I really do appreciate this article. It made me think of why I left the previous church of Christ I attended and started attending another one about thirty minutes away. I ran into issues that ranged anywhere from political issues and foul language being used in the church to the church being opened to performing homosexual marriages. There were at least sixteen different issues that I can recall that came up and did not agree with Bible teaching. If I keep thinking about it, I can probably add to that sixteen. It was a difficult thing to experience but I realized that it was time to leave.
How said that the BIble is not allowed to settle issues. Why is that the case you ask? Because of different views or perhaps paradigms. I left the baptist church in 1978. Lots of adjustments in doctrine needed to be made - all for the correct reason. On the opinion side (doctrine to some) I learned dancing was a sin. So I asked if a husband and wife were "ballroom" dancing was that a sin - No.
It seems to me that it is important to operationalyl define terms. Some doctrines (Apostles traditions) are locked. Adamantine!
For me, the older brothers got it right when they said, "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."
I have read this twice, but still do not know how to take it. I have no college degree (other than business college), so I had to look up one or two words. The "unwritten creed" that hurt your friends which you spoke of - was this something that had biblical authority or was it opinion? In my opinion, we have everything written down - in the Bible. The way the world is changing now, if you wrote everything down as "rules", this would have to be updated at least yearly. To me, that would be a creed book, which the Bible takes care of. I do, however, like what you said at the end: "How about, before we decide what is enough to kick somebody out of heaven, we get some wisdom and agreement on the matter and let people know before they cross the line?" It is our job to kindly let people know if they are doing something contrary to the Word of God before it gets out of hand and they possibly lose their soul.
I just want to add that there is a verse in Ezekiel, chapter 3, verse 20, that especially haunts me. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block fefore him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand."
Therein lies the issue - it is a dispute over a biblical matter, but there is no direct command at play. So, it’s a matter of differing interpretations.
Much of this hinges on our perception of God. Is He a God of love or a God of justice? Unfortunately neither view accepts the balanced character of our God who is (1) just and (2) merciful with an abiding love demonstrated by His grace.
My understanding has been "If it's a matter of sin or not" that determines disfellowship/church discipline as laid out in Matthew 18:15-17. It's interesting this topic, as recently former preacher when I asked how do we determine when to disfellowship someone following Matthew 18 and other passages on church discipline he said he didn't know. I had another preacher of many years tell me only if causing disruption in the church. So, one could be living in sin but as long as not causing public disruption you shouldn't disfellowship that person.
But I've come to find with my understanding of when it is a sin issue that people have different definitions of what is sin or not. Some say it has to be explicitly stated in scripture like Galatians 5:19-21. Others state any false teaching is a "sin" and therefore can be disfellowshiped, for example the teaching going to hell won't be eternally punished but just for a period and then cease to exist. Then you maybe have a third category that by principle would say something is sinful even though explicitly not stated in the sense of Galatians 5:19-21. For example the drinking conversation of all the scriptures listed that talk about how bad it is and therefore is sinful to take one drink. Or stating smoking is sinful because it harms the body (again using principles of scripture your body is a holy temple and therefore need to take care of it).
These 3 categories seem to be what I see normally used for disfellowship whether in local congregation or brotherhood wide when someone or congregation disfellowships a school of preaching or another preacher at another congregation.
I do in a sense believe it wise for a congregation to have a list of what is disfellowship worthy but if that is made known publicly to the congregation just be prepared for some to leave and possibly without even discussing with the leadership and then all the gossip and such that will take place. But it would be laid out clearly so anyone that chooses to worship with given place would know and not be got off guard later. But the con is those who are weak or not christians get their hands on it and may choose never to worship there before actually discussing the scriptures with someone. Or may choose to never visit for the first time. I think traditionally in most congregations it is left up to the leadership to determine this matter and it is always secret where they only know what criteria they use and even sometimes the leadership hasn't had this conversation where they will only discuss specific issue when it comes up but have no game plan prior on where the line is drawn.
I agree, but I add that my “test” (in an earlier post) is how I have determined if a different belief/view/“interpretation” is sinful or not. I’ve known of people getting into fistfights over the date of Revelation (no kidding), when that shouldn’t matter, as far as I can see. Similarly, “the indwelling of the Holy Spirit” being literal or representative doesn’t matter, because a person will live the same. “The operation of the Holy Spirit,” on the other hand, will cause a difference in actions, and therefore is not something that can be overlooked or dismissed.
