Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

Commenting on another thread here caused me to recall some questions that bugged me:

1. "All scripture inspired by God..." was used constantly as a stick and easy answer. Literal "inspiration" (God breathed) is not understood and cannot IMO be the case for every last word from cover to cover (civer ta civer). So for instance when David is praying to God about his sin and expressing his deep angst and guilt...is that also really God "breathed"? This is not an argument that the words were not spoken or true, but was the absolute source of those words really spoken/breathed by God? And since it is a prayer to God, was God praying to Himself? This makes no sense, so the phrase "All scripture inspired" must have some "context" or some other understanding than just every word.

2. How can every word in a translation from a translation be specifically chosen by the Holy Spirit. Which is the argument in a verse like Acts 2:38 EIS. If every word is specifically chosen to connote the exact meaning then why was the general word for bread always chosen when discussion communion rather than the available specific word for unleavened bread? If words are critical and He is The Word... then why does that word not matter and need to be understood as "well they just already knew it"? Does that "they just already knew it so it was not needed to be stated specifically" a valid argument in the case for Peter being the first Pope? If not why not?

3. Why was Cain worried about other people taking him out when there should not be any one else around? What strangers and society was around to need to have and see his mark in order to interact correctly with him? What was the population growth between the Garden and Flood? Or Flood and Babel?

4. What is the basis for budgets and having a percentage for "benevolence" when seemingly the only examples of collection were specifically and entirely for benevolence?

5. If contribution was a commanded act of weekly worship then how is it the congregations that Paul established on his journeys had to have a letter written to them to explain the existence of an act of worship? Wouldn't they have already been doing that since surely he would have told them how to worship. Paul states that there will be no collection when he arrives...was he telling them to not worship in that way when he was there? After he was gone with the donations did they continue to "worship" in that way? For what purpose? If it is not specified or stated then isn't it going beyond what is written to assume they continued to take a collection when he specifically said that there would be no collection when he arrived? This is about the doctrinal assertion that giving is a commanded act of worship.

6. How is preaching to unbelievers or to believers an act of "worship" towards God? Was Paul worshipping on Mars Hill? Was the audience worshipping God by hearing his sermon? This is a question about the doctrine that there are 5 acts of worship...that that preaching or teaching is wrong in and of itself, but that it is a commanded form of worship.

These are not so much things that would change the specific activities of a congregation but the under pinning claim that this is all following God breathed commandments on how God must specifically be worshipped. It is about the understanding of why these things might be done and the basis for reasoning. These were not topics that in my experience could ever be discussed much less abided. In the end, if one decides to do these things then it is a choice and on faith, but that was not good enough it seems, it had to be an act of obedience to a command.

All valid points, and a clear set of rhetorical questions showing the inconsistent application of a hermeneutic.

KLP,

Great post. These are some really good questions! I agree that they would almost never be asked (or at least not answered) in a COC setting. Several of these are totally new to me and have got me thinking. I'll make a few comments below, but don't expect any answers from me!

klp wrote:So for instance when David is praying to God about his sin and expressing his deep angst and guilt...is that also really God "breathed"? This is not an argument that the words were not spoken or true, but was the absolute source of those words really spoken/breathed by God? And since it is a prayer to God, was God praying to Himself?

Great point, and not one that I've ever considered before. It makes sense, though, that "inspiration" must mean something different in a prayer than in, say, the dictation of the decalogue onto stone tablets. The acceptance of non-literal inspiration also makes it easier to get past those pesky contradictions (6,000 vs. 60,000 and so on). Also, Luke mentions interviewing eye-witnesses. Why would he need to do that when he could instead have just sat back and let the text roll in? Finally, didn't Jesus and his contemporaries speak Aramaic? Their words in the gospels are recorded primarily in Greek. In a word-for-word inspiration scenario, who did the translation?

klp wrote:Why was Cain worried about other people taking him out when there should not be any one else around? What strangers and society was around to need to have and see his mark in order to interact correctly with him? What was the population growth between the Garden and Flood? Or Flood and Babel?

Another big plot hole in the Genesis narrative. I know we've discussed evolution, deep time, and the traditional Ussherian (?) chronology of scripture here before so I won't dredge all that back up. I'll just say that a reading of Genesis that also accepts modern theories of geology and biological evolution has no problem telling where the people who may or may not have wanted to kill Cain came from.

klp wrote:What is the basis for budgets and having a percentage for "benevolence" when seemingly the only examples of collection were specifically and entirely for benevolence?

Well, we're authorized to assemble so it's a necessary inference that we've got to have a million-dollar mortgage on a building in which to assemble! You know, two out of the four letters in CENI stand for Necessary Inference!

klp wrote:...the doctrine that there are 5 acts of worship...

Oh, man. Five steps to salvation and five acts of worship. If the COC had been started not by Stone and the Campbells but by the six-fingered man from The Princess Bride, I'm sure we'd have a six-step plan of salvation and six acts of worship. Isn't mnemonic --> doctrine the opposite of how these things are supposed to go?

Thanks for the thought questions. I hope a good discussion develops here.

