We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
I read this book on the plane, flying to the Tulsa Workshop last month. I immediately knew I had to post about the book, but I’ve struggled with how to end the series. Just what would I recommend to fix the problem?
After several false starts, here’s where I’ve wound up.
Reflect on the hard data — the trend lines. Beginning in the 1970s or so, the Churches of Christ plateaued in numbers — even though at the same time, many other conservative denominations enjoyed dramatic growth. The problem is most certainly not the wickedness of the surrounding culture — as wicked as the culture has become. Others managed to evangelize the lost during these times.
At a time when evangelical churches — and non-denominational churches especially — were growing rapidly, we weren’t even keeping our own children, much less growing. What happened?
I have this crazy theory. You see, I was at Lipscomb University in the early 1970s — and I remember that that’s when the NASB and NIV translations came out. The NIV had the biggest impact in the Churches of Christ because Jack P. Lewis, a Church member, had been on the editorial committee, because the editors used conventional paragraphing (rather than verse-by-verse), and because it was a much easier read than the NASB (7th or 8th grade reading level rather than 11th grade).
It’s my theory that the Churches of Christ stopped growing in large part because the members no longer needed to rely on their preachers to interpret the text — and they discovered that much of what was being taught was foreign to the Scriptures.
Before the NASB and NIV came out, there were several modern-language translations available, but none caught on. The Churches of Christ rejected the RSV (1946) as “liberal.” The New English Bible (1961) was too much of a free translation. Many bought the Living Bible (1971), but it was also too loose of a translation for serious study.
I remember around 1969 my dad gave me a copy of a new translation by William Barclay, of the Daily Study Bible commentary fame. Barclay’s translation revolutionized my thinking.
You see, as a 16-year old, I’d been asked to preach one Sunday night as part of teen service. Teens led prayer, led singing, and preached. Two of us were expected to give 10 minute talks from the pulpit.
Well, thanks to the new translation, I’d been reading the New Testament as though for the very first time. I began by opening the volume in the middle, turning to Romans 14 sheerly by coincidence. And what I read there told me that I’d been deceived about how to treat brothers with whom we disagree! We are commanded not to judge or look down on them. Commanded! And yet some of our preachers did nothing but that!
And so that’s the text I preached. As a 16-year old. In North Alabama. And I wasn’t asked to preach again. Not for 40 years. (I just preached the same text Sunday!)
You see, having a translation you can understand changes everything. And so, once the NIV came out, I suspect that many thousands of good Church of Christ folk read their Bibles without the need for a preacher to mediate God’s word — and they found a huge disconnect between our Bibles and our preaching. I’m sure many left for exactly that reason. Others turned their attentions inward to reform the bad theology that had become so prevalent in the Churches.
You see, to me, the biggest growth problem in the Churches of Christ is our deeply flawed doctrine of grace and salvation. What many of our preachers teach is indefensible by the Scriptures themselves.
The notion that instrumental music, or elder re-affirmation, or fellowship halls, or non-abstract stained glass damns is absurd — deeply sinful, in fact. Worse yet, if these things damn, then God is not a very gracious god at all.
We become like what we worship. And if we worship a trickster god, delighted to damn us for not connecting the dots hidden in the silences, then we become like the judgmental, damning-over-technicalities, mean-spirited god we worship.
And that approach to Christianity runs people off — even our own children — who have the benefit of reading their Bibles without 40 or more years of bad preaching to warp their interpretations.
And so, what must the Churches of Christ do to reverse their decline in numbers? Fix their doctrine. Return to the Scriptures. Read them afresh.
Flee legalism. Teach salvation by faith. Teach a vital, real, personal indwelling by the Spirit.
Show their members the vastness of God’s love and grace. Help them not only to understand but to embrace grace — so much so that the Churches reflect God’s grace in their dealings with other and all whom they encounter.
God’s grace must be reflected in the members of the Churches of Christ. That’ll change everything.
Think about it. Most of the complaints voiced by “those who left” reflect a certain gracelessness among our people and our leaders.
* If members don’t reach out to and greet visitors, surely it’s because they lack grace — a generous, giving spirit.
* If we damn those who use instruments, we lack grace.
* If we damn all other denominations, we lack grace.
* If we impose cruel, inhuman doctrines on the divorced, we lack grace.
* If our elders abuse our ministers, they lack grace.
* If we treat women as inferiors, we lack grace.
* If we are too quick to write off those who miss a service or two, we lack grace.
* If we can’t convert even our own children, maybe … just maybe … we lack grace.
You see, many in the Churches are at least two steps removed from true grace –
— First, we fail to appreciate the vastness of God’s generosity.
— Second, many of those among us who’ve gained a true grasp of God’s grace have retained the graceless attitudes of our youth and our predecessors. We’ve failed to let God’s grace transform us into gracious people.
It’s not complicated, but the problem can only be solved by striving to become as gracious to others as God has been to us. Think of the Parable of the Ungrateful Servant, and reflect on such passages as —
(Rom 14:1 ESV) As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
(Rom 15:7 ESV) 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
(Eph 4:32 ESV) 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Col 3:12-13 ESV) 12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
Notice that over and over the standard for our conduct toward others is Jesus. We should forgive as Jesus forgives us. We should welcome others as Jesus has welcomed us. We are to be like Jesus.
And this is where we often go wrong. We’ve inherited an attitude toward others from the 20th Century Church of Christ culture — not from Jesus and not from his Scriptures.
When we learned about the grace we receive, we were delighted and thrilled to learn that we really are saved! But all too often, we’ve failed to extend to others the same graciousness. Rather, we’ve just added God’s grace on top of the gracelessness many of us were born into — resulting in a very entitled attitude.
After all, when someone feels saved by grace but feels no need to be gracious toward others, they have a sense of entitlement. And nearly all the problems related by Yeakley are the natural consequence.
Do you want to see the Churches of Christ become spiritually healthy? Do you want your own congregation to grow? Get rid of the entitlement and learn to be like the God of grace — looking for ways to be as gracious to others as God has been to you.
Figure out who the lost are, and then go preach the gospel to them. God’s word will not return void.
They answer is Jesus. He’s the Head of THE church. Any other remedy is of the flesh
Wonderfully accurate post Jay.
Would of liked to of been there when at 16 you preached from this outline!
