The network founded by noted atheist Ted Turner has brought in a Baptist commentator, a Tom Rukala (perhaps 'Ruhkala'--he appears to be a missionary in Finland), to 'discuss' the church of Christ in the context of the Matthew Winkler homicide. His take?
It kind of is a borderline cult, unfortunately.
That's nice. Yet Rukula backs off churches of Christ when ol' Nancy Grace asks them about the attitude of churches of Christ toward women:
GRACE: To Pastor Tom Rukala, how are women positioned within the Church of Christ?
RUKALA: As far as I understand, they`re treated with dignity and honor. It`s the traditional Christian view that men lead the church and women are to play a secondary role, and I think that they`re treated with dignity, certainly, in the Church of Christ.
GRACE: A secondary role, but with dignity?
RUKALA: Yes.
And why the sudden magnanimity? Because his view of the role of women likely is very similar to the view of many in churches of Christ, therefore that view is not "cult like".
But according to Rukala's own definition of what a Christian is, and contrasted with the chuckle everyone apparently got according to the transcript about the possibility of going to hell, I doubt Nancy Grace would qualify as a Christian. She doesn't seem to be an evangelical--would she consider Rukala and his friends "cult like"?
Apparently Rukala himself isn't all open arms when it comes to other Christian groups himself. According to the Baptist Mid-Missions website referencing the Ruhkalas' work in Finland:
The Ruhkalas have not found other traditional Bible-believing churches in Finland with which to fellowship. Nor have they found camps, radio ministries, youth works, or Bible institutes they can recommend wholeheartedly to the Finns. Also, most of the Christian literature that is currently being published in Finnish promotes Lutheranism or the Charismatic Movement and is therefore unusable.
That sounds troublingly narrow to me. Do they believe that Lutherans and charismatics are not going to heaven? If they think they are, then why are they bothering trying to convert them and finding their material 'unusable'? Hmmm. Is that narrow and cultlike? I just wondered, Mr. Rukala.
[Thanks to Jeff Barnes who has more to say.]
13 comments:
Thanks for the dirt on Rukala. Very interesting. It just goes to show that everyone draws the line somewhere...they just don't like it when it's drawn on them.
Great blog, by the way. I'll start reading.
It is very interesting that people who are not a part of the church of christ know so much about it. If you want to find out what the church of christ believes, go to a church of christ preacher and he will show you what the bible says. Why not ask preachers like James Watkins,Mack Lyon, James preaches in Georgia, and Mack in Oklahoma. Talk to these men they can better represent the Church of Christ. Iam a proud member of the Lord's church, as they are
I have several thoughts about this, some of which might be difficult to swallow.
First, why would this Baptist preacher say these things? What would be his motivation? Unfortunately, I have a clue. As I read the transcript, I can't say that I see anything that is entirely false. His experience is very similar to mine, and I grew up in the Churches of Christ.
Let's look at what he said.
> Well, the Church of Christ is a relatively new church. It was
> started about 150 years ago by Alexander Campbell (ph).
He's off by ~50 years. It's closer to 200 years now. A decade here and a decade there...what difference does that really make in the overall scheme of 2000 years of history?
> And it’s, unfortunately, a very legalistic sect, and they
> tend to use methods of intimidation and pressure tactics.
This is what I grew up in. I was very unethically pressured into baptism at 11 years old by the preacher in my church as were the rest of my classmates. Without going into many details, he placed a vulnerable child in an impossible situation. One only has to pick up a copy of "The Firm Foundation" or "Contending for the Faith" to read one brother bludgeon another brother repeatedly because they don't agree on how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted. I have friends who have been disinherited from their parents and shunned by their extended family because they don't attend a Church of Christ anymore. Some members of my own family won't have anything to do anymore with the Church of Christ because a minister in my hometown challenged the minister at their Baptist church to a fight to settle the issue of instrumental music. My wife's great-something uncle, the sort-of famous Joe Sale Warlick, was known as one of the "fighting preachers" because of his unusually bombastic style of preaching.
The American Restoration Movement is classified by those who deem to classify such things as a sect. I think at last count, we now have about 20 sub-sects that bicker over worship, musical instruments, number of cups, support for orphanages, kitchens in the meeting place of the saints, etc. We could write our Talmud on the various rabbinical interpretations we have made and split the church over.
> They claim that they are the only ones going to heaven,
> and all other people are condemned to hell.
I heard this practically every Sunday as a kid. I used to have several tracts here in my office that said as much, if not more. I threw them out because they sickened me.
I realize that not everyone in the Churches of Christ behave and believe this way, and I have ample reason to hope and believe that we are leaving behind what has been legalism, pressure tactics, and sectarian divisive behavior. Unfortunately, not all of our Christian brethren outside of our movement are aware of this. All they have to judge by are their own experiences. They may not be universally right in their assessment, but their experience is what it is. We can't deny that. Whose responsibility is it to correct the faulty impression? How often have we committed the same mistake, even publicly, in regard to other Christian groups? As far as I'm concerned, this preacher commits the sin of over generalizing, not being vicious.