My test has been, “Will a difference of belief on this issue make me live differently?” Someone who accepts the early date for Revelation may come to different conclusions as to the meaning of symbols than the person who accepts the late date. But both would live the same way because they’d get the same message of “Stay faithful, no matter what.” This would be a difference of opinion but not a matter of fellowship.
Someone who believes in modern revelation might reject a passage of scripture because “God laid this on my heart, so I know it’s okay.” That would be a matter of fellowship.
I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason that this is not a good test for “Is this a fellowship issue or not?”
I think this is an interesting test, but I do believe doctrine has more of an impact than you think. Preterist/historicist/futurist views of Revelation can significantly affect one’s views on Christian cultural engagement, for example.
And if that is the case, then that’s something that matters. I’m not saying at all that doctrine is unimportant, but some things have an impact and some don’t. That’s how I determine which is which.
To clairfy Timothy is asking the question "Would this teaching cause a brother/sister to sin or not based on their understanding of the scripture that could cause them their soul?" the same as your question or different?
I would see that as the same. If doctrine x would not lead them to sin but doctrine y would, then that is a matter where we cannot have a difference of opinion and still be pleasing to God.
We all sin, every day. So if we were disfellowshipped for every sin we committed, there would be no church. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man was living with his father's wife, and no one even cared! They were proud of this instead. The reason to disfellowship him was to keep the other members from following in his footsteps (a little leaven leavens the whole lump), and the influence on those of the world. I am not sure where to draw the line, but we are to follow Christ, not opinions of someone else. If someone continues in a sin after the elders talk to him/her about it and try every way to get the person to repent of the sin, then I believe disfellowship is needed. Believe me, the world is watching, and every one of us needs to examine ourselves daily.
Oh, yes, remember the chairs well. Snarky, but thought-provoking.
Unity and fellowship are big issues, and heaps could be said about them (and appears to have been back in June, judging from the number of comments). One thing I noticed in my studies on unity several years ago is that there's more than one kind. Ephesians 4:3 speaks of the "unity of the Spirit" which must be maintained. It is a condition that all those who have the Spirit already enjoy with one another. Ten verses later, however, Paul speaks of the "unity of the faith..." and uses the word "until" in connection with it. The brethren at Ephesus had the "unity of the Spirit," but did not yet possess the "unity of the faith...." This is entirely in keeping with Rom. 14, Phil. 3:15-16, and other passages--not to mention the whole concept of growth spoken of throughout the NT (where's the room for individual growth and learning among those who make salvation and fellowship contingent on so many doctrines?).
I am a "conservative." I work as an evangelist primarily among non-institutional brethren who believe in sharing the work of teaching and preaching in the assembly among the able and willing brothers of the congregation, rather than employ a preacher to do it. But the Bible has led me to see my brethren of different persuasions differently than I did when I was less acquainted with the Book. The Lord's last prayer in the presence of all the apostles before He went to the cross focused on unity (Jn. 17). Jesus spoke of it five times! And in that prayer He stated twice that unity is an aid to convincing a lost world that He is in fact from God (I guess people reason, "Like King, like kingdom."). To be a sower of discord among brethren, then, is to be a traitor to the cause of Christ, a layer of stumbling blocks before the lost.
I have my convictions, and seek to share them in love and respect with brethren of other persuasions (after all, moving toward the unity of the faith is something the Lord wants), but I no longer make the unity of Eph. 4:13 a condition for the unity of Eph. 4:3.
