The newspaper headline for the Peoria Journal Star for April 13, 2009 was “Two Churches, One Faith.” This title is just the first thing wrong with the entire article. In order for the heading to be correct, one needs only to rewrite the Scriptures. Jesus did not say in Matthew 16:18: “On this rock I will build two churches.” did He? And in the famous passage that Paul wrote, in which he stressed unity, he did not write: “There are two bodies and one Spirit, just as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, two faiths, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” (Eph. 4:4-6). It is always amazing that people accept disunity, division, and denominationalism—as though the Bible spoke approvingly of them.
The second error is the caption under the picture:
The Rev. William Preston of City on a Hill Church in South Peoria washes the feet of the Rev. Jeff Browning during a joint Easter Sunday evening service held at Washington Christian Church in Washington. The pastors washed each other’s feet just as Jesus washed the feet of the disciples at the Last Supper
Why men prefer to use exalted titles such as “Reverend” when Jesus clearly told the apostles not to use them is always a mystery (Matt. 23:6-11); perhaps their use should be a clue about those individuals to those who sincerely desire to follow God. A similar question is: “Why would any devout Christian, let alone a leader, be involved in an ‘Easter’ service, something totally foreign to the Scriptures?” When did the apostles observe an “Easter” service or command brethren to do so?
Easter was an invention of men to honor the resurrection of Jesus annually. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus to remember His death on the cross each week. Manmade traditions cannot take the place of what God authorized without producing vain worship.
Both men are called pastors. Are they really pastors in the sense of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1—or is this another compromise with denominational error? Did they wash each other’s feet as Jesus washed the disciples’ feet? It does not appear so. Jesus laid aside His outer garments and wrapped a towel around Him (John 13:4). These men are wearing shirts and pants and are not girded with a towel.
More importantly, they are not doing as Jesus did. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet because they were dirty. The rest of their bodies were clean because they had prepared for the Passover properly, but their feet were dirty. They had no host, and none of the disciples had offered to wash even the Lord’s feet, let alone each others. Jesus used the moment for a teaching opportunity. When Peter protested, Jesus said he would have no part with Him unless he let Him wash him (John 13:8). Jesus also told him that what he was doing he did not understand—although His actions were plain for all to see (John 13:7). The men in the photograph probably wore socks and shoes to this “Easter” celebration and therefore did not even have filthy feet. Jesus was not instituting a new act of worship; He was demonstrating humility to His disciples (who would shortly be arguing about which of them was greatest)
So What?
Someone might wonder why this is worthy of a mention, since these types of things go on all the time. The answer is that the City on a Hill is not the entire name of that religious group; its full name is the City on a Hill Church of Christ! Most brethren might say, “What? Is it possible that a church of Christ is worshipping with instruments, observing Easter, fellowshipping denominations, and engaging in foot washing? Sad, isn’t it? One might further wonder what kind of name City on a Hill is? It’s not the name this church used for nearly forty years, nor does it describe the location.
One might also wonder just what kind of bozos preached there that this kind of apostasy could have been inaugurated. Actually, the church had many fine preachers of the Word, and the evangelist who spent the most time there (11 years) is the bozo writing this article, who preached there from 1980-1991.
“Well, didn’t you ever teach on any of these subjects?” would be an appropriate question, and the answer is a rather emphatic, “Duh!” All of my predecessors did, also. To be specific, in eleven years, I probably published articles on the origin of Easter at least three times. It, along with other traditions of men, was warned against in the course of classes or sermons dealing with Matthew 15:1-9.
What about instrumental music? Several sermons over the years were presented on the topic, but one of the most comprehensive presentations on the subject occurred when I presented the gist of the material in the Highers-Blakely Debate, which occurred April 12-15, 1988. The material was well-received; not a single member showed any hint of disagreement. The material in this book (which was published later) remains useful—especially since it highlights the various failed attempts to justify the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. That material was only presented 21 years ago. Are memories so short?
