We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter is called “Resurrect the spirit of J. W. McGarvey (Redivivus!)”
Readers familiar with the history of McGarvey will recognize him as one of the greatest scholars of his generation who built much of the 20th Century case for a cappella singing. If you argue for a cappella music, you likely are using an argument borrowed from his work. And yet McGarvey refused to separate himself from his instrumental brothers in Christ — even preaching in their churches, provided only that they not use an instrument while he was worshiping there.
(If you ever wonder why Church of Christ theology is so centered on Acts, you can also thank McGarvey for that, due to his popular commentary on Acts.)
Garrett writes,
If the Churches of Christ are to be saved, they must resurrect the spirit of McGarvey. Like him, they can be strong in their convictions, including being non-instrumental, without consigning to hell all those who believe and practice differently. Like McGarvey, the Churches of Christ must not make a capella singing a test of fellowship. (pp. 86-87).
McGarvey understood that fellowship does not imply endorsement, and that he could enjoy communion with those who were “in error” about some things. Lipscomb did not understand that, for he presumed that if the organ and societies were wrong you could not be in fellowship with those who practiced them. Lipscomb confused fellowship and approval; McGarvey did not. (pp. 89-90).
Oh, yes, I might add that McGarvey was not only anti-organ and pro-society, but also anti-plurality of cups for the Lord’s supper. He had his scruples, didn’t he? But therein is the beauty of the brother. He bore his scruples in peace, though not in silence, in “the fellowship of the Spirit” and refused to divide the Body of Christ over such differences. J. W. McGarvey Redivivus! (p. 92).
I don’t know…if I read that right it sounds pretty familiar to me… Hey you’re my friend right up to the point that you listen to a harp, drink from your own cup or send money to the orphans….which I disagree with….so I think you need to worship in a different building…you and “your kind.”
I’d just soon the spirit of THAT just go back where it came from.
“even preaching in their churches, provided only that they not use an instrument while he was worshiping there.”
I agree with that, worship however you think best, just don’t come into “my church” and force it on me. That is the problem with progressives, ” you are wrong, and it is up to me to save you”
Oh, by the way, it they wanted him to come and preach bad enough to change their worship service to please him, who was it they were worshiping?
Ouch, just hits me wrong.
We don’t need the spirit of McGarvey or any other human to be resurrected among us. We already had and enjoyed them and when they faded (as they would do again) their spirit left as well. We truly need to open ourselves to the true Spirit that should animate our Churches. Only He can bring about the unity and the changes that we all need in ourselves and among our scattered brothers.
God bless your day!
Jay, before moving on to McGarvey, will you acknowledge the fact that much of what Campbell had to say relative to the baptists and pedobaptists was that their churches were sinful and that the members within such churches must get out or face condemnation (saving the ones who were merely ignorant of said sinfulness).
I mean, unless JM Hicks has misrepresented the true feelings and views of Campbell, the Garrett certainly has.
Without setting the record straight regarding such, the people who only read what Garrett has written (and what his supporters have said) will walk away assuming Campbell’s views were different from what they actually were.
“…even preaching in their churches, provided only that they not use an instrument while he was worshiping there.”
I see nothing wrong with that. What we need to check now, is whether he preached on I’M or the purpose of immersion while in “their churches”. And if so, what did he have to say?
Surely, he they didn’t put away their instruments in order to hear McGarvey, only for McGarvey to deliberately avoid speaking on “their scrupples”? Not knowing just how sinful he considered such to be.
At any rate, I think both sides agree that it was good of JW to be willing to preach there if/when they promised not to play their instruments.
Churches of Christ focus on Acts for doctrine because they believe biblical “approved examples” are equally as binding as commands. If you don’t bind examples, you’ll read Acts very differently.
Many times, those who introduced instruments into churches around 150 years ago did so in a most ungodly way, kind of railroading their agenda over the objections of others in their congregations, and causing many churches to split over the issue. Now we have a new wave of churches considering that same thing. I hope the progressives in these churches aren’t repeating the same mistakes. The end never justifies sinful means.
It’s is almost funny to see so many progressive appeal to Guys like Campbell and McGarvey as examples for us all to follow when after we look to how they really felt, well….
Back in 1865 J.W. McGarvey wrote in the Millennial Harbinger “. . . that every man who bows to the authority of God’s word, must oppose the use of instrumental music in the church.”
Another famous quote of JW came about when he said:
“And if any man who is a preacher believes that the apostle teaches the use of instrumental music in the church, by enjoining the singing of psalms, he is one of those smatterers in Greek who can believe anything he wishes to believe. When the wish is father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck’s back.”
Seems that the last quote there by Hank has a lot of irony in it.
“When the wish is father to the thought, correct exegesis is like water on a duck’s back.”
I don’t comment here much…and certainly don’t have the biblical scholar chops that many of you do…but I can’t help but feel that while there are all these comments about what McGarvey REALLY meant and said and why Garrett was off the mark and should not invoke a person’s spirit but only the Holy Spirit that somehow the whole point was missed. Maybe I wouldn’t be so sensitive to it if dear friends (who I mentioned in a post the other day) had not been told they are “errant Christians” by the leadership of a church in their new community because before they moved they affiliated with an IM church which was the place they felt God wanted them to be at that place and time for many reasons. They are welcome to attend this new church, but not “place membership” or “participate on any level” until they repent. So while you can argue the merit of what Garrett and Lipscomb and JM Hicks and whoever believed…there are people out there today, in America in 2011, who are being wounded and rejected and judged and forced out of a church when all they want to do is be in a community of Christians close by their home. I wonder how many of my friend’s family and friends who do not know Jesus would want to hurry up and be part of ANY church of Christ knowing these lovely people had been given that “test of fellowship.” Perhaps all Garrett meant is that McGarvey WAS sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and that manifested itself in the fruit of peace and we need more people of his influence in 2011 to do the same in churches of Christ. Maybe we don’t need to pick apart every article McGarvey ever published and just say, which it seems to be what Garrett might have been saying, “Father, please raise up people with Your Spirit of Peace to join us together for Your kingdom and to show You to the world and let us love each other in our churches as You love us.”
Alan.. would you consider it sinful for a group to refuse to consider change because of their personal preferences over the preferences of other brothers and sisters in the congregation ? I don’t like people shoving things down my throat either so I appreciate the initial reaction to change. But, once introduced then it seems to me that digging in your heels all the way to one’s knee caps is just as much railroading as the one’s introducing the idea of change….Conservatives must apply the same reasoning to themselves as they wish to apply it to others even though it may sting a little…
Hank, Campbell has many quotes that speak to his overwhelming desire for unity despite our differences…Perhaps you could provide us with quotes that you believe he spoke to condemn others to hell…
Here is one from Alexander Campbell’s The Christian Baptist: Volume III. No. 10….
