GraceConversation Is Underway

The discussion between Phil Sanders, Greg Tidwell, Jay Guin, and me has now begun. Feel free to post comments there. A number of readers have already weighed in. There are far more comments than we four participants can address, but we’re still very interested in seeing what readers have to say.

I’m not sure how much blogging I’ll be able to do here while that discussion is going on. We’ll have to see how it goes, but I anticipate that most of my blogging energy will be diverted to GraceConversation for awhile. I hope you’ll join us there, and pray for all who are involved, whether participants or readers. I’m still hopeful that a lot of good will come from this.

Response to Matt Clifton’s Review: Part 1

Having begun a review of Facing Our Failure several weeks ago with a summary of the book’s argument (Part 1), Matt Clifton has resumed his critique this week.

In Part 2, posted 25 March, Matt lays some groundwork by offering three basic facts about fellowship that all must admit:

1.      God wants his people to be united.

2.      Not every instance of sin is a reason for the breaking of fellowship.

3.      There are cases where fellowship between God’s people must be severed.

I can offer my unequivocal agreement with all three principles, so we do have at least this much common ground on which to build.

Matt continues by saying,

One thing Todd wants to point out strongly is that preachers who hold contradictory positions do not always sever fellowship with one another. We must agree with this, because we have seen it happen. But does this necessarily entail that there is no correct standard? By Todd’s standard, it is not the sin that is in question, but whether we disfellowship over the sin.

There are a few points I’d like to make here. First—and this is very important—it is not simply the fact that many Christians hold contradictory positions and remain in fellowship that creates the “fellowship dilemma” that the book seeks to spotlight. Rather, it is the fact that conservatives preach and practice differing positions on what is scriptural and what is sinful and remain in fellowship with each other, while claiming that it is sinful to have fellowship with brothers who teach or practice error regarding what is scriptural and what is sinful. The problem can be seen in this example:

 

• Bro. A (who opposes instrumental music in worship as unscriptural) refuses to have fellowship with bro. B who teaches that IM is a matter of opinion, because bro. A believes it is sinful to continue in fellowship with anyone who teaches error regarding what the Bible allows and forbids.
• Bro. A (who also opposes rhythmic clapping during singing in worship as unscriptural) remains in fellowship with bro. C who teaches that such clapping is a matter of opinion.

The dilemma is created not simply because of the differences of view, but because of the rationale that serves as the basis for A’s withdrawal from B (the belief that it is sinful to continue in fellowship with anyone who teaches error regarding what the Bible allows and forbids). Bro. A accepts this rationale in his relationship with B, but rejects it in his relationship with C. That, I contend, is the self-contradiction. Please don’t lose sight of that vital point. This is what Matt must eventually get around to addressing if he is to answer the book’s argument.

The second point I want to make about the above quotation is that it is potentially misleading. When Matt asks, “does this necessarily entail that there is no correct standard?,” he is apparently suggesting that this is the position for which I argue. But this, of course, in not my view at all. Matt seems to recognize this in the following statement where he refers to “Todd’s standard” (implying that I do, in fact, espouse one), but then why erect the straw man in the first place? Raising the previous question only tends to leave the impression that I am arguing against a standard altogether instead of suggesting a different one. The mistake recurs in the last paragraph, where Matt says, “I admit that often those who hold contradictory positions will still fellowship one another. But the fact that we do this does not mean that a standard for fellowship does not exist, it just means we do not practice it perfectly” (emphasis added). Again, I have never suggested that a standard for fellowship does not exist. The statement is misleading.

Third, the last remark in the quotation above could also be easily misconstrued. Let me make it clear that I am very concerned about teaching the truth regarding what constitutes sin. It is not that I’m saying we need not concern ourselves with what is sinful and what isn’t. Every Christian teacher, including myself, has a serious responsibility to proclaim the truth in this regard. What Matt is saying here, in trying to explain my point, is that in deciding the question of who can be fellowshipped, it is not enough simply to establish that certain brethren are going beyond what the scriptures authorize. They may well be doing that, but as the book demonstrates, conservatives often maintain fellowship with many whom they believe to be teaching or practicing various unauthorized activities (i.e., sins). So the central question regarding fellowship is: what sins must we break fellowship over and what sins may we tolerate in the fellowship?

This is the question Matt begins to tackle, at least in a preliminary way. Using instrumental music as an example, he hints at his standard for determining which sins should be barriers to fellowship when he writes, “If IM is a sin, then to fellowship those who unrepentedly make a practice of using it would be wrong.” If I understand him, Matt—please correct me if I’m wrong–wants to say that those who worship with the instrument, generally speaking, know at some level that they are doing something unbiblical. Two other preachers have recently expressed to me the same conviction, and I don’t hesitate to say that I find this brazen indictment of our instrumental brothers more than a little disturbing. More should be said on that point, but I don’t have time to dwell on it here.

Matt continues,

Would not practicing a form of worship that is unauthorized by God in effect make one an idolater? And since Paul said not to keep company with one called a brother who is an idolater, should we keep company with one who practices a false form of worship?

If this reasoning is sound, I would simply ask if Matt will be consistent in applying it. Since all the following are believed by some conservatives to be unauthorized worship practices, wouldn’t those conservatives be required, in light of Matt’s argument, to break fellowship with brethren who…

 

• Worship with instrumental accompaniment privately at home?
• Handclap during songs in worship?
• Hum during songs in worship?
• Use praise teams in worship?
• Pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit?
• Use fermented wine in the Lord’s supper?
• Sing during the Lord’s supper?
• Offer the Lord’s supper a second time on Sunday for those who missed the first assembly?
• Partake of the supper more than once on Sunday?
• Use drama in worship?
• Have a divided assembly (parallel worship), etc.?

If Matt’s argument holds water, then he must ultimately make a test of fellowship of any and all worship activities he believes to be unauthorized. Is that what you intend to do, Matt? Or do you want to back up and modify the rule you’ve advocated?

At the end of this article Matt indicates that one important factor in answering the fellowship question is whether the sin is “intermittent” or “persistent.” Hopefully he will explore that further later on, at which time I will probably have some questions for Matt about this widely-accepted criterion.

Matt has begun now to examine the New Testament texts he believes to be most relevant to the issue of breaking fellowship. Currently he has published two such posts: “Passages Concerning Breaking Fellowship” (an overview of several, posted 26 March), and “Fellowship: Matthew 18:15-17” (posted 28 March). There is no need for me to respond to each article in this series. I will likely reserve further comment for when Matt ties it all together and offers his conclusions. At that point we can go back and see how various passages have perhaps been misunderstood. But from his discussion of these passages thus far, it looks to me as though Matt is well on his way to reaffirming the traditional view that any sin, if persisted in (even if ignorantly), must lead to the severing of fellowship. Needless to say, I don’t believe he or anyone else can consistently apply such an extreme position. If and when he announces it, we will try to see if Matt will in fact accept the far-reaching implications of this view.

Once again, though, I do appreciate Matt for engaging in the discussion and for the respectful tone of his writing.

New Conservative/Progressive Dialogue to Begin Soon

Rather persistently I have tried, through my book and this blog, to elicit a response from “conservatives” to the fellowship inconsistencies with which “progressives” have long charged them, in hopes of establishing some healthy dialogue on this nagging problem. So far I have been unsuccessful.

I have had a few private discussions with conservatives, and in each case they rejected the traditional, hard-line belief that an error in fellowship is spiritually fatal. As I’ve said before, this move does avoid some of the inconsistency problems, but it also creates others that have not been adequately addressed. It is not at all clear how this belief can be harmonized with the conservative theology for which these brothers contend.

As far as public responses are concerned, the scene has been disappointing. Gil Yoder’s effort to answer my book was aborted early on. Matt Clifton raised hopes of a critique, but many weeks have passed and it has yet to get off the ground. If anyone else has published a response, I’m not aware of it.

But things are looking up.

This morning I drove to Nashville for a most interesting meeting. Over lunch, Jay Guin, Phil Sanders, Greg Tidwell and I discussed our plans to launch an online discussion (open to public viewing) that will allow both sides—progressives and conservatives—to explain and defend their positions on the major issues that divide us.

This plan has been in the works for a few months and was initiated by Jay, who has felt for a long time that there needs to be a place where conservatives and progressives can engage one another in conversation rather than talking past each other and, all too often, misunderstanding each other. Jay invited me to join him in representing the “progressive” view, and I am very honored to participate in this ambitious project. Phil and Greg were invited to present the “conservative” case, and they have graciously accepted. Today was my first time to meet Greg, and my second meeting with Jay and Phil (both of whom I met for the first time last month). My impression is that all three are true gentlemen and that all have a mutual respect and the kind of attitude that will lead to a friendly, rather than hostile, discussion.

It is understood that there are different beliefs among “progressives” and that Jay and I do not and can not represent all who so designate themselves, any more than Phil and Greg can represent all who call themselves “conservative.” Still, we believe there are certain fundamental doctrines that, generally speaking, separate these two variegated branches of the Church of Christ, and that an honest and respectful dialogue about those differences will prove to be interesting and helpful to most brethren in both camps.

It is my understanding that the first issue on the table will be what it takes to apostatize from the faith, and—closely related to that—when fellowship should be withdrawn. This, I believe, is a rare opportunity to make progress and build bridges, and I greatly appreciate Jay for having the foresight and initiative to get this started.

The discussion will take place at GraceConversation.wordpress.com. We hope to begin next week. Until then, please keep this effort in your prayers.

 

Grace and Fellowship

Saturday I attended the annual Leadership Day at Tennessee Bible College in Cookeville. I took my wife and kids, and we had a good visit with my parents, who had driven over from Texas, as well as a number of people that I hadn’t seen since I lived there as a young boy when Dad taught at TBC. I won’t take time to reminisce, but I do love the folks there, and it gives me no pleasure to be at odds doctrinally with those who welcomed us and helped my family in so many ways those many years ago.

Three panelists (Glenn Ramsey, Kerry Duke, and Dad) were discussing and answering questions about the assigned topics, one of which was fellowship. And once again, the point was made that in all the complex application of fellowship principles we are bound to make some mistakes (i.e., extending or withholding fellowship when we shouldn’t), but that surely God’s grace will cover those unintentional sins.

I mentioned in my last post that I have recently heard this same belief voiced by several conservative Bible professors. These men are denying the traditional belief that is so often stated in conservative articles, books, and lectures on fellowship, which is that we must be exactly right about fellowship boundaries in order to be saved. Now, renouncing that extreme doctrine is laudable and does, in fact, alleviate some of the inconsistencies and self-contradictions alleged in my book (see pp. 105-107 for a summary of them). These brothers are, I think, moving in the right direction, and I certainly agree with them that grace will surely cover such mistakes. I am curious to see what the more hard-line conservatives will do in response to these who are taking a more moderate position. I personally believe a large number of conservatives have adopted this view, and that many more will do so as they realize the impossibility of maintaining the traditional, hard-line position (that making a fellowship mistake is tantamount to apostasy).

But here is my present point. Taking this position does avoid some of the consistency problems that progressives have long pointed out. But it also creates new ones. How, for example, is this belief to be harmonized with the traditional interpretation of 2 John 9-11? Remember, “the teaching of Christ” is understood by conservatives to be inclusive of all NT revelation (or, at the least, all “matters of obligation” in the NT). Dad’s statement is representative:

Christians cannot fellowship other Christians if those other Christians go beyond the teaching of Christ or fail to abide in that teaching, and thereby forfeit fellowship with the Father and Son. When Christians fellowship false teachers in the church, we forfeit fellowship with the Father and the Son ourselves because of our joint participation with them in their evil works. (M. Deaver, “Shall We Fellowship All Our Brethren?,” 5)

Now, this would apply to anyone who goes beyond “the teaching of Christ,” defined very broadly (as above). But that means any time I continue to fellowship someone who continually does what the NT doesn’t authorize, I participate with him in his sins and thus lose fellowship with God myself. Given this interpretation, grace will not cover fellowship mistakes—not even honest ones. And this is why the usual position argued in our literature is the hard-line view: a Christian must get his fellowship boundaries right or he loses his soul. That view, extreme as it sounds, is at least consistent with conservative exegesis. In order to preserve the more moderate position (that grace covers some fellowship errors), conservatives will have to give up the traditional interpretation of this text which has been a keystone of conservative fellowship doctrine. I haven’t seen this happen yet.

Second, how do these brethren determine how far God’s grace will go in covering fellowship sins? If their fellowship mistakes are forgiven and they can still be embraced as faithful brethren, why is it that they would say one who advocates fellowship with the Christian Church is unfaithful and is not to be accepted? Granting, for the sake of argument, that he’s wrong, why don’t these conservatives consider him forgiven and accept him in spite of his error just like they expect others to accept them in spite of their admitted error? Is the one mistake any less honest than the other? Are we in any position to judge the hearts of believers whose fellowship decisions we insist are wrong? On what biblical basis will these conservatives distinguish their own fellowship sins from those of brethren they continue to exclude?

Third, if fellowship sins committed in ignorance are forgiven, why wouldn’t the same be true of worship violations committed in ignorance? Most brethren who worship with the instrument believe they have a scriptural right to do so and are trying to glorify God. These conservatives (the ones described above) believe they themselves are definitely saved, even though they admit they can and do make mistakes in understanding and applying fellowship doctrine. Why is it they are only willing to concede the possibility that God will forgive sincere disciples who worship wrongly because of ignorance (and even if he does, we must still mark them as unfaithful) (e.g., M. Deaver, “Fellowship in Worship”)? Again, I plead with these preachers to explain the biblical rationale for treating these two sins (or alleged sins) so differently. They have acknowledged that getting the NT pattern perfectly right is not essential for salvation (or for fellowship). It will be interesting to see what they say now as to just how close to perfection one’s understanding of the pattern must be in order to remain in God’s grace and in their fellowship.

One more thing. I have frequently been reprimanded by conservatives with the charge, “You’re giving up on obedience!” I would be interested to know why these preachers believe they’re not giving up on obedience by suggesting that grace will cover our unintentional sins when we fail to get certain parts of the NT pattern right. That’s exactly what I believe. I teach, just as they do, that we must obey the scriptures insofar as we understand them, and repent when we find ourselves to be out of harmony with God’s word. So how is it that I’m giving up on obedience but they are not? It seems to me that they and I are in agreement on this: what is required of Christians is not perfect pattern-keeping, but a submissive faith (a faith that strives to do God’s will to the degree that it is understood). If this is in fact common ground, I hope we can explore it in future dialogue and come closer together on this issue of salvation and fellowship.

As some conservatives move away from the radical views of the past, they are going to find that the rest of their theology won’t support their new, less extreme position. I think as they reevaluate their beliefs and bring them in line with what they’re now saying about grace, they’ll find themselves having to abandon more of conservative theology than they ever thought they would. This, I believe, will take time. Such major shifts in thinking don’t happen quickly. I’m thankful for what these brethren are affirming about grace and fellowship. And I appeal to them to consider carefully the rest of their doctrine to see how it might conflict with this more “grace-oriented” approach.

WORKS CITED

Deaver, Mac. “Fellowship in Worship.” Biblical Notes Quarterly 9.3 (2008): 16-19.

—. “Shall We Fellowship All Our Brethren?” Biblical Notes Quarterly 6.1 (2002): 1, 5-7.

Shall We Keep Silent?

One of the usual tenets of “conservative” thinking (as we’re using that term here) has been that we must identify the biblical limits of fellowship with complete accuracy. Our salvation, in fact, depends on it. Why? Because if we teach error regarding the boundaries of fellowship, we have gone beyond the doctrine of Christ and forfeited our salvation (per the traditional understanding of 2 John 9). And if we practice error by actually extending fellowship to one who is unfaithful, we become participants in his evil deeds and thus become unfaithful ourselves (again, per the conservative view of 2 John 10-11).

That’s almost a direct quote from my book, but I guess it’s not plagiarism if I’m quoting myself. Anyway, for discussion of this point and quotations substantiating it, see Facing Our Failure, pp. 85-88. I think I scoured recent conservative literature on fellowship pretty thoroughly as I did research for the book, and this is what I found: few concepts are stressed more frequently than the belief that when it comes to defining the boundaries of our fellowship, we must be exactly right or we lose our souls.

That’s why I was surprised by what I recently discovered. In the last month I’ve met with four Bible professors in two of our schools to talk about fellowship. All these gentlemen were more than cordial and we had a very pleasant visit about some of our differences. I truly appreciate their attitude and their willingness to openly and honestly discuss this issue. These discussions were enlightening in several ways, but one thing that stands out to me is that all four of these men reject the position that our salvation depends on getting our fellowship boundaries right. They believe, as I do, that we must try to be as accurate as we can in this area, but they don’t believe that an honest mistake in the matter of fellowship will cost one his soul.

This is a definite departure from the traditional view critiqued in my book. And while I don’t see how this position can be reconciled with the traditional interpretation of 2 John 9-11 and other conservative beliefs, I am glad to know that some prominent conservative preachers do not accept this extreme doctrine. It makes me wonder how many other conservatives are out there who believe as they do. Perhaps a considerable number of conservatives have tempered their position over the years. If so, conservative literature does not reflect it. At least I don’t recall encountering this in my research. And that brings me to the point of this article.

I want to encourage these conservative preachers/professors/writers, wherever they may be, to make their views more public and speak out in favor of a more moderate position. They may not agree with my own position (the gentlemen I met with did not), but they could use their influence to help conservatives on the far right back away from their (as I see it) extremism. Any movement away from that would be advantageous for our fellowship, even if it’s only partial.

Of course, taking a public stand against the traditional view would bring attacks from its defenders, so there would be a price to pay. But the church is only harmed when radical positions are allowed to carry the day unopposed. So for what it’s worth, I cast my vote for more open discussion of fellowship—between conservatives and progressives, and between more moderate conservatives and conservatives who are less so.

In this respect I believe brother Cecil May Jr. is to be highly commended. He operates in conservative circles, but he is not afraid to take issue with traditional conservative ideas. I was both thrilled and surprised to hear the closing remarks in his recent speech, “Can Patterns Go Too Far?,” at the Freed-Hardeman lectures a few weeks ago. (For a transcription of these remarks and observations by John Mark Hicks, see “Patterns and Legalism: Commenting on an FHU Lecture”.) I imagine brother May caught considerable flack from some conservatives because of that speech. But his point regarding patterns, perfectionism, and grace needed to be made. And I appreciate him greatly for having the integrity and courage to say publicly what he believes, in spite of the risks.

So, thank you bother May. And may we all be inspired by your example.

Essential for Some, Fatal for Others: The Enigma of Traditional Fellowship Doctrine

I’ve been reading Dallas Burdette’s new book, From Legalism to Freedom. In chapter 3 he addresses a number of worship patterns or requirements that have been insisted on, at one time or another, by some in the Stone-Campbell tradition. Some of them, of course, are still argued for and in many cases are also made a test of fellowship. It is remarkable that so many of them have to do with the Lord’s supper. We have so often taken something that was intended to promote the unity of the body (1 Cor. 10:17) and used it as a basis for dividing it. 

What are some patterns that have been discerned relative to the Lord’s supper?

 

• Only grape juice may be used
• Only fermented wine may be used
• The bread must remain one loaf as it is circulated among the members, not broken into two or more pieces.
• One cup, not multiple containers, must be used
• The cup that is used must have a handle
• The Lord’s supper may only be observed after dark
• The Lord’s supper may only be observed in an upper room
• The required order of worship is (1) teaching, (2) giving, (3) Lord’s supper, (4) prayer
• One must be sitting down when he/she partakes of the bread or wine

Perhaps the most peculiar practice mentioned in the book is the one encountered by Carl Ketcherside’s father. At a preaching appointment one Sunday, he “inquired as to the customary time he should approach the pulpit. He was informed that he would preach after the Lord’s Supper. When [he] arose to approach the pulpit, the congregation walked out and, then, came back in. Afterwards, he was informed that their actions were ‘according to the pattern.’”

As Matthew 26:30 says, following the institution of the supper, Jesus and the disciples, after singing a hymn, “went out” (to the Mount of Olives).

There are other communion patterns that some conservatives would insist on, but that other conservatives would dispute:

 

• It is sinful to sing a hymn during the supper
• Women must not wait on the Lord’s table
• The supper must not be offered a second time (at the evening service)
• The supper must not be taken out of the assembly (to shut-ins, etc.)

And then there are those patterns that practically all “traditional” brethren would agree on:

 

• The supper must be observed every Sunday
• The supper must not be observed any day but Sunday
• The supper must not be incorporated into an actual fellowship meal

Of course, the typical response to such differences is to say simply that the patterns I subscribe to are obvious; the patterns others advocate are silly. Maybe. But let’s think a little more deeply about what we do about other people’s patterns.

First, consider what conservatives say to those on their left (“progressives”). Take, for example, a church that after much study and prayer has concluded it is scriptural to observe the Lord’s supper on any or every day of the week. A typical conservative reaction could be worded something like this: “I understand that you believe you have a right to commune on other days, and you may even think doing so would be greatly beneficial to the church. But you must not do it because the scriptures simply do not allow it. Regardless of your sincere beliefs, if you implement this practice I can no longer consider you to be a faithful congregation.

Now, it is often pointed out that conservatives don’t usually walk by that same rule themselves, giving up their perceived rights for the sake of unity. They know full well that certain brethren regard them as apostate because they use multiple cups in communion, have Sunday morning Bible classes, and send money to orphans’ homes from the church treasury. But even though they realize these practices are optional and not obligatory, they still insist on doing them rather than remain in the good graces of brethren who oppose them.

Be that as it may, my point here is that traditional brethren say, “If you go beyond the biblical pattern as we understand it, we cannot have fellowship with you.” This conviction, in fact, is a hallmark of conservative theology.

Now, how do these same Christians deal with those on their right (often called “antis”)? Take a church that has come to the studied conclusion that it is unscriptural to use more than one container in observing the Lord’s supper. As Burdette notes in his book, some of these congregations make this issue a test of fellowship while others don’t. But what is the conservative response? Generally, multiple-cup conservatives say, “As long as you don’t bind this pattern on us by making it a test of fellowship, we can regard you as faithful.”

Keep this point firmly in mind: the one-cup churches believe it is sinful to use more than one cup, because to do so is to go beyond the biblical pattern as they understand it. What, then, are the multiple-cup conservatives telling the one-cup churches? Just this: “We are convinced you’ve misunderstood the biblical pattern in this particular, but that in itself doesn’t mean we have to divide. We can agree to disagree on what the NT requires here. But we can only regard you as faithful and have fellowship with you on this condition: you must reject the very doctrine that we ourselves adhere to, the doctrine we insist is essential to our own faithfulness, the doctrine that requires us to break fellowship with those on our left. In other words, you must continue to extend fellowship to us, even though you believe our worship practice is sinful. Only by doing this can you remain a faithful congregation.”

Here is a curious inconsistency that gets stranger the more you think about it. In relation to progressives, conservatives cling adamantly to their doctrine of exclusion (i.e., have no fellowship with those who go beyond the pattern). In fact, conservatives must hold this doctrine in order to be considered faithful. On the other hand, an “anti” church will only be considered faithful by conservatives if they repudiate this doctrine—at least as it applies to conservative practices they believe to be sinful (e.g., multiple cups, Bible classes, supporting orphans’ homes from the church treasury, etc.).

If conservatives were consistent, it seems to me that any time an “anti” church tried to maintain fellowship with the traditional conservatives, those conservatives would have to break fellowship with the antis since those antis have renounced the “true” doctrine of fellowship by offering fellowship to brethren they believe to be practicing sin.

The same doctrine surely cannot be essential for some Christians and fatal for others. Am I missing something?

P.S. Perhaps even more baffling than the traditional approach to fellowship is the fact that I have been nominated to receive a TheoBloggers Christian Bloggers Award. Let me say a big “thank you” to my fan. This is the first year these awards are being presented. The award ceremony will take place on March 28 at the Tulsa Workshop. To register, go here. To nominate your favorite bloggers (there are several categories), go here.

Stay Tuned

I’ve been out of town attending the Freed-Hardeman Lectureship, but I plan to get back to blogging in the next few days. Thanks for your patience.

Bro. Gil Yoder seems to have abandoned his critique of my book; his last post was over a month ago. Perhaps he will resume at some point. In the meantime, bro. Matt Clifton has taken up the task at his website, so we look forward to studying his review and dialoguing with him on the fellowship dilemma. Matt is one of our regular readers and has made a number of comments. He has a very kind spirit and I appreciate his willingness to participate in this discussion.

There are some other new items of interest to discuss as well, so please check back soon.

Of Motives and Methods

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, I have an agenda. My aim is to help conservative/traditional members of the Church of Christ to see the inconsistencies and failures of their (in my humble perspective) radical exclusivism, and to open their minds to what I believe is a more biblical approach to the issue of salvation and fellowship.

In spite of what you may have read elsewhere, I am in no way connected with the Emerging Church Movement (of which I am embarrassingly ignorant), I do not espouse fellowship with Muslims and Buddhists, and I am not trying to move anyone away from the authority of the Bible. I am pleading for more adherence to scripture, not less. I do not claim agreement with every other self-styled “progressive,” and if there are some who do deny the authority of God’s word or advocate universalism, let it be clearly understood that I am not among them.

Now, since not all of my blog readers have read my book, let me briefly explain my methodology and the rationale behind it. In my book, and thus far in my posts here, I have tried to focus attention on the inconsistencies and self-contradictions in the traditional approach to fellowship. (And to the oft-repeated objection that inconsistent application does not prove the doctrine wrong, I answer again that the traditional doctrine cannot be applied consistently without decimating the Church of Christ as we know it. Those who offer this objection show no signs that they are resolved to change their ways and apply their doctrine consistently henceforth.) I understand the need for providing a viable alternative to the conservative position, and I will do my best to argue for a (in my view) biblical alternative in the future. My reason for focusing presently on the dilemma of conservatives, rather than a solution, is twofold.

First, if the past is any indication, presenting a different solution would allow conservatives to ignore their dilemma and defend the traditional position by simply attacking the proposed alternative. Though progressives have noted conservative inconsistencies for a long time, conservatives have never felt sufficient pressure to answer them. They have instead gone on the offensive and used their traditional interpretations and arguments to attack the unconventional position. Since I haven’t yet stated my view, they have nothing to attack. The spotlight remains on their self-contradictions, and I hope they will eventually feel the need to respond. Their silence on the subject thus far is telling.

Old habits die hard, so some traditional brethren are not letting this obstacle impede their usual strategy. They simply postulate my position for me and then attack it. I am part of the Emerging Church Movement, they claim. Or my alternative is nothing other than universalism, where there are no boundaries at all. And since these ideologies are so obviously wrong, I am wholly discredited and traditional theology stands vindicated once more. No need, then, to address the self-contradictions.

Perceptive brethren will see through this tactic and will recognize it as just another dodge of the fellowship dilemma. At some point some honest conservatives are going to take up the challenge and attempt to disprove the allegations in my book. And that is all I want, because that is all it will take.

Second, I am presently focusing exclusively on disproving the traditional view because of the motive factor. You see, conservatives are highly motivated to reject any paradigm other than their own, because they firmly believe their theology, including their extreme exclusivity, is essential to their salvation. To abandon it is to lose one’s soul. That perception makes it more than a little difficult for conservatives to give any alternative paradigm a fair and unbiased hearing. If you’re absolutely convinced that the boat you’re in is the only place of safety, the most reasonable arguments in the world aren’t going to coax you out of it. But if you notice that your boat is full of holes, you suddenly become quite motivated to find and board a different one. By showing that the conservative boat is full of holes I hope to reverse the motive factor so that it works in favor of an alternative paradigm rather than against it. Presenting the alternative before this is achieved would likely be futile.

So there’s my reasoning. For now, I will continue to hammer away at the inconsistencies of the traditional approach to fellowship. And if you have any pull with any conservative leaders, please encourage them to respond to the arguments being made and explain why these self-contradictions are only imagined and not real. We’re waiting to hear………..

A Word from Cecil May Jr.

A little background: In the 1991 Freed-Hardeman University Preachers’ and Church Workers’ Forum, Larry James, Cecil May Jr., Bill Swetmon, and David Lipe discussed whether the use of instrumental music in worship is a matter of human judgment or an activity that violates the teaching of the New Testament. The speeches, as well as the question/answer sessions, were transcribed and published as Instrumental Music: Faith or Opinion (Huntsville AL: Publishing Designs, Inc., 1991).

On pages 90-91 brother May said,

I hope we can recognize that, if we do what God has said to do as we come to worship God, we’re going to be pleasing to God. If we fail to do that because of a lack of understanding, because of tripping ourselves up over our own difficulties and problems, and if we are living with a penitent heart and seeking to know the will of God in all things and to do it in what we can, then God’s grace is indeed going to forgive us.

But at the same time, if we think we can talk about the grace of God in such a way as to say, because God is gracious and will forgive the things wherein we ignorantly err or wherein we have difficulty or wherein we are overtaken in a fault, that therefore we can say, ‘Well, we don’t need to correct people about that because the grace of God will take care of it,’ that’s an entirely different thing. To say that we can take something that is different from what Scripture says, that is not what Scripture authorizes, and promote it as something that is all right to do because God is gracious and forgives, is an entirely different thing.

On the basis of this statement, I wrote in my book that “Cecil May Jr….states quite clearly that an otherwise faithful Christian who worships with the instrument because of ignorance will find grace” (p. 20, n. 14). I refer to brother May as holding this position again in chapter 5 (p. 91, n. 208). And I also connected his name with this stance in my January 16 post entitled “Hoping Against Hope—And Against Their Own View of 2 John 9.”

Brother May recently sent me an e-mail stating that my characterization of his belief is not exactly right. He indicated that he would choose his words differently than he did while under the pressure of a live discussion—which I understand completely. I told brother May that if he would produce a statement of his position on the matter, I would be more than happy to publish it on my blog. I have great respect for brother May, and I have no desire to misrepresent him or anyone else. I appreciate his taking the time to clarify his view.

Here is his statement:

I believe God has revealed in the New Testament what he wants us to offer as worship in our assemblies. He included the Lord’s Supper, preaching, singing, prayers, and giving (1 Cor. 11—16); he left out burning incense, offering sacrifice, dancing and instrumental music (Heb. 13:10-13). For us to include what he has not included goes against his will. To go against his will is one definition of sin.

For Christians sin can be forgiven. When we acknowledge a sin and repent of it, God forgives it. But there are scriptural promises that tell us that sins of faithful children of God can be forgiven even before they are acknowledged. Those promises are on the condition that the child of God is “walking in the light” (1 John 1:7), or “walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:4), or “walk(ing) in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (Romans 4:12).

Surely sins committed in ignorance would be included in the kinds of sins that would be forgiven under those conditions. Some degree of attempting to learn more and more of God’s will is no doubt involved in “walking” as we should walk, but ultimately conditions such as those named in those passages remove the burden of final judgment from us and put it on God, where it belongs anyway.

If someone maintains that all who use instrumental music “are unequivocally lost,” as Todd says some do, then it seems to me they are assuming God’s prerogative of judgment. But if some say that “instrumental music, if practiced by an otherwise faithful Christian, will definitely not cause one to lose his soul,” as Todd says other brethren, including me, say, then it seems to me they too are assuming God’s prerogative. Rather than saying, “They will definitely not be lost,” I would say, “They might not be lost.” It would depend on the totality of their “walk,” some of which involves inward matters of the heart that God can know that other human beings cannot.

The use of instrumental music may not be the only sin an otherwise faithful Christian can commit in ignorance. I hear some brethren speak quite assuredly that they are not committing any such sin, but of course they would not know it if they were. I am unable to bring myself to what seems to me to be such an arrogant claim of omniscience. But I earnestly seek to know his will though study of his word and confidently believe his promises that as I walk faithfully (which is not the same as walking sinlessly) that my sins are covered by the blood of Christ and are not counted against me. I believe the same about any other child of God who is walking in faith, but I do not claim to be able to tell infallibly whether he or she is walking thus or not.

Todd, I have read your book thoughtfully and marked it throughout. There is much in it to commend and several things in it in which I think you miss the point. I plan to send you further thoughts on it as soon as I can get to it, but I am behind on two or three other commitments at the moment. I will get to it as soon as I can.

Dr. Cecil May Jr., Dean
V. P. Black College of Biblical Studies
Faulkner University
5345 Atlanta Highway
Montgomery AL 36109

There’s Got to Be a Line Somewhere

I wish I had more time to interact with others in the “comments” following an article. I appreciate those on both sides who engage one another—in a very Christlike spirit, I’m happy to say—and provide a lively discussion of the issues for the benefit of us all.

One reader asked, “If grace covers missing the mark morally will it not also cover missing the mark doctrinally?” An excellent question. Another reader responded to this query in a well-written comment, and I’d like to address briefly the point he makes. Concerning both morality and doctrine he argues that the truth must lie between two extremes. On the one hand, we know we don’t have to be perfect in either in order to be saved. After all, perfection, though always our goal (1 John 2:1), is beyond our grasp (1 John 1:8). On the other hand, we know that anyone who lives his life in complete disregard of God’s moral laws or the other teachings of the Bible (“doctrine,” as we like to call them to distinguish them from the moral requirements) is certainly lost. One cannot maintain an “I don’t care” attitude toward either and still please God. Conservatives and progressives are agreed on both of these points.

So the line identifying what is required for salvation must be drawn between these two poles. But where? As I document in my book, there is no consensus among conservatives on what doctrines one must be right about in order to be saved. Some claim that we have to be right about all of it, without exception—an extraordinarily unrealistic view. Others offer various criteria to be used in determining which erroneous doctrines are harmless and which are fatal, but each has his own list and they differ widely from one member to the next. One common standard that many conservatives do agree on is that, to be saved, one must be right about those practices that are either required or forbidden in scripture (often called “matters of obligation”)—i.e., what is authorized and what isn’t. But, as my book shows, even here conservatives often disagree over what is required and forbidden.

The intense struggle to get all these issues figured out correctly stems from the traditional position that to be saved one must be right about who can and who cannot be fellowshipped. This is the logical implication of the traditional interpretation of 2 John 9-11. If I fellowship anyone who has gone beyond the teaching of Christ (understood to be the teaching of the NT as a whole), then I participate in his evil deeds and lose fellowship with God myself. I must therefore know what all the essentials are to ensure that I don’t extend fellowship to someone who lacks one or more of them. This, needless to say, puts conservatives in a pretty tight spot. In truth, they must say that one cannot be saved without identifying all the essentials perfectly. (Exceptions are, of course, made for those disciples who haven’t yet had time to mature in the faith.)

So, conservatives do teach that salvation requires perfect understanding of which biblical doctrines are essential, which are nonessential, and which erroneous doctrines cause one to lose his soul. The unattainability of this goal is confirmed by the fact that no two conservatives agree completely on which doctrines fall in which categories.

But this requirement of perfection, obviously, is a heavy load to bear. And some conservatives are leaning away from such an impractically rigid position. For example, the reader referred to above says, “I will suggest that God alone has the right to determine by how far a person may in fact ‘miss the mark doctrinally’ and still be saved.” But to take this view is to abandon the traditional, conservative position with its interpretation of 2 John 9-11, because that position makes my own salvation dependent on my ability to determine who is saved and who is lost, who can be fellowshipped and who cannot. If I make a mistake here, I lose fellowship with God myself. So the traditional view, which the reader seems to want to defend, won’t allow the humble stance articulated above.

I appreciate the reluctance to judge another’s salvation, but the above statement has disturbing implications. If, in light of all our doctrinal and moral imperfections, God is the only one who can determine who is saved, then I can’t even know that I’m saved myself. Yet, the Bible clearly says that’s possible (1 John 5:13). So the solution is not simply to leave it all in God’s hands and admit that we can’t know at all what distinguishes the faithful from the apostate.

“Surely there is a line between needing to obtain/maintain a perfect understanding of the entire word of God and the idea that one’s understanding of such has nothing to do with the saving of his soul.” Absolutely. Where, then, is the line? So often conservatives are unsure of their own salvation because they know they fail miserably even in the area of morality and good works. They don’t know where the line is, so they have no idea whether they’re measuring up.

This, I believe, is the conservative dilemma. Since salvation is based directly on one’s works, his works must be good enough (i.e., measure up to the required standard) for him to be saved. We know the line is somewhere between absolute perfection and abject depravity, but no one can identify what the standard is. Must my works be 65% good? 70%? 78.2? And even if I knew the exact percentage required, how could I possibly assess the messy business of my day-to-day life to come up with a precise mathematical figure? Indeed, in the equations of traditional theology, the one thing I can be sure of is that I can’t be sure I’m saved.

Progressives, on the other hand, have generally offered a very simple—and I believe biblical—answer to the question of where the line is drawn. It doesn’t remove every difficulty involved in this problem, but it has two big advantages over the traditional view. (1) It provides the assurance I need of my own salvation, and (2) it allows for unity in the church without the impossible requirement of doctrinal uniformity—which, in fact, we’ve never had, despite persistent claims to the contrary. The great fear of conservatives is that the alternative progressives offer inevitably undermines obedience and makes God’s law superfluous. It’s the opposite extreme from demanding perfect obedience: you don’t need to bother with God’s instructions at all. That, however, is one of the great misunderstandings of the progressive view. We may disagree with conservatives over whether some things are actually required (just as conservatives often disagree among themselves), but we do not detract from the importance of obedience.

I will, at a later time, describe this “solution,” present my arguments for it, and answer objections against it. I must ask for your patience, though. I’m not launching into that discussion yet, for reasons I’ll try to explain in my next piece. For right now, I simply want to focus attention on the inability of the traditional theology to provide a coherent answer to the question, where is the line to be drawn?

The traditional conservative position is that, at least for mature Christians, the line is at the point of perfect understanding when it comes to identifying what beliefs and practices are essential for salvation, which are optional, and which are fatal to one’s soul. (If you suspect I’m exaggerating here, please see the numerous quotations from conservative leaders on pp. 86-88 of my book.) Their interpretation of 2 John 9-11 necessitates this conclusion, requiring them to draw all fellowship boundaries in exactly the right place in order to maintain God’s favor. Traditional conservatives themselves, however, have reached no agreement on which doctrines are essential, optional, and fatal (and where fellowship boundaries should be set), which suggests that this standard is impossibly high.

A neo-conservative view, exemplified in the reader’s comments noted above, answers that there’s got to be a line somewhere, but no one except God knows where it is. This answer removes from us the terrifying pressure of having to get this thorny issue completely figured out. However, there is no biblical basis for it, it precludes the possibility of having assurance of one’s own salvation, and it leaves us with virtually no guidance in determining what our fellowship boundaries should be.

“Conservative” theology has failed us, dear brothers and sisters. We must turn to a different approach.