This book written by Rick Atchley and
Bob Russell is a call for
"Restoring Unity in Christ after a Century of Separation. It also is
designed as a manual for achieving their goal. Atchley is minister of
the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Ft.
Worth and Russell is
minister of the Southeast Christian Church in Louisville,
KY. It is
jointly published by Standard Pub. and Leafwood, a subsidiary of ACU
Press.
Ø
Both Churches of Christ
and Christian Churches
have their roots in the American Restoration Movement of the 19th
century. For a century they have been divided by issues that arose in
the last half of the 18th century. Chief among those divisive issues
were: 1). Missionary societies and other human organizations designed to
manage and do the
work of the church. 2). The use of musical instruments , choirs and
soloists in worship; 3). Skepticism regarding the integrity of the Bible
and 4). Ecumenicism. Today all of these issues remain save that of
higher biblical criticism.
Ø
The authors' thesis is,
"Churches of Christ and Independent
Christian Churches
have been divided far too long over far too little." (Lynn Anderson,
Forward). This in itself reveals volumes about Rick Atchley and those
promoters of change whom he represents. It declares that he is not
bothered by those who corrupt the worship of the church and reason that
their human organizations are better
able to do God's work than the church which Christ built! They relate
how over a game of golf "the Lord birthed in them a desire to see the
division between the two fellowships come to an end" (p. 24-25). While
we share their desire that our division come to an end, we question that
"the Lord birthed" in them their solution for the
problem.
Ø
Atchley told those at the
2003 North American Christian Convention, "God put something on my
heart." "God wants me to devote myself for the rest of my life to
seeking reconciliation among the a cappella Churches of Christ and
Christian
Churches..." (p. 31). "Over a hundred years ago we split. I don't know
what that was all about (Emp. mine
jhw)" (p. 31). "...speaking for the a cappella side, it seems to me that
we need to do most of the repenting and ask for most of the forgiving."
(p. 31-32). "The church where I preach has partnered with some Christian
Churches
to send a mission team to
Uganda..." (p. 32). "We cannot allow a vocal minority to deter us from
seeing this dream
come true" (p. 33). "I'm not going to spend the rest of my life
intimidated by people who lost the vision our fathers and grandfathers
gave their lives for..." (p. 33). "We pray that Christ will compel and
empower each of us that we might usher in a fresh anointing of God's
Spirit and a revival of God's people" (p. 34).
It is a common practice for false teachers to claim God laid their
message on their heart. Their simple-minded sheep dare not question what
"God has laid on their heart." As to repenting and asking for
forgiveness, Atchley is either unaware or unwilling to admit that the
division occurred because past leaders of the Christian
Churches
tried
to commandeer our congregations and force the matter of societies and
instruments on them. He is like a man who abuses his wife and then
insists that she apologize and ask his forgiveness. He suggests that
only a "vocal minority" objects to his grand scheme. There are more than
10,000 congregations of the church in
America. Some 200 have
embraced his change agenda. The grandfathers Atchley mentioned would not
have tolerated him in their pulpits because of his eagerness to comprise
the faith of Christ with error. But as he said, "I don't know what that
was all about" (p. 31).
Ø
They say, "How arrogant
of us to believe that we alone have a handle on the right doctrine..."
(p. 37). These words are borrowed straight from the talking points of
denominational apologists. Jesus said that we can know the truth
(John 8:32). We can know the doctrine of Christ
sufficiently well to abide within it (II John 9:10). How can
these two authors know that they are advocating "the right doctrine" in
their book. Oh yes, They have prayed for "a fresh anointing of God's
Spirit!"
Ø
They tell us, "Both
fellowship affirm that we are not the only
Christians" (p. 39). To rightly understand this oft used phrase,
Churches of Christ have used this phrase to acknowledge that
individuals, unknown to us, by their own study and obedience to God's
Word can be born again and be Christians. As used by Atchley and
Christian Churches
it means that we are but one denomination among many, all of which are
pleasing to God! That, we reject as contrary
to God's word.
