Church?? - By Phil Ware - Observations and Questions

Many thanks to Darin and Kinney.

DARIN - Your comments keep reminding to to come back and post more.

KINNEY - Your encouragement and prayers are a support to me.

I appreciate you two guys, even if you two are the only ones that read this blog.

I like looking at the concept of “church”. I think our western culture idea of “church” often hinders us from getting the full benefit God intended. Take tonight for example. It is Saturday. There is a group of friends that have started their own “church”. They happen to meet on Saturday evenings (they call themselves SatFel). My family and I hung out with them tonight because some of their kids are graduating high school. Between swimming and eating we all got together in the living room and had some AWESOME praise time in singing. It was unfiltered, hand-clapping, toe-tapping, lung-bellowing, vocal cord straining praise to God. We were truly of one voice. We did “church”. One of the purposes of getting together is to rebuild in each other what the world has chipped down through the week. We did just that. But we did more. There were people, kids, friends that were there who weren’t back into relationship with their creator. By them being there with us, they got to experience unity and the joy that comes from celebrating our creator. It was natural. It wasn’t opening prayer, songs, communion, sermon, closing prayer (oops, forgot invitation song), but it was natural and good.

I’m not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to how we currently do “church”. But wouldn’t it be great if we could recapture some of what God intended when he called us to assemble as people called out of the world? This isn’t a CoC issue. I’ve been listening to a local Christian radio station and you wouldn’t believe how many commercials there are of congregations trying to woo saved people away from other congregations. Why not have those commercials on the local Rap station, or local Rock station? Why are we here anyway? To increase our Christian market share? No, it is to be the tools God uses to bring created man back into relationship with their creator.

Here is the last part of the document by Phil Ware. Here he makes some observations and answers some questions.

So I’d like to share a few biblical observations into the discussion for all of us to ponder and discuss.

First, Jesus and the writers of the New Testament did not envision a Christianity that does not involve Christian community. Jesus sent out his followers two by two. He called together a small group of twelve to be his first community. His primary teachings centered on relationships and life lived together in community. While much of his teaching and lifestyle brought him into conflict with religious leaders in religious situations, his regular practice was to participate in those gatherings to redeem them and restore them to their intended purpose. He didn’t abolish or abandon them. He even talked about building a gathering of people around the confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:13-16).

Second, the term used overwhelmingly throughout the New Testament for this community is the word our modern Bibles translate “church.” Unfortunately our well-intentioned use of the word and popular definitions of it — like the “called out” or using the word to refer to a “church building” — distort the original meaning and use of the word. The word itself, ekklesia, is not even a religious word. (Acts 19:32, for example, where the word is used for an assembly of those who definitely were not followers of Jesus.) It simply means “assembly” or “gathering” of people. What makes it “Christian” is that the gathering is done in “[T]he name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:1-2). When believers gather in Jesus name, there is a very sense in which the Lord is present among them with power (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 5:4).

Third, followers of Jesus are identified with this term “gathering” (or “church”) repeatedly through the New Testament. Rather than identifying a theoretical group of people, this is an identity formed by being brought into community together and meeting together (Acts 2:41-47; Acts 20:7). Reading the letters of the New Testament (Romans-Revelation), the first few verses of them reveal this focus, using a formula like, “To the gathering of God’s people in …” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2).This gathering together in Jesus’ name was so important that they were urged not to forsake their times of meeting together, but to use these opportunities to stir each other up to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:19-25).

Fourth, this was to be a community that lived the lifestyle of Jesus and called each other to that lifestyle all over the world in different cultures (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus called his followers to live by Kingdom of God ethic found in his own teaching (Matthew 5:1 — 7:29) and in his call for his followers to live in a community of accountability and forgiveness (Matthew 18:1-35). This is reflected in the rest of the New Testament’s emphasis on how Jesus’ followers are to live with “one another” and treat “each other” in community. In fact, all of the New Testament books following the book of Acts are not understandable outside followers of Jesus gathering together to try to help each other live the life of Jesus. Most are letters written to specific gatherings (or “churches”) of believers in Jesus.

“But I’d rather spend my time doing good for others and helping them in their life than be stuck in some outmoded church service!”

The truth is, this isn’t an either or choice. In fact, gathering several folks who share your commitment to help others only increases the reach of your good deeds and offers these people a place of community and friendship where they can belong. So many in our lonely society today need just a place of friendship and acceptance.

“But I love my church where I am just fine! What’s the big deal, anyway?”

If you are blessed by the contemporary expression of church, great! Help your gathering of believers live out the call of Jesus and make sure others are welcomed and loved into your group. But please, understand that a whole generation is coming of age and many are not finding a connection with what they see as the institutional church — several studies suggest less than 4% of those 18-25 in the US are connected to a “church” experience of any kind. Give them the permission to search the Scriptures and try to faithfully express the community of Jesus in ways that connect with their culture. I’m not talking about a cosmetic re-do of modern church to make it more consumer friendly, but a genuine passion to restore the life, vibrancy, accountability, and community we see in the book of Acts.

“Aren’t you afraid that even suggesting this will hurt our churches and give our young people and others permission to abandon church all together?”

People don’t have to have permission to do this; folks are abandoning the current expression of church in droves, already. (For a glimpse at the hard realities of where things actually are, read the book Unchristian.) We must remember that our goal is not putting people in church buildings, but helping others find real community in the Kingdom of God and submit to the Lordship of Jesus. Many will continue to be blessed by the church culture we have experienced for the last several hundred years. Others, however, are looking for a more intimate gathering of people who are held accountable to each other and to the Lord in community. They see the power of the house church movement in places like China and Cuba, and long to experience what they see as authentic community as they serve others in the name of Jesus. Others are blessed to enjoy both expressions of church in their home congregations. The key, I believe, is for all of us to keep praying, “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

“So what are you saying?”

I’m saying that I believe followers of Jesus are going to regularly gather with other followers to help them live the life of Christ and remember the life, words, sacrifice, and resurrection of their Lord, together. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you do the big church deal that is a part of our Western culture of church. It does mean, however, that you gather with other believers in some form to call each other to be community where Jesus’ character and compassion are lived.

