Nitpickyness

I'm just curious about how minute the differences in other CoCs are. At my current congregation, they started having two kinds of bread in the plates for communion, because different people had their opinions over which was Biblical accurate. IMHO, neither are, because one resembles white cardboard and the other tastes like pie crust. But I don't think that matters, either. The point of communion isn't what bread or grape juice vs wine, it's the sacrifice He made on the cross, dying to make us whole.

I also must say most of the complaints came from older members, so is that it? Is the tradition so ingrained that they equate it to Scripture? I find it interesting how sometimes, those who have been in church the longest lose the point the most. It just seems to me that tiny little things like that shouldn't distract you enough to feel the need to make a complaint.

The same sort of thing happened when we tried to change the order of service. Part of me wanted to ask where the verse is that says the order is: welcome, news, 2 songs, prayer, communion, song, offering, song, sermon, song, prayer. Because it seems that if we affect that order at all, inevitably someone says something, and then we're back to that 100-year-old tradtion.

Thanks for letting me rant, and let me know if you all have similar problems.

In Christ,
Joshua

__________________
John 15:13- Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends.

My brother's church is going through the same things. Young couples are leaving at a high rate because they desire a more heart-felt worship; the older couples feel that they've already compromised enough and don't want to budge any further. Sadly, "compromised" means things as small as singing new songs or changing the order of service.

Too often, "not offending your brother" is used as an excuse to keep the status quo, and "brother" too often refers to the older Christians.

I did a lesson on the whole "weaker brother" thing in context, and talked a little bit about the abuses a while back. Open your Bible to 1 Corinthians 8 and click here to listen if you'd like.

Here's the powerpoint.

__________________
Luke 24:46-47 "He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations ..."

IMHO, the complaints about the unleavened versus leavened bread and fruit of the vine versus wine aren't so much due to the differences in age - but to the difference in mindsets (i.e., scriptural reasoning process). Consider the lesson to be learned (Romans 15:4) from what occurred in Leviticus 10:1-2. Let's try something. Let's test a version of the reasoning you presented in the first paragraph of your post. Here goes ... The point of the sacrifice wasn't where the priest obtained the fire for the censer, but about the priest's heart toward God as he served Him. Do you see why some might have a problem with reasoning like this?

As for the order of services, that is open for discussion within the realm of the autonomy of the local church. In essence, it means the local church is free to choose within the scriptural boundaries of what God has authorized concerning the number of songs sung, prayers offered up, length of sermon, etc. I have encountered the "traditional mindset" you describe. In a nutshell, folks with this mindset need to be diplomatically challenged for the scriptural basis for their reasoning. Without such, there is simply no basis for dogmatism. Rather, there should be peace as the local church, hopefully under the oversight of elders, decides how it will conduct services in light of God's word. Change may be a good/necessary/helpful/expedient thing ... as long as folks stay within the realm of what God has authorized. Decisions need to be made with the best interests of the local church as a whole in mind. "The best interests of the local church as a whole" means the decision(s) made may not suit/please everyone. If the dogmatic mindset persists, I suggest a study about the worship service, specifically dealing with what is authorized and choices we have to scripturally make. For example, take Ephesians 5:19. The passage doesn't specify how many psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs to sing. Therefore, per 1 Peter 4:11a, who can specify a certain number of songs that must be sung? Obviously, you can't (assuming one accepts God's authority and is content to follow His word). However, choices have to be made concerning the number of songs. Perhaps this thought process might help those who have confused "tradition" with Bible authority.

Perhaps these thoughts will benefit in some way.

Thanks for your input. It will be intersting to see how people react to the idea of actually studying what we should be doing.

Yes, I can see where some people might have a problem with the reasoning. And I think I can see a point that whether it's a problem for me or not, it might be for them, and as such no complaints should be made as long as it doesn't go against the Bible (Romans 14).

And I hope a change in thinking style and some Biblical study on the subject might bring a little change. It just seems... stale. But if they come to the conclusion that this is how God deems it be, and I'm in the wrong, so be it. But what matters is that they come to that conclusion through prayer and the Bible.

Thanks again for your help.

