Interesting discussion. Let me add a few points.
1. First, I can’t tell you how much it pleases me for the discussion to have begun with acknowledgment that inferential truths are not fellowship issues. However, I worry about the distinction sometimes made between commands and inferences when so few of us consider all the New Testament commands binding. After all, in the Churches of Christ, hardly anyone washes feet, bans braided hair, practices the Holy Kiss, appoints an order of widows, bans all pearls and gold, or insists that women wear Roman-style veils in the assembly (not hats and not lace doilies but a Roman-style covering — see pictures at this post — think “hoody”).
2. The fact is that there are many commands we don’t feel obliged to obey — and we disagree (vehemently) about which ones apply today and which ones do not. But we all agree that not all do.
3. Some defend themselves from this obvious observation by asserting that they honor the principle behind the command. We greet each other warmly, although not with a kiss. We ban immodest clothing, although not braided hair. The culture has changed but not the eternal principle behind the command. Amen.
4. But we still disagree as to which commands are culturally limited and which are not. Most would agree that a man may wear a gold watch and a woman may wear modest pearl earrings without violating the principles behind Paul’s commands — because such adornments can carry very different meanings today than in the First Century.
5. We find much more disagreement regard the role of women, even though the argument is much the same — wives evidence their subjection to their husbands by different means today than in the First Century. Wayne Grudem writes —
So we should ask whether wearing a head covering symbolizes any of these things today. At least in twenty-first-century America, it symbolizes none of these things! When people see a woman wearing a hat, whether in church or outside of church, they don’t immediately think,
“Oh, I now know that woman is subject to her husband, because I see she is wearing a hat,” or
“Oh, I now realize that person is a woman and not a man, because she is wearing a hat,” or
“Oh, I now know that woman is married, not single, because she is wearing a hat,” or
“Oh, I now realize that woman has authority to pray and prophesy in the church, because she is wearing a hat.”
Whatever we think a head covering symbolized in first-century Corinth, it does not symbolize the same thing today. And that means if Paul’s concern was over what a headcovering symbolized, then he would not want women to wear a head covering in a situation where a head covering did not carry the same symbolic meaning.
Amen. And, Bruce, I don’t agree with all that Wayne writes in his post, but I agree with this part of his thesis: The eternal principle behind the command is, of course, eternal. Whether the command that honors that principle is eternal depends on whether the command truly would honor that principle today in light of today’s changed circumstances.
But this is no slippery slope argument. The eternal principles remain eternal. We just don’t have to kiss each other at church, put hoodies on our women, or bar our daughters from wearing pigtails.
6. The slavery issue is a tough one, and some have jumped on the “modern scholarship” point. But the same argument has been made all my life as to slaves. I grew up in North Alabama, the son and grandson of elders of the Churches of Christ. My best friends were the sons and daughters of non-institutional preachers. I know my conservative theology better than most conservatives.
And when I sat in Bible class as a teen and we came across the slavery verses — at the height of the Civil Rights Movement! — the answer routinely given was that God was pointing the church to a higher truth, anticipating that when the political situation changed, slavery would be banned by good Christian people. That’s a very conservative argument and not a new one at all.
Burton Coffman — a very conservative commentator and long-time minister of the Manhattan Church of Christ, in his commentary on 1 Cor 7:21 says,
If one single word could have been quoted in Rome as tending to excite slaves to revolt, it would have quadrupled the intensity and savagery of the imperial government’s hatred and persecution of Christians at a time when persecution was already under way; and that fact could have resulted in Paul’s recommendation here.
He then quotes Lipscomb —
Nor would the danger of preaching the abolition of slavery be confined to that arising from external violence of Rome against the church; it would have been pregnant with danger to the purity of the church itself. Many would have been led to join a communion which would have aided them in securing their freedom. In these considerations, we find ample reasons for the position of non-interference with slavery which Paul maintained.
Coffman then concludes,
Before leaving this, it should be noted that the apostolic commandment regarding what was preferable under those peculiar and exceptional circumstances may not be understood as binding at the present time and in far different circumstances.
In short, Coffman wrote that when the culture changes, a command may no longer be binding — you have to look at the principles behind the command to tell. He cites David Lipscomb as agreeing. Amen. It’s an old, venerable, sound argument — which we refuse to apply consistently, even denying it to be true when we don’t like the implications of the argument, even accusing those who agree with Lipscomb of Modernism.
Therefore, I’m pretty sure I’m not guilty of making a Postmodern or Modernist argument or of yielding to Satan’s spiritual siege. I’m following the lead of sound Church of Christ scholarship.
And I find it interesting that Grudem, who criticizes Webb’s work because of their differing views on women, uses the identical logic in one context (women wearing veils) that he protests in a very similar context (women having authority). You see, even excellent scholars have a tendency to change their hermeneutic to get to the result they want. It’s hard to be disciplined about these things, as we can be (and should be) so emotional about doctrine. Yes, this should be close to our hearts! Just not so close that we’re blind to our own inconsistencies or that we get angry when our inconsistencies are pointed out to us.
7. What bothers some, of course, is my willingness to apply the same, sound, widely accepted hermeneutical principle to women. Maybe I’m wrong as my conclusions regarding women — but not because I argue that commands may cease to be binding when the culture changes. That’s just true.
8. The distinction usually argued regarding Paul and women is that Paul argues from Genesis — and indeed he does. And the eternal principles on which he relies are found in Genesis 1 and 2 (not 3). And being eternal principles, they are, of course, eternal and still binding. We just disagree as to how Paul gets from his premises to his conclusions. And I’ve covered that before in some detail. But this is really not a series about the role of women. Rather, I just want to defend the premise of my earlier post. The principle is sound, not new, and applying it to women will not destroy all morality or allow Satan to defeat us.
9. So if this is such old learning, why cite to Webb’ recent scholarship? Well, because Webb was the first (to my knowledge) to take the old argument from slavery and explain that it applies to much more than slavery and then show how the argument applies to women (freeing them) and to homosexuals (affirming that homosexual sex remains sinful) — thus showing that the argument does not eliminate all morality, is not a slippery slope that ends all Biblical moral teaching, but rather gives us a universal hermeneutical tool that we can use to better understand some of the knottiest questions in the Scriptures.
You can find plenty of examples of the slavery argument being made regarding women pre-Webb. What Webb does, though, is show that the argument has limits and, very importantly, shows that the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual sex is not culturally bound, despite the many arguments to the contrary.
And Webb very helpfully demonstrates that this hermeneutic is rooted, not in a desire to succumb to the culture (obviously, as his conclusions regarding homosexual sex are very counter-cultural) but to take the redemptive narrative of the Scriptures and find a hermeneutic there. This is narrative theology applied to hermeneutics — which is very sound and deeply, deeply rooted in the Scriptures.
10. I should clarify that I only adopt Webb’s position to the extent I’ve said. I’m not a fan of each and every word of his approach and, frankly, think there are better approaches than his 18-point tests. We are in agreement as to the broad principle, however, and I give credit where credit is due.
You see, I think his arguments can be made better and more deeply grounded in the Scriptures. He understates his case. There are better ways to reach his conclusions, but his ways aren’t so much wrong as doing things the hard way.
11. To overcome this argument, one might argue that Paul’s commands regarding slaves remain true in cultures similar to First Century Roman culture. But that is to concede the argument. The whole argument is over whether New Testament commands are transcultural — and if they are only true in cultures similar to First Century Rome, well, they’re not transcultural. And if the commands re slaves are only true in cultures much like ancient Rome, then the same just might be true as to women. You can’t rule out the possibility from the outset as improper or immoral.
Now, I don’t for a minute consider that I’ve persuasively demonstrated my views on women here — there would be a lot of other ground to cover and that’s not my purpose here. Rather, my point is that you cannot declare it impermissible to consider whether Paul’s instructions regarding women are transcultural just because they are grammatically commands. And you have to concede that not all New Testament commands are transcultural. And thus we must be prepared to consider whether a command is or is not transcultural. It’s a fair question that is open for discussion among very conservative readers of the Scriptures — and asking the question is not out of bounds.