I have tried the pharisaic plan, and the monastic. I was once so straight,
that, like the Indian’s tree, I leaned a little the other way. And however much
I may be slandered now as seeking “popularity” or a popular course, I have to
rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth,
and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I
would neither pray nor sing praises with any one who was not as perfect as I
supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered
the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never
could be a congregation or church upon the earth.
I believe that this article also reflected his view of full communion being based entirely on the person of Jesus Christ… but then again I could be mistaken.
Avivi…I think you bring attention to the damage we do with tremendous clarity… When we think it is only our arguments and doctrine that is affected we are entirely mistaken…People are hurt, damaged and scared… Thank you for making that more clear than is comfortable.
But apparently J. W. McGarvey admitted in his later years that he did not always practice what he preached. After years of compromise, brother McGarvey confessed the lesson he learned and it has been documented for us today. The following account by Jesse P. Sewell (one of the first presidents of ACU), reveals a message we all should consider very seriously:
“In January, 1902 or 1903, I was preaching for the Pearl and Bryan Streets church in Dallas. Brother McGarvey, an old man at the time, was invited to speak at the Central Christian Church in Dallas. We had three men in the Pearl and Bryan Streets church who had graduated from the College of the Bible in Lexington, under Brother McGarvey, and they were great admirers of him. They suggested that we invite Brother McGarvey to preach at Pearl and Bryan that night. We did so. I was just a boy of 24 or 25 then. I was sitting by the side of the great old man on the front seat, waiting for the service to begin. As we sat there talking, Brother McGarvey said to me: ‘Brother Sewell, I want to say something to you, if you’ll accept it in the spirit in which I mean it.’ I told him I’d appreciate anything he had to say to me. He said about these words, ‘You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t ever let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinction between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today.’ He said, ‘It won’t work.’”
“That experience has been an inspiration to me all the days of my life since. It has helped me, when I was ever tempted to turn aside and go along with error, to remember the warning of this great old man.” (Jesse P. Sewell, “Biographical Sketches of Restoration Preachers,” The Harding College Lectures, 1950, Searcy, Arkansas: Harding College Press, 1951, pp. 74-75.)
In other words, after having won the battle by teaching against instruments, J. W. McGarvey admitted that he lost the war by fellowshipping instrumental churches. Apparently, brother McGarvey came to see the instrumental issue as a fellowship issue. An example of this was the case of McGarvey and the Broadway Christian Church in Lexington, Kentucky. McGarvey had assisted in the founding of the congregation in 1870, but in 1902 he had to move to another congregation because, in spite of all of his teaching and protests, the church voted in the organ. This great Bible scholar saw it as both unscriptural and divisive, and as a cause for withdrawing fellowship.
“The party which forces an organ into the church against the conscientious protest of a minority is disorderly and schismatical, not only because it stirs up strife, but because it is for the sake of a sinful innovation upon the divinely authorized worship and the church; and, inasmuch as the persons thus acting are disorderly and schismatic, it is the duty of all good people to withdraw from them until they repent.”
(J.W. McGarvey, quoted in J. E. Choate and William Woodson, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, pp.129f)
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Robert,
Once again, thanks for keeping the record straight. Bravo, brother!
In 1809 Thomas Campbell published his Declaration and Address, which is a call for unity plus a plan to achieve the same. Eighty years later, the Sand Creek Address and Declaration declared that the signers would not consider those who disagreed with them on a number of listed issues as Christians, nor would they have fellowship with the churches that accepted the proscribed practices.
Less than twenty years later, David Lipscomb advised the Census Bureau that there are indeed two different, distinguishable groups within the Stone-Campbell Movement. From that time forward the government recognized the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ as distinct denominations.
Somehow, the spirit of the Declaration and Address, which called for fellowship upon faith in Jesus while leaving other things to the after growth and edification of the church, morphed into the spirit of the Address and Declaration, which pronounced a curse on all who would practice innovations not authorized by Scripture,
Other versions of this document include the practice of instrumental music among the “other objectionable and unauthorized things.”
This is a far distance from the spirit of 1804 (Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbretary) and of 1809 (Campbell’s Declaration and Address). It is evident that the modern Churches of Christ are closer to 1889 than to 1804 or 1809 – and not just because 1889 is chronologically nearer.
Sad to say, we are observing Paul’s charge to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4) more in the breech than in diligence.
@Todd Collier – That is undoubtedly the most cogent post on this entire topic to date! Only when we’re all animated by the Spirit of Christ will our dissensions cease. When will that be? It didn’t happen in the first century did it? But it was enjoined – ” Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”…
All of these discussions about what some human believed or said they believed, with the different nuances depending on what period of their lives, or maybe whether they missed their coffee that morning, will not, can not prove anything. Because they were mere humans such as ourselves, albeit more powerful personalities. I think I’ve mentioned my dad’s advice before – here’s another of his tidbits – son, don’t put your trust in any man, for invariably you will be disappointed.
Is it even remotely, slightly, just a little bit, minutely possible that we might at least CONSIDER the idea that it COULD HAVE BEEN that those who forbid IM could have at least remotely CONTRIBUTED to the “split” by railroading their beliefs on others as well? Just as forcefully as the one may have introduced them, the other “side” at least as forcefully resisted them based on their own ideas of interpretation.
Isn’t that what Jesus spoke AGAINST in Matthew 15:1-9? Most of us generally think that passage applies to “the other side”.
Regardless, the greater tragedy is to DEFINE ourselves by such a doctrine as IM that we have to stretch, infer, etc. to figure out. At least McGarvey seems to have a broader view of what makes us who we are. It isn’t whether or not we use IM in worship that should define who we are. It is WHO WE ARE IN JESUS!