The use of religious titles was often mentioned as something that was not done in the Lord’s Church, and all the members knew why. And everyone certainly knew that denominationalism was not begun by nor sanctioned by the Lord. Over the years, members studied the various sinfulness of the idea itself, as well as where teachings of various groups contradict the Bible. Beyond all of that, however, I wrote specifically about the Joplin Unity Summit when I returned from it.
A friend had asked me if I would be attending it, and I made plans to be there. Neither he nor I knew that it was by invitation only. Four “selected” men were not able to participate; so my friend asked Alan Cloyd (the coordinator for “our” side) if I could sit in one of the groups. He answered that he could not allow it because the men in the groups had been specially chosen, and it would upset the balance. He said I could attend the public lectures, however; so I came the next day and was asked by the President of the school who was hosting the event (run by the Christian Church) if I wanted to sit in a discussion group, which I affirmed.
Thus I participated in the entire event and saw how slanted things were—especially when materials by Carl Ketcherside showed up on the tables of free materials. I wrote a few things about it (and presented it to the church in Peoria), but brother Joe MacDonald actually taped several of the lectures. What occurred there is a matter of record; it was a compromising event. “Restoration Forums” have continued since 1984, but unlike the first one, faithful, sound brethren no longer attend. The overall point is that the sin of religious division was thoroughly dealt with over the years.
So What Happened?
Having left there only 18 years ago, what could have possibly happened in a short period of time? No, it was not the next preacher, who died while working with the church. The problem began with the next man who went there to preach. Radical changes soon occurred, and a significant portion of the congregation left. Race can be omitted from most stories as irrelevant, but here it plays a role.
Although the Southside Church of Christ (its original name) was begun by white families in the early 60s, it soon became integrated. My wife and I were members from 1968 until 1972, prior to beginning full-time work in Pennsylvania. If there was any disharmony in the congregation during this time of national turmoil, we never heard anything about it. We were brothers and sisters regardless of skin color.
When I moved to Southside in 1980, the congregation was about 60% white and 40% black. Again, so far as we know, no problems of race ever developed. In the early 80s a black family came to worship with us; the husband let it be known that he would like to preach on occasion, and he was given several opportunities. His approach was somewhat folksy, and we all loved to hear him speak
While he and his family were with us, some brethren from certain cities called upon me and said their goal was to hold a tent meeting and start a black congregation in Peoria. They wanted to know if Southside could help them get started. We had no money, but I said I would present it to the men. We were having a morning get-together away from the city in a quiet place, and I told them of this group’s plan. The brother who spoke frequently asked: “Why do we need a black congregation? We have one now the way it should be.” Others commented that we never discriminated against anyone and that we would study with anyone (regardless of color) who was interested in the gospel. I was grateful that the men saw things this way without even a word from me. We continued to do what we had always done, and the other group gave up their plans.
A Profile in Apostasy
A dozen years after this event Southside began to consider hiring someone to replace the brother who had died. Although both black and white preachers had held gospel meetings through the years, the local evangelist had always been white. Some of the brethren asked if they could consider hiring a black, and the answer was, “Of course.” In fact, I recommended someone to them, but he ended up not moving there.
At last, they found someone, but a few members wondered about his soundness. Another former preacher and I checked on him and found some things that sent up red flags, which we conveyed to the brethren, but they asked him to come and work with them anyway. He made some changes quickly.
First, he changed the office from the front of the building, where it had been for two decades, to one of the classrooms also serving as an entrance to the baptistery. No, it was not more spacious; it was the same size. The reason for the change was that he wanted to remain in the room until it was time for him to speak. He did not participate in the singing, the prayers, or even in the Lord’s Supper. He remained in the office until it was time for him to speak; then he made his entrance. Many of the brethren thought that this practice was designed to exalt him rather than Jesus and that it was not Scriptural to behave in such a manner.
But worse yet was that he encouraged the church to clap their hands while singing spiritual songs designed to praise God. Brethren began protesting that such a practice was clearly not Scriptural, but his response was, “Things are going to be different here now.” Well, they were. Just as brethren were ill-treated 100 years ago by those who would have the instrument no matter what, those who objected here were ignored. Many could not conscientiously worship under such conditions; so they started meeting with other congregations in the area.