And — finally — that means it’s entirely proper to apply the very same test to the question of elders and children.
I have followed this thread from the beginning, and have read most of the responses. I must admit that the longer it went on, the fewer I read.
It is my firm belief that the Bible is God’s word, his only word, and if we ignore it or pervert it we have no other place to go for guidance. However, I also realize that there are, and will be, in some cases, differences in understanding (I prefer the word “understanding” to “opinion”)in how we are to apply it. Relative to that expectation I have a passage and three observations:
The Passage – Romans 14
The Law of Liberty
(1) Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. (2) For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. (3) Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. (4) Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. (NKJV)
Observation 1. – I believe the 4th verse has been much too much ignored (and I would have made it bold but I have a new program and don’t know how). We usually apply those verses to shall we spend the Lord’s money to pave the parking lot. We should take the phrase “How dare you judge some one else’s servant; it is not your place to do so! His master will do that, it is none of your business!” (JN paraphrase). We are certainly at liberty to lovingly tell the person “I believe I have a different understanding about that than do you, and I would like to discuss it with you”. No, I am not talking about baptism which I believe is a non-cultural command, but there are many more things about which we should be less dogmatic. Incidentally, in 64 years I don’t remember ever hearing a sermon on Romans 14:1-4.
Observation 2. – Since I don’t know any of the responders, this comment does not apply to any one person(s) or subjects. In discussing subjects, such as this, many times we will get out our microscopes and examine in detail some favorite “bumper sticker” phrase or passage. We do ourselves and the Lord a great disservice when we do that. We need to put up the microscope and back away far enough to get the whole Bible in view with our wide-angle lens and see what the Word is telling us. There will be places where it seems to be saying different things, but we should be humble enough to admit that there are some things we don’t know and go with the most applicable and obvious meaning.
Observation 3. – I have great respect for those who have done the work to understand any foreign language; I have not done so. However, I have a position about understanding the Bible by which I live; I will try to understand the Bible message from what is available in the English language and will not significantly modify that basic understanding based on some one’s claim that must be derived from a language which I do not know. That will probably insult some of you, but to do otherwise is to place myself back in the middle ages when the theologians of the day said you must understand Latin to understand God’s word.
Yours for a better and more harmonious understanding of His word.
Jim Neely, Tullahoma
Jay, you said…”And thus we must be prepared to consider whether a command is or is not transcultural. It’s a fair question that is open for discussion among very conservative readers of the Scriptures — and asking the question is not out of bounds.”
Exactly… but not just prepared…it’s way past time to come up with a methodology that not only is scripturally sound but evenly and consistently applied… It must be difficult to do !!
Price,
Jay alluded to one of the reasons it is difficult to come up with a sound hermeneutic. That is that we tend to shape our hermeneutic to yield our desired conclusions – instead of seeking a healthy hermeneutic so that we may reach sound conclusions.
I remember reading in the papers several decades ago an objection to some suggestion on hermeneutics, “But if we adopt that as our hermeneutic we will not be able to support….” and a particular doctrine prevalent in the Church of Christ was named. (I do not name that doctrine, because I do not want this discussion to jump off track into a discussion of that particular doctrine.)
“My brethren, such things ought not so to be,” to take James 3:10 out of context – but maybe not so much out of context as it might first appear.
Jerry
Jerry…I know..I might be living in La La Land thinking that we could come up with a evenly applied, scripturally sound method of understanding what is and what is not a command for all times versus a local issue of a certain era… But, given the damage our present methods have caused, it’s sort of past time to do it… I guess in the end we only have to answer for how we responded to what we personally understood.. but the unity issue isn’t going to go away…
“After all, in the Churches of Christ, hardly anyone washes feet, bans braided hair, practices the Holy Kiss, appoints an order of widows, bans all pearls and gold, or insists that women wear Roman-style veils in the assembly ”
The necessity of obeying Paul’s teachings, as commands to all Christians “now and then” depends upon one single teaching.
Was Paul only relaying a message from God, or was he Preaching his own message?
If Paul was truly speaking by “inspiration” of God. We had better get out the breath mints, and head covers.
Laymond…that approach assumes that Paul wasn’t at speaking to a group of people about a particular problem that THEY ALONE faced… I think most on here realize that there are just some things that don’t apply to us today… and never were intended to… the real question is how to determine what is and what is not a specific instructions for a specific situation in a specific era… We really need to move beyond trying to be a mirror image of a 2,000 year old church… except in matters of absolute necessity…
Jay wrote:
Let’s look at those one at a time:
1) washing feet: After washing their feet, Jesus said “Do you understand what I have done to you?” Of course they undersood that he had washed their feet. What they might not have understood was the point of the demonstration. If they had decided to implement a periodic foot washing ritual as their response, and left it at that, they would have missed the point. It wasn’t literally about foot washing but about being a servant. At least, that’s how I’ve always understood it, and that’s how I think they understood it in the first century. It means today what it meant then. I’m following my principles consistently in this matter.
2) braiding hair: Basically I think this passage means what it says. It’s not merely a list of things not to do , but a list of examples of things not to do. There are other things that could be added to the list. That doesn’t mean the things on the list can be removed from it. That’s how I’ve always read this and I think it’s how the first readers read it. Again, it means today what it meant then.
3) holy kiss: I explained my view on this earlier as you know. I think it was an invitation, not a command. God wasn’t commanding us to kiss or else. And so in cases like this I’m comfortable with understanding the intent behind the invitation, and applying that intent to our situation. This is not inconsistent because I don’t see it as a command.
4) order of widows: I’m not sure what I think about this. I don’t see the phrase “order of widows” in scripture. There was a list. Was it a list used by deacons for distribution of food and other necessities? That’s what I’ve always thought. I could be wrong. But I’m not being inconsistent by not appointing widows like we do deacons.
5) pearls and gold — see above on braided hair
6) Roman-style veils — the scriptures say nothing about requiring veils to be in the Roman style. It talks about covering the hair. I do think a veil needs to cover the hair. We have women in the church who do this. I have members of my family who do this.
So I believe I am being consistent in my hermeneutic and my practice and teaching.
Price said; “We really need to move beyond trying to be a mirror image of a 2,000 year old church… except in matters of absolute necessity…”
Please allow me two questions #1 who is to decide which is absolutely necessary.?
#2 are we bound to, trying to be mirror images of a two thousand year old savior ? Or head of that 2,000 year old church you refer to?
To follow up on my previous post: The point is that I don’t discount first century commands for cultural reasons. I believe that is a dangerously wrong way to read the scriptures. Modern scholarship that leads us away from the commands in scripture is a tool of Satan.
Speaking for myself, I know that my feelings about what is and is not appropriate have been affected by my up-bringing and my early instructions from my parents and teachers. It is difficult to go against those teachings.
For example, I sometimes attend a Church where women serve communion and THEY SOMETIMES DO IT IN SHORTS! Now, as I’ve already stated, I have no problem with women serving… after all they pass the communion sideways in the pews so why not up and down the pew aisles? But, wearing shorts? I was raised to “dress up for Church”. I was raised that it is disrespectful to not dress up for Church. Although I’ve relaxed somewhat and not longer feel obliged to wear a coat and tie to Church, I still can’t feel comfortable in blue jeans while in Sunday AM services and these women are in SHORTS. My preference is that they not be in shorts but they keep on wearing them anyway and worse yet, they seem to be incapable of recognizing their disrespect toward God and His Church.
Of course, they mean no disrespect toward God and His Church… it’s just Florida and it’s very warm and muggy outside so people wear shorts and casual shirts. It might be disrespectful in Ohio but in Florida, it’s not.
I think this is the sort of thing with which we struggle. We look for guidance on “rules” that we all can get behind and say “this is what our Church believes!”. This is what is important! But all we have to go on is some old letters that were saved by some old saints and an admonition to “Love one another because that’s the way the world will discover we are for real”. So, I choose to love the women serving communion in shorts and recognize that she didn’t receive the same teachings while young that I did. I still wish she were in a dress but I can choose to love her in shorts.