James I think you make a good point… and underlying that point is that when we decide what the worship style is going to be according our INTERPRETATION or INFERENCE and insist on that style to the exclusion of all others and to the separation of all who disagree then it no longer is the Church of Christ but the Church of Our Preferences…
I would like to propose that our “conversation” would be more interesting and thought provoking if we focused on the basic premise of Jay’s post and this chapter of Garrett’s book. I would assert that the premise is something like this…Can we (the CoC sect) engage and partner with those that follow Jesus, but differ in their interpretation of scripture (beliefs) and resulting faith-based practices, and do so in a spirit of cooperation, love, and peace while standing firm on the convictions and related faith-based practices that are the outcome of our interpretation of scripture (beliefs). Admittedly, I being a bit self-centered by my proposal. I’m really interested in everyone’s view on the question above and could care less about opinions regarding the “true” ideologies of McGarvey or Campbell. Like the rest of us, I’m sure they struggled with their faith-based beliefs and as a result their ideology(s) evolved over time. Using quotes to support a conclusion of what they “really believed” is likely futile, unless the context revolves around concluding what they believed to be true at a specific point in time and even that conclusion is probably suspect.
Assuming I have the premise of the post correct, this issue can appear to be particularly focused on the practices of conservative CoC groups (as Garret asserts), and of course in many ways it is. But this issue holds some significant logic traps for both conservative and progressive groups. It’s not a simple issue and there are no simple answers…So… let’s spin some great dialogue.
Paul said for the sake of weaker member’s conscience, we should abstain from what we know to be allowable. Does anyone really know what that means? Change must happen slowly. People’s beleifs, even missing Christian liberty, matter. Right does not take might.
What’s that going to leave you? Caring congregations, that for the sake of a minority, all do as the minority wishes. It sure will not make us progressive anytime soon, but showing love now. Wow, we might be known to love each other instead of being modern!
The old JW was right that you do not stand for something by making compromises. The huge caveat here is to pick your fights. I suspect that why elders must be married with kid(s), is that the compromises in home family are much like church family. If you can put up with her and them, you can probably handle some obstinate, all change is of the devil church members.
It’s funny what we draw lines on, and what we let pass. My congregation is the oldest in south Florida, and for a number of years had a building on the bay. Many beloved ancestors of major families in c of C were baptised there. But was it scripturual? Does Acts ever have a baptism in salt water? No one ever raised the question. God’s grace must cover even careful rule makers that miss rules. Stand strong for essentials, and allow liberty in all else (sounds familiar).
After spending a little time over in the “experimental theology blog” I’m not convinced this is a theological proposition that is in “saving the churches of Christ”, it seems to be more psychological. Why does the church of Christ want to save the church of Christ? Is it the benefits? Or the allure to the features? Clearly without a spiritual benefit and a claim to the highest moral values an a challenge to deepest meanings of life the church does not need to exist. It should die.
Price wrote:
There’s been plenty of unpleasantness (and sin) on both sides. At least originally, one side was railroading a preference, and the other side was defending a sincere conviction. It still looks a lot like that today, to me.
Controversy over instrumental music is such a distraction from the gospel. We’d be far better off, and more people would be saved, if we would devote that energy to learning to fear God (yes, I said “fear”, see Luke 12:5, Ecc 12:13). And therefore to love God and to love his children. And to love our neighbors enough to teach them how to have a relationship with God. But instead we argue about instruments, and about musical styles, and lots of similarly wasteful disputes. What God must think of all this!
The times and instrumental music that MacGarvey experienced were a little different, weren’t they?
Back then, Hymns were still sung, and if there was musical acompaniment, it was by one instrument (mainly a piano or a harmonium) that SERVED congregational singing.
Today promoters of IM are not satisfied with this. They want to have worldy (“contemporary”) music, accompanied by a band that DOMINATES congregational singing.
We cannot easily compare Mac Garvey’s “openness” (which he discovered later, did NOT work) with our situation, because the spirit in the churches has dramatically changed in the past few decades.
I have seen this over and over again: Some younger Christians (or not so young any more, but trying to appear young as long as possible) contend for modernizing the worship in order to attract the youth – because church is mainly for the young generation to whom belongs the future, isn’t it? This drives the older ones out of the churches or into “inner exile” (it mutes them). I can’t find such an attitude recommended in scripture, instead the young should submit and follow the older ones. Yes, the younger ones may have it their way once they grew old enough and put aside the follies of their youth. But what is going on today in many churches is the work of the destroyer!
As for his other convictions, I am convinced that the “pattern” is “one cup” and that we should remain separated from war and politic’s (Lipscomb). The thing is: There is ONE correct answer to each ofthese questions:
a) Yes
b) No
c) Does not matter
It is my impression that (c) is often given by those who should have said: “I don’t know, because I haven’t studied this question yet.” If we want to know the truth, there is no shortcut. If we are not interested in it, but rather want our preferences to be confirmed, we will have many many debates and some questionable use of sources (history, bible) to deal with. And unless one knows the totality of either the scriptures or history those will impress the churches that quote only part of them in their own favor.
Therefore Robert Prater’s reply to Leroy’s (ab)use of MacGarvey was to the point. So what shall we think of a book that relies on such faulty reasoning?
Alexander
Alexander….Hymns in your song book were Contemporary and Worldly in their day…Just because you have a preference for them doesn’t make the “more” modern day musical preferences of others controversial…It just defines YOUR preferences… Do you really wish to go back to some mumbled chant that seems to be the style of the first century? Surely not…
The only reason that the older ones leave is because they came to worship with a preference for THEIR preferences…It’s all a matter of selfishness unless there is a clear command that is being violated…That catapults tradition as the priority of worship.. Instead of dividing in anger, why don’t they come up with a way to enjoy the worship styles of everybody ?? Doesn’t even have to be in the same service… Seems to me that many are avoiding finding a solution for styles and/or preferences that they don’t like…
Alan… I would agree with your last comment… However, in a “rules” based theology it would be difficult not to know what the rules are so the history of the CoC has been one of argument and disagreement over the rules… We are not known for Grace…either distributed amongst ourselves or to those that worship with a different name on the sign than ours… Some take offense at the quoting of various CoC leaders…well, just ask the folks that don’t go to the CoC about what impression we’ve made over the generations… If the first century church had been as separatist as well the cause would have never advanced….
Robert Prater quoted McGarvey:
From the above quote, McGarvey did not find instrumental music itself as a matter to break fellowship over. Rather, he saw the divisiveness of those who forced instruments against the convictions of others as being disorderly and divisive. That’s what he would break fellowship over. I agree with him, and I believe the scriptures also agree with him.
When McGarvey says his openness did not “work” he’s not repenting of the sin of having fellowship with instrumental worshipers. He’s making a pragmatic statement. And we must not break fellowship over mere pragmatic differences.
Price wrote:
We are supposed to be known for our love for one another. By reputation, we don’t have love for anyone who disagrees with us. It goes both ways. Progressives don’t show love toward conservatives, and conservatives don’t show love toward progressives…. whether the subject is communion cups, Sunday schools, missionary societies, praise teams, or instrumental music. The words that fly back and forth are far from being words of love. That can even be seen in the comments on this blog series.
