4. The worse thing you can do is to refuse to talk about the issues. The second worse thing you can do is bring up the issues from the pulpit.
Talk about this stuff in the classrooms. When the preacher launches into a sermon series on these topics, no one has the chance to respond. No one can ask questions. No one can offer what they consider counter-arguments. There is no dialogue — and these topics require fleshing out face to face in dialogue — slowly and carefully.
5. People fill gaps in their knowledge with their fears. Always.
Therefore, answer even the obvious questions. No, we have no immediate plans to add an instrumental service. (Or, yes, we’re thinking about it but have made no decision.) Yes, if we were to do that, there would be an a cappella service. We will not abandon or look down on our more conservative members. We love them too much to consider any other option. We are talking about these issues because we are worried about our lack of baptisms. We are not being effective in evangelism. We had a great run being a better Church of Christ. But that is no longer where we think God is leading us.
6. We are a doctrinal people, but our people are not doctrinally driven. They are emotionally and socially driven. Express your love. Hug those who come to complain or express concerns.
Talk frankly about the social cost of the hard decisions. The problems will be very real and concerning for your members. Be upfront. Don’t sugarcoat it. Be honest about the price you’re asking them to pay. And be upfront about the cost the leaders are having to pay among their friends and families.
7. If someone is upset with the discussion, deal directly with him or her and do so quickly. Answer his or her questions. Confront any sinful attitudes. Don’t let falsehoods, rumors, and speculation fill the air. Cover the members up with information so the rumormongers have no power over the church.
8. Be humble. Listen. Take the time to hear the opposition out. Don’t get defensive. There’s no hurry. There’s plenty of time. In fact, time is on your side.
9. Be patient. Many people just need time to get used to the new reality. Give them that time.
10. There will be challenges to whatever process is followed, because people typically resist change by challenging process. They really dislike the substance but find it easier to attack the process. So think long and hard about the decision-making process and find a way to be as inclusive as possible.
The biggest complaint will be that you didn’t give the church enough time or opportunity for input. Therefore, give the members an overwhelming opportunity for input — in focus groups, classes, surveys, etc. Make them feel that their views matter and are appreciated because they do matter and are appreciated.
Now, the risk you take by going slowly and being inclusive is that the opposition will have a chance to get organized and make threats. The immature among the members will threaten to leave or cut off contributions or to stop volunteering. In fact, many a Church leadership has been thwarted by exactly these tactics.
11. The usual response is to ask for more time to study. I have a better idea (I think). Tell those opposed to the change that you’re willing to put the idea on hold — conditioned on seeing effective evangelist growth. The decision will be made based on baptisms. If we start seeing the unchurched filling the pews and Sunday mornings filled with baptisms, well, why would we change anything if that was happening?
Immediately offer training classes on evangelism, schedule “bring a friend” days, and otherwise make every effort to bring in the lost — and see what happens.
If the church has been led to be evangelistic solely for the sake of evangelism, and if it fails, then perhaps hearts will then be open to further changes. But you can’t use evangelism as a tool to get instrumental music. Rather, evangelism is its own end, and the goal is evangelistic effectiveness, not instrumental music or whatever. And if the church manages to be evangelistically effective without making all these controversial changes, then thank God and move on with what God is blessing.
“The immature among the members will threaten to leave or cut off contributions or to stop volunteering. In fact, many a Church leadership has been thwarted by exactly these tactics.”
You were doing pretty good in telling how to fill the pews and therefore the coffer, until you attacked the immature/ignorant that don’t think the same way you do, and feel they have the right not to participate in worship services they don’t agree with.
I don’t believe the problem with the CoC is inside the walls of a building, but outside those walls. We have members who have more money than they can ever need, and members who can’t feed and clothe their children properly. We have members who spend so much time making more money they have no time for the sick and elderly. In all my time in the church I have never heard a sermon on what Jesus said about the “rich man” WHY ! I brought this up with a preacher as to why, his answer was “they pay the bills” at least he was honest. The CoC couldn’t live as high on the hog, without the rich, so be very careful not to offend even one of them. This does not seam to me to fit within the “First century church” If you want to preach Jesus , why not preach all of Jesus, not just what he said that you like, and makes you feel happy?
Jay,
Are you aware (I am not) of a congregation that began such a course as above that did NOT proceed with the changes proposed? It would seem that the once the die is cast (We are going to prayerfully consider…), the outcome is “preordained”.