Good day to you and I hope all is well. I really appreciate your articles. They are very beneficial and I have even borrowed some your points to include in Bible lessons I teach at times. If it’s ok, I would like to share what I have been through concerning fellowship issues. For a little over ten years or so, I attended a church of Christ here in central Kansas. I had great relationships with the brothers and sisters during my time there and still communicate with one of the brothers at this congregation. Over time, I noticed things that I struggled to agree with in this congregation. I will be more than happy to go into these issues at a later time if there is any interest. If not, that is no problem. I endured very questionable teaching on Christmas, dancing during church services, alcohol use/social drinking, teaching on sex and marriage, musical instruments, politics, baptism, the Apocrypha, ect. During all this, I exercised patience. I did reach out to the men providing leadership (this congregation does not have elders) via email and attempted to provide correction but for the most part, those emails were ignored and never responded to. About a year and half ago, the preacher that is currently there, informed the Bible class on one Sunday morning that he would probably be open to the idea of performing a homosexual marriage if he were ever asked to. He agreed to this despite the fact that there is a document in the building that several men (including myself) signed off on and agreed that we would not support a homosexual marriage. I emailed some of the men in the congregation and asked about this issues and the questions I had were never a answered. I did have one of the women in the church text me and explain that she tried talking to the preacher about his error of being open to homosexual marriages and she said it did no good at all. Shortly after this as I was getting ready for Wednesday night class my daughter texted me and informed me that the children’s Bible class was cancelled because the preacher and his wife were taking their two young children to a VBS at a denominational congregation (this particular congregation does not support baptism as a means for for salvation - see Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 et al - and it supports the false idea of a rapture). When this happened, that was the end of it for me and my family. It bothered me greatly and I prayed for guidance but we had to leave. At the time, I was responsible for teaching Wednesday night bible class so that made it even harder. But we left and are now attending a church of Christ about 30 minutes away. So far, things are decent at this congregation and we have met a lot of very nice people and there are even elders. On the down side, the preacher at this congregation actually believes that he is a prophet and is open to denominationalism to a certain degree. I have had to explain to my wife that no matter where we go to church, we will not find a perfect congregation and we have to figure out where to draw the line and find balance. The line was crossed when the preacher at the previous church decided to perform homosexual marriages and then cancel children’s bible class for a VBS at a denominational congregation. In your opinion, where do lines get crossed when it comes to fellowship issues? I understand that can be a broad questions but I feel that it is a very important question. Thank you.
Hey Jack, good thoughts that we all need to consider ourselves. Ultimately the decision for any congregation is going to lie with the eldership, but that doesn't me that we shouldn't consider this ourselves. I'm curious if you have a list yourself that you would be willing to share?
A good article, that calls all of us to be able/willing to identify our own areas of...won't change. I've looked for God's grey areas, and find none. And yet, in all the sins listed in those 7 churches of Asia in Revelations, only 1 was given the threat of having their lamp blown out. We need to be careful of what we don't 'tolerate', just as we need to be careful of what we do tolerate. Our only map is the Bible. And before we dis-allow others, we need to make sure we seriously are right to allow ourselves our own activities.
the church was built by christ and he died for her. therefore, sin should be taken seriously; anyone bringing reproach on the church should be admonished. its not a matter of feelings, or being justified by your feelings, but a matter of faith and obedience. even though I never thought about it until the reading of this article, I agree that written definitions should be established to avoid future disagreements in terms ( which invariably leads to the slippery slope) to prepare for when the evil one invites himself into the flock.
Thanks for these thoughts, Jack. In response to the video, you write, “There’s only one glaring issue: Rick never points out which chair he would consider beyond fellowship.”
I think Mr. Atchley’s assertion early in the video that “there are no liberals in our movement” makes it pretty clear that he wouldn’t disfellowship anybody based on the beliefs highlighted in the illustration. His whole point simply seems to be that the “argument from silence” isn’t a good principle for drawing lines of fellowship. Whereas the subtitle of your article is “Where do you draw the line?” Mr. Atchley’s question is “What tool should we use to draw the line?”
Having said that, it may be that Mr. Atchley personally disagrees with several of the practices highlighted in the video, but that he disagrees with them for reasons other than their absence from the New Testament. For example, I think a good principle is that our worship ought to be primarily about God rather than us. Therefore, one reason I’m opposed to using instruments in worship is that it tends to put more focus on the musicians rather than on God. But it’s a principle, not a hard-and-fast rule, lest we prohibit song leaders due to the danger of people focusing on them rather than on God.
Is's amazing how much more complicated we have made things in today's modern church. It also is interesting how we have taken the laws or rules of worship and tried to apply them to everyday Christian living. Things such as the woman's role in mixed worship as opposed to simply her role as a Christian woman in life. Left and Right can sometimes be a far distance from Right and Wrong.
Confusing article. You seem to say that opinion matters and doctrinal issues cant be clearly separated. They can be if we are honest. If not then confusion and disharmony will result. Many times I have seen doctrinal softness and cultural celebrations take on the cloak of harmless opinion. Many have an opinion of MDR that is directly contrary to a plain statement in the Bible. That just one iof several issues over the years. Another I have seen back years ago is the use of the book "A taste of new wine" by Keith Miller, a quaker activist. Along with it came one member or two that wanted to have encounter groups. When challenged these aberrants said this is an off campus study and in their opinion it was ok and no one could challenge it because of their freedom in Christ. However the Bible gives us a judgment tool - by the fruits you shall know them. This is a concept that cures much of this chair drill mentioned in your post.
