Appreciate that you linked Todd Clippard's piece, that was a well written, and scripturally succinct. I would not have had the chance to read it otherwise. Thank you for your efforts to raise issues like this and make people think deeper. I hate the division, any division, in our congregations and I hope this helps others to see the importance to stand on solid scriptural ground, and strive for unity based on truth. All the while to be able to continue to seek the truth while loving our brother and not doing anything that would make him stumble or offended.
I am reminded of a time when our congregation was hiring a preacher. One of the resumés we received led me to investigate the website of a congregation that was currently employing the applicant. The website was apparently maintained exclusively by the preacher. It was shocking to me that half of the web pages were not even about that congregation, but were condemnations of other congregations in that state. The sins of these other congregations included having so-and-so as a guest speaker, who was objectionable because he said something wrong years ago in another state at some conference, etc.
The spirit behind using your congregational web pages primarily to pronounce anathemas on other congregations is the same spirit behind much of what you wrote about.
My goodness, that's awful. Unfortunately, that's the mindset this approach breeds—that behaving like that is a GOOD thing. It's completely upside-down.
Thanks for providing context to your Facebook post, Jack. I’m very familiar with the ridiculous accusations lobbed by TSOP over the Think Deeper alcohol episode a couple of years ago, but I hadn’t heard of this latest debacle. For all of this to be public turns my stomach, but maybe that’s why God made men to be more confrontational (and I do see the need). Thanks for taking a stand and imploring our brethren to be reasonable and loving.
My question or thoughts would be this: under what authority do the para-church organizations have to tell the greater church what to do/believe/behave/etc.? And who are these groups accountable to? A local church? Their donors who like them “defending THE truth”?
It’s (past) time for these groups to stop “pastoring the Internet” and acting as if they are our sole authority, or Pope (as mentioned elsewhere). It subverts the local church and local elders. While these groups and individuals serve a purpose and can serve as a resource in helping a local church who has questions, they are NOT the ultimate authority.
For too long the sad, long history of this nonsense over everything from pet doctrines to bruised egos has caused havoc on our fellowship. It MUST stop.
Para-church organizations and the men who run them are NOT the Holy See of the church of Christ. It’s time to get back to focusing on our local congregations and our elders telling some of these groups to know their role and handle it from there.
There's legitimacy in your complaint, but there's also a degree of inevitability to it. For a movement that is anti-creed and confession, we're always going to be hammering out our doctrines, and a lot of times that's going to happen publicly. And, even with autonomous churches, birds of a feather end up together.
I do not believe that a case can be made from scripture that full abstinence is the biblical position, generally.
I believe it’s a good choice to make, nothing wrong with making it but putting that on other people as a requirement for fellowship or salvation cannot be backed up with scripture. With the exception of known alcoholics or when people are around a known alcoholic (in the spirit of Romans 14:21)
The justification for this is usually that wine referred to in the Bible was just grape juice but that doesn’t hold up in context.
In Matthew 9 (also Mark 2 and Luke 5) Our Lord tells the parable of the wine skins. The Greek word used in this parable is “oinos” and it’s the most common word translated to wine in the New Testament.
Verse 17 says: “neither is new wine put into old wine skins if it is the skin bursts and the wine is spilled and the skin is destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved”
What he’s describing here is the fermentation process which produces gas and causes the skins to expand and burst.
The parable is describing the old and new covenants but the language shows that Our Lord and the Apostles understood the word “oinos” to refer to fermented wine.
So you can say it’s wise to abstain and I would probably agree with you but commanding abstinence from non-alcoholics as a matter of salvation or fellowship is just as much a modern development as women preachers or rock bands in worship.
This was interesting. I’ve never heard of the person nor the situation. Did this blow up on Facebook or some substack? I don’t get on social media for anything beyond checking on my kids, maybe that’s why I’m unaware. Sorry such things happen. Back in the days of paper, the burn would have been a lot slower and people would have time to think before typing.
It started on Substack and migrated to Facebook the last couple of days. Unfortunately, our history shows that even when writing in print there are those who stood to gain a lot by making the fellowship as narrow as can be.