And yes, how many services may we /should we /could we divide into? You mention AC and IM. My former professor Mac Lynn identified some 39 “sub sets” of belief or practice. Should we list those out and have “smaller subset” worship services? There would not be enough time in the day (24/39) so perhaps we should shorten the service time. How does that uphold the John 15-17 “that they all be one”?
Homer Hailey’s “ATTITUDE AND CONSEQUENCES” is still a relevant read.
John asked,
At least one. A Church of Christ in the Prattville area did exactly that last year. No firsthand information, but I think my source is reliable.
John,
John here. I am a liberal who agrees with you. I do not foresee the answer to the problem for the CoC being, as you say, “smaller subset” worship services. While I am one who has no problem with the instrument in those traditions who have always used it, I do think that the CoC could become and remain a spiritual force for good without it. It is not so much bringing the worship services up to modern taste, as much as it is presenting a message that challenges the mind and heart of each person in the pew. If the teaching and message “Comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable”, if it is more than an hour of “expository rehash”, then a heart felt round of “Jesus Lover of My Soul” or “Nearer My God to Thee” will have every one walking out in wonder, thinking and sometimes, shaken. Anything else is a waste of time.
John asked,
No one has suggested that every church must provide a service suitable for every subset of Church of Christ scruples. Rather, the question on the table is what to do when a congregation changes practices to a practice that some members cannot participate in in good conscience? Unless an elder is changing multiple practices at the same time, the answer is “two” because one change creates but two sides.
Moreover, this is only necessary for those events that our members will, of necessity, participate in if they remain as members. We can’t seriously expect a segment of our members to never attend the Sunday morning assembly, and so the assembly becomes the focal point of our discussions.
I see that several readers protest my insistence that this segment be accommodated, but I’ve yet to hear a scriptural argument to the contrary. I hear a lot of pragmatism, and I hear of a lot of “camel’s nose under the tent” argumentation, but nothing from the Bible.
It’s important, though, that the need to accommodate our weaker siblings be properly bounded. For example, there is no requirement to tolerate the view that IM damns or draws fellowship boundaries. That’s a false gospel. We cannot let our most narrow members define salvation or salvation — even if they get really upset. That is NOT what Paul was discussing. In fact, very much to the contrary, Paul writes,
(Rom 14:3-4 ESV) 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Neither the weaker nor the stronger sibling may “pass judgment on” the other one. And the elders should not make allowance for such a false teaching.
(Gal 5:4-6 ESV) 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
But for those who do not damn over AC/IM but who cannot participate in IM in good conscience, allowance must be made — but only in those circumstances where the weaker brother would be tempted to sin against his conscience. It’s not enough that the weaker brother might be upset or disagree with the decision. This is about sinning against a weak conscience.
(Rom 14:13 ESV) Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
“Never” is strong language. “Stumbling block” refers to a temptation to sin, not mere giving of offense.
(Rom 14:20-23 ESV) 20 Do not, for the sake of food [served at a Love Feast as an act of worship], destroy the work of God [by causing a brother to sin due to peer pressure]. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble [violate his conscience] by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble [by sinning against his conscience]. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts [about the rightness of eating meat at the Love Feast] is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith [but a result of violating one’s conscience]. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin [to that person].
Notice that Paul gives the correct doctrinal answer: “Everything is indeed clean.” So they have guidance from an apostle saying that it’s okay to eat meat at the Love Feast. And yet Paul says that those who consider this wrong — despite having just been told by Paul that it’s okay — must not be tempted to eat what they consider wrong.
To us pragmatic Westerners, this is an amazing concession. Why yield to someone that that apostle has just declared to be WRONG?? Because we love that person and we know that our consciences do not change overnight. It takes time for the Spirit to change a heart. It takes time for the rational lesson to sink in and change our feelings.
Q. But having meatless Love Feasts would surely harm the church’s evangelistic efforts! Why not send the weak to a separate congregation of just weak Christians so the strong aren’t burdened by them?
A. Because Rome just had the one congregation, meeting in multiple homes. Why would God’s united church have more than one congregation? What an absurd notion! Well, that’s how Paul would have seen it. He fought his entire career against the forces attempting to separate the Jews from GEntiles in order to have a single congregation made up of both.
Q. But times have changed!
A. No, we’ve changed. If we want the church to effectively testify to the Kingdom, it cannot be divided and it must be able to work through these kinds of issues without dividing. The gospel message is about unity, love, and tolerance. And Paul says that unity is more important than the pragmatic benefits of having meat at our Love Feasts — as inconvenient as that would have been.
