according to certain parameters, while a sect is a body of believers that regards as “unsaved” all other believers who are not in its membership list.

Obviously, we fit into at least the first definition for we collectively wear a distinctive name almost always to the exclusion of other biblical terms in our writings, speeches, and advertisements. We also hold common beliefs and practices as outlined in Leroy Brownlow’s Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ or expounded in Nichol & Whiteside’s multi-volume Sound Doctrine. We are almost exclusively associated with institutions, programs or journals like World Bible School, World English Institute, MARCH for Christ, Let’s Start Talking, Philippine Bible College, HardingGraduate School of Religion, Gospel Advocate, and many others.

As for the second definition, one can argue that the Church of Christ does not have para-church structures as present-day denominations have. Some, however, may observe that while we are not formally bound by regional, national and international organizations, we are nevertheless informally bound by our common publishing and educational institutions as well as our regular lectureships or fellowship activities.

The third definition partly explains why many of our religious neighbors often refer to us as a “sect.”

I am one with those who plead for a return to the undenominational spirit of New Testament Christianity which means a continuous reformation of Christian churches. But at the same time, I cannot gainsay the fact that we are caught in a great conundrum: being an “undenominational denomination.”

Accusation # 5. Teaching that there are saved in the denominations. I have understood from my readings of Restoration history that the founding fathers of the ARM/SCM pleaded for the “return to primitive Christianity” and preferred to be “Christians only” but at the same time affirmed that they are “not the only Christians.” They recognized that there are genuine believers in all the “sects” and called for these Christians to unite with them. I subscribe to the same plea.

I believe that in the final analysis only God knows who His genuine people are, that God saves not by our membership to a particular religious group but by our personal, individual response to His call according to the “available light”(another heretical term?) we have been given. As I said, I do not believe that the Church of Christ that arose from the religious movement founded by Stone, Campbell and others solely constitutes the universal body of Christ. I could not now arrogate unto myself the role of the Supreme Judge by waking up each morning consigning people to hell simply because they do not interpret certain holy texts the way I do. I am ashamed to claim that we, a tiny group of believers, are the only ones who are heaven-bound when I could see an overwhelming number of believers outside our fellowship who reflect the transforming power of the cross more than most of us do. I could not believe that those in our fellowship who don’t show the spirit of Christ in their lives are saved, while many of those outside our group who exemplify Christ-likeness are damned. I think God would be unjust if He is going to consign to hell, say, people who had turned back on paganism and cannibalism to embrace Christian principles simply because they were not converted by a preacher from the Church of Christ. I think it odd that while we heartily sing hymns composed by “denominationalists,” we deny by our exclusive claims that their personal testimonies of spiritual transformation are heaven-wrought. I find it puzzling that while we continue to profit from the lifetime labor of “denominational scholars” whose contributions to the advance of Biblical studies dwarf ours, we at the same time casually condemn all of them to everlasting torment because they don’t interpret every minutiae of Bible-related interpretation like we do.

I do not believe that this conviction is detrimental to our evangelistic efforts and growth. To the contrary, I believe that it will tear down the fences we have erected around us that have kept us from engaging in meaningful dialogues with our religious neighbors. In this way, our call for Christian unity will become genuine and will lead us to march with others under the banner of the cross alongside other Christian armies who wear different uniforms and who hoist varied tribal standards as we face a common enemy. I believe it will help us to forsake the schismatic passion of crucifying people and instead focus more on the saving power of the cross, thus opening more doors for the preaching of the gospel. I believe it will cause us to seek out those who have not truly been converted to Christ and thus avoid mistaking proselytes for converts. I believe that we could have been more successful in evangelism had we continued to imbibe a more irenic spirit in dealing with matters we differ with our fellows on.

Accusation # 6. Teaching that instrumental music is not a salvation or a fellowship issue.

Fresh from the Baptist Church in the mid-90’s, I was unswerving in my belief that those who use instruments of music in worship are going to hell. I cannot be so dogmatic now. After giving the issue much study and agonizing over my newly formed conviction, I have come to the same conclusion reached by other members of the Church of Christ, like the late Ralph Brashears, founder of the PBC, who wrote in the Epilogue to his book Revelation for the Christian Age: “The doctrine that mechanical instruments of music, if used in Christian worship, is a sin, has not been proven by the Bible, logic, nor authentic history, yet.” I have come to believe that the a capella tradition may be historically rooted but not doctrinally essential.

Needless to say, this assertion comes as a shock to many who have been made to understand the “ungetoverable” fact that the use of musical instruments in worship is sinful judging primarily from both Scriptures and history. I had felt the same way when I came across writings that contradicted my understanding of certain facts and texts. My search for answers was painful and long, but it was worth all the trouble. I know this is fodder for a burning challenge to a debate on the issue, but I urge everyone to first take a fair look at the store of literature available in print or in digital form for or against either position before issuing the challenge. In this way, we will be more encouraged to engage in unitive dialogues rather than in divisive debates.

