Michael Novak had an interesting comment about the President signing an executive order approving of tax payer money paying for abortions overseas. Those funds go to countries who value children and they wonder why Americans want to kill them. They do not see things the way secularists see them and look at us in a negative light. So much for trying to make an improvement on America's status overseas. It gives "the ugly American" a whole new meaning.
Frederica Mathewes-Green offers another view on abortion. She comments on the changing views on abortion, but not what many think. While the boomers are growing older, it is the younger generation that will soon be in control. And they will see that the 49 millions abortions were their brothers and sisters, and that they might have been aborted; they then find common ground with those babies. She goes on to comment that that generation might not to well on the boomers, seeing them as murderers.
Both authors make interesting comments that secularists, and some religionists, might not like. We are getting change but maybe not the kind we wanted. Even several theologians who were supportive of the new President have been disappointed with his recent decision.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Facing Our Failure
FACING OUR FAILURE
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them” (2 John 9-10).
After more than thirty years of preaching and observing people, I have often asked myself why people think the way they do. I have stirred up people by some of the things I have said and have been surprised by the reactions. I have taught texts in which there are more than one point of view that are held by brothers and sisters in Christ, yet only one view is allowed to be taught in a certain place, and if that view is not taught, then the person teaching it is teaching falsely. In fact, the above text is one, which we will look at below.
We in churches of Christ started as a unity movement and developed ways in which we could attain that. We will speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. We have matters of faith that we see as extremely important, even affecting salvation, matters of opinion where we should agree to disagree, and matters of inference that we understand in some way comes from scripture. Over the years, matters of faith have expanded and matters of opinion have often become matters of faith, at least for some. This becomes very challenging for teachers in particular as to how to work in such atmospheres.
Many issues fall into the above discussion. Divorce and remarriage, singing during the Lord’s Supper, clapping, praying to Jesus, choirs, instrumental music, lifting up hands, women serving as deaf translators in an assembly, children’s worship, celebrating holidays, singing with a piano at home, an elder whose wife has died remains an elder or should he resign, meeting in small groups, the Holy Spirit, Bible translations, and offering an invitation after each sermon have been talked and debated. Many preachers who continue to fellowship each other are often in disagreement, having differing points of view on any number of the above. The problem is that when a preacher holds one point of view, and emphasizes it, the impression left to those in the pew is that this is the only way we can look at it. Those members then enforce this particular view as the only way to see it and anything else is false teaching. “Why such a dogmatic stand?” is a question I have asked myself over the years.
When I attended Sunset (1), the instructors sometimes disagreed with each other on texts and issues, yet not once did they ever label or criticized their fellow instructors as false teachers. My view when I left school was that we can disagree and still have fellowship. It did not take long for me to realize that there are those who see that there can be no disagreement, and if there is, someone is wrong. This has led to very bad attitudes, divisiveness, name calling, and distrust. Again, I have asked myself why such extreme reactions?
Well I’m not the only one who has asked these questions. Todd Deaver is the son and grandson of well known preachers in conservative churches of Christ. He has written a new book called Facing Our Failure (2). In the book, subtitled “The fellowship dilemma in conservative Churches of Christ, he points out that while we have attempted to draw lines of fellowship, we have not been consistent in so doing. We have divided into salvation issues and non-salvation issues, yet, according to Todd, when asked to identify which is which, there is often different lists of what must be believed and what isn’t in that category. With 257 footnotes, he certainly documents his case. If you are interested in the subject of the extent of fellowship, this book is worth reading. His goal in this book is to challenge our thinking about how and why we draw lines. We have just not been consistent in our emphasis on fellowship, and based on our current way of examining issues, we will never be. “Brethren, we are in plain self-contradiction…Unless we are willing to live in religious self-contradiction, we must take our theology back to the drawing board…I realize what the reader is being asked to do is not easy. It is incredibly hard to let go of a belief system that has become integral to our identity. We cling to it all the more tenaciously because we’ve been warned, repeatedly and emphatically, that our very salvation depends on it. Giving up our traditional approach to fellowship, we were taught, is nothing short of apostasy. That’s why the sole purpose of this book has been to destabilize the tradition view” (3).
He is a brave young man and is paying a price for challenging the traditional views. He has not offered a solution at this time because he wants us to debate our interpretative methods first. Others have written about this but are often attacked because of their solutions without dealing with the problem. Todd has decided to hold off on the solution (which I eagerly await in a future book) and debate how we determine fellowship. Pray for him in his quest, and again, the book is worth reading.