What does bother me about this preacher's comments, though, is that I see no logical connection to our historically boorish behavior and this tragic murder. He is assuming that correlation is causation. Unless he knows the family, specifically the wife, he has absolutely no insight into the motivation for this murder. I don't think this is so much motivated by sectarian hatred and enmity as much as it is typical sloppy thinking that I see running amok everywhere.
I also don't understand why Nancy Grace interviewed a Baptist minister unless no representatives from the Churches of Christ would respond.
I am sure, though, that Nancy Grace's blog or response site is NOT the place to air out this matter. I don't know whether Nancy Grace is a Christian or not, but her forum is not a venue for Christians to resolve their differences. The informal, world court of opinion is not the place to resolve differences among Christians. Jesus taught us that the appropriate approach is brother to brother.
What I recommend is the following. Anyone who truly has a beef with Tom Rukala should contact him directly (that can't be hard in this Google age) and ask to speak to him about this issue. Do not start off making accusations, but make an honest attempt to listen at what motivated him to say the things he said.
Drew, it's a shame when people who call themselves Christians are thankful for "dirt" that is brought up on other Christians when you think that dirt justifies themselves. Maybe you can recall what Jesus taught about turning the other cheek.
I did not comment to try to justify myself. My comment was made in response to Alan's helpful way of discrediting a critic.
The "dirt" to which I referred proved that no group can be classified a "cult" because of its "exclusivism." Rukala, along with the rest of us, drew a line of exclusion that was based on his convictions. How are the churches of Christ any different?
Rob is right, Drew. Don't attempt to justify yourself. You found the "dirt" pleasing. Shameful.
It's not 'shameful' to label a group of people as a 'cult' simply because you disagree with their theology? Rukula is being hypocritical by leveling charges of exclusivism, and you are trying to divert attention from that.
Rob, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a preacher in your childhood. Sadly, there are times when people's exuberance to bring others to Christ cause them to use improper methods. That, however, does not obviate the truth of what Scripture says nor should you paint everyone who attends a church of Christ with a broad brush.
Alan,
Obviously in your enthusiasm you didn't read what I said very clearly, nor did you clearly hear what Tom Rukala said. What is motivating your stubborn refusal to make clear discernments? Is it truth and love? Or survival instinct?
First of all, I did not paint all people in the Church of Christ with a broad brush. For example, I said
> I realize that not everyone in the Churches of
> Christ behave and believe this way
I wasn't exactly generalizing, was I? Furthermore, I pointed out that I was speaking not only from my own PERSONAL experience (do you wish to obviate that?) but from the reported experience of others. I was telling my business partner about this issue tonight, and he told me about all of the abusive experiences he had as a college convert within the Churches of Christ. Like it or not, the CoC has a bad rep. Get over it and do something positive about it rather than tell the world why it's observations are wrong.
Secondly, Tom Rukala did not say that the Churches of Christ are a cult in full measure. He said that it possessed cult-like characteristics.
RUKALA: It kind of is a borderline cult, unfortunately. I don’t want to make it out to be some kind of Hare Krishna group, but it has cult-like characteristics and...
(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/27/ng.01.html)
So Rukala, being on tv and trying to explain a difficult situation (which I completely agree that he shouldn't have been brought in to comment upon), used unfortunate words but very CLEARLY tried to qualify their meaning. He also went on to repudiate some notions that men in the Churches of Christ as a rule abuse the women within.
Thirdly, the only reference to this so called exclusive attitude that you seem to have uncovered about Tom Rukala is a mention that he (Maybe it was him. Have you confirmed that with certainty?) didn't find useful information among Lutheran or charismatic resources for the purpose of furthering the Gospel as he understands it among the Finnish. Does the mid-Baptist web site specifically say that Tom Ru(h)kala regards Lutherans and charismatics as condemned to hell? What Tom Rukala was referring to IS the exclusion we practice of not recognizing anyone as belonging to the Churches of Christ as being condemned to hell. You tell me...is Tom Rukala going to hell for preaching the name of Jesus within the Baptist movement?
Finally, you have no more information about the motivation of the people in my life and their behavior than you do about the motivation of the woman who killed her husband in this case. Refrain from making ignorant judgements, sir.
I'm sure you're a nice guy, Alan, and we would likely get along together quite well. But what I'm proposing is that you engage in something a little less like turf guarding.
What is motivating your stubborn refusal to make clear discernments? Is it truth and love?
Your definition of 'clear discernments' seems to be 'whatever Rob says'. Your entire comment certanly doesn't read like 'truth and love' to me.
Get over it and do something positive about it rather than tell the world why it's observations are wrong.
And 'get over it' again fails to strike me as 'truth and love'. I certainly recognize the failings of myself, other Christians and congregations of the Lord's people all the time. I try to 'do something about it' every day. As for telling the world their observations are wrong, pot meet kettle.
Finally, you have no more information about the motivation of the people in my life and their behavior than you do about the motivation of the woman who killed her husband in this case. Refrain from making ignorant judgements, sir.
