Photo / Jason Harless / The Tuscaloosa News
It’s been a good weekend. A client of mine called me Saturday morning and offered me Ivory Club tickets to the Florida game. “Ivory Club” means 40-yard line, row 1, in the fancy club room with a wonderful buffet right next to the President’s Box. Yes, I’ll be glad to take those tickets off your hands!
It’s an ever bigger deal to my wife to get to go to the game and be treated like royalty — better than royalty, really, since there’s no college football in any nation ruled by a monarchy. So getting to watch Alabama dominate Florida from the princely, pricey seats was great fun.
And we just got back from “At the Cross” at Crossbridge Church of Christ in Birmingham (about 1:15 away), where our preacher, Shon Smith spoke, and where we got to visit with old friends and meet a blog reader or two. And it was a great program, a 2-hour worship service led by Hallal with hundreds of Christians from other churches — light on the preaching and heavy on the singing — but even so, the preaching was extraordinary. It was a marvelous service.
Of course, this left no time for writing, other than the two posts on Ephesians. They’ve not generated much in the way of comments, so I figure people don’t read the expository posts like they read the topical posts. Because I said some pretty controversial things in there. I actually prefer doing the expository work. I mean, you can’t do topical material worth a flip if you don’t build an expository foundation.
But I find that modern churches of all stripes are increasingly becoming like high school classes became years ago — light on text and heavy on lessons read into the text. Rather than ask what Ephesians teaches, we figure the class members are too stupid or impatient to actually study the words Paul wrote. And so we extract a nice lesson from a passage — generally ripped out of context — and so fail to teach what is actually taught.
Of course, this has the advantage of allowing us to edit difficult teachings out of our curricula, fooling us into thinking that we understand Eph 5:19 because we have the courage to teach what Paul really wrote — all the while not bothering to read what Paul really wrote. Instead, we begin by just knowing what lessons are important, and then we read only those passages that seem to apply to what’s important. And so our teaching from books like Ephesians becomes more of a self-portrait and an affirmation of long-held positions than a confrontation with the mind of God.
Lately, I’ve found that the “uninteresting” texts, the ones that “don’t apply,” are the ones richest with fresh insights and challenges — because these are the texts we ignore, because they don’t fit our preconceived notion of what God should want to teach us. After all, the Jew/Gentile controversy of the First Century has nothing to teach us today. We need to focus, instead, on affirming our views on how to conduct an assembly.
But our failure to see the contemporary relevance of the ancient controversies shows us that we teach a watered down gospel — and sometimes even a false gospel. We can’t imagine why Paul would dedicate his career and suffer slander and hardship just to get Jews and Gentiles to form a common fellowship and worship in the same church. After all, we’d solve the problem by forming two congregations, and then move on, autonomously isolated from each other. Why didn’t Paul do that?
So, anyway, I’m starting to receive manuscripts for the New Wineskins issue and really need to read and edit them. It’s some really good material. I wish I could post it here. You see, it’s all about the instrumental music controversy, but from some fresh perspectives. Just when you thought there wasn’t anything left to say on the subject, it turns out that there’s a lot that needs to be said that hasn’t been said. So I need to be working on that.
" Because I said some pretty controversial things in there. "
Yeah ye did, I started to call you on more than I did, but I thought "what the hey" It won't matter.
Good argument in favor of expository study and teaching. It is lacking today. Will use this post in a class I am teaching. wb
The "uninteresting" texts can be some of the most fun.
Teaching the Bible instead of what someone said about the Bible takes courage and a higher standard of ethics than most preachers seem to have.
Maybe a good question to consider is this one. If I find that the Bible contradicts what I have long held to be true, disagrees with a church of Christ distinctive, am I willing to follow the Bible even if it is very unpopular?
The answer is "No" for many people.
Royce
Very good point, Royce. Reading things in the Bible causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for people when it disagrees with what you've been taught your whole life (this is true whether or not you're CoC). What compounds this is the knowledge that all your friends and family will believe that you're going to Hell if you take the unpopular position. I fortunately have always had friends that study with me so we came to the same conclusions at the same time, and a family that loves me even if we don't always agree. I've known a lot of people that weren't so fortunate.
Jay, as someone who can gain access to the "Ivory Club" seemingly at will, I figure you're the one to go to with this:
I'm not a Tennessee fan by any stretch of the imagination (sadly holding on to my Mississippi State Bulldogs) , but I'm rapidly becoming a Derek Dooley fan. After Saturday, it's pretty evident Les Miles has sold his soul to someone from far deeper South than we'll ever get (Lord willing). Have the Tide utterly and completely destroy LSU, will you?