Peace

JH

Church?? - By Phil Ware - Introduction

I’ve been struggling lately. I can’t put the details of why I’ve been struggling on “paper” except to say it has been a struggle. I struggle with the relevancy of our modern-day expression of “church”. It seems “churches” are more and more putting effort into gaining market share within the religious community instead of reaching out to outsiders. We either try and make our “church” more marketable in order to attract other believers from other congregations or we staunchly defend our version of “church” in order to set ourselves apart as the “one true church”. I know these are blanket statements. I know they don’t hold true for all churches in all areas. But it is just my mood right now, so forgive me my mood.

One thing that isn’t due to my mood are the statistics of those 18 to 25 year olds that are no longer connected with any church experience. Or the statistics of that same group that aren’t coming back to “church” once they have a family and children. In American Christendom in general, people are flocking away from “church”. The numbers prove that out.

I want to post, in about three parts, a small article/paper that Phil Ware wrote. I have not been able to contact Phil Ware, so if there is any issue, I beg forgiveness. This article deals with “church” on a very high level. He talks about the need for this up and coming generation to explore their own expressions of “church” (btw - if you think what we do today is what they did in the first and second centuries, then do some history research and think again). He talks about the need for our current “churches” to get outside of our building and into the lives of outsiders. He also talks about the need for God’s called out people to be in community with each other. He does all of this in a very high level and short way.

Here are his introductory comments:

“It is easily forgotten that the community of Christians is a gift of grace from the kingdom of God, a gift that can be taken from us any day — which the time still separating us from the most profound loneliness may be brief indeed. Therefore, let those who until now have had the privilege of living a Christian life together with other Christians praise God’s grace from the bottom of their hearts. Let them thank God on their knees and realize: it is grace, nothing but grace, which we are still permitted to live in the community of Christians today.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together.)

These words were penned seventy years ago as the world stood on the doorstep of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany’s assault on Europe. Dietrich Bonhoeffer had returned to his home in Germany from the US to lead the Confessing Church, an underground movement that lived out the life of Jesus in the face of Nazism. He was eventually hung in a hideous and torturous way to try to silence his voice. Nazi Germany fell, but the writings and words of Bonhoeffer live today, inspiring believers — especially those under oppression — all over the world.

Occasionally, I will be asked if I really believe it is important to “go to church.” The question is not from unbelievers. In fact, this question is often asked by those passionately seeking to live for Jesus. Some have been deeply hurt by church politics. Others have been bored by church services. Some just see church as a waste of time. Others see “going to church” as an outdated form of community that is no longer needed in the computer age of social networking.

When asked about the importance of church, some who email me are seeking biblical insights to their frustration with the modern “churchland” experience — mall churches where unknown hordes gather in anonymity or religious institutions more concerned about political agendas than about doing the work of Jesus. Some folks just want validation that their abandonment of not “going to church” ever again: they are fed up with what they see as corruption, hypocrisy, and irrelevancy.

This is not an easy question to address for several reasons. Seemingly, the Western expression of church has lost its way on many levels. Far from being a place of community that practices radical forgiveness and accountability as Jesus envisioned (Matthew 18:1-35), many forms of modern church are not much better than the caricatures so often criticized. Far from being a mission-driven community sharing God’s grace with all nations and a community of different people brought together by the power of God’s Spirit (the book of Acts), we seem to have sunk into rival marketers of easy religion pedaled to consumer-driven attendees or into rival politically aligned preservers of our version of national values.

On the other hand, many are genuinely blessed by their association today with what is called “church.” They find support, help, encouragement, and friendship. They can’t understand why some would be so critical of something they love. In addition, oppressed and persecuted believers in other cultures cannot fathom having the freedom to gather with other believers and not taking advantage of it. Meeting in clandestine house churches in China or meeting openly with believers in Africa knowing that their persecutors are watching and taking note of them, these believers truly understand the words of Bonhoeffer, “… it is grace, nothing but grace, that we are still permitted to live in the community of Christians today.”

So I’d like to share a few biblical observations into the discussion for all of us to ponder and discuss.

Next post will be the Four biblical observations that Phil Makes.

Peace - J

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Practical Application

Sorry for the long dry spell.  Thank-you to Tess (Preacherman’s wife) for posting a comment that got me back to this blog I’ve been neglecting.  Things around here have been busy and crazy.

In my last post I asked…

This might be an uncomfortable subject, but if our restrictions and/or prohibitions with regards to women are not based on a correct understanding of scripture, then is it helpful or hurtful to be complicit in people burying the gifts God gave them?

I really would like to hear from people.  My mind keeps going back to Jesus’ parable of the talents.  If God never intended the church to be as restrictive as we are with regards to what women may and may not do then is there a segment of the body that is burying their talents?  If the church functions as a body and all body parts have a role to play in the health and well-being of the church body, but a segment is prevented from fully carrying out its intended function then is our body truly functioning at its true potential?  If there are people burying their talents or body parts not functioning at their true potential, then is God pleased or displeased?

Without getting into the “biggies”, here are some examples of how I believe women are underutilized.

1.  Praying - I have daughters.  I love to listen to their prayers.  We pray together as a family and they actively participate.  They are not usurping my authority as the leader of the house by being active participants in our family’s prayers.  Similarly, I am encouraged when both men and women pray out loud.  God has given women a different perspective on life and as a result often make the prayer time more whole and fulfilling.

2.  Teaching - There are subjects within the church that some women know better than the men.  The women should be allowed to teach or co-teach a class of mixed adults.  If you are going to say “Scripture says women shouldn’t teach men” then please go back and read the earlier posts dealing with that argument.  I’m not going to re-hash it here.

3.  Serving Communion - The craziness of not letting women participate in this act of service to the congregation was best exemplified when someone pointed out that women aren’t allowed to pass the communion trays north to south, only east to west.  This person’s building was situated such that their rows were east to west and the women could pass the trays side to side, but not front to back.

