Key to understanding our Stone-Campbell heritage is appreciating the inherent tension within the movement's primary goal. The ultimate goal of the first generation, especially the Campbells, was the unification of all Christians. Unity was primary. The restoration of NT Christianity was the platform upon which Christians from various denominational backgrounds could come together as one body. The development and later divisions of the Stone-Campbell Movement can be basically understood as a tug-of-war between the values of unity and biblical authority. The essence of this struggle can be traced in the various positions our Stone-Campbell forefathers held with regard to the silence of scripture.
What conclusion are we to draw with regard to the many issues about which the Bible is silent? The answers to that hermeneutical question has shaped our brotherhood.
There are basically two extremes here. Position #1: The things about which the Bible is silent are OK. Position #2: The things about which the Bible is silent are forbidden. I've stated these positions as extremes, in reality, most folks fall somewhere in between, generally closer to one side than the other.
The Campbells (Thomas and Alexander) were much closer to position #1. Again, for them the goal of unity was primary, with restoration of the NT pattern as a means to that end. A second generation Stone-Campbellite, David Lipscomb, was a position #2 guy. He is probably the most influencial among those folks who evolved into the noninstrumental Churches of Christ. For Lipscomb and many others like him, this issue of biblical authority was so important, it became a test of fellowship. It was Lipscomb who asked the US Census bureau to list Churches of Christ separately from the Christian Church (Disciples) in 1906.
Today, the Stone-Campbell Movement is broken into three affiliations: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Church/ Churches of Christ (instrumental), and our favorite- Churches of Christ (noninstrumental). Where one draws the line between the extremes of positions #1 & #2 can account for much of the difference in these three strands.
Unfortunately, the line drawing did not stop with the three strands. Within the Churches of Christ (noninstrumental) alone, there are a host of subdivisions. Consult Mac Lynn's manual for Churches of Christ and you will see that a key for symbols designating the various subdivisions is included for sake of clarity. Within Scioto County, there are a number of congregations of Stone-Campbell origin. By and large, these congregations do not interact.
Again, this arbitrary line drawn between positions #1 & #2 can explain a lot of what we experience. Most folks from the Wheelersburg Church of Christ would not extend the hand of fellowship to us. Why? Because they feel we have taken liberties with biblical authority that are simply reprehensible. We do not extend the hand of fellowship to folks at the Central Church of Christ. Why? Same reason. Central does not fellowship with First Christian (Disciples of Christ). Why? I assume you are catching on by now.
This matter of biblical authority is not a cut-and-dry matter. Obviously, it is very important. These issues have been debated in Christian circles for centuries.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Silence of Scripture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I recently read Together In Christ by Rick Atchley and Bob Russel. This book talks about the need to restore unity in Christ after a century of separation. It was a thought provoking book, that deepened my understanding of the Stone-Campbell movement, and the need for unity between the brotherhood. I highly recommend the book.
I was raised at Sunshine. I was taught the same things that the Wheelersburg Church teaches. Wheelersburg has remained rooted in their beliefs while Sunshine has adapted to the times.
Something to think about.....
I think you need to read the post as a whole, not just pick out the part about Wheelersburg and take offense. That was not the point.
...rooted in belief - adapting to the times..
It is something to think about. Thoroughout the history of our movement their have been numerous voices crying out that segments of the brotherhood have gone the way of liberalism, modernism, post-modernism, etc. My post is not seeking to reflect negatively on any position. I am suggesting that these divisions within us can be "basically" explained by noting the line that one (or a congregation) draws between the extreme positions on biblical silence. And this is an outgrowth of the tension between the complementary/competing values of unity and restoration.
These thoughts are by no means original with me. These ideas have been expressed hundreds of times in books, essays, and journals by folks who reflect historically on the Stone-Campbell Movement.
The "hidden" punch of the post is that I have referred to this line as arbitrary. By arbitrary I am suggesting that its location has as much to do with sociological, economic, and educational factors as it does with book, chapter, and verse.
One side says, "You have left your roots," the other retorts, "You are too rigid and out-of-touch," and it goes on and on, each side marshalling biblical references defending their respective stance.
I believe that the only possibility of escaping this divisive rut is by approaching this from a different perspective.
Perhaps if a subject is not mentioned, the reason for omission is that there is no broad approach that can always be blindly applied. Yikes. It could be that we need to turn off autopilot for a while and make some decisions based on our faith and love applied to the situation. (Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like adapting.) Perhaps life is not a true/false test but is closer to an essay exam.
Being "rooted" in one's beliefs should contain at least some element of adapting to the times. Christ came for people, not for law. I truly believe that God wants a genuine relationship with His people. That can be a little scary. People in general tend to just want the easy route and would prefer not to contribute their part of the relationship. "God, just tell us the answers." After all, who wants to learn? We would rather just get on with what we already know and being "right" all the time.
