Current Shareware 1994 January/SHAR194.ISO/religion/crj0004a.zip/CRJ0004A.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-26 | 37KB | 746 lines

----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute.  It may not be altered or edited in any way.  It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge.  All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1993 by the Christian
Research Institute").  This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold.  This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit:  Copyright 1993 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"At What Price Success?: The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement"
(an article from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page
24) by James Bjornstad.
    The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------

*Summary*

    The Boston Church of Christ or Boston movement is a dynamic,
controversial international church movement with roots in the
Churches of Christ. Like the Churches of Christ, the Boston
movement teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Unlike
those churches, it has practiced an authoritarian form of
discipleship. The biblical proof texts the movement relies on for
its doctrine of baptism can each be shown to offer insufficient
support for their view. The discipling process, though largely
responsible for their success, has also been the cause of severe
internal and external problems. Though they are currently
attempting to correct these abuses, it does not yet appear that
they have penetrated to the authoritarian root of their problem.
-------------

    Where does one begin when assessing a dynamic new church
movement such as the International Church of Christ, more commonly
known as the Boston Church of Christ (hereafter referred to as the
Boston movement)? Perhaps the place should be where one encounters
-- or is encountered by -- this movement. From that point we may
observe the process by which one becomes involved, is discipled,
and eventually is baptized. It is there also that some of the
controversial aspects of this movement can be noticed, both in
doctrine and practice.

    We shall therefore consider the initial encounter and ensuing
relationship between Mary, an attractive lady in her mid thirties
and a member of the Boston movement, and Lisa, a young lady in
her mid twenties and an evangelical Christian.


*MAKING DISCIPLES, BOSTON STYLE*

    Lisa is at work, sitting alone one day and eating her lunch.
Mary comes along, introduces herself, and asks if she can join
her. During the conversation they discover that they have a number
of things in common: they are both of Scandinavian descent; they
grew up in the same part of the country; they both work in the
nursing profession; and both claim to have a relationship with
Jesus Christ.

    With a budding friendship initiated, Mary invites Lisa to a
"Bible Talk" on Thursday night, one that she is attending. Lisa
asks, "Who's teaching it? Who's involved?" Mary laughs and says,
"It's just a group of believers meeting together to study the
Bible. It's nondenominational." Lisa attends with Mary and there
meets many wonderful people. These people are not only friendly
but appear to be genuinely loving and caring. Lisa listens
carefully to the lesson and finds nothing contrary to her
knowledge of the Bible.

    In the days following the Bible Talk, the people Lisa met
there call her to talk with her and see how she's doing. She
really appreciates their interest and concern. As she gets to know
them she observes that these are people who really try to live out
their faith -- not only on Sunday mornings, but throughout the
week. Encouraged by these people and especially by Mary, she
begins to attend their church service and to participate in other
activities.

    Mary and Lisa (at Mary's suggestion) begin to meet together
for a weekly Bible study. Since Lisa already believes the Bible,
Mary skips the usual first lesson, The Word Study, and instead
focuses on the subject of discipleship. Mary obviously knows more
about this subject (having notes and other materials), and so she
leads and teaches Lisa. (At this point Mary becomes Lisa's
spiritual mentor, her discipler.) In addition to studying the
Bible, they pray together and confess sins (most of these being
Lisa's). Mary calls Lisa every day, showing great interest in
Lisa's life. She is always available to give help and always ready
to provide some guidance and advice.

    Though Lisa is attending this church and enjoying its life and
fellowship, she has this feeling that she is not really a part of
it. Perhaps this resulted from her observation that other women
in the group are called "sisters," and she is not. She isn't
sure. Then one day she hears a Bible Talk on baptism in which the
teacher says, "Unless one is baptized as a disciple, one is not
saved." He goes on to say that true baptism is a "conscious
baptism in which one believes in that baptism for the forgiveness
of sins." The wheels in her mind begin to turn. She had been
baptized shortly after she put her trust in Jesus Christ, but
that was not a "conscious baptism" (as the Bible teacher had
described it). Furthermore, she was not a disciple at the time of
her baptism, at least as this church defines a disciple. Was her
baptism valid? She begins to think that it wasn't. Then the
thought crosses her mind: If it wasn't valid, was she really
saved?