4.  Ministry Leaders - I have always found it odd to appoint an unqualified man to be over a ministry just because his wife is gifted in that ministry.  I’ve seen this in financial ministries where the wife is a good accountant, good with managing money, good with budgets and works for a multi-million dollar company as an accountant so church leadership decides to appoint her husband to be “over” the financial ministry so that his wife can do the work.  I’ve seen this in education ministries where the wife is an educator and an administrator for the local school district so leadership decides to appoint her Information Technology Engineer husband to be “over” the education ministry.  In both cases all we are running from is the title.  We don’t have a problem with the woman actually doing the job of heading up the ministry, we just can’t admit it by giving her the title.  If we really, strongly believe that “Any woman cannot exercise authority over any man” and that God truly intended it to be that way, then do we think God is too dumb to see through this made-up structure of appointing an unqualified husband to be “over” the ministry his wife is doing?

There are other areas where I think women are under utilizing the gifts that God has given them but I want to hear from you.  How do we put this into practice?  I’m not satisfied with giving my daughters canned answers to why they can’t do something that God has not prohibited them from doing.  I don’t think it does God justice to keep asking women to reign in the gifts God has given them just so we don’t rock the boat.

In the parable of the talents…  What was worse in God’s eyes?  Using the talent with the risk that it might be lost or burying the talent knowing that it will be the “safe” thing to do?  Letting God answer that question may give us insight in how we should proceed in using these wonderful, female talents God has placed within his body of believers, also known as The Church.

Peace

J

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Conclusion

Here is the short conclusion to Oliver’s paper. I have some more information that I will post once I figure out how to embed tables into a blog. Hopefully it won’t take very long. I also have this paper in a .doc format. If you would like me to email it to you then send me a request at the following email address (it might be faster that way anyhow):
jasonincalifornia@gmail.com

I want to thank everyone that has been reading this study and also every one that posted comments. It is always good when people reasonably and lovingly look at a subject or topic together with the intent of finding out what God has to say instead of what we want Him to say.

I had a teacher at Sunset that used to always ask the question, “Yeah but how.” His intent was to get people to look for the practical applications in what they had learned. Basically we can learn all we want, discuss the how’s and whys of a particular verse or subject, but if we don’t DO something with it then what good does it serve? Before we change subjects or I go on to another post, I would really like to ask ourselves “What do I do with this?” My view on this subject has been changed for quite some time. I’ve always struggled with what do I do about it? This might be an uncomfortable subject, but if our restrictions and/or prohibitions with regards to women are not based on a correct understanding of scripture, then is it helpful or hurtful to be complicit in people burying the gifts God gave them? I’ll give you some of my ideas in the next post.

For now, here is Oliver’s conclusion:

Conclusion

The application, by the Churches of Christ, of the hausfrau passages to form a general male-female theology, has caused a distortion, if not a destruction, of one of the most beautiful principles of Christianity—there is no longer male and female—we are one in Christ. The hausfrau passages do not deny or negate the principle. rather, they explain that within the confines of the sacred marriage relationship, husbands and wives continue to owe the duties, commitments and allegiances to one another that they always owed.

It is hoped that this reinterpretation of the hausfrau passages can induce yet other study of the role of women in the New Testament. It is further hoped that this study will lead to a reinstitution of the utilization of women in new creative and meaningful ministries within the Church. It is time that we in the Churches of Christ bring back the Priscillas, the Phoebes, and all of the other fellow ministers who tirelessly and sacrificially worked along with Paul and the other apostles. Ones dedicated to the restoration of New Testament Christianity can scarcely do otherwise.

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Part 3

Sorry it has taken me so long to get to this next post. Life’s been busy.

This next section of scripture (I Timothy 2:8-15) that Oliver addresses has been one that has vexed many people on many different issues. From a quick read of these scriptures there are several questions that may jump out at you:

1. Is Paul addressing only the “corporate assembly” time?

2. Are men violating a direct command in scripture if they DON’T lift up their hands when they pray?

3. Are women violating a direct command in scripture if their hair is braided, if they wear gold or pearls or wear expensive clothes?

4. Is this scripture discussing husband and wife specifically, or man and woman generally?

5. What happens to women that can have children, but choose not to? Is their salvation in question?

You might dismiss some, or all of these questions out of hand simply because you’ve been taught one thing or another about this scripture your whole life… but imagine reading this for the first time. Imagine an outsider reading this, or a new Christian reading this for the first time. If you read what scholars and commentators have to say about the things discussed in I Timothy 2, you’ll get very differing opinions. YET! We (there’s that blanket statement “we” again) sometimes stand firm-footed on these scriptures to support women having no authority over man, while at the same time glossing over whether or not she can wear jewelry, or whether or not men should raise their hands in prayer. Does something seem amiss? Why do we so easily dismiss men raising hands or women wearing jewelry as being cultural, or concepts that should be followed in principle, then turn around and leave no room for differing opinions with regards to a woman being silent or teaching men?

Many that use this scripture to restrict what a woman can or can’t do like the conjunction “for” that is found between verses 12 and 13 as well as the conjunction “and” between 13 and 14 because it is a gotcha! FOR Adam was created first! AND Adam wasn’t deceived, it was Eve! Gotcha! So, it must be true… Women are to remain silent and not exercise authority over a man. The conjunction often ignored is the “But” between verses 14 and 15. But women will be saved by childbirth! What? This post isn’t about trying to explain I Timothy 2:15. If you want to read a well thought out discussion of this specific topic I’d refer you to Al Maxey’s article at this url: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx278.htm

The point is that people tend to pick and chose how to interpret scripture in order to prove or support a closely held traditional belief. We should be careful when cherry-picking verses out of difficult passages just to prove our point. A good friend of mine calls this “One-Verse Theology”.

That being said, I think Oliver presents a well-reasoned position that deserves honest consideration. Here is the next part to Oliver’s paper.

1 Timothy 2:8-15

We turn now to the last hausfrau passage, 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Just as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has been interpreted to teach general female-male submission and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 has been applied to silence women “at church” (at church is one of these phrases best left unstudied since its definition confounds a serious student while, apparently, however, connotes some crystal clear concept to those who have never taken the time to consider it), so 1 Timothy 2:8-15 has been utilized to squelch any incipient female calculated domination of men by resorting to teaching them. Paradoxically, men, who have been teaching women for years, have never seemed capable of dominating their female counterparts thereby.