I imagine that many of our most divisive issues are like the question of chocolate vs vanilla to Him. (Though clearly God intended for us to prefer chocolate.) We rage on with our limited vision but our understanding of God is not what defines Him. He is much greater. (Maybe He prefers Rocky Road.)
Many of us are still living in the "flat earth" stage of our spiritual growth. We are all too ready to execute both Columbus and Galileo for anything they have to offer. In other words, we believe that our personal experience must be the extent of existence and anything that is outside our realm of access must be wrong.
So, Jason, what is the question you are asking or are you just making us aware of the rift? What are some of the issues on which the scripture is silent? It is safe to assume that not everyone that attends Sunshine is rooted or even aware of the tradition of the Church of Christ. I am not really sure where my views place me but I believe that I have found a church that offers me both a place to worship and opportunities for growth. I tend to lean toward the idea that unmentioned topics are neither forbidden or okay... it just depends on the environment and circumstances and should be filtered through love. God gave us not only the gift of the Bible but also the Holy Spirit. To use a cheesy metaphor, the Bible is our manual and the Holy Spirit is the technical support.
Excellent comment, Matt! I was reading it outloud to Tim this morning and I kept saying "Amen". I was not raised in the church of Christ. I started coming to Sunshine in 1991 as a junior in high school.
Up until that point, I had only occassionally visited the Glendale church of Christ (instrumental) when I was a toddler just because my mom's parents went there. Then as I got into grade school, I went fairly often with my dad's mom and sister to a pentecostal church of God.
The "no musical instruments allowed rule" is very, very new to me. I have never understood why it is so "forbidden" to use instruments when the bible doesn't tell you not to. It simply doesn't say anything bad about using instruments at all.
Instruments are just one of the issues here, I know, but this has been a big issue for me since attending Sunshine. I believe that just because Sunshine doesn't believe that God wants us to use instruments during our worship services, doesn't mean that we should look down on everyone who does use instruments. Turning Christians against one another and keeping us separate so we cannot work together and accomplish God's mission for the church as a whole is entirely Satan at work!!!!
I believe what the bible says over what any preacher or elder or deacon tells me. Just because Sunshine believes and teaches certain things, does not make those things the right way of doing them. God's way is right and humans are wrong.....ALWAYS.
I believe you can speak to God and talk about God to others through music. Music is a universal language just like laughter is.
The question is: When we play our musical instruments whether in the church building or out in the world, who are we talking about? Who are we talking to?
What about the Yankee Roosters? Who or what are they playing and singing about?
The point is: When you eat, when you play, when you rise in the morning, when you lie down at night, when you go to work, ....whatever you do, do it for the glory of God!
The Christian life is not about what we can't do, it's about what we CAN do through Christ.
I believe we as so called followers of Jesus Christ need to start looking at other Christians like Jesus did. LOVE ONE ANOTHER!
Jennifer
Jennifer, you said it... "it's about what we CAN do"... this echoes a sermon that I recall Jon Coriell delivering some time ago. If Jon is reading, perhaps he will say it better but it was to the effect of: we should not get caught up in the so called "gray" areas of the Bible but rather we should get caught up in following Christ's example. You can go on forever debating what isn't said and what's implied but we have several things that He did say and that is what we should build our faith on.
We are very fortunate at Sunshine that we are able to discuss such potentially divisive topics and not fear that things will get out of control. It has been my experience that we are able to discuss and even disagree and still know that we are brothers and sisters.
The issue of "adapting to the times" is an important one. Our church does adapt and I am proud of it. It wasn't too long ago that children were meant to be seen and not heard, they were the unfortunate public baggage of family. Our church, on the other hand, hears those little voices in the pews, says "hallelujah" and looks for ways to better accommodate young families. I am proud of the stance our elders have taken on this.
I think that if THE Church looks at change as potential rather than pitfall, it can grow and help more people. Be thankful that we do adapt. There was a time when certain churches would burn heathen women who owned too many cats on suspicion of witchcraft. I am certainly glad that we have embraced "cat ownership" as a tolerable practice. Think of all the happy and Godly cat owners that sit among us.
The thing is we are the Body of Christ... his hands, mouth, etc... not the historian of Christ. Wake up. Shut down the autopilot. Meet the needs of those we are meant to serve, each other, and let's give thanks and praise for what He's doing with us.
Matt & Jennifer,
I enjoyed reading your comments. I hope to be very supportive of the spirit of what you both have expressed. I definitely agree that we need to focus more on positive expressions of our faith rather than negative. I attempted to illustrate that point with regard to our teaching on sexuality when we breezed through Song of Solomon a few weeks ago. I fully agree that we tend to hang-up on too many small points of doctrine, all the while, being preoccupied from the great mission we have before us. I believe that some of the answers we seek can only be found by complying with the Spirit's work, in being a missional congregation.
