"I’m a serious advocate of churches writing down their beliefs of what is non-negotiable and what will be taught in their congregation."
As one who deals regularly with these conversations, this is wise advice. We may be imperfect at listing the non-negotiables, so we should work hard at it... but, without this list, we will continue to make room for those we should be disciplining. Without spiritual discipline, we also avoid spiritual reconciliation.
We understand we are Christians in two ways. First and foremost by the written word through command, example and necessary inference. Secondly by understanding the nature of God Rom 1:20. 2Tim 2:15 says there is a right way and a wrong way to divide the Word. Knowledge of the Word is essential 2 Tim 3:15. We meet each Lord's Day twice. We meet on Wednesday nights and for Gospel meetings. We understand we are a part of the body composing the Church and each have different roles. We meet and get there early and talk. We share each others burdens. We worship God. We discuss his word. This is fellowship. If the church practices a thing such as celebrating Christmas. I don't take part.
Philippians 2:12. Each one is to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We don't have to agree on everything in matters of opinion. Before we establish written creeds or statements of faith we must realize God has already given us one. Ecc 12:13 and Rev 22:18
We cannot write a profession of faith and bind it. Deu 12:32 Matt 16:19
This is solid. What makes me lose trust and confidence in some of the institutional “preaching schools” and the online “preacher bro” discourse is articulated well…how one step out of line by whatever Brother Preacher School Teacher from 1964 said brings about destruction of one’s career by being “marked and avoided” by the mob (it’s church of Christ virtue signaling). It’s stupid, to be honest. Since I’m not a preacher or in that bubble, I don’t take those people seriously, they’re just constantly stirring up strife and conflict.
1 Corinthians 15:1-10 serves as a great litmus test, combined with Ephesians 6 and the “ones”. Writing those down gives a firm foundation, so to speak.
What made Acthley’s sermon effective 20+ years ago was that it exposed the holes in the “conservative” side, which was the predominant type of church at the time. I’d love to see a modern sermon exposing the progressive side and the return of the fundamentalism.
I think the solution is biblical knowledge. Now, I know people on both sides think they have corner on wisdom, however I’m speaking of knowing what the scriptures say AND seeing how Christianity is lived within the first century. So many people on the right are so steeped in tradition that they almost just toss the Bible aside for what a certain brother taught several years ago. I don’t normally challenge what people believe, but I challenge them to know why they believe what they believe. If they can show from scripture that their belief is warranted, fine. If they find there is no scriptural backing for their belief, then they have decision to make: continue following their opinion or follow the scriptures. We know the right choice, however, traditions have a strong pull. I believe Romans 14 makes it clear that we can vary on certain issues, but they cannot be drawn lines of fellowship. This may have been a lot of rambling to say nothing. I know I didn’t address the left directly, but the same principles apply.
"So many people on the right are so steeped in tradition that they almost just toss the Bible aside for what a certain brother taught several years ago."
Such behavior seems out of line with that of Alexander Campbell. For example, in 1812, he was baptized (by immersion) after he studied baptism, apparently spurred by the birth of his first child. He clearly concluded that baptism was for adults, not infants, and the method was immersion. This was decidedly opposed to the teaching and practice of many churches, including, I presume, the Presbyterians that he had recently left. In short, Campbell abandoned the traditions of many churches after he studied baptism in the Bible. I'd think this would be a desirable model for Christians today.
I presume you read my first sentence to mean that we should all believe exactly like Alexander Campbell, supposing his teaching to be the final word. That was not my intent, and would, in fact, be the behavior Steve McCall was correctly decrying.
I referenced Alexander Campbell because his action in that well-documented example demonstrates going to the Bible as the standard instead of blindly following a church tradition or the teaching of some well-regarded brother.
First we need to define what is meant by "having fellowship" or "not having fellowship" with someone. Does it mean I declare some to be saved and not others? Does it mean I refuse to share a meal with some but accept others? Does it mean I refuse to attend someone's worship service but will attend someone else's worship?
This is not the first time I have seen this kind of discussion with the terms left undefined.
Fair point. I think there are levels, salvation and participation. There are people I believe are saved, but I'm not comfortable worshiping under their practices.
'Yes, I'm a serious advocate of churches writing down their beliefs of what is non-negotiable and what will be taught in their congregation.
Don't call it a "creed" or a "confession" if those terms make you uncomfortable.'