Surprised your outline wasn’t required to be submitted for approval beforehand and in this case not allowed to be preached as many were rejected as too liberal.
There is another problem. People who have been released from long term bondage and imprisonment sometimes don’t know what to do. I know a man who helps in a prison ministry, and we have prayed together for his friend who was released from prison, but still stays in his house because he has been incarcerated so long he literally doesn’t know what to do with his freedom, and he is afraid to go out. A different man was finally freed from legalistic doctrinal bondage, and he rebounded by divorcing his wife, coloring his hair red, and driving around in a convertible. Others see the light and are rejected by their CoC congregation, so what option do they have but to leave. It is good to discuss this openly, because we must change as a body to support one another. Grace brings responsibility, and freedom from works without grounding in love can be even more risky. So, we should realize the need to change, do things like the suggestions in Leroy’s book, pray together for wisdom, and support one another. Do not leave an empty house for the enemy to fill with more demons. We are now preparing the remnant for a new start of the next cycle of the CoC. The new “CoC of grace” must be free, but it must be founded on the rock of Jesus and not on the glory of freedom. This OneInJesus site is very important for a global discussion of these things. Thank you, Jay, and others.
Our misunderstanding of grace is at the root of our problems. This, of course, manifests itself in numerous ways. One of these is graceless behavior in dealing with others, whether internally or externally. (Abuse of fellow Christians; attitudes that lead others to think we think – which some do – we are the only ones going to heaven; condemning any who disagree with us about most anything; etc.) All of these are symptoms of gracelessness. Misunderstanding grace also contributes to our denial of the activity of the Holy Spirit and the “hope” we are saved without real assurance that is rooted in God’s graciousness to us in Christ.
A very good post!
Jay:
I saw this (among other things): “If we damn all other denominations, we lack grace.”
While I am not in favor of “damning” since that is the Lord’s business, I also believe both you and I have a responsibility to announce when individuals and congregations have believed spiritual deception — just as you do with genuine legalism. Right? Isn’t that what Paul is doing when he tells the Ephesian elders to guard those under their spiritual care?
So, brother, how can you suggest that “other denominations” are fine (when they are not following apostolic teaching)? And I can think of some who have indeed thrown away apostolic teaching. Let’s start with St. John’s Episcopal Church, where John Shelby Spong taught for many years. And then there is the Countryside Community United Church of Christ, Omaha, Nebraska, that has embraced the Phoenix Affirmations (one of which is a belief that everyone — including Hindus — can “find God” without belief in Jesus). You comfortable with all of that, Jay? Would you like other examples of congregations who have announced that they are far afield of apostolic teaching?
Jay, your proposal falters when it is placed up against the real, congregational, examples of spiritual darkness that are spreading across this nation. And it closes in on true “Christian Mysticism,” whether that is where you want to go or no. Is that reason for rejoicing? No, I think I will choose a different path.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
You are looking for error where none exists. What did I really say?
Would you argue that it’s okay to damn “all other denominations”? Unless that’s your point, we aren’t in disagreement.
I am sure you don’t go for “anything goes”, jay. But let’s take this one (as an example): The Scriptures offer two choices: Be reconciled with your partner or remain unmarried (maybe the exception clause allows for remarriage in case the divorce was a reaction to adultery, but that is – actually – quite debatable). But let’s stick with “common/everyday” divorces that are not within in the limted allowance for divorce. Insisting on these two options (reconciliation/celibacy) will always be felt as cruel and inhumane by those who have to live with the consequences of a divorce.
How can you communicate in a loving and graceful way so that they will cheear up and gladly take up their cross? It is possible, but there is an attitude of faith that’s required as a basis for that. If that’s not there, people will leave for churches who loosened the commands of Christ (and tell everyone afterwards: “The churches of Christ are sooooo legalistic!”).
A second one from your list, one I know we disagree about:
Yet, although neither Paul nor Peter who vehemently taught the submission of women as a creation order called women “inferior”, that#s what many hear today when we try to uphold these apostolic teachings (commands of the Lord). There is no way around it, Jay. You can smile warmheartedly when you preach on 1Co 14:34-38 and insert lovely stories to cheer them up, but when it comes to the application some will always frown at God’s Word.
Again: It’s faith that is a requirement to take up your cross also in this area.
In both cases however – what I hear – the solution seems to be: Let go of Christ’s commands, then everyone will be more happy. If I got you wrong, then please help me to understand you correctly.
Alexander
Price wrote:
Price, I’m curious what that means to you. Certainly, Jesus is the answer to the plight of sinful man. But how do you communicate that? What are the elements of your message? I’m sure it’s not simply one word, “Jesus.”
To preach Jesus means to tell *about* Jesus. That includes what Jesus did, and also what Jesus taught. The message of Jesus, from the beginning, was repentance (Matt 4:17, Luke 5:32, etc) Jesus did indeed talk about grace, but he also talked about repentance, obedience, and judgment. To repent, one has to know what to repent of. To obey, one has to know what is commanded. Preaching Jesus means preaching those parts too.
Jay:
In the world in which we live, people often think “damned or okay.” Right? Just as you have emphasized by critiquing, “The Churches of Christ are the only ones who think they are going to heaven.” Right? EVERYONE in this country wants to think they are going to heaven; cf. Rob Bell.
So… whether you want to say it or not, when we challenge the beliefs of others and question their understanding of baptism, salvation and the like, then they will think, “You are damning me.” Right?
And yes to confirm I question whether the Countryside Community United Church of Christ, for one, is following the Lord. It appears from placing their beliefs alongside the Word of God that they — leadership and members — have left the Lord. And they are therefore in danger of God’s judgement. I am willing to say such. Are you?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
If generosity, and graciousness means acceptance of “anything” or anything goes. I am afraid I must decline.
I’m sure God while dispensing judgment is not going to take a vote from any of us.
One of the problems we have is everyone wants to be the preacher, the God expert, and tell all others how it is.
Show people what you believe by your life and when they ask, and they will, tell them why you do as you do and are as you are.
“You see, having a translation you can understand changes everything. ”
There are more people on the planet today who can read and have access to a Bible than at any other time in human history. We live in interesting times.
I have the priviledge/honor/blessings of hanging with the college age who haven’t left, have left and never were apart of us. They embrace the concept of serving others with a passion I have not seen with other generations. For example, I worked with several this morning at a Habitat for Humanity house build.