Well, Rob, I'm not sure when I made any judgments about the motivation of 'people in your life'. Greg and you certainly piled on Drew and his motivations. I've also not made any speculation as to Mary Winkler's motives; in fact, I've been careful not to. You must be projecting. And you yourself even claim to be able to understand motivations as you wrote, First, why would this Baptist preacher say these things? What would be his motivation? Unfortunately, I have a clue. Again, being able to make 'discernments' seems to be your forte but no one else's.
Dismount your high horse. I think we can all make some clear discernments about where you're coming from.
You actually didn't respond to my questions. You sidestepped them. Again, you seem more interested in guarding your turf than being a man and facing some well deserved criticism.
How do you characterize Tom Rukala's state of salvation? Is he going to hell?
Furthermore, it seems mordantly ironic that abusive and vicious behavior on the part of Church of Christ ministers is due, you suggest, to "exuberance." But when someone mischaracterizes you, possibly out of some ignorance, you're all agog to take that person to task. Might Tom Rukala simply be expressing exuberance?
There is nothing inherently abusive, unloving or truth evading about suggesting that you 'get over it.' So get over it. And learn to discern correctly. Tom Rukala was not out to viciously attack the Churches of Christ. He was asked his opinion. He may have expressed this poorly and with some ignorance.
'Dismount your high horse. I think we can all make some clear discernments about where you're coming from.'
But this is loving? Tit-for-tat, from an evangelist, no doubt. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Appropriately Levitical of you.
My suggestions about the motivation of Tom Rukala were stated to get us all to ask and explore his motivation, to take an inventory of how we have treated others in the past, not sit around and pass judgements on him. But you seemed threatened by that. I was suggesting, as Christ taught us, that before we rush to take the splinter out of our brother's eye, we ought to take the plank out of our own. Having experienced abuse, misrepresentation of intentions, divisive sectarianism, etc. in my own religious backyard over my entire life, and having received similar reports from numerous people over the years, I am indeed qualified to suggest what Tom Rukala's motivation for his perceptions, and the content of his report of the perceptions, might be. You didn't take the time to ask.
Finally, I didn't say that my discernments were the only valid ones. I was suggesting that you didn't read clearly what Tom Rukala said nor did you take the time to think through what could have motivated him to say the things he said. A lot of people either began piling on him or puffing up. He deserves an advocate, don't you think? Afterall, you have an advocate before God that you don't even deserve. Even when you were a sinner, when you were an enemy of God, God's Son died for you, and daily makes intercessions for you. Can you extend the same for others? I sincerely hope you can do better than anotehr "I know you are, but what are you?"
He deserves an advocate, don't you think? Afterall, you have an advocate before God that you don't even deserve.
Your Messianic tendencies are showing. I understand grace and that I do have an advocate in Christ. I would say even Rukula would take that Advocate over you. If Rukula is an eminent enough fellow to be a talking head on CNN, I figure he can handle himself.
How do you characterize Tom Rukala's state of salvation? Is he going to hell?
He has a Judge, who is not me. I do not have confidence based on Scripture that Baptist doctrine accurately reflects what the Bible teaches regarding salvation. It is up to God to make any determination of eternal consequence. All I can do is show people what the Bible says, and live according to my understanding of it.
My suggestions about the motivation of Tom Rukala were stated to get us all to ask and explore his motivation...
Again, I thought we weren't supposed to assume we could divine other's motivations. Oh, wait, I'm sorry--you're the only one who can do that.
As for protecting turf, I don't consider defending myself against charges of being in a 'cult' as being unwarranted. You are the one who has repeatedly sought out my rather obscure website (yes, I realize I'm a niche guy) in order to set me straight on all things religious. Perhaps I can start running all my posts and comments through you and Tom Rukula to see whether or not they pass muster.
I'm sorry you were the victim of some unscrupulous actions by religious leaders in the past. Sadly, sin can be found in all places. However, if anyone needs to 'get over it' it's the person who seems to equate those in churches of Christ with someone you had a bad experience with. My experience points in a different direction. Tom Rukula and his self-appointed advocate Rob can shout 'cult' from the rooftops. I will retain the right to dissent.
You were not CHARGED with being in a cult. You still haven't read what Tom Rukala said. Your continued evasions point that out.
Furthermore, I didn't say that you were in a cult. I said that Tom Rukala may have some good reasons for having the impression that he does.
Further furthermore, I didn't say that informed judgements of motivation were out of bounds. I suggested that you refrain from ignorant judgements, meaning those made without direct experience with the people involved. You don't have direct experience with the people in my life. Your judgements about them are uninformed.
Rukala was dead on. I attended a CofC school but was Methodist and I was told for years by teachers that I was going to hell because I wasn't baptised in the CofC. They do borderline on being a cult. They fact the CofC have no governing body and each individual church is "autonomous" removes accountability from each group and this is what allows them to slide into "cultish" behavior.
Also, numerous ex-CofC support groups exist internationally. Don't belive me, do a google search. CofCs are authoritarian and severly limit women in general. Adult women were not allowed to teach bible class to boys 12 and over. I guess a 12 year old boy knows more than an adult woman.
But don't take my word for it. Check out an Ex-CofC chat room regarding the Mary Winkler case. Says all you need to know.
http://www.ex-churchofchrist.org/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1141&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
Post a Comment