    Lisa immediately calls Mary. Mary comes over as soon as she
can and takes her through certain passages in the Bible regarding
baptism, verse by verse. Lisa concludes, from all that was shown
to her, that her baptism was not a true baptism and she was not
saved. She really loves Jesus and wants to serve Him. She wants
to be saved, and tells Mary so. That Sunday afternoon she is
baptized again and "becomes a Christian." As she comes out of the
water, she is ecstatic. Tears of joy stream down Mary's face. All
Lisa's new friends from the Bible Talk and the church are there,
and so happy for her.

    Feeling like a new person after her baptism, Lisa reflects a
bit afterwards and starts to realize that if she was not saved
prior to her baptism, neither are the people in her former church,
nor are her family and friends. They are all lost and on their way
to hell. This bothers her and she tells Mary. Encouraged by Mary
and other new friends to evangelize these people from her past,
Lisa begins to introduce them to her new friends and invite them
to the Bible Talk, a church service, or some other special event.
When her former pastor, her parents, and former friends try to
speak to her about her new beliefs and church, Lisa is advised by
Mary not to talk with them. "Instead," Mary says, "give them the
telephone number of [her new pastor] and have them call him." (At
this point a clear separation is occurring between the old and
the new, and Lisa's life will become increasingly wrapped up in
her new church.)

    One day Lisa is asked by her nursing supervisor if she would
like to work an extra night for a month or so, a night which
happens to be the same night as the Bible Talk. Having just
incurred some debt due to an emergency, this is just what Lisa was
looking for to pay her bills. Thrilled by what she thinks is the
Lord's provision, she calls Mary to tell her the good news.
Unfortunately, all one can hear on Lisa's end is, "Yes. I see
that I'm being selfish. I'm putting myself before God. I'm
sorry." Thus, Lisa turns down this opportunity to obtain
additional work and attends the Bible Talk.

    Sometime later, a young man in Lisa's church (whom she likes
very much) calls and asks her out to dinner. With her heart
beating rapidly Lisa says yes, and then calls Mary to tell her.
After the call, Mary calls someone else (Mary's discipler or the
pastor) and then calls Lisa back. Mary explains to Lisa that this
young man is "not as committed to Christ as he should be." Until
he changes, it would not be wise for her to begin a relationship
with him. Lisa responds, "I see," and then calls the young man to
back out of the date.

    The saga of Mary discipling Lisa as an illustration of the
Boston movement's methodology is not finished; it continues on
(though not in this article).

    The above scenario is a composite drawn from cases known to
the author and is typical of those who, as recently as the writing
of this article, have been introduced to and become involved in
the Boston movement. While the individuals and their situations
are different, the process employed and content taught are
basically the same.

    From this scenario, at least two disturbing aspects of the
Boston movement are noticeable. The first is a doctrine of
salvation in which faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient: a
valid baptism in obedience to Jesus is necessary. The second is a
practice of discipling in which the personal life of every
believer is controlled by a discipler who is over that person.
There is a discipler over every discipler, a hierarchy of
disciplers working its way up to the top. Through this the church
maintains control of each person.

    The Boston movement owes its understanding of the relationship
between salvation and baptism to its roots in the Churches of
Christ and, as we shall see later, to misinterpretation of
certain Bible passages. Its discipling process, however, is a
major point of departure from the Churches of Christ, and is
considered by the latter group to be a serious problem. Before
looking at their doctrine of salvation and some passages alleged
to support it, it is important to give some consideration first
to the origin of the discipling process, its development in the
Boston movement, and its impact.


*HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT*

    In the early 1970s Kip McKean, the founding evangelist and
pastor of the Boston movement, was a student at the University of
Florida in Gainesville. There he met Chuck Lucas, pastor of the
Crossroads Church of Christ. Lucas was active in a campus
outreach program for the Churches of Christ, developing "Campus
Advance" principles. He recruited McKean and trained him in what
was then and is now a radical version of discipleship developed
primarily from Robert Coleman's book, _The Master Plan of
Evangelism._ Lucas understood Coleman to teach that Jesus
controlled the lives of His apostles and then taught His apostles
to disciple others by controlling their lives. Therefore
Christians today should use the same process Jesus taught His
apostles when bringing people to Christ. Lucas put this teaching
into practice in a discipleship process which he taught to McKean
and others.

    In 1976 a number of Lucas's trainees, including McKean, were
sent out to affiliate with Church of Christ congregations located
near college campuses. The plan was that each would start a campus
outreach using the local church for a base. McKean went to
Heritage Chapel Church of Christ in Charleston, Illinois and
initiated a campus outreach at Eastern Illinois University.
Though he was successful, it wasn't long before some church
members questioned his discipleship process and made charges
regarding manipulation and control. In fact, several
congregational splits occurred over the new discipling process
being implemented on these campuses.

    In 1979 McKean moved to the Boston suburb of Lexington where
he became involved in the Lexington Church of Christ. Meeting on
June 1 with thirty people -- each committing themselves to the
Lord and His work -- McKean established an aggressive program of
evangelism and discipleship. The result was phenomenal. The
church went from 30 to 1,000 members in just a few years and
outgrew its facilities. By 1983 the church had to rent the Boston
Opera House for its meeting on Sunday and meet in homes ("house
churches") for midweek services. Later that year the Lexington
Church of Christ changed its name to the Boston Church of Christ.

    In 1981 the Boston movement launched an aggressive missions
program, sending out teams of people to establish churches
throughout America and the world. These churches would be part of
the Boston family of churches, under the authority and control of
the Boston Church of Christ, and using the same discipling
methods as the Boston church. As Jerusalem was the center from
which Christianity spread throughout the world, so the Boston
movement sees Boston as the modern-day center for "multiplying"
worldwide ministry.

    Churches were established in many major cities, including
London (1981), Chicago (1982), New York City (1983), Toronto and
Providence (1985), Johannesburg, Paris, and Stockholm (1986), and
Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bombay, and Cairo (1987-88). Each church
in the Boston movement places the name of their city in front of
"Church of Christ" -- for example, "Los Angeles Church of Christ"
-- because they believe churches in the Bible were called by the
names of their cities. Today there are churches on every
continent (103 in all) with a total membership of 50,000.[1]

    Everything seemed to be going well for the Boston movement.
Yes, for years there have been former members, cult researchers,
and others accusing the movement of such aberrations as
brainwashing, excessive control, exclusivity, elitism, and false
doctrine. But the movement itself appeared to be solidly united --
until 1988. Disagreement from within the movement surfaced,
including breaks within the ranks. Charges similar to those heard
from outside the movement were now coming from within.

    For example, the Crossroads Church of Christ (the Crossroads
movement) voted to dissociate itself from the Boston movement.
The Boston movement had been at the forefront of the larger
Crossroads movement for years. When Lucas left the Crossroads
church (and movement) in 1985, McKean assumed leadership of the
movement and Boston became its center. Under his leadership,
differences in emphasis between the Boston and other Crossroads
churches became evident, leading to disagreement and finally
dissociation. The differences cited included the following:  1)
the usurping of congregational authority; 2) the exercise of
excessive control; 3) the undue authority given to leaders; and
4) the teaching that one must obey one's discipler in all
matters, even in areas of opinion.

