Comments on: Freed-Hardeman Unity Debate http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/ Clarke comments on the Restoration Movement and the Church of Christ. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:37:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: Joel Maners http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3758 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:33:51 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3758 I think that this all comes down to how you read scripture. If you view fellowship as an either/or propositiion then unity will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. It seems that the traditional COC reading of scripture provides very little room for varying views on many issues. Perhaps there is a way that we can part ways without breaking fellowship, ie Barnabas and Paul over the issue of John Mark. We typically view the term fellowship as an all-or-nothing proposition. I think that that Faust is saying is that we can have some degree of fellowship without having concensus on the instrumental music issue. We come from a Restoration tradition, perhaps we need to restore the idea of parting ways without parting fellowship. I think that this all comes down to how you read scripture. If you view fellowship as an either/or propositiion then unity will be difficult if not impossible to achieve. It seems that the traditional COC reading of scripture provides very little room for varying views on many issues. Perhaps there is a way that we can part ways without breaking fellowship, ie Barnabas and Paul over the issue of John Mark. We typically view the term fellowship as an all-or-nothing proposition. I think that that Faust is saying is that we can have some degree of fellowship without having concensus on the instrumental music issue. We come from a Restoration tradition, perhaps we need to restore the idea of parting ways without parting fellowship.

]]> by: Son of Adam http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3755 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:17:07 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3755 I guess if you take the opinion you cannot lose fellowship, then there is not a need for any discussions about unity. Now we can just work on restoration. I guess if you take the opinion you cannot lose fellowship, then there is not a need for any discussions about unity. Now we can just work on restoration.

]]> by: Joel Maners http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3753 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:28:37 +0000 http://www.clarkecomments.com/archives/freed-hardeman-unity-debate/#comment-3753 SOA, This is from Bobby Ross' article: "While describing Faust as his brother in Christ, Gilmore told the crowd, “We are not in fellowship because of one big, obvious thing.” That one, big obvious thing — the use of instrumental music in worship — dominated the discussion. But Faust rejected the idea of dividing fellowship over music. “I may not agree on some points, but because we’re brothers and sisters in Christ, we do have fellowship,” he said. Gilmore begged Faust to “lay aside the instrument” for the sake of unity." It sounds to me like it is the non-instrumental group that is making this a point of fellowship. If anyone is "breaking fellowship" it is the non-instrumental group. What am I missing here? -j SOA,

This is from Bobby Ross’ article:

“While describing Faust as his brother in Christ, Gilmore told the crowd, “We are not in fellowship because of one big, obvious thing.”

That one, big obvious thing — the use of instrumental music in worship — dominated the discussion.

But Faust rejected the idea of dividing fellowship over music.

“I may not agree on some points, but because we’re brothers and sisters in Christ, we do have fellowship,” he said.

Gilmore begged Faust to “lay aside the instrument” for the sake of unity.”

It sounds to me like it is the non-instrumental group that is making this a point of fellowship. If anyone is “breaking fellowship” it is the non-instrumental group. What am I missing here?

-j

]]>