Lev

Is there any evidence OCD existed in the early church?

Some of your questions really point out that the early church simply wasn't consistent in its practices. If it was the product of absolute inspiration, why all the advice, commands, and letters? I know what a dyed-in-the-wool CofCer would say about that, but that's another matter.

margin overa wrote:Some of your questions really point out that the early church simply wasn't consistent in its practices. If it was the product of absolute inspiration, why all the advice, commands, and letters? I know what a dyed-in-the-wool CofCer would say about that, but that's another matter.

Good point. While we're at it, is there any evidence that the early church practiced congregational autonomy as is preached in the COC today? As I read the NT, I see churches from house to house but elders established city by city. Then there are the councils that would meet to decide church-wide questions and of course the epistles that gave instruction to churches that the writer was often not a part of. So there are at least three levels of hierarchy there: churches, elders, and councils/epistle-writers. Growing up in the COC, congregational autonomy was one of those untouchable topics, except when criticizing "the denominations" for not practicing it.

Lev

Not to mention Paul's role in these churches - serving as a kind of roving elder/teacher/preacher, and telling individual congregations what they should be doing...it's as if the gospel preacher circuit also included a a roving elder who could and would deliver judgments and rulings on how they did things.

Yes, your point about the various ways the early church's administration, so to speak, is something of an indictment of the various movements that espouse a return to doing things the way the "primitive church" did - 1. the overall evidence is pretty sketchy, even of model churches, 2. if it was the product of outright inspiration, why all the heartburn and differences? I'm reminded of a letter that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote to a correspondent about that:

"The 'protestant' search backwards for 'simplicity' and directedness - which, of course, though it contains some good or at least intelligible motives, is mistaken and indeed vain. Because 'primitive Christianity' is now and in spite of all 'research' will ever remain largely unknown; because 'primitiveness' is no guarantee of value, and is and was in great part a reflection of ignorance. Grave abuses were as much an element in Christian 'liturgical' behavior from the beginning as now. (St. Paul's strictures on eucharistic behavior are sufficient to show this!) Still more because 'my church' was not intended by Our Lord to be static or remain in perpetual childhood; but to be a living organism (likened to a plant), which develops and changes in externals by the interaction of its bequeathed divine life and history - the particular circumstances of the world into which it is set. There is no resemblance between the 'mustard seed' and the full-grown tree. For those living in the days of its branching growth the Tree is the thing, for the history of a living thing is part of its life, and the history of a divine thing is sacred..."

right at the end, when I was still somewhat engaged in the church concept and while at a very loose group, I did tend to open up more and point out the alternate possibilities and questions and non-definite stuff. Eventually it caused someone even in this group to go off on me because they felt that by my asking these questions that cannot be answered it undermined their faith and the faith and confidence of their children. Essentially pointing out that it is all a slippery slope once you begin to question anything.

I was trying to make the point that faith is just that, faith...and in this life there can only ever be this notion of trust and obey. That none of it makes sense in a rational way, it is all by God's choice and it is only true if it is "true" because He says it is true. Baptism as part of salvation and avoiding Hell makes no sense rationally, it cannot be reasoned out. To put confidence in a particular creed set of doctrines as being "real" is to misunderstand what faith really is about. Confidence and trust is not in knowing the 5 acts of worship and how to do them correctly, but in the faithfulness of the Redeemer that can be trusted to keep His promises.

And while many can mouth these words and claim that faith in God is the basis of their faith, really it is very very hard to not have something tangible like a book or an act or worship or some sacrament to give feedback and assure them that they have actually done something. I mean I want a receipt from the gas pump, convenience store, and ATM...I want something in my hot little hand to give me feedback that it is all good. It is very human to need physical confirmation and there is just no such thing in the actual religion of Jesus. Of course there is always snake handling if you need immediate feedback.

klp wrote:If contribution was a commanded act of weekly worship then how is it the congregations that Paul established on his journeys had to have a letter written to them to explain the existence of an act of worship? Wouldn't they have already been doing that since surely he would have told them how to worship. Paul states that there will be no collection when he arrives...was he telling them to not worship in that way when he was there? After he was gone with the donations did they continue to "worship" in that way? For what purpose? If it is not specified or stated then isn't it going beyond what is written to assume they continued to take a collection when he specifically said that there would be no collection when he arrived? This is about the doctrinal assertion that giving is a commanded act of worship.

This raises a host of questions - and you're right when you ask what is the actual nature of the "command"? If we know where it starts, i.e., benevolence on behalf of the Jerusalem Christians - does it have an ending point? Was it truly to be ongoing after Paul had arrived to collect the sum for Jerusalem? If, as our forebears have long supposed, this was to be the way a local church is conducted and administered, it leaves a great deal unsaid - far too much, IMO, if this pattern is supposed to be a universal, inspired one.

I mentioned some of these issues to a friend of mine this afternoon, a former CofCer himself. He laughed and said, "Oooh, asking all those questions really means someone's more than halfway out the door, either of his own volition or someone's ready to toss him out!"