Having said that, let me hasten to add that I do not advocate a discarding of a particular practice (a capella singing) but of a particular attitude (judgmentalism). I oppose the imposition of the use of instrumental music on churches who are fully convinced that only a capella singing is authorized by the Scriptures. I have taken a personal stand on this issue, but I do not intend to impose it on others. On the other hand, I refuse to join fellow believers in making instrumental music a test of salvation or of fellowship.

Accusation # 7. Teaching that it is all right to fellowship with the “Anti’s.” If we were to say that one is saved after following the “Fivefold Steps to Salvation” (i.e., hearing, belief, repentance, confession, baptism), I must consider the so-called “Anti’s” fellow Christians. But, of course, one should be faithful until death in order to be saved, shouldn’t he? Now, if by “faithfulness” is meant that one should be “doctrinally perfect,” then I do not believe that anyone of us could be saved for no one has a perfect understanding of the Scriptures.

If some were to insist that one should be doctrinally perfect in order to be saved, they should equally insist that one should be behaviorally perfect in order to be saved, per advice of Paul to Timothy to “take heed unto [himself] and to the doctrine.”

I believe that if some “Anti” preachers were to be cast into the Lake of Fire, it would be more for their rank sectarianism and greediness rather than for their misunderstanding of a minor doctrinal issue like benevolence and Bible schools. Would we not be so judged as well?

Even though most of these so-called “Antis” do not fellowship with us, I still consider them as sisters and brothers. I believe this stance can form part of the solution to the age-old and shameful sectarian strife between “us” and “them” for which Churches of Christ in some parts of the Philippines have become notorious. I had spent some time with two “anti” preachers in conducting Bible studies from house to house in my hometown, and our partnership went well. They never imposed on me their doctrinal distinctives as they knew I knew where I stood. They respected me as a fellow laborer as they realized I regarded them in the same way. I realized that perhaps, many of them do not respect us because we have not shown them any either. In a similar way, perhaps many of our religious neighbors do not give us a fair hearing because our often dogmatic calls for doctrinal purity and unity have virtually become their earplugs.

I say we quit all these intramural fights by casting off a sordid past that left some of us with an ax to grind against those we had locked horns with on this and other minor issues. Let us initiate the move toward reconciliation by opening our arms wide even when other brethren cross their arms across their chests. It is time to repent of our arrogant claims to omniscience and infallibility.

***

Needless to say, I plead guilty to all seven charges as contextualized above. Having thus shared my views on some of the “hot issues” in our fellowship, I leave it to the church leadership to decide on my case.

I could have taken the easy way by being silent or parroting traditional positions on all these and other issues. But I do not think that such would speak well of my intellectual integrity and moral character.

In the Bible school, I have been open to my students and to some other brethren about my convictions, and I have nothing to hide nor fear. In response to my students’ queries on particular church issues, I have always contrasted the “official” stand of the church and my personal stand, allowing room for discussion where they can freely disagree with my opinions. I have emphasized to my students that they don’t have to agree with every idea I espouse. I have urged them to intensely study our history as a religious movement so as to avoid making claims which other believers outside our group could easily debunk with a simple reference to our historical roots. I told them that not everything that comes from America is good for Filipinos, that not everything that was passed on to us by American missionaries is to be embraced. I opined that we must make a borrowed faith personal, taking into account our own understanding of the Scriptures and our own native culture. I have encouraged them to keep searching God’s Word, and not to take any human being as the authority on religious matters. I have taught that Bible schools are not meant to be institutions of indoctrination where teachings are to be swallowed without mastication, but to be schools of scholarship where ideas and views are freely ventilated and examined lovingly and professionally. I have claimed that unity does not come by having uniform views on all doctrinal issues, but by having a common understanding of and response to the basic truths of the Gospel.

I have striven to preach before the congregation what my hearers needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear – even in the presence of some who think they have every jot and tittle of the Scriptures figured out. I am not beholden to anyone, and I recognize no “boss” in matters of faith except the Lord Jesus. I have not served for money nor for personal aggrandizement and, modesty aside, I take great pride in that fact.

If it be decided that for the sake of peace and doctrinal purity I must be disallowed to preach to the congregation or be barred to teach in the college, I humbly submit to the judgment and will step aside with no fanfare. Nevertheless, I shall continue to offer my services to the Churches of Christ where or when needed and as far as I am able. I hold no ill will against anyone, and will strive to extend the right hand of fellowship to all brethren.

In the past 12 years, I have enjoyed the fellowship of many sisters and brothers without whose wonderful testimonies our small world in this part of the globe would have been dreary. I wish there will be more of them so that the Church of Christ as a whole can truly become the family which this song depicts:

We welcome you
to our family!
And we hope you find
the light of Jesus
shining in this place.

Walking hand in hand,
we will serve the Lord;
And together
we will celebrate
His mercy
and His grace!

This is home
for the lonely;
to the tired,
a place of rest…
It’s a house of devotion
to the dearest
and the best…

We welcome you
to our family!
And we hope you find
the light of Jesus
shining in this place...