You refer to ‘comfort zone’ which I think is a fair word to describe the general topic at hand. I always want to question my comfort zone to make sure that I am not reacting because of tradition, but because of the instruction in the Word.

Back to the “where you draw the line” question: You re-classify my list in an interesting way. I referred to a preacher of a congregation not under elders where the preacher was the congregational leadership; a female preacher; a homosexual preacher; a choir; and a 12 piece band. You reframed that by categorizing the homosexual preacher as morally depraved and added to that list 1) brothers who have departed from the gospel,2) denied Bible authority, or 3) who are out to create disharmony and promote factions.

First let me say that I do not believe that the Bible supports the homosexual lifestyle. However, there are people that do accept this lifestyle and attempt to use a certain interpretation of the Bible to back it up. I would say that someone in this category would be in serious error. I could reason with them and provide Bible teaching but I could not accept such a thing.

So now, what about the preacher of a congregation not under elders where the preacher was the congregational leadership? In my opinion. the Bible is just as clear on local church government as it is on the homosexual issue. The elders of a local congregation are the ones in charge. They are charged to follow the Bible and they are held responsible. They also must meet certain guidelines (qualifications). Many preachers not under elders don’t meet many of the scriptural guidelines. Unfortunately, these issues, homosexual preacher and preacher in charge, seem to be similar. Of course, members of groups in the above two examples should be taught rather than condemned. But at some time the dust needs to be shaken off the feet. As for the female preacher, choir and 12 piece band. There are no Biblical examples of these and as groups discuss the merits of participating in them the results of participation should be considered.

As for your list: obviously they are based on scripture. Brothers who have departed from the gospel or denied Bible authority are clearly in error and by definition probably don’t care.

It does appear though that you seem to make a direct comparison between a homosexual preacher and people who are out to create disharmony and promote factions. I’m not sure I buy that one because: who is the judge of whether a person is set on creating division or whether they are just following their conscience? I guess if someone’s goal is to break apart a congregation by strife they are acting sinfully. But a person that feels a need to obey the Bible teaching about elder based church government should not be found as promoting factions when they are only following conscience. I think that this is a very dangerous area to start treading in. Also, creating disharmony is an interesting area to analyze. What falls into that category? Is the more legalistic or the more liberty oriented group the divider?

A little over forty years ago, many churches of Christ were thrown into turmoil by a handful (with one outspoken leader) of people preaching unity. Many of their points were right and true, but the method and result was disastrous. In an effort to bring unity, they brought division. They were not the only ones to blame as many in the legalistic group could have responded more effectively. Two groups that could have agreed on many things were torn into pieces and neither side was willing to compromise. Many good Christians were hurt and their faith damaged. Many weaker Christians fell away and returned to the world. Ironically, the group that espoused unity separated themselves and was not accepting of the other group (I bring this up because the original group was referred to as a “faction”). The original group became more defensive than it needed to be, but has yet to really recover.

My point is basically: unity is a great idea, but the tactics and process used to achieve it are vitally important. While it might be different in denominational religions, the examples in the churches of Christ is that splits and factions have been created by the side promoting more liberty in most, if not all, cases. That doesn’t mean that they were always wrong, but division still resulted. Splits over instrumental music in the early 1900’s, splits over church government later, splits over unity later.

I am fully convinced on the merits of unity in the churches of Christ, but I also know that there needs to be careful consideration in how it is achieved and maybe even more important is the need to always ask ourselves whether or not the change we desire is best for all concerned. I believe that if a handful of prominent men in the mid-1950’s would have asked themselves that questions that the church would be much stronger today. I am also convinced that fewer souls would have been lost in the process.

I think that the framework of many of your points are sincere and while I may not agree or understand all of it, I do see the need for better unity in the churches of Christ.