Oh, and if you're in a particularly giving mood, State will gladly take the upset if you'd offer. 🙂
Jay,
Except for the 1st 2 paragraphs where you revel in Alabama's victory over Florida, this post points to just how selective we are in our study of the Scriptures.
We overlook what Scripture stresses to find hidden commands in silences and inferences. If that is not a way to choose our own path (the very definition of "heresy"), I do not know what it is!
Keep up the good work, Jay. Your voice is needed desperately today.
Jerry
P.S.
I attended one game in Tuscaloosa – but I did not sit on the 1st row at the 40 yd line.
I did, however, see the very first college game in which Joe Namath played. (Does that earn me any credits, even if I have now reverted to my childhood of being partial to my homestate Gators – even though I am not a FANatical follower?)
Jerry
"so I figure people don’t read the expository posts like they read the topical posts."
As writer who has far more rejections than publications, one thing I suggest you consider is, "do I write expository posts as well as I write topical posts?"
What I noticed even about your expository posts, that they tend to pretty much focus on the IM controversy. That's what I think is a pity, because that was never on Paul's mind when he wrote these letters. And quite often, these expository posts – instead of enjoyingthe richness of scripture! – turn into a debate on IM.
And by that we miss what the text is really about. I have the impression – and I might be wrong about it, but we don't have these debates in Europe (the only church that adopted IM chose to not fellowship with us by themeselves) – that the IM controversy is really an open wound among the churches of Christ in the U.S.
I would address it directly – probably not even on a Blog, but on a leadership level. But the expository posts should be kept free from this issue, because Paul never addressed IM directly in his letters. It is somewehere in the background of the common practice of worship, but we see pretty clearly which issues were at stake in the 1st century churches. A-cappella vs. IM was not among them, so we should not read our controversies back into Paul's letters.
Maybe – by cutting this out – the expository posts would invite more people to just enjoy the scriptures for all their worth.
Alexander
Abasnar,
Now we agree!
Royce
Good points, Alexander.
Royce,
If the scriptures address the IM issue then it would be ridiculous to ban discussion of the issue in expositions of those text that address it.
If the scriptures do not address the IM issue then there is nothing to address with the leadership. The leadership can chose to use IM or not and no one could bring a scriptural objection to either decision if the scruptures did not address the issue.
So I'm very interested in knowing how you agree with Alexander.
Mike Ward,
I agreed with absnar's last post, not Alexander. I made a mistake.
Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Royce
I'm confused, I did say "absnar" not Alexander.
I always regret weighing into these discussions.
That's why I'm silent most of the time, Mike:)
I agree with Alexander above. Jay, I have thought for some time that you have a tendency to default into the IM issue, but have refrained from mentioning it. I am completely at home with the way we have been doing things in that area, that is singing acapella, and see no reason whatever to change our traditional practice. I am thinking Jay feels the same way. He can address this if he wishes. What I want to see changed is my own life becoming more like the Beatitudes. I am always receptive to help with that. I would hope all discussions would address how to better form Christ in our personal lives.
I am currently reading Ephesians in my personal devotionals. In 5.18 the ESV text says 'be filled with the Spirit.' That sounds like a conscious decision I make, 'be filled.' I have often wondered if being 'filled with the Spirit' refers more to an attitude I am to have, a decision I am to make, than to the physical presence of the Holy Spirit in my physical body. To be like God is to have the behaviors of God, to be filled with the Spirit is to have the attitude of God: something like that.
Galatians 4.19 speaks of Christ being formed in us. I take that to mean we are to walk as He walked – 1 John 2.6 – not that Christ's physical presence somehow is in my physical body. Could being 'filled with the Spirit' and the 'gift of the Spirit' in Acts 5.32 not be taken in the same way? These texts simply mean that I am to consciously decide to have the attitude and actions of God. The idea would be collectively that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all 'in' me in that sense.
That interpretation would be simple and straightforward – at least to me. It has always seemed to me that when we talk about the Holy Spirit causing, leading, etc. us to do something, that we are shifting the responsibility for our behavior off of ourselves and on to God. I do not believe God is responsible for my behavior, I believe I am. If I don't do what I am supposed to do, I do not believe that is God's fault, I believe it is my fault.
Just some thoughts – what do you think?