Exam 1 Study Questions
1. Discuss
the origin of creeds in general and of the Apostles’ Creed in particular. How are the creeds a response to
heresies? Should the church use creeds
today? What are the advantages and/or
disadvantages?
2. Summarize
the history of Eastern Orthodoxy. What
incidents led to schism with the
3. Discuss
the Christological controversies of the first four ecumenical councils. How did the Council of Chalcedon respond to
them all?
4. Discuss
the doctrine of the sacraments in Eastern Orthodoxy. Then specifically describe the practice and
meaning of baptism in EO.
5. Discuss
the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. What led to this definition, and how is this
definition qualified?
Exam 2 Study Questions
1. Describe
the Pelagian-Augustinian controversy.
What were the two opposing views of human nature after the fall, and how
did this affect their distinct doctrines of salvation?
2. Summarize
the historical development of the Magisterial Reformation. What were the main doctrinal controversies
that led to division from the Roman Catholic Church? Distinguish the main branches of the
Magisterial Reformation. Identify and
define the Reformation slogans.
3. Discuss
religious authority according to the Magisterial Reformation. What is the role of Scripture? How did the Enlightenment affect Protestant
views of Scripture?
4. Describe
the Calvinism-Arminianism controversy.
What issues drove Arminius’ dissent from Reformed theology? Discuss the subsequent controversy, including
the Remonstrance of 1610 and the canons of
5. Discuss
the Protestant doctrine of the sacraments.
What distinguished them from Roman Catholics, and what issues caused
division among Protestants? Include a
summary of the Protestant doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and baptism.
Exam 3 Study Questions
1. What is
the Stone-Campbell movement? What were
Thomas Campbell’s contributions to the movement? What issues have caused the major divisions
within the movement?
2. How did
Acts become the canon within the canon for Churches of Christ, and what are the
potential problems with viewing it primarily as a book of conversion stories?
3. In what
sense is humanity able to do “good?”
What are the different uses of the word “good” in Scripture? Include a discussion of relevant biblical
passages.
4. In what
way does water baptism contribute to salvation?
What is its connection to “baptism in the Holy Spirit?”
5. What were
the biblical and theological reasons given in support of a cappella worship? Which of
these do you think is the strongest reason?
SCM Ecclesiology
The church is a congregation of saints “who have mutually
and definitely agreed to assemble together at an appointed place, for the
purpose of worshipping God, keeping his ordinances, and watching over one
another (R. Richardson, “The Church,” 96-7).
In this sense, the primary definition of the church is the local
congregation, as it is most often used in NT.
Although the church is not synonymous with the kdom of God, kdom
language is used by AC to describe the relationship of Jesus to the church: he
is the king, we are the subjects. This
is also to emphasize the unity of the kdom under one monarch.
Thomas Campbell formed the Christian Association of
Washington (
Such restoration quickly became, with Walter Scott, a
restoration of the plan of salvation.
(Cf. the 6-finger exercise.) This
emphasis on the steps of salvation was carried on into 20th cent.
Churches of Christ.
With others, the emphasis on ecclesiology turned into an
emphasis on eschatology.
All of this underscores the fact that, in contrast to EF
churches, ecclesiology has been the main point of departure for theology in
Churches of Christ, and remains the context of our distinctives.
Structure
A. Campbell allows co-operation in terms of special
conventions (read, “councils”) to deal with peculiar emergencies. Acts shows such co-operation among the
congregations.
Qualifications of elders: “The art of teaching, the art
of governing or presiding with effect, and a high reputation for piety and
humanity.”
Deacons: “That they be business men of known fidelity and
integrity.”[1] Interesting that he doesn’t simply repeat the
lists of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.
Sacraments
We have not traditionally used the term sacrament, mainly
because it does not appear in Scripture, it connotes the 7 sacraments of EO and
RCC, and many debates throughout church history have been over the
sacraments. The term AC and others used,
however, also extra-biblical and perhaps ambiguous. Whatever we call it, SCM has always
recognized such visible means of grace.
Baptism
Baptism is an objective moment of grace and assurance of
salvation (in contrast to those Evangelicals who promoted more subjective means
of grace and assurance).
What distinguishes the true church from the false
ones? What are the distinguishing marks
of the visible church?
Who may lead the church and administer the sacraments?
Distinctives
What are the typical distinctives of churches of Christ? What are the obvious characteristics that
usually distinguish us from other Christian groups? (a cappella worship, weekly LS, immersion for
forgiveness of sins, plurality of elders [as leaders of each congregation])
Let’s discuss…how
we got to these distinctives (historically), how these relate to beliefs and
practices of Russian Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, Protestant (Evangelical,
Missional, Emergent etc...), and how we can be ever more faithful (Biblically,
Theologically) as regards these distinctives in churches of Christ.
Baptism
-What are the
conditions of baptism? (8:13-
belief; 2:38- repentance)
-Acc. to NT, what
happens at baptism?
-Connected with
reception of HS (Acts 2:38)
-Caused the Ethiopian
eunuch to rejoice (Acts 8:39)
-Is linked with the
washing away of sins (Acts 22:16)
-Brings one from death
to new life (
-Unifies Christians
with each other; common experience of baptism in HS (1 Cor. 12:13)
-Clothes one with
Christ; linked with faith, available to all (Gal. 3:26-28)
-Unites one with the
dying and rising of Christ (Col. 2:12-13)
-Saves one from the
destruction awaiting the wicked world; not a physical, but spiritual, bath;
pledge of a good conscience; linked with Christ’s res. (1 Pet. 3:20-21)
-How much does a
person need to know before baptism? (how
much could they have learned in a few moments?
When we’re baptized, we don’t have to understand everything about
it. Conversion is God’s work.)
-What makes baptism effective? (Holy Spirit; on our part, faith in Jesus and
repentance [see “conditions” above]) Is
it what you know or don’t know? Is it
who baptizes you? Is it what the sign on
the building says? (I know a person
whose wife and her family think he’s not saved because he was baptized in a
church that didn’t say “
Did
Jesus command baptism?
-Jn. 3:3-5-
Prerequisite for entering kingdom. Mt.
28:18-19.
Jesus himself was
baptized. This is my beloved Son; with
him I am well-pleased. (and reception of
HS)
*Interlocutor: “But
isn’t baptism a work of merit, if you claim it’s essential?”
Is baptism a
work? No. It’s a part of faith. Here’s how:
1.
Col.
2:11-14. Is baptism active or
passive? God does the working
(power/operation of God). “Faith” (2:12)
is a believing and baptizing moment.
2.
Tit. 3:5. Renewal of HS takes place at baptism.
Nothing is more
passive than being immersed. If baptism
is a “work,” then so is repentance.
Even 1 Pet. 3:21, the
most explicit text on the efficacy of baptism, emphasizes that the salvation
that happens at baptism is because of Xp, not us.
Is the Lord’s Supper a
“work?” God gave us this meal as a means
of grace, to unite us with Xp’s death a res.
Just like in baptism, God takes someth. ordinary and works someth.
extraordinary through it. We are even
served it. We do nothing but eat and
drink someth. “Work?” Hardly.
So
what do we mean when we say that we are saved by baptism? Obviously, we mean something different than
when we say we are saved by God, or saved by grace, or saved by works. All are true in a certain sense that we must
distinguish.
Summary:
Saved in Baptism. Means/moment, a
part of faith. Its execution in
time.
Early Church
-When the early fathers
say “baptism”, they always mean immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins,
along with the reception of the Holy Spirit.
-Even though the NT
occasionally mentions the gift of the Spirit mediated through the laying on of
hands (Acts 8), the second century church knew of no such practice.
-Into the third century, the
norm was still for the Holy Spirit to be linked with water baptism.
-But more frequently into
the fourth century, baptism (along with anointing) was mentioned
alongside the
laying on of hands as imparting the Spirit.
This presented no problem as long as these were all done
simultaneously. But as infant baptisms
increased, laying on of hands (later “confirmation”) was pushed later into
one’s life. (So the question became, HS
at baptism or hands?)
-Yet baptism remained
essential and regenerating. Those today
who disparage water baptism in favor of “Holy Spirit baptism”, separating the
two, have no historical ground to stand on (eg, Pentecostals).
Infant Baptism
-It is generally
admitted that the practice originated well before a rationale was given for
it. Assuming that it was not original to
the apostolic church, how would this become a general practice, with no good
reason? (high view of baptism, combined
with high infant mortality rate, pastoral concern; point out
-Augustine articulates the best rationale, that is, original
sin (connected with Adam), and all others were discarded.
Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day (20:7-12)
-Can 20:7 be used to prove that the LORD’S SUPPER must be taken every
Sunday and only on Sundays? (No) Many use it this way.
-Is weekly LS defensible? Is it
worth defending? (I have framed the
question so that you might think it’s insignificant. Indeed, it should not supersede the meaning
of the LORD’S SUPPER. But if the
frequency arises out of its meaning, then it’s significant. So a better question, “Does the meaning tell
us anything about its frequency?”)
-Is Lk. trying to say anything about the frequency of the LORD’S SUPPER
here?
-“Breaking
bread” is a Christian expression, usually, if not always, connected with the
Lord’s
Supper.
I. Biblical rationale.
-How does an ancient
narrator show a connection between stories?
(not explicitly)
(Emphasis in Luke-Acts on meals)
Breaking
Bread in Luke-Acts (adapted from Hicks) [write down verbs, take, give thanks,
break, give]
Lk. 9:16: Taking the five loaves and the two fish
and looking up to heaven, he blessed and
broke them. Then he gave
them to the disciples to set before the people. Lk. 22:19 (Last Supper): And he took bread, gave
thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given
for you; do this in remembrance of me.” *Lk. 24:30, 35: When he was at the table with them, he took
bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it
to them….Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was
recognized by them when he broke the bread. Acts 2:42: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching
and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. So the early church continues this
breaking of bread. With what do they
associate it? Acts 2:46: Every day they continued to meet together in the
temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and
ate together with glad and sincere hearts. *Acts 20:7, 11: On the first day of the week we came together to
break bread. Paul spoke to the
people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking
until midnight….Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and
ate. After talking until daylight,
he left. Acts 27:35: After he said this, he took some bread and gave
thanks to God in front of them all.
Then he broke it and began to eat.
Anticipatory Text
Thematic Text
The Resurrected Lord Revealed
Pattern Texts
All
meals in Lk-Ac (incl. Lord’s Supper) point forward to the eschatological
banquet.
Luke
24:13-35 and Acts 20:7-12
-Luke 24:13-35 uses
language similar to Acts 20:7-12. Res.
What are the similarities?
(fill in triangle)
LD
LS
Topic Luke
24 Acts 20
|
24:33 |
20:7 |
|
First Day of the Week |
24:1, 13 |
20:7 |
|
Conversation |
24:14-15 |
20:11 |
|
|
24:32, 44 |
20:7 |
|
Breaking of Bread |
24:30, 35 |
20:7, 11 |
|
Eating Together |
24:42-43 |
20:11 |
|
|
24:5, 46 |
20:10, 12 |
|
Fear |
24:37-38 |
20:10 |
|
The Living One |
24:5 |
20:12 |
(above 1-2: Lord’s Day; 3-6:
LS/breaking; 7-9: Res with eschatological significance)
Why
Every First Day of the Week?
II. Historical Reasons: Answers What the Christians Did
If we had no evidence that early church ate LS on
any specific day, then we would have a weak arg. But…
1.
Christians
met regularly every first day of the week.
1 Cor. 16:1-2. Good time to
collect money.
2.
We know that
a primary purpose of their gatherings was to break bread (eat the Lord’s Supper). Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20, 33.
3.
There are
good historical reasons for believing that Christians met every first day of
the week to take the Lord’s Supper. Text
supports it, but doesn’t explicitly say it happened every Sunday. But it’s evidence.
4.
Early
Christian history testifies that second century Christians met every first day
of the week to eat the Lord’s Supper (Didache;
Justin Martyr).
III. Theological Reasons: Answers Why the Christians Did It
What happened on 1st day of the week?
1.
The first day
of the week is the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:1-2; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1. The day has redemptive-historical
significance. Days are important in
Scripture.
2.
The day of
Pentecost probably fell on the first day of the week. It was a celebration of harvest and called
for rest on the “first” and “eighth” days of the week. (Early Christians sometimes called Sunday the
“eighth day.” New creation.)
3.
There is an
intimate connection between the Lord’s Supper and Lord’s Day.
The Basic Theological Point: The first day of the
week has a theological significance for the church. The same reason the church gathers every
first day of the week is the same reason the church eats the Lord’s Supper
every first day of the week. Whatever
argument one can use for or against works the same for both assembling and
eating (Hicks). There is no reason to
separate the angles of the “triangle.”
If we gather on the first day of the week to celebrate the resurrection,
why would we omit the very ordinance God gave us for celebrating it?
Congregational Leadership and Ecclesial Fellowship
SCM has been
distinctive for its congregational autonomy and having a plurality of elders in
each church. Yet, despite the lack of
formal structure, Churches of Christ have maintained a surprisingly close-knit
fellowship and spirit of cooperation.
Autonomy
Each congregation
is seen as an autonomous part of the larger worldwide church. Since the only congregational leadership
discussed in the NT is at the local level, it has been inferred that local
leaders represent the highest level of authority within the church. No congregation answers to another
congregation or any other individual. We
are not a group that has a denominational superstructure or headquarters. We are not divided into districts, with a
bishop presiding over a whole diocese or group of churches.
When I talk to
preachers and fellow university professors in our movement, this is one of the
prominent things that is mentioned as a positive thing about ourselves. As congregations, we do not need to answer to
any other overseeing body or person. We
may carry out our ministries and conduct our worship as we see fit. We may bring in the preacher we want, not one
dictated and sent by someone else. We
may use the hymnbook (power point slides) we want. The preacher can preach whatever he wants, not
what the lectionary or the catechism mandates.
What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this structure?
Do we sacrifice
much on the altar of autonomy?
Plurality of Elders
Other groups have
a plurality of elders, but usually with a presiding pastor. Traditionally in SCM, the elders, not a
presiding pastor, have the last say in church matters.
What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this structure?
Fellowship
What is the basis
of our fellowship? What does bind us
together, if not a creed of unity or a figurehead? It has been an informal, tacit creed of
certain distinctive beliefs and practices. We have talked about and we know many of the
practices. Some of the distinctive beliefs
we have mentioned. Many of these are
reflected in the traditional slogans. “Speak
where Scripture speaks, be silent where it is silent.” “Call Bible things by Bible names.” “No creed but the Bible.” “No creed but Christ.”
It seems to me that,
as the legitimacy of these slogans is increasingly called into question, we are
losing this identity. What, then, will
be the basis for our union in the future? A sign out front?
A
Cappella Singing
Instrumental music is a subject that is important in its own
right. It is a hot button issue, indicative of the worship wars going on
in many churches. It currently occupies
the minds of many in our churches—churches which have been a cappella, or non-instrumental, for these two centuries. But now some of our churches are introducing
the instrument. There are meetings between
the Churches of Xp and the Christian churches about reuniting. I have heard adults and youth at this church asking about this
issue. So, it is an important issue, and
where we come down on this issue will say something about our attitude toward
worship in general.
One thing before we get started.
When I say, “Instrumental music,” I mean instrumental music in the
worship assembly. In other words, I’m
not talking about instruments with secular music, or even instruments with
sacred music outside of the gathering of the local church for worship. To use the phrase Paul used, the setting of
this issue is “in the assembly.”
Let me ask two questions. The
first one is just for you to think about.
How would you defend a cappella
music in the church? If someone were
to ask you why we don’t use instruments, what would you say? Do you have a hard time? Do you need help? Would you
be convinced if you were in the other person’s shoes? Many of you have probably been asked this, because
it is such an obvious feature of our worship.
So think about it for a moment.
I’m going to attempt to offer some answers.
Another question we’ll be addressing: Is this distinctive feature worth
defending? Is a cappella worship that important?
If we search for answers to this
question among our own fellowship, we might end up more confused. Because we have all ranges of opinions out there.
Many of these people will not listen to one another. And who knows? We may have all ranges of opinions represented
in here.
For example, many think that
not only is instrumental music wrong, but that it is the arch-heresy. These
people have no doubt that it is a salvation issue on par with the necessity of
baptism, and they are quick to condemn those who do it. Jonathan Clark goes so far to say that “the
actual inventor of musical instruments is satan.” (at http://quietearth.freeyellow.com/page56.html).
So you can imagine what he thinks about those who use instruments. Maybe some of you would agree. I do not.
If Satan invented something which can produce such true, aesthetic
beauty, it must have been before his
fall. A little later, I will tell you
why we must be cautious about condemning people who use instrumental music.
On the other hand, others
think that it is a non-issue, and
should be left to each individual or church, analogous to the 1st
cent. issue of eating meat offered to idols.
Tim Woodroof, in his book called A
Church that Flies, puts the issue of instrumental music in the same
category as “hand-clapping, the building of family life centers, translations
of the Bible” (p. 122). Maybe some of
you would agree they belong together. I
do not. A little later, you will see
that a quick glance at two thousand years of church history testifies that this
issue has meant more than the color of the carpet. I would argue that if it has divided and
still does divide the church, no matter what the issue is, it for that very
reason an important issue.
But if you do agree with either of these two opposite opinions, then
I have a tough job, because I’m somewhere in between them. I say there are many reasons why we should
continue to practice, teach, and defend a
cappella worship in the assembly.
These reasons fall into two large categories.
I. Biblical/Theological Reasons. (4 of these)
First, it is noteworthy that the NT talks about singing praises to
God, but is silent about instruments in the church’s worship (1 Cor.
But if we say the Bible is silent, so we can’t do it, we would have
to eliminate many things, such as invitation songs, Sunday school, supporting
orphans’ homes, etc. So, I’m not trying
to prove anything by the silence, but just saying it is silent. Everyone should agree that we are breaking no
command or example to use instruments, because there’s not one.
Second, some
people note that the OT Israelites used instruments in the temple
services. They were commanded to (2 Chr.
29:25-28). They were also commanded in
the Pss, which served as the hymnbook for temple worship. So why not in the NT; why not now? Well, think of what the temple was for. It was a physical location, for the purpose
of offering continual physical sacrifices.
Almost all mention of instruments in worship in the OT connects
them with the temple service, and thus, to the animal sacrifices.
What happened when the animal sacrifices ceased? The instruments
went silent, too. This happened even
before the time of the NT. The Jewish
synagogues spread throughout the Greco-Roman world, but did not sacrifice
animals, and did not use instruments.
They prayed, recited Pss, and read Scripture as their spiritual
sacrifices. For the Jews, instruments in
the synagogue were about as inappropriate as an animal sacrifice. IN the same way, in light of Jesus’
once-for-all sacrifice, Hebrews urges us to “continually offer up a sacrifice
of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name” (Heb.
Third, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.
Fourth has to do with the nature of worship. Worship
is Spiritual and word-centered. Word is a powerful motif in Scripture. God created the universe by his spoken
Word. Jesus is the eternal Word of God,
in that he reveals the Father to us. The
apostles traveled across the world to proclaim the Word of salvation. God gives us the gift of language that we may
praise him. In song, we build each other
up with spiritual words. In song, we
address God before his throne, to praise, thank, and beg him. See 1 Cor. 14 (esp. vs. 15, 19) and the
principle Paul establishes about intelligible words. Word is the vehicle of the gospel.
Since worship is Word-centered, everything is joined to the
Word. Even the Lord’s Supper and
baptism, visible symbols and events, are always joined to the Word, and always point us to the true eternal Word,
Xp. We worship in Spirit and in Truth,
and Xp is the way, truth, and life (Jn. 1:1;
II. Historical Reasons.
There is a widespread assumption that we are in a minority, and a cappella worship is strange.
When we look around at different Christian groups, we don’t see too many
others worshipping like this. So we are
inclined to wonder about the legitimacy of this practice.
Well,
we’re only in the minority if you have historical tunnel vision. But if you take two millennia of church
history and practice into account, we find ourselves in the majority, and instruments actually become the strange novelty.
In Jewish Worship
-Musical instruments were a
common component of Israelite worship to God, but they were
almost always
linked with the temple and its sacrifices (1 Chr. 25:1-6; 2 Chr.
5:11-13; 29-30; Ps. 150). Symbiotic
relationship of sacrifice and song.
Instruments were part of the temple vessels (1 C 16).
-The function of temple
music was: part of the ritual event, to proclaim God, praise, thank, prophesy.
-Synagogue services lacked
physical sacrifices. They also
lacked instruments, which were so
closely attached
to the sacrificial system. These were
replaced with spiritual sacrifices and spiritual music. Not that there was an explicit prohibition of
instruments (neither of sacrifices).
Early Church
-Worship assembly in the
early church, especially among Jewish Christians, tended to follow the model of
the synagogue service.
-The (Gentile) church
followed suit with its rejection of physical sacrifices for sin (especially in light of Christ’s
once-for-all sacrifice); thus, its rejection of instruments logically followed.
- The early church fathers would not
allow instruments in the assembly. The church fathers, starting
with Clement of Alexandria, unanimously prohibited the use of instruments in
the assembly, but mostly for different reasons than we traditionally have
used. What arguments have traditionally
been used in churches of Christ ? (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
The first record of the organ in the church was in
the eighth century. Its use was not more
common until the 13th cent.
Most Protestant reformers prohibited
instruments. They were not common in
Protestant churches until the 1700s.
Even the Catholic council of
The point is that we are not alone.
A cappella singing is not some
two hundred-year-old practice. More like 2,000. These names may not mean anything to you, but
leaders such as Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Augustine,
Aquinas, Erasmus, Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, Wesley, and Spurgeon, all spoke out
against instruments. In other words, the
most eminent early church fathers, medieval Roman Catholics, Calvinists,
Methodists, and Baptists. Not to mention
the Restoration fathers.
What are we to make of this Historical argument? It is
a secondary, but important reason. Not that we elevate the opinions of human
beings above Scripture. But that this
widespread agreement confirms our biblical/theological reasons. We should see ourselves in continuity with
the church of the past, and learn from it when we can. If the early church, which had a living
memory of the first century apostolic church, objected to instruments, we should
take note. In fact, we should have a pretty
good reason if we would think about going against over 1000 years, and in most
cases, 1700 years of Christian tradition.
So do people have a pretty
good reason for introducing instruments?
When we encounter those who want to use instruments, we should ask about
the rationale for using them. That is,
what’s a good reason for adding them?
Change in worship is not a bad thing.
Change can be a very healthy thing, but there must be a good reason for
it.
So no matter what the change is—using multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper,
singing during the LS, eating a meal in the church building, or using
instruments—the question must be, Why? To
offer something worthy to God, to unite our hearts and minds on the cross and
the empty tomb, to build each other up in the most holy faith. Or is the change intended to make church more
entertaining, more enjoyable, more fun, more upbeat, more like a rock concert
or carnival?
*Excursus on Luther*
Even Martin Luther, whose Lutheran churches retained instruments,
said with reference to additions in the Lord’s Supper: “Those additions have
been made by men’s devotion and through their zeal, and include such things as
vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers, organs, candles, and the whole pageantry
of things visible. Let us turn our eyes
and devote our minds purely and simply to that alone which Xp himself
instituted.” (Luther, Babylonian Captivity, in Dillenberger,
271).
Two points: 1) Note that people
often add these things out of zeal and devotion, not stubbornness or
arrogance. When evaluating changes, it
is important to distinguish the motives behind the changes. 2) Even so, for Luther (who still retained
most of the above-mentioned practices), these things distract from the
simplicity of worship. Any form of distraction
from the central focus of worship—whether it comes from a piano, a short skirt,
or a self-centered song leader—is not helpful.
Much more could be said about this issue. More reasons could be given, but these are
the most basic. Talk to me if you have
any questions. Now, the tougher
question: How should we deal with those who disagree with us?
A person can object and say that none of these reasons absolutely “prove” the case for a cappella worship. Maybe
not. But if it does fall short of “proof,”
the evidence is still really quite strong.
So, I cannot say that a person who worships with an instrument is
condemned. This issue is not equal to,
for example, baptism, which is everywhere
connected with the Holy Spirit, union with Christ, and forgiveness of
sins. But if the church’s worship is to
be word-centered, if instruments are indeed prescribed in connection with
physical animal sacrifices, if the NT is silent about them, and if the
overwhelming majority of the historic Christian tradition censures their use,
then the church that uses instruments
deviates or falls short, whether or not they are aware of it as a shortcoming. In that case, we have good reason to defend
and continue to practice a cappella
singing,
and little reason to introduce instruments.
But if it is a shortcoming, it gives us
no right to think we are better, or think we have it made. If the congregation down the street uses
instruments but has an outstanding record of benevolence, then another
congregation that is a cappella and
fails to support benevolence is no better off.
Both congregations fall short. This is very important. In fact, whereas the instrumental, generous
congregation has undermined a tacit theological and historical inference, the
stingy, a cappella congregation has
neglected an explicit command of Jesus.
Which is worse?
I would say that the person who sings with an instrument, but truly
pays attention to the words, understands them, and speaks them to God; is better off than the one singing without
instruments and without a thought of what he is saying, one who fails to sing
with the understanding, as Paul commands.
This is a sobering thought that
should generate humility. It should
come as no surprise, that all congregations, like individuals, fall short. We as a church should throw ourselves before
the mercy of our gracious God.
But don’t think that
instrumental music is now a non-issue.
As a church, we strive to behave and worship in ways appropriate for
God’s children. And so we don’t
introduce it for no good reason and assume God’s going to forgive it. We continue to teach, defend, and practice a cappella singing. But no more than we should teach, defend, and
practice giving to the poor, visiting the prisoners, and seeking the lost.
The Position and Function of
Churches of Christ Today
What is the role of the
But how should we view our “distinctives” in comparison
with other Christian groups? What is the
place of Churches of Christ today? What
is our “reason for being” in contrast to other Xn groups? What principle(s) of the Restoration movement
do we promote, and what part of our identity are we wanting to pass along to
our churches?
Another way to ask the question is about our
identity. By identity I mean
distinguishing characteristics, things that are different or receive a
different emphasis in SCM. For example,
Leroy Brownlow has about 30 reasons why he is a member of the
These are very difficult questions. I want us to focus on the things that
distinguish us from the other groups.
Our distinctives.
Options to avoid:
1. We can say we have it right on everything, and
everyone else is condemned.
2. The other extreme is to refuse to make any value
judgment, and to say our distinctives make us no better off than others. Or to make a negative value judgment about
ourselves—our distinctives disadvantage us and make us look silly.
Isaac Errett argued that our distinctives are mainly the
result of rejecting later additions to simple, primitive Christianity. In other words, everyone would surely agree
with our practices. Eg, all churches
acknowledge singing. No one is
scandalized by a weekly LS, baptism by immersion. Errett’s solution is for all to abandon
sectarianism. Errett may be right about
a few things, but he may not allow for mutual learning from others.
So let’s assume that we can and should learn from other
groups. But what should they learn from
us?
There is no better place to start than the two
fundamental values of our historic tradition.
I think that, although they can be placed in tension to one another,
they are not mutually exclusive. We are
a unity movement based on respect for God’s word, the means to lead us to
Christ.
1. Call for unity.
Taking John 17 seriously. SCM is
at its heart a unity movement, which is clear from the Dec. and Add.
Christians only, but not the only Christians. As AC said, a Christian is “Every one that
believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God;
repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of
knowledge of his will” (Reply to Lunenburg letter). There is a difference between a perfect and
imperfect Christian. One need not have a
perfect understanding and practice of every issue.
“Mistakes of the understanding and errors of the
affections are not to be confounded.”
Erring out of ignorance is still to err, but everyone, including God,
recognizes the difference between that and willful disobedience. For this reason, AC is not willing to say
there are no Christians in denominations, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orth., or Protestant.
Peter Meiderlin’s quote (1620s): “in necessariis Unitas,
in non necessariis Libertas, in utrisque Charitas.”
2. Attention to Scripture. One of the most positive things about the SCM
is the willingness to listen to Scripture.
To take seriously what all Christian groups maintain: that Scripture is
the primary norm and rule of faith and practice. Presumably, we should always be willing to be
changed in light of Scripture. We should
always be willing to hear a perspective that has a biblical basis, and evaluate
our present positions and beliefs on that same ground. Scripture, interpreted and applied with
humility and submission, is a means to unity and to fellowship with God through
Xp in the HS.
3. Ecclesiology.
SCM promotes, in contrast to much of evangelical Protestantism, a high
ecclesiology or doctrine of the church.
Membership and participation in Christ’s visible body, the pinnacle of
which is the Lord’s Day assembly, is a means of grace. With this high respect for the assembly of
God’s people in God’s plan of redemption, comes an emphasis on some of the most
distinctive aspects of Churches of Christ:
a. Autonomous congregational leadership. There is a freedom for churches to follow
their own conscience with respect to God’s Word.
b. Baptism by immersion for forgiveness of sins. Weekly Lord’s meal. A cappella
singing. It is interesting, and not
embarrassing, that these three practices were typical in the church still 1,000
years from its inception. And the first
two are being promoted by the WCC as part of the ecumenical core for all Xn
churches.
We can have a “prophetic” voice in the Xn world. E.g., while we have stood out (like a sore
thumb?) for our teaching on baptism, this is more and more being recognized as
part of the ecumenical core of the faith.
Is it possible to teach what we believe to be biblical,
but remain willing to learn a more perfect way?
While we stick to our distinctives in a prophetic way, we can learn from
other groups. We don’t have to agree
with everything that other groups say in order to learn something positive from
them. But we should continue to teach
and practice the distinctives that we believe are biblical.