Ø
They appeal to the
example of Thomas Campbell who opened his Declaration and Address,
"Dearly Beloved Brethren" thus "addressing those in the denominational
world as his brothers" (p. 39). They conveniently overlook the fact that
at the time he wrote his document Campbell was still a Presbyterian
minister. He was trying to express
in writing the dreams he had. When the Presbyterians refused his
overture, he then turned to the Baptists and spent some time in the
Redstone Baptist Association. Eventually he severed his ties with
denominationalism. It is also important to note that the word "brother"
can be used in an accommodative sense. Many of our old Black preachers
used to call denominational preachers "Brother" as a matter of courtesy,
not of fellowship.
Ø
They write, "We don't
intend to belittle the importance of our disagreements" (p. 39). Yet
this is exactly the methodology Atchley uses. Remember "We've been
separated far too long over far too little? (p. 34). He belittles the
points of disagreement and those of his
brethren who do not buy his agenda.
Ø
"Let be content to be
some of God's people without thinking we are the sum of God's people"
(p. 41) This is good old-fashioned denominationalism.
Ø
They write, Paul points
out that some of those causing division were saying, 'I follow Christ.'
They were calling themselves Christians only (Emp. mine, jhw), but were
proudly distinguishing themselves from 'those denominators.'" (p. 41).
Note that they don't blush to add a
word or two to make the meaning suitable for their purposes. It is true
that one calling himself a Christian can in fact have a denominational
spirit. Each of these authors, while "pleading for unity," think of
themselves and the churches they represent as denominations, thus,
"Without thinking we are the sum of God's people."
Ø
They charge, "We have
likewise been guilty of hypocritically looking down our noses at our
denominational brothers and sisters while proudly maintaining our
distinctiveness" (p. 41). Since they use the collective "we" when
speaking of hypocrisy, I will grant that Bro. Atchley has properly
described himself. He pretends to be one of us, i.e., a faithful
minister of the Church of Christ,
but in reality he spends his time and energy in undermining and
attacking the church and promoting error. Was Paul hypocritical when he
insisted that those who preach another gospel than he had delivered were
anathema (Gal. 1:8)?. "In our worst moments of shameful
arrogance, we have referred to ourselves as 'the true church.'" (p. 42).
If it is shameful arrogance to think that we are the Lord's true church,
does he think he preaches for an untrue church so as to be modest?
Ø
"We celebrate this
modern-day “restoration” movement that is bringing Christians together
in the name of Christ" (p. 44). The early leaders of our Restoration
Movement were calling people out of denominationalism, back to the Bible
and the church revealed therein. These writers are calling members of
the Church of Christ
to abandon their commitment to do only what Scripture authorizes and
follow them away from Christ's church into denominationalism.
Ø
Their goal is, "We must
unite with all believers for the sake of Christ and his gospel" (p. 42).
Let's see, that includes Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, and a thousand
other denominations and cults who profess faith in Christ. They opine,
"Too often we have fought unnecessary battles and made enemies out of
peaceful neighbors" (p. 44). Of whom do they speak? The Disciples of
Christ and Christian Churches with their unscriptural innovations? with
their theological liberalism? Or of Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mormons,
Jehovah's Witnesses? "We call on all believers to set aside petty
differences" (p. 44). "The times are long gone when Christians can
afford to argue about peripheral matters of faith" (p. 47). So do we.
The problem is, how do we determine those matters that are "petty" and
those that are significant? Is the way we worship a "petty matter?" Is
the way of salvation a "petty matter?" Is the nature of the church a
"petty matter?" Only to those who do not feel obliged to follow Christ
in all matters so view them.
Ø
They concede, " And truth
matters in religion as well. If the core beliefs of different religions
about the nature of God and salvation contradict each other, then only
one of them can be right or they are all wrong. There is no other
possibility" (p. 50). The first sentence in this paragraph is one of the
few valuable truth found in this book! However, the authors are very
selective in the things they believe are "core beliefs."
Ø
They insist, "However, at
times in the past we have been guilty of preaching our pet doctrines
rather than the cross of Christ" (p. 52). "We have sometimes left the
impression that we are saved by the way we do church instead of the way
Jesus made for us at Calvary."
Do they say that the way we worship is of no consequence to Christ? Can
we do things contrary to Christ's will with impunity?