These people would readily accept the well worded post by Jay. However, they will interpret Jay’s comments to mean something different than I believe Jay intended. Where Jay seems to understand that grace means we should not constrain any particular methods of worship or other similar behaviors. This younger generation interprets grace as a lifestyle without constraint of any kind as long as they do good for others. They totally separate and embrace the care for widows and orphans as true religion but they rebel quickly when reminded of the pure living part in the same passage. They believe it is graceless to criticize anyone who is having sex before marriage or certainly choose an alternate lifestyle because God loves all people.
I am observing many as they run toward grace totally miss the sign that reminds us that our response to His grace is to honor whatever God requests of us.
(RANT WARNING. Sensitive viewers cautioned.)
Bruce said: “While I am not in favor of “damning” since that is the Lord’s business, I also believe both you and I have a responsibility to announce when individuals and congregations have believed spiritual deception — just as you do with genuine legalism. ”
>>>
I used to get stuck on this argument and now I think I see better. I vehemently disagree with Bruce on this, and here is why…
This “responsibility” is not being handled as a responsibility at all, but as a “right”. If we were being actually responsible to bring people out of spiritual deception, we would not be behaving ANYTHING like what I see from my conservative brothers. If I see my friend in the street with a car bearing down on him, I do NOT stand on my porch announcing, “You better get out of that street right now! You hear me? You’ll be sorry if you don’t!” And I certainly would NOT go back in the house and call my brother and announce, “My neighbor’s an idiot. He’s gonna get run over. What kind of fool stands in the middle of the street? Boy, I’m glad we’re smarter than that!” No, I would run, not walk, and GRAB my friend and do everything I could to drag him out of harm’s way.
Do we do this? No, we don’t. No, we never even darken the Methodist church door, we just stand in our own pulpits and condemn these absent brothers to people like us who also won’t associate with Methodists. All the warning we do is to warn each other not to be like those Baptists down the block. WE ARE NOT EVEN TRYING TO HELP. We are just yelling at people from across the street, criticizing them out of their earshot, and claiming that we are being “responsible”. Balderdash! We are doing nothing of the sort. Paul did warn people about error and heresy– people whom he lived and labored among, whom he wept over, with whom he had pleaded in tears. We have appropriated Paul’s right without bothering to carry the responsibility he showed. We have not yet “earned” the right to take the position of “announcer of other’s errors”, not with the sequoia-sized beam in our own eye being left wholly untreated. And certainly not with our track record of isolating ourselves from the very people who we claim this bogus “responsibility” for.
No, all we are really doing is exercising our “right” to talk badly about other people to our friends who will nod and say “Amen”. That’s it. We are like radiologists who can read an x-ray but won’t be caught dead touching a sick person, unless that crippled soul crawls up in our laps and begs us to make him well. And even then, the first treatment is to box his ears for how he has contributed to his own illness. If he tolerates our criticism and condescension, then we set about making him just like us, God help him. Jesus said something to the Pharisees about that.
I had a brief encounter with a young CoC lady– college age– on FB the other day, and was reminded of the fruit we are harvesting. She was lightning-quick to take everyone who did not accept her views wholesale and declare them to have left the faith or departed the doctrine of Christ, after reading maybe three sentences from them. Her disdain and aggressiveness -and complete and utter assurance in her superiority- put her conservative elders in the shade. It made my heart hurt.
Jay said, “what I read there told me that I’d been deceived about how to treat brothers with whom we disagree! We are commanded not to judge or look down on them.”
Rom 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
Rom 14:22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
Rom 14:23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Then we read Romans 16, This is the chapter that tells us who is acceptable for the first 16 vs, and tells who is not acceptable for the next two.
Rom 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
Rom 16:18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
What part of “avoid them” or ” Keep away from them.” is not judgment.
There is a difference in a weak faith, and a strong, wrong faith.
Rom 14:23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, ——————-.
You can’t just “go along, to get along”
Alexander said: “In both cases however – what I hear – the solution seems to be: Let go of Christ’s commands, then everyone will be more happy. If I got you wrong, then please help me to understand you correctly.”
…
Alexander, you have read thousands of Jay’s words. And your statement is wholly incongruous with them. I am going to attribute your statement to mere frustration and reaction, rather than your usual thoughtfulness. What you have given us here is what American baseball players call a “brushback pitch”. That is, it is an effort to force another off his position by attaching to his views an accusation so odious that he backs off his statement in an effort not to be associated with your accusation.
The gist of your statement is, “If you don’t think God puts the same limitations on people as I think he does, then apparently you don’t really care if anyone listens to God or not, just so long as they please themselves.” That is not an argument, it’s just a politely-phrased insult, especially when applied to someone whose words have long expressed a basic view so contrary to your statement. I might expect this from a brother with less power of thought, but I confess it surprised me here.
Charles said “I would run, not walk, and GRAB my friend and do everything I could to drag him out of harm’s way.”
Charles who will pull him out of harm’s way next Sunday when he again wonders into the street? You won’t always be there. About all we can do is suggest he stay out of the street.
Preach on brother Charles!
Jay, I thought this article was brilliant and right on point. No guys, it is light years from fitting the conservative and or legalist template for all things Christians but, it is what it is and it’s the truth.
“Most of the complaints voiced by “those who left” reflect a certain gracelessness among our people and our leaders.”
I personally know many of the people to which Jay refers…”those who left.” Based on my experience, however, I have a different take. While the complaint is often the same, “Graceless among our people” what they really mean is “The people would not accept and tolerate my sinful lifestyle.” That has been my observation anyway.
Charles:
Whew! Do you realize that your post is actually an example of the very thing you are seeking to critique!?
Let me clarify that I do indeed look closely at what I believe and why. I read the Word often, pray about it and talk to people kindly to urge them to “get out of the street because a car is coming.” Why? Because I love them and discover (too often) that what they believe spiritually is a lie. And I know many others who show the same love — and do not shout across the street, so to speak.
