Restoration?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

What have you done for the restoration today? I often ask myself this question and find that my work here goes a long way towards that. How many of us have lost sight the goals though? I know I had for a long while, my eye was not on the prize but on my own prideful assurances. I have the motto of most restoration churches taped to my monitor:

We are Christians only but not the only Christians
No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no name but the Divine
Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity

Now looking over that the other day a thought occurred to me, that for the most part all I should ever debate is "What is essential?". I would say there are very few essentials:

1. Belief
2. Confession
3. Repentance
4. Baptism

After that it's all non-essentials. We are seeing this more and more in our chruches as well. Max Lucado spoke at last years Brotherhood of Christian Churches convention and was very well recieved. I had an article but will have to find it again where a Christian Church and a Church of Christ that were both shrinking and starting to lose hope merged together and are growing like wildfire. They have three Sunday morning services; one traditional worhsip, one acapella worship, and one contemporary worship. In the even they do traditional and acapella and on Wed night the Bible study is everyone. It took less than a year for them to double in size after merging. There are amazing things happening right now in the restoration movement. I have been concerned for a long while about the split between congregations like mine and our acapella bretheren and am seeing those heal in my lifetime. The question remains though, what sort of example are we in preaching restoration when we ourselves are split? I no longer consider myself non-denominational but rather anti-denominational. I would like to see every Baptiist, Lutheran, Prebetryrian, etc signs come down and everyone just be part of the body of Christ. What say you? If you are CoC and you had a CC church come to you concerning a move like those two churches made what would you do? If you are CC then look it from the other angle and answer. :) I look forward to hearing from both my musical and acapella bretheren!

[Stinker]

What have you done for the restoration today? I often ask myself this question and find that my work here goes a long way towards that. How many of us have lost sight the goals though? I know I had for a long while, my eye was not on the prize but on my own prideful assurances. I have the motto of most restoration churches taped to my monitor:

We are Christians only but not the only Christians
No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no name but the Divine
Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent
In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity

Now looking over that the other day a thought occurred to me, that for the most part all I should ever debate is "What is essential?". I would say there are very few essentials:

1. Belief
2. Confession
3. Repentance
4. Baptism

After that it's all non-essentials. We are seeing this more and more in our chruches as well. Max Lucado spoke at last years Brotherhood of Christian Churches convention and was very well recieved. I had an article but will have to find it again where a Christian Church and a Church of Christ that were both shrinking and starting to lose hope merged together and are growing like wildfire. They have three Sunday morning services; one traditional worhsip, one acapella worship, and one contemporary worship. In the even they do traditional and acapella and on Wed night the Bible study is everyone. It took less than a year for them to double in size after merging. There are amazing things happening right now in the restoration movement. I have been concerned for a long while about the split between congregations like mine and our acapella bretheren and am seeing those heal in my lifetime. The question remains though, what sort of example are we in preaching restoration when we ourselves are split? I no longer consider myself non-denominational but rather anti-denominational. I would like to see every Baptiist, Lutheran, Prebetryrian, etc signs come down and everyone just be part of the body of Christ. What say you? If you are CoC and you had a CC church come to you concerning a move like those two churches made what would you do? If you are CC then look it from the other angle and answer. :) I look forward to hearing from both my musical and acapella bretheren!

I do believe that beyond our 5 step creed, that the Lord's Supper, and giving as prospered, are absolute essentials. So I think a 7 step creed would be more accurate. Things do get a bit technical beyond that point. I think that it is just fantastic that we are beginning to 'mend fences' with each other in the Restoration Movement. The church I belong to claps and it is just a wonderful atmosphere! They use instruments usually during only one song on Sunday morning service. I spent most of my Christian years in anti-instrumental congregations where they did not allow even clapping. It would pain me to have to return to that kind of an atmosphere. I have spent a great deal of time and energy over the years trying to show that we should not add to or take away from the worship service. I have to say that this kind of teaching made me an unhappy person because I walked around with a not a 'log in my eye'...but a ruler. Being at this website has definitely changed me. I had to study so hard to prove my position.....that I studied my way right out it on a number of issues! I'd be in favor 100% for a Christian Church & C/church of Christ get together!:thumbsup:

[aggie03]

There are other things though that I believe you are missing in the ideas proposed in this thread.

First, can you find examples of congregations that didn't meet together in the Scriptures? For instance, I know of places that have a college group, a high school group, a young adult group, an older adult group, but these groups never come together. Can you find anything like this in the Scriptures?

What is the difference in this set up and the one that you would be proposing where there are three different worship services for essentially different "groups"?

Also, what about the issues of conscience? I could not meet with a group that used instruments in the worship service because I believe that I would not be doing what is right in the sight of God. In order for me to come together with that group, if they were going to be sensitive to my conscience, then they would have to meet without instruments anyway -- unless of course you can find support for various groups within a congregation never meeting together.

Also, I wouldn't be able to put any money into the treasury on the first day of the week because I wouldn't want it to be used for anything that I thought was not correct - in this instance the instruments. How would you work out that problem, or situation?

I'm genuinely curious to hear back from you :)

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

First, can you find examples of congregations that didn't meet together in the Scriptures? For instance, I know of places that have a college group, a high school group, a young adult group, an older adult group, but these groups never come together. Can you find anything like this in the Scriptures?


Are these places actually churches? That is a necessary question for mt give an answer to that at all.


What is the difference in this set up and the one that you would be proposing where there are three different worship services for essentially different "groups"?


The thing about combining two churches as I described is that the elders were from both sides of the music issue. It was a true combining of the churches a huge step towards unity.