I wonder how many of us would have had fellowship with the first century Corinthian church — as Paul did. I wonder if we would have been willing to give up our right to “eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything else” that would cause our brother to stumble (Rom 14:21). I think many of us would be more inclined to assert our rights, to argue our point of view, and to do what we wanted in spite of our brother. That’s how it looks to me.
Alan, Back in 1865 J.W. McGarvey wrote in the Millennial Harbinger “. . . that every man who bows to the authority of God’s word, must oppose the use of instrumental music in the church.”
And notice that McGarvey thought it was sinful to force an instrumet into the church NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT STIRS UP STRIFE, but because it is a SINFULF INNOVATION.
He said:
“… not only because it stirs up strife, but because it is for the sake of a sinful innovation upon the divinely authorized worship and the church; and, inasmuch as the persons thus acting are disorderly and schismatic, it is the duty of all good people to withdraw from them until they repent.”
While I can agree (to an extent) with everyone here who has argued the irrelevancy of the beliefs of the restorationists, it is clear that the summations of Leroy regarding them are misleading.
Robert has here proven that. I mean, in his “research”, how could Garrett have missed (or leave out), the information that can be so easily googled and which contradict his entire summations?
Hank wrote:
It’s one thing to oppose IM, and quite another to break fellowship over it. He obviously did the former, but not the latter.
He said “for the sake of a sinful innovation” a person acted “disorderly and schismatic”. In other words, the disruption caused by introducing the IM was not justified by a biblically sound cause. He didn’t say the innovation by itself, absent the strife, would be a cause for withdrawal. And he demonstrated that by his choices in subsequent years.
Alan…it’s not just Conservatives vs. Progressives…It’s the CoC against everybody else…Nobody recognizes the CoC for it’s love and grace… I’m sure there are individual exceptions but as a whole it’s not our reputation…
And…My point was that the two sides are avoiding compromise where it is possible… why not two services…why not a blend ?? Many are moving to that concept…Many, as you say are letting go of their “rights” and enjoying the “rights” of others for the sake of unity… I think that is a good thing… You won’t hear progressives bad mouthing compromise…
Rich…your comment regarding the progressives causing the most splits… from where are you getting your data ?? And is it because the progressives wanted something that the conservatives were unwilling to budge on ?? In that case, who caused the split ?? I find it difficult to bring fault upon a group of people that say, “fine, have it your way…we’ll just go where we aren’t a bother.” When one opinion tries to dominate and impose their opinion on another, splits happen… In church, in business, in marriage…it’s just not the way things move forward in any relationship where respect for the other opinions/persons are valued… Maybe in the ideal world it would be different but the perfect has yet come.
Price wrote:
That’s my point also. 100% agreement on that.
Alan,
Are you suggesting that JW would have had no problem “fellowshiping” the brethren employing the “SINFUL INNOVATION” (the instrument), provided they introduced said sinful innovation in a non-devisive way?
Not that it would even be possible to introduce “sinful innovations” into otherwise faithful churches without causing division. I mean, if I were to introduce whatever it is that you would consider to be a “sinful innovation” into the church you are a member of….would it cause a division? Or, out of love and a non-legalistic / non “rules based” disposition, do you suppose your congregation would welcome whataver it is you might consider to be “sinful innovations”?
Sometimes, I wonder if some people here even believe that there could ever be a “sinful innovation” introduced into a church. What, with everything being accepted, tolerated, embraced and fellowshipped from women preachers, infant “baptisms”, hamster “dedication” services, and practically whatever else you could think of.
“…it’s not just Conservatives vs. Progressives…It’s the CoC against everybody else…Nobody recognizes the CoC for it’s love and grace…”
If and when “love and grace” is defined as embracing and tolerating innovations which we believe to be sinful (such as infant “baptisms”, sinner’s prayers, rock bands, et al) then yeah, it is is hard to show “love and grace” with a clear conscience.
But, does “love and grace” really mean we must “fellowship” views and practices which we honestly believe to be sinful? Wouldn’t it be a sin for us to show “love and grace” if it actually meant giving in to views and practices which we are convinced to be sinful?
Not really. There was a time among the reformed churches when alongside with the Psalm hymns (Isaac Watts) were introduced – but that was never an issue in the Luthgeran nor Anabaptist wing of the reformation – and these hymns were large based on church music n general with some local folk influences.
I only say: Worship leaders and American Idol – this settles the matter for me.
Alexander
Hank…I think the question is whether or not the practice IS SINFUL versus whether or not you THINK it’s sinful…One man’s hymn is another man’s rock band… but I think the issue is much larger than that…
Christ came to save us while we were just a bunch of idiots and sinners… He didn’t wait until we got it “right” to help us.. Why should we be so opposed to that same style ? Why are we basing our fellowship on our perfection and understanding ?? Are we able as Mature and Perfect Christians to reach out to those less perfect when we disassociate ourselves from them and cast shame on their imperfection ?? It seems we cast out those that are on milk because we are meat eaters…
I think Paul made a distinction with the man that was sleeping with his step mother…he booted his butt out of the assembly… But the disorganization and style preferences of the various churches he really never addresses except that things should be done in order and not chaos… So, yes outright sinful things should not be tolerated…but I would guess that you would agree that the majority of the divisions that have occurred WITHING the CoC haven’t been over God’s words but rather our inferences.. Jay is right….CENI has ruined many by elevating our understanding and inference to the divine revelation…
But, wouldn’t you also agree that having patience with someone that might not be as perfect as we are yet who seems to have a sincere heart and love of the Lord would be better helped through discipleship and fellowship rather than being cast out as unworthy ??
Alexander…you pick one moment in time… What about comparing the upbeat hymns with gregorian chant of the first century…Our hymnals would be scoffed at… I mean, how dare one introduce musical notation and harmony !! Every generation has a style… Let’s hope that more use whatever it is in praise to God Almighty… It delights me to see young people use their generation’s style to worship…
McGarvey actually did worship with, and even accepted preaching engagements with IM congregations. So, yes.
Accepting someone in fellowship doesn’t imply approval of every practice. Paul accepted the Corinthian church in fellowship despite many errant practices, including problems with the Lord’s Supper. This seems to be a blind spot for many conservatives, being unable to separate the two. Paul had no such blind spot.
In his Declaration and Address Thomas Campbell reminds us that the church consists, not only of fathers in the faith but also children and even babes in Christ. That is why he limited fellowship to those who profess faith in Christ and exhibit the same in their conduct. The fine points of doctrine he left to the continued teaching and edification of the church, not making these matters of fellowship.