I will say no more here and let you think about it.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I think the example we should follow in many of these cases is the one exhibited by Priscilla and Aquila in dealing with Apollos. They were faced with an obviously fervent believer who handled God’s word well, preaching and convicting many but not knowing everything fully (the Word says he knew only the baptism of John, Acts 18:25). They didn’t take the path that many take today and start preaching against Apollos or writing articles about him or trying to split the church over his ‘false teaching’. Rather we are told they “…took him to their home and helped him to better understand the way of God.” (Acts 18:26 NCV). I have to think we’re not conveyed here the full impact of what occurred. It must have been quite a home Bible study that very possibly occured over several evenings. Thankfully, Priscilla and Aquila had the grace to approach Apollos in a loving and true manner, and Apollos had the grace to receive it as such. The result — Apollos “argued very strongly with the Jews before all the people, clearly proving with the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” (Acts 18:28 NCV)
Bruce wrote,
Laymond wrote,
Kevin wrote,
Alexander wrote,
I wrote,
Q.E.D.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.)
Each commenter distorts what I wrote and then criticizes their own caricature of my words in an attempt to win rhetorical points. And I find it all very sad, because the pervasiveness of such tactices — and the tenacity with which such tactics are used — show that the more conservative Churches are not willing to show to others the grace they’ve received from God. And that portends far worse things than those described by Yeakley.
People of grace don’t look for ways to distort the teachings of others just to win an argument.
Take Alexander’s quote. I said,
To disagree with me, I suppose one would have to argue that women are indeed inferior or that we should impose cruel, inhumane doctrines on the divorced. Right? And wouldn’t it be great if we could for just a moment agree on that much?
But Alexander insists on treating my words as saying “Let go of Christ’s commands.” But, of course, I’ve never said such a thing. Alexander and I disagree about what Christ commanded on a very few things; and it’s terribly unfair to characterize my teaching as “Let go of Christ’s commands” when we’re only disagreeing about the meaning of those commands.
It’s a terrible, tragic trait of many in the Churches of Christ to treat disagreement about how to exegete a passage as a rejection of truth or God’s commands. And that’s exactly the kind of gracelessness that’s destroying the Churches of Christ.
Or consider Bruce’s comment —
But I only suggested that —
Bruce manages to accuse every single non-Church of Christ denomination of not following apostolic teaching — in contrast to what? To the perfect following of apostolic teaching by the Churches of Christ? We are free from all error? Seriously?
You see, the presumption that their sin makes them unworthy whereas our sin is covered by grace is exactly the sense of entitlement I criticize —
In short, gentlemen, you’ve proved my point.
I’d rather have been wrong.
Jay
Your remarks really hit home for me. I had the same experience concerning the NIV. My daughters gave me an NIV Study Bible for Christmas some time in the 90’s which I found easy to read. What I read did not seem to match up well with what I had been taught through the years. I had already experienced difficulty in harmonizing my doctrine with parts of scripture and plain common sense, but reading the NIV topped it off. I realize that the NIV has its problems, but it is still my favorite translation because it is easy to understand, but keeps much of the beauty of the KJV. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. and of course the explosion of free information from the internet is making it very hard for the conservative Churches of Christ to keep them down on the farm. I have thought for some time that we need an overhaul of doctrine whether or not it causes us to grow or decline.
Jay 1. Critics 0.
I have written and deleted a comment here 4 or 5 times in an attempt to be nice and to comply with Jay’s request that we not criticize others harshly. I’ll just say that I believe in this case Jay is precisely accurate.
Jay,
How did I distort what you wrote? I don’t understand. My comment wasn’t even referencing you. On the contrary, I was referring to my experience and discussions with many of those who have left. As you indicated, my friends / acquaintences too pointed to a perception of gracelessness, but when one peels back the onion, they were really disappointed with the lack of toleration for a sinful lifestyle. I am confused as to how I have “distorted what you wrote and then criticized my own caricature of your words in an attempt to win rhetorical points.” From my lane, it seems as if you may have done that very thing to me.
Jay does Paul fall in line with the rest of us graceless, judgmental Christians?
quotes by Paul.
“Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.”
“the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. ”
“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.”
Jay said, “the more conservative Churches are not willing to show to others the grace they’ve received from God. And that portends far worse things than those described by Yeakley.”
Jay is this an example of the grace about which you speak? Or is this an example of condemning judgment? You should at the very least extend the grace, you ask others to.
Jay,
You said,
I had forgotten about these lines while making my comments earlier.
The first implies that anyone disagreeing with your interpretation of scripture on marriage/divorce/remarriage is cruel and inhumane. This even though Jesus admitted that His teaching is hard for humans to accept, Matt. 19:11.
The second implies that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the scriptures concerning the roles of men and women in worship are bigots.
My brother, you are the one who began the mudslinging today.
“An Action Plan.” What a great title. What a prophetic statement for the brethren to demonstrate what “the action” will be. It’s the same “action” that it’s always been. What a great string of comments to refer to as an example of why people in or associated with the Church of Christ have, by their choice, continue to predestine themselves into oblivion.
Shall we gang up and take a vote and see who is to blame? If we can argue (I mean, “comment”) about it loudly enough maybe we won’t hear the Sherman tank about to run everyone over.
Jay wrote:
“People of grace don’t look for ways to distort the teachings of others just to win an argument.”
I have to agree with Kevin’s second comment. It looks as if Jay attempted to distort what Kevin originally commented. In fact I am not even sure Kevin was trying to argue with Jay in his first comment.
Jay going by what you wrote above, does this mean you are not a person of Grace?
No, Jay, you did not get my point (and Charles neither).
The way you proposed your points is what we will get as an answer regardless how lovingly and graciously we present scriptural “restrictions”, such as restrictions on remarriage or the service of women in church.
These are very ambiguous statements, although you think they are clear. But as soon as we say – according to scripture – women are not to teach or become elders in church the answer will be: “You treat women as inferior!” Or as soon as we say: “No, you cannot remarry”, the answer will be: “You are cruel and inhumane!” In both cases the conclusions will be: “Your are legalistic and know nothing of grace!”
Remember, Jay, I introduced my reply with the following words:
As Charles pointed out correctly, I have read thousands of your words. I know where we wholeheartedly disagree (on the interpretation of 1Ti 2:12 for instance). Yet, I wonder why you use ambiguous language as in this post.
Your quod erat demonstrandum (boy, Latin! I like it!) at the end of a number of unanimous quotes was interesting. What exactly deed we demonstrate?
Did we really distort your words? Not at all, Jay! We just noticed, that we know these words from numerous discussions with people who want to have it their way. In other words, your proposals confirm the attitude of those who chose the way of lawlessness – a way which I DO NOT ascribe to you, Jay. Yet, these proposals are very insufficient and misleading.