    Elders of the Tampa Bay Church of Christ also made a decision
to break with the Boston movement over four major doctrinal
practices: "1) their unscriptural authority and control; 2) their
unscriptural leadership and organization; 3) their unscriptural
exclusivity and elitism; and 4) their unscriptural self-approval
by their successes."[2] Of particular concern to them was a
statement made on May 14, 1988 by McKean that a congregation must
obey its evangelist: "The only time you don't obey him is if he
violates scripture or violates your conscience. But, other than
that, in all opinion areas, you...obey!"[3]

    Then, on October 21, 1988, a letter from one of the Boston
church's house church leaders, Ron Gholston in Bridgewater, was
sent to the elders of the Boston Church of Christ. It cited
problems similar to those indicated by both Crossroads and Tampa
Bay.[4]

    Until recent years, leaders in the Boston movement, when faced
with a problem, would acknowledge some mistakes. But instead of
looking at their teaching and practice as the possible source,
they would often relegate the blame to some overzealous
member(s). By now, however, it has become clear that some
problems were caused by the teaching and functioning ministry of
the church itself, particularly in the areas of authority and
submission. In the second issue of the movement's magazine,
_UpsideDown_ (April 1992), McKean makes the following admission:
"I was wrong in some of my initial thoughts about biblical
authority. I had felt that church leaders could call people to
obey and follow in all areas of opinion. This was incorrect."[5]
In that same issue, the caption under the title of an article by
Al Baird, an elder at Boston, says: "It's time to look back, admit
mistakes, make corrections and move forward for Christ."[6]

    The discipling process of the Boston movement has its origin
in the Crossroads movement and evolved from there through the
teachings of Kip McKean. It has been an essential component (if
not the heart) of the Boston movement since McKean came to Boston
in 1979, and has provided the basis for much of the church's
success and controversy. The church is finally recognizing at
least some error in the process -- error that has caused problems
and hurt people.

    Before we look at how the discipling process is said to be
changing, and consider whether these changes are sufficient, the
teaching of the Boston movement regarding the relationship
between salvation and baptism should be considered.


*SALVATION AND BAPTISM*

    The Boston movement teaches generally the same doctrine of
salvation as the Churches of Christ. One must be water baptized
into Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Faith, they both teach,
is not sufficient for salvation; it is not counted for
righteousness _until_ one obeys God by being baptized with the
conscious knowledge that at the moment of baptism one is being
saved and one's sins are being forgiven. Furthermore, one's
baptism is not considered valid unless it is administered by the
true church of Christ (i.e., the churches of Christ or the Boston
movement).

    Having said this, the Boston movement seems to go beyond the
Churches of Christ, setting an even higher standard for baptism.
Teaching that one must be baptized as a _disciple,_ they include
the element of commitment as a condition for salvation in
addition to faith, repentance, and confession. This may explain
why they have rebaptized those who were baptized in other
Churches of Christ, and why they also have rebaptized their own
people, including elders, who were baptized previously in the
Boston movement, but were thought to have lacked the necessary
commitment of a disciple at the time of their baptisms. Given
their standard and additional condition for baptism (and
salvation) which only _they_ seem to meet, one could conclude that
those in the Boston movement alone are saved.

    Laying aside the understanding of baptism as a "conscious
baptism" and "as a disciple," and the question of _who_
administers it, the bottom line question is whether baptism is
necessary for salvation. In other words, must one be baptized to
have one's sins forgiven?

    The Bible is very clear in its teachings regarding salvation.
Personal faith, belief, or trust in Jesus Christ as one's Savior
is both _necessary_ (if one does not have this, one is not
saved)[7] and _sufficient_ (if one has this, one is saved).[8]
Paul's response to the Philippian jailer's question, "What must I
do to be saved?" is to the point: "Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you shall be saved."[9]

    How, then, does the Boston movement substantiate its claim
that baptism is necessary (if one does not have this, one is not
saved)? They will agree that _faith_ is necessary (though not
sufficient) and insist that _baptism_ is also necessary in
obedience to Christ. They will point out certain texts in the
Bible which they interpret as supporting the necessity of
baptism. Space will only permit us to look at three of the major
texts cited by the Boston movement: Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and
Acts 2:38.


*Mark 16:16*

    _He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved;
but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned._

    Regarding this text, the Boston movement simply states the
first part of the verse, using the formula _belief + baptism =
salvation._ In studying this passage one should understand, first
of all, that Mark 16:9-20 is not in some of the oldest and most
reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (e.g., Codices
Siniaticus and Alexandrinus). Therefore, it may not be part of
the original text.