In other words, he recognized growth as being necessary – and that if we make fellowship issues of everything, soon there will be no fellowship – except among me and my wife, my son John and his wife, us four, no more! – And sometimes I wonder about them.
While many people look for reasons to exclude, Jesus gives us reason to include – the publicans and sinners, the prostitutes and lepers, the Gentiles and Jews, the rich and poor, the men and women. Never forget the words of the wise woman of Tekoah to David about David’s son Absalom when he was in exile: “God…devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast” (2 Samuel 14:14). God seeks to include: many times we seek reasons to exclude.
Let’s seek the heart of God in the person of Jesus and be more like Him than we are the Pharisees.
Jerry
“McGarvey actually did worship with, and even accepted preaching engagements with IM congregations.”
But, didn’t he ONLY preach to them provided they did not play their insruments? As Jay has arleady acknoowledged? You make it seem as though McGarvey was bobbing his head along to the drums. And while he did infact seize opportunities to preach to and teach them, he never pretended or gave the imprsession that they did not need to repent of employing the things which he himself deemed “sinful innovations.”
“Accepting someone in fellowship doesn’t imply approval of every practice. Paul accepted the Corinthian church in fellowship despite many errant practices, including problems with the Lord’s Supper. This seems to be a blind spot for many conservatives, being unable to separate the two. Paul had no such blind spot.”
Again, as with your treatment of McGarvey, you now imply (imo) that Paul accepted / tolerated their “errant practices”. But, such is not true. We all know that Paul wrote to them with instruction from on high to repent of such.
At the risk of getting flagged by Jay, I will simply ask that we don’t misresprent Paul, along with AC and JW. However honestly we accidentally do so…
“Accepting someone in fellowship doesn’t imply approval of every practice. Paul accepted the Corinthian church in fellowship despite many errant practices, including problems with the Lord’s Supper.”
Sure, but he also expected them to correct their “errant practices” and forsake the same. Did he not?
Again, you make it seem as though he “agreed to disagree” rather that commanding them to change their “errant” views and practices.
He did command them to give up their errant practices, didn’t he?
I therefore do not see Paul as the example for whom you are searching.
Is it possible that McGarvey disagreed with the use of instruments in Sunday services, but believed grace and mercy would forgive the sin, and as a result was open to associating with church groups that used instruments? If so, that might explain some of the inconsistency in our various conclusions of what McGarvey really believed regarding IM. I’m certainly no expert on McGarvey, but this post sparked my interest enough to explore a few of his writings and he appears to have concluded that mercy and grace would cover believers that weren’t baptized. It seems reasonable that he might have held the same perspective of instruments in Sunday services.
Alexander,
In a previous post, you stated
“As for his other convictions, I am convinced that the “pattern” is “one cup” and that we should remain separated from war and politic’s (Lipscomb). The thing is: There is ONE correct answer to each ofthese questions”
Can you clarify what you mean by there is “one correct answer”?
Most of our arguments center around the belief that IM is wrong in the first place. The idea that we cannot fellowship those who hold differences of beliefs and practices stems from the idea that since I am right, that must make you wrong, and if you are wrong I can “have no fellowship with….darkness.”
But, how do we arrive at the belief that IM is wrong in the first place? It is obviously not because the Bible says it is. Rather, we determine it based on our understanding of the argument of silence and from our study of history and quotes from denominational preachers (at least often that is that case). Where did we learn about the argument from silence? Though some point to a few weak EXAMPLES in scripture, the doctrine as WE know it has been handed down by…..our preachers! Then, we consider historical quotes (or sometimes misquotes) from human writers close to the first century….often preachers! But worse than that, we tell those in other church groups (denominations if you will) that they should stop listening to their preachers, pastors, priests, etc. to determine what to believe. Then, we tell them they should follow what “the Bible teaches”, nothing more and nothing less. We then follow that up by quoting the very preachers we told them not to follow to prove our point about IM (Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc.). From there, we quote our historical leaders (such as J.W.) of our “non-denominational church” to determine whether it is alright to fellowship others who believe and practice differently than us concerning IM and a host of other beliefs and practices. Does anyone see any inconsistency in this?
Are we striving to be the church of the first century? The church of the Restoration Movement? The church of the modern ____movement? Or can we just be CHRISTIANS?
If the latter, then doesn’t it make sense that rather than appeal to historical men, denominational men, or restoration men, to just appeal to the scripture? The challenge would be though, that we would lack “authority” to fill in the gaps of silence in the scriptures where we WISH God had said more than He did. Yet in doing so, GOD becomes our authority, FREEDOM IN CHRIST becomes the basis for fellowship, and we get to focus on leading people to JESUS rather than leading them to OURSELVES!
James:
AMEN AND AMEN!
Yes, that’s quite easy:
Multiple cups were introduced in the 1880s – until then ALL Christian churches were “One-Cuppers”. As our Lord shared HIS cup (take, drink from IT), uit is claer that 1 cup to be pased around is the original – mulitple cup are an innvovation. That’s fact – the question is how we deal with this innvovation – but there is a truth as to what was in the beginning.
As for Nonparticipation in war and politics, I firmly agree with David Lipscomb, with Alexancer Campbell’s Declaration on War (1848) – because they came, by the study of God’s Word to the same conclusions as the Anabaptists (1500s) – who by the same Baile and with teh same reasoning held the same convictions as the Ante Nicene church concerning these issues. And looking at the scriptures, I am convinced that this is what is meant by not being of this world (among other things).
Christians serving as government officials and in the military were an innovation caused by the Constantinan marriage between church and state, and among the reform movements, The Waldensians, the Anabaptists and the 19th century church of Christ were among the most consistent ones in restoring te church.
Alexander
[quote]I firmly agree with David Lipscomb, with Alexancer Campbell’s Declaration on War (1848) – because they came, by the study of God’s Word to the same conclusions as the Anabaptists (1500s)…[/quote]
Would you consider it at least POSSILE that the ONE answer to both of these questions could be a different answer than that one that you, Lipscomb, and the Anabaptists determined?
[quote]I firmly agree with David Lipscomb, with Alexancer Campbell’s Declaration on War (1848) – because they came, by the study of God’s Word to the same conclusions as the Anabaptists (1500s)…[/quote]
Would you consider it at least POSSIBLE that the ONE answer to both of these questions could be a different answer than that one that you, Lipscomb, and the Anabaptists determined?