Ø
They quote Robert
Richardson who contrasts his view of Christian faith with that of others
of his day. "...they suppose this Christian faith to be doctrinal, we
regard it as personal" (P. 52). "The Christian faith, then in our view,
consists not in any theory or system of doctrine, but in sincere belief
in the person and mission of our Lord Jesus Christ" (p. 53). Every
person baptized into Christ by ministers of Churches of Christ is ask
but one question. "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God? " (Matt. 16:18). That confession, in practice, means Christ
is lord and we are servants. Servants obey their Master's will! (John
14:15; Heb. 5:9).
Ø
They quote the book, The
Crux of the Matter, "They insist that our history is one of too much
fragmentation over opinions that are not directly tied to the cross of
Christ. They include the controversy over instrumental music in their
list of opinions that have unnecessarily divided us" (p. 53). Granted we
should not divide over opinions, but the matter of instrumental music is
not in the realm of opinion. God clearly says, "Sing" (Eph.
5:19).
He nowhere in the New Covenant tells us to include mechanical
instruments with our singing. He warns us against going onward and not
abiding in the teaching of Christ (II John 9-10). Instrumental
music is a later addition to the worship of God. Just calling it an
opinion does not make it that! "Its practice (instrumental music) is not
tied to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus" (p. 53). Thus they
assume it can or cannot be used. But when we worship God in song we
often sing about his crucifixion and resurrection! They say elders can
or cannot allow instruments. Neither is benevolence tied to the
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Can we practice or not practice
it?
Ø
They say, "We should
boldly proclaim the clear doctrines of
Scriptures, Doctrines like the special creation of man..." (p. 60). What
has the special creation of man to do with the crucifixion and
resurrection of Christ?
Ø
They admit, "We should
follow apostolic precedence in matters of practice and polity" (p. 60).
Why? What have these matters to do with the crucifixion and resurrection
of Christ? Can we dispense with them? They concede, "Therefore, we are
wise to imitate the early church practices" (p. 60). But vocal music was
the practice of the early church! Therefore wise Christians will worship
God with vocal music! They assert, "both sides must admit that no
passage in the New Testament clearly prohibits or permits the use of
instruments in worship" (p. 65). This is true of the Christian
Churches,
but not true of us...save for our change agents. We understand that we
are to obey all things whatsoever Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20).
He does instruct us to sing, but not to play instruments in worship!
Ø
"We need to remember that
a precedent does not equal a command" (p. 60). "It is important not to
divide over disagreements regarding apostolic precedents" (p. 60). The
authors clearly do not have a clear understanding of how to apply the
Bible's message in daily life. The write, "The non-instrumentalists do
not use the same arguments of silence to prohibit the use of church
buildings, multiple cups, located preachers...hymnals...or many other
things that were not usedin the early church" (p. 61). A command or
instruction must be obeyed. The question is, How to go about obeying it,
if the details are not prescribed? Without detailed instructions, we are
left to our own judgment on how to implement it. There are things that
help to expedite the obedience to the command: Lights for an evening
assembly; a building to house an assembly; seat on which to sit; heat
for cold climates; cooling for hot climes. These simply help the people
assemble for worship (Heb.
10:25).
"This has been the root cause of many of the division in the Churches of
Christ since 1901" (p. 61). I find it interesting that all the
criticisms offered are of Churches of Christ. Have the
Christian
Churches
had not disagreements, factions and schisms? Why did they separate from
the Disciples of Christ? What of their brethren who were
ultraconservative? Have they had any sectarians in their midst? Have
they not change agents at work in their midst? Why did they not address
those problems? Is the Christian Church the mother church and we the
wandering children?
Ø
"Bible believing
Christians can look at the same Scriptures and come to opposing
conclusions. The role of women in the church, the title of the preacher,
millennial views and many other issues fall into this category" (p. 64).
Granted there are some matters hard to be understood (II Pet.
3:16).
The question of women in the church is not one of them (I Tim.
2:11-12).
It is a matter of acceptance or rejection!
Ø
Quoting A. Campbell,
"What was wrong, he said, was the spirit that insisted on propagating
ones opinion and demanding that all bow to it" (p. 65). They write these
words thinking that faithful, Bible believing Christians are the ones
binding their opinions. But they are promoting their own opinions and
trying to persuade all to accept them.
Ø
"We are not to ignore or
belittle such disputable matters" (p. 65). But that is precisely what
they propose that we do! They wish to go right on using their
instruments, but we are to forget the matter and say nothing of it.
