Churches of Christ: dropping ‘isolationist view’ and working with other faiths?
In many ways, Nashville, Tenn. — sometimes called the buckle of the Bible Belt — is Church of Christ country, as The Christian Chronicle has reported.
Davidson County, home of Music City, has 100 Churches of Christ with about 35,000 adherents (men, women and children in the pews), according to the 2009 edition of Churches of Christ in the United States. Among all religious groups, Davidson County’s Church of Christ population ranks second only to the 100,000 or so Southern Baptists, according to the 2007 Chronicle story I referenced earlier.
So when Nashville’s major daily newspaper, The Tennessean, runs a banner Page 1 story on Sunday reporting that Churches of Christ are dropping their “isolationist view” and working with other faiths, it’s probably a pretty big deal:
Since the late 1800s, Churches of Christ, one of Tennessee’s largest faith groups, have believed their approach to church — singing without instruments in worship, interpreting the Bible literally, taking Communion weekly and banning women from church leadership — was God’s way.
That meant they kept mostly to themselves, shunned other Christians and did not participate in interfaith projects for the community.
In recent years, congregations like Otter Creek have adopted a more progressive view of their faith. They’ve added instruments to church services on Sunday nights and during the week. And they’ve begun cooperating with other faith groups, especially on charitable projects.
(Doug) Sanders and others say this approach is faithful to their traditions and to the Bible. But critics say churches like Otter Creek have replaced real Christianity with a watered-down version.
The story was written by Bob Smietana, The Tennessean’s religion editor, a Facebook friend of mine who did a Blog Q&A with me last month.
Readers of the Chronicle are aware of the issues tackled by Bob, including the move by some progressive congregations to add instrumental worship services and the “identity crisis” that some believe our fellowship is experiencing.
Bob wraps up his piece by quoting Rubel Shelly:
Rubel Shelly, former minister at Woodmont Hills and now president of Rochester College in Michigan, believes Churches of Christ will have to adapt in the future or lose their effectiveness. “The notion that people in the 21st century are going to find their identity in a particular denomination is getting more and more unlikely,” he said.
“The issue increasingly is: Do you believe in God or not? And if you believe in God, do you believe in God as he is represented in Jesus or as he is present in Allah or in Buddhism?
“If we ever had the luxury of being divided at every nuance of belief, we are losing it in this culture.”
Shelly’s quotes reminded me of what Max Lucado told me during a 2004 interview for The Associated Press:
“It just seems like we’re in kind of a post-denominational society that those differences are not as important to people as they used to be,” Lucado said. “Now, the big issue isn’t so much Methodist or Baptist, but Jesus or Buddha.”
I am interested in your reactions to Bob’s story:
• Are Churches of Christ dropping an isolationist view? Does the term “isolationist” even fit our fellowship? Does being “in the world but not of the world” mean, by its very nature, a sort of isolationism?
• Are congregations such as Otter Creek reflective of what’s happening in our fellowship overall, or are most Churches of Christ retaining long-held doctrinal views on issues such as a cappella singing?
• Are Shelly and Lucado right when they speak of a post-denominational world where differences in Christian belief are not as important as whether one supports Christ or Buddha?
Trust me, I know how emotional discussions on such topics can be, so I ask that you pray before hitting the comment button and do your best to engage in a respectful, Christ-like dialogue.
– Bobby
I think your 2nd bullet point is asking the wrong question in the 2nd half. I would be more interested in finding out if Churches of Christ are still focusing on the doctrinal issues or not worrying about that as much in an attempt to get outside the walls of the church buildings.
Although current thought may disagree, isolation naturally occurs when there is a diversity of opinion, ideology, interest, and faith. I suggest that there is a difference in being an isolationist and isolated because you are being true to what you believe. It may be that in the past we isolated ourselves more by how we taught truth than we should have. We cannot be obnoxious with truth and be effect, not can we acquiesce to a post-modern relativistic approach.
I am more and more convinced that we need to preach the ideals of true Biblical Restoration but do so while communicating Love. Too many times in my youth I heard sermons and debates concerning truth that left an unpalatable taste in my mouth and gave heartburn to the listeners. This message seemed to say, “We have the truth and we love the truth and if you disagree with us, you do not and we are glad you are hell-bound.” Such messages seemed to lack Godly Love.
The message needs to be in today’s culture something along the following lines:
1. I believe in the possibility of absolutes. Spiritual Truth is one such absolute.
2. I believe that God gave us insight into the Truth by inspiring the Bible.
3. I believe that in the Bible, God gives us all we need to know for life and godliness.
4. If you agree, then we can meet together to learn what God would have us to do and to be.
5. If when we study, we come to different conclusions, that does not mean that you or I do not love God. It does mean that at least one of us if not both of us is wrong in our conclusions.
6. I will allow you to disagree with me, but will continue to hold you in high regard even if I think you are wrong. I will try to convince you and will expect you will try to convince me as we both strive to please God. We may never be in full fellowship, but we will always be cordial.
7. I believe that we can through truth be united in Doctrine (these are the absolutes).
8. I believe that in expedience we can differ and still be united.
9. For those that do not believe in absolutes then we must learn to establish that truth is not relative, but universal.
The above is not perfect, but I believe it is a place to start. I think it portrays an attitude of willingness to be open to learning and not a close-minded isolationist approach.
Scott, I fully recognize your caveat at the end, and I mean this in the greatest respect and love.
You MUST have noticed somewhere in your nine points that you left something out. Something that might be pretty important.
Jesus.
Nick, Thanks for pointing that out. Although Jesus was not mentioned specifically, I do believe He falls in the category of my point #3. W/o Jesus there would be no life and godliness (Note Rom 5:10 and 8:11 along with 2 Cor 5:21). W/o Him I would be nothing.
Scott, I knew that. I know your love for Jesus and your passion for serving Him. What I mean to point out (and it’s just bad timing that you happened to be the first to articulate your thoughts this way) is that we can’t keep trying to communicate who we are and what we’re about while leaving Jesus stashed in a category.
Jesus IS the category where we live. We have nothing to offer anyone except Jesus. He must be central to everything we say and do — and we can’t keep doing it tangentially. It is at the name of Jesus, not indirect references to him or suggestions about him, but at the name of Jesus that every knee should bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord.
I might ask though that in a post-modern world where many do not believe in any truth other than self, how do we get them to Jesus w/o first leading them to the notion of an absolute?
If we maintain the existence of absolute truth we isolate ourselves from society. How far do we go to avoid isolation?
I have a suggestion in the form of a personal mantra. “Insulation not Isolation.”
People don’t have to believe in absolute truth to trust Jesus Christ for salvation.
Will it help them grow in understanding the nature of ultimate reality? Yes, absolutely. But if they reject your presentation of absolute truth, Scott, then you never get to share Jesus with them.
The Mars Hill sermon is a beautiful model for preaching Jesus to people with conflicting worldviews. Paul shows us how differences do not have to isolate or even insulate. Paul, even though he believes in absolute truth, engages with unbelievers without isolation. How? He learns where his audience is and talks to them about how the story of God in Jesus Christ is working in their midst. Do some of them shun him? Yes, but that is *their* choice. It is not the inevitable result of his message, and everything he does seems focused on counteracting isolationist instincts.
Nick, I get your point. I think you are correct and please know that I am writing my thoughts.
I do not start with, “Do you believe in truth.” I start with “Let me tell you about Jesus the Christ.” But want desperately to help those who refuse to acknowledge truth to see it. I am looking for ways to reach them.
BTW, I suppose we should take this discussion to email and not bog down Bobby’s blog. (tweet me)
Scott, I think the new direction of Christian spirituality would take issue with your 5th point. The reason that some of our churches are beginning to cooperate with other denominations is that it is entirely possible to study scripture and come to conclusions that are both different and right. Just because we have differing opinions on interpretation does not mean that one of us is necessarily wrong.
Brad, I think that #5 is the issue that divides many people. I gratefully admit that there are areas where both might be right (to have or not to have a building), but there are areas where one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong (is Jesus God in the flesh). That is what I meant by #5. That is why we can study yet disagree and still love and respect each other. I DO NOT claim to be perfect. I DO NOT claim that the church is 100% restored. I AM STILL learning and growing.
1a) Yes, although many congregations are being quiet about it, in part because the Divine Conspiracy is the nature of kingdom work and in part because it is safer that way (CFTF can’t sponsor lectureships against people they haven’t heard of).
1b) Yes, because at least since Sand Creek we’ve predominantly been a people who identified themselves with particular external markers of faithfulness. As the Jews had their Big Ds (diet, dress, and day), so we’ve had our set of external markers. While these markers do in fact shift according to who is writing when (as Todd Deaver very ably showed in Facing Our Failures), the very choice to identify ourselves by externals is by its nature an isolating choice.
1c) No, it does not. In fact, the phrase seems particularly crafted to resist the isolationist tendencies of creational monotheism. We MUST be in the world, we MUST engage the world — but we MUST NOT be of the world, we MUST NOT engage the world with its tools (violence, manipulation, isolation, self-aggrandizement, etc.). Rather, we must engage the world with self-sacrificial love and truth-telling. Those are the external markers of the faith that sets us apart from the world.
2) I think many congregations are recognizing that peripheral issues such as worship style should not be fellowship issues. However, I think many congregations also value the simplicity reflected in a cappella worship — and simplicity is at the core of the Restoration plea — we want to SIMPLY be Christians, without the entanglements of denominational divisions.
3) Absolutely. The “golden age” of the churches of Christ in the Eisenhower era were marked by our great ability to convert Baptists (particularly Landmark Baptists) rather than convert pagans. As denominational affiliation dwindles, we must finally figure out how to express why the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news to NONbelievers, not believers with different orthopraxy.
It might fit in some places. We have a very loving fellowship that is trying to follow Jesus. So, we continue to try to be like Jesus. We’re not perfect, He is!
As long as there are pockets among the fabric of our fellowship which continue to hold lectureships and print publications for the sole purpose of judging and condemning those with whom they disagree, I’m afraid that Churches of Christ will continue to have a reputation of being isolated.
Non-believers measure us by our least-stellar examples, because among non-believers there are plenty of humanitarians doing the work of Christ that we have neglected. We need to love Him more than these. We need to seek the strays and those who are not of His fold. We need to feed His sheep.
Not slaughter them.
Yup. Until our congregations become intentionally proactive – directly countering our isolationist impulses, the reputation will stand.
Isolation is a fruit of the Fall – we’ve got to try and get in on how God, in the New Covenant, is tearing down the walls.
Maybe that is why God designed His Church as independent cells of believers in various locations. We must remember that one man, lectureship, paper, college, congregation does not define the Church. Such only reflects a particular congregation or element within a loosely knit brotherhood.
We need to stop worrying about what congregation A or B does or says. We need to quit worrying about how Brother D pushes people away or Brother E lets everyone in. We need to mind our own business and lovingly reach out for our Lord and Savior to those in need of salvation.
When Satan can get us fighting each other over methodologies he keeps us from seeking the lost. The BEST way to stop “liberalism” and “conservatism” is to preach Jesus to those who are not in Him (this starts in our own communities).
Keith (times two), thanks for your comments.
Phil, appreciate your comment too. Re: “I would be more interested in finding out if Churches of Christ are still focusing on the doctrinal issues or not worrying about that as much in an attempt to get outside the walls of the church buildings.”
Your wording seems to suggest that retaining long-held doctrinal views AND reaching outside church walls are mutually exclusive. I am reminded of what John Scott, minister at Saturn Road in Dallas, which has baptized 150 or more people four or five years in a row, told me last year: “Our message is timeless, but our methods must be fluid. For instance, I am all for using the latest technologies in order to better deliver the message. However, at Saturn Road, our leadership has not felt the need to abandon a cappella singing in order to reach people. In my humble judgment, it still comes back to being able to build healthy, biblical friendships both inside the church building and, just as important, outside our walls. We simply have to build more bridges and fewer walls.”
Scott and Nick, I have enjoyed your discussion, as well. Appreciate it.
I don’t think they’re exclusive and perhaps they don’t get the same publicity that OC has been getting in the last six months. I may be buying into the stereotype that more traditional churches are less missional than the more progressive ones and that’s bad on my part.
Bobby, I like this quote from John Scott, “Our message is timeless, but our methods must be fluid. For instance, I am all for using the latest technologies in order to better deliver the message. . . . In my humble judgment, it still comes back to being able to build healthy, biblical friendships both inside the church building and, just as important, outside our walls. We simply have to build more bridges and fewer walls.”
Although our conversion numbers are lower, that is my stance as well.
Bobby,
It’s no surprise to me that the media, as well as some groups claiming to be “Christian” view Christ’s Church as “Isolationists” or whatever term they want to use this month to describe an unyielding faith. Having worked intimately with several “Christian” based groups who gladly boast about their liberal form of righteousness…I must say that often you can hardly delineate between them and what scriptures reference as worldly. Every single day, “Christian” organizations steal money from vulnerable adults by promising wealth or healing through a purposely deceitful television programming. Under the disguise of “Christianity” groups of individuals disrupt and protest peaceful funerals of our soldiers killed in foreign battle fields. More recently a doctor professing Christianity murders his own son by stabbing him 3 dozen times claiming he was full of the devil, and a group claiming to be from a Christian based organization has been arrested for trafficking orphaned Haitian children. The list goes on and on…. It’s no wonder the “world” is confused and turned off by what the media’s portrays as Christianity. Pollsters state that 90% of Americans claim that they are Christian but it’s obvious by the condition of the country that they hold the title only and not the character of Christ.
So my question would be….”Who are these Christian Organizations that claim that, because the church of Christ upholds the Word of truth, we are Isolationists?” If they are in any way representative of “Christianity” as the world understands it….. then I would say we are not isolating ourselves enough from them. No, I believe it’s as Paul told Timothy that there are plenty of people who are…
”treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these 2 Timothy 3:5….
But perhaps I’m being too harsh…
Let’s assume that it is as Rubel Shelly says…”The Church of Christ will have to adapt in order to be effective”. Or that we should “quit being divisive or risk losing it in this culture”. May I remind Mr Shelly that the state of this “culture” was the very reason that Christ came into the world in the first place. I fail to see where it tells us in the scriptures to embrace our culture. Is Rubel Shelly asking us to trade our faith and the doctrine of Christ for a version more appealing to the World? Where is the sense in that? Christ calls us to be SET APART… a light to the world…. not to blend in…
Now get to your feet! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and witness. You are to tell the world what you have seen and what I will show you in the future And I will rescue you from both your own people and the Gentiles. Yes, I am sending you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me. Acts 26: 16-18
I become sickened by the ever constant force calling us to “loosen up” and be “progressive”. I’m not even sure what people mean by it any more. The gospel is very simple: Christ came to earth, died for our sins, was buried and was risen after the third day. We find in the scriptures that those who accept him, repent of their sin, believe and are baptized can be saved. As Christ points out towards the end of his ministry:
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. John 12:48-49
From this scripture it is evident that we have a choice to either accept Christ by accepting his Word (the Bible) or we can reject him and be condemned. So for my “progressive brothers” what part of his word is it ok to reject in order to be more…”appealing to our culture”?
So do we reject the scriptures defining a woman’s role in the Church? I Cor 14:34
Or how about the scriptures on Baptism,.. I Peter 3:21
or the weekly taking of the Lord’s supper, instrumental music, performing miracles… or any of the other doctrines that the church of Christ has long held scriptural reference for? Do we just turn of head from the scripture in an effort to be more “progressive”. Let me remind you of what Christ said in John 12…when we reject his words… we are rejecting Christ.
I very much believe that groups outside the church will always try and find words to describe what they are unwilling to believe and to understand. Today the word is isolationist yesterday they called it right wing, who knows what they will call us next year,
Titus 1:9 tells us: He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Notice here that Titus says to HOLD FIRM not to LOOSEN UP as some groups would tell us to do!! Sounds to me like this inspired writer tells us that sound doctrine and an understanding of the Word IS important. Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly would be way off mark if he thought otherwise.
I would agree that some congregations may having an identity crisis. I would venture to say it is the congregations who have left the scriptures who have lost their identity. As for those congregations that are suffering criticism and are laveled as isolationists… I would say they might be the only ones left with a true identity. We should consider the words of Paul :
That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day. 2 Timothy 1:12:
I’m pretty sure there’s an instruction to embrace culture in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, or maybe Paul meant to become all things for all men EXCEPT those cultures that arose after the Restoration Movement began. Wait… after the final split with the Christian Church. No… after the 50s and 60s when our conservative theology firmed up into repeatable formula. Well, whenever it was that we figured it all out, after then we don’t change for culture.
Bobby:
I think some of our churches are dropping isolationism, but not most of them. Churches of Christ are isolationist by their very nature. As long as members of our fellowship declare that if you don’t agree with us in everything, then you’re going to hell, we’ll be isolationists.
Unfortunately, our isolationism has nothing to do with being “in the world but not of the world.” A close look at most of the members in our congregations will show that our people are pretty worldly. When working in youth ministry, I had to have a talk with one of my teens about why it wasn’t ok for her to move in with her boyfriend. Neither she, her boyfreind, or her mom understood what the big deal was. When you go to church youth events and see the girls wearing the same skimpy outfits you’d see at the mall, it doesn’t take much to realize that we’re worldly. We’re isolationist because we believe we’ve found the right way to read the bible, using a hermeneutic that asks how to do worship right. When we figure out that Jesus didn’t come to earth to teach people how to worship, but instead on how to be truly human and how to truly relate to God and other people, we’ll stop being isolationist, as well as stop being worldly.
To your second bullet, I believe that most of our churches are retaining traditional doctrines, but that at least some of them are moving away from these because they are realizing what I said in my last paragraph.
We are moving more and more into a post-denominational world. Fewer and fewer people believe in Jesus, especially outside the bible belt. More and more people are moving towards paganism, native, and eastern religions. If we don’t stop our infighting, we’ll become totally irrelevant to the people around us.
Finally, I think the article title itself is misleading. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, people who belong to other denominations are still Christians. Being a Baptist doesn’t make you a member of “another faith”. “Other faiths” are Islam, Buddism, Taoism, etc.
Josh J.
Our move away from isolationism has been the direct result of our evangelism and benevolence. We have a huge benevolence/evangelism ministry that feeds and clothes ~100 families each week. This has led to huge influx of non-indoctrinated people into our congregation and to receiving recognition from many neighboring denominations that want to contribute to our efforts through volunteers and financial support.
Something I find funny is that our legalistic friends will criticize us for cooperating with other groups but will praise our ability to get money from them. Seems hypocritical to me.
Churches of Christ have retained the luxury of isolationism only because most are rooted in areas where being seperated from other Christians is a possiblity. When Christians are in the minority and under persecution we will be busy fighting Satan and not each other.
Absolutely, Becky. While there was division in the early centuries of the persecuted church… for the most part it was about the nature and Godhood of Christ, not about the practice of doctrinal issues. In my experience as a developing world missionary, I have seen Christians in harsh circumstances set aside doctrinal issues again and again in the name of working together towards preaching Christ and being his body- without losing their individual faith identities. It’s beautiful- but convicting; I think you’re right that in our Bible-belt, safe, “consumer” church culture, we tend to compete over “right-ness”, because we have been lulled into feeling that we don’t still live in a world that is DESPERATE to hear the basic, graceful, Good-News-for-all-men message of the Gospel.
David, Josh, Brad, Becky … thank you so much for joining the discussion!
Bobby,
Most churches of my acquantiance are smaller than they used to be- some significantly so. Our overall numbers nationally report this decline.
Could it be that we are slowing isolating ourselves to death?
Everything around us has changed. The culture that we once flurished in no longer exists. If we do not awake to the current challenges and opportunities of postmodern times we will only continue in this decline.
Remember the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same things in the same ways and expect different results.
To survive the challenges and once again thrive by embracing the opportunities we must emerge from isolation and engage other believers in our common pursuit of sharing Christ.
Some congregations are and will and some will not.
Those who are and will certainly will face their share of critics and obstacles, but will emerge, IMO, stronger and more relevent to their community and in a better position to influence more for Christ.
In my experience, many churches are smaller because the communities they’re located in are smaller.
I look at the rural church near my parents’ home. When I was young, it was teeming with kids. Today, there’s one family under 50 regularly there. This mirrors the community as a whole. Those kids (like me) grew up and moved away.
On the other hand, most of the urban and suburban churches I’m acquainted with have either grown or retained their size. The church I’m currently with has more than doubled in size over the 13 or so years I’ve been here.
There are other factors, of course, emphasis on evangelism chief of them. But the rural/urban divide seems to me to explain the largest factor.
Blog post that I came across via Phil Wilson’s Twitter: http://www.truthandrepose.com/2010/02/02/the-tennesseans-attack-on-the-churches-of-christ/
Search TV’s Phil Sanders weighs in on the Tennessean article: http://brotherhoodnews.com/2010/02/04/jumping-ship/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WorldGospelNews+%28BrotherhoodNews.com%29
In both central New York State and central Minnesota, the church I preached at engaged in ministry opportunities with other churches. In New York, where there are some churches just promoting outright heresy regarding the doctrine of Christ, our participation was limited to the other Evangelical and Non-denominational churches…who by the way, also supported financially a coffee house ministry to high-school students that our church operated.
I believe there are several factors that contribute to such a non-isolationist disposition. First, the nearest other CoC is more than a few miles down the road and therefore the liklihood of a CoC member working and socializing with a believer from another CoC is rare but there is a good chance, for those open enough to see, that they might find friendship in the work and social spaces with a believer from another who attends a non-CoC church. Second, because of the first factor, members of the churches where I preached have discovered that they share in common belief in the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 15.1-7) which mitigates the differences we have over how other passages of scripture should be interpreted and subsquently practiced. Third, I believe this has been possible because these churches have learned to think for themselves rather than allowing the secterian mind-set of our fellowship think for them and in doing so, have placed Jesus Christ as the focus of activities such as worship, Bible-study, fellowship, etc…rather than focusing making dogmatic issues the focus of these activities. Lastly, in a culture (especially central NY) where a growing population rejects a Christian world-view all together in exchange for a politically correct pluralistic approach to religion that includes Eastern and New Age philosophy, these churches are asking different questions of the Bible. I served for a church in Memphis while I was in graduate school and the continuous question it was asking of the Bible is how can we distinguish ourselves from the Baptists, Pentecostals, etc… Once I left the heart of the Bible-belt, I found churches which existed in a growing post-Christian culture asking of scripture not how can we distinguish ourselves from the church down the road but how can we show our community who Jesus is and what the Kingdom of God is all about. The questions we come to scripture with have a profound effect on the answers we come away from scripture with!
As a result, to use my experience in central New York, we wanted to know how we could show our community that Jesus is living and God is reigning. We believe this was shown through the extent to which we lived as salt and light, doing good deeds (cf. Matt 5.13-16). Further the church knew that the community did not care what the name was on the church marquee or what its millenial view was. So the church thought it was right for us to support a local ministry house for unwed pregnant women that offered support and an alternative to abortion ran by a local Bible Church. The church also believed it was right to participate in joint prayer gathering among other Evangelical/non-denominational churches (which I helped organize) since the purpose was to pray for our nation in a way that exalts God as the Sovereign Lord who reigns. Also, the church believed it was right to run a coffee-house ministry to high-school student and allow other non-CoC churches to help support that ministry as well as let some of the local Young Life students volunteer at because the ministry exalted Jesus Christ as Lord. And all this was done WITHOUT the church ever sacrificing its convictions and practices regarding Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and A Capella Worship.
And I said that last statement to say that yes it is possible for a Church of Christ congregation to reject secterian isolation, judiciously and prudently participate in fellowship with other believers and churches outside our fellowship and not sacrifice the teachings and practices of our church that we, based upon our understanding of scripture, believe are biblical.
Grace and peace,
Rex
BTW, I just linked to Phil Sanders article…I love how one can take proof-texts from scripture out of their context to give such proof-text a different meaning than their original intent in order to justify a certain position.
Grace and peace,
Rex
There is nothing closer to arrogance and approaching spiritual terrorism than to conclude that your circle of truth and God’s circle of truth have the same circumference. For almost two generations the Churches of Christ have moved toward that view of scripture… of God. The idea that God has given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness” does not imply that God has given all things; granting us some kind of empirical sovereignty. The world, the heavens and even the Bible are so filled with mystery that a lifetime is not long enough to begin to pierce their beautiful and intentional obscurity.