Friday, April 13, 2007
OSSIFIED RESTORATION
A recent change in our congregation has been to now include women in the role of serving/passing the communion trays. That is, they can now bring the trays down the aisle and then stand in the aisle and pass the trays to rows of people and receive the trays from other rows.
Recently a visitor from another church wrote me expressing great concern over this practice. The essence of my reply was this: Our elders studied the question of women's roles for about a year. One conclusion of this study was that there is simply no biblical passage that would prohibit women from serving the communion trays. My additional comment was that it is dangerous to prohibit Christians from participating in ways that are not prohibited in scripture. To state it another way, I feel it would be wrong to tell a woman (or anyone) that she cannot do something in service to God that God does not prohibit.
The response to my reply included a warning about being liberal, adding to or taking away from God's word, being sure God is happy with the way church is done, and specifically a statement that in a service where men are present it is not acceptable for women to serve communion or take the collection.
Interestingly, though, the response cited no scripture. So I have to ask: Who is adding to the Word of God here?
It is certainly possible to argue against our practice on several grounds (practicality, distraction, unity, etc.) but one needs to be clear when an argument is opinion or preference or collective wisdom rather than scripture.
I suppose one could make a scriptural argument against women passing the trays, but so far such an argument escapes me.
Now about Restoration.
The principle of "Restoration" calls one to question tradition, practice, interpretation, comfort and the status quo and put those under the rigorous light of scripture. Under such light our forefathers made many changes in their own lives and practice. When the time came for Alexander Campbell to present his child for baptism, he restudied his practice of baptism (the practice of his church heritage) and changed his own practice. The clarion call of restoration was always for people to reconsider what they held to be true and to consider that they might be wrong and come to a better understanding.
That call resonated in the American frontier of the 1800's. But somewhere along the journey, an assumption came to be made. There was some magical, mythical moment when "restoration" was finished, perfection was achieved (at least in doctrine) and the task became one of protection and closing ranks against all further changes.
The result has been the ossification of restoration. Or call it calcification or fossilization. The practical result is that many churches have become what our forefathers fought against. When we declare a change unacceptable, but do not support the claim with clear scripture have we not become what Campbell and Stone tried to leave behind?
The paradox of restoration is to hold a high view of scripture and the importance of being true to scripture while always allowing for the possibility that one is mistaken. That actually energizes study and makes it exciting. Many preachers, teachers, elders and scholars have changed their positions on some things as they grew older and grew in study. By the way, to answer another common charge, that takes humility not arrogance.
So while I currently fail to see any scriptural warrant for declaring unacceptable our practice of women passing the trays, I am a true restorationist and must be open to the possibility of being wrong. If so, then I will change again.
Far from being comforting, a real commitment to restoration is always challenging.
Recently a visitor from another church wrote me expressing great concern over this practice. The essence of my reply was this: Our elders studied the question of women's roles for about a year. One conclusion of this study was that there is simply no biblical passage that would prohibit women from serving the communion trays. My additional comment was that it is dangerous to prohibit Christians from participating in ways that are not prohibited in scripture. To state it another way, I feel it would be wrong to tell a woman (or anyone) that she cannot do something in service to God that God does not prohibit.
The response to my reply included a warning about being liberal, adding to or taking away from God's word, being sure God is happy with the way church is done, and specifically a statement that in a service where men are present it is not acceptable for women to serve communion or take the collection.
Interestingly, though, the response cited no scripture. So I have to ask: Who is adding to the Word of God here?
It is certainly possible to argue against our practice on several grounds (practicality, distraction, unity, etc.) but one needs to be clear when an argument is opinion or preference or collective wisdom rather than scripture.
I suppose one could make a scriptural argument against women passing the trays, but so far such an argument escapes me.
Now about Restoration.
The principle of "Restoration" calls one to question tradition, practice, interpretation, comfort and the status quo and put those under the rigorous light of scripture. Under such light our forefathers made many changes in their own lives and practice. When the time came for Alexander Campbell to present his child for baptism, he restudied his practice of baptism (the practice of his church heritage) and changed his own practice. The clarion call of restoration was always for people to reconsider what they held to be true and to consider that they might be wrong and come to a better understanding.
That call resonated in the American frontier of the 1800's. But somewhere along the journey, an assumption came to be made. There was some magical, mythical moment when "restoration" was finished, perfection was achieved (at least in doctrine) and the task became one of protection and closing ranks against all further changes.
The result has been the ossification of restoration. Or call it calcification or fossilization. The practical result is that many churches have become what our forefathers fought against. When we declare a change unacceptable, but do not support the claim with clear scripture have we not become what Campbell and Stone tried to leave behind?
The paradox of restoration is to hold a high view of scripture and the importance of being true to scripture while always allowing for the possibility that one is mistaken. That actually energizes study and makes it exciting. Many preachers, teachers, elders and scholars have changed their positions on some things as they grew older and grew in study. By the way, to answer another common charge, that takes humility not arrogance.