I really do appreciate this article. It made me think of why I left the previous church of Christ I attended and started attending another one about thirty minutes away. I ran into issues that ranged anywhere from political issues and foul language being used in the church to the church being opened to performing homosexual marriages. There were at least sixteen different issues that I can recall that came up and did not agree with Bible teaching. If I keep thinking about it, I can probably add to that sixteen. It was a difficult thing to experience but I realized that it was time to leave.
Hate to hear that, but I can’t blame you. Always a tough decision but at a certain point, enough is enough.
How said that the BIble is not allowed to settle issues. Why is that the case you ask? Because of different views or perhaps paradigms. I left the baptist church in 1978. Lots of adjustments in doctrine needed to be made - all for the correct reason. On the opinion side (doctrine to some) I learned dancing was a sin. So I asked if a husband and wife were "ballroom" dancing was that a sin - No.
It seems to me that it is important to operationalyl define terms. Some doctrines (Apostles traditions) are locked. Adamantine!
For me, the older brothers got it right when they said, "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."
I have read this twice, but still do not know how to take it. I have no college degree (other than business college), so I had to look up one or two words. The "unwritten creed" that hurt your friends which you spoke of - was this something that had biblical authority or was it opinion? In my opinion, we have everything written down - in the Bible. The way the world is changing now, if you wrote everything down as "rules", this would have to be updated at least yearly. To me, that would be a creed book, which the Bible takes care of. I do, however, like what you said at the end: "How about, before we decide what is enough to kick somebody out of heaven, we get some wisdom and agreement on the matter and let people know before they cross the line?" It is our job to kindly let people know if they are doing something contrary to the Word of God before it gets out of hand and they possibly lose their soul.
I just want to add that there is a verse in Ezekiel, chapter 3, verse 20, that especially haunts me. "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block fefore him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand."
Therein lies the issue - it is a dispute over a biblical matter, but there is no direct command at play. So, it’s a matter of differing interpretations.
Much of this hinges on our perception of God. Is He a God of love or a God of justice? Unfortunately neither view accepts the balanced character of our God who is (1) just and (2) merciful with an abiding love demonstrated by His grace.
For sure. And both sides are adept at pointing out the ditch of the other side while being blind to our own.
My understanding has been "If it's a matter of sin or not" that determines disfellowship/church discipline as laid out in Matthew 18:15-17. It's interesting this topic, as recently former preacher when I asked how do we determine when to disfellowship someone following Matthew 18 and other passages on church discipline he said he didn't know. I had another preacher of many years tell me only if causing disruption in the church. So, one could be living in sin but as long as not causing public disruption you shouldn't disfellowship that person.
But I've come to find with my understanding of when it is a sin issue that people have different definitions of what is sin or not. Some say it has to be explicitly stated in scripture like Galatians 5:19-21. Others state any false teaching is a "sin" and therefore can be disfellowshiped, for example the teaching going to hell won't be eternally punished but just for a period and then cease to exist. Then you maybe have a third category that by principle would say something is sinful even though explicitly not stated in the sense of Galatians 5:19-21. For example the drinking conversation of all the scriptures listed that talk about how bad it is and therefore is sinful to take one drink. Or stating smoking is sinful because it harms the body (again using principles of scripture your body is a holy temple and therefore need to take care of it).
These 3 categories seem to be what I see normally used for disfellowship whether in local congregation or brotherhood wide when someone or congregation disfellowships a school of preaching or another preacher at another congregation.
I do in a sense believe it wise for a congregation to have a list of what is disfellowship worthy but if that is made known publicly to the congregation just be prepared for some to leave and possibly without even discussing with the leadership and then all the gossip and such that will take place. But it would be laid out clearly so anyone that chooses to worship with given place would know and not be got off guard later. But the con is those who are weak or not christians get their hands on it and may choose never to worship there before actually discussing the scriptures with someone. Or may choose to never visit for the first time. I think traditionally in most congregations it is left up to the leadership to determine this matter and it is always secret where they only know what criteria they use and even sometimes the leadership hasn't had this conversation where they will only discuss specific issue when it comes up but have no game plan prior on where the line is drawn.
I agree, but I add that my “test” (in an earlier post) is how I have determined if a different belief/view/“interpretation” is sinful or not. I’ve known of people getting into fistfights over the date of Revelation (no kidding), when that shouldn’t matter, as far as I can see. Similarly, “the indwelling of the Holy Spirit” being literal or representative doesn’t matter, because a person will live the same. “The operation of the Holy Spirit,” on the other hand, will cause a difference in actions, and therefore is not something that can be overlooked or dismissed.