Alexander,
I should have been more clear and direct in my question. I’m not challenging the beliefs or convictions you hold regarding how many cups to use, civil duties, etc. You’re a smart guy and very likely have spent much more time studying these topics then I ever will. My question was centered on the possibility that you have concluded that there is only one right answer for each of these specific topics. I doubt that you believe that, but it seemed possible based on what you wrote.
Romans 14:1 (NIV)
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Alexander,
Would you consider the treasurer of a city one who is involved in politics and government? Paul sent greetings from Erastus in Romans 16:23. The ESV calls him “the city treasurer”, the NIV calls him the “city’s director of public works,” while the KJV has him as “the chamberlain of the city.” Would this be involvement with political, governmental activity?
I agree that too many of us become too wrapped up in politics and government – and war – to such a degree that we forget our true citizenship is in heaven. But, is any involvement in governments of this world sinful? Or are you merely raising a caution flag to remind us that we are citizens elsewhere and ambassadors to this world from the kingdom of heaven?
Jerry
Alexander….you mentioned that multiple cups were an innovation…Interesting… The wine itself was an innovation…it was never “authorized” in the Passover meal…it was added much later as a custom and tradition that actually included 4 different servings of wine with each having some special meaning…the argument that silence prohibits would have made it a sin to partake but Jesus did so and used it to create the sacrament… If Jesus didn’t mind whether an unauthorized beverage was included with the Passover meal then why should Christians argue and divide over how many cups are used… Surely, we both agree with the lunacy of arguing this point…
We must make a distinction here – as did the early church in fact: If someone e.g. was in the military he was not forced to leave it as a condition for being baptizted; still he had to live noneviolently from that day on (quite tricky, but – in peacetimes – not impossible).
But as for Christians desiring a position of power in this world the teaching was unanimously NO. examples for this are Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, … The unanimity among the Early Church on this is quite compelling – coming back to the NT their position makes perfect sense.
But since this is rather a side issue here (off topic), I’d rather reccommend some background reading: One of the best books on this is by Archie Penner (Mennonite): The New Testament, the Christian and the State (ISBN 1-884353-07-0).
Alexander
Sorry, I misunderstood whatz you meant. But, yes, I do believe that there is one answer each. I tried to sum it up above:
A) YES – which means (e.g.) we shall have one cup
B) NO – which mans (e.g.) we shall use multiple cups (hard to prove from scripture)
C) It doesn’t matter = Both ways are correct, it is about the “content” of the symbol, not the outward parts thereof (the word “metonymy” gets used quite often to argue for this)
What I also said (or meant): The answer (C) comes quite often rather “intuitively”, because in our cultutre we have lost the sense for a clear right or wrong of matters of treat truth as something very individual. This influences our churches 8and ourselves), so – in other words – we tend to say: “If you want to have multiple cups, that’s fine with you – we have one cup.” This CAN be the result of serious study where one approached at (C) or (quite often I think) it is a culture-influenced intuitive reply based on the assumption there is no absolute truth. I must add that most are unaware of this, so they don’t do it out of bad motives.
In our church – just to clarify – we have both ways and are at peace with it. And I could explain in great detail why I can live with this, but this would go to far.
Alexander
I agree, but in respect to IM.
Price, you wrote:
“Accepting someone in fellowship doesn’t imply approval of every practice. Paul accepted the Corinthian church in fellowship despite many errant practices, including problems with the Lord’s Supper.”
By “accepted the Corinthian chuch in fellowship”, do you mean that Paul commanded them to notice and change their “errant practices”? Or, do you believ that he was cool with them continuing on the way they had chosen to believe and do things?
Seriously, what do you mean when you say Paul “accepted” them “despite their errant practices.”
I believe that if you take a closer look at how Paul actually approached the “errant practices” of the Corinthians, you won’t use him as your example either.
Lastly, remember how Jesus treated the errant practices of the churches in revelation – “Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”
Maybe instead of “accepting the Corinthians into fellowship” it would be better to say: Paul did not immediately disfellowship the Corinthians. As Christ did not immediately disfellowship those 5 out of 7 churches where He found some (in part very weighty) things lacking.
Alexander
Alexander,
Yeah, that would be a better way of saying it.
What do you think, Price?
abasnar:
I think you are correct that a perspective of moral relativism is problematic. However, you are also correct that we should not assume that all who hold a view of “either /or” or “it doesn’t matter” are moral relavists. In fact, I wonder sometimes if God isn’t looking at us saying to Himself, “Why are they even arguing about that? It doesn’t matter and it misses the point.”
Having said that, concerning your options I would go with “C”:
Romans 14:5-6 (NIV)
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Hank quoted me:
and responded:
This is a perfect example of how some folks cannot seem to separate two things that are in fact distinct: fellowship and approval. I am saying McGarvey extended fellowship but did not approve of the instruments. In fact he expressed his disapproval, as the quotes in this thread demonstrate. But he didn’t make it a condition of fellowship. I don’t know how to say it more clearly. I am not implying that he approved. He didn’t. But he continued to treat them as brothers… as Paul also treated the Corinthians.
Alexander wrote:
How many cups do you suppose that the Jerusalem church (3000 members strong) used on the first Sunday after Pentecost?
My apologies for addressing Allen as Price. Should a been more careful.
Allen, my point is that Paul corrected them and commanded them to give up their “errant practices.”
You, however, seem to be suggesting we “agree do disagree” (don’t correct and tell to repent) with what we consider to be “errant practices” of the infant baptizers and sinner’s pray-ers.
Do you see the difference between accepting and telling to repent (change)?
Or, do you believe that we can “accept” them WHILE correcting them and telling them to repent? If so, then I to will now “accept” them. Lol
Hank,
There are only a very few topics that a person must understand correctly in order to become a Christian — awareness of their own sin, awareness that God sent Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, that Jesus rose from the dead, and a decision to repent of sin and to make Jesus Lord. Until a Christian renounces one of those decisions, I think I have to continue to treat him as a brother.
If there is an honest disagreement about what the scriptures demand, one side can’t really tell the other side they are not submitting to Jesus as Lord. If a Christian has been “corrected” on a topic such as IM, and he honestly doesn’t agree with the correction, it’s not a question of lordship. He is obeying what he understands. That’s what he *must* do.
We are not authorized to pull up the weeds from among the wheat, precisely because in doing so we might pull up some of the wheat by mistake. We are fallible, and humility demands that we acknowledge that. Some things need to be left for God to sort out.
Some people are entirely too confident in their own ability to infer God’s will between the lines of scripture, and entirely too demanding that everyone else come to the same conclusions.
