To the members of the Unity Committee:

Composing a list of concerns for an entire church, even a small one of barely 100, is a daunting task. The only consensus that can be suggested is an ambivalence to the proposal and a focus on local concerns. In asking various members about their thoughts, it became clear that there are members that have little concern with the Unity Proposal as written. It would be unfair to them to present a list of concerns without presenting their list of accolades for the Unity Proposal. In short, it does not appear that there is one list of concerns or one list of accolades that can be written to represent the Omaha Church of Christ. In lieu of this, this document will attempt to express the range of concerns and accolades expressed by members and former members of our church in response to the Unity Proposal.

In regards to accolades:

• Some believe that you, the group of nine brothers, should be praised for your hard work to bring unity to our churches.
• Some believe that it is good to define who we, the ICOC, are instead of critics. Some also believe it is good to define who we are instead of who we are not.
• Along those lines, some believe that it is good to have a statement of beliefs like other churches in the area. It is seen as good to be straightforward and honest with the community.
• Some believe that it is important to express unity by signing the Unity Proposal.
• Some believe that it is a sign of progress to begin ‘coming together’ again.
• Some believe that the Unity Proposal represents a movement away from fear and mistrust and a movement towards brotherhood and fellowship.
• Some believe that the majority of churches signing the Unity Proposal demonstrates the Holy Spirit’s work in bringing the ICOC out of a dark time.

Some in our church believe that the Unity Proposal is a step in the right direction. For them, there is an inherent trust that the details can be worked out over time as the former churches come together. As stated on page four of the Unity Proposal, “ We would be the first to tell you that the following plan is not perfect. We are certain that there will be things that will stand out to you that you would have put in or left out or that you wish we could change or have said a little differently”. Those who feel this way also feel the option to remove the local church from the Proposal is a safeguard against any perceived ‘abuses’ of the procedures outlined.

Those that believe it is good to have a statement of beliefs agree with Steve Staten’s comments about the benefits of such a statement. From the definition of a belief system, this sentence express it best: “These statements are usually lists comprised of interpretations of Scripture to let members and outsiders know their core doctrinal positions.“ As such, it is seen as a safeguard to the previous practice of ‘discovering’ new doctrines from time to time. To those that support the statement of faith, it is comforting to know what a given congregation believes, especially when traveling.

Those that believe the Unity Proposal represents a ‘coming together’ are encouraged by stories of missions work, interchurch cooperation, and inspiring conferences. This new spirit of working together is likened to doing the good we did before the aftereffects of the Henry Kriete letter. This coming together is seen as necessary in order to ‘get about the Master’s work”. For now, the Unity Proposal is seen as necessary so that we can return to the ‘good things’ that made the ICOC distinct in reaching the world for Christ.

Although shorter, this list represents a great depth of feeling and passion for unity, brotherhood, and preaching the Gospel to a fallen world.

In regards to concerns:

• Some believe that the Unity Proposal represents a line in the sand that can only separate us from one another.
• Some believe that the creed presented in the Unity Proposal contains theological problems. For example, placing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit with equal importance to the practice of dating only ‘Christians’ is seen as bad theology.
• Some are concerned with the admonition in the Q&A document to sign only if there is 100% agreement with the Unity Proposal as written.
• Some are greatly concerned about the growing atmosphere of mistrust against those that do not choose to sign the Unity Proposal at this time.
• Some are concerned that the Unity Proposal was presented to the church locally as “sign and be unified” with the clear implication that refusing to sign was seen as somehow being less unified.
• Some are concerned that the structure proposed in the Unity Proposal is a return to a hierarchal structure, either now or in the near future.
• Some are concerned at the perceived lack of repentance at the highest levels of our former movement in issues pertaining to a culture of control, ‘One True Denomination’ style thinking, and addressing the historic sins of our movement.
• Some are concerned that any talk of unity must include other denominations, especially ‘mainline’ Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches.

It is important to note that this list need not be based on the intent of the Unity Proposal to represent their real concerns. In a similar fashion to the list of accolades, intent of the writers is a secondary matter. It is also important to note that these concerns should not be dismissed, minimized, or treated with contempt as those concerned have also expressed a great depth of feeling and passion for unity, brotherhood, and preaching the Gospel. If the accolades of the Unity Proposal are accepted with open arms and a spirit of love, these concerns should be accepted in the same way.