    Second, assuming that it _is_ part of the original text, the
easiest and clearest way to see what verse 16 teaches is to list
the possible relationships between belief and baptism, and then
determine what the verse actually affirms and denies. The four
possibilities are: (1) believing and baptized; (2) believing and
not baptized; (3) not believing but baptized; and (4) not
believing and not baptized. The first part of verse 16 affirms
possibility (1) (if one believes and has been baptized, one is
saved). The latter part of the verse, however, denies
possibilities (3) and (4) (if one does not believe, baptized or
not, one is condemned). But the verse does not affirm _or_ deny
possibility (2) (if one believes and is not baptized). Since it
does not _deny_ that one can be saved apart from baptism, Mark
16:16 cannot be used to establish the teaching of the Boston
movement that baptism is necessary for salvation. In fact, the
second part of verse 16 lends support to the view that baptism is
not necessary for salvation since the entire basis of
condemnation is _disbelief_ (implying that _belief_ alone can
remove this condemnation).


*John 3:5*

    _Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God._

    Regarding this text, the Boston movement takes the phrase
"born of water" to be baptism and interprets Jesus' words in this
manner: unless one is baptized, one cannot enter the kingdom of
God. In approaching this passage we should keep in mind that
context is always the final determiner as to the meaning of any
word or phrase. Given this, we should consider the flow and
development of the argument in this dialogue between Jesus and
Nicodemus and let that determine what Jesus meant by "born of
water."

    In verse 3 Nicodemus hears Jesus say that one must be "born
again." He concludes that Jesus is speaking of something related
to physical birth but cannot comprehend how he can go through
physical birth a second time (see verse 4). Jesus picks up on
Nicodemus's thinking and seeks to move the argument from
_physical_ birth to _spiritual_ birth (the real meaning of "born
again" or "born from above").

    Jesus does this by introducing the phrase "born of water and
the Spirit" in verse 5, and then explaining the phrase in verse 6.
If "born of water" in verse 5 is the same as "born of the flesh"
in verse 6 (just as "born of...the Spirit" and "born of the
Spirit" are the same in verses 5 and 6), then "born of water"
should be understood metaphorically as referring to physical or
natural birth. Thus, the gist of what Jesus is saying is this: as
one has had a physical birth, so one must have a spiritual birth
if one is to enter the kingdom of God (which is spiritual). Since
John 3:5 is not a reference to baptism, it should not be used by
the Boston movement as a baptism text.


*Acts 2:38*

    _Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit._

    Regarding this text, the Boston movement takes the preposition
"for" as "for the purpose of" and then concludes that one must be
baptized _for the purpose of_ the forgiveness of sins. Students of
the Greek language know that _eis_ ("for") is a preposition of
reference used to signify a relationship between two things, and
that it can have several meanings. It could be understood, for
example, as _causative_ ("in order to attain") or as _resultant_
("because of").

    Since prepositions in the English language can also have
several meanings, it may be easier to look at two illustrations in
English and then apply what we learn to our text. If one says, "I
am going to the office _for_ my paycheck," the meaning is clearly
causative (to get or receive my paycheck). Applying this to Acts
2:38, one should "be baptized...[to get or receive] the
forgiveness of sins." This interpretation would support the
teaching of the Boston movement. On the other hand, if one says,
"I enlisted for love of my country," the meaning is clearly
resultant (because I love my country). Applying this to Acts
2:38, one should "be baptized...[because one already has] the
forgiveness of sins." This interpretation would contradict the
teaching of the Boston movement.

    The immediate context does not help us in this case to
determine which meaning is correct, but other passages in the same
book relate the forgiveness of sins to repentance (Acts 3:9) and
to believing prior to baptism (10:43-48). These and other passages
in the New Testament support the view that "for" in Acts 2:38 has
a _resultant_ sense -- that one should be baptized because _one
already has_ the forgiveness of sins. Since the relationship
between baptism and forgiveness cannot be determined from the
preposition and the immediate context of Acts 2:38, this text
should not be used as a proof text by the Boston movement to
substantiate their teaching.