Although 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the passage under consideration, the crux of the issue set forth in verse 12 where Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over a man (authentein andros). Again, deferring to the King, our question is what meaneth “usurp the authority of a man?” Or, to put it another way, what constituteth “usurp authority” and who constituteth man?

The word authenteo originally meant to kill, especially to kill a member of one’s own family. It was used, for example, to refer to the practice of infanticide. Is it possible that Paul again is treating a husband-wife problem rather than a male-female one?

In 1 Timothy 1:9 Paul delineates some of the problems his son and the Gospel is confronting. He is dealing with father killers, mother killers, and husband killers - allegorically, of course. 1 Timothy is, in fact, a treatise on decorum. It addresses the Christian’s relationship with the king, with bishops and deacons, with older persons, with masters, — and yes—between husbands and wives.

Women are told to be quiet (heisychia) not silent (sigao). This is the same word Paul uses with respect to all Christians in 1 Timothy 2:2. Paul is not prohibiting women from teaching men, he is proscribing an assertiveness of a Christian wife to the extent that such assertiveness is about to kill her husband (aner) by didactic domination over him.

That Paul is referring to the husband-wife, rather than to the male-female relationship, is further substantiated by the reference in verses 13 and 14 to Adam and Eve. Again, Adam and Eve are the first husband and wife and are so referenced systematically in the New Testament. Paul, following his allusion to Adam and Eve, states that women shall be saved in childbearing. Surely Paul is not telling unmarried women that they will be saved by bearing illegitimate children. Rather, within marriage, that sacrosanct institution, a Christian wife has a specific calling. The dissipation, yea, even the extinguishment, of the male-female distinction in Christianity leaves undisturbed and unaffected the mystical unity known as marriage and no enlightened Christian female can lose sight of that fact, according to Paul.

Thus, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 cannot be used as a proof text to disallow Christian women from teaching others, even men. The only man that is referenced within the passage is the husband (aner) of a Christian woman. She is proscribed only from teaching in such a way that she dictates to him and dominates his life. Thus 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is an extension of the same problem that has earlier been examined as addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, 11 and 14.

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Part 2

Continuing on in this series of posts from Oliver Howard’s paper, he goes on to 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 36.

Have you ever read the Bible and found something that you really never paid attention to before? We tend to let what we’ve always been taught, or heard taught, be the filter we use when reading the Bible. One of the things that JUMPED out at me when I started studying Oliver’s paper starts in 1 Corinthians 11:5. If we tend to focus on only the headship aspect of the text we won’t notice that Paul’s instruction was for women to have a symbol of authority (v.10) on their head while praying or prophesying (v.5). The context of Paul’s instruction is “corporate worship” time (if you’ll let me use that phrase) because Paul says in verse 17 “…because you come together not for the better but for the worse“. So, during this time of mixed assembly, there were women praying and prophesying. Paul’s instruction wasn’t for them to stop praying and prophesying because they were subverting man’s authority, his instruction was to have a symbol of authority on their heads while they did it.

This is important to note as we get into 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 36. We shouldn’t focus in on 14:34 just to develop some one-verse theology on women generally. If we did then we would miss the larger context from Chapter 11 wherein Paul has no issue with women praying or prophesying in mixed assembly. We would also miss the immediate context which deals with the husband and wife relationship.

Take a look at what Oliver writes about this next verse.

1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-36

We next turn to the second hausfrau passage, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36. Here Paul commands women to be silent (sigao). Again, bowing to King James, our questions are who constituteth women and what constituteth silence? Are all women to be totally silent at all assemblies? What then about singing? Or what then about saying the corporate “Amen”?

Again, analogous to our initial inquiry regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, we begin our exegesis with an attempt to define women. Paul states that the women who are to be silent are those who are in subjection (hypotasso) as it is said in the law. Paul thus directs our inquiry backwards in history. What sayeth the law regarding the submission of women?

In LXX Genesis 3:16, God prescribes Eve’s punishment for partaking of the forbidden fruit and seducing Adam to join her. Her apostrophei shall be to her husband and he shall be her lord. Nowhere does the law teach that men are the lords of women in general. Only that a husband is the lord of his wife. Again, our initial inquiry points to the husband^-wife relationship; not to a male-female based theology. This initial conclusion is further strengthened by our previous note that in the New Testament submission defines the wife’s relationship with her husband; not women’s relationship to men in general.

The initial interpretation, once again, is supported by the text itself. The women told to be silent are to learn by asking their husbands at home. 1 Corinthians 14:35. Thus, not only is the silence directly limited to married women, it is specifically limited to married women who have a believing spouse; furthermore, with respect to the large immediate context, Paul is addressing the proper use of spiritual gifts during assemblies. Commencing in verse 29, he admonishes only two or three prophets should speak and then only one at a time. The others at the assembly can then examine (diakrinomai) those prophets. However, women, even women having the gift of discrimination (see verse 29 and 1 Corinthians 12:2) should decline examining their husband’s prophets during the assembly. They should rather await the privacy of their own homes to inquire of their spouse. Thus, in this context, silence does not mean absolute silence, but a refraining from asking questions of a husband who is a prophet.

Again, this interpretation finds added support in that those speaking in tongues are admonished to keep silent, if there is no interpreter ( verse 28 ) and prophets themselves are to keep silent if there is another who has received a revelation (verse 38). Paul is not generally proscribing speech, but rather is narrowly and directly prohibiting a specific type of speech in a discrete and particular circumstance. The limited silence from the specific groups is needed to maintain peace (verse 33) and decorum (verse 35).

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 thus presents no theology of the muffling of females; it constitutes rather another Apostolic edification relating to the sanctity of marriage. That institution must remain inviolate. Neither mystical matrimony with Christ nor charismatic gifts from the Spirit can be allowed to put asunder that which God has joined together^.

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Part 1

I was born in Vanita, Oklahoma, but I started school in Honduras, Central America. My parents were missionaries in Tegucigalpa, the capitol city. I was six years old when we moved down there. My first grade school was an all-Spanish speaking school. There were no SSL (Spanish as a Second Language) classes at my first grade. English was barely taught as a second language at my first grade school. We lived in Honduras for about 4 to 6 months prior to me starting first grade. I vividly remember sitting in class learning my A, B, C’s… but in Spanish. I learned to write in Spanish before I could write in English.