Although one black family and one single mother left, the majority of those leaving were white. Suddenly, they were racist—even though they had unanimous-ly voted to hire this man. The preacher tried several times to get the single mother to return, telling her that those white folks didn’t care anything about her. Hmm. Who was the racist, do you suppose? He continued there for more than five years. Eventually, he was arrested on charges of molesting his step-daughter; he didn’t last much longer after that. How many sermons did they hear during this time to remind them that denominationalism was sinful and that Christians must only do in worship what God has authorized? The problem was not that he was black; the problem was that he was liberal. Then the congregation hired their current “Reverend-pastor,” who got them to change the congregation’s name and turn their back on efforts made by all the sound preachers in the past.
Why didn’t those who remained during this decade of change stand up and say, “We were taught better than this”? Perhaps some did, but the congregation has degenerated into what is now little more than a denomination. They have forgotten their past. They have forgotten those who established the church on the south side of Peoria in a storefront building. They probably cannot give a single name of the original elders and deacons of that congregation, all but one of which has passed on.
They have probably forgotten all the faithful brethren of both races that worked hard year after year to make Southside a flourishing congregation. The names of the preachers who labored there, such as Arlen Campbell (who baptized me), Don Flanagan, Kenneth Dinkins, Ted Clarke, James Lowrie, and this writer are probably nearly unknown at this point. Even the name of the church has been changed.
Hypocrisy
Yes, there is a reason for supplying all these details. Of course, the Journal Star might not have been as impressed with this page one story if they had done a background check, but publishing pertinent facts has never been their forte. This “news” story is not just the account of two different churches having a unity love fest. It’s a story of racial harmony. What? It begins:
The racial lines that once separated two churches— one black, one white—were blurred on Sunday….
That gap, created by differences in culture, tradition, ethnicity and a roughly 25-minute drive, was nearly unnoticeable as the two congregations joined hands and voices under the roof of Washington Christian Church (A1).
What the story fails to mention is that for three decades there was racial harmony every week in the building that City on the Hill now occupies. Yet the newspaper staff has no clue. They think it is wonderful that a “black” congregation and a “white” one got together for one day. During the thirty years that differences in culture, tradition, and ethnicity were irrelevant in a racially mixed congregation, the newspaper never bothered to report on it, but now it has suddenly become a hot item.
Sounding like Rubel Shelly, “Rev.” Preston mentioned that there are differences between the two religious groups, “but we come together to focus on what we have in common rather than what sets us apart” (A1). That’s not hard to figure. What they have in common is that neither group respects what the Lord taught concerning Biblical authority. And if Preston would like to focus on our differences (say, in a public debate), this writer would be glad to accommodate him. Perhaps it could be held in Peoria.
A comment made by one of the members of the former Southside Church, however, reeked of hypocrisy. Perhaps I should be kinder and suggest that she has just forgotten a few things—such as that she was part of an integrated congregation for years. The newspaper article says that she drove to the “Easter” service with her husband to help “set an example” for other churches divided by race (A9). Hah! Are you kidding me? She continued: “This is what we all need to be doing. When we get up to heaven, the color of our skin won’t matter. We’re going to be mixed together.” It will be the case for those going to hell, also!
If skin color doesn’t matter and she is so interested in unity, why did she and others not care that all the whites had to leave Southside for conscience’ sake? Why didn’t that matter? How many did she call to encourage them to stay? How often did she plead with the preacher, “Listen, you may not think this is a big deal, but several people have left because of it”? “Have you thought about studying whether the practice is right or not? And even if you think it is, can’t we forego it during worship so that we can remain united, as we always have been?”
Platitudes about racial harmony ring a little hollow in light of reality. The newspaper may have got snookered on this phony racial harmony story. It was just a gathering of black liberals with white liberals—for unscriptural practices.