Price, on September 30th, 2011 at 8:49 am Said:
Laymond…that approach assumes that Paul wasn’t at speaking to a group of people about a particular problem that THEY ALONE faced… I think most on here realize that there are just some things that don’t apply to us today… and never were intended to… the real question is how to determine what is and what is not a specific instructions for a specific situation in a specific era.
Price can you name some of the things Paul reprimanded early Christians for, that would be perfectly OK today.?
Can you show me in scripture where it is said these reprimands are only temporary?
Unless of course you believe Paul was not speaking by “inspiration” ?
Jay, I know I stand at risk of being banned from your site for even implying that Paul was “uninspired” . but I am not the one who says Paul is speaking the words of God, but we don,t necessarily have to obey them. (they have expired) They are either commands, or suggestions, I don’t recall any suggestions given by God.
We can’t have it both ways, Did God speak through Paul to all Christians, if so why would we not have to obey what he said.
Are there instances where Jesus spoke the word of God, that we don’t have to take seriously?
Laymond… I think several of the items you requested have already been posted on here numerous times but for your convenience …Paul spoke to them about not wearing jewelry,, braiding their hair… to name a few… but your question is couched in such a way that it only considers the what NOT’s to do… Why would reprimand be the only cultural consideration versus an instruction… like holy kissing and washing feet…?? I’m just looking for consistency instead of the randomness that has caused such division…
Also you question of “who is to decide what is absolutely necessary”…I guess that depends on whether you’re a community that is based on grace or rules… If grace then we each can make our own decision based on our conscience…if rules then your eldership must come up with something in order to remove those who are not like minded and don’t follow your rules… Regarding your second question… certainly we are to follow after Jesus… We are to use the scripture to learn about how best to do that for sure !! The problem comes when you and I disagree on what it teaches… The churches of Christ has split some 2 dozen times trying to get it worked out… and they all generally throw stones at one another… I don’t find that acceptable nor in line with the following after Christ that you and I both agree is important… Do you ?
This is a misleading method, Jay. First you “unite” us all in “disobedience”, and then you conclude: See, “disobedience” is very normal. You paint our disagreements in “beautiful” and strong colors, but I think you did not grasp the actual problem.
All of God’s commands apply today! The question is “HOW do they apply – and here we have to be very diligent in our studies and attitude. You speak of a “Roman Veil” – but look at the application of 1Co 11 throughout church history and world wide! The form of the covering changes with time and culture, but not the fact that women cover their heads in worship!
So, we can discuss veils, hats, bonnets – but not the command itself. (This just as an example – we can apply this for any of our disagreements).
Yes: We acknowledge the principle of – let’t say footwashing. But is acknowledging enough? Jesus gave us an object lesson, and we should not think of ourselves as we were on a higher level than the disciples back then. “Oh yes, Lord, we know, we understand – WE GOT THE IDEA”, and at the same time we don’t live the idea – and we dismiss the object lesson which is indeed a powerful reminder.
A lot of our disagrements have to do with such “externals” – and they challenge us. They challenge us to DO something SO CONTRARY to our nature, that all within us seeks a thousand ways to avoid the actual deed. Yes, we acknowldge the principle – what a nice way out!
Therefore we say NOTHING (in effect REALLY nothing) about sisters wearing shorts or even hot-pants in church (I feel with Doug) – because, you know, surely they acknowledge the principle of modesty. It’s just that they don’t show it … and doesn’t God look at the heart? And of course men may wear golden watches; after all we do acknowledge the principle of modesty as well, we confess that we should not strive for earthly riches. That done, we may freely display our riches anyhow, don’t we?
Don’t you see, Jay, that such reasoning is self-deceiving?
Alexander
Not at all self-deceiving, Alexander, just dependent on hearing the Holy Spirit rather than upon satisfying a self-appointed third-person referee. How would you know if we are self-deceived about how long our pants have to be if you’re not simultaneously offering some form of judgment in that regard? Apparently there is a standard at work here, and one much more specific than the scriptures offer. If I am reading you correctly, if we think we are following God while violating the standard of behavior which you apply, we are fooling ourselves. Hmm. Such a position makes me want to ask somebody to throw down his staff so I can be assured of his qualifications.
In this rush to offer rulings on skirts and shorts and wedding rings and wristwatches, we presume not only to offer unsolicited judgment of the externals, but plow right ahead to judge the hearts of others as deluded –strictly by our view of those externals. Just as long as we are sitting with our bookmark on a scripture, we think ourselves justified in this– our repeatedly-demonstrated inconsistencies with scripture notwithstanding. It seems –perhaps only to me– that “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” is a question that not only does not stop us from rolling out our assessments of our brethren, it gives us no pause AT ALL Such humility has been replaced by citations of “a clear violation of chapter 1, verse 6, inference (b)”. The Pharisees weren’t the last group to use one scripture to make other scriptures “of none effect”. Today, if Paul asked us, “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?”, we answer, “Well, I’m a fellow with a Bible, that’s who I am!” Unfortunately for the church, chutzpah seems to be a renewable resource.
Why can’t Brother Jim wear his gold Rolex at church? Because Paul condemned the gold Rolex? Because I don’t have one? Or because Brother Jupiter G. Belchwater gives a sermon on James 2 that gets us all up in arms against anybody who has more money than we do? This ongoing idea of judging the intent of the heart (i.e., immodesty) by externals (skirts okay, shorts not okay) is awfully hard to justify scripturally or spiritually. It smacks more of personal issues of preference and local control than of anything God has asked us to rule on in the lives of others. It most certainly appears to leave the Holy Spirit completely out of the business of guarding our motives and behaviors; it demands a return to external law, and assigns new black robes to self-elected judges who will sort things out for everyone else. Your honor, I object!
Might the Holy Spirit tell you it’s okay for you to show up at church in a nicer car than my dented 1998 Camry? Or should I feel free to continue my covetous judgmentalism, justifying my own sins by accusing you of “freely displaying your riches” by what you drive?
Or is it just possible that Alexander, as a son of God, might be trusted to hear his shepherd’s voice just as I do, and is free to drive what God has provided for him without fear of reproach?
Charles McLean wrote:
Charles, if that voice you’re hearing contradicts what is written in scripture, it’s not the Holy Spirit.
And BTW your arguments would be more likely to persuade if you would show a little more respect for the person you’re talking to.
Jim Neely,
Speaking of languages, know where the name Tullahoma came from?
How about lifting or raising holy hands.
Many do that where I attend which is unusual for a church of Christ. Never seen a split over it or an argument either way.
Is doing it or not a heaven or hell issue.
Command?
We pick and choose don’t we!
Charles McLean asked, “Why can’t Brother Jim wear his gold Rolex at church? Because Paul condemned the gold Rolex?”
No because Jesus did. (paraphrase) don’t lay up treasures on earth, while there are children living within blocks of your fancy church, who had no breakfast.
The one and only thing that condemned the young rich ruler, was he remains rich while the poor suffer, all around him.
I have heard wealthy people argue against the meaning of what Jesus said about rich men entering heaven.
One of the stupidest things I ever heard a preacher say was “Some of the best Christians in church are rich, they give enough money to keep the doors open on the church for the rest of us”
Laymond,
I think the thing that condemned the rich youg ruler was that he placed his riches above Jesus. If a person places anything above Jesus, they are putting themselves in the shoes of the rich young ruler. That includes the love of dogmatic religious rules. Jesus didn’t condemn the rich, he just said it was tough for them to love Him more than their wealth.
Doug
The poor don’t feed the poor.
Nothing wrong with making money, it is what you do with it that matters.1Timothy 6:17-19.
We cannot spit up silver or gold like Jesus did, we must work for ours.
Real riches are not money anyway but a good christian life and family are.
Alabama John
To answer your questions;
LIFTING HANDS: I don’t do it, and only a few at our congregation do (probably less that ~10)on occasion. Note that Paul said it was a desire, so I would have to consider it optional, not a command or salvation issue.