Alan, you wrote:
“There are only a very few topics that a person must understand correctly in order to become a Christian — awareness of their own sin, awareness that God sent Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, that Jesus rose from the dead, and a decision to repent of sin and to make Jesus Lord.”
What do you mean by “make Jesus Lord”, he already is Lord! I may be wrong, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that by “make Jesus Lord” you mean “invite into the heart”, right? Aka, the “sinner’s prayer”.
Am I right?
Hank… Rom 14:1- says to ACCEPT one who is weak in his faith…It doesn’t say to beat them over the head until they believe as you do…It continues by saying that we should NOT get into arguments over disputable things… I say we are saved by Grace through faith without works and then in obedience to Jesus we are baptized…You believe that baptism saves… should we therefore go into our separate corners and throw rocks ?? You say infant baptism is wrong. I suggest that an 8 to 10 year old being baptized is the same as infant baptism …do we still gather rocks ??
Rom 14:13 says we are to no longer judge one another…wow.. how can that be…?? It says God is the one who will judge…It says you shouldn’t deliberately cause another to stumble along his path… Is refusing fellowship a cause to stumbling ?? Is labeling him a cause to stumble ?? I guess you as an individual have to decide how to treat your brother or your sister in Christ but I would rather that they know I care about them and disagree with their present stance on some issue which I believe that God will deal with as He causes them to grow in spirit and in truth than to cast shame and condemnation on them and judge them falsely… I don’t know how you define “accept” in verse one above but I believe disfellowship is way off from the intended meaning.
Paul also questioned another right to condemn him based on THEIR conscience…I Cor 10:29-30… Why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? Why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks ??
There just isn’t any excuse to have 2 dozen different camps within the CoC throwing rocks at each other and each claiming Jesus as Lord… it really is embarrassing no matter what generation you’re in…
No, far from it.
In our church, when someone is about to be baptized, we ask them if they believe a few basic facts about Jesus, and then ask for their good confession (“Jesus is Lord”). We won’t baptize someone who isn’t willing to acknowledge Jesus as their Lord. Does your congregation have a different practice from this?
Maybe instead of “make Jesus Lord” I should have said “submit to Jesus as Lord”. Regardless, that’s what I meant.
Fair enough, Alan. And yeah, that’s pretty much what we do. But now I’m a little confused because if it takes those things to become a Christian…then whoever hasnt done those things is not a Christian, right?
And I somehow thought you were arguing that a person can be a Christian and a member of the church before being immersed.
Price/Alan – great posts.
I’ve never really understood why Matt 7:2 doesn’t seriously concern those that don’t accept, don’t associate, and generally condemn other believers that don’t share their interpretation of scripture. Even more so, when I hear some type of judgement backed up with the common cliche’ “I’m only speaking the truth based on what the Bible says…” I always want to respond with “I hope you’re right…you have alot riding on it”
I thought we were discussing IM. Boy, was I confused 😉
I think I can make a compelling argument that Acts chapter 2 is the definitive passage on how one becomes a Christian, and that baptism is the transitional point where it happens. I think you and I would agree on that. We could enter into a discussion about how my previous comments would apply to people who see conversion differently (there are a few of them, right?) But let’s finish the IM discussion.
I know many people in a cappella churches of Christ. And I know many people in instrumental churches of Christ. I respect them both, and I understand their differing points of view. I am quite certain that their different understanding of those scriptures is not due to a difference in those people’s willingness to submit to Jesus and to the scriptures. Both are submitting to Jesus as Lord, as they understand that. They understand the scriptures differently because they come to the scriptures with different presuppositions. Neither group is immune to that.
Salvation is not reserved for only those people with the most advanced reading comprehension skills… nor for those whose preacher has the most advanced skills. It is not reserved only for those who happen to be led by opponents of IM, nor only for those who are fortunate enough to be “corrected” on that topic along the way. Judgment day will not be an examination of doctrinal purity, but of deeds. Christianity is not an academic exercise.
Alan, wow! “Judgment day will not be an examination of doctrinal purity, but of deeds. Christianity is not an academic exercise.”
You know Revelation is not full of grace and mercy Maybe we need to be careful of what deeds we do. Kinda messes up grace?
Larry… Alan could be rather close… If we know that we are saved by Grace then we will be in the presence of the Lord…He guaranteed it…We have no fear… Judgement may not mean deciding on whether or not we’re guilty or not…Surely, Jesus bore our sin so we are not guilty… maybe it will be a recap of what we’ve done and sort of a “performance review”…a chance to learn from our mistakes… I hope anybody who is in line behind me is patient…it’s gonna take a while 🙂
I think Alan is real close. Jesus said it was going to be a judgement of deeds. Although apparently the list of requirements is rather short. “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat…”
“Judgment day will not be an examination of doctrinal purity, but of deeds.”
Good! That makes it so much easier (and funner).
Doctrine, shmoctrine! Rules, shmules! That’s what the blood is for.
Larry wrote:
If it surprises you that we will be judged according to our deeds, then I’m doubly glad I pointed it out. Here are a few passages to contemplate on that topic.
For more on what “the will of my Father” is, read Jesus’ preceding sermon on that topic in Matt 5-7. Also 1 Thess 4:3-8, and the entire chapter Matt 25.
A lot of people will be surprised on the day of judgment. They are thinking they will be invited in, but they will not be, because they have not done the will of the Father, and instead have done evil.
A large portion of the NT is devoted to what God calls on us to *do*. Gal 6:9, Titus 2:7, Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:1, Titus 3:8, Titus 3:14, etc. It’s not just about not doing evil. It’s also about actively doing good. Our deeds will be a topic on judgment day.
Hank,
Your basically on track, although I might have said it a little differently. The one statement I would disagree with is the easier and more fun bit. I find it’s much more difficult to practice following Jesus without a set of rules. Without rules you have to rely on the principles (e.g.love your neighbor) that Jesus taught. Principle based decisions are situational and require more focus and effort. At least for me….others may have a different experience.
Jay said, “And yet McGarvey refused to separate himself from his instrumental brothers in Christ — even preaching in their churches, provided only that they not use an instrument while he was worshiping there.”
Leroy Garrett said, ” McGarvey is a flesh and blood example that we can look back to and up to, for in him we can see Christ’s concern for unity. Study him as he ministered to a little church outside Lexington for 19 years. While they were well acquainted with his scruples about the organ, they eventually adopted it anyway. But they went right on accepting each other without a hitch. He preached for “organ” churches during most of his long ministry, and he insisted that they not defer to his scruples during his visit. This he did because he understood what the fellowship of the Spirit was about. It transcends differences over secondary matters.” p. 91-92 Kindle version
This was what struck me most about the chapter. So did McGarvey bind his beliefs on an “organ” church he preached for or not?