Now back to my question as to why people become so dogmatic in their views. The light came on when Todd discussed 2 John 9-10. In churches of Christ, there are two views to the meaning of “the teaching of Christ.” The first view is that John is writing with concerns about those teaching that Christ did not come in the flesh, an early but developing form of Gnosticism (4). The teaching of Christ is that He came in the flesh and that if one did not believe that, there should be no fellowship. This is my view.
The second view is that “the teaching of Christ” is the entire New Testament so that any disagreement with any interpretation of the New Testament is false teaching. In essence, we have to be right on each and ever issue or interpretation, or we will not be saved. “Our salvation depends on it. Why? Because if we teach error regarding the boundaries of fellowship, we have gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and forfeited our salvation” (5). We have developed a legalistic system that requires flawless obedience in every issue. This view affects everything we say and do. That is why if there are two views to an issue, and only one can be right, and I have position or authority, then I can state that I am right and you are wrong; I am saved, since my salvation depends on my rightness, and you are lost because you do not agree with me.
While many of the preachers Todd quotes disagree and would be in fellowship with each other, there are those in local churches who do not hear or see that, and draw tight lines of fellowship because they do not read widely or listen to others who disagree. One will be lost if one does not hold the “right” view of a text. That is why this is legalism. How one sees God in all this plays a role in our understanding. Some view God as the Judge who will follow the law flawlessly and so must we. In reality, we have made our interpretation our god; we bow down to the rightness or wrongness of our views. There is no grace in this system, grace defined as God giving us what we need out of His love, not what we deserve.
We all like to be right in our understanding of scripture, but as we continue to study, we realize that our salvation depends not on my interpretation but in the work of Christ on the cross. Jesus came in the flesh, died, and was bodily resurrected from the dead. Based on that, I walk with Him in the light of His word, humbly learning how to live and believe in my life. I am not perfect and must humbly learn as I continue to study (see Philippians 3:12-14). May God bless us in our walk!
George B. Mearns
(1) That is, the Sunset School of Preaching, now Sunset International Bible Institute.
(2) Self-published, 2008. It can be ordered through eBay.
(3) Facing Our Failure, p. 108.
(4) John writes to churches in Asia Minor in the last quarter of the first century. It is here that Gnostic teaching began to develop and John in all of his books was dealing with it in one way or another.
(5) op. cit., p. 85.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them” (2 John 9-10).
After more than thirty years of preaching and observing people, I have often asked myself why people think the way they do. I have stirred up people by some of the things I have said and have been surprised by the reactions. I have taught texts in which there are more than one point of view that are held by brothers and sisters in Christ, yet only one view is allowed to be taught in a certain place, and if that view is not taught, then the person teaching it is teaching falsely. In fact, the above text is one, which we will look at below.
We in churches of Christ started as a unity movement and developed ways in which we could attain that. We will speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. We have matters of faith that we see as extremely important, even affecting salvation, matters of opinion where we should agree to disagree, and matters of inference that we understand in some way comes from scripture. Over the years, matters of faith have expanded and matters of opinion have often become matters of faith, at least for some. This becomes very challenging for teachers in particular as to how to work in such atmospheres.
Many issues fall into the above discussion. Divorce and remarriage, singing during the Lord’s Supper, clapping, praying to Jesus, choirs, instrumental music, lifting up hands, women serving as deaf translators in an assembly, children’s worship, celebrating holidays, singing with a piano at home, an elder whose wife has died remains an elder or should he resign, meeting in small groups, the Holy Spirit, Bible translations, and offering an invitation after each sermon have been talked and debated. Many preachers who continue to fellowship each other are often in disagreement, having differing points of view on any number of the above. The problem is that when a preacher holds one point of view, and emphasizes it, the impression left to those in the pew is that this is the only way we can look at it. Those members then enforce this particular view as the only way to see it and anything else is false teaching. “Why such a dogmatic stand?” is a question I have asked myself over the years.
When I attended Sunset (1), the instructors sometimes disagreed with each other on texts and issues, yet not once did they ever label or criticized their fellow instructors as false teachers. My view when I left school was that we can disagree and still have fellowship. It did not take long for me to realize that there are those who see that there can be no disagreement, and if there is, someone is wrong. This has led to very bad attitudes, divisiveness, name calling, and distrust. Again, I have asked myself why such extreme reactions?