Alabama John
Sorry, I goofed. I started this message and automatically hit the TAB key which sent (I think) the incompleted message. I have done this before on some other blogs, which shows that I am a slow learner. I wish the soft ware people would fix that.
Your questions:
LIFTING HOLY HANDS: I don’t do it, and only a few occasionally do it where I attend. I am not aware that it is a problem to anyone.
Paul did say that was a “desire”, so I could not conclude it to be a command. I once had a preacher to tell me that it was obligatory on Christians to do it. However, I did notice that his wife did not follow the desire as related to women in the next verse.
If it is done to be seen by others as some sort of a show of piety, I think it would be the wrong thing to do.
TULLAHOMA: There are 3 accounts of its origin, and I have added a 4th.
They are:
(1) It was derived from the Choctaw language and means “red rock”, although I don’t know where the red rocks are.
(2) The name evolved from the name of an Indian chief that had been captured.
(3) During the Civil War Tullahoma was a headquarters for the Confederate army. There was a lot of rain during that time and the soldiers said that tulla meant “mud” and homa meant “more mud”.
(4) Tullahoma sits on the highland rim (elevation 1070), and has a clay hard pan very close to the surface. Obviously that results in very poor peculation of rain water casusing the mud the soldiers disliked so much. I used to tell newcomers that “Tullahoma” was an Indian name that meant “the swamp that sits on a hill”
I’m sure that is more than you wanted to know, but you asked.
Jim Neely, Tullahoma
PS – You note that I do not put the name of the state with it; its the only one, although at one time Grenada, MS had that name..
To All
I would not be so presumptuous as to attempt to admonish the many Christians who are involved on this list, many of whom have much more Biblical knowledge than do I.
However, in reading the many comments I am reminded of something. Although already said here, I want to put it in a very plain statement: “No matter who we are, we MUST approach our study of the Bible as a search for what God would have us know and do, not how do I justify some understanding of the Bible that I have!
On the day of Pentecost the hearers ask Peter and the other apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” NKJV They were convinced that they had killed God’s son and there is no doubt in my mind that in using the word “shall” they did not mean “What is the least we have to do to get away with this?” I’m sure they wanted to know “What is all that God would have us do to escape His condemnation and return into His favor?
It is all about God, not about us or our opinions. “Lord, what would you have us to know and do” must be our attitude. WHAT is right is much more important than WHICH ONE of us is right, as we study and attempt to resolve differences in understanding, recognizing that Romans 14.4 is spreads over us all.
Jim Neely, Tullahoma
To clarify – i said some of it more than once:
1) To miss out on a few commands in our desire to obey and to follow the Lord does not condemn us. Why? Because we are to LEARN to obey all that Christ commanded (Mat 28:20). I do trust that we are all in the process of learning.
2) Still ALL means ALL. We cannot say we only have to obey most of what He commanded; if that’s the meaning we give the Word ALL, then not ALL power in Heaven and on Earth is given to Christ, but just most of the power.
3) But to loosen one of the least commands makes anyone the least in the Kindom, also according to Christ (Mat 5:19). Again it would not damn us automatically; although teachers will get a stricter judgement (Jas 3:1)
What bothers me in this discussion. We point to such commands as the holy kiss and footwashing, where it is supposed that we all agree that we don’t have to even view them as command. In fact this is loosening what Christ himself or through His Apostles has said. Even more: It is done so without really given deeper thoughts to the “WHY”.
Don’t you see this I a rather strange attitude toward Him who is the Lord of Lords? Christ said something which – actually – are pretty plain words; but our preachers say: He did not really mean it!
I doubt that such kind of teaching is fitting for a disciple, nor that – if applied as a method rather than just misunderstanding the point of a few commands – would lead anyone into the Kingdom. What have we done to such commands as in the Sermon on the Mount:
a) Loving your enemies
b) No swearing of oaths
c) No Divorce and Remarriage except for one reason (adultery)
d) Not pursuing wealth
We see no problem with golden Rolexes? Of course we pledge allegience to the flag? We have to use military violence for the means of good? And God is soooo gracious to those divorced and remarried?
YOU (not all of you, of course) ARE KIDDING! This shows an attitude of INSUBMISSION to the Christ. And I seriously fear that such an attitude IS a highway to hell.
Alexander
“Jesus didn’t condemn the rich, he just said it was tough for them to love Him more than their wealth.”
Doug, in other words Jesus no longer requires we give to the poor, if we had rather ware our riches on our person.
Is that another command we can add to the list that can be ignored?
‘If you do it not for the least of them, you do it not for me”
Alexander… stop for a bit and try to grasp what this discussion is about… It’s not about which COMMAND do we get to violate because we don’t want to do it..
The question is to whom was the instruction given and for what purpose.. Jesus told his disciples to hand out fish and bread but that doesn’t apply to us today… It was a command for a certain group on a certain occasion… When Paul instructs women on dress styles surely he was talking about modesty…not that we all have to dress like it’s 64 AD.. Otherwise, we must all go get our robes and sandals, right ?
I understand the need for some to want to adopt a patternistic approach to the Christian lifestyle but dressing like a first century person is taking it a bit too far don’t you think? It really is sort of weird.
I don’t believe people on this board are looking to violate God’s commands… We’re just trying to figure out which one’s were for them and which ones were for us… It’s fairly obvious that some things were meant for the person of that time..with perhaps an underlying them of modesty or respect for marriage roles, etc… But so far, it is also quite obvious that people just pick and choose depending on their point of view and that their is no standard approach that has been verbalized.. therefor the coC now has 24 divisions and are in a sort of civil or spiritual war with each other… Now there’s a light that NEEDS to go UNDER a bushel.
Laymond,
I think you just put some words in my mouth that I did not say. Of course, true Christianity is to help the widows and the orphans (i.e., the poor). But, Jesus also told us that the poor would always be with us so even if Christians gave all their wealth to the poor there would still be people living in poverty. Even if all Christians possessing a rolex sold them and gave the proceeds to the poor, there would still be poverty so Jesus never “commanded” Christians to be the cure for poverty.
If there is a “command” being not being properly observed, it is more likely when Christians give all their money to their local church and then the church spends it on everything but aid to the poor. Personally, I give money to the local church but I also support orphanages and other ministiries that I think fit the “commands” for giving. Things like ministries to prisons and jails. But, I’ve heard sermons on why we should give all of our offerings to the local church and let the elders decide on how to spend it. That doesn’t work for me.
Doug
Below is a list of qualifications for a Roman army general that was written about the time of Jesus birth. You will note a similarity with Paul’s list of qualifications for elders. Paul was well aware of his culture and he drew upon what people understood and respected when he advised regarding women wearing a head scarf while praying and when discussing qualifications for elders. So we are entirely on firm ground to use our heads in the same manner. If that judgement indicates a single man, a single woman, a man with no children etc can serve effectively as an elder then not only are we free to appoint them but we should make use of their talents in that regard.
————–
Onosander, De imperatoris officio*
1. I believe, then, that we must choose a general, not because of noble birth as priests are chosen, nor because of wealth as the superintendents of the gymnasia, but because he is temperate, self-restrained, vigilant, frugal, hardened to labour, alert, free from avarice, neither too young nor too old, indeed a father of children if possible, a ready speaker, and a man with good reputation.
2. The general must be temperate in order that he may not be so distracted by the pleasures of the body as to neglect the consideration of matters of the highest importance.
3. He must be self-restrained, since he is to be a man of so great authority; for the licentous impulses, when combined with the authority which confers the power of action, become uncontrollable in the gratification of the passions.
4. Vigilant, that he may spend wakeful nights over the most important projects; for at night, as a rule, with the mind at rest, the gneral perfects his plans.
5. Frugal, since expensive attendance upon th eluxurious tastes of commanders consumes time unprofitably and causes resources to waste away.
6. Hardened to labour, that he may not be the first but the last of the army to grow weary.
7. Alert, for the general must be quick, with swiftness of mind darting at every subject – quick, as Homer says, ‘as a bird, or as thought.’ For very frequently unexpected disorders arise which may compel him to decide on the spur of the moment what is expedient.