That’s why I asked:
And that’s where you ended up:
I am more than willing to show the grace I have received (and still receive out of His fullness) – and this grace is needed to take up the cross. But we will face oppostion that will be worded in exactly the same way you made your proposals.
And that, Jay, is quite irritating – that’s why I asked for a clarification.
You say:
Thank God we disagree only about very few things. But these few things have divided churches, so they are numerically few but powerful.
Now, mainly we do disagree on the role of women. And in this respect I do maintain, that you (along with many others since the last century) loosened a command of Christ. This is not an unfair accusation, because you cannot say I made up this command; we both know it’s there in scripture. I hold fast to it as did the churches of Christ for 1900 years with almost no exception. It is completely accurate to say that during the last generation or two a change took place, and those who introduced the change stopped applying these specific commands (1Co 14:34-38 or 1Ti 2:12). In fact they do the opposite of what is being written. Tell me, how I can become conviced that this is the outcome of a correct interpretation of what has been written.
Now, to say that you are WRONG does not mean I am graceless towards you. Calling you to reconsider and rejoin (because this new interpretation is a departure) is not a graceless attitude at all. But the way you react comes close to the identification of grace and acceptance. “Accept me the way I am” or “Let’s agree to disagree” both show a disrespect for truth and God’s Will. If we disagree, we must strive to find out why. One of us MUST change – we can’t both be right, Jay. The urge lies in a verse where Paul vehemetly wants to close the case without any more disputes:
Can you feel something of Paul’s zeal and holy fire? Boy, is he ever mad at those who disagree with him on this teaching! And you dare to side with this stubborn Corinthian Paul has before his eye as he writes these words? Why? So far your reasons have been all but convincing.
And you noticed by the reactions:
This approach – although you meant well – turns into another fork in the road. As the women issue turned out to be divisive, your ambiguous proposals won’t lead to unity either. Why? Because they word for word confirm those who leave because they want to remarry or wnat to have female elders or wnat to have this and that contrary to God’s Word. And they leave the rest up us puzzled and labeled as graceless legalists. This again leads back to Paul. How shall we react?
What would you do, if you were in our shoes?
Alexander
“The HS & Revelutionary Grace”, one of the reasons Jay will play a role in our family’s ultimate salvation. Thank you, Jay for continually bringing us to God through faith. We can repent and obey because of the love, actions, and grace of God. His patience with all of us, especiallythe incredible brain trust of commenters, both for and against is reason for hope. God accepts the challenge and is working on all of our hearts. Be bold, Jay and lay it on us. Romans 8:35-39!
I think that this entire discussion proves the general drift of Jay’s theory. Everyone commenting on this post is commenting on a blog post about the Bible on the Internet. We all have hands on a keyboard and our words appear to the entire world on this Internet thing. The seeds of that technology appeared in the 1970s when “modern language” Bibles also appeared.
We can all read several dozen English translations of the Bible for ourselves, read what someone wrote 200 hundred years ago on historical collection web sites, find a thousand commentaries on any verse in the Bible in less than a second, and so on.
What is more, we is we. How many of us have actually met face to face? (I have met two people who write on this blog and its discussion.)
This entire discussion, disagreement, argument, love fest, hate fest, or whatever we call what we have here is a blessing from God. Someone much smarter than me will have to sort out the final judgement on the goodness of our situation, but I think it is great. Such discussions didn’t occur outside of a few select circles 50 years ago.
We live in interesting times.
Personally having read the Bible through several times has taught me how much I and others have misunderstood. It seems the more times I read it the more God reveals errors in my thinking. Maybe the increase in the nondenominational churches reflects a desire among Christians that are seeking to live and learn in an atmosphere where others are more open to differences of opinion. The agree to disagree while loving the people you disagree with idea.
I was in the leadership of one of these type ministries and I can’t remember a more Spirit filled group. The strength came from the diversity of backgrounds. Some came with strong knowledge of scripture and others more developed in prayer and openness to the Spirit. That atmosphere allowed for everyone’s gifts to be used and we were all exposed to a greater fullness of the Body. And most of all it was okay not to have it all figured out.
It actually makes it easier for me to worship in many different denominations. I don’t feel I have to agree with everything that is said. Though I listen. The truth is the truth and I want to know it. If I have concerns I study the Bible to see if I can agree. If not I agree to disagree while loving and serving alongside whoever I disagree with. I don’t agree with once saved always saved though I serve at a Baptist church and I worship at a CoC though I had rather worship with instruments. It’s okay It’s not about just me right.
Over my Christian life I have been blessed to see God’s works in faraway lands and have observed, from my perspective at least, why churches seem to flourish and why some seem to stagnate or even die off. This is important because it points (IMO) to some of the reasoning the church of Christ in the US on a whole seems to be declining in numbers.
I have observed somewhat of a distinction between the message and demonstration of Christ’s love and God’s grace in practice in favor of an approach focused solely on teaching sound doctrine. Please note that I am not saying sound doctrine is not important as it is, but as the Pharisees proved you can follow the letter of the law (or your interpretation) and completely miss the intent (mercy, love, grace, charity, etc) and that in part is a major factor.
If you visit places like Africa or India for example (which I have) the church is growing leaps and bounds because their faith actively pushes them to aid their fellow brother and neighbor in large part due to their incredible need for hope and sustenance. Jesus taught hope, showed the grace and goodness of God, fed the poor, healed the sick, and visited the indigent. Unfortunately, in our society we have somewhat substituted our responsibility for operating as a body by hiring staff of various sorts that will do that for us. Further we have done a good job of isolating our faith to Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening. We have in effect become lazy practitioners. We say we care but our action just doesn’t reflect our faith. Faith (life blood of the church family) is demonstrated though our authentic reflection of Jesus character on a daily basis. Read Matthew 25:31-46 as it draws a contrast between the practitioners of faith (sheep) and those who are dead (goats). Interesting He does not bring up the things we use as tests for others for doctrinal purity.
So in conclusion, we build buildings where we convene church following tidy doctrines whereas in reality “we” the church need to place into “practice” the gospel 24/7. We are losing our kids and members because we are losing our identity as a “body” of believers who demonstrate our faith in action. Because we have evolved to feel good Christianity with surrogates doing the work, we are without substance and the only thing left to do is to focus on the appearance of following by the pure doctrine gospel approach. When we start looking and acting like Jesus and following His example so that others see His love and they too can have hope that is when we will once again grow.