HOWEVER (you knew it was coming), these academically oriented issues of biblical authority do not go away. I like to think that I, personally, possess a logical, coherent approach to reading my Bible which results in a good, wholesome appreciation of the main points God intends for me understand. To an extent, I believe I do. I also recognize that a dominant force working within me, inclining me toward judgment on a host of religious issues, is a force best described by the expression “comfort zone”.
Here’s a demonstration of how this functions in my mind (and I am assuming in the minds of many others):
--I attend a congregation that meets in a building with a connected annex, with a kitchen— Does that stimulate anxiety within me? No
--Assuming the Elders decide to allow instruments to be used in services—Does that stimulate anxiety? Intrigue, yes; anxiety, no
--Next Sunday, the sermon will be preached by a woman-- Anxiety? Now I am feeling a little heat, let’s call it ambivalence
--The Elders decide that in the spirit of Christian unity, Sunshine will join the World Council of Churches—Anxiety? Most definitely
My point is that most Bible-readers (including myself) have great difficulty differentiating between logical principles of biblical interpretation and their respective religious comfort zone. When we say that we simply follow the Bible instead of the opinions and traditions of men, we claim something for ourselves that we refuse to grant to all but a very few others.
This is not an argument against anything previous said. Matt asked if I were asking a question or simply pointing to the source of a rift. The answer is that I am pointing to the source of rift. Actually, I am simply thinking out loud.
I know that it is disturbing to some folks that a guy like me can read passages like Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 and not come away with the understanding that God forbids the use of mechanical instruments in worship. Let me first say that I am in no way intending to initiate a debate of the biblical authority for or against instrumental music. I would like to offer some clarification that will also serve as an illustration of how the discipline of hermeneutics impacts such a conversation.
I approach the interpretation of scripture from a grammatical-historical perspective. One of the primary assumptions of this approach to interpretation can be stated as follows: A text must first be understood in terms of its original author and readers, that meaning context defines the parameters within which modern application must be made. Stated more simply, a passage cannot mean today what it didn't mean originally. Let me re-emphasize, the grammatical-historical model is one of various models of biblical interpretation, the assumption above, is one that I have personally accepted and bring to bear on every biblical text I read. I am not suggesting that you must share this assumption, however, if you read much at all about the discipline of biblical interpretation, you will be confronted by this concept.
With that being said, I believe that we superimpose the instrumental issue onto these passages. Paul in his letters to the Ephesians and Colossians could not have had in mind the condemnation of instrumental music. There is no way such a thought could of had any relevance to those early Christians. A broader view of the biblical record also makes such a conclusion improbable. References in Psalms and Revelation indicate that instruments are associated with past and future dispensations, but we are to assume God is intolerant of them in this current period. Why are we in C'sofC so passionate about this issue when most of the remaining Christian world is not? I believe that answer has to do with sociological and economic issues that divided our movement around about the Civil War. In this belief, I am following Edwin Harrell, Jr. a CofC historian who is affiliated with the noninstitutional CofC.
I offer these arguments by way of explanation. I am not seeking to debate this issue. I do not want to see our congregation become instrumental. However, I cannot in good conscience condemn the practice. This is a very basic explanation of where I am coming from. I hope it helpful, by way of clarification.
Jon, it is not a mind game, you are right. However, for some people I think that exploring this type of questioning is getting closer to God. Certainly there is a risk for empty philosophical discussions but for others, because they love the Lord and want to know Him more, they desire to look for every ounce of nourishment that can be found, gleaning the marrow from every bone. For me it is not searching for another meaning necessarily but for all of the meaning.
If it is our mission to save and nourish souls, for me, this blog is like a training ground. Not everyone thinks like me (let's hope not anyway.) Reading what others have to say offers me the opportunity to encounter other opinions, to grow from them and, if I am very lucky, for someone to grow from mine.
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17
We all know that there is NO chance at some sort of new discovery. The Word has already been written. However, there is a great chance of deeper understanding and a better preparedness to meet the challenges of a compromised world.
Jason,
I think you need to look to God's Word for your answers. You are constantly quoting people. (So and so said) (so and so wrote). What does God say?
I also think you and others analyze things to death!
If, I can interpret the accusation as stating that I should spend more time studying God's Word, then, I agree with you. Regarding "answers", it is the brevity of my prayer time that is of more serious consequence at this particular stage of my life.
Your last line has me puzzled. You are expressing that I and others are analyzing too much. In other words, thinking too much. Now, I am sure that you would not want to go on record stating that I and others should not think. Just don't think...too much.
I realize that something of what I have written (the product of my thinking) disturbs you in some way. I do mean to be sensitive to that. My hope is that this blog will continue to be a forum of dialog, a sharing of thoughts and ideas in such a manner that is beneficial to all participants. That, of course, doesn't mean that we will all agree with everything posted here.
If there is a specific question or point of difference you would like to express, please feel free to do so. Your voice is as welcome here as any other.
I do not always disagree. I have found this Blog very helpful. It has made me want to study more. I admire your straightforwardness.
Post a Comment