8. Free from avarice; for this quality of freedom from avarice will be valued most highly, since it is largely responsible for the incorruptible and large-minded management of affairs. For many who can face the shields and spears of a host with courage are blinded by gold; but gold is a strong weapon against the enemy and effective for victory.
9. Neither too young nor too old; since the young man does not inspire confidence, the old man is feeble, and neither is free from danger, the young man lest he err through reckless daring, the older lest he neglect something through physical weakness…
12. I should prefer our general to be a father, though I would not refuse a childless man, provided he be a good man. For if he happens to have young children, they are potent spells to keep his heart loyal, availing to bind him to the fatherland. . .
13. A ready speaker; for I believe that the greatest benefit can accrue from the work of a general only through this gift. For if a general is drawing up his men before battle, the encouragement of his words makes them despise the danger and covet the honour; . . . 16. No city at all will put an army in the field without generals nor choose a general who lacks the ability to make an effective speech.
17. The general should be a man of good reputation, because the majority of men, when placed under the command of unknown generals, fee uneasy. For no one voluntarily submits to a leader or an officer who is an inferior man to himself. 18. It is absolutely essential, then, that a general be such a man, of such excellent traits of character as I have enumerated, and besides this, that he have a good reputation.
*from the commentary by Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, page 158-160, Fortress Press, 1972, ISBN-0-8006-6002-1.
Good understanding Jim.
Good understanding of a foreign language. The red rock (clay deposits) was eaten up.
Interesting how some practices are required and some not to be done. Many churches would disprove of you raising hands. Some don’t like any but the one praying to say amen. How can we overcome these differences that destroy unity and keep us from loving one another?
The story of the rich young man is always told with a negative ending.
I don’t believe it was.
All his life he had been an obedient believer and when Jesus saw him he was able to look into his heart and it says Jesus loved him. We should be so blessed..
Now for the rest of the story.
He was told to go and sell all his wealth and he had a lot.
He was not allowed to join Jesus like he wanted but given a task to do that would take time to organize and get done so he left disappointed and sad.
But, he did as ordered just like he had done for his whole life.
He sold and gave away all and came to Jesus to tell him it was done, but, Jesus was being led away captive. The soldiers wouldn’t let him near.
All he had left, and it was covering his nakedness, was the fine expensive single under cloth of a rich man.
Some think that was John but John didn’t wear fine linen, the former rich young man did.
I hope to meet him one day!
Doug, said, ” Even if all Christians possessing a rolex sold them and gave the
proceeds to the poor, there would still be poverty so Jesus never “commanded”
Christians to be the cure for poverty. ”
And what he said is absolutly true, but as Christians we should be willing to pull that
Rolex off and sell it so hungry or needy people can eat, or have a coat.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for
an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
Jesus was asked, who is my neighbor, and gave the story of the “good Samaritan”
“Do for others as you would have them do for you”
No we weren’t called to cure poverty, but we were called to fight it. What was it Jesus
said about storing up your excesses in new barns.
Jesus speaks plainly about “rich men” and we ignore it at our own risk.
I just want to note to Alan and Charles McLean that I read Charles’ post three times and didn’t see anything I considered disrespectful in the least. He argues his case with vigor, but that doesn’t come up to the level of insult/disrespect.
Laymond,
I dare you to look at the percentage of your local (or any) church budget that is going to fight poverty and then still feel good about lecturing the wealthy about the need for them to sell their watches. This is a silly thing to argue about but we need to cure ourselves before we go around telling others they need curing.
Doug
Maybe English is too poor a language to communicate, Price.
a) You think I cannot make a difference between a grammatical imperative in a specific situation (like feeding the 5000) from a command that is handed down to the disciples as a general command we are to observe. Or are you yourself unable to see the difference? This is leading the whole discussion ad absurdum!
b) Paul never said we should dress like Romans in 64 AD! He did not mention sandals, did he? Nor tunics or togas, right? He spoke about dressing immodestly and boastfully, about elaborate hairstyles, about displaying riches. These are very general terms that give us a few examples (!) of what this command is about.
As a matter of fact: Neither the principle nor the application is being taught in the majority of churches today. It’s put aside as a mere “cultural” issue, that has nothing to do with us … and brothers openly suggest that we might wear our Golden Rolex to church! Where am I? In a church of Christ? Really?
And obviously you lack discernment, Price. And others as well. The reason is a wrong turn that has been taken when starting to look for parts in the Bible that were just for them but not for us.
Price, we were talking e.g. about women being submissive and not to teach men in letters that were given to churches by the apostle as a command of the Lord in a letter that was directed to all churches (1Co 1:2) or that described the rules in the house of God (1Ti 3:15). You know, we were debating whether these commands (restrictions) still apply today, and it is SO OBVIOUS that they were meant to be for all churches! We are NOT discussing whether we should make crowds sit in groups of 50 and share bread and fish, Price.
I say it again and most clearly:
We are to learn to obey ALL that Christ has commanded – and His commands have been handed down by the apostles. Unless THEY make a distinction (like: For this situation I have no command of the Lord, just an opinion – as in 1Co 7:25), we MUST regard the whole NT as binding. Making distintinctions that parts of the teaching were just cultural and “for them” only is a lie from Satan.
Alexander
@Doug
I must side with Laymond, Doug. What you say – in effect – is: The world is so polluted, it makes no sense that we urge one another to burn less gas with our cars. In other words: Let’s just keep on polluting the world as all do …
A bit over 50% of our church’s budget goes to help people in need. Just to take your dare, not to boast about our church.
Consider the words of Paul to Timothy:
CHARGE THEM! Speak up to them, touch their conscience, make them do some real changes in their attitude and life style!
Charge them – paraggello: Send them this message, command them, enjoin …
NOT: Suggest, advice, hint or just let them be.
James wrote in his letter – which was to be read in the church (as most letters):
How does the brother with the golden Rolex feel, when this is being read in church? There are miseries waiting for him unless he repents. And there are miseries waiting for those in chuch leadership, who don’t touch this subject, because God will demand the blood of the rich man from them (Eze 3:18).
Alexander
@ Charles
Judge for yourself, Charles: Are Paul and Peter really judging the intent of the heart in these verses? Or are they simply stating: Such an appearance i immodest:
As I read it: Both speak of the outward appearance – a bit exaggerated: It’s not about the heart but about what they wear. Of course it is also about the heart, as Peter says:
But they did not separate outward appearance from inward attitudes. Rather they see correctly that our appearnce quite often is a reflection of our attitude. What both teach (and command) is that our outward appearnce must be a reflection of a spiritual attitude, there must be no contraditiction between both.
A Christian woman dressing like a prostitue can theoretically be a spiritual person; but the apostles don’t allow such kind of dualism! A spiritual person will dress appropriately, therefore elaborate hairtyles (and modern women are no different in this respect than the ancient Roman women!), costly or sensual clothes (again no difference today to back then) or gold and jewels (no difference today to back then) are NOT IN LINE WITH THE ATTITUDE WE SHALL CULTIVATE.
Therefore these texts are not the least bit “cultural” and “omittable”, and neither Paul nor Peter would agree to our so common “exegesis”: We can have all of these things (gold, haitrstyles, costly clothes) as long as we are spiritually minded. Never! A spiritual woman cannot dress like a worldly woman, because she is no worldly woman. Outward appearance and inward disposition belong together just like body and soul belong together. Those who separated both were the Gnostics.
Alexander
Alexander…If only the other 23 divisions of the churches of Christ agreed with you then you’d be in scriptural harmony…As it stands, nobody seems to be able to garner enough consensus or perhaps agree with all that have you indicated seems so obvious.. Your version of “command” doesn’t seem to hold much sway with a large majority of others within the churches of Christ… Wonder why that is ? Is that because the just don’t like you..or that there is considerable weight to the cultural argument ? Would you at a minimum allow for Christian men to disagree on this topic or must they all become identified as progressives and infidels ?
Doug, do you mean we should start chopping at the log in our own eye, before we start picking at the splinter in our brothers eye. I agree, I was only answering a question.