So while I currently fail to see any scriptural warrant for declaring unacceptable our practice of women passing the trays, I am a true restorationist and must be open to the possibility of being wrong. If so, then I will change again.
Far from being comforting, a real commitment to restoration is always challenging.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
TALKING TO OTHERS: A RESPONSE
This is a response to the last blog written by my daughter Grace. Need I say how she makes me proud?
It is so difficult in this day and age to be seen as Christian and "normal." People automatically assume that if you are Christian you're just one step short of Jim Jones. The temptation is to claim Christianity but to align yourself with secular views in order to be accepted by non-Christians.
This is not to say that this practice is completely shallow (you have to be accepted by non-Christians in order to reach them with the message of Christ) nor is it completely without Biblical merit (I Corinthians 9:22), but it can be a slippery slope and eventually lead to two problematic questions.
If we adopt secular views and practices, then at what point does "Christian" living cease to be recognizable as Christian? You can't live with one foot in each world -- eventually you're going to have to make a stand one way or the other. Another way to think of it is this: if you wear a disguise long enough, when does it cease being your disguise and simply become the way you look?
The second question is this: Is watered-down Christian theology effective/worth it? If we are watering down the message of what we believe it not only suggests to those outside the faith that we have doubts and are not sure ourselves, but it also implies that the message of Christ "as is" is insufficient. Do we really believe that a watered-down God can convert non-Christians better than an undiluted one?
The struggle to be Christian, be myself and be understood by non-Christians all at the same time is something I've struggled with. I've debated faith and reason with many non-Christian friends, and I found myself adopting a few helpful rules:
1) Don't engage a non-Christian in a debate unless you are fairly good friends with them. A debate about such touchy, personal and polarizing issues is trying even in the best of friendships. In the early stages of friendship, let God's love shine through you instead of doctrine. There is a time and place for both, but until the non-Christian gets a feel for your personality and your sense of caring for them, any debate can easily be seen as an attack that could destroy a budding friendship.
2) Call timeout. I have come to view debates much like football games. The beginning of the debate is kickoff, but when the whistle blows the play is over and you stop competing. Make a clear, verbal distinction between the debate and your friendship, and affirm that your political/spiritual views don't effect your friendship or your caring for each other.
3) It may seem excessive, but after any particularly intense debate I would just look at my friend, pat his or her shoulder, and ask "We okay?" This provides an opportunity for your friend to air any hurt feelings or questions he or she may have. The equally important part of this is to actually leave the game on the field. Once the whistle blows, leave it. No fistfights in the parking lot. Leave the debate and resume just hanging out.
It is so difficult in this day and age to be seen as Christian and "normal." People automatically assume that if you are Christian you're just one step short of Jim Jones. The temptation is to claim Christianity but to align yourself with secular views in order to be accepted by non-Christians.
This is not to say that this practice is completely shallow (you have to be accepted by non-Christians in order to reach them with the message of Christ) nor is it completely without Biblical merit (I Corinthians 9:22), but it can be a slippery slope and eventually lead to two problematic questions.
If we adopt secular views and practices, then at what point does "Christian" living cease to be recognizable as Christian? You can't live with one foot in each world -- eventually you're going to have to make a stand one way or the other. Another way to think of it is this: if you wear a disguise long enough, when does it cease being your disguise and simply become the way you look?
The second question is this: Is watered-down Christian theology effective/worth it? If we are watering down the message of what we believe it not only suggests to those outside the faith that we have doubts and are not sure ourselves, but it also implies that the message of Christ "as is" is insufficient. Do we really believe that a watered-down God can convert non-Christians better than an undiluted one?
The struggle to be Christian, be myself and be understood by non-Christians all at the same time is something I've struggled with. I've debated faith and reason with many non-Christian friends, and I found myself adopting a few helpful rules:
1) Don't engage a non-Christian in a debate unless you are fairly good friends with them. A debate about such touchy, personal and polarizing issues is trying even in the best of friendships. In the early stages of friendship, let God's love shine through you instead of doctrine. There is a time and place for both, but until the non-Christian gets a feel for your personality and your sense of caring for them, any debate can easily be seen as an attack that could destroy a budding friendship.
2) Call timeout. I have come to view debates much like football games. The beginning of the debate is kickoff, but when the whistle blows the play is over and you stop competing. Make a clear, verbal distinction between the debate and your friendship, and affirm that your political/spiritual views don't effect your friendship or your caring for each other.
3) It may seem excessive, but after any particularly intense debate I would just look at my friend, pat his or her shoulder, and ask "We okay?" This provides an opportunity for your friend to air any hurt feelings or questions he or she may have. The equally important part of this is to actually leave the game on the field. Once the whistle blows, leave it. No fistfights in the parking lot. Leave the debate and resume just hanging out.