The Apostle Paul said something to the Corinthian brethren that seems fitting: "Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law (or social media?) with brother, and that before unbelievers?" I've been walking through the doors of the church building since I was a baby (65 yrs) and I know things like this have happened from time to time. I wish we could get our collective act together.
A lot of people are saying this, but evangelism isn't the only thing we're supposed to do. Addressing the unity of the church isn't some minor distraction, either. How much of the NT epistles were about evangelism?
It would be good to know what Todd said that resulted in the criticism that he received. He did a good job explaining what he didn't say, but what did he say?
Jack, I stumbled upon this site (or did I?) and I'm glad I did. Perhaps we all should stop, drop, & roll. In this case and in general, shouldn't we keep the main thing the main thing by focusing on the essentials of salvation as outlined in God's Holy Word being fishers of men, bringing as many as possible to obedience in Jesus? Regarding all other topics, sure we should absolutely study, share, pray, and pray some more on it all. However, executing grace, mercy, & love in all & how we communicate in tone & tenor should be considered above all (1 Timothy 1:5). Do you wish to be right all the time OR rather be effective with truth? So, let us all consider how far out on a pet-peeve limb(s) we wish to shuffle because I am certain of this fact; all humans including we flawed yet committed followers of Jesus, NO ONE bats 1.000...#TRUTH.
To begin at this point I'm not taking sides either way but want to make some comments and ask few questions as I try and consider this topic from scripture. On one hand those who call out public error (what they believe to be public error that is) believe they have the right to do so when given topic is taught publicly, especially when it is on youtube, facebook, etc. They use scriptures like you mentioned about Paul calling out Peter publicly because it was a public sin. So I guess my question is when it is something that is publicly taught and is error (for now not discussing what is definition of error) how do you purpose that is handled? For example, a preacher publicly teaches that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable to God and not a sin. This teaching has been taught publicly. Now one other thing I would like your thought or a conversation on is what is error? I would agree there are issues/differences within the church like does the Holy Spirit indwell literally or by the word of God and for the most part all will agree to disagree but not make it a matter of fellowship but clearly both cannot be right. So there is a right and wrong. So how one determines what topics to make a matter of fellowship has to be determined. I personally only see a way scripturally to define as something that would cause one to sin if they accepted and followed given practice that is taught. If you disagree please explain what criteria you decide to consider a fellowship matter. Which if we agree on that then sometimes the problem is then on what some consider a sin. The alcohol is an issue for those who believe consuming alcohol is sinful and therefore a fellowship issue. The New Heaven and New Earth you mentioned to me is not a topic if taught that causes someone to sin. So one has to have a set criteria that they can put every given topic/disagreement against to see if fellowship is an issue. If it is not a matter of causing someone to sin by following the teaching then we should as brothers and sisters be able to agree to disagree and still have fellowship and treat each other properly. So to recap my 2 questions are how do you propose dealing with error that is taught publicly especially in a format that is on youtube, facebook, etc? And what is your criteria for determining what is a fellowship issue?
Those are the key questions, you're right. Since we're all claiming to stand with Scripture, I think we need to add two layers of consideration:
1) How many people disagree on it, and for how long has there been disagreement?
For example, the alcohol issue has many, many proponents on both sides and has had them for a long time. That's a pretty good sign that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because otherwise we would be withdrawing from a lot of people both living and dead.
On the other hand, the acceptability of homosexuality might have an increasing number of proponents today, but there is basically zero historical support for it in the Restoration movement or in the broader Christian world in general.
2) How often is a person finding lines of fellowship?
It's pretty easy to see who the most disfellowship-happy folks are. When Romans 14 means nothing to a person, and every disagreement is seen as a Gospel-level threat, we're probably dealing with a person intent on division and their opinion on anything should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I don't believe how many proponents are on each side make a difference. If a given topic is a matter of sin that can affect somebody's soul scripture is all that matters in determining what to do about a given situation. If someone teaches that instruments of music are acceptable in worship and in their congregation they teach that but in all other doctrinal matters you are the same would you cancel that person from a gospel meeting you had scheduled for them to speak at before you knew their teaching and practice about instrumental music? And would you tell other brethren that you know that have some type of affiliation with that person or congregation? Based on what I'm gathering from your post you would not cancel them and you would not publicly share/tell others that could be affected by the teaching.