(Charles McLean asked, “Why can’t Brother Jim wear his gold Rolex at church? Because Paul condemned the gold Rolex?”
I answered,
No because Jesus did. (paraphrase) don’t lay up treasures on earth, while there are children living within blocks of your fancy church, who had no breakfast.)
Sorry to get you so riled up. I don’t care if you ware a Rolex on both arms.
Laymond,
I just don’t see a need to have Christians checking each other wrists (or cars) to make sure that someone isn’t living to high on the hog. I’m sure that I have more stuff than some and less than others and that’s just the way it is. Most americans have way more stuff than the rest of the world so I guess you could say that all of us Americans have rolex watches on our wrist. The last thing the CofC needs is poverty police though. I think the biblical principle is clear about giving… eveyone decides what to give for themselves and gives with a good and cheerful heart.
Doug…I don’t know…I’m thinking we might ought to charge a Luxury Fee on those over certain income amounts…Just take the average of the congregation and have “progressive” fees for those with increased income levels.
Perhaps we could have a Pretentious Fee for those that drive a car in certain price levels or year models… Same could go for personal accessories..
For those churches which are patternistic to the core, they could just have a yard sale and sell everything and share everything together.. Those not participating would make the annual publication of the Anninias and Sappharia list…
Jay:
Where is your censoring when it is needed and justified? Does it matter that Price’s remarks drip with sarcasm and unkindness: “the other 23 divisions of the churches of Christ.”? Is it verifiable, or no more than a matter of venting bitterness for some reason? I, for one, do not accept such language. I have heard it from him numerous times over the past few months — including to me personally.
I, for one, think your previous censoring warnings have been long forgotten in some instances. Or are they only reserved for people who take issue with some of your conclusions regarding churches of Christ?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay:
Separately, I am glad you took a look a Wayne Grudem’s review. Want to give you some time to mull in this area, just as you strive to get other folks to mull by your weblog.
So, you willing to wade into the Phyllis Trible’s God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality as part of this webforum now? I will suggest that if William Webb had done so, he might have found himself doing something besides tripping and stumbling around 1 Timothy 2:13.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander:
Your 2:11 pm post is excellent. Thank you for penning it. Much of the “cultural” talk in our time actually becomes no more than our attempting to justify our own society — which is exactly why the apostles were writing what they were writing in their time!
In Christ
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
‘I’m sure that I have more stuff than some and less than others and that’s just the way it is.’
Doug did you ever stop to wonder why you have more “stuff” than the poor person in the street.? And we might have to answer for the way we manage “more stuff” .
Laymond,
I’m pretty sure I have some stuff because I’m an American, I completed a college education, I’m frugal, I have simple tastes and most importantly… I have been blessed. Oh, and I stopped smoking about 30 years ago. A lot of the poorer people I meet still have money for smokes it seems.
We’ll give an accounting for everything, Laymond. In the final accounting, all I have really going for me is Jesus. I believe it’s enough.
That’s great Doug, that you did all that without any help, really amazing.
If ya’ll weren’t so serious, this last 1/4 of this thread would be laughable!
This is what RULES instead of love brings us to.
Campbell, Zwingli and other denomination influences of our worship and interpreting would be embarrassed..
What is possibly offensive about Price’ post(s)? That he stated that there are 23 divisions in the COC? I’ve seen him state that before, and I wish he’d stop saying it because I believe he is wrong: I think the number is actually 50-100!!
Shouldn’t we give people the benefit of doubt? I mean, the nature of disagreement is offense. If I own a Rolex, naturally I’d be slightly offended that Abasnar has labeled that sinful (I’m sure he’d say the Bible labels it sinful, but I digress…).
Alabama John is right: this is laughable. Any time a Christian takes something like greed, modesty, or giving and tries to give me a litmus test, I will kindly suggest they worry about their own eye beam. Seems to be the situation here.
JMF:
I find your comment remarkable. I have seen Jay censor folks for their unkindness. I have heard him urge that we express kindness toward other religious groups and pressing HARD when people did not. Correct?
I am sure you have seen such as well. Is there a reason that kindness and respect does not extend to churches of Christ as well?
I am beginning to believe that for some in this weblog respect is reserved for all save churches of Christ that are judged patternistic, legalistic, and any other “istic” people think is the case. For them bitterness, sarcasm, unkindness and down right meanness is all that is considered justified. If I am missing something, glad to listen.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
October 2, 2011
Come on Guys!
The ball has been batted back and over the net many times in the last few days and sometimes with a lot of velocity and spin. I think most/much of the problem is that some very good Christians feel that we must all agree on all aspects of our Biblical understandings. Further I know of some who feel that you must not only agree with them, but you must do all, but only, what they believe to be the right way to live the Christian life, and if you don’t see it their way they will not consider you their brother in Christ. I am not saying that any of you have made such a statement, but I know of some who feel that way.
The earthly family is used in the Bible to effectively communicate the Christian fellowship/family. Using that as an example, I want to make the point that everyone in the family does not see or do things alike. Further, we may have various reasons why we don’t, but we can be brothers in the same family anyway.
I had an older brother, now deceased. If he had asked me to help him rob a bank, I would have refused because it is illegal. Had he asked me to join him in buying a $100,000 house boat, I would have declined because I would not have thought that was a wise way to spend our resources (as if we had that amount). Had he asked me to join him in bungee jumping off of a tall cliff, I would have declined because I would have thought it was stupid.
In all the above cases I would not have joined him in the proposed plan, for a variety of reasons and I would have tried to get him to see my reasoning. However, regardless of whether or not I was able to convince him, he would still be my brother (although in the latter case he might be some what flattened). He would be my brother because we had the same patents.
I believe a lot of times our disagreements in the spiritual domain fall into the same sort of situations as in the above rather simple minded examples, we have the same spiritual father. While that sounds good, let’s see if we can find a Biblical example where two Christian congregations had some different spiritual beliefs and/or practices.
(Acts 14 – 15; approximately AD 48) While Paul was at Antioch after his first missionary journey, some Jews came from Jerusalem and began teaching the Gentile Christians that they must be circumcised to be Christians. To clear up the matter, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles, elders and the church. After discussion, James wrote a letter to the church at Antioch telling them that the only additional thing they needed to do was to abstain from:
1. Things offered to idols,
2. Blood,
3. Things strangled,
4. Sexual immorality.
(These were additional “Law of Moses” things that they were to do. As Christians they had already done such things as believing on Christ and being baptized.)
Now fast forward to about AD 58, 10 years later, we find that as Paul was concluding the 3rd missionary journey (Acts 21.16), he was in a hurry to get back to Jerusalem by the Day of Pentecost. Upon arrival at Jerusalem (Acts 21.17-24), Paul met with James and the elders. There were 4 men there that had taken a vow. Paul was asked to take them into the temple, be purified with them and pay their expenses so that they might shave their heads. Paul was to do this so that the Jews would know “that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law”. (Sounds “Law of Mosesish” to me.)
So here we have the church in Antioch with only 4 additional things required of them by the apostles in Jerusalem, but the church in Jerusalem and Paul were doing a number of additional things associated with the Law of Moses. We have no reason to believe that the two congregations had any trouble getting along although there were some distinct differences in what they were doing.
Paul gives us an example of how the work of two people with totally different attitudes can be appreciated. We have the following in Philippians 1.12-18
12 But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, 13 so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; 14 and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former[b] preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.
So we see here Biblical examples of how 2 different congregations and 2 different Christians can operate apparently in independent harmonious relationships without having the same operational format.
I would certainly classify myself as a CENI person, and I think that is a good way to approach scripture until a better one comes along. However, Romans 14.4 and the above examples settle the matter of trying to require everyone to agree with my understanding of anything but the very basic fundamental beliefs.
(I am afraid if either of the above examples were to exist today someone would see to it that they were “written up”)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Alabama John
I am assuming that your question (How do we overcome those differences that destroy unity and keep us loving one another?) was not just a rhetorical one. While I would never claim that we have everything figured out, I do think that we do some things acceptably well.