Q. And so the strong never get to eat meat?
A. No, just not in circumstances that would tempt them to do so against their consciences.
(1Co 10:27-30 ESV) 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience– 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
Paul seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says not to eat meat if you’re told it’s been sacrificed to an idol. But he also declares “For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?” In other words, your scruples don’t mean I can’t eat meat, only that I can’t eat meat sacrificed to an idol in a circumstance that would tempt you to sin against your conscience. The fact that you talk behind my back and say bad things about me because I eat meat at home is tough luck. You don’t get to decide my freedom for me — except in settings where my eating might cause you to sin, such as a Love Feast.
And, as I’ve said before, the elders remain charged to teach doctrinal truth, even if some people get upset. The long-term solution to the weak/strong problem is better teaching. Better teaching will eventually make the problem go away.
Of course I see the foolishness of multiple subsets of worship. But I’ve seen once strong congregations close — one which first accepted unrepentant adultery (yes, no doubt — publicly stated, I was there)and marriage; then to contemporary worship, then to instrumental, then to nothing. Another just grew old, another of legalism, and another just by biting and devouring one another. Sad, sad, sad. The “worship war” was won/lost (depending on viewpoint), but who ever “wins” in a war?
” And Paul says that unity is more important than the pragmatic benefits of having meat at our Love Feasts — as inconvenient as that would have been.”
And would Paul say that unity is more important than the “pragmatic benefits” of having IM at our Love Feast — as inconvenient as that would have been?”
Just asking . . .
I’m not at all convinced that the most needed if changes is dictrine within the building so much as relevance outside the building. It seems Jesus spent far more time in the streets and in the homes of people than he did arguing theology with the Pharisees. Is the real measure of success how many baptisms occur? How about lives changed ?
Jay,
I have read and reread these passages of scripture and cannot find evidence that the center of Paul’s discussion was about a love feast. Neither do I see it speaking of what food is being served at any assembly. I have never known an assembly of the church considering their eating together as a “(Love Feast as an act of worship)”. It has always been a act of fellowship with each other. I see this communication as an individual proclaiming to a brother whom he knew would not eat meat clean or not clean or that was sacrificed to an idol, that he was going to eat some. This would cause the brother who saw that as sin to believe that the brother who was eating it was sinning. Thus a (stumbling block) to the brother who believed it was sin.
For meat to have been served at a feast as you have described, should not be a temptation for an individual who believed it to be sin, to eat of that meat. If a brother who thought it was a sin to eat meat was a guest in your home or in a setting where you were eating together and just because meat was available he did not abide with his beliefs and ate the meat while believing he was sinning, would you as the host or just the brother who ate meat in the same vicinity of the man, become the (stumbling block)?
(Rom 14:20-23 ESV) 20 Do not, for the sake of food [served at a Love Feast as an act of worship], destroy the work of God [by causing a brother to sin due to peer pressure]. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble [violate his conscience] by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble [by sinning against his conscience]. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts [about the rightness of eating meat at the Love Feast] is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith [but a result of violating one’s conscience]. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin [to that person].
I see communications almost continually here about the assembled being a (worship). This is exactly why men have placed such a stringent value upon the procedures and processes while the Saints are assembled to edify and strengthen each other. The assembly of the Saints should be a lot more like a family gathering than a organized (worship) event. We were never given instructions to follow details similar to the Temple or Tabernacle. The early Christians met in homes like a family. Even like those were meeting when they were praying for Peter in Acts 12.
Getting back to the point, are we to allow someone who has a false understanding to control our actions indefinitely? I believe not, the message here would be to not pressure an individual to do anything against their beliefs, but that is not an instruction to allow them to remain in their false understanding indefinitely. It then becomes our duty to instruct the individual just as Priscilla and Aquila did.
Larry Cheek, amen.
Alabama John, we all won’t be there.
Larry,
The eating meat discussion in Rom 14 is, of course, about Christians eating with other Christians — or else the issue of peer pressure does not arise. The same is true in 1 Cor 8 – 10. When did the Christians eat together? Most commonly at the love feast. In Rom 14, this is more obvious in the Greek. This earlier post gives the background and sources: /2009/09/renewing-our-worship-the-love-feast-2/
In the case of 1 Cor 8 – 10, chapter 11 is clearly discussing taking the Lord’s Supper in the context of a common meal. If the Christians ate a Love Feast together, at which the Eucharist was shared, then it’s no surprise that food sacrificed to idols was a seriously problem in such a setting.
