I get emails —
I’m trying to help a bright young brother, who recently got his Ph.D. in math.
He wrote that the church he was now attending was the only “conservative” church of Christ in the city. I asked him what he meant by “conservative.” He wrote:
“Please correct me if I am wrong: “Conservative” and “liberal” are how a person or a church approaches authority. A liberal finds justification in an authoritative document based on what the document does not say. A liberal approach states that when something is not expressly forbidden, then it is allowed. A conservative approach is the opposite. Something that is not expressly allowed, directly or implied, is forbidden. One distinguishing factor between churches is their approach to the authority of the Scriptures. Some take a liberal approach and others a conservative approach. Because of the liberal approach, most (but not all) of liberal congregations found justification to use the Lord’s money to fund institutions to do portions of the church’s work. The conservative congregations objected. Thus, another distinguishing attribute is the support of institutions (institutional) or the rejection of institutions (non-institutional).”
I majored in math myself. I almost went to graduate school in mathematics, but chose to pursue law instead. However, I find that my mathematical training has been immensely helpful in helping me distinguish good arguments from bad.
Your correspondent should be urged to put his mathematical training to good use to find the logical flaw in his own argument.
Over four years ago, I posted an article called “All Churches Must Be Painted Green.” It explains the logical flaw from multiple angles. But your email gives me an excuse to offer one more — from a mathematical perspective. (My apologies to the non-mathematicians, but I don’t get to go back to my college training often.)
Here’s the argument in more mathematical terms:
Hypothesis: Only those things having scriptural authority are permitted in church practice.
Proof by reductio ad absurdum (or proof by contradiction)
1. Assume the negation of the hypothesis is true and demonstrate that it leads to absurd results.
* A1 Assume “All things without scriptural authority are permitted in church practice” and demonstrate that this logically leads to a contradiction of a known truth.
[At this point, the proof become trivial, right?]
2. Line dancing is without scriptural authority (easily shown)
3. Line dancing is permitted in church practice (syllogism)
4. Obviously, God doesn’t want us to line dance in church!
5. Contradiction being shown, the assumption is false, meaning the hypothesis is true.
QED
This is, of course, entirely wrong. Why? Well, because we improperly negated the hypothesis. This will become obvious by showing how to do it right —
Hypothesis: Only those things having scriptural authority are permitted in church practice.
Proof by reductio ad absurdum (or proof by contradiction)
1. Assume the negation of the hypothesis is true and demonstrate that it leads to absurd results.
* A1 Assume “At least one thing without scriptural authority is permitted in church practice” and demonstrate that this logically leads to a contradiction of a known truth.
[Hmm … this is much harder to disprove. It requires proving that every supposedly unauthorized practice is error rather than showing that just one is error. Of course, there are unauthorized practices that are error (trivial!), but all? That’s not really provable.]
Let’s try this. What if I could show that the hypothesis itself leads to a contradiction of a known truth? Then it would be disproved.
A1. Assume: Only those things having scriptural authority are permitted in church practice.
To disprove this, being a “for every” statement, I need to show but one counter-example, that is, one example of something without scriptural authority that is permitted. Let’s see here —
2. There is no authority for church buildings to be owned by a church. And yet the rightness of the practice is widely accepted by even the most conservative Churches of Christ.
3. There is authority for ordaining deacons but no authority for appointing deacons to head a church ministry. But then there’s no authority for giving them any task at all. Should we ordain deacons with no role to fill? That would be truly absurd, and so we give them tasks based on expedience and tradition — but utterly without scriptural authority. There is zero authority for a church deacon to be responsible for maintaining the building or overseeing the teen program. And yet even our most conservative churches do exactly this.
4. There is no authority for an uninspired editor to publish a magazine teaching scriptural doctrines to members of congregations where the editor is not a teacher. In every New Testament instance of teaching, the teaching came from apostolic authority or under the leadership of the elders — teachers within a church who are subject to the eldership. (But it’s clearly okay — just without authority.)