Also, what about the issues of conscience? I could not meet with a group that used instruments in the worship service because I believe that I would not be doing what is right in the sight of God. In order for me to come together with that group, if they were going to be sensitive to my conscience, then they would have to meet without instruments anyway -- unless of course you can find support for various groups within a congregation never meeting together.


I have only one question to ask about this whole paragraph. When did instruments or the lack thereof become an essential? Considering that so little is said about it in the NT and in fact nothing said directly about it, why treat it as an essential? I respect the CoC belief on the issue and would never ask anyone to megre two churches and force our acapella bretheren to sit in a instrumental worship service, but I cannot see raising this to the level of an essential. In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity.

[WesWoodell]

Good thread. :thumbsup:


I would add another essential too: To Strive to be Obedient (not perfectly of course).

Jesus said in the Great Commission that we are to teach His followers to "obey everything I have commanded" and Romans 6 tells us that "you are slaves to the one whom you obey." 1 John 2 tells us that a man who claims to know Christ but doesn't follow His commandments is a liar, and that we are assured that we truly know Him when we obey His commands.

Personally, I would love to see CoC and CC churches merge. I know that even if that were to happen there would still be a lot of traditional CoC's that would be very upset and would break off to form another sect. The anti-establishment churches are very, very conservative. I have heard of splits because a kitchen was added to the building or a basketball court was built and paid for by the church. I understand the arguments from both sides, although I do not agree with the conservative point of view.

I do not personally have a problem with instruments, but many people do.

Flesh, one thing I have heard about CC's is that women are allowed to teach over men and their are female preachers and things like that. Is that true, and if so how do you guys explain that from Scripture?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Well in our church we do not ordain women. While I don't agree 100% a case can be made for women teaching, as long as they do not hold a position of authority. We allow women to teach Sunday School because that's a discussion group but we do not have women in the pulpit. Without a central doctrinal authority though it is impossible to stop any church from doing that. I would say that like instruments, I feel that ordination of women is not an essential. When we talk of essentials we are talking of Salvation IMO. I would not attend a church that had women in the pulpit but likewise I would not deny them fellowship. In denying them fellowship in the brotherhood as it were you lose the ability to guide them.

It is funny that this was brought up in a debate across the kitchen table last night with a good freind from church who is more liberal than I am and doesn't mind women teaching but draws the line at ordination. I personally draw the line at women teaching me because we see in the context of scripture that women are to teach women and children. The agrument that gets brought up the most is the fact that men have fialed in the US to retain their biblical position of headship. It has not been taken from us but as a whole we have failed to retain it. Most of us were not taught to be men but rather just adults. The failing is a societal one when equality if pushed for in all areas and the church gives in to many of the pressures. It wasn't until about 30 years ago that any Protestant church anywhere taught that birth control was allright! We, as the body of Christ, have failed to resist the pressures of the world. My solution would be to welcome these churches, and the brotherhood does now, and counsel them very strongly on scripture and the roles of men and women in the church. I think this would promote unity and in a Godly manner.

Wes, I have a question for you on the intrument issue. Since scripture says the world will recognize us (the church) by our unity and be saved through that do you think that things like the instrument debate and women in the pulpit have become pride issued on the restoration movement? I am not sure of that answer myself but I am leaning towards thinking that is. As I pray more and more for understanding certain things seem smaller and smaller in importance to me compared with the essentials of Salvation and unity in the body of Christ. We have to heal the rifts in our own movement before we can take on the world!

[WesWoodell]

I'm sure for some it is a pride issue, and for some it isn't. Personally, I believe it is very simple. How can you "restore" the first century church when you are adding to what they did? To me, that isn't a restoration - it is simply making something else entirely.


Again, I personally don't have a problem with musical instruments being used in worship, but I fellowship with many people who do. I understand both sides of that argument and prefer to remain neutral.


The issue regarding women in leadership is in another ballpark. While we don't have specific instructions about the use of musical instruments, we do have specific instructions about the role of a woman in the congregation. I will never support anything that is in direct opposition of the Scriptures, and that is not a pride issue - that is a common sense issue.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

But Wes, is it an essential? I agree with you on the issue of women in a leadership position, but is it an essential? That's waht I am asking here. Is it enough to disfellowship our brothers and sisters over? My stance would be that it would be better to include them and counsel them to change their ways than to disfellowship them and push them into a world that applauds their mistakes and exalts them for being progressive. In doing this we allow them to validate their errors by viewing them through the eyes of the world. Is this something we should consider?

That is the point I am trying to illustrate throughout this thread. We, as Restoration bretheren claim "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty" and yet we are willing to divide over something that is not an essential. So the debate amongst us should be "what is an essential" and this will vary from church to church. This where not having any central authority plays into the game. The NT church did have authority in a central place and that was Paul for the most part. But we have completely self governed congregations without any accountability to anyone outside our individual churches. Because that is held so highly amongst our movement then we have to accept that there will be disagreement on the essentials right? I don't think so. I wouldn't want an authority like the Catholic Church has because I don't believe in the way that is done, but without any central authority how do we ever unite?

[aggie03]

Are these places actually churches? That is a necessary question for mt give an answer to that at all.

Yes they are. One of my co-workers attends a place like this. How does this affect the question at hand with the different worship groups that you would be proposing? Perhaps I misunderstood the proposal?

If you have separate types of worship for those who believe instruments are okay and those who don't, aren't you in effect creating distinct groups like those that exist within this other congregation based on ages?

The thing about combining two churches as I described is that the elders were from both sides of the music issue. It was a true combining of the churches a huge step towards unity.

It just sounds like they started to meet in the same building. Perhaps more details are needed. I would, however, like to take this opportunity to point out that physical growth and growth in numbers doesn't necessarily mean that what was done was a good thing in the sight of God. I'm fairly certain we'll all agree about at least that much :)

I have only one question to ask about this whole paragraph. When did instruments or the lack thereof become an essential?

It becomes an essential when it violates my conscience. Meat - why in the world was meat an important issue? Why was so much time devoted to talking about it? Paul makes the point very clearly that meat isn't important, but the person and the person's conscience is. It would violate my conscience to worship using instruments. How would you handle this situation? Would you be willing to give up your freedom for my sake and not have instruments in the worship service?

[WesWoodell]

Is it essential? I believe it could be. I know a few female pastors - they know the Scriptures concerning women leadership in the church, and they all blatently disobey them and encourage others to do the same. They all used the same argument when I questioned them on it - they explained to me that many of the things in the Bible were written only for the people of the first century, and how many of the teachings in the Bible do not apply to us today.

I can not fellowship with a church that teaches that and have a clear conscience. For me to fellowship with them (in a congregational setting) would be to give my approval to what I believe to be a sin, and that would make it sinful for me (Romans 14). I have no problem with being a freind to someone who I disagree with. I have no problem sitting down and having coffee with someone like that, or inviting them into my home to have a meal and to talk. I do have a problem with fellowshiping with a congregation that promotes non-Biblical teaching and denies that the teachings in the Bible that go against our mainstream societal values are valid today.

I will not approve of sin simply for the sake of being united, and I believe it is sinful to do so. The Bible is so very clear on a woman's role in a congregation of believers that to go against those teachings is to deny the authority of the Word of God.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not believe unity is always realistic, nor do I believe it to be the most important thing while we are here on earth. In my opinion, the most important thing is that we, as Christians, be followers of Christ, and to do so to the best of our ability. Christ never gave approval to sin. He was tolerant of it to an extent because He understood that we, as humans, are imperfect, but He never encouraged it; He did, however, strongly rebuke it.

I believe that sometimes the only way to truly love someone is to correct them (and I am not implying that we should be unkind). Inviting a group into your church fellowship while they continue to perpetuate false teachings is not loving them in my opinion, and has the potential to cause more harm than to do good.

"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You see that's where we all need to be debating. We must define the essentials at least for ourselves if not for the church as a whole in respect to the restoration movement.

Aggie I will get to you post this evening. :) I am pressed for time at the moment but don't want you to think I have forgotten about you.

What did you think about my concerns of a central authority?

[WesWoodell]

Essentials: Whatever God's Word commands.

Non-Essentials: Whatever God's Word doesn't command.

That about raps it up. :)

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

So in that case musical insturments shouldn't be considered an essential but ordaining women or allowing them to have authority over men would. I can accept that completely actually. If we speak where scripture speaks and is silent where it is silent I think we are allright. This covers a multitude of things as well such as some of the big issues in the media. I think that's the right place to draw the line in fact.

[WesWoodell]

You won't here me argue against that. :thumbsup:

[aggie03]

Aggie I will get to you post this evening. :) I am pressed for time at the moment but don't want you to think I have forgotten about you.

What did you think about my concerns of a central authority?

I look forward to hearing back from you?

I'm not sure what you're referring to with regard to mentioning a central authority, so I'll read through the posts again :) Hope you're having a good day.

[Forest]

Essentials: Whatever God's Word commands.

Non-Essentials: Whatever God's Word doesn't command.

That about raps it up. :)


That is a good definition of essentials. But would a simple definition work in practice? i.e....

1 Corinthians 16:20 Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.

2 Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

1 Peter 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.

? Some people dismiss this as a custom, but I've always wondered then how they distinguish between a custom and commandment.

[aggie03]

That is a good definition of essentials. But would a simple definition work in practice? i.e....

1 Corinthians 16:20 Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.

2 Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

1 Peter 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.

? Some people dismiss this as a custom, but I've always wondered then how they distinguish between a custom and commandment.

Well in this instance, I don't really believe that there is much question as to whether or not this method of greeting each other was a custom or not. This was a very typical method of greeting individuals -- the key difference in the command that is given to the Christians is that their greeting be holy.

It is very easy to greet someone in the customary manner (i.e. shaking hands in the United States) while still holding some kind of grudge against, or not even really liking them. This type of greeting would not fit into the context of greeting someone in a holy manner.

I guess what I'm trying to say (though it may not be very clear) is that we don't have to greet each other with a literal kiss, but we are commanded to greet each other in a way that is holy. Does this make sense?

[Forest]

Well in this instance, I don't really believe that there is much question as to whether or not this method of greeting each other was a custom or not. This was a very typical method of greeting individuals -- the key difference in the command that is given to the Christians is that their greeting be holy.

It is very easy to greet someone in the customary manner (i.e. shaking hands in the United States) while still holding some kind of grudge against, or not even really liking them. This type of greeting would not fit into the context of greeting someone in a holy manner.

I guess what I'm trying to say (though it may not be very clear) is that we don't have to greet each other with a literal kiss, but we are commanded to greet each other in a way that is holy. Does this make sense?

I think I know what you are trying to say.

But if some commandments can be disregarded because they are customs, I am wondering if there is some objective way to determine what is a custom. I can't think what it would be.

Some people will also call Paul's commandments, especially about the role for women, a custom.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

It becomes an essential when it violates my conscience. Meat - why in the world was meat an important issue? Why was so much time devoted to talking about it? Paul makes the point very clearly that meat isn't important, but the person and the person's conscience is. It would violate my conscience to worship using instruments. How would you handle this situation? Would you be willing to give up your freedom for my sake and not have instruments in the worship service?


I have thought long and hard about this question you asked. I am still not sure of the answer to be honest. I find legalism to be just as distressing to my conscience as you are likely to find instruments. So I don't know where compromise would be on this save having two worship services. Since scripture does not speak on music in worship it is a place that we should be silent as well, at least according the basic foundation for the restoration movement. It is all a matter of "in non-essentials liberty". I do not think for a minute you should be forced into a worship service with instrumentation you do not agree with, nor do I think I should be forced into an acapella service. I think that a compromise of two services is an idea that really has merit.

Using Paul's writings to further acapella worship is a true slippery slope and I think I can illustrate it. Especially the stumbling block verse. If we expand that verse to cover anything non-essential then we wouldn't ever leave our houses. Merely driving a car can lead some to sin. Simply shopping at a store that sells alcohol could lead a brother to stumble. It's dangerous to cover things that are not addressed in scripture. I could bring in the letter kills verse in regards to acapella worship but I have no desire to eliminate my brothers' worship style. In fact I find it beautiful at times. It just doesn't minister to me the way that musical worship does.

So knowing how I feel about legalism and the letter so to speak are you willing to not have unity over this? It's the same question you asked of me and there isn't a real answer for it. This is really an issue where we must find compromise if we are to be a light to the rest of Christendom and prove that unity can and does work.

[WesWoodell]

You know how to unite people? Get them all working on the same problem.

[aggie03]

I have thought long and hard about this question you asked. I am still not sure of the answer to be honest.

I appreciate you thinking about the question. That's the first thing that everyone would have to do if there is going to be any progress made toward any kind of unity.

I find legalism to be just as distressing to my conscience as you are likely to find instruments.

The problem that I have with this statement is that it doesn't fit exactly with what the Scriptures teach. If you believe that you have the freedom to worship with instruments, then that is something you ought to be willing to give up for those who do not believe it is correct. This doesn't mean that you have to agree with those people, it just means that you should love them enough to give up the instruments...and this is why:

The only person who can violate your conscience is you. I cannot violate your conscience, but I can goad you into doing so. Let's use something like an R-rated movie for an example.

If it bothers you to hear or be around people who swear, that is, if you believe you are sinning by being part of a crowd where that activity is accepted, then you would be sinning and violating your conscience to do so. For the purpose of this example, let's say that this does not bother me. If I go and watch an R-Rated movie with a group of people I have not violated your conscience because you did not go with the group to see the movie. However, let's say I ask you to go with me to movie and your response is "I don't go to those kinds of movies because I believe that I'm sinning to be associated with language like that." I then proceed to tell that it's really okay to go as long as you don't say anything bad, that only girly men are afraid to not see those movies -- generally anything that will push toward doing what I want you to do. If you finally give in and go with me you will have violated your conscience because you did something you believed was sinful. I did not violate your conscience, you did that by yourself. What I did was place a stumbling block before by insisting that you go do something that is sinful.

In the situation that we're dealing with you are the meat eater -- that is you can play an instrument or just sing without violating your conscience. I would be someone who could not eat meat. If you were to insist that there be a worship service with instruments, that would be like asking me, goading me to eat meat when I thought it was wrong [of course I believe there are scriptural reasons for not using instruments, but that is another discussion all together].

There is a difference between having to do something you don't necessarily want to do and violating your conscience. Does any of this make sense?


So I don't know where compromise would be on this save having two worship services.

I don't find any example of this in the Scriptures. The saints who lived together also all worshipped together so far as I am able to tell.


Since scripture does not speak on music in worship it is a place that we should be silent as well, at least according the basic foundation for the restoration movement.

I believe that this would be a good separate discussion to have :)

It is all a matter of "in non-essentials liberty". I do not think for a minute you should be forced into a worship service with instrumentation you do not agree with, nor do I think I should be forced into an acapella service.

Again, this is where I would disagree. If it violates my conscience then it is an essential.Also, based on how I perceive the situation, you should not have to be forced into not using the instruments -- that should be something you are willing to give up.

I think that a compromise of two services is an idea that really has merit.

Again, I see not scriptural basis for this. It also starts to open up more problems then just the music issue...I am certain that this will need at least one more thread to be discussed thoroughly...but I would not be comfortable giving my money into a collection or treasury where it was not used for what I saw as scriptural things. For instance, sticking with the meat analogy, I would not be able to give someone money to buy meat if I thought it was sinful to eat it.

Using Paul's writings to further acapella worship is a true slippery slope and I think I can illustrate it. Especially the stumbling block verse. If we expand that verse to cover anything non-essential then we wouldn't ever leave our houses. Merely driving a car can lead some to sin. Simply shopping at a store that sells alcohol could lead a brother to stumble. It's dangerous to cover things that are not addressed in scripture. I could bring in the letter kills verse in regards to acapella worship but I have no desire to eliminate my brothers' worship style. In fact I find it beautiful at times. It just doesn't minister to me the way that musical worship does.

So knowing how I feel about legalism and the letter so to speak are you willing to not have unity over this? It's the same question you asked of me and there isn't a real answer for it. This is really an issue where we must find compromise if we are to be a light to the rest of Christendom and prove that unity can and does work.

This is starting to become a fairly long post, so I will stop writing without addressing the last two paragraphs. If you would like to discuss them (or for me to address the information there) just let me know and I will do it in another reply.

I truly do appreciate your patience and willingness to talk about these things. It is a rare thing in deed -- and I believe that we both have a golden opportunity to learn together and grow in our understanding of the Lord!

I pray that God will guide us all with His word! I look forward to hearing back from you!:)

[stryper36]

I'm glad to see a Restoration Movement thread so that we can strive to become one in Christ; Non-instrumental and instrumental Churches.
It's a shame that back in the early 1900's that music became such a big deal that the Churches split over it.
It's ok to agree and disagree as long as its in LOVE.
I would like to see my generation and future generations mend the fences that have been unrepaired

[constance]

I grew up Baptist but went to an acapella CoC church in College. I loved the music. Through some twist of God's will, my husband is soon to be ordained as a CC/DoC minister. He is interested in meeting some of his brethren in the ICoC but is unsure of how to do so.

Many of our churches here are partnered with a UCC church, but we find them to be too liberal for our personal tastes(i.e. Christianity is optional at some). (We are in Chicago).

Does anyone know how to "network" with the Independent Churches of Christ?

Constance

[stryper36]

I do...Give me a little bit when I get back from Dinner and I will help you that

[Jim Woodell]

I grew up Baptist but went to an acapella CoC church in College. I loved the music. Through some twist of God's will, my husband is soon to be ordained as a CC/DoC minister. He is interested in meeting some of his brethren in the ICoC but is unsure of how to do so.

Many of our churches here are partnered with a UCC church, but we find them to be too liberal for our personal tastes(i.e. Christianity is optional at some). (We are in Chicago).

Does anyone know how to "network" with the Independent Churches of Christ?

Constance

I would suggest that you start by looking at the listings in the yellow pages of your local phone book, but there is a website you can go to under Churches of Christ that will give you a listing for Illinois and your area.

Remember, Churches of Christ are "independent," so there may be some variation of both what you see and what you experience in these nondenominational groups.

[stryper36]

Just type in this in your search engine and browse through the links till you find what you are looking for.........Independent Churches of Christ

[aggie03]

I would like to hear from anyone who has views that seem to differ from the ones that I've posted. I especially look forward to hearing from Flesh99 again. I hope that you all have been having a good day :)

[Forest]

Again, this is where I would disagree. If it violates my conscience then it is an essential.Also, based on how I perceive the situation, you should not have to be forced into not using the instruments -- that should be something you are willing to give up.

I wonder as a practical matter, where this would end. Does it mean that if anything bothers someone's conscience, then others should give it up?

Paul says he would "eat no flesh while the world standeth" to avoid offending his brother. On the other hand, he refers to the one who doesn't eat meat as a "weak" brother. Should any lines be drawn?, or, when it comes down to do's and dont's is it all a matter of conscience?

I'm not sure what to think about this.

1 corinthians 8:9-13

[constance]

Hey! I just realized that this thread (that I hijacked to get the info - thanks!) is really really interesting! I have been taking Disciples History & Thought classes (History of the Restoration Movement)...& it's such a shame that the "poster children" of how Christians should get along have such a hard time working together.

I am in the DoC/CC - is there any interest within the CC or CoC of working with the DoC/CC, or are they the worst of all because they're "denominationally organized"?

By the way, I went to an acapella church in college and if I had my choice I think that's what I'd pick...or maybe Mennonite. :)

Constance

[stryper36]

The DoC are more open minded in thier views. Some believe in the pre-trib theory, some believe in women elders, preachers.
If there are any chance of all the CoC/CC/DoC working together as a whole; it will probably not be in my life time.
Some of the non-instrumental CoC and the instrumental CoC are just now talking and coming back together. But that's been since the split in the early 1900's. Around 1907 era when the Churches split.

That is something that we all have to pray about

[aggie03]

I wonder as a practical matter, where this would end. Does it mean that if anything bothers someone's conscience, then others should give it up?

I think that the decision everyone arrives to concerning this question will ultimately decide whether or not any kind of movement can even begin toward "converging the divergence".

The first thing that must be done is that a difference must be distinguished between things that you don't like and things that offend your conscience. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it offends your conscience. For instance, I may really not like the song book that we sing hymns from because it doesn't have some of my favorite songs in it. Just because I don't like that book doesn't mean that it violates my conscience to sing from it. I would submit that the phrase "to violate one's conscience" means that one believes they are sinning against God when a certain action is done. Following the meat example that is so prevalent in the Scriptures, the people who meat offended thought they were sinning against God when they ate it -- it wasn't just that they didn't like meat.

The second thing is that we must realize that no one else can violate our own conscience. If I believe that it is wrong to eat meat and you do so, you did not violate my conscience (I would still say that you shouldn't eat meat around me, though :) ). Frequently I hear people try to apply this concept in such a manner and in many situations the application is impossible to make. When dealing with individual actions no one person can violate your conscience but yourself.

Where this becomes important is, in particular, when we are dealing with coporate or group activities. For instance, when a congregation comes together to sing. I believe that the Scriptures teach by example, command and direct implications that no instruments should be used in the worship service. I did not always believe this, but after studying the Scritpures carefully this is the current conclusion that I have drawn. I will continue to study the subject, but this is what I currently understand and believe the word of God to teach. This means that I would think I was sinning if I were to come together with a group of people who used instruments when they worshipped the Lord together. If you believe that you have the freedom or the liberty to use instruments in the worship service, then are you willing to give up those instruments for the sake of your brother? Paul was willing to give up meat...

Paul says he would "eat no flesh while the world standeth" to avoid offending his brother. On the other hand, he refers to the one who doesn't eat meat as a "weak" brother.

Weak or not, he stopped eating the meat, didn't he? Shouldn't we be willing to follow this example? Paul called for the Christians in Corinth to emmulate him because he, Paul, was imitating Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16). Wouldn't it be a good idea for us to do the same thing, then?

Should any lines be drawn?, or, when it comes down to do's and dont's is it all a matter of conscience?

I don't believe that this is the case, and to make it such creates a false dillemma. There are certain things that God has said are wrong and should never be done no matter how someone else feels. There are certain things that God has said should always be done. In instances like this, someone else's conscience doesn't supercede the commandments of the Lord. However, where one perceives that they have liberty in Christ, then I believe that these other things must begin to be considered.

I hope that this helps to explain the situation that I've been talking about, and I look forward to any comments or other questions that you may have. I believe that this is a very good discussion and we should try to keep it going! I pray that the Lord will bless us all, and give us all the wisdom and understanding so that we might do the things that are pleasing to Him :)

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I apologize for seemingly dropping this discussion. I will be posting again soon. My departure from staff here at CF was pretty emotional and I stayed away for a while. I am looking forward to discussing this further, this is just a quick note to say I am back though. :) God bless everyone!

[aggie03]

I'm sorry to hear that :(. I will pray for you, and I look forward to your return to the conversation.

[aggie03]

I wanted to let everyone know that I'm still very eager to talk about this thread :)

[Forest]

Where this becomes important is, in particular, when we are dealing with coporate or group activities. For instance, when a congregation comes together to sing. I believe that the Scriptures teach by example, command and direct implications that no instruments should be used in the worship service. I did not always believe this, but after studying the Scritpures carefully this is the current conclusion that I have drawn. I will continue to study the subject, but this is what I currently understand and believe the word of God to teach. This means that I would think I was sinning if I were to come together with a group of people who used instruments when they worshipped the Lord together. If you believe that you have the freedom or the liberty to use instruments in the worship service, then are you willing to give up those instruments for the sake of your brother? Paul was willing to give up meat...

I would think the "it violates my conscience" standard would be hard to apply. I actually know of someone who is offended by baptism. How would this work in a practical situation. Does someone simply say that something violates their conscience and then it is not allowed when a congregation comes together? I don't see how this would work as some people seem to be offended by almost anything.

[WesWoodell]

Work it to your advantage. Tell them you're offended by people becoming offended.

[rider2]

Please read Dave Hunt's book about modern day Restoration movements and leaders. The book is titled "What Ever Happened to Heaven".
It's worth trying to find, and read.

[aggie03]

I would think the "it violates my conscience" standard would be hard to apply. I actually know of someone who is offended by baptism. How would this work in a practical situation. Does someone simply say that something violates their conscience and then it is not allowed when a congregation comes together? I don't see how this would work as some people seem to be offended by almost anything.

Something that violates one's conscience is not the same thing as something that offends someone. Also, the entire discussion concerning the conscience with regards to music is based upon the presupposition that there is nothing wron with instruments to begin with. We have not yet had that discussion, but for the sake of not deviating from the thread, we were only looking at the issue from that angle. As baptism is clearly something that is commanded in the Scriptures, it is something that must be done no matter who it offends.

Additionally, with baptism the only way that one could have their conscience violated would be to be baptized. No one can violate your conscience but you.

[contriteheart]

Hello aggie03, and Gig'em! :thumbsup: from a fellow Aggie, class of 87.

You make a good argument about respecting the conscience of others. The problem is, I'm not sure where such a line of thinking would end. Using instrumental music as an example, I think we would both agree that there is no direct commandment in the New Testament which forbids using musical instruments in worship. My understanding of the Restoration Movement is that it is an attempt to do only what was specifically recorded in the Bible as being found in the NT church. Is that correct? So therefore, instruments are out because the NT does not mention their use.

If we extend this to other things, we could also say that church buildings are not found in the NT. Nor are microphones. Nor are electric lights. You get the point. There are some Amish who are offended by the use of electric lights. Does this mean that no church where an Amish person might someday attend should ever use electric lights, so as not to offend their conscience by forcing them to worship where electricity is being used? There are many things that might offended different people. I'm curious where you would draw the line.

Please forgive me if I in any way am misrepresenting the beliefs of the Restoration Movement. I am only minimally acquainted with it at the present time. I did, however, attend a CoC this morning, and would be interested in returning. The acapella worship was beautiful and heartfelt. I am in complete agreement with the CoC understanding of salvation. I will say however, that I do not in any way consider the use/non-use of instruments in worship an essential. To me, an essential deals with our understanding of who God is, what He has done for us in Christ, and how we are to respond to what He has done. To make the non-use of instruments into an essential makes me wonder how well I will fit in with this group.

With love in Christ,
Grace

[Jim Woodell]

Hello aggie03, and Gig'em! :thumbsup: from a fellow Aggie, class of 87.

You make a good argument about respecting the conscience of others. The problem is, I'm not sure where such a line of thinking would end. Using instrumental music as an example, I think we would both agree that there is no direct commandment in the New Testament which forbids using musical instruments in worship. My understanding of the Restoration Movement is that it is an attempt to do only what was specifically recorded in the Bible as being found in the NT church. Is that correct? So therefore, instruments are out because the NT does not mention their use.

If we extend this to other things, we could also say that church buildings are not found in the NT. Nor are microphones. Nor are electric lights. You get the point. There are some Amish who are offended by the use of electric lights. Does this mean that no church where an Amish person might someday attend should ever use electric lights, so as not to offend their conscience by forcing them to worship where electricity is being used? There are many things that might offended different people. I'm curious where you would draw the line.

Please forgive me if I in any way am misrepresenting the beliefs of the Restoration Movement. I am only minimally acquainted with it at the present time. I did, however, attend a CoC this morning, and would be interested in returning. The acapella worship was beautiful and heartfelt. I am in complete agreement with the CoC understanding of salvation. I will say however, that I do not in any way consider the use/non-use of instruments in worship an essential. To me, an essential deals with our understanding of who God is, what He has done for us in Christ, and how we are to respond to what He has done. To make the non-use of instruments into an essential makes me wonder how well I will fit in with this group.

With love in Christ,
Grace

I'm not an Aggie, and since I come from east of your border there might be preconceived prejudice already (I am a Bison (Harding University), but will claim the Razorbacks also!).

I heard Batsell Barrett Baxter say one time that focusing on instrumental music is like letting the tail wag the dog. In other words, it should not be considered the "BIG ISSUE" of Christianity.

For the most part it is agreed that the New Testament is silent on instrumental music. It is neither commanded or condemned. For the sake of unity congregations who have no problem using the instrument sometimes refrain out of deference for those who cannot with good conscience use it.

I appreciate what you said about the beauty of acapella singing. I agree with you. I have found that instruments are a distraction for me, rather than an enhancement. It also seems to me that fewer people are making this a salvation issue than in the past.

There is rationale in the thinking that puts instrumental music in worship into a different arena than things like buildings, song books, and microphones, although the NT is silent on those things as well. For instance, the Great Commission tells us to "Go make disciples...," but does not tell us whether we are to ride, walk, or fly, just go. On the other hand, God does say specifically to "sing." He does not instruct us to both "sing" and "play an instrument." God tells us to "meet together," but he does not tell us to meet under a tree or in a building, so we can expedite our meeting by building a building if we so choose.

Oh well, I hope this helps, AND "Go Hogs!"

[contriteheart]

It also seems to me that fewer people are making this a salvation issue than in the past.



Thank you Jim, your post did help give me a better perspective as to how the Restoration movement views things.

I must admit that I found your sentence about fewer people making this a salvation issue than in the past shocking. Are you saying that some contingent within the CoC actually belive that using/not using instruments is a deciding factor in a person's salvation?

With love in Christ,
Grace

[Jim Woodell]

Thank you Jim, your post did help give me a better perspective as to how the Restoration movement views things.

I must admit that I found your sentence about fewer people making this a salvation issue than in the past shocking. Are you saying that some contingent within the CoC actually belive that using/not using instruments is a deciding factor in a person's salvation?

With love in Christ,
Grace

It is an observation on my part (my opinion) that some, who worship with the non-instrumental Churches of Christ, have thought that use of the instrument in the worship assembly is being disobedient to God and will send the users to hell, yes. As far as I know, not using the instrument in the worship assembly has never been an issue.

Just recently a Church of Christ Minister referred to the use of instrumental music in the worship assembly as "blasphemy" against God. When questioned about the use of this terminology he came back after reflection and said that he did not think he had misused the word "blasphemy."

[contriteheart]

I am speechless.

[Jim Woodell]

I am speechless.

Others were speechless also.

"In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things love." This was a slogan of the early restorationist. "We speak where the Bible speaks, and we remain silent where the Bible is silent," is another. However, I think some spoke where the Bible didn't speak and likely remained silent when the Bible did not remain silent.

We are all sinners and fall short of God's calling (Rom. 3:10, 23), so there are short comings in every organization.

[contriteheart]

Others were speechless also.

We are all sinners and fall short of God's calling (Rom. 3:10, 23), so there are short comings in every organization.

Yep, 'tis so. I've been a Christian for around 20 years now, been very active in churches, and seen a lot in that time. It still breaks my heart to see people held captive by legalism - or its evil twin licentiousness. It seems the straight and narrow is a difficult path to stay firmly in the middle of. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

A friend of mine has a good saying to keep in mind when dealing with churches and other groups: "Eat the meat, spit out the bones!" That works pretty well - unless, of course someone tries to shove a rib bone down your throat by force! ;)

With love in Christ,
Grace

[Jim Woodell]

Yep, 'tis so. I've been a Christian for around 20 years now, been very active in churches, and seen a lot in that time. It still breaks my heart to see people held captive by legalism - or its evil twin licentiousness. It seems the straight and narrow is a difficult path to stay firmly in the middle of. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

A friend of mine has a good saying to keep in mind when dealing with churches and other groups: "Eat the meat, spit out the bones!" That works pretty well - unless, of course someone tries to shove a rib bone down your throat by force! ;)

With love in Christ,
Grace

A dear Harding University Professor used to say, "Even a monkey knows to peel a banana before he eats it," and "A donkey is wise enought to spit out the sawbriars while he is eating the hay!"

My desire is to follow the Lord and be honest with myself and His Word.

I don't like bones either!

[aggie03]

Hello aggie03, and Gig'em! from a fellow Aggie, class of 87.

Howdy! I'm class of 2003. It's always great to meet other Aggie's on here. Do you still live in Texas?

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/2-27-03.jpg

You make a good argument about respecting the conscience of others.

Thank you.

The problem is, I'm not sure where such a line of thinking would end.

I would say that it ends where faith begins.


Using instrumental music as an example, I think we would both agree that there is no direct commandment in the New Testament which forbids using musical instruments in worship.

We wouldn't :) One can forbid something with a direct command without saying "thou shalt not". For instance, when God spoke to Moses and said that the Israelites were to honor their fathers and mothers (Exodus 20:12) this forbid any behavior contrary to that.

My understanding of the Restoration Movement is that it is an attempt to do only what was specifically recorded in the Bible as being found in the NT church. Is that correct?

No, that's not exactly right. We have to be careful when we make generalizations like that because sometimes it leads to problems. This is because the Scriptures do give leeway in some places, liberty or freedom, to things as individuals see fit. In regard to some things there are exact, precise or explicit commands; other things may be guided by a principle and in some instances there is liberty.

So therefore, instruments are out because the NT does not mention their use.

The use of instuments in worship goes beyond the commandment to sing.

If we extend this to other things, we could also say that church buildings are not found in the NT.

This is where you have started to fall into the trap of your generalization. The commandments and examples that we have with regard to coming together to worship deal with not forsaking the assembling of the saints (Hebrews 10:25) and the things that we ought to do when we come together. There is never any mention of a particular place to do that. Additionally, we have examples of Christians meeting together where ever they were able. This is an example of area where we have liberty.

Nor are microphones. Nor are electric lights.

Again, this is the trap that your generalization set. we are told to share our faith with others, to exhort and edify one another and to rebuke a brother or siste if necessary - but we are never a particular way to do so. The examples that you have offered deal with general commands. There is a difference between a general command and specific command, and we cannot place specific limitations on general commands unless another principle or example from the Scriptures does so for us.

You get the point.

I understand what you were trying to convey, but I believe it to be misguided by an incorrect generalization.


There are some Amish who are offended by the use of electric lights. Does this mean that no church where an Amish person might someday attend should ever use electric lights, so as not to offend their conscience by forcing them to worship where electricity is being used?

Well, firstly, it doesn't matter to their conscience if I use lights or not. I cannot offend their conscience, only they can offend their conscience. The situation only becomes problematic if they do something where they believe that they are sinning against God.

Secondly, though the situation you have proffered is highly unlikely, it could happen. If this were to happen in the congregation where I worship, I am certain that the elders would be more than happy to turn off the lights and burn candles. We have liberty in using electricity, but we must take heed lest our liberty become an occassion of stumbling - unless our liberty and the refusal to give up a portion of that liberty, forces or causes a brother or sister in Christ to sin against the one who has redeemed them.

There are many things that might offended different people.

My offending other people is different than an individual offending their conscience before God. Again, I cannot offend your conscience, only you can do that.

I'm curious where you would draw the line.

Again, I would say where faith begins. We can know from reading the Scriptures that whatever is not from faith is sin - therefore I would be willing to give up any portion of my liberty that I have in Christ to keep my brothers and sisters from sin. Gradually, they may learn of the liberty that they have in Christ and certain issues will become unimportant - but that may also never happen. I think that we forget the seriousness of sin sometimes and the measures that we should be willing to take to avoid it.

Please forgive me if I in any way am misrepresenting the beliefs of the Restoration Movement.

No apology is needed as you haven't done anything wrong :)


I am only minimally acquainted with it at the present time. I did, however, attend a CoC this morning, and would be interested in returning. The acapella worship was beautiful and heartfelt. I am in complete agreement with the CoC understanding of salvation.

I am glad that you enjoyed worshipping, and I agree that heartfelt music makes beautiful music. The only thing that I would point out is that there isn't a "CoC understanding" of anything. There isn't a book of doctrine that one must believe, there isn't a catechism or anything else of the sort. Each person will be held individually accountable before God for they choices that they have made in their lives and will be held accountable to the word of God. I don't study the scriptures to learn "church of Christ" doctrine, but I study the Scriptures to learn God's doctrines, Christ's doctrines and Holy Spirit's doctrines. Does this make sense?

[actionsub]

Good thread. :thumbsup:
Flesh, one thing I have heard about CC's is that women are allowed to teach over men and their are female preachers and things like that. Is that true, and if so how do you guys explain that from Scripture?

And that would be yet another group that stems from the Stone-Campbell RM, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Disciples tend toward liberal theology, and the "Independent" Christian Churches split away from them after World War II to pursue a more conservative Biblical view.

Hence, you'll find a lot of things in Disciples churches that would be anathema in Christian Churches and Church of Christ congregations. For instance, women's ordination is pretty widespread, not to mention a growing gay/lesbian caucus.
It further muddies the waters that the Disciples team up with a denomination called the United Church of Christ for numerous activities. The UCC was the first to officially sanction gay unions within their churches.

The Church of Christ spends a lot of time trying to distance themselves from the UCC; since while the names are similar, their theological histories (UCC stems from a merger between the Congregationalists and a German Lutheran group) are radically different.

[Jim Woodell]

And that would be yet another group that stems from the Stone-Campbell RM, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Disciples tend toward liberal theology, and the "Independent" Christian Churches split away from them after World War II to pursue a more conservative Biblical view.

Hence, you'll find a lot of things in Disciples churches that would be anathema in Christian Churches and Church of Christ congregations. For instance, women's ordination is pretty widespread, not to mention a growing gay/lesbian caucus.
It further muddies the waters that the Disciples team up with a denomination called the United Church of Christ for numerous activities. The UCC was the first to officially sanction gay unions within their churches.

The Church of Christ spends a lot of time trying to distance themselves from the UCC; since while the names are similar, their theological histories (UCC stems from a merger between the Congregationalists and a German Lutheran group) are radically different.

I don't understand the point you are making in this post:confused: . There is no doubt that people have confused the Church of Christ with the United Church of Christ, and there is no doubt that any fundamentalist would want to distance themselves from those that ordain gays and sanction gay marriages.