    Several other passages -- such as Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4,
Galatians 3:27, and 1 Peter 3:21 -- are used by the Boston
movement to support their view of baptism. But, as with the
foregoing passages, when studied and understood correctly, they
do not teach the necessity of baptism. Since nothing in the Bible
supports the teaching of the Boston movement regarding baptism,
we must return to the clear teaching of the Bible with which we
began: What is not only _necessary_ but _sufficient_ for salvation
is faith, belief, or trust in Jesus Christ as one's Savior.


*DISCIPLING, CONTROL, AND CHANGE*

    Returning to the discipling process for a final look, the
heart of the Boston movement lies in their perceiving themselves
as a discipling movement. What is discipleship? Before leaving
earth for heaven, Jesus gave His disciples a commission to "make
disciples."[10] A disciple is one who learns from another, who
attaches him or herself to a discipler and becomes a follower in
doctrine and conduct of life. The one who disciples helps to
shape the whole life of his or her disciple and produce
Christlikeness. With this understanding of discipling there is
very little, if any, disagreement. Where the disagreement comes
is in the means used to produce change in the life of the
disciple. Some have sought to control the disciple's life,
_making_ change occur, while others have sought to develop in the
disciple a love and a heart for Jesus, letting that be the
motivation for change. In other words, the first approach attempts
to directly orchestrate change in the disciple's life; the second
approach seeks to facilitate a relationship with Jesus, so that
_Jesus Himself_ can orchestrate the change.

    Whenever the "C" word (control) enters the discipling
relationship, as it has in the Boston movement, it definitely
produces the force needed to bring about changes in lives, in a
church, and in a movement. But it can also create many
distortions. To maintain control a movement might, for example:

* claim that the authority of the leaders is God-given or
delegated by God to such an extent that in disobeying them, one
is disobeying God;

* develop a hierarchy of discipling relationships from the bottom
to the top with decisions always coming from the top down;

* emphasize authority and submission in the relationships between
the discipler-disciple, evangelist-congregation, and
leaders-people, rather than a servant's heart and exemplary
character.

    Such control is insidious; it is an evolving temptation that
seeks to use whatever it can to achieve its goal.

    Once a movement realizes that problems exist within the realm
of control or as a result of it, they can either reconsider the
major issue of control (if they perceive that to be the problem),
or simply work on the areas in which problems are occurring. In a
recent article in _UpsideDown,_ Al Baird, an elder at Boston,
seems to pursue the latter course. Admitting that the Boston
movement has made some mistakes in areas relating to control and
authority, he sets forth his thoughts on changes (which one
assumes to be those of the Boston movement). First, he
acknowledges that the means used in the discipling process have
been wrong. He says, "We tried to make a disciple do something
rather than motivate him to do it out of his love for God and our
love for him."[11] Furthermore, he believes that a disciple should
be given room to wrestle with and make decisions. He says, "If
people do not agree (unless it is a clearly defined biblical
matter), we need to leave them room to make mistakes."[12]

    As these changes are now being implemented, it will be
interesting to see, in the days ahead, how much tolerance and
patience will be shown for hearts to be motivated to change, and
how much freedom will be allowed, in a movement whose modus
operandi thus far has been control. Will they be able to resist
the temptation to exercise control in areas other than clearly
defined biblical matters, given their emphasis on commitment,
attention to numbers (how many attend weekly services and house
churches, how many are baptized, etc.), and focus on success
(which is used to substantiate that this is God's movement
today)?