Kathy,
Can you explain your question (last sentence), just a bit more. I’m not confident I understand your question.
Thanks
Well, sarcasm aside… I quoted book, chapter, and verse. It’s your turn. Show me where scripture says getting the IM question “right” will be an issue on judgment day. And, while doing that, show me book, chapter, and verse distinguishing IM from other matters that most conservatives don’t hold to be judgment-day issues — kitchens, Sunday school, missionary societies, number of communion cups, the holy kiss, foot washing, operation of the Holy Spirit… pick one. Why is IM in one category, and these other issues in a different category?
Alan,
Here those you mentioned are lost positions in the same category as IM.
Speaking of communion cups, I’ve always wondered if those that believe one cup is the only way would mind if one cup was passed around and everyone had a clean straw to put in it.. Is it the sharing the one cup itself or the one blood in it?
In every congregation I have ever seen and that’s a few, there are always differences in opinion on various of those mentioned. The congregation usually does as their preacher preaches.
When that preacher leaves it is comical to see how many silently disagreed by observing their reaction. Especially on the no pants for women and the covering.
What it shows is we can have unity and still differ if we would only not push our opinions on these matters on others or leave and start another group.
I still say its more about egos and status than scripture.
I suppose the up side of using one cup would be the time available to reflect (assuming you attended a large church). Well, not every week, half the church would be sick most Sundays from the virus they caught the previous week during communion.
Sorry for not being clear.
The quote (above) from Leroy Garrett in Chapter 7 says that he did NOT ask the “organ” churches he preached for to defer to his beliefs on IM when he visited. If I understand correctly, Jay says he did.
I wondered if maybe there was other evidence to say that he was in the habit of binding his IM beliefs as a visiting preacher.
My impression from reading the chapter was that McGarvey had strongly held beliefs, but was rather charitable in trying to enforce them upon another group of believers.
Larry,
Are you sure there is no grace in Revelation?
Here is a book that begins with grace, God’s love, Jesus who washes us from our sins in his blood. In the middle it has a victory of the saints over Satan by the blood of Christ, the Word of God, and the love of God in their hearts (by the Spirit – cf. Rom 5:5). And in the end it has the new Jerusalem coming down to the new heavens and new earth where God will be with his people, comforting them and enjoying them forever.
If that isn’t grace, I’m not sure what grace is. That is, unless you think you deserve that because of the few righteous deeds you may do….
However, I do agree with you that we need to be careful of how we live!
Peace.
Jerry
I can assure you that the health issues related to taking the wine via one cup should not be a hinderance to taking communion in that manner. At least they weren’t during the 12 years that I took communion that way. If you don’t want to touch your lips to the cup you can always just dip the bread in the wine… oops, I probably just suggested something else to splinter the CofC.
I do hope that the CofC folk realize that it is totally their fault that their is no fellowship between the CofC and the Independent Christian Church. I, the 1970’s, I once was part of a group that brought Carl Ketcherside to North Alabama for a several day meeting. It was announced before the meeting that all singing at this meeting would be accapella. Just as you might expect, the CofC put out the word that their people should not attend. It was the equivalent to extending your hand to someone only to have them turn there back on you. I think someday there will be an accounting for this kind of behavior.
In all of the talk about grace and works, please never forget that it is grace that empowers and motivates works. As we work out our salvation, it is God who works in us both to desire and to do his good pleasure (Phil. 2:12-13).
It was Paul, the apostle of grace, who said, “By the grace of God I am what I am and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV).
This is why he urged Titus to stress the grace of God: so that our people might be careful to maintain good works (Titus 3:5-8).
Stressing grace does not negate works; it empowers and motivates them.
Jerry
Doug,
In the accounting you will get an A plus!
Its that type of behavior that is so defeating to our future, and must be stopped.
In old folks homes, orphanages, jails, military, etc. all that disappears in most cases and its a joy to see.
Crises brings folks together to simply worship and all these differences disappear. Its a lesson we in comfort must follow.
Doug,
I don’t think you took any offense, but my sarcasm about anyone’s specific practice or belief was not appropriate. Please write it off as a moment of careless stupidity.
Kathy,
Never having heard of JW McGarvey before, I read several of his publications and a few biographical essays (all from academia) in the last couple days. Several mentioned that he would preach at churches with instruments, but none mentioned any requirement that no instruments be played while he was there. Obviously, reading a few papers makes me no expert, maybe Jay can validate his comment.
Great question Kathy…
Alan, thanks for the list, but I was kidding a bit. As a moderate, I love my conservative and progressive brethern. One quickly reminds of grace, and the other of duty.
The middle ground is the Titus 3:5-8, thanks Jerry. The type of preaching on grace that propels action, strikes a deep rich Bible theme. After all, the faith of Abraham that can be “credited as righteousness” was beleive & do, even if it’s sacrifice your son of promise. If both sides aren’t so exteme, and listen to each other, and love each other, we can stop splitting.
I’m sure you are trying to make fun of this, Bicycle Riding Dude. Let me join the game – coming back to your inquiry about the 300 member church in Jerusalem: Try to fit them all into one house for supper (Acts 2:47) – that’s the answer, if you think about it …
The other (just quoted) objection: I am sure our Lord Jesus (who created everything) was unaware of the danger of germs when He passed His cup around. Maybe – only maybe – germs are a later corruption in His creation, introduced shortly before the 1880s, giving Satan a strinking argument to further distort the church of Christ by introducing yet another innovation …
You know, I really like to answer serious questions in a very serious and unabridged way 😉 I hope this was of tremendous help for you
Alexander
As I read about the one cup and the spreading of germs, I remembered classes that I had to take in order to pass the test to obtain a food sanitation license. I was truly surprised that someone did not use this example for support that what was used in the early church and by Jesus was truly Wine, not unfermented grape juice that we use today. It was a sanitizing agent.
Wine vs grape juice – a “favorite” between European and American Christians 😉 And once again: An influence from outside the church changed the way things were done for 1800 years, in this case the temperance movement … And you know how interesting the Biblical reasons are for using grape juice? They are but another example of reading back into the scriptures what we do to justify what we do (all these impressive Greek word studies to proove that oinos is not wine …). This time also the conservative churches of Christ are using such a faulty method.
Alexander