Ø
"We should agree that we
should repent of such attitudes and accept this (instrumental music) as
a disputable matter that should not divide us" (p. 66). This is the
heart of the matter! Their message is, Churches of Christ should repent
of the sin of protesting innovations such as instrumental music in the
worship of God and continue to fellowship those who do so without divine
authority. Rick Atchley is a full convert to the Christian Church
position on instrumental music and other matters. When we hear him speak
or read his words, we should not think of him as an advocate and
representative of the Church
of Christ, but of the Christian Church. Atchley is like a man who
defects to Cuba and then appeals to loyal Americans to accept his new
Communist comrades.
Ø
"It would be terribly
unnerving to the members fo the instrumental congregations, and in many
ways counterproductive, to call on every instrumental church to abandon
the instruments in hope that their non-instrumental brothers might join
them" (p. 67). This overlooks the question, Is the use of instrumental
music in worship a sinful practice? If it is, they are recommending that
we not disturb them in their sin. Such would be unnerving. They seem not
concerned with the fact that members of Churches of Christ are truly
unnerved...better, offended, when a change agent seeks to introduce
instruments into the worship activities of the church. Rick Atchley
would rather that we, like his Richland Hills church, have services
using instrumental music for those who want it.
Ø
"A rapidly growing number
of members of a cappella churches have no scriptural problem with
instrumental worship" (p. 68). "Most simply prefer to worship with the
human voice alone " (p. 68). Why is this the case? It is because of
years of neglect in teaching on this important theme and because for
several years change agents have been undermining their faith in the
scripturalness of our worship.
Ø
The authors are kind to
offer practical suggestions for bringing our brethren into the
fellowship circle of Christian
Churches without them giving up
their instruments of music or any other unscriptural practices. This
book is part of a slick promotional campaign to convince our brethren to
abandon their objections to instrumental music and accept them with
their instruments.
Ø
Atchley says, "Our
conscience may be weak in the area because of our traditions, but let us
be challenged to acknowledge the freedom we have in Christ and refuse to
pass onto our children a strict conviction regarding the use of
instruments in worship (p. 69) WOW! This is all they ask of us who
believe it is sinful to have instruments in worship. Just give us your
children! They urge, "Let us not perpetuate into future generations a
yoke of slavery...so we hope the day will arrive when the use of
instruments in corporate worship is no longer a debatable question
because we all recognize the freedom we have in Christ" (p. 70). So
Atchley thinks we are slaves to error in our rejection of instrumental
music! I wonder if his elders understood that when they first employed
him? Were all brethren for the last 200 years who objected to
instrumental music slaves to error?
Ø
"It seems unreasonable to
conclude that Jesus would have intended the silence of the New Testament
regarding use of instruments to be a prohibition" (p. 70). When men pit
their reason against God and his word, they will always be found
wanting. "Surely such a departure from the past and future would have
demanded a clearer command" (p. 70). I recall denominational folks
saying the same thing about the necessity of baptism for salvation, or
immersion, etc.
Ø
They cite noble men of
the past to try to bolster their case. All change agents love to cite G.
C. Brewer. Yet he would not have giventhem an inch. He often defended
that which he believed in oral or written discussions. He would have
reproved Atchley for trying to introduced instrumental music into our
churches. They appeal to T. B. Larimore, the lone example of the late
19th and early 20th century of a member of the
Church
of Christ, who refused to take a strong stand on the questions of
societies and instruments. They forget to tell the rest of his story. He
ended up working with our brethren who rejected instruments. He is not
our authority, any more than is Alexander Campbell.
Ø
"Both our fellowships
need to acknowledge that in the past we have often misrepresented the
gospel message, focusing more on the "pattern" of the church than the
cross of Christ" (p. 76). Our brethren followed the noble example of
Paul and preached the whole counsel of God" (Acts
20:27).
Perhaps they would provide us with the precise formulae for teaching on
the cross and other aspects of the faith! Paul gave us a pattern we are
to cling to (II Tim.
1:13). It seems they have
outgrown Paul.
Ø
"We are greatly
encouraged to see a day where the gospel is now being preached in almost
all of our growing churches" (p. 77). Is this hubris? Did no one preach
the gospel in Churches of Christ until the change agents emerged among
us some 25 years ago. How were Rick Atchley and his parents saved prior
to then?