In Christ,
Joshua

__________________
John 15:13- Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends.

Thoughts from one Hillbilly to another,

I truly and sincerely believe Bible study is the key to unity. It not only helps us on a personal level per 2 Timothy 2:15, but also helps us keep in mind that God's word is complete, and thoroughly equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). That includes working together as a local church to best serve God in a particular geographical location.

As for the weaker Christian versus stronger Christian discussion in Romans 14, I don't believe the answer is simply to yield to every want or wish of others. Bluntly stated, it simply can't be done. You can't please everyone all of the time. That's where "what's best for the local church as a whole" factors in. If things are indeed "stale," then it's time to refreshen things. There's nothing wrong with that ... as long as things stay within the realm of that which is authorized under the gospel of Christ. That's the key. Take Ephesians 5:19. Singing is specified. What is to be sung is also specified - psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. However, the number of psalms, hymns, and/or spiritual songs is NOT specified. Therefore, we must decide how many songs will be sung in the worship service and when they be sung. Given a little thought, these aren't the type of decisions which should be devisive. Rather, the emphasis should be upon doing things in an orderly manner (per 1 Corinthians 14:40), with at least some consideration for the overall length of the service so the children don't become overly cranky and folks don't start falling out due to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). The problem arises when "tradition" mandates what God has NOT. For example, suppose the worship service on Sunday morning has two songs, an opening prayer, another song, the Lord's Supper, the sermon, a closing song, and a closing prayer. The problem arises when "tradition" mandates this is how things must be done. Obviously, there is NO specified order of services given for worship under the gospel of Christ, so those in a local church must work together to decide how they will do what God has authorized (the assembling of the saints to worship - Hebrews 10:24-25). Suppose Sunday morning "tradition" is broken and the song leader leads one song, followed by the opening prayer, and then leads two songs before partaking of the Lord's Supper? Is that wrong? No. But, suppose Brothers A, B, and C complain. "We've never done it that way," they say. Is yielding to these brothers without studying the matter in light of God's word the ultimate solution? I don't think so. I don't have a problem yielding for the short term until the matter is studied/discussed - after which, hopefully, the brothers will have a better understanding of things like generic authority, specific authority, and how expediencies (those things that are/can be helpful in doing that which is authorized) fit into the Scriptures. In addition, the problem is magnified if Brothers A, B, and C are also divisive about other matters without scriptural support. If such is the case, the local church may find themselves catering more the the whims of these brothers than paying attention to serving Lord faithfully. If such is the case, Bible study is definitely in order to get things back on track.

Let's think for a moment about Leviticus 10:1-2 and Romans 14. In the early story, Nadab and Abihu use fire NOT authorized by God. The point is that God told them where to obtain the fire and they used fire from a different source. Clearly, any defense they could have offered went up in smoke (literally). In the latter text, the apostle Paul is dealing with a different type of scenario. God has not spoken directly about the matters in this context. Therefore, it didn't matter to God whether or not one engaged in these matters. Please allow me to illustrate the reasoning. Note Galatians 5:6. Under the gospel of Christ, it didn't matter if a man was physically circumcised or not. However, it did matter for those who did it because it was COMMANDED under the law of Moses. Per the reasoning of the preceding verses, that person was then obligated to follow the whole law of Moses, which made God's grace extended under the gospel of His Son of NO effect to him. Now, let's apply the teaching. In Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews" ... which I understand was a choice Paul and Timothy made together to do this so the Jews would better receive Timothy. However, under different circumstances, in Galatians 2:3 Titus was NOT "compelled to be circumcised" i.e., made to be circumcised because others thought it was necessary. See the point? Paul and Timothy yielded to circumcision in Acts 16 by personal choice, but refused to yield to the unauthorized demands of others under the gospel of Christ in Galatians 2. The bottom line is none of us are authorized to make up rules/demands where God hasn't given any. However, He does expect us to honor and obey the ones He has given. However, let me throw in a qualifier for the previous two sentences. Matthew 4:5-7. There was NO specific command given that one could NOT jump from the top of the temple. However, there was indeed a principle which applied (NOT to tempt God - based on Deuteronomy 6:16). Therