ClarkeComments.com

Hello all:

I just finally finished reading The Fool of God by Louis Cochran. I started reading it a long time ago, and I’ve picked it up in spurts every once in a while.

My grandfather bought the book for me while we were visiting Bethany College back in the early 90’s. He bought it on the condition that I read it. It look a long time, but I finally fulfilled that promise.

While the book is written in novel form, its an eye-opening picture into the life and beliefs of Alexander Campbell. If you haven’t read it…give it a try.

-Clarke

Hello all:

Just over a year ago, I wrote a post asking what people though about the apocrypha. Since then, I’ve done a lot more thinking on the subject.

The Apocrypha, or the Deutero-Canonical books as the Catholics call them, was included in the Christian canon until Martin Luther excluded them in 1534. Luther also excluded Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Luther stated that he wished Esther had never been written, and he called James “an epistle of straw.”

I am not saying that apocrypha is scripture…and I am not saying that it is not; I am saying, however, that I think we should re-visit the apocrypha, that we should read it, and that we should carefully and prayerfully consider whether or not these writings hold a place as sacred scripture.

Some questions I have:

What gave Luther the right to remove these books from the canon?

The apocrypha was included in the canon for 1500 years. Would God allow these books to be considered scripture for such a long period of time if they did not belong in the canon?

What makes Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation acceptable, but the apocryphal books unacceptable?

Shouldn’t we, as a group of churches that values “Restoration,” consider whether or not the apocrypha is in need of restoration in the Protestant church?

-Clarke

Hello all:

I’ve noticed a revival of Calvinism in the Church. I was in a teen class the other day listening to our new youth minister talk about predestination. John Mark Hicks has written an article on Calvinism vs. Arminianism on his website. The Christian Standard is running a whole series looking at Calvinism (very critically, I might add).

We in Churches of Christ are historically Arminian in our soteriological point of view. The Baptist embrace of Calvinism really turned Campbell off because he and many Christians couldn’t express a conversion experience that the Calvinism of the time required. Is this a point in our theology that we need to reevaluate? What is driving many to question this point of our beliefs?

Tell me what you think.

-Clarke

Hello all:

In the last couple of days, I’ve read enough sentences that say something like “xxx rejects the authority of the scriptures,” that I’m ready to puke. This phrase has bothered me for a long time, but I have tired of reading and hearing it, so now I shall start my diatribe against it.

This phrase comes out of the mouths of many in Churches of Christ. Not only that, though, this phrase also comes out of the mouths of many others that would be considered “evangelical” about churches that are more liberal than they are, or with whom they disagree.

If you read most statements of faith and creedal statements by most fundamentalist or evangelical groups today, they usually include a phrase that mentions that they firmly uphold and affirm the authority of scripture.

The groups that our church often criticizes for rejecting the authority of the scripture love to talk about how much authority the scriptures have. So why do we say that they reject that authority?

It is because they don’t reject the authority of the scripture, but instead they reject our preconceived ideas and beliefs about scripture. They reject, or rather, don’t even recognize our idea that there is a “New Testament Pattern” of how to conduct a worship service. They reject the Command, Example and Necessary Inference hermeneutic (which stems from the idea of a pattern to look for and follow). They reject the notion that the bible must specifically authorize something in English for it to be permissible in a worship service. They reject various interpretations of scripture that Churches of Christ typically affirm, and when they do this, we then say they are rejecting the authority of scripture altogether. It is implied that they don’t respect God. It is implied that they are apostate for not agreeing with our notions about scripture.

We then use these items in our unwritten creed to keep these people at arms length or further so they don’t effect “doctrinal purity.”

When we do this, we, in fact, are guilty of rejecting the authority of scripture. We instead exalt the authority of our logical and common sense above that of the scripture. We impose our beliefs on the text instead of reading anew what the text actually says and means.
One of our taglines states: “It says what it means, and it means what it says.” Its time that we respect that.

-Clarke