Answer: As a congregation I believe we try to practice the saying (I don’t know from where) IN ESSENTIALS, UNITY; IN NONESSENTIALS, LIBERTY; AND IN ALL THINGS, LOVE. Are we always successful? No.
I think we try to accommodate someone’s beliefs or concerns, if it does not compromise a principle. When we moved into our new building a few years back we started doing some of the minor logistical things differently. Three simple examples:
1. We began having the Lord’s Supper service trays at the back of the auditorium. Some felt that they should be at the front and be at the table for the prayer. So we arranged to have one set up front and after the respective prayers it and the other ones are passed from the front.
2. I know of at least one member that felt that the bread should have each serving broken off at the time of consumption. So in each plate there is a square of 2 to 3 in, that those who feel that way can break off. their serving.
3. We started projecting the songs on screens at the front, as well as visual aids in the sermon; some had minor objections. So we kept song books in the racks and the book numbers are projected on the screen along with the words and notes.
These are pretty minor to most of us but the accommodations seem to satisfy those who had some dislike without them. (As far as I am concerned, relative to the projection matter, I feel sorry for those who see it as some sort of a deviation from what is right; I also feel sorry for those who may think it is some great spiritual improvement.)
In the main, I am personally a great fan of Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address and believe it captures a lot of Christian attitudes quite well. In fact, I believe we miss some great opportunities today when we fail to promote it. Obviously I also am a great fan of Romans 14.4
Hope all of the above comments are helpful.
Jim Neely, Tullahoma
I think I agree in more parts with most of the divisions among the churches of Christ than you do; but it is not about perfect uniformity, but about an attitude.
We are all LEARNING to obey all of Christ’s command – got it? So there HAVE to be differences in understanding and application – I have no problem with that. None at all.
But I have a problem with a destructive kind of hermeneutics that loosens even the least of His commands. You see, the approach of “cultural command” is TOTALLY alien to NT thought. None of the Apostles ever regarded their commands as limited to a specific church or region. Therefore THIS APPROACH IS WRONG. And the results of such a theology prove divisive and devastating. More than that: It destroys our abilty to discern God’s word as what it is. I shun it, I despise it, I reject it with all of my heart! It is not of God. Period (Amen).
Unless we know where and who the enemy is, we will shoot each other (Bruce is so right about the spritual siege). This I don’t want to do. But you stand on the wrong side of the battle line, Price. And my bullets flow in your direction! I don’t aim at you however. You don’t know which flag is ours. You don’t know which commands to follow – because they might be cultural and not binding … Wake up! This dosn’t work!
Alexander
What if having that Rolex helps give a man instant creditability among high ranking executives or the like that he would not have had without it and by so doing allows him to be a better witness to them?
Kind of extreme, but as long as it’s not sin, it seems that we should always be making decisions based on the Bible and culture. And jumping to what someone ought to do when there is no clear command in scripture other than some instances where Jesus is talking to man who does not understand what His kingdom is about unlike the brother with the Rolex does sure can get us in trouble.
Bruce…for your convenient review I have attached a comment by Al Maxey regarding the 24 divisions within the CoC …
“Frankly, that number is probably too low. There is a directory put out every year or so titled “Churches of Chrit in the United States” (and another one that lists them around the world). This is primarily just the mainstream churches, but they list many, many different factions within our heritage. There are also directories put out by the One Cup people, the Non-Institutional people, etc. The mainstream churches have split many times over women’s issues, musical instruments, support of various “para-church” organization such as Herald of Truth, Missionary Societies, Disaster Relief institutions, colleges/universities, children’s homes and homes for the aged, etc. There are factions that refuse to have Bible Classes, factions that refuse to eat in the building, factions that refuse to have fellowship halls, etc. The One Cup group is divided several different ways over the type of bread/loaf to use, when to break it (before the prayer or after), who is to break it (the one officiating or the people partaking), when the prayer should be said, etc. Is the wine fermented or unfermented? Is the bread leavened or unleavened? There are splits over versions (there are some who won’t allow anything but the KJV). There are now 70 A.D. congregations who are preterist in theology. There are those who are somewhat “pentecostal” in nature. There are some divided over race (white churches that won’t tolerate blacks, and vice versa). And on and on and on. One church historian characterized the Stone-Campbell Movement as the most divided/divisive movement in religious history. So, again, 24 is way too small a number.”
Turns out that my “sarcasm” is in fact…somebody else’s denial……
I’m thinking some folks just need to throw out their rule book and put down their rocks…
Alexander… one of the phrases that you might learn to use that would help your pov would be “in my humble opinion.”
I’m not all that worried about being shot at…been a part of that in my lifetime where I “shot” at others…found that VERY unfulfilling at a Christian… Learned about Grace…Stopped shooting…started listening… started learning…
Not all that worried about “your side”…ya’ll have run out of “others” to shoot at so you’ve turned the guns on each other… maybe you should call a truce….
Jim…well said… I think Al Maxey’s quip is that “we don’t have to be twins to be brothers.” But, be careful, some brothers carry guns…:)
I am a pre-millenialist one cupper with a strong non-institutional bend; yet I would not make any of these fellowship issues. I think I made that clear several times in this Blog.
Price, it makes no sense to point to such unnecessary divisions in order to avoid the questions at stake here. You always (really) ignore my arguments and reasons and point to such “weirdnesses”! I have never ever yet had the impression that you really listend nor even understood what I wrote (*). Your unfinshed half-sentence-style of your replies lets me doubt that you finished your own thoughts before posting, which – again – makes it very, very hard to converse with you.
Alexander
(*) Had you done this, I’d expect you quoting from my posts and showing explicitly where my reasoning is wrong (You said “…”, which is rubbish, because “…”). Such you rarely ever did.
Price::
I am aware of Al Maxey’s conclusions regarding churches of Christ.
Certainly, some congregations need to think about their conclusions regarding Scripture at points. This is the case for all religious groups, not just churches of Christ. And as a result this weblog at times drips with sarcasm. I continue to wonder if individuals would actually talk to one another face-to-face as they, at times, do in this weblog.
I am not convinced that sarcasm at any point helps build others up. It is a sign of our times and not a healthy one. Indeed, I continue to think about Paul’s counsel in Ephesians 4:29-32 as I read it.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce wrote:
Amen Bruce. Some of the attitude displayed in comments on this thread are embarrassing.
Time for me to sign off and go to church!
In my area, I have seen churches divide, take sides, split, and new ones started over things just this small.
The heartache, not speaking anymore of long standing friends is very disturbing.
“Our denominational friends” and “our erring brethren” is the favorite terms used for all those that have left.
Can we have differences like those mentioned, sure we can and absolutely will, but, to tear a friendship or church apart because of it is flatly wrong.
The problem is that we have made so many rules a Heaven or Hell issue that that thinking is too hard to stop.
We cannot associate with those that leave us or those we have left as they are now doomed to hell.
IN many cases we withdraw from the former members as they leave or the whole bunch at one time if they leave together which seldom happens.
What we must do is somehow get this thinking of error in one thing condemned for all out of our minds.
In prisons or hospitals, natural calamities like tornadoes, when someone is sick or dying and members from all the splits come together that is one time differences do not matter to most.
The only time we are all together is when we are all on our faces stretched out prone or on our knees praying. Please take note of that.
When all our eyes and thinking is upward these differences seem very small!!!
Laymond,
I guess you missed this in my last post: “and most importantly… I have been blessed.”. I’m not sure even today how a poor kid like me ever managed to make it through College and get an engineering degree, but it happened. I’ve tried to give back as I have been blessed and for the record… I own zero Rolex watches. I’m wearing a Timex watch for which I paid a little over $20. I”m thinking the best thing to do now is to let you have the last word on wrist watches. Blessings to you your family. Have a wonderful Lord’s Day.
Doug
John, rules or commands, what is the difference?
Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Now that seems to me to be a “rule” worth following. Now if you are giving just to impress someone else, “keep it in your pocket” because that is where you had rather have it. And no credit will be given.
John, let’s look at the “rule” we have been discussing, rule or command, makes no difference. Jesus said it along with many other “rules” .