I say all of that because having learned two languages from an early age has given me an appreciation for translating the Bible. Going from Greek to English is no small task. You have to know the original language and all the nuances related to it then find appropriate words in the new language that accurately convey the meaning you feel the original writer intended. The translators face many challenges. I believe two of these they fight against is cultural bias and doctrinal bias. It must be difficult to not let your culture and pre-existing doctrinal beliefs cloud your judgment in deciding what word should be used where. As Oliver Howard leads us through this study of the text in the next series of posts, keep in mind that the original writers penned these words in a language completely different from our own. Keep in mind that the English words we have translated/interpreted for us in our hands today may not be the best words to convey the original meaning of the original writers. It is up to us to study for ourselves… to be like Bereans as it were, and search the original language to see if the English words we read really are the most accurate.

Let us start with Oliver’s look at the first passage of the Bible dealing with this topic. May God open our eyes and minds so that His word and His meaning comes through.  Get ready to dig deep…

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Paul commences his first so-called hausfrau passage by setting forth certain “pyramids of headship.” A proper classification of these pyramids is pivotal to a correct exegesis of the passage. Paul blandly asserts that the head of Christ is God; the head of man is Christ and the head of a woman is man. Although this assertion is unremarkable, its meaning is complex at best and obscure at worst.

First, how is God the “head” of Christ? And, is the divine pyramid of headship fully parallel and analogous to the two other pyramids. Second, who is the man (aner) that Paul references as the head of a woman. Or to state the two questions in King James jargon, what meaneth Paul by “head” and how defineth he “man.”

Paul repeatedly and systematically juxtaposes the word head (kephalei) and the word submission (hypotasso). This juxtaposition cannot be seen as creating an antithesis, however, but rather a synthesis. Headship plus submission equals unity. The head does not “lord over” the submissive one …but, rather, uplifts, fulfills and leads the latter into expanded parameters of existence and perfect wholeness not otherwise possible.

Thus God has put into submission all things under the feet of Christ, except God Himself. When Christ has fully accomplished the mission of God, Christ, too, will submit to the Father that God might be all in all (panta en pasin). 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Thus, the telos of the Father-Son headship pyramid is divine synthesis—cosmological unity.

Similarly, the headship of Christ to the submitting Church results in a mystical oneness experienced in life only in the husband-wife relationship. God has put “all things” under the feet of Christ and has made Christ “head” of the Church. Ephesians 1:22-23. The Church, though submissive, does not fall beneath Christ’s feet (thus it is unlike the pants) but experientially with Christ is lifted through the Spirit into Him as the head so as to be created into one new complete persona. As Paul puts it, the Church grows up into Him, into the perfect man (auxeisosen eis auton eis andra teleion). Ephesians 4:11-16. Or again Paul explains “For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and the Church.” Ephesians 5:31-32.

To develop fully the Pauline picture of pyramidal headship as articulated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, we must next focus on the definition of aner. Again, how defineth Paul Man? Excluding quotations from the Septuagint, Paul uses the word aner fifty-six times. See Appendix 1 attached hereto (I will post all Appendices at the end of the series). Twice it denotes adulthood. In every other instance, excluding the hausfrau passages, Paul uses the word to mean husband. Thus, unless Paul is using the term a totally different way in the hausfrau passages, it also means husband in these passages.

The conclusion that Paul used aner to mean husband is further supported by the usage of aner in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 1-3. The creation account, relied on heavily by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, uses the word anthropos to denote man and aner to denote husband. Particularly instructive is LXX Genesis 2:24-25 regarding the use of aner to mean husband in verse 24 and anthropos to mean man in verse 25. Paul’s use of anthropos and aner in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 is exactly parallel to LXX Genesis. (See Appendix 2 for a reprint of Genesis 1-3 in the Septuagint.)

Thus, if our interpretation be correct, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:3 that God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of a husband; and the husband is the head of his wife. This interpretation makes 1 Corinthians 11:2, et sec, parallel to Ephesians 5:22, et se . It also brings the passage into conformity with New Testament subordination passages in general where wives are consistently said to be in submission (hypotasso) to their husbands. (See Appendix 3 for a list of the subordination passages in the New Testament.) Nowhere, however, in the New Testament are women generically said to be in submission to men generically.

Again, the submission to their husbands is juxtaposed to the husbands’ headship of their wives. The result of this headship-submission pyramid is the same as the result of the Father-Son pyramid as well as the Christ-Church pyramid; i.e., it leads to unity. See Ephesians 5:31-32. To put it another way, man as an aner, is the head of only one woman. His responsibility of uplifting and augmenting must be directed only to his wife. Correspondingly, his wife must and can be totally in submission to him. The husband and wife seek unity only together—not with any other.

Therefore, it appears that the first Pauline hausfrau passage treats the husband ­wife relationship; not the male-female relationship. Furthermore, the theology of sexual bifurcation and stratification has lost at least one of its buttressing texts.

Further investigation of 1 Corinthians 11:2, et sec, leads to the ineluctable conclusion that the preliminary interpretation of the pyramids of headship is correct. For example, Paul deems it proper for a woman to be veiled because as the aner is the image and glory of God, the woman is the glory of the aner. 1 Corinthians 11:7. The Septuagint is clear that both male and female (arsen and theily) are made in God’s Image, Only once does the Septuagint speak of a woman being a glory to man. In LXX Proverbs 11:16, a blessed woman can cause glory to her husband (aner).

Other support for our preliminary interpretation of the passage is gleaned by careful analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:8-12. Only once in human history has a woman come from a man. Eve was taken from her husband. LXX Genesis 2:23. Symbolically, therefore, all wives can be said to be created from (ek) their husbands. Furthermore, women were not made for men. A wife was made for her husband. LXX Genesis 2:23­24. See also, Matthew 19:3, et seq.