I am sincerely trying to understand. By saying no, you would not cancel the brother from speaking at the gospel meeting nor tell anybody about what he is teaching? I'm trying to understand if you believe it is wrong to cancel brethren from teaching/preaching at functions of congregation you attend and would not denounce publicly, whether social media or word of mouth, about things you believe a brother is teaching that is sinful? So, I'm trying to understand that one would have to be consistent with what they believe and if you say no you wouldn't cancel the brother from speaking at the congregation you worship at nor publicly denounce the person and there teaching then you are being consistent. The brethren you are disagreeing with their method believe what is taught teaches an act that is sinful therefore they are calling it out publicly because the teaching is public and I would assume for the care of individual's souls being taught such thing. I'm not writing this to get into the debate of is any consumption of alcohol sinful.
One part of the answer to what these people are supposed to do: They are supposed to learn what "false teacher" means in the New Testament and stop abusing the term.
That was already done in the article, where Jack cited the NT examples. To summarize, the false teachers were those who knew that they were teaching something false but continued because they had something to gain. That could be money, or power (e.g. a following).
Nowhere in the NT is the label false teacher applied to someone who unwittingly has a mistaken interpretation of scripture, which is how the term is often used today.
Appreciate that you linked Todd Clippard's piece, that was a well written, and scripturally succinct. I would not have had the chance to read it otherwise. Thank you for your efforts to raise issues like this and make people think deeper. I hate the division, any division, in our congregations and I hope this helps others to see the importance to stand on solid scriptural ground, and strive for unity based on truth. All the while to be able to continue to seek the truth while loving our brother and not doing anything that would make him stumble or offended.
Well said, and I hope we all hate division.
I am reminded of a time when our congregation was hiring a preacher. One of the resumés we received led me to investigate the website of a congregation that was currently employing the applicant. The website was apparently maintained exclusively by the preacher. It was shocking to me that half of the web pages were not even about that congregation, but were condemnations of other congregations in that state. The sins of these other congregations included having so-and-so as a guest speaker, who was objectionable because he said something wrong years ago in another state at some conference, etc.
The spirit behind using your congregational web pages primarily to pronounce anathemas on other congregations is the same spirit behind much of what you wrote about.
My goodness, that's awful. Unfortunately, that's the mindset this approach breeds—that behaving like that is a GOOD thing. It's completely upside-down.
Thanks for providing context to your Facebook post, Jack. I’m very familiar with the ridiculous accusations lobbed by TSOP over the Think Deeper alcohol episode a couple of years ago, but I hadn’t heard of this latest debacle. For all of this to be public turns my stomach, but maybe that’s why God made men to be more confrontational (and I do see the need). Thanks for taking a stand and imploring our brethren to be reasonable and loving.
I like what you’ve written.
My question or thoughts would be this: under what authority do the para-church organizations have to tell the greater church what to do/believe/behave/etc.? And who are these groups accountable to? A local church? Their donors who like them “defending THE truth”?
It’s (past) time for these groups to stop “pastoring the Internet” and acting as if they are our sole authority, or Pope (as mentioned elsewhere). It subverts the local church and local elders. While these groups and individuals serve a purpose and can serve as a resource in helping a local church who has questions, they are NOT the ultimate authority.
For too long the sad, long history of this nonsense over everything from pet doctrines to bruised egos has caused havoc on our fellowship. It MUST stop.
Para-church organizations and the men who run them are NOT the Holy See of the church of Christ. It’s time to get back to focusing on our local congregations and our elders telling some of these groups to know their role and handle it from there.
