You’re right, I did reclassify the list. I think a female preacher, as wrong as we may both agree that is, is in a different category than a homosexual preacher or a “church” of homosexuals. The homosexual preacher or congregation is morally depraved, while the female preacher (and her congregation) may simply be engaged in an innocent error of thinking. As Campbell wrote, “It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect.”

Of course, it is possible that the female preacher may be justifying herself by denying Bible authority, so there may be cause for avoiding such brethren on those grounds. Certainly many “modernists” are in that category. I think we just need to be clear on our reasons for dissociating and be specific to each circumstance.

: 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.

I agree completely. Advocating immorality is in the same category as doing it. “Gay” pastors and congregations are activists fighting against moral standards and Bible authority. We should have no association with them on both counts.

: 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.

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether we feel the Bible is clear on it, but whether it is one of the things the apostolic letters teach us to divide over or not. We are to keep the church pure and unspotted by sin, but I submit that it’s impossible to keep the church pure and unspotted from misunderstandings of scripture. We're all human, and those are two different things. Rebellion against God's will is different than a misunderstanding of it, which we all do at times. That’s why Paul writes in Romans 14 about forbearing our brothers who differ in matters of conscience.

I ran across an article once that noted that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are commonly referred to as the “pastoral letters” and that the instruction for hiring and firing elders are given to these “pastors.” That was my first realization that those who use the “one man pastor” system do so based on their (mis)understanding of scripture. Before, I believed they were either ignorant or rebellious.

I believe, like you, that it's a totally incorrect view, but this sincerely held opinion about a deduction from the apostolic letters does not rise to the level of rejecting a brother. I can consider him a brother, sing and pray with him, and still offer him my alternate view in the hope that he will understand the meaning of these scriptures better. Another good Campbell quote is in order (sorry, but it’s a good one): “…let him have it as his private opinion; but lay no stress upon it; and if it be a wrong private opinion, it will die a natural death much sooner than if you attempt to kill it.” (Millennial Harbinger, 1830, p. 147)

: 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?

The comparison is just that they are both doing things that the NT teaches us to “deny fellowship” for. True divisiveness is pretty evident by someone’s attitudes, words, and actions and was pretty evident in the slanderous accusations on both sides of various schisms in the 20th century restoration movement. Hymenaus and Alexander set out to form factions and were even telling the brethren not to accept Paul into their homes. That is personal animosity and divisiveness at its worst. There is absolutely no room for that in the church. No one should want to replay those decades in the wilderness.

: … 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 completely agree. There is nothing wrong with following our consciences by refusing to organize ourselves using a one-man pastor or even by using one cup or refusing to have “classes” or whatever. These in themselves may be either correct or erroneous deductions, but are not divisive. But when we make a faction out of them as a test of fellowship--a creed--then I worry that we’ve crossed the line into divisiveness. I don’t believe we have to surrender our opinions to be in unity. That is actually my whole point in a nutshell.

: 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.

That’s one interpretation of the history. The other is that unity and peace was preached, albeit by imperfect men and in imperfect ways, and some didn’t quite understand the message yet due to their own errors in thinking and prejudices from past experiences. That doesn’t mean they were lost or bad people. They thought accepting their brother meant accepting his errors and that just isn’t the case. I don’t hold it against anyone who still feels that way, as I’ve been the worst of the worst at that. All I can do is try to straighten out my own thinking and suggest that others give some thought to these things as well.

: Two groups that could have agreed on many things were torn into pieces and neither side was willing to compromise.

What many didn’t realize (and still don’t) is that we don’t have to compromise to accept our brethren who differ from us and work from that foundation to edify each other to the best of our ability. But I know what you mean. I believe the factional spirit was very much the zeitgeist back then. I don’t think it is now, and I think that’s a good thing.

: Many good Christians were hurt and their faith damaged. Many weaker Christians fell away and returned to the world.

I’m sure that’s true. Anytime Christians resort to debates and grandstanding, factionalism, and name-calling, it can’t help the cause of Christ. I also know of people who are being turned away from the gospel by more recent bickering and exclusivism. We all have a lot to learn and unlearn, as I see it.

: 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.

Maybe it’s useful to make a distinction between those wanting or recognizing more liberty in Christ and those wanting more unity in Christ. They are not always the same person. I’m also not out to defend or denounce any particular person or party from past church of Christ history. All humans have their failures, myself very much included.

I don’t doubt that the works of the flesh have been prevalent on both sides of this question. Where we go from here is to put aside envy, strife, malice, etc. and just seek to bring hearts and minds to a more Christlike attitude over time without forming any more factions.

I’m an avid reader of history, but I don’t pretend to have read it all, nor do I think it’s necessary in order to form an opinion on Christian unity from the Bible. I've been on a couple of non-church of Christ e-mail discussion groups for just two days, and I can tell you firsthand there is a thriving restoration movement underway that has never heard or cared about the Church of Christ or Christian Churches and all of our schisms. People all over the world want to get back to New Testament Christianity and are coming out of the denominational systems of authority. We can help them if we don't insist that they resurrect all of our old debates, sign on to our unwritten creeds, and bolt a Church of Christ sign on the wall.

Division has occurred throughout history from the Reformation on, and a case can be made that it has always been over one thing--creeds, or tests of fellowship. If we can wrap our minds around a world where these don’t exist, we can start to see the city off in the distance. I really believe that, and I actually see it starting to happen when I look outside of my own little echo chamber.

I used to believe unity was achievable on the basis of uniformity of opinion until I recognized that the only way to achieve this is authoritarianism. Then I resigned myself to thinking that unity was simply unachievable on Earth until I recognized that it has nothing to do with uniformity of opinion. Now I see that Jesus wasn’t praying for something unattainable.

: 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...

Absolutely. I obviously don't have all the answers. I just know the "how" is with love, patience, and perseverance, starting with a solid Biblical re-evaluation of our own hearts and minds.

: 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.

Thanks Craig, I know we're all on the same page there.