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
We don’t come into this world without a debt to pay, First we owe God for giving us this life, second, we owe two people for bringing us into it, third we owe somebody for raising up and educating us to the point where we can survive in society . And I have never met anyone who could bury their dead body, when it is all over. Yes we owe debts, and most of the time we can’t repay those debts to those who gave to us, but since we are all God’s creation, we still have a way to repay our debt, to those who have less than we do.
You said we should love instead of quote ”rules” do you mean to imply we can’t do both. Jesus did.
And you are right I am as serious as eternal life, or eternal death, and I find nothing to laugh at. And I don’t care who is embarrassed.
“I”m thinking the best thing to do now is to let you have the last word on wrist watches”
Doug, I am truly sorry I am so inept at speaking on the bible, that you thought this was all about watches. Please forgive me, I will try harder.
Alabama John:
I appreciate your post and its emphasis on prayer. When I read Paul’s letters to Roman Asia, one of the things that stands out is Paul’s urging that they pray together as they faces the challenges of culture and Satan’s efforts to deceive.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Laymond,
I think I understood where you were coming from. You think biblical principles are being ignored when people keep wealth to use for themselves. I would agree that there is a problem if they are keeping most of their wealth or all of their wealth for themselves but I know quite a few wealthy Christians who enjoy a nice house and have nice cars and yes, maybe a nice watch but still give a lot of their money away. I just am not going to get into the business of how much wealth is too much to keep for your own family and yourself as I see that as each man’s business. It is a given that Christians should use their wealth differently than non-Christians though and that we should not be pompous about our giving no matter how much it is.
Doug
And… the TIDE did indeed roll yesterday!
Laymond,
Rules are those we make, Commands are those from God.
How we in the church of Christ mix the two and send all those that disagree with our list to hell.
Being from a background and raising in the ultra right church of Christ that would consider Alexander ‘Liberal”, and, having more than 25 differing churches that each consider the others as lost within 20 miles of home does affect you.
After a while all the confusion is obvious and the arguments, hard feelings toward each other among brothers and sisters in Christ just seems silly. After a while, it simply doesn’t matter and you seek someway to be able to overlook this foolishness. Seek to get on with loving each other with all our differences.
So many of us realize we were influenced more by the Gospel Advocate than the Bible anyway.
Most conservative churches preached from that latest publications point of view and used the scriptures quoted each Sunday.
East to see who is most influenced today by Campbell, Stone, Fanning, Zwingli movements and those movements where two joined in their thinking and preaching.
Stone-Campbell, Stone Zwingli. Down here the Stone-Zwingli was and still is the most prominent even today. Much more so than that conservative thinking so familiar in Alexanders post which bring back a time many of us have fought hard to rid our mind of.
Its wonderful to be able to love folks and believe you will be together in paradise.
Great to not have to cry at their funeral just KNOWING at the time of the funeral, Christians that differed with you on these minor points are burning in hell and suffering.
is that what we want for our children?
Alexander said: “You see, the approach of “cultural command” is TOTALLY alien to NT thought. None of the Apostles ever regarded their commands as limited to a specific church or region.”
Alexander, where do you get this idea? This is a very large statement and needs more support than mere assertion. I would agree that as to the basic principles of the Gospel, the apostles and other spiritual leaders of the day would have seen these as timeless, universal truth. But to include every word of the NT under this theme seems a real reach. It would require us to approve slavery– for Paul did. It would leave us to treat dysentery with wine– as Paul told Timothy to do. It would require us to encourage celibacy among believers. And it would bind at least a few Mosiac rules on us– as James did with the church at Antioch. It would undeniably put to death the traditional CoC view that spiritual gifts have passed away. It is our very own culture that has promulgated these variations from some of the words of the NT.
Besides, if everything these same apostles wrote was immutable and eternal and universal, how did we lose parts of it? Paul’s epistle to Laodecia is lost. Who said it was less inspired than his postcard to Philemon? And the church has yet to come into agreement on the final contents of the canon. We can’t pretend that the authors made these determinations of “inspiration”, for these men were long-dead while such issues were under debate in the church. It was centuries between John on Patmos and Athanasius.
Frankly, I don’t see how one can make the argument that the apostles and their contemporaries saw every jot and tittle of their letters as immutable eternal writ, unless one ignores details of their writings, how we have handled those writings, and our own current practices. Alexander, if your assertion turns out to be true, NOBODY is demonstrably acknowledging it– either then or now.
Laymond–
Your interpretation of Jesus’ words about the Rolex is duly noted. Please clarify further. I have a $98 rebuilt Seiko, and now have concerns that Jesus may not want me to own it at all. What is the maximum allowable value for a wristwatch? I know from your post that it is less than the price of a Rolex, but I don’t know what the LOWER limit of the price range is. I can’t find it in Jesus’ teachings. But then I couldn’t find the Rolex reference, either, so that’s why I need your help. I need to know a dollar figure, as when I replace this Seiko, I don’t want to offend my Master.
Please respond at your earliest convenience, as my watch has just stopped.
Expectantly,
Charles
PS: Some wag asked me, “Would Jesus wear a Timex?” but I think he was just being impertinent…
Laymond,
No one at all on this site, other than perhaps you, is arguing that the words of Jesus and Paul should not be taken seriously. The question is how those words should be interpreted — because we can only correctly obey them if we correctly understand them.
Very, very few people apply all New Testament commands as transcultural. As much as some protest, we do not really disagree about the principle.
Maybe I am one of the very, very few. But I can name lots of others.
Maybe we have a semantic difference on this point. Let me state the principle as I believe it: When something written in scripture is properly understood as a command to the first century NT church, it remains a command to the NT church until God says it no longer applies. Most of the attempts at counterexamples I’ve heard are either (a) not mandates in the first century context (example: holy kiss), or (b) continue to apply, but are highly unpopular. (example: women’s head coverings).
Once God has commanded, the command remains in force until God rescinds the command. It’s the very core of what it means for Jesus to be Lord. I find it amazing and perplexing that this would be even slightly controversial among Christians.
Alan… I think you just clarified the point of contention…Your (a) is somebody else’s (b) and vice versa… So far, it’s been pick and choose based on personal preference without a clear hermaneutical application to follow… you find it perplexing that this haphazard approach to scriptural instruction causes controversy…I would find it perplexing that it would not.
Jay submitted a rational hermaneutical approach that would keep us from mimicking 1st century patterns and yet avoid missing the principle that Jesus wished us to see… Very refreshing alternative…IMHO.
Price, this is not about mimicking patterns (ie, examples). It’s about obeying commands. And the real test is not whether it feels refreshing but whether it honors Jesus as Lord.
Er, Alan, it seems to me that “sell all you have and give to the poor and come follow me” would inarguably honor Jesus as Lord. Is that what you meant?
Alan…I understand your POV… However, I think it is critical that we try to understand whether or not the clear command was given to a person or people group to direct a specific and unique problem in that era or whether or not it was meant for the church in any era…. Is it possible that a specific instruction was given to address a specific need or issue that might give us a principle that might be applicable rather than the specifics of the instruction itself ?? There are many who think so… If you believe that all commands given were to be followed to the “T” by all who would be informed, then you would be in conflict with those that do not… Clearly, that has been the case in the church as good men and women continue to disagree on this topic… I would imagine that some grace could be extended to someone who thought they had identified a controlling principle and adhered to that commitment.. At least judged less harshly than someone who just disregarded any instruction to the subject at hand. Is that fair ? Or must we disassociate with those women who find no command in wearing a head covering ?
Price, I haven’t said anything about judging anyone, nor about disassociating. That’s an entirely separate question from whether a command still applies.
Of course there are commands that were specific to the situation. It’s usually pretty easy to tell them apart.
Jesus commanded Peter and John to prepare the Passover (Luke 22:8). That was clearly a command limited to those men.
OTOH, regarding silence of women in the assembly, Paul said (1 Cor 14) “As in all the churches…” and he concluded by saying ” If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” What fell between those statements was a general command for all the churches.