There's legitimacy in your complaint, but there's also a degree of inevitability to it. For a movement that is anti-creed and confession, we're always going to be hammering out our doctrines, and a lot of times that's going to happen publicly. And, even with autonomous churches, birds of a feather end up together.
So spot on Jonathan! This is really the heart of it, these institutions actually think they run things and many treat them like they do!
I do not believe that a case can be made from scripture that full abstinence is the biblical position, generally.
I believe it’s a good choice to make, nothing wrong with making it but putting that on other people as a requirement for fellowship or salvation cannot be backed up with scripture. With the exception of known alcoholics or when people are around a known alcoholic (in the spirit of Romans 14:21)
The justification for this is usually that wine referred to in the Bible was just grape juice but that doesn’t hold up in context.
In Matthew 9 (also Mark 2 and Luke 5) Our Lord tells the parable of the wine skins. The Greek word used in this parable is “oinos” and it’s the most common word translated to wine in the New Testament.
Verse 17 says: “neither is new wine put into old wine skins if it is the skin bursts and the wine is spilled and the skin is destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved”
What he’s describing here is the fermentation process which produces gas and causes the skins to expand and burst.
The parable is describing the old and new covenants but the language shows that Our Lord and the Apostles understood the word “oinos” to refer to fermented wine.
So you can say it’s wise to abstain and I would probably agree with you but commanding abstinence from non-alcoholics as a matter of salvation or fellowship is just as much a modern development as women preachers or rock bands in worship.
This was interesting. I’ve never heard of the person nor the situation. Did this blow up on Facebook or some substack? I don’t get on social media for anything beyond checking on my kids, maybe that’s why I’m unaware. Sorry such things happen. Back in the days of paper, the burn would have been a lot slower and people would have time to think before typing.
It started on Substack and migrated to Facebook the last couple of days. Unfortunately, our history shows that even when writing in print there are those who stood to gain a lot by making the fellowship as narrow as can be.
The Apostle Paul said something to the Corinthian brethren that seems fitting: "Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law (or social media?) with brother, and that before unbelievers?" I've been walking through the doors of the church building since I was a baby (65 yrs) and I know things like this have happened from time to time. I wish we could get our collective act together.
While I disagree with some about drinking being ok in moderation, brethren I think we have got too much time on our hands.
Instead of finding someone to write up, find someone to study the gospel with. That’s the only way the church will grow.
A lot of people are saying this, but evangelism isn't the only thing we're supposed to do. Addressing the unity of the church isn't some minor distraction, either. How much of the NT epistles were about evangelism?
Fair point! But it is one that can’t be neglected either.
What else are you thinking?
I think we can both evangelize and address those who stir up strife.
It would be good to know what Todd said that resulted in the criticism that he received. He did a good job explaining what he didn't say, but what did he say?
Jack, I stumbled upon this site (or did I?) and I'm glad I did. Perhaps we all should stop, drop, & roll. In this case and in general, shouldn't we keep the main thing the main thing by focusing on the essentials of salvation as outlined in God's Holy Word being fishers of men, bringing as many as possible to obedience in Jesus? Regarding all other topics, sure we should absolutely study, share, pray, and pray some more on it all. However, executing grace, mercy, & love in all & how we communicate in tone & tenor should be considered above all (1 Timothy 1:5). Do you wish to be right all the time OR rather be effective with truth? So, let us all consider how far out on a pet-peeve limb(s) we wish to shuffle because I am certain of this fact; all humans including we flawed yet committed followers of Jesus, NO ONE bats 1.000...#TRUTH.
