It’s funny, I have two copies of the Final Unity Proposal. I got one by hard copy per instructions on page one. The other arrived by different means.

I really have too much to do to deal with this, so let me say this after reading it all weekend.

There is a lot of ‘not-so-bad’ in the document. I think encouraging regional participation is a good thing. I think defining who we are instead of defining who-we-are-not is a great thing. I believe a meeting to determine how we can help churches, like SE Asia and Australia currently receiving little to no help, is a fantastic thing.

Overall, though, I am sorely disappointed. As the proposal itself mentions, we had a great oppotunity to do something and all we did was come up with a wordier version of the LA Unity Proposal. We could have joined the call for unity amongst the Restoration Movement churches. At least, we could have encouraged seeking outside help from other fellowships. We could have emphasized our own need for humility in judging entire denominations as apostate. Instead, we keep using a code phrase – baptized disciples to represent the extrabiblical command that believe, reprent, be baptized (Acts 2:36) is not enough. It needs to be believe, repent, commit to being a disciple, be baptized. I thought we recognized that doctrine as error some time ago.

For Alan, this is all that is mentioned about ‘other fellowships’.

We have no desire with this process to formulate judgments about any of those in other fellowships. We agree
that, “We are not the only Christians but are Christians only”. The design of this proposal is to strengthen the
bonds between some 500 churches that share a common history and heritage so that we might continue on our
journey together in faithfulness to God on the way to heaven. Additionally, we originally thought the document
might be somewhat shorter, but became convinced during the process that the present length was necessary for
clarity and fullness.

To those worried about a return to our ‘discipling’ paradigm:

10. Our membership in each congregation constitutes baptized disciples, men and women who have pledged to
live their lives as saints of God in the holiness he requires. Our members agree to strive to be devoted, not
only to their Maker, but to the body life of the church. This includes making wholehearted efforts, for example,
to attend each [applicable] meeting of the body, and pursuing joyful, watchful, challenging, and encouraging
“one another” relationships in which we spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Acts 2:42,
Romans 12:10, Hebrews 3:12-13; 10:24-25).

I know what the above sentence means in real English. It’s a statement that says, “we believe in discipling partners”.

More appalling is the supplementary doucment of Questions and Answers:

6.How should those churches be treated that choose not to sign up?
There may be many different reasons why some churches may not sign up. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we need to continue to respect, love, and cherish one another in the Lord. But it does give us an awareness of those churches that want to take part in an active fellowship amongst one another.(Emphasis added)

I want to take part in an active fellowship, especially with former ICoC churches and Christian Churches in town. I simply do not agree with the Statement of Beliefs and practices.

However, I’d be surprised if my church did not sign it. Honestly, there’s no benefit to us to sign it. We already meet regionally and hold events together. We go to each others conferences and the leaders meet together once or twice a month. This agreement gives us no benefit

I hope that I was wrong in what I wrote to the group earlier. I said that trying to include a statement of beliefs and practices will draw a line in the sand and potentially divide us. We may say that churches are our brothers and sisters that do not sign it, but if the framers of the proposal believe that non-signers are not interested in unity, no one else will believe that they want unity.

Worse yet, some of Kip’s splinter churches could sign this agreement without qualms. In theory, they believe the same thing. They send people to the ILC (this year in Va. Beach), they maintain regional contact and international missions. What will we do if Chris Broom’s church signs the agreement?

I had great hopes, but a liberal like me has little place in this framework. Let’s start talking about helping each other out and taking care of our own. After that, we’ll just have to see.