Ø
"It is with much hope and
prayer that we seek to bring together the many factions in both our
fellowship that have bickered over the place of baptism in the gospel"
(p. 80) Wow! Will they say baptism is like instrumental music, a matter
of opinion, that each is free to practice it as he wishes? If not why?
But of whom do they speak? Disciples of Christ? All denominations? They
seek to assure us, "But we do teach that baptism is to accompany that
faith and is the ceremonial moment when we receive the assurance that
our sins are washed away" (p. 84). No Baptist could have state this
better. They continue, "The confusion over our view of baptism has been
exacerbated because some in our fellowship have turned this doctrine
into a creed, a Shibboleth, judging others as heretics who do not
baptize for remission sins. Some have even refused to accept a person's
baptism if he came from outside our fellowship, because he was not
baptized for remission of sins" (p. 85). If we can omit baptism for
remission of sins, can we not do the same for baptism by immersion, or
baptism only for those old enough to be believers? Could we not omit
belief or repentance before baptism? "Baptism is a simple but powerful
reminder that our sins are washed away" (p. 89). I want them to explain
the difference in this view of baptism and that Evangelicals who insist
that we are saved at the point of faith and baptized to declare our
salvation. Are they too timid to state that they believe in salvation by
faith, before baptism? "Rick ...came to realize that his repulsion
against a gospel of baptismal regeneration...had caused him to become
unnecessarily hesitant to call people to be baptized" (p. 88). Perhaps
it was his ignorance of the Bible record, or his view that the Bible's
message is not really that important.
Ø
" The primary reason we
are making efforts to unite our two groups is so that Christ's mission
can be accomplished" (p. 94). Do they really think it was never
accomplished before they came along? Such arrogance!
Ø
"In east Africa, for
example, missionaries for a cappella and instrumental Restoration church
have worked together for over two decades" (p. 96). Elders, were
missionaries you have supported part of this fellowship experience? We
use to associate with members of Christian
Churches
in order to teach them about the reasons for our faith and our
differences and to encourage them to abandon their human traditions and
embrace the ancient faith. Many did. That never enters the mind of
modern change agents. They have already been won to the digressive
position. "Richland Hills Church of Christ supports missionaries in
Moscow, Uganda and Kenya who have cooperated with Christian Church
missionaries for years" (p. 98).
Ø
"We are not suggesting
that our two sides develop an official missions board that will control
all missions dollars" (p. 97). Why not? A missions board has nothing to
do with the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Christian
Churches
had that in days past. They still have their missionary organizations to
recruit, send and support missionaries.
Ø
"First Christian Church
in Nashville and Woodmont Hills (formerly identified as a Church of
Christ)
"have combined college ministries, reaching a number of students from
Lipscomb where the Woodmont Hills preacher, John York, is a professor"
(p. 98-99). This tell us much about the direction of
David
Lipscomb University!
Ø
"We have been proud of
our doctrinal purity, and in our pride we have ignored one of the
Bible's clearest commands" (p. 109). Perhaps they could specify those
clearest commands that we have ignored. They are the one who ignore
Christ's clear teaching on the role of baptism in salvation (Mark
16:16),
the sacred pattern given for us to follow (II Tim.
1:13),
the command to sing and make melody with our hearts (Eph.
5:19).
Ø
"We would be opposed to
groups that do not hold high the
infallibility of God's Word" (p. 109). What of the Disciples of
Christ and those ACU Bible professors who in their new One Volume
Commentary on the Bible exhibit a low view of the biblical text?
Ø
"What we are proposing is
a grass-roots effort to promote and practice unity among the brotherhood
churches" (p. 110). Interesting, change agents no longer refer to
Churches of Christ as "our brotherhood" They refer to us as "our
fellowship." But they use the term brotherhood to refer to their
relationship with Christian Churches. This says much about them. Unity
is a noble quest. Unity among alienated brethren is a desideratum. But
there is a fly in the ointment. They want to unite truth with error.
Like oil and water, they will not mix. Better to be alone with Christ's
truth than to be united in error. Their concept of unity is, the Church
of Christ surrenders it biblical
objections and accepts the unfounded assertions and assumptions of
Christian
Churches. "We hope that preachers, Bible College faculty, editors and
small group leaders will all consider ways they can promote unity
between our two fellowships" (p. 111). Here we see their strategy. They
have effectively recruited the Bible faculty of
Abilene
Christian University,
Pepperdine, Lipscomb University
and Rochester
College.