Though I am not part of the CoC, and never have been, I have been following Jay’s blog for a few years now. I stumbled on to “One In Jesus” while doing research on elders and deacons because I had taken a job in an independent church where the use of those term was in contrast to how I had become accustomed to using them in my own tradition. I find I agree with Jay more often then not.
I am surprized at the turn this series has comments has taken with some. I particular, I note many arguing/commenting around Jay’s comments:
* If we impose cruel, inhuman doctrines on the divorced, we lack grace.
* If we treat women as inferiors, we lack grace.
In his response to several, Jay said, “To disagree with me, I suppose one would have to argue that women are indeed inferior or that we should impose cruel, inhumane doctrines on the divorced.”
Perhaps there is yet another way one could disagree with what some have posted, but no one that I have seen here delineates the specifics of why Jay is incorrect in his critique. To that end I ask, if Jay is wrong, in what specific ways are women inferior, and how does your understanding of grace square with that? On the other hand, if Jay has mischaracterized your position, please clarify how you view women as coequal in the kingdom – restored to same place she was in Genesis 1:27 where God said, “Let us make man in our image . . . male and female created He them.”
As to the divorce question, it is probably that Jay has reflected on what he considers the “cruel, inhuman doctrines” that he suggests some in the CoC have imposed upon the divorced. Those of you have been more active in following Jay’s writing than I are most likely able to articulate with some accuracy his position. I did not do the digging to learn his view on this, but I observe this: Those of you who are so eager to criticize accuse Jay of things I am fairly certain are not accurate.
I do know there are many traditions that hold divorce up as one of the worst sins one can commit, and it is certainly true that “God hates divorce.” I don’t see where that means that God hates slander or pharisaical posturing less.
I apologize for not being more careful in my editing the above comment. While there are several embarrassing misconstructions, I hope the points I am trying to make come through.
As some here have already indicated, there are bigger fish to fry within any church congregation, than argue about how much grace sister Sarah shows to brother Ralph, even though brother Ralph does take a nip now and then.
When you arrive at the building next time notice how much food, clothing, and shelter is parked in the lot. Notice how much medical supplies for the poor, are on the backs and hands of the families gathered there. If we only sold the $600 I-Phones or I-pods we could do wonders. It is very hard to be humble with a $6,000 set of rings on your finger, It is even harder to think of a poor hungry child down the street, when you leave in that Lincoln Town Car. Church has turned into a feelgood experience for those who lay up treasures here instead of there. and the “church leaders” kowtow to the rich because they want the money for personal projects.
Projects that will fill the pews on Sunday, so we cannot be the church that is loosing the fight to fill the pews, is that what it is a competition to see who can get the most in the door?
1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1Ti 6:11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
Dear Mike
Both Bruce’s and my reply are awaiting moderation – so please check in again later. We tried to show how Jay completely misuderstood and misread our inputs. Ypou might also have a look at Kevin Moody’s reply which essentially says the same what we were about to post (in a much more condensed version).
Alexander
Alexander,
My fundamental point is that many seem to want suggest that demonstrating grace with a person in the middle of a sinful situation is tantamount to accepting the sin. As Kevin put it, “As you indicated, my friends / acquaintances too pointed to a perception of gracelessness, but when one peels back the onion, they were really disappointed with the lack of toleration for a sinful lifestyle.” (by Kevin Moody on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:25 pm) Kevin’s point is well taken, and likely accurate in many cases, but it is not unlikely that their perception of gracelessness may well be accurate in many cases.
There are several people I know that consistently engage in practices that I believe are directly opposed to Scripture. There are others I know who advocate redefining sin so that what the Bible calls sin is acceptable, even though they are not personally involved in the sin itself. In all of these cases, I am concerned for their souls, and so the first thing they need to know is that I love them. Most also know that I believe they are in error on these issues, but because they know I love them, we still talk. It is my hope and prayer that one day they will see their error and repent, perhaps in part because I have shown them the love of Christ as best I can (perhaps it I would better state that I have tried really hard to not get in the way of Christ showing His love through me).
Part of what might well make them suspicious of my motivation is the caustic manner in which some people have simply pronounced words of condemnation to them. It’s not that I disagree with the theology which says such and such is sin, because I firmly believe that it is. But is imperative that I follow my Lord’s command to love the unlovely. It’s hard, but it is what we are to do.
Pastor Mike
And I believe that is exactly how Jesus see it!
Pastor Mike, I pray I see you in the same manner as I doubt we see everything in the scriptures alike.
Neal,
Thanks so much for your encouraging note.
Alexander,
I said,
In a book published by the Gospel Advocate, Flavil Yeakley said that it is wrong to treat women as inferiors. Amen. I’m thrilled to find common ground with my brother on the other side of the conservative/progressive divide.
We have common ground! We don’t agree on everything regarding women, but as least we’ve moved — together — beyond the paternalism that was so rampant in the 1970s and earlier when many in the Churches of Christ treated women as gullible and — yes — inferior.
It’s a step toward agreement on other things. And it’s an important step because I (and many others) find the idea of treating women as inferior repugnant. Therefore, Yeakley’s acknowledgement that it’s wrong to treat women as inferior matters quite a lot.
Indeed, all my bulleted points parallel teachings by Yeakley — who is much more conservative than me. I’m merely pointing out a commonality to his points about why people left the Churches: that they reveal a lack of grace toward others.
And I find it incredibly frustrating that my agreement with a conservative brother is treated as “Let go of Christ’s commands, then everyone will be more happy.”
In my post summarizing Yeakley’s thoughts on the role of women, I wrote,
No one posted a comment accusing Yeakley of letting go of Christ’s commands. No one parodied his views. No one demanded that he explain how he could possibly take such a position and not be lawless. But when I speak the same words — in agreement — suddenly I’m accused of lawlessness.
And that, to me, speaks a lack of grace.
Rich wrote,
Context!! I was referring to points YEAKLEY made based on his survey of those who left. I am in agreement with him on those points.