Those concerned with an atmosphere of mistrust as stated above are upset that public comments by one of the Proposal’s authors and perceived ‘cheerleading’ by DisciplesToday. The proposal author in question has since apologized, but DisciplesToday continues to use the questionable statistic of over 70% of members agreeing to the Unity Proposal. Churches sign the Unity Proposal, not members. Looking at the wide range of thoughts of our little congregation, it is difficult to imagine that in all other churches, every member agrees without reservation.

Those concerned about the ‘all or nothing’ implication of Question 6 in the Q&A document have expressed a sense of confusion that this statement appears to contradict the Unity Proposal, itself. The all or nothing sentiment is seen as similar to Gordon Ferguson’s comments on the proposal. In his remarks, he makes a comparison of the Unity Proposal to using shepherding sheets to ‘determine who they[the elders of Phoenix] are responsible for’. To those concerned, it is offensive for any member to be asked to prove their loyalty by formally signing a document of any kind.

Those concerned with a return to some form of hierarchal structure do not like the idea of regional representatives as presently stated. There is expressed interest in meeting the needs of other churches with financial, spiritual, and emotional support as well as church planting. Last year our church sponsored four missions projects, including a church planting. However, the idea that certain matters of theology and/or practice will be decided outside the local church is seen as akin to the former World Sector structure. For those concerned about regional representation as written, there is little difference between the old church structure and the newly proposed structure.

In addition, regional representatives present a problem for regions composed of signing and not-signing churches. Non-signing churches cannot be a part of determining the representative per the proposal. Non-signing churches are also not subject to the decisions of the larger governing body, though decisions by that body may affect the region itself. It is unclear how situations like this can be handled under the current proposal. Some have suggested that for this reason, the Unity Proposal can only work if every church signs it.

Some are concerned about implications that those who choose not to sign are somehow spiritually weak. The implications seen to date have been that those choosing to not sign have a lack of trust, a lack of desire for unity, or a lack of strong convictions. The original draft of the Question & Answer document blatantly stated that those choosing to sign “give us an awareness of those churches that want to take part in an active fellowship amongst one another.”. Other church leaders have stated on their websites that churches not choosing to sign have no good reason to decline, implying insecurity or selfishness as the motivation. To those concerned, this appears as hypocrisy that “The door should never be closed for a church to later join or withdraw their association at anytime for any reason.” yet choosing not to sign is seen as a spiritual problem. This also begs the question, “What happens to a church that withdraws from the Unity Proposal?” It is felt that this question should be addressed publicly.

Some are concerned that such a document is not necessary. Those that feel this way point to our own local history as proof. When the World sectors ended, we met with former churches of our World Sector, but the extreme distance between us and the nearest church in our world sector (Missoula) made continued work impractical. At the urging of other church leaders, we strove to establish and enhance relationships with Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri churches. Sometime later, we joined the Heartland Churches. Members attend regional events and Omaha even sponsored two conferences and a marriage retreat since 2003. All of this was done by the work of the Holy Spirit without a document – to those that feel this way, it is uncertain what the document will actually do to build unity.

Those concerned over the scope of the proposal wish for a broader unity and brotherhood to be explored. For them, what began at Abilene with such promise has fizzled recently. Efforts to talk to local churches has met with some success, many of the churches contacted have been open to the idea of dialogue, even those violently opposed to the church when initially planted in Lincoln. For those that believe this, it is strange to attempt unity within ourselves before attempting a larger unity with other Christians.

As stated earlier, the majority of members express ambivalence towards the Unity Proposal. Their concerns are mostly local such as evangelism, acquiring a building, beginning a campus ministry, decreasing participation in benevolence work, financial concerns, and local issues that have created conflict between our own members. For some of them, the proposal is seen as a distraction from critical issues at hand. Those that strongly support or strongly criticize the proposal are considered to be directing their energies inappropriately. Their views should be embraced as well.

As one commissioned to write the concerns of the Omaha Church of Christ with the Unity Proposal, great effort has been taken to fairly represent the views of various members. The only method not employed was a call for public comment. As such, there may be inaccuracies and omissions in all three perspectives. On a personal note, it is sad that an attempt at unity should fracture our little church. I am hopeful that unity can be achieved, but it will not be by a uniform set of beliefs and practices. Such efforts, regardless of intent, can only divide and separate. There is little evidence that anyone can be or is willing to be persuaded in changing their perspective of the proposal. As such, it appears to function only as a stumbling block in brotherhood. I cannot help but feel that it would have been better if the document as written had never been introduced at all. May God have mercy on us all.