I agree with the above. I suggest such a document be called a "Membership Covenant" and be signed by members indicating their acceptance. I first learned of this concept while researching divorce. Some examples I found specified the process for members wanting a divorce. As I recall, some related this to the congregation's practices for church discipline (as found, for example, in Matthew 18:15-20).
Such a document would provide a framework for expectations for both individual members and the congregation.
One of the most important verses in the entire Bible regarding this subject is 1 Cor 11:19:
"Of course there must be divisions among you, so that those of you who are right will be recognized." 😱
This means that we are commanded by the Bible to lean into controversial topics and find out what the Bible really says about issues.
If the church actually did this, then no pastor in Canada or America would have preached the cofraud vax religion from the pulpit 🤮 They would have read Romans chapter 14 and 1 Cor Chapter 8 and realized that it is a grievous sin to - publicly - do anything that could cause another believer to sin to stumble, or to violate their conscience. the Bible is crystal clear. If a pastor thinks its ok for him, THEN HE MUST KEEP IT BETWEEN HIMSELF AND GOD - that is what the Bible says.
We are not supposed to refuse to talk about any controversial issues.
The goal of church is supposed to UNITY IN THE FAITH - not UNIFORMITY.
Unity in the faith happens when we believe THE CORRECT THINGS ABOUT SCRIPTURE.
Those who attempt to control or manipulate people with Scripture are warned by the Bible:
"Better a millstone be tied around your neck and you be thrown into the seam than to lead little ones astray." Luke 17:2 💥💥
I am not sure a creed will solve the underlying issues. It seems it would become another thing for people to argue about or another checklist where people want to check the boxes as a substitute for using their own judgment. I would identify two root causes if you want things for us to work on - one being that we do not study how to practically be peacemakers, and two that we do not really see ourselves as using our judgment and discernment to determine our doctrine and practice in the CoC.
The first one causes disfellowshipping over disagreements. So people will compromise improperly to the left of the Way to accommodate things which should not be, and on the right of the Way refuse to compromise on matters where reasonable disagreement is permissible. Good peacemaking recognizes where and when we should and should not compromise.
This all relies on people's spiritual judgment and discernment being properly used, so the second root cause comes up because in the CoC we don't really think of ourselves that way. I believe we think of ourselves as distinct from denominations because we only do what the Bible says and we don't do what it doesn't say, and that we really shouldn't be using our judgment to determine anything. But most of our doctrines and practices, including salvation, are a result of applying sound judgment to Scripture to answer the questions we have today. I believe sound good strong judgment is one of the biggest strengths of the CoC today. We are definitely responsible for our judgment, and we have to keep getting it right over the years in order to stay on the Way.
Love one another. We have to know the word and live by the word. We have to be biblically sound and instruct and teach one another biblical truth. But fighting and arguing among brothers and sisters in Christ should not be. I will stand on God’s word and gently instruct someone who is straying. But the devil wants division. Let’s not give into his desires and be sure we stand on the truth and instruct one another gently and kindly. In the end, if we don’t think our congregation is doing what’s Biblical and elders/leaders won’t listen to our concerns, it’s time to leave and find another congregation that we believe more closely follows the truth, if possible.
The problem, Lloyd, is that not everything in the Bible is, in fact, self-evident. If it were, there would be no difference of opinion on many topics. For example, baptism. Infants or "adults"? Immersion or sprinkling? Necessary for salvation or not?
Throughout this article I saw no reference to what the Bible says. Feelings? They are hurt mainly when the TRUTH is rejected. The truth of the Bible is self evident, you agree with what it says or you don't. No doctrine can change that. IMHO
That is the problem as I see it. We're not lawyers who parse every word and statement. In fact the founders of our country was against lawyers in government. Maybe you agree , Christian take God's word by faith and do not find different ways of interpretation. Thus there is no disagreement. God's word is Truth and undisputed, again in my opinion.
"I’m a serious advocate of churches writing down their beliefs of what is non-negotiable and what will be taught in their congregation."
As one who deals regularly with these conversations, this is wise advice. We may be imperfect at listing the non-negotiables, so we should work hard at it... but, without this list, we will continue to make room for those we should be disciplining. Without spiritual discipline, we also avoid spiritual reconciliation.
"Without spiritual discipline, we also avoid spiritual reconciliation."
GREAT point
First we best have the fellowship of God.
We understand we are Christians in two ways. First and foremost by the written word through command, example and necessary inference. Secondly by understanding the nature of God Rom 1:20. 2Tim 2:15 says there is a right way and a wrong way to divide the Word. Knowledge of the Word is essential 2 Tim 3:15. We meet each Lord's Day twice. We meet on Wednesday nights and for Gospel meetings. We understand we are a part of the body composing the Church and each have different roles. We meet and get there early and talk. We share each others burdens. We worship God. We discuss his word. This is fellowship. If the church practices a thing such as celebrating Christmas. I don't take part.
Philippians 2:12. Each one is to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We don't have to agree on everything in matters of opinion. Before we establish written creeds or statements of faith we must realize God has already given us one. Ecc 12:13 and Rev 22:18
We cannot write a profession of faith and bind it. Deu 12:32 Matt 16:19
This is solid. What makes me lose trust and confidence in some of the institutional “preaching schools” and the online “preacher bro” discourse is articulated well…how one step out of line by whatever Brother Preacher School Teacher from 1964 said brings about destruction of one’s career by being “marked and avoided” by the mob (it’s church of Christ virtue signaling). It’s stupid, to be honest. Since I’m not a preacher or in that bubble, I don’t take those people seriously, they’re just constantly stirring up strife and conflict.
1 Corinthians 15:1-10 serves as a great litmus test, combined with Ephesians 6 and the “ones”. Writing those down gives a firm foundation, so to speak.
What made Acthley’s sermon effective 20+ years ago was that it exposed the holes in the “conservative” side, which was the predominant type of church at the time. I’d love to see a modern sermon exposing the progressive side and the return of the fundamentalism.
Here is my problem with conservatives and liberals. The distinction should not exist. 1Cor 1:10
I think it's probably unavoidable. Those aren't really titles as much as they are descriptions of something that already exists.
Agreed.
I think the solution is biblical knowledge. Now, I know people on both sides think they have corner on wisdom, however I’m speaking of knowing what the scriptures say AND seeing how Christianity is lived within the first century. So many people on the right are so steeped in tradition that they almost just toss the Bible aside for what a certain brother taught several years ago. I don’t normally challenge what people believe, but I challenge them to know why they believe what they believe. If they can show from scripture that their belief is warranted, fine. If they find there is no scriptural backing for their belief, then they have decision to make: continue following their opinion or follow the scriptures. We know the right choice, however, traditions have a strong pull. I believe Romans 14 makes it clear that we can vary on certain issues, but they cannot be drawn lines of fellowship. This may have been a lot of rambling to say nothing. I know I didn’t address the left directly, but the same principles apply.
"So many people on the right are so steeped in tradition that they almost just toss the Bible aside for what a certain brother taught several years ago."
Such behavior seems out of line with that of Alexander Campbell. For example, in 1812, he was baptized (by immersion) after he studied baptism, apparently spurred by the birth of his first child. He clearly concluded that baptism was for adults, not infants, and the method was immersion. This was decidedly opposed to the teaching and practice of many churches, including, I presume, the Presbyterians that he had recently left. In short, Campbell abandoned the traditions of many churches after he studied baptism in the Bible. I'd think this would be a desirable model for Christians today.
I certainly agree with that. What does the Bible say is the standard.
Who and what do you agree with? What standard are you asking about?
Well, I was agreeing with you about Bible study. The Bible is the standard we should hold to.
Good for Alexander Campbell, but be careful to not idolize him. We should follow the examples given to us in the Bible.
I presume you read my first sentence to mean that we should all believe exactly like Alexander Campbell, supposing his teaching to be the final word. That was not my intent, and would, in fact, be the behavior Steve McCall was correctly decrying.
I referenced Alexander Campbell because his action in that well-documented example demonstrates going to the Bible as the standard instead of blindly following a church tradition or the teaching of some well-regarded brother.
My apologies for my misunderstanding, I do agree with that then. Thank you for clearing it up for me
First we need to define what is meant by "having fellowship" or "not having fellowship" with someone. Does it mean I declare some to be saved and not others? Does it mean I refuse to share a meal with some but accept others? Does it mean I refuse to attend someone's worship service but will attend someone else's worship?
This is not the first time I have seen this kind of discussion with the terms left undefined.
Fair point. I think there are levels, salvation and participation. There are people I believe are saved, but I'm not comfortable worshiping under their practices.