I’ve tried to find the TSOP rebuttal but cannot. Is it on their site? If so, I can’t seem to find it.
https://terrancebrownlowdindysr.substack.com/p/debunking-the-growing-myth-of-biblically
To begin at this point I'm not taking sides either way but want to make some comments and ask few questions as I try and consider this topic from scripture. On one hand those who call out public error (what they believe to be public error that is) believe they have the right to do so when given topic is taught publicly, especially when it is on youtube, facebook, etc. They use scriptures like you mentioned about Paul calling out Peter publicly because it was a public sin. So I guess my question is when it is something that is publicly taught and is error (for now not discussing what is definition of error) how do you purpose that is handled? For example, a preacher publicly teaches that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable to God and not a sin. This teaching has been taught publicly. Now one other thing I would like your thought or a conversation on is what is error? I would agree there are issues/differences within the church like does the Holy Spirit indwell literally or by the word of God and for the most part all will agree to disagree but not make it a matter of fellowship but clearly both cannot be right. So there is a right and wrong. So how one determines what topics to make a matter of fellowship has to be determined. I personally only see a way scripturally to define as something that would cause one to sin if they accepted and followed given practice that is taught. If you disagree please explain what criteria you decide to consider a fellowship matter. Which if we agree on that then sometimes the problem is then on what some consider a sin. The alcohol is an issue for those who believe consuming alcohol is sinful and therefore a fellowship issue. The New Heaven and New Earth you mentioned to me is not a topic if taught that causes someone to sin. So one has to have a set criteria that they can put every given topic/disagreement against to see if fellowship is an issue. If it is not a matter of causing someone to sin by following the teaching then we should as brothers and sisters be able to agree to disagree and still have fellowship and treat each other properly. So to recap my 2 questions are how do you propose dealing with error that is taught publicly especially in a format that is on youtube, facebook, etc? And what is your criteria for determining what is a fellowship issue?
Those are the key questions, you're right. Since we're all claiming to stand with Scripture, I think we need to add two layers of consideration:
1) How many people disagree on it, and for how long has there been disagreement?
For example, the alcohol issue has many, many proponents on both sides and has had them for a long time. That's a pretty good sign that we're going to have to agree to disagree, because otherwise we would be withdrawing from a lot of people both living and dead.
On the other hand, the acceptability of homosexuality might have an increasing number of proponents today, but there is basically zero historical support for it in the Restoration movement or in the broader Christian world in general.
2) How often is a person finding lines of fellowship?
It's pretty easy to see who the most disfellowship-happy folks are. When Romans 14 means nothing to a person, and every disagreement is seen as a Gospel-level threat, we're probably dealing with a person intent on division and their opinion on anything should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I don't believe how many proponents are on each side make a difference. If a given topic is a matter of sin that can affect somebody's soul scripture is all that matters in determining what to do about a given situation. If someone teaches that instruments of music are acceptable in worship and in their congregation they teach that but in all other doctrinal matters you are the same would you cancel that person from a gospel meeting you had scheduled for them to speak at before you knew their teaching and practice about instrumental music? And would you tell other brethren that you know that have some type of affiliation with that person or congregation? Based on what I'm gathering from your post you would not cancel them and you would not publicly share/tell others that could be affected by the teaching.
No, I don't feel like you're trying to understand.
I am sincerely trying to understand. By saying no, you would not cancel the brother from speaking at the gospel meeting nor tell anybody about what he is teaching? I'm trying to understand if you believe it is wrong to cancel brethren from teaching/preaching at functions of congregation you attend and would not denounce publicly, whether social media or word of mouth, about things you believe a brother is teaching that is sinful? So, I'm trying to understand that one would have to be consistent with what they believe and if you say no you wouldn't cancel the brother from speaking at the congregation you worship at nor publicly denounce the person and there teaching then you are being consistent. The brethren you are disagreeing with their method believe what is taught teaches an act that is sinful therefore they are calling it out publicly because the teaching is public and I would assume for the care of individual's souls being taught such thing. I'm not writing this to get into the debate of is any consumption of alcohol sinful.
One part of the answer to what these people are supposed to do: They are supposed to learn what "false teacher" means in the New Testament and stop abusing the term.
Exactly.
Can you please provide your definition of false teacher from scripture?
That was already done in the article, where Jack cited the NT examples. To summarize, the false teachers were those who knew that they were teaching something false but continued because they had something to gain. That could be money, or power (e.g. a following).
Nowhere in the NT is the label false teacher applied to someone who unwittingly has a mistaken interpretation of scripture, which is how the term is often used today.