They have pockets of influence in several other schools. Now you can see
why preachers who are laying the ground work for the change agenda in a
congregation want the small group meetings. They provide them a usable
vehicle for indoctrination in their change agenda, away from the larger
gathering where voices of opposition would be raised. Often the small
group meetings have no elders present to oversee them.
Ø
"We believe we are going
to see more and more congregations from both groups decide to actually
merge with each other..." (p. 111). Frankly it would be a blessing to
the Lord's church if those who have lost their love and loyalty to her
would openly declare their defection and leave for pastures more
suitable to their spiritual state. They want us to "...declare that we
are brothers, forget the past, and move forward" (p. 112). Should we
forget the past when their fathers wrecked a flourishing brotherhood,
when they used trickery, deceit and power plays to gain control of
churches, their buildings, when they divided families and set brother
against brother? They would like to continue with the same program that
worked well in the past. If we forget the past, we leave ourselves blind
to the threat before us. "Ninety-five percent of the people in the pews
of our congregations are anxious to put aside petty difference and get
on with the task of impacting our world for Jesus Christ" (p. 120). May
how they exaggerate their numbers. Even in Atchley's Richland Hills
there has been a sizable number who refused to accept his program!
Ø
"We have at times been on
the right side of doctrinal issues but had the wrong spirit. Our
sectarian spirit has done as much damage as false doctrine" (p. 112).
"We've been jealous, critical and judgmental" (p. 113). They speak for
themselves! That a few have had a bad attitude is not denied. That all
have is a slanderous charge.
Ø
They urge us to "Be
positive about our movement. Some of us have suffered from a poor
self-image about our movement" (p. 117). Rick Atchley and his fellow
change agents are prime example of brethren who have been and are
negative and hateful toward Churches of Christ that do not follow their
leadership.
Ø
"Many young church
planters with roots in the Churches of Christ are also distancing
themselves from any affiliation with their heritage" (p. 118). They are
following the lead of these change agents. If they no longer believe and
worship as we do, why should they stay affiliated with us? Better for
them to go on their way. They went out from us because they were not of
us (I John 2:19).
Ø
"Our movement's
forefathers envisioned a day when the Restoration Movement would no
longer be necessary because all Christians would have united on Christ
and his Word" (p. 119). Who said this? When? Where? Rather they
emphasized that because of man's proclivity to drift, every generation
must be engaged in restoring the ancient faith.
Ø
"Let us not be distracted
by the loud but small minority of brethren who would spend all their
time in the shallow water. Let pray for them, but stay in the deep!"( p.
121). This arrogant boasts remind me of the false teachers who troubled
the church in Thyatira. They claimed to know the "deep things of Satan"
(Rev. 2:24).
There is much to be said about a book
by observing those who
enthusiastically endorse it. The opening pages of Together Again
contain glowing recommendations by the following prominent preachers and
educators of the Church of Christ: Leroy Garret (former leader of the
Ketcherside-Garrett faction), Jerry Rushford (Pepperdine U.), Jack Reese
(Dean of Abilene Christian University's Graduate Bible Department),
Rubel Shelly, Terry Rush, Milton Jones, Chris Seidman, Mike Cope, Charme
Roberts, John York (Lipscomb U.), Jeff Payne, David Fleer (President
Rochester College), Greg Taylor (New Wineskins Magazine), Patrick Mead
(Rochester College), Christ Smith, Jeff Garrett, Jim Hackney, Lynn
McMillon (Dean College of Bible Oklahoma Christian University, Editor
Christian Chronicle), Joe Beam, Danny Sims, Ronnie Norman, Lindy Adams
(former editor Christian Chronicle), Steve Flatt (former president
Lipscomb University), Max Lucado. Here we see a roster of change agents
now working among our churches.
The value of this book is to alert members of the Church of Christ
what the real agenda of the change agents is and it provides a list of
preachers, professors and journalists who are a fifth column in our
midst.
Sincerely,
John Waddey
Other
Articles
The Traditional Party Line
Pagan Christianity Reviewed
Clapping in Worship