The bulleted list is preceded by —
Kevin,
You may be right. I’ll let you answer. You wrote,
I have trouble accepting the notion that everyone who left the Churches of Christ in any one person’s experience left in order to engage in a sinful lifestyle (as opposed to doctrinal disagreement over, say, how to worship). It just seems incredible that everyone who left did so to engage in an immoral lifestyle.
But if that is indeed your experience, I can hardly say to the contrary and I owe you an apology.
Jay,
Please help me understand what you are saying. I have Dr. Yeakley’s book and have listened to some of his lectures on the subject. Where in his book does it say anything like
?
He does say
He does spend time trying to explain that different roles does not mean women are inferior. I agree with that, but many women who leave based on this issue believe that any kind of different role equates to inferiority. I know the female executive I worked for at my previous employer would believe that.
So, a single line like you stated sounds significantly different in meaning than when I read the whole work of Bro. Yeakley.
Jay, I don’t mean to frustrate you
Let me make it clear that we are in agreement that it is utterly wring to treat women as inferior. Yet the wording in your proposals is what you often get as answer when someone – no matter how graciously – insists on the submission of women. BTW I have never heard a preacher that teaches male headship that women are inferior (but I never experienced the 70s in the US either), but every so often they receive this response.
That’s my point regarding ths two examples I picked out, not regarding the whole list. This list – as you say – matches reasons given by Yeakly why people leave. Even if we stress Grace in our “restrictive teachings” this will not hold people who made up their mind that they want to have it a different way. Some points in your lists can be treated as matters of preference (like IM), some reveal a cold atmosphere that surely is a roblem (not greeting vistors), some a pharisaic approach to obedience (Woe to those who miss a service or two) …
Condemning others is never right for Christans. Yet when we insist on scriptural commands, people sometimes (or often – depending on their faith and willingness to take up the cross) will feel condemned. And they will say this about the church that puts a restriction on them: “They show no grace. They are so legalistic.”
I hope this claryfies a bit
Alexander
@ Mike
I completely agree with your last comment.
Alexander
Alabama John and Alexander,
Thank you for your affirmations regarding my last post. Let me offer a further thought upon which we might chew a bit.
There are a great variety of issues about which men and women in the church disagree. We certainly see plenty of that here. There are also issues upon which, I would gather, all who regularly post here would find agreement. For example, in some traditions, homosexuality is fiercely debated.
I would assume that most here would agree with me and with no hesitation that what ever the reason for a person’s homosexual orientation, whether it is nature or nurture or both, engaging in homosexual activity is sin. Those so engaged, and those who advocate the acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle do so in direct opposition to the clear will of God as revealed in Scripture, and are in peril of eternal condemnation.
If such a person is not claiming faith in Jesus, then my mandate is clear, love them as Jesus loves them who gave His life for them. I can do no less. But what of those who claim faith in Jesus who yet have been so deceived to believe the lie? Am I to love them less? Certainly, I am to speak boldly, yet lovingly against sin. I know that doing so in this case risks being labeled as homophobic or worse, but that does not absolve me of speaking the truth in love.
Here’s where the rubber meets the road when it comes working to maintain gracefulness. I work hard to demonstrate Christ’s love to all people, including homosexuals, but there are times when I have been accused of condoning sinful lifestyles. More often than not, such comes from those who only see a small slice of my interaction with individual in question. Therefore, I set myself up to be accused from both directions.
I wonder if that’s the uncomfortable place we should all be when we love the sinner while rejecting the sin.
I imagine that everyone commenting on this thread is wrong about some belief they hold. We all may even be wrong about the particular matters we so confidently argue in our comments here. It would be refreshing to see more acknowledgement of our own fallability. Maybe the other person has a point.
Pastor Mike,
We should love all peoples and let God do the separating, not us.
While I believe that, we also must try to accomplish bringing as many to Christ as possible.
To do so, we must weigh the options we have to contact the sinners to bring about the most good.
Do not cast your pearls before the swine is good advice.
Alabama John,
Good advice from our Lord.
In the Master’s Service,
Pastor Mike
@ Mike
Maybe we should consider well how to apply the directions on church discipline as well. If someone persists in sin, he has to be put out of fellowship. With the option to be received back at thetime of repentance. But we are certainly not called to be without orientation in such cases.
Alexander
Alexander said, “These are very ambiguous statements, although you think they are clear. But as soon as we say – according to scripture – women are not to teach or become elders in church the answer will be: ‘You treat women as inferior!'”
>>>I don’t think the concern here is so much with ambiguity. You seem to be taking issue, not with what you don’t understand, but with ideas you think you understand quite well enough to postulate how Jay et al will follow up on those ideas. It is not that the statements demonstrate ambiguity, but that they take a different course entirely which may not respond directly to a rule-based approach to scripture. The result can be frustrating: “I have pointed out what I believe to be a rule from God. Either prove that this is not a rule from God and show me what the rule really is, or stop rejecting this rule!” The idea that there is really no set “rule” at all is completely anathema to this hermeneutic.
Let us note here that this problem is not a conservative-only problem. Those on the other side of the fence use some of the same reasoning. Insisting that anyone who finds gender-distinct roles in scripture is thus declaring women “inferior” is not definitional, but merely an argument. Both sides seem to be a bit guilty of carving things in stone and saying, “That’s settled!” as though they were Yul Brynner in the Ten Commandments. (“So let it be written; so let it be done!”)
Jay mentioned elsewhere this idea that an activity about which we argue doctrine might not even be a matter of “obedience” at all. This is a direct challenge to the old hermeneutic of searching scripture for “rule, precedent, and jurisdiction” which ultimately MUST turn the study of scripture into legal research. But applying such a mathematical methodology to the Bible makes for more problems than answers, for rule/precedent/jurisdiction renders much of the scripture ambiguous or self-contradictory. (See the many writings on biblical “contradictions” which feature this line of reasoning.) Applying legal reasoning to that which is spiritual can be nothing but flawed.
We need to get underneath the doctrines and examine with greater specificity HOW we are getting what we believe is revelation from God.
On another tack, Alexander said,”Insisting on these two options (reconciliation/celibacy) will always be felt as cruel and inhumane by those who have to live with the consequences of a divorce.”
Alexander, are you postulating that somebody’s personal experience is universal, or are you simply theorizing? As a person who IS living with the consequences of divorce, your statements on this topic sound a bit trite and simplistic to me– and not a little condescending. It is as though you think those of us who have been divorced are so addicted to our sexual expression in marriage that we all consider any required celibacy to be “inhumane”.
I wonder: if a divorced believer was required to stop declaring as genuine fact about others that which he does not actually know, would the withdrawal symptoms be even more acute?
You ask the wrong question, Charles. In fact, your way of reasoning seems to ignore
absolutes. You say:
The result can be frustrating: “I have pointed out what I believe to be a rule from God. Either prove that this is not a rule from God and show me what the rule really is, or stop rejecting this rule!” The idea that there is really no set “rule” at all is completely anathema to this hermeneutic.
The Holy spirit (through Paul) says:
So what do you say, Charles (or imply): “No, they are not commands of the Lord.” Why do I conclude this? Because you deny the idea of set rules of commandments.
You have to dispute this with the Lord, not with me. As long as language is based on vocabulary, grammer and sematics, I cannot but accept the fact that our Lord expressed His will in express commands.
Amen to that!
Alexander
Jay, I liked your complilations of verses, but I have to put them into perspective:
This is fine and commendabe for people who are weak but strive to follow our Lord. But there are other verses as well, that don’t have that “ring” which are equally valid and important:
(4 verses for your 4 verses) In a way we have to be more definitive on what is essential for fellowship an what not (otherwise we’ll end in the New Wineskins).
Surely: We can extend grace and we must extend grace, but grace requires repentance.
Alexander
“Maybe we should consider well how to apply the directions on church discipline as well. If someone persists in sin, he has to be put out of fellowship.”
>>>>
Funny how the whole idea of “putting out” such a person is a process found in scripture which is restorative in nature and primary intent. But such restoration is a mere ancillary possibility to some of my contemporary brothers.
I am reminded of one father who spanks his son, a process which brings tears to both parties. He brings pain for the sake of love, for the purpose of leading his son into righteous living and understanding. Then there is the second father who is embarrassed by his son’s misbehavior, and whips him so the neighbors will know that, even though his son is a bad actor, HE is certainly not like that.
“Maybe we should consider well how to apply the directions on church discipline as well. If someone persists in sin, he has to be put out of fellowship.”
I only remember people being disfellowshipped for sexual sin or related offenses. Gossip on the other hand was tolerated. Does anybody have an example of disfellowships for anything other than sexual sin?
Alex quotes Paul: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. ”
>>>
Are you talking about what Paul wrote, or what other people tell me he meant by what he wrote?
And do those “commandments of the Lord” include anything which he wrote, saying specifically it was not from the Lord?
And do all Paul’s writings constitute eternal universal commands, that is, to everyone for all time? If so, how do we know this? Is that instruction to Timothy to treat stomach illness with wine still a command to us? I must confess I took Tums, instead, yesterday.
My argument IS occasionally with the Lord. (Honesty requires that admission.) He seems to be able to reveal that and to work that out in me over time. But my more common argument is with those who speak on their own and insist that their words about the scripture are the same thing as the scripture itself.
I do believe in biblical absolutes, Alexander. But not that everything everyone has read in the Bible and then told me was an absolute can be demonstrated to be such.
“So let it be written; so let it be done!”
Wasn’t that a Yul Brenner line in a old Charlton Heston movie?
@ Charles:
What Paul wrote. When you begin questioning the sufficiency of language to communicate we won’t be able to communicate at all. The problem starts when people turn from what is written to their opinions, when they set aside the word of God for their own convictions. Christ Himself trusted the written word was clear enough. I do, too.
I deliberately chose the majority text for this quote (having the plural: commandments). Yes, unless Paul specifically says: For this I have no command of the Lord, I treat his epistles as fully authoritative. And he says we shall do that, too (2Th 2:15 – you cannot understimate the weight of this verse).
You are like an employee who shys away from work by letting the master explain how to use a screwdriver. At least 5 times in 1 Corinthians (which is the epstle with the most debated commandments) Paul reminds that these commands apply to all churches. Come on, Charles! Personal notes and church ordinances are not that difficult to hold apart. Back to 2Th 2:15: Do you really think, all the Thessalians then went to Troas to look for Paul’s mantle? No. But all the women in Thessalonica covered their heads in prayer. When one reads like one, who wants to obey not like one who wants to keep obedience at a minimum, here are no difficulties in understanding the scriptures.
In this discussion I focussed on two absolutes: The restrictions on remarriage after a divorcve and the submission of women. Both are worded in the strogest terms in scripture, and both are called “command of the Lord” (1Co 7:10 and 1Co 14:37). In both instances a reference is made that indicates that these commands apply in all churches (1Co 17:17 and 1Co 14:34). Let’s be to the point here: Do you count these among the biblical absolutes?
If not: By which standards do you decide what is an absolute?
Alexander
Yes, but they are rare. I think, it is easier to repent from gossip and to apologize than to – let’s say – to break a relationship that has not God’s approval. The message is simple in both cases, the invitation to grace is the same, but there is a different amount of pain and resistance involved.
Strange enough: I never experienced much gossip in the churches I’ve been. No stealing, no murder occured in the fellowships I was in. But in every church there were a cases of premarital relationships, divorce and remarriage, adultery, dating with unbelievers … These sins are right before our eyes, keep us busy, are so huge (and painful) that they – maybe – eclipse the gossip that is around us.
An example: Last Sunday I spoke on marital faithfulness and said this includes how we speak about our spouse in front of others. After the sermon a brother came to me and said this spoke to him; and he repented. I suppose, now he will fight against this bad habit. At the same time I spoke of living together without being married as having not God’s approval. A daughter of one brother (she grew up in church, but is not baptized yet) lives in that sin – will she take the message to heart? She did not come, saying: “This spoke to my heart, I think I have to change.”
That’s what I mean when I say, it’s easier to repent from gossip than from sexual sins. BUT: It’s also easier to fall into gossip than to fall into sexual sin. In the latter case you cross a number of red lights before you end up in someone else’s bed.
Alexander
Jay:
I am resubmitting my 4/28 post. You misjudge my thought by your comment: “Bruce manages to accuse every single non-Church of Christ denomination of not following apostolic teaching — in contrast to what? To the perfect following of apostolic teaching by the Churches of Christ? We are free from all error? Seriously?”
More than disappointing, brother. I will say no more.
And again, I do not see “denominations,” Jay. I see congregations, and will suggest that you let Revelation guide and see such as well.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas