I recall, as I have come along in my Christian walk, wondering just how far a church can go before it should no longer be considered in fellowship by the church I am attending. This question apparently is on the minds of lots of folks in religious realms, for every so often our family will receive a letter in the mail explaining to us why such and such church is no longer to be considered "in fellowship." The reasons given range from an "unsound" preacher was invited to come and speak there; they don't agree with what we generally believe on one of any number of topics, but most usually music & marriage, the offending church refuses to withdraw its own fellowship from someone with whom fellowship should be withdrawn and thus is, itself, being withdrawn from. To these brethren who participate in these flights of fancy I offer the gentle admonition: hogwash.
Fellowship, as described in the Bible, is being in fellowship with Jesus. That fellowship, in turn, places me in fellowship with every other person on the planet who is in fellowship with Jesus. It is the old "if a = b and b=c, then a must =c too" rule. Fellowship with one another is the result of being placed in the church by the Lord, not by affiliating myself with a church. Since Jesus placed me in the church, only He has the authority to kick me out. Jesus vowed in John 10 that no man could snatch one of His disciples from God's hand. The entire notion of "withdrawing fellowship" is a practice that indicates a profound misapprehension of the relationship between Jesus, me, and the church and also of my relative importance in the schema of salvation.
There is no doubt that we are allowed, even encouraged, to take a different tack when it comes to our association with a brother who persists in open defiance of God's wishes. We are to lovingly entreat (plead with) him because he is our brother and because that is how we would want to be treated should the shoe be on the other foot. We are to pray that he turns and thus continues his salvation, but nowhere are we granted license to throw him out of the fellowship of the church! We didn't let him in and we can't throw him out.
However, laying aside the discussion of withdrawing itself, I want to focus on the reasons we give as to why it "should" be done, those that I mentioned earlier among them. In reality, there is only one reason I am able to consider myself as out of fellowship with anyone: sin. It is truly that simple. If a person has taken the requisite steps that the Bible clearly defines and has eradicated sin from his life then I am in fellowship with him, whether or not I choose to be, because he and I are both in fellowship with Jesus. If an individual insists on living a life that is foreign to Christianity and unquestionably in pursuit of sin, there is little doubt I am not in his fellowship, but not because I choose it to be that way (for that is my goal: to get into fellowship with him) but that the Lord has yet to place that individual into fellowship with Himself, and thus all who are in His body. Still, I can't judge, for I can't see into the man's heart. Jesus does grant me a tool, though, in the 12th chapter of Matthew when He assures me that a man's actions (fruit) is a good barometer of the state of his heart.
Instead of running around worrying myself sick about this church or that brother and whether or not they see everything the same way I do, I should just relax and bask in the glow of the fellowship granted me by virtue of walking with Jesus. If there is someone not walking with Jesus my goal is to just simply change with whom they are walking and leave the fellow shipping to the decision making apparatus of the God Head rather than the board of Elders or Deacons!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Like a Laser
Knowing by faith that God is providing everything I need incidental to my focus on my mission of reaching the lost frees me to really concentrate my focus on the mission. With a laser-like focus, I will be successful! There are also three things that will help me maintain my focus and it is these three things that I want to share today.
First, we must accept the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and allow Him to operate to the fullest extent that He will.
Second, we have to know without doubt that we are part of a family, not a social group, but a family upon whom I can rely for whatever I need in following my mission.
Third, We, I and my family, must have a unity of purpose and that purpose is sowing the seed and leaving increase to God. No fracturing of the body can be tolerated by sub groups going in different directions, such as youth, singles, young marrieds, etc. I am not saying there is anything inherently wrong with these ministries so long as they feed into the singular mission of sowing seed and reaching the lost.
Putting these factors in place greatly enhances our effectiveness, glorifies God, and results in lost souls being saved!
First, we must accept the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and allow Him to operate to the fullest extent that He will.
Second, we have to know without doubt that we are part of a family, not a social group, but a family upon whom I can rely for whatever I need in following my mission.
Third, We, I and my family, must have a unity of purpose and that purpose is sowing the seed and leaving increase to God. No fracturing of the body can be tolerated by sub groups going in different directions, such as youth, singles, young marrieds, etc. I am not saying there is anything inherently wrong with these ministries so long as they feed into the singular mission of sowing seed and reaching the lost.
Putting these factors in place greatly enhances our effectiveness, glorifies God, and results in lost souls being saved!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Command, Example or Necessary inference
All my life I have been led to believe that the Bible teaches by virtue of three means: command, example and necessary inference. For years I never questioned this "doctrine" of hermeneutic assuming that my Christian antecedents knew more and were far better educated in such matters as was I. However, as I grew older, and perhaps a bit bolder, I started questioning things, first internally and then in discussion with other believers. At no time did I ever receive a palatable answer to my queries, either from myself or others.
The doctrine goes like this: God teaches us what to do first by directly commanding us to do something, short of a command we can look at the examples of how things were done in the Bible and discern the truth and failing that we could read between the lines and deduce what God expected by what was inferred but never stated in the scripture.
Unexpectedly, the more I surveyed this method of interpretation, the more lacking it seemed to be. I have no problem with the command component. When God speaks there is little room for interpretation and thus no question need be resolved. However, the other two aspects of CENI (command, example, necessary inference) left quite a bit to be desired, at least in my mind.
For instance, we have decided that communion on the first day of the week is a doctrinal edict based on the writing of Luke in Acts 20 when he said "the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread." Now do not misunderstand me. I have no objection to communion on the first day of the week, but who decided that was the only element in that passage that we should view as a binding example? There were other things going on there too: preaching til midnight, meeting in an upper room, having the windows open, etc. Who decides which components are example and which are not? Another instance we find is in the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. where the church was coming together to break bread but some were failing to wait on others and thus the communion devolved into a riot of sorts. They were actually getting drunk! Clearly the example calls for fermented wine, yet most churches choose to use other products in the communion. Who decided the inclusion of Welch's rather than wine was okay? Clearly the example specified wine. I have actually had brothers argue with me that the use of wine is forbidden. Why, then do we have an example of it here? Meeting house to house, selling possessions and testimony in worship are other examples that we deem as not binding. It seems that the whole example idea fails simply because of our inconsistent application.
Likewise, one can see the fallacy of necessary inference through careful study. I have been told that the fact of the first churches coming together for assemblies necessarily infers they had a place available to them for that purpose, therefore justifying buying and building sanctuaries. How does the fact that they assembled infer that they owned the meeting place? Or that there were pews, hymnals, song leaders, etc. all things we see no problem with having? I agree there is no problem with having these things but have you noticed that when we plant a new church that very high on the list of things that have to be done is get a building?
We use Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16 as necessary inference to teach congregational singing as the only singing acceptable to God, yet in 1 Cor. 14 when the church was assembled it was not mentioned. In fact the only reference to music there was a solo sang by one brother for the edification of the body.
Using necessary inference we can have whatever we want if we are skilled in the misuse of the scripture. Caring for orphans becomes orphans homes, but I know of no church that gives a stipend to widows which is juxtaposed with orphans in the same verse. Who decides which is necessary and which is not?
Again, as I have stated before, Jesus said in John 12:48 that judgment would be meted based on what He had said, not inferred. Also, 2 Peter 1:4 says we have been "given" everything we need to live righteous lives. I suggest we stick with the Word on this. Your and my interpretation of inference will not be the same and examples are sometimes contrary to other teachings (Acts chap 15). Command, what He said, is the only way to interpret what He said!
The doctrine goes like this: God teaches us what to do first by directly commanding us to do something, short of a command we can look at the examples of how things were done in the Bible and discern the truth and failing that we could read between the lines and deduce what God expected by what was inferred but never stated in the scripture.
Unexpectedly, the more I surveyed this method of interpretation, the more lacking it seemed to be. I have no problem with the command component. When God speaks there is little room for interpretation and thus no question need be resolved. However, the other two aspects of CENI (command, example, necessary inference) left quite a bit to be desired, at least in my mind.
For instance, we have decided that communion on the first day of the week is a doctrinal edict based on the writing of Luke in Acts 20 when he said "the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread." Now do not misunderstand me. I have no objection to communion on the first day of the week, but who decided that was the only element in that passage that we should view as a binding example? There were other things going on there too: preaching til midnight, meeting in an upper room, having the windows open, etc. Who decides which components are example and which are not? Another instance we find is in the eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. where the church was coming together to break bread but some were failing to wait on others and thus the communion devolved into a riot of sorts. They were actually getting drunk! Clearly the example calls for fermented wine, yet most churches choose to use other products in the communion. Who decided the inclusion of Welch's rather than wine was okay? Clearly the example specified wine. I have actually had brothers argue with me that the use of wine is forbidden. Why, then do we have an example of it here? Meeting house to house, selling possessions and testimony in worship are other examples that we deem as not binding. It seems that the whole example idea fails simply because of our inconsistent application.
Likewise, one can see the fallacy of necessary inference through careful study. I have been told that the fact of the first churches coming together for assemblies necessarily infers they had a place available to them for that purpose, therefore justifying buying and building sanctuaries. How does the fact that they assembled infer that they owned the meeting place? Or that there were pews, hymnals, song leaders, etc. all things we see no problem with having? I agree there is no problem with having these things but have you noticed that when we plant a new church that very high on the list of things that have to be done is get a building?
We use Eph. 5:19 & Col. 3:16 as necessary inference to teach congregational singing as the only singing acceptable to God, yet in 1 Cor. 14 when the church was assembled it was not mentioned. In fact the only reference to music there was a solo sang by one brother for the edification of the body.
Using necessary inference we can have whatever we want if we are skilled in the misuse of the scripture. Caring for orphans becomes orphans homes, but I know of no church that gives a stipend to widows which is juxtaposed with orphans in the same verse. Who decides which is necessary and which is not?
Again, as I have stated before, Jesus said in John 12:48 that judgment would be meted based on what He had said, not inferred. Also, 2 Peter 1:4 says we have been "given" everything we need to live righteous lives. I suggest we stick with the Word on this. Your and my interpretation of inference will not be the same and examples are sometimes contrary to other teachings (Acts chap 15). Command, what He said, is the only way to interpret what He said!
Monday, November 1, 2010
Quick update on surgery - - no biggie
Finally! The doctor found a fifteen degree bend in my spine which is kinking my spinal cord and pinching my nerves causing my extreme pain. That is good because he found it! Finally after all these years of misery. I say it with my own eyes today how that the space between my spinal cord and my spine is gone causing pinching and pain. Surgery can fix it. The doctor is consulting with two other doctors to try to arrange a three surgeon procedure that will reconstruct the spine in one surgery, otherwise it will take two. Recovery is going to be two to three months during which time I will have another surgery to remove the mass on the base of my spine. My doctor is consulting with the other surgeons tomorrow and hopefully I will know within a week the date of the initial surgery!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)