Originally posted on Restoration Unity.
Hello all:
I’ve been thinking alot about the silence of the scriptures, why the churches of Christ generally hold some of the beliefs they hold, and why I hold the specific beliefs that I have.
I was taught from a very young age to respect the silence of the sciptures. I’ve heard more times than I can count the old Restoration slogan “We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the bible is silent.”
I have always taken that slogan to mean that where there is silence, there is prohibition - that we have no right to do anything that is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament for the practice of the church, - and I have taken that slogan quite seriously. It is an important principle in understanding where we are in the churches of Christ, and why the divisions that exist today exist at all.
However, the Independent Christian Churches understand that slogan and concept quite differently. To them, “being silent where the bible is silent” means that they do not restrict fellowship based upon beliefs and practices that are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament.
We in the a capella churches of Christ have taken silence to be restrictive, and the Independents have taken it to give them liberty.
That is quite a clash in belief.
I have come to question whether or not silence is meant to be restricting or meant to be granting liberty. The main reason I question this principle of ours is because of our fellowship itself.
I attend a “mainline” church of Christ congregation. Not a liberal congregation, not really a conservative one either, mostly just middle of the road. I have also attended non-institutional churches, and I grew up in both mainline and non-institutional churches. I, however, am not against institutions.
So, I look to my brothers on the right, and I will take the non-institutional churches as an example, and I disagree with them, and they disagree with me. They disagree with my beliefs so much that the non-institutional congregation that is just one mile up the road does not fellowship with my congregation. Neither use instrumental worship, both teach baptism for remission of sins, both practice the Lord’s Supper in the same way, but we don’t communicate because my congregation isn’t against using money received in the church collection plate to support the local Christian college.
I would say that the non-institutional churches have made an issue out of an opinion. The non-institutional churches would say that institutions are not in the bible, and that congregations pooling resources is not in the bible, so it is not authorized and therefore forbidden.
That is quite a clash in belief.
So…lets say I place membership at the non-institutional church down the road. They would certainly have me as long as I don’t advocate institutionalism, which I wouldn’t. So, lets say that I did….. we can then look to our brothers on the right, the non-class, one-cup congregations. I disagree with them, and they disagree with us. Of course, we hold to the same non-instrumental worship, again we all teach baptism, we all do the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. But, the NI and mainline congregations use multiple communion cups, and we have Sunday school before services. We would hold those to be matters of opinion, but the one-cup, no-class church would claim that it is not in the bible, and therefore not authorized and prohibited. Because of that, we don’t communicate.
I wrote on Clarke Comments recently about two churches in Wilsonville, Oregon (not too far from me). One congregation is a non-institutional church, the other, a one-cup church. Both had gospel meetings around Thanksgiving, and they went on during the same time during part of the meetings. Neither communicate with the other. They might not even know that the others exist.
That is quite a clash in belief.
I could keep going. There are further splits in the one-cup congregations over wine vs. grape juice, breaking the bread and splitting it up vs. keeping it intact and passing around the loaf, over beliefs on divorce, and even over unity and fellowship itself. Not to mention splits over instrumental music, premillenialism and other beliefs.
Most of these splits have occured because of the “Principle of Silence.” Jesus prayed for unity. The apostles speak of unity in their epistles. God does not want a divided church.
I understand that many of the things I have just written about are convictions that are held by many, and to them are not just opinions. So be it. However, we must not cut off our brothers and sisters in Christ over issues of Silence.
We must not cut off our brothers in the Independent Christian Churches because they hold a belief about instrumental music that is divergent from our own. The non-class churches must not cut off us because we hold a belief that having a Sunday school class is okay. We need to accept the differences that each of us have, love one another as brothers and sisters, have a true dialoge, and work to bring others to Christ.
I believe that the principle of silence, while meant to bring us all back to the pattern of the New Testament church, has created a major problem for unity. When practiced to its extreme, it can create division over very small issues, that honestly, to most, don’t really matter. At the same time, the principal of silence is not without merit. It has forced people to think about the scriptures, about innovation, about what practices they feel are important.
So, do I wish to disregard the “principle of silence”? No, I do not. However, we must teach our children, and our brothers and sisters in Christ, that we must not divide the church over matters where the principle of silence is the cause of a disagreement. I do not feel that any of us could defend such a division standing in front of the Lord, no matter where in the division we are. Instead of excluding those we have an honest disgreement with, we must treat those brothers and sisters with love and respect, and hope that they do the same to us.
-Clarke
Clarkecomments.com
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:32
“Instead of excluding those we have an honest disgreement with, we must treat those brothers and sisters with love and respect, and hope that they do the same to us.”
AMEN!
February 18th, 2006 at 13:10
Are you sure you are a member of the C. o C.? Too much of what you say makes sense. (Ha) Seriously, the eldership where I worship has taken the extreme approach. They are slowly but methodically removing relationship and love while replacing it with rules and mandates that preclude liberty of any kind. Recently they ruled that Coffee/snacks took too much time from class and tried to ban them. (only 1 class in the building practised such and were not informed they were wasting time by practicing a form of fellowship AS we taught.) The out cry brought a reversal of the decision. Now they have decided to ban Praise teams, clapping with songs and dramatic readings (get this) none of which we have, or were being in-troduced. They heard other churches were doing it so obviously it needed to become our issue. “Silence of the scripture” has become their mantra but “expediency” is their way out when they desire something the word is silent about. There is more but I am now sad and will stop here. Please continue to show good sense and Christ like judgement as you teach your flock. In Him, Greg
March 13th, 2006 at 17:37
Dear Clarke,
I do not today believe in the prohibitive silence of Scripture because of Campbell’s slogan but because there is more than ample Scripture which teaches us to remain within the word, not to add or subtract. We certainly find that add or subtracting from that word is presumptuous and disrespectful to God. It is irreverent.
I think it fair to point out that those who hold that silence is permissive have their fair share of divisive issues as well. The 1989 meeting of the D of C in Cincinnati showed how deeply divided the Disciples were over very primary issues such as the Lord being the only way to heaven, the Bible as the final authority, whether to have homosexual clergy, and whether to abort the unborn. Many more examples from other years could be added to these.
The old debater’s maxim is nonetheless true: “the abuse of a thing does not argue against its valid use.” The fact that some have misused prohibitive silence for their own judgments does not argue against its valid use.
Thanks for listening.
Phil Sanders
March 15th, 2006 at 8:07
Phil:
Thanks for your comment. While I talked about Campbell’s slogan in my post, I understand that it is not the origin of our thinking regarding biblical silence.
You are certainly correct that there is evidence that we are not to add or subtract to God’s word. However, we have and are continuing to add to it.
There is a “principle of silence” in the bible. However, this principle is not a “law of silence.” When we bind a fallible interpretation of scripture, made by a man, on others as the law and word of God, we are adding to the Word of God. Not only are we adding, we are dividing. This is wrong.
The more I contemplate biblical silence, the more I come to the conclusion that our brothers in the Independent Christian Churches are probably in a better position using the instrument than we are in binding inferences on other people. That practice places us in a very tedious position.
-Clarke