The preliminary interpretation of the pyramids of headship as referring to the husband-wife relationship also clarifies Paul’s last statement in verse 12 that a husband (aner) is through (dia) his wife. The preposition dia is not used to denote birth. Paul is thus not speaking of the fact that man is born of woman. Rather he is alluding to the Jewish rabbinic exegesis which extols the high position of a wife within marriage. In Genesis Rabbah, the following interpretation is given with respect to Genesis 1:26:

In the past, Adam was created from dust and Eve was created from Adam; but henceforth it shall be in our image; after our likeness; neither man without woman nor woman without man, and neither without the Shekinah.

Thus, Paul can say in verse 11 that a woman is not without her husband nor a husband without his wife in the Lord. Man fulfills God’s first commandment to reproduce through (dia) his wife. The man and his wife, together with God’s Spirit, generate offspring in the image of God. Therefore, a man can be said to be dia his wife.

Finally, our interpretation of the pyramids of headship, fits well within the framework of the 1 Corinthian epistle. The women Christians in Corinth, as well as elsewhere in the New Testament world, were troubled because of the new relationship they had with Christ. Now wed to Christ, they were fearful that continued sexual relationship with their physical husbands could be sinful. That notion was dispelled in 1 Corinthians 7. Here, a related issue developed. Women were using their new status in Christ as a vehicle of circumventing external signs of submission to their husbands; i.e., veiling* Although veiling was common for all Jewish women, see Genesis 38:15; Numbers 5:18; Suzanna 31 and Mishna Ketim 6:7 (see also Tertullian who said that Jewesses who were prominent in North Africa wore veils), it was, according to Plutarch, common only for Greek married women to be veiled while spinsters went about uncovered.

The unveiling of women occurring in 1 Corinthians 11 is symbolic of a failure to recognize, though in Christ we are no longer male and female, we still remain husbands and wives. Although Christ has obliterated the vestiges of sexual distinctions in the church, the roles of husbands and wives within the marriage relationship are undaunted and unaffected by being in Christ. Thus, the Corinthian women were told to live sexually with their husbands in 1 Corinthians 7, and to veil themselves in 1 Corinthians 11. These matters were necessary to continue the continuity of the husband-wife relationship Christianity seeks to enhance and not to destroy.

In summary, therefore, 1 Corinthians 11 is inefficacious as a basis for a female-­male subordination theology. It sets forth certain principles regarding the husband-wife relationship, but nothing more. The subordination of women to men in worship and teaching, if it finds support at all in scripture, must find that support elsewhere.

Women’s Role in the Church - A New Perspective - Introduction

The more I study the bible, as well as the original language it was written in, the more I come to an understanding that what we have today as the bible in English is not a simple translation of the original text. It is also an interpretation made by the translators of what was the intent of the original writers. Anytime you have fallible man interpreting the intent of the original writers then you have room for misinterpretation. LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR… I believe God’s word to be perfect and without fault in the original language. I believe God has made provisions for His word to endure throughout the ages so that we can have confidence in His word. I also believe that part of those provisions is that we have the ability to reference extremely early documents in order to check and see for ourselves that what appears in our English (or other language) bible is what was originally intended. God has given us to the tools to see for ourselves. HOWEVER, I do not believe the translators were given miraculous, perfect understanding by God and therefore they could, and were, influenced by their own culture and preconceived ideas of doctrine when attempting to translate the scriptures. Let me give you an example I happened to find today:

Acts 1:20 - γεγραπται γαρ εν βιβλω ψαλμων γενηθητω η επαυλις αυτου ερημος και μη εστω ο κατοικων εν αυτη και την επισκοπην αυτου Aλαβετω TSBλαβοι ετερος (GNT)

Acts 1:20 - “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ (NASB)

In the original language the words highlighted (επισκοπην) has been translated/interpreted as “OFFICE“. If you are somewhat familiar with the study of elders/shepherds/bishops then you will recognize the greek work episkope. The word used in Acts 1:20 that is translated “Office” is basically the same word used in I Timothy 3:1 that is translated “the office of overseer“. (We won’t get into a discussion of one being in the Accusative and the other being in the Genitive - I’m not that smart) You see that the Greek words are basically the same but the translators translated them differently.

I think this illustrates the point that a translator looked at Acts 1:20 and made an interpretive decision to put down “Office” then looked at I Timothy 3:1 and made an interpretive decision to put down “the office of overseer“. It wasn’t a decision based solely on translation, they made an interpretation of the original intent of the writer.

If you haven’t gone to sleep on your keyboard, or clicked over to one of the great bloggers listed in my Blogroll to the right then congratulations! As we looked at in the last several posts from Marion Owens, there are several beliefs that are held by religious organizations (Church of Christ included) that don’t always hold up to scrutiny. If we truly want to be students of the Word, then we shouldn’t shy away from reasonably, honestly, and fairly considering views based on the study of the Word that may differ from our traditional conclusions. What will follow in the next series of posts is from a paper I have been studying for quite a few years. It is by a brother in north-east Oklahoma named Oliver Howard. Even though my parents live in that part of the country, I have never met the man. I have contacted him by email and he has graciously given me permission to post his paper here. I hope you will give the content of this paper consideration. He has done a very thorough job of documenting his study and his conclusions.

Lets start with Oliver’s introduction. It is short, but I’ve taken up enough space in my introduction as it is. I promise not to let a huge amount of time go by before posting the next part of this paper.

Introduction

The theology of the Churches of Christ regarding the role of women in the Church stems principally from three Pauline passages; i.e., 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 14:33-36; and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. These texts, sometimes designated as the Pauline “hausfrau” passages, have been interpreted in such a way as to preclude women from vocal participation on occasions when the Church is assembled for public worship and to prevent women from teaching mixed adult classes in most situations.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a somewhat different exegesis of the hausfrau passages and to suggest certain points of departure for new directions in lexigraphical, syntatical and finally theological study of the texts in question. We turn first to the 1 Corinthians text.

“CHURCH OF CHRIST” DOCTRINES: FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS - Part 6

This last part of the essay by Marion Owens deals with the prohibition imposed on the use of instruments in our “corporate worship assembly” (a term not found in scripture.) The problem with this issue is that it tends to be the whipping boy used by both extremes of our fellowship in showing how people on one side are either “legalistic” or “liberal change agents.” We (the general brotherhood “we”) tend to let this one issue be what defines us by being either on one side or the other. It is simply a manifestation of a bigger problem within our fellowship, and that is our tendency to look inward and not outward. We as a fellowship are struggling to fulfill God’s purpose for us in life. That purpose is to be the catalyst God uses to reintroduce created man to his Creator. Why don’t we see a full-page Daily Oklahoman ad placed by the concerned members of the Churches of Christ addressing the impact homelessness and joblessness in the poor urban parts of Oklahoma City has on children? Wouldn’t it be great to see a full page ad outlining how said “Concerned Members” of the Churches of Christ are getting together, pooling their financial, time and job resources, mobilizing into the poorer neighborhoods of Oklahoma City or Tulsa to show children what it means when “religious” people put their money, time and resources where their mouth is? What a witness for Christ! What an example of changed people. Instead we see “us” airing our dirty laundry to outsiders in newspaper ads. We scream that we are autonomous (another teaching that can’t be found in scripture) while all the while spending countless hours and money placing ads, writing articles in brotherhood publications or writing books about how one congregation or the other is going to Hell in a hand basket because of their false teaching. Is it any wonder why only one third of outsiders think Christians are genuinely concerned about them? Are we? What are we doing to show them their perceptions are misplaced?

All that being said, I think the issue needs to be reasonably, calmly and, above all, lovingly discussed among ourselves. There are several reasons the issue should be discussed. One is that it exposes a flaw in the general CENI (Command, Example, Necessary Inference) hermeneutic. There is a generation that sees this flaw and wants better answers than what has been given to them to the question of why we may or may not (or who cares if we…) use instruments in our worship to God. Another good reason is that it gets us to examine our belief systems. Adrian Rogers once said “A faith that hasn’t been tested, can’t be trusted.” I like that quote. I see that our fellowship is going through another awakening of faith. One where our long-held belief systems are being re-evaluated and tested. For all the admonishing (or grousing, or caterwauling) I did in the previous paragraph, this testing of our belief system is a GOOD THING if done in a Christ-like way. When we come out the other side of our self-reflection we will be closer to God and have a better understanding of His word.

Enough about my take on things… here is Marion’s final part to his Essay on “”Church of Christ” Doctrines: Facts and Assumptions.” I hope you have enjoyed this series. I have.

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

One of the most defining issues among “Churches of Christ” is the question of whether or not it is acceptable to God to use instrumental music in “worship services”. The fact that there is no mention of instruments in the first century church has led many to believe that the silence of the scriptures on this matter is inherently prohibitive. It can be helpful to review some facts related to this subject.

FACTS

1. The New Testament says nothing about congregational singing—as distinct from any other setting.
2. There are two passages which provide instructions about singing. The first one, Galatians 5:19, is specific—it calls for instructive solos, one singing to another. Such an action would never be tolerated in our formal assemblies. We have chosen to pretend that congregational singing is an acceptable substitute.
3. The second passage, Colossians 3:16, also asks that we “teach and admonish” one another through singing. Nothing is said about worship, nor is there any instruction at all as to the setting in which the singing is to take place.
4. The scriptures set no restrictions whatever on what actions may accompany the singing, such as whether people may—or may not—clap hands, read a song book, tap feet, drum fingers, slap thighs, strum on a guitar, beat two sticks together, thump on a wash tub, or intermittently hum and whistle. Any such restrictions come from men—not God!
5. The Law of Moses, with all its mass of detailed instructions, said nothing about worshiping God using instruments of music. And yet we find that during this dispensation there was frequent worship using various instruments—and there is every indication that God did not disapprove. No one assumed that because God did not spell out instructions to use instruments in worship it was therefore prohibited.
6. It is universally acknowledged that music can have a powerful effect on human emotions. A striking example is David, through the sweet music from his harp, soothing the raging emotions of the brooding King Saul. Countless people can testify that their spirits are elevated through hearing beautiful organ music, for example. Many of us believe that there needs to be some powerful evidence that God has denied us this avenue of inspiration if we are going to categorically condemn it.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. The church is supposed to worship through congregational singing, unaccompanied by any mechanical instrument.
2. The command to sing automatically prohibits the use of a mechanical instrument.
3. Congregational singing is an acceptable substitute for the command to sing instructive solos.
4. It is ok to sing hymns at home with piano accompaniment—but not in the church building. (Admittedly this is by no means believed by all; some see the obvious inconsistency in such reasoning.)
5. It is quite justified to have no fellowship with those who use instruments in their services.

CONCLUSIONS

1. I have spent my life in a cappella congregations. I much prefer this style of service. But intellectually I must confess that I see no scriptural evidence that the Lord has set any restrictions in this regard.
2. It is clear that the Lord accepted worship with instruments in the Old Testament. The book of Revelation depicts God being worshipped with harps in heaven—so there is nothing intrinsically ungodly about worship involving musical instruments. To believe that the Lord allowed musical instruments in the Old Testament, will accept it in heaven, but makes it a sin now—and did not tell us about it—and expects us to figure it out by reading between the lines in the passages that talk about singing—well, that seems totally incredible to me. Considering the fact that the Lord gave us no instructions whatever about any details of worship—and set no restrictions on how to—or how not to—conduct “worship services”, I can reach no conclusion other than that the Lord leaves to our personal judgment whether or not to worship with musical instruments.
3. I believe there are good reasons to have a cappella music in church services—not based on law, but on expediency. Many times I have noted that some musical performances, especially those involving noisy bands, are very distracting and place the focus much more on the performers themselves, and their music, than on adoration of the Lord. While there is no command to even have a worship service, it is hard to condemn what happens in them, but I feel much better about a service where reverence for God predominates.
4. I have good friends (and family) who point out that it is “safe” to have a cappella services. They are right….as are the one-cuppers, no-Sunday school, etc. The Lord provides for great flexibility. It is wrong for people to do whatever violates their conscience, even if it is not intrinsically sinful. Again, the problem arises when people let their opinions develop into divisiveness

______________________________

Here are some parting words from Marion’s essay:

“As has been explained, the ideas expressed in this essay are the result of many years of study and reflection. I would be delighted to receive any feedback from thoughtful brethren (hopefully providing “light” rather than “heat”). There is much evidence that within the brotherhood there is a growing trend toward thoughtful evaluation of long-held traditions in effort to be in harmony with the scriptures. I would love to contribute to that effort.“

Again, I apologize for how long it has taken to get to this last post from Marion. I have a couple of other items that I’m itching to post. Some of it gets pretty detailed and hopefully it will bring some good discussion.