My test has been, “Will a difference of belief on this issue make me live differently?” Someone who accepts the early date for Revelation may come to different conclusions as to the meaning of symbols than the person who accepts the late date. But both would live the same way because they’d get the same message of “Stay faithful, no matter what.” This would be a difference of opinion but not a matter of fellowship.
Someone who believes in modern revelation might reject a passage of scripture because “God laid this on my heart, so I know it’s okay.” That would be a matter of fellowship.
I have yet to hear anyone give me a good reason that this is not a good test for “Is this a fellowship issue or not?”
I think this is an interesting test, but I do believe doctrine has more of an impact than you think. Preterist/historicist/futurist views of Revelation can significantly affect one’s views on Christian cultural engagement, for example.
And if that is the case, then that’s something that matters. I’m not saying at all that doctrine is unimportant, but some things have an impact and some don’t. That’s how I determine which is which.
To clairfy Timothy is asking the question "Would this teaching cause a brother/sister to sin or not based on their understanding of the scripture that could cause them their soul?" the same as your question or different?
I would see that as the same. If doctrine x would not lead them to sin but doctrine y would, then that is a matter where we cannot have a difference of opinion and still be pleasing to God.
We all sin, every day. So if we were disfellowshipped for every sin we committed, there would be no church. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man was living with his father's wife, and no one even cared! They were proud of this instead. The reason to disfellowship him was to keep the other members from following in his footsteps (a little leaven leavens the whole lump), and the influence on those of the world. I am not sure where to draw the line, but we are to follow Christ, not opinions of someone else. If someone continues in a sin after the elders talk to him/her about it and try every way to get the person to repent of the sin, then I believe disfellowship is needed. Believe me, the world is watching, and every one of us needs to examine ourselves daily.
Oh, yes, remember the chairs well. Snarky, but thought-provoking.
Unity and fellowship are big issues, and heaps could be said about them (and appears to have been back in June, judging from the number of comments). One thing I noticed in my studies on unity several years ago is that there's more than one kind. Ephesians 4:3 speaks of the "unity of the Spirit" which must be maintained. It is a condition that all those who have the Spirit already enjoy with one another. Ten verses later, however, Paul speaks of the "unity of the faith..." and uses the word "until" in connection with it. The brethren at Ephesus had the "unity of the Spirit," but did not yet possess the "unity of the faith...." This is entirely in keeping with Rom. 14, Phil. 3:15-16, and other passages--not to mention the whole concept of growth spoken of throughout the NT (where's the room for individual growth and learning among those who make salvation and fellowship contingent on so many doctrines?).
I am a "conservative." I work as an evangelist primarily among non-institutional brethren who believe in sharing the work of teaching and preaching in the assembly among the able and willing brothers of the congregation, rather than employ a preacher to do it. But the Bible has led me to see my brethren of different persuasions differently than I did when I was less acquainted with the Book. The Lord's last prayer in the presence of all the apostles before He went to the cross focused on unity (Jn. 17). Jesus spoke of it five times! And in that prayer He stated twice that unity is an aid to convincing a lost world that He is in fact from God (I guess people reason, "Like King, like kingdom."). To be a sower of discord among brethren, then, is to be a traitor to the cause of Christ, a layer of stumbling blocks before the lost.
I have my convictions, and seek to share them in love and respect with brethren of other persuasions (after all, moving toward the unity of the faith is something the Lord wants), but I no longer make the unity of Eph. 4:13 a condition for the unity of Eph. 4:3.