I don’t think that it’s in the least controversial among the commentators that Rom 14 and 1 Cor 11 speak about a Love Feast/Eucharist. We don’t see it because we don’t share in the same First Century practice.
I have to grant that in 1 Cor 8-10 Paul also discusses eating dinner with unbelievers and eating in the temple of an idol, so he has much more than the Love Feast in mind. But he also discourses on the Lord’s Supper in the midst of a discussion on eating meat sacrificed to idols — which makes much better sense in light of 1 Cor 11, which demonstrates that the Corinthians ate a full meal as part of the Lord’s Supper — and hence meat was served at Eucharist because Eucharist was part of the Love Feast.
The love feast would have been considered “worship” by the early church because it was done in honor of Jesus. It was not just a party. It prefigured the heavenly wedding banquet of Revelation and the Prophets. In fact, in both Jewish and pagan practice, common meals were commonly expression of worship. The pagans would eat at their temples in honor of their gods. The Jews did the same as to God when offering a thanks (or peace) offering. The Lord’s Supper was instituted at a Passover meal, which included eating a lamb sacrificed to God at the Temple — as an act of worship.
That hardly contradicts the notion that a love feast was celebratory. The Jews typically found worship an occasion for celebration. We get our funereal attitude toward worship from our Calvinist roots. Calvin was a dour fellow.
R. J. Coates, New Bible Dictionary, 1996, 702.
Hulitt Gloer, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2003, 1055.
laymond,
Every knee will bow so in the end all will bow.
Have had a few say they didn’t believe and died.
I told their widowed spouse, today they do believe.
Jay,
I have read the post expressing support for the “love feast” and I’ll soon have a comment to post.
But, in the mean time while rereading this whole subject and the comments, I have observed this concept that you presented.
“Moreover, this is only necessary for those events that our members will, of necessity, participate in if they remain as members. We can’t seriously expect a segment of our members to never attend the Sunday morning assembly, and so the assembly becomes the focal point of our discussions.”
While thinking especially about this concept, “We can’t seriously expect a segment of our members to never attend the Sunday morning assembly”, especially when tied to, “Moreover, this is only necessary for those events that our members will, of necessity, participate in if they remain as members.”
I have known many Christians (who became Christians much as you have identified in your teachings, through contact by church members or gospel meetings that were held during a time when they could attend) who because of of their occupations and you can say their lack of seniority were scheduled to work during the time frame on the first day of the week which Christians have decided to meet. The Christian leaders have devised a window for services which may never fit the time schedule at work along with the travel and necessary time to transition from the work environment to a social gathering environment. It is very possible that a Christian could either never be available or only when on vacation to be available to attend a first day of the week service. Yet, unless I have misunderstood the text you have written, suggests that, ” members will, of necessity, participate in if they remain as members”, that members cannot remain as members unless they attend first day of the week services.
Attendance then would carry the power of overriding your concept which you have portrayed, leaving Christ by exiting through the same entry point that they became Christians. Turning their backs upon Christ. I thought I had learned on this blog that when an individual becomes a Christian by being a believer dedicated to Christ, even if they never attend a organized assembly as we are accustomed to, they still never loose their relationship as a member of Christs body unless they remove themselves. I believe that there many individuals in the world who are affected by circumstances like we are viewing here.
AJ. it is written that every knee will bow. But is also written.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
So which is more important, calling Jesus “lord” or obeying God ?
I don’t know how you reassure widows with the certainty of heaven for their dead husband. unless the verse you quote means more than what Jesus said.
Even the demons believe, but they didn’t obey, will they be acceptable to the kingdom?
Once again Larry amen. Both churches I have attended here have Sunday evening services for members who could not attend mornings.
laymond,
I say the dead professing not to believe when they died are now believers, Beyond that I leave to God. I would never be so bold as to say they or anyone else were saved or not.
In the past I and many more have done that and sure been disappointed by things that came out that only God knew at the time. Also had positive surprises about those we would of damned.
Let God who knows and sees all do the judging.