Peace

JH

“CHURCH OF CHRIST” DOCTRINES: FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS - Part 5

There’s a lot I could write about his one… but I won’t.  Smarter and better people have written better things than I could have come up with.   One thing that stands out with regard to Worship (again, not just the C of C) is how people become so focused on Sunday corporate assembly, and the actions that go along with it, when worship is discussed.  So much so that many verses which discuss worship, encouraging each other and teaching each other are incorrectly applied to ONLY Sunday assembly.  If you read many of the early church father’s writings, you’ll see that the early church met on many days during the week.  They also took the Lord’s supper many times during the week.

Sadly, we have let the “What” and “How” of worship become battles to be fought between Christ followers instead of being actions springing from the heart towards our creator, savior and friend.  So much of what we do in our “Corporate Assembly” is based on culture and/or the history of our faith heritage.  Take a look at the verses that say we are to “…sing psalms hymns and spiritual songs…”  Where in those verses is Sunday morning “Corporate Assembly” even mentioned?  It isn’t!  Yet we take those verses and use them to draw battle lines against other Christ followers in our doctrinal disputes on the correct way of what we should or shouldn’t be doing.  One group says that because it says to sing and not to strum then our “Sunday Assembly” should be A Capella.  There is even a group that says these verses never command music of ANY form (vocal or instrumental.)

Take a look at what Marion has written below.

WORSHIP

Surely the greatest disparity between facts and assumptions exists in the area of worship. Surely it is the subject concerning which there have been the most argument, the most divisiveness,….and the most obscuring of the lines between facts and assumptions. Our traditions have become so ingrained that we seldom take the time to take a hard look at what the scriptures really say—and do not say—about worship. (The truth may be a bit shocking.)

FACTS

1. The New Testament gives us very little instruction about various ways in which to worship God. Our worship is to be “in spirit and in truth” (John 4). Paul says (Romans 12) that giving our bodies as a living sacrifice is worship. Other than that there are NO specific actions referred to as worship. NONE of the so-called “acts of worship” are referred to as worship in the scriptures.
2. There are NO instructions in the Bible for how to conduct a worship service (except for the general instructions to do things decently and in order).
3. There are no instructions to even HAVE a worship service—much less what to do at one.
4. There is only one command for Christians to meet together (Hebrews 10:25). The passage says nothing about worship, nor does it specify when or how often these meetings should occur. The goals stated in the passage are to “spur one another on toward love and good deeds” and to “encourage one another”.
5. There are 2 key passages relative to singing (Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) Not only do these passages say nothing about worship, but they say nothing about singing in a group setting. The instruction is for one person to sing to another person in such a way as to “teach and admonish”.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. We have assumed that we are required to assemble together and perform various “acts of worship”, including singing, praying, communion, giving money, and scripture reading—and that if we fail to do this we are in violation of God’s law.
2. In our services we are to sing as a congregation—not solos or small groups.
3. Singing is to be entirely a cappella (more about this later).
4. Various groups have made various specific assumptions which have formed the basis for their particular separatist fellowships. The “one-cuppers” assume that Jesus’ instructions to drink of his cup means that only one cup should be used in all communion services. The no-Sunday school group assumes that that the Lord objects to dividing into classes. The non-cooperation group assumes that that the Lord has set forth a set of binding examples in certain areas and that they must conform to some sort of pattern which they profess to see. Other smaller groups have formed based on similar types of reasoning.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Lord spent his ministry teaching us what kind of people he wants us to be. In one sermon (on the mount) he summed up a major part of what he wants. He told us that the most important command is to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. The second most important command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. The Lord made clear that the MOST important thing to him is what is in our hearts—and how the things in our hearts shape our lives.
2. The Lord explained clearly how one is to become saved—belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. When one becomes saved he becomes a child of God…and a brother (or sister) of every other child of God. These are all commanded to love each other, avoid divisions among themselves, and refrain from condemning or sitting in judgment on each other, thus usurping God’s authority. (This does not mean that they cannot lovingly do their best to help each other correct their misunderstandings when they exist.)
3. As for my brethren who are in various splinter groups, I will not refuse fellowship with them—even though they may not choose to reciprocate. I would be delighted to study with them and show them where I believe they have misunderstood the scriptures. I really feel sorry for them. It must be pretty miserable to be always tiptoeing through a minefield of technical do’s and don’ts…as defined by self-appointed arbiters of which examples are binding and which are not! And yet I believe that members of these groups can be devoutly sincere and acceptable to God, even though they lack understanding—just as surely as was the case with those discussed in Romans 14. The really serious concern about these groups is their violation of God’s law against divisiveness as they allow their assumptions and personal judgments to be the basis for their withholding fellowship from other children of God.
4. In the New Testament there are commands to worship God, but not one single act ever categorized as worship. There is only one logical conclusion from this: the Lord leaves it up to us how we choose to worship him. There is the presumption that those who are committed to Christ and his teachings will imbibe his spirit and will use good judgment in how they express their worship to him. Unless one of us sees another violate some specific law of God we have no right to render a condemnatory judgment against that brother or sister regarding how he or she chooses to worship—NONE.
5. Paul mentioned that “all things are lawful, but not all things are useful (or expedient)”. Whatever else this may mean, it is clear that some decisions in our service to God are based on judgment. Obviously the quality of one’s judgment depends on a number of factors…and no two people are exactly alike in their spiritual maturity. Inevitably there will be disagreements about what is expedient—a fact which helps explain many of the divisions among us. The point is that Christians must NEVER sever fellowship with other Christians on the basis of anything other than blatant, continuous violation of God’s law.
6. It would be very helpful if we could all understand one important principle: sin is a violation of God’s law; where there is no law, there is no violation; where there is no violation, there is no sin!

This is the second to last post from Marion’s paper.  The next post will be his observations on “Instrumental Music.”  I look forward to that post.

jh