'Yes, I'm a serious advocate of churches writing down their beliefs of what is non-negotiable and what will be taught in their congregation.
Don't call it a "creed" or a "confession" if those terms make you uncomfortable.'
I agree with the above. I suggest such a document be called a "Membership Covenant" and be signed by members indicating their acceptance. I first learned of this concept while researching divorce. Some examples I found specified the process for members wanting a divorce. As I recall, some related this to the congregation's practices for church discipline (as found, for example, in Matthew 18:15-20).
Such a document would provide a framework for expectations for both individual members and the congregation.
I like that way of putting it. I think it would help the members a lot.
exceptional article.
One of the most important verses in the entire Bible regarding this subject is 1 Cor 11:19:
"Of course there must be divisions among you, so that those of you who are right will be recognized." 😱
This means that we are commanded by the Bible to lean into controversial topics and find out what the Bible really says about issues.
If the church actually did this, then no pastor in Canada or America would have preached the cofraud vax religion from the pulpit 🤮 They would have read Romans chapter 14 and 1 Cor Chapter 8 and realized that it is a grievous sin to - publicly - do anything that could cause another believer to sin to stumble, or to violate their conscience. the Bible is crystal clear. If a pastor thinks its ok for him, THEN HE MUST KEEP IT BETWEEN HIMSELF AND GOD - that is what the Bible says.
We are not supposed to refuse to talk about any controversial issues.
The goal of church is supposed to UNITY IN THE FAITH - not UNIFORMITY.
Unity in the faith happens when we believe THE CORRECT THINGS ABOUT SCRIPTURE.
Those who attempt to control or manipulate people with Scripture are warned by the Bible:
"Better a millstone be tied around your neck and you be thrown into the seam than to lead little ones astray." Luke 17:2 💥💥
There was certainly a lot of unfair soft pressure in an issue like Covid. That should not be the case.
I am not sure a creed will solve the underlying issues. It seems it would become another thing for people to argue about or another checklist where people want to check the boxes as a substitute for using their own judgment. I would identify two root causes if you want things for us to work on - one being that we do not study how to practically be peacemakers, and two that we do not really see ourselves as using our judgment and discernment to determine our doctrine and practice in the CoC.
The first one causes disfellowshipping over disagreements. So people will compromise improperly to the left of the Way to accommodate things which should not be, and on the right of the Way refuse to compromise on matters where reasonable disagreement is permissible. Good peacemaking recognizes where and when we should and should not compromise.
This all relies on people's spiritual judgment and discernment being properly used, so the second root cause comes up because in the CoC we don't really think of ourselves that way. I believe we think of ourselves as distinct from denominations because we only do what the Bible says and we don't do what it doesn't say, and that we really shouldn't be using our judgment to determine anything. But most of our doctrines and practices, including salvation, are a result of applying sound judgment to Scripture to answer the questions we have today. I believe sound good strong judgment is one of the biggest strengths of the CoC today. We are definitely responsible for our judgment, and we have to keep getting it right over the years in order to stay on the Way.
Love one another. We have to know the word and live by the word. We have to be biblically sound and instruct and teach one another biblical truth. But fighting and arguing among brothers and sisters in Christ should not be. I will stand on God’s word and gently instruct someone who is straying. But the devil wants division. Let’s not give into his desires and be sure we stand on the truth and instruct one another gently and kindly. In the end, if we don’t think our congregation is doing what’s Biblical and elders/leaders won’t listen to our concerns, it’s time to leave and find another congregation that we believe more closely follows the truth, if possible.
The problem, Lloyd, is that not everything in the Bible is, in fact, self-evident. If it were, there would be no difference of opinion on many topics. For example, baptism. Infants or "adults"? Immersion or sprinkling? Necessary for salvation or not?
Throughout this article I saw no reference to what the Bible says. Feelings? They are hurt mainly when the TRUTH is rejected. The truth of the Bible is self evident, you agree with what it says or you don't. No doctrine can change that. IMHO
Interpretation is a big factor, though. Two sides can interpret a matter differently, both claiming to be right. Then what?
That is the problem as I see it. We're not lawyers who parse every word and statement. In fact the founders of our country was against lawyers in government. Maybe you agree , Christian take God's word by faith and do not find different ways of interpretation. Thus there is no disagreement. God's word is Truth and undisputed, again in my opinion.