Well I’m not the only one who has asked these questions. Todd Deaver is the son and grandson of well known preachers in conservative churches of Christ. He has written a new book called Facing Our Failure (2). In the book, subtitled “The fellowship dilemma in conservative Churches of Christ, he points out that while we have attempted to draw lines of fellowship, we have not been consistent in so doing. We have divided into salvation issues and non-salvation issues, yet, according to Todd, when asked to identify which is which, there is often different lists of what must be believed and what isn’t in that category. With 257 footnotes, he certainly documents his case. If you are interested in the subject of the extent of fellowship, this book is worth reading. His goal in this book is to challenge our thinking about how and why we draw lines. We have just not been consistent in our emphasis on fellowship, and based on our current way of examining issues, we will never be. “Brethren, we are in plain self-contradiction…Unless we are willing to live in religious self-contradiction, we must take our theology back to the drawing board…I realize what the reader is being asked to do is not easy. It is incredibly hard to let go of a belief system that has become integral to our identity. We cling to it all the more tenaciously because we’ve been warned, repeatedly and emphatically, that our very salvation depends on it. Giving up our traditional approach to fellowship, we were taught, is nothing short of apostasy. That’s why the sole purpose of this book has been to destabilize the tradition view” (3).
He is a brave young man and is paying a price for challenging the traditional views. He has not offered a solution at this time because he wants us to debate our interpretative methods first. Others have written about this but are often attacked because of their solutions without dealing with the problem. Todd has decided to hold off on the solution (which I eagerly await in a future book) and debate how we determine fellowship. Pray for him in his quest, and again, the book is worth reading.
Now back to my question as to why people become so dogmatic in their views. The light came on when Todd discussed 2 John 9-10. In churches of Christ, there are two views to the meaning of “the teaching of Christ.” The first view is that John is writing with concerns about those teaching that Christ did not come in the flesh, an early but developing form of Gnosticism (4). The teaching of Christ is that He came in the flesh and that if one did not believe that, there should be no fellowship. This is my view.
The second view is that “the teaching of Christ” is the entire New Testament so that any disagreement with any interpretation of the New Testament is false teaching. In essence, we have to be right on each and ever issue or interpretation, or we will not be saved. “Our salvation depends on it. Why? Because if we teach error regarding the boundaries of fellowship, we have gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and forfeited our salvation” (5). We have developed a legalistic system that requires flawless obedience in every issue. This view affects everything we say and do. That is why if there are two views to an issue, and only one can be right, and I have position or authority, then I can state that I am right and you are wrong; I am saved, since my salvation depends on my rightness, and you are lost because you do not agree with me.
While many of the preachers Todd quotes disagree and would be in fellowship with each other, there are those in local churches who do not hear or see that, and draw tight lines of fellowship because they do not read widely or listen to others who disagree. One will be lost if one does not hold the “right” view of a text. That is why this is legalism. How one sees God in all this plays a role in our understanding. Some view God as the Judge who will follow the law flawlessly and so must we. In reality, we have made our interpretation our god; we bow down to the rightness or wrongness of our views. There is no grace in this system, grace defined as God giving us what we need out of His love, not what we deserve.
We all like to be right in our understanding of scripture, but as we continue to study, we realize that our salvation depends not on my interpretation but in the work of Christ on the cross. Jesus came in the flesh, died, and was bodily resurrected from the dead. Based on that, I walk with Him in the light of His word, humbly learning how to live and believe in my life. I am not perfect and must humbly learn as I continue to study (see Philippians 3:12-14). May God bless us in our walk!
George B. Mearns
(1) That is, the Sunset School of Preaching, now Sunset International Bible Institute.
(2) Self-published, 2008. It can be ordered through eBay.
(3) Facing Our Failure, p. 108.
(4) John writes to churches in Asia Minor in the last quarter of the first century. It is here that Gnostic teaching began to develop and John in all of his books was dealing with it in one way or another.
(5) op. cit., p. 85.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
presidents
We were talking last night about being thankful for our nation. One member commented that not in very many places in this world can one see three former presidents, one current, and one future gathered together to eat lunch and discuss issues. We might not agree with them on everything, or very much, but still, we have a easy transition every four or eight years. So we pray for our leaders that God's wisdom will be learned and followed, and we are thankful for our peaceful political change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)