    Second, Baird admits that authority given to leaders
previously -- extending to "every area and phase of life" -- was
excessive. They were "wrong," he says, "to call someone to obey
such things as choice of food, car, clothes and exact amount of
giving, etc."[13] (One could add to these how long a kiss should
be, how often a married couple should have sex, and a host of
other things.) The authority of leaders should be limited,
according to Baird, to those areas that "prepare God's people for
works of service...build up the body of Christ...promote
unity...and bring the individual and body to maturity in
Christ."[14] It should be understood, of course, that leaders have
the authority to "call meetings of the body, call for greater
sacrifice...specific evangelistic outreach efforts or prayer
times, etc."[15]

    As these guidelines, derived from Ephesians 4:11-13, are now
being implemented, it will also be interesting to observe what
changes actually occur and to note the differences. Unfortunately,
the potential for the exercise of control in "matters of opinion"
(matters where God's Word does not specify or legislate) still
exists. Some matters of opinion and matters that should be left to
the individual could easily be interpreted as _part of_ or _in
light of_ the goals indicated in the guidelines, and thus
understood as necessary directives. Will the Boston movement be
able to resist this temptation when their goals as a movement are
at stake?

    An example of this might be a situation Baird himself mentions
in his article. He says, "It has been said that if any evangelist
asks you to move to a particular zone or Bible Talk, then you
need to move. That may be the end result unless the two of you
can come up with a better plan, but it omits the process of
persuasion and motivation that leaves people confident and
excited. The end result is the same, but the heart is very
different."[16] If "the end result is the same," it may be that
the Boston movement has no intention of relinquishing control of
its members' personal lives where the goals of the ministry are
concerned, even if that control is now wielded in a "kinder and
gentler" fashion.

    Thus far this author's contacts on the Eastern Seaboard have
not revealed any observable differences as a result of changes
being implemented. But, as the old saying goes, "time will tell."
The Boston movement should be commended for seeing the need for
some change and encouraged to bring these changes (and others) to
fruition.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Bjornstad, Ph.D., is assistant professor of religion and
philosophy at King's College, Briarcliff Manor, New York, and the
Executive Director of the Institute for Contemporary Christianity
in Oakland, New Jersey.
------------------------------------------------------------------

*NOTES*

 1 Kip McKean, "Revolution through Restoration," _UpsideDown,_
   April 1992, 5-16.
 2 Elders, Tampa Bay Church of Christ, "Why We Refused to Submit
   to Boston," _Gospel Advocate,_ June 1989, 160-61.
 3 _Ibid._
 4 Letter from Ron Gholsten to Al Baird and Bob Gempel, Boston
   Church of Christ elders, dated 21 October 1988, on file.
 5 McKean, 15.
 6 Al Baird, "A New Look at Authority," _UpsideDown,_ April 1992,
   2.
 7 See, for example, John 3:18; 8:24; Heb. 4:2; 11:6.
 8 See, for example, John 3:14-15; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 20:30-31; Acts
   10:43; 16:31; Rom. 1:16-17; 1 John 5:1, 13.
 9 Acts 16:30-31.
10 Matt. 28:19.
11 Baird, 18.
12 _Ibid._
13 _Ibid.,_ 19.
14 _Ibid._
15 _Ibid._
16 _Ibid.,_ 49


End of document, CRJ0004A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"At What Price Success? The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement"
release A, June 10, 1993
R. Poll, CRI

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the
late Dr. Walter R. Martin.  While CRI is concerned with and
involved in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity.  These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).

Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch", "F.Y.I"
(Relevant material in recent media), witnessing tips and book
reviews.


CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES:
(U.S. funds only)       One Year     Two Years     Three Years

California Residents    [] 15.09     [] 26.94      [] 39.87
(tax included)

U.S. Residents          [] 14.00     [] 25.00      [] 37.00
(except California)

Outside U.S.            [] 20.00     [] 35.00      [] 52.00
(including Canada)

Please make checks payable to CRI


To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and and mail it with
your payment to:

    CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500


[] Yes!  I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.


Name:    ___________________________________________________


Address: ___________________________________________________


Address: ___________________________________________________


City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________


Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________



YOURS FOR THE ASKING

Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking?  In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if
you contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about
the offer from this computer text file.  We offer a wide variety
of articles and fact sheets free of charge.  Write us today for
information on these or other topics.  Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.

Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA  92693

[phone]

---------------
End of file.