Good day to you and I hope all is well. I really appreciate your articles. They are very beneficial and I have even borrowed some your points to include in Bible lessons I teach at times. If it’s ok, I would like to share what I have been through concerning fellowship issues. For a little over ten years or so, I attended a church of Christ here in central Kansas. I had great relationships with the brothers and sisters during my time there and still communicate with one of the brothers at this congregation. Over time, I noticed things that I struggled to agree with in this congregation. I will be more than happy to go into these issues at a later time if there is any interest. If not, that is no problem. I endured very questionable teaching on Christmas, dancing during church services, alcohol use/social drinking, teaching on sex and marriage, musical instruments, politics, baptism, the Apocrypha, ect. During all this, I exercised patience. I did reach out to the men providing leadership (this congregation does not have elders) via email and attempted to provide correction but for the most part, those emails were ignored and never responded to. About a year and half ago, the preacher that is currently there, informed the Bible class on one Sunday morning that he would probably be open to the idea of performing a homosexual marriage if he were ever asked to. He agreed to this despite the fact that there is a document in the building that several men (including myself) signed off on and agreed that we would not support a homosexual marriage. I emailed some of the men in the congregation and asked about this issues and the questions I had were never a answered. I did have one of the women in the church text me and explain that she tried talking to the preacher about his error of being open to homosexual marriages and she said it did no good at all. Shortly after this as I was getting ready for Wednesday night class my daughter texted me and informed me that the children’s Bible class was cancelled because the preacher and his wife were taking their two young children to a VBS at a denominational congregation (this particular congregation does not support baptism as a means for for salvation - see Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 et al - and it supports the false idea of a rapture). When this happened, that was the end of it for me and my family. It bothered me greatly and I prayed for guidance but we had to leave. At the time, I was responsible for teaching Wednesday night bible class so that made it even harder. But we left and are now attending a church of Christ about 30 minutes away. So far, things are decent at this congregation and we have met a lot of very nice people and there are even elders. On the down side, the preacher at this congregation actually believes that he is a prophet and is open to denominationalism to a certain degree. I have had to explain to my wife that no matter where we go to church, we will not find a perfect congregation and we have to figure out where to draw the line and find balance. The line was crossed when the preacher at the previous church decided to perform homosexual marriages and then cancel children’s bible class for a VBS at a denominational congregation. In your opinion, where do lines get crossed when it comes to fellowship issues? I understand that can be a broad questions but I feel that it is a very important question. Thank you.
Hey Jack, good thoughts that we all need to consider ourselves. Ultimately the decision for any congregation is going to lie with the eldership, but that doesn't me that we shouldn't consider this ourselves. I'm curious if you have a list yourself that you would be willing to share?
A good article, that calls all of us to be able/willing to identify our own areas of...won't change. I've looked for God's grey areas, and find none. And yet, in all the sins listed in those 7 churches of Asia in Revelations, only 1 was given the threat of having their lamp blown out. We need to be careful of what we don't 'tolerate', just as we need to be careful of what we do tolerate. Our only map is the Bible. And before we dis-allow others, we need to make sure we seriously are right to allow ourselves our own activities.
the church was built by christ and he died for her. therefore, sin should be taken seriously; anyone bringing reproach on the church should be admonished. its not a matter of feelings, or being justified by your feelings, but a matter of faith and obedience. even though I never thought about it until the reading of this article, I agree that written definitions should be established to avoid future disagreements in terms ( which invariably leads to the slippery slope) to prepare for when the evil one invites himself into the flock.
Thanks for these thoughts, Jack. In response to the video, you write, “There’s only one glaring issue: Rick never points out which chair he would consider beyond fellowship.”
I think Mr. Atchley’s assertion early in the video that “there are no liberals in our movement” makes it pretty clear that he wouldn’t disfellowship anybody based on the beliefs highlighted in the illustration. His whole point simply seems to be that the “argument from silence” isn’t a good principle for drawing lines of fellowship. Whereas the subtitle of your article is “Where do you draw the line?” Mr. Atchley’s question is “What tool should we use to draw the line?”
Having said that, it may be that Mr. Atchley personally disagrees with several of the practices highlighted in the video, but that he disagrees with them for reasons other than their absence from the New Testament. For example, I think a good principle is that our worship ought to be primarily about God rather than us. Therefore, one reason I’m opposed to using instruments in worship is that it tends to put more focus on the musicians rather than on God. But it’s a principle, not a hard-and-fast rule, lest we prohibit song leaders due to the danger of people focusing on them rather than on God.
Is's amazing how much more complicated we have made things in today's modern church. It also is interesting how we have taken the laws or rules of worship and tried to apply them to everyday Christian living. Things such as the woman's role in mixed worship as opposed to simply her role as a Christian woman in life. Left and Right can sometimes be a far distance from Right and Wrong.
Confusing article. You seem to say that opinion matters and doctrinal issues cant be clearly separated. They can be if we are honest. If not then confusion and disharmony will result. Many times I have seen doctrinal softness and cultural celebrations take on the cloak of harmless opinion. Many have an opinion of MDR that is directly contrary to a plain statement in the Bible. That just one iof several issues over the years. Another I have seen back years ago is the use of the book "A taste of new wine" by Keith Miller, a quaker activist. Along with it came one member or two that wanted to have encounter groups. When challenged these aberrants said this is an off campus study and in their opinion it was ok and no one could challenge it because of their freedom in Christ. However the Bible gives us a judgment tool - by the fruits you shall know them. This is a concept that cures much of this chair drill mentioned in your post.