For some reason we place certain things the saints did within the context of worship, whereas all of the saints life was supposed to be in worship, assembled or not assembled. The early saints came together with other saints, because they were now family and bound in Jesus. If they ate meat, this doesn’t mean that they were having meat in the LS, but rather having a meal. If they ate meat offered to idols within the proximity of another saint who did not aprove, this could have been a meal. They simply spent time in the presence of other saints. The Lord’s Supper, as Larry pointed out, was not a time of worship, although it had elements of worship in it…prayer, but rather it was the time a people came together to call to remembrance the one who died for them. Jesus was with them in the first LS, so did they worship Him? No they partook with Him and of Him, it was a sharing and partaking of, but not exactly worship, although it was a Holy occurance. Our very form belies the personal, communal meal it was supposed to be, instead of the ceremony it looks like….the priest go to the altar and then dole out the food to the people. Hmmm!
I’m not against Sunday eve worship, after all what is bad about more worship time with others. We should probably do Monday, Tuesday, etc. Now if we are to believe the accounts the Passover feast and thus the LS which came from it was a supper, meaning it was done in the evening, so if we wanted to have the Lord’s Supper in the afternoon to evening time it would be fine and probably make more sense in that it would allow more people to make it. But to not make it is not a sin, but to make it is a blessing.
Laymond,
You have made a good point about Sunday evening services, but I see a need to show you how that does not address all of the problem, and may not be helpful in the least to some Christians. You see most Sunday morning services start with classes at anywhere from 9:00 am to 10:00 am then the assembly following and of course everyone is out before noon so they can go to the local restaurant and enjoy more fellowship with the community. Would any of those eating that good food credit any Christians for preparing the food? Did the cooks and servers just rush over there and prepare everything after they attended services. Of course not. O the paramedics, the police officers, the staff at the local hospital and any of those business that require employees to be present to serve the public, are their work schedules in tune to be able to make Sunday morning or Sunday night services? Well it could be possible but church leaders have insured by scheduling Sunday night at 6:00 PM that some of those starting work at 8:00 AM 30 min lunch relieved of duty at 4:30 PM then driving home sometimes in heavy traffic cleaning up changing clothes and driving to the assembly, are very seldom able to get to church in time. Well what about those whose shift starts at you might say any where from 10:00 AM through 2:00 PM would they be able to make services at any service on Sunday? In my response to Jay above I was asking, can these individuals be Christians? If not then who is responsible for their not being able to meet with brothers and sisters in Christ on Sunday? There are many options that could be available in the format of house assemblies. Multiple times could be scheduled by different families that could within 24 hours fill the needs of almost any work schedule on Sunday. The church evidently has never considered it, just lock out all those who cannot conform to schedules we like.
Larry, that is a good suggestion. I think sometimes though we miss the point of the communion within the Lord’s Supper. It is at its heart about communion with Jesus and partaking of Jesus with others in Jesus and these can be any others who are in Christ and it isn’t about taking unleavened bread and wine, even though those are involved. The Passover was a feast that pointed to the deliverance by God and it isn’t a coincidence that the Lord’s Supper is about Jesus who delivered us from our sins.
A conversation has begun among the elders about how best to be of service to those to whom Larry refers; perhaps a son rise service or even a late night. It will likely take a bit of research time to “do it right.” We will anticipate good things.
Who says it must be with elders supervision or approval, or in a church?
Can be in a foxhole or outpost. Can be John Wayne crackers and canteen water if that is all you have. Once knew a man to mix ketchup with water so it was red like blood as that was as near as he could get. Prayers of thanksgiving and remembrances are from the heart where ever that heart is and under whatever circumstances.
What must be used is not so important to cause you to put it off waiting for a supposed certain brand of wine or grape juice named by Christ that you don’t have at the time.
Two or three gathered together can be anywhere at any time and on any day(s).
Some I know observe it several times a day at various locations with different people present at each location.
The Lord’s Supper was to be the saints come together to partake with one another. This supercedes any elder involvement as it is a prime directive of saints and is already predetermined in its action, application and format. But then again there is a question of time and placement of said LS that is left to determine. Now I think the purpose wasn’t to have everyone present, but to share with those who were present and not to act as if it was all about you. This is why some were getting drunk and filled because they took it as a meal for them and not for others, some who might not have shown up. They were not eating in moderation allowing for those that might not be there. This alludes to one thing that is not thought about…the duration of the LS, meaning that the LS must have gone on for a while if they were to moderately eat and also allow for others to show up some time later. It probably wasn’t at 6:00 sharp, but rather 5:00-8:00.
I had no intent to LIMIT where Christians might meet together nor do I think Jesus used Welch’s Grape Juice. My only point was that a group of elders (good thinking) are thinking outside the box to be of service to believers.
Our current meeting times have more to do with milking cows than anything else. Cows had to be milked before believers could leave the farm for the assembly — morning and night.