5. There is no authority to use multiple cups. Jesus just used one.
6. There is no authority for a preacher to conduct a wedding or funeral service.
7. There is no authority to assemble to take communion other than in an upper room. Every example of the apostles or church taking communion took place in an upper room.
I could go on. The hypothesis is disproved. But this does not leave us without guidance, just a better, truer form of guidance.
Go back over the preceding arguments and the arguments in the linked post “All Churches Must Be Painted Green.” Think about it. What standard for what is and isn’t permissible is assumed throughout all the arguments? Why is it okay to own a building? Why is it okay to assemble on the first floor? Why is it okay for a preacher to perform a wedding in the church building?
Well, what are the behavioral standards Christians really are subject to?
(Gal 5:13-25 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.
Certain things are clearly wrong because they are works of the flesh. Some things are permitted because they are fruit of the Spirit. This is Paul’s test.
We are often uncomfortable with it because it seems too vague, too permissive. Moreover, it forces us to think in terms of what is loving rather than what is authorized — which is, of course, a standard far truer to the heart of God.
Finally, the “authority” argument described by my mathematician brother has been tried by the Churches of Christ for over 100 years. One thing is certain: It has produced 100 years of “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, [and] envy.” The evidence of over a century of history is that the authority argument is a work of the flesh.
It must therefore be rejected as both logically absurd and contrary to the deepest truths of scripture.
QED.
Brilliant!
I was an above average student. I graduated high school and a Bible School. My best gift is what we called in the hills of Western North Carolina “horse sense” (common sense).
This arguement isn’t complicated. When God’s authority is left to the subjective whims of mere men (some of whom are not Christians) the outcome is certain to be bad. As Jay correctly says, history is not kind to the “conservative” position.
What God clearly does not authorize is for sinful men to add anything to the gospel of the grace of God. When someone decides allowing a woman to pray aloud in the assembly will cause the whole lot to be damned that person just proved he or she does not know much about God or the gospel.
There you go again – confusing the issue with facts… (I love it when you do that)
Nicely done, Obi-wan!
Is it necessary to warn that thinking outside “the box” may lead to disfellowship by some? How good it would be if every Christian realized that JESUS is Lord, meaning that no man-made authority is greater than that of Jesus. Human rules are HUMAN rules. All NECESSARY rules are found in apostolic writing rather than in any of our publications. The apostles said not one word about Christians assembling for worship. Not one worship law can be found in the New Testament. But Paul DOES speak to what we should be doing when we assemble (1 Cor. 14:26). Do YOUR assemblies resemble what the apostle says theirs were like?
I learned a long time ago that when it comes to determining God’s will, the above style of logic is sometimes useful but should never be used as a final conclusion. As a semi-retired engineer, let me explain mathematically. In determining God’s will …
1. a system of logic that works in one situation may not apply in another. For example: 1+2+3 does equal 1x2x3. However, this does not work for most sets of numbers.
2. there are far more variables than equations making an exact solution unattainable. There are estimating techniques that can get close enough though.
3. using extremes to prove a point does not apply. In math, the rules change when moving from the simple (algebra) to the extremes (calculus). So starting with the logic of algebra and using extremes to disprove or prove something just does not work.
4. from engineering problem solving: anytime when starting with a hypothesis we have introduced a bias in our reasoning which can dramatically affect our ability to find the solution (truth).
On the continuum between conservative and liberal in the churches of Christ, I am far more conservative than Jay (although I highly respect his scholarship and ability to write persuasively).
The main reason for my conclusions on this authority/love discussion is my use of the mathematical concept known as Boolean logic. Two fundamentals in Boolean thinking are the concept of “OR” and “AND”. For “OR” any truth among the inputs results in truth in the output. For “AND” all inputs must be true in order for the output to be true.
From my reading of scripture, “AND” applies here. Truth is where we include both Love Him.
The “authority only” paradigm has led us to fighting and splits. However, the “love only” philosophy has led others and now us to believe God serves us rather than we serve God. God’s people need a healthy dose of both.
Replace the next to last block with…
From my reading of scripture, “AND” applies here. Truth is where we include both Authority and Love.
sorry about that.
Brilliant is correct. I’ll have to dig deeper to understand it better. Your conclusion is historically and Biblically true. Thank you for this study I will pass it on to the young brother I’m trying to help.
It has been my experience with folks who hold to Calvin’s Regulative Principle that it seems to have the power to blind even intelligent and educated people to the rules of logic. This appears to be a matter, not of ignorance, but of blindness. If this were not so, simple demonstrations of this reasoning would have killed off this doctrine long ago. Blindness, however, is much more powerful.
Ray, you really ought to get past the idea that we have exchanged one set of laws for another. We have exchanged laws for grace, brother.
There are, of course, still a few one-cup congregations…generally also without Bible classes, another common practice with no explicit Scriptural authority.
I would simply ask any of them to show my the Scriptural authority for electricity, and for driving to church.
I am the young brother. Thank you for your article. The logic is mathematically very clear. Just a few comments:
“There is no authority for church buildings to be owned by a church. And yet the rightness of the practice is widely accepted by even the most conservative Churches of Christ.”
There is authority for us to assemble. The exact location is not specified; we have the liberty to decide to assemble at someone’s house, at a church building, at a rented place, etc.
“There is authority for ordaining deacons but no authority for appointing deacons to head a church ministry. But then there’s no authority for giving them any task at all. Should we ordain deacons with no role to fill? That would be truly absurd, and so we give them tasks based on expedience and tradition — but utterly without scriptural authority. There is zero authority for a church deacon to be responsible for maintaining the building or overseeing the teen program. And yet even our most conservative churches do exactly this.”
“Deacon” means “servant”. The meaning itself gives us authority of the role of deacons.
“There is no authority for an uninspired editor to publish a magazine teaching scriptural doctrines to members of congregations where the editor is not a teacher. In every New Testament instance of teaching, the teaching came from apostolic authority or under the leadership of the elders — teachers within a church who are subject to the eldership. (But it’s clearly okay — just without authority.)”
Believers are authorised to teach (Matthew 28:18-20). Publishing magazines is one way of teaching.
“There is no authority to use multiple cups. Jesus just used one.”
Multiple cups are authorised in Luke 22:17 (“divide it among yourselves”).
“There is no authority for a preacher to conduct a wedding or funeral service.”
I agree that it is not authorised for the work of the church to include a wedding or funeral service. It must be done by individuals.
“There is no authority to assemble to take communion other than in an upper room. Every example of the apostles or church taking communion took place in an upper room.”
We remember that a certain Samaritan woman asked Jesus about the proper place for worship — a nearby mountain, or in Jerusalem. He responded: “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father” (John 4:21). Jesus said the location did not matter. It was worship “in spirit and truth” that mattered.
Furthermore, we know that churches met in homes at times, as mentioned in Romans 16:5, I Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2. If we are to bind the example of the upper room, then we must necessarily assume that these houses all had an upper story. But that is not a necessary assumption. Yes, some of the houses may have had an upper room, but we cannot assume that all did. We are also aware that many of the early Christians were among the poor, and it is likely they would have been living in pretty simple dwellings.
Finally, let’s remember that “whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Colossians 3:17).
Minghui,
I’ve spent this evening putting together a response attempting to be as thoughtful as what you’ve sent. It’s been great fun.
I’ve quoted your entire comment so that my replies make sense to other readers, and that has produced quite a lengthy document. I’m going to post it over the next three days.
May God bless your studies.
Pingback: An Email about Authority and Mathematics, Part 2 (CENI explained) | One In Jesus
Regarding our “one cup” brothers (and they are) I’ve wondered several times if a custom communion tray would be acceptable — one large cup in the center (place of honor or aesthetics or mfg. ease) and smaller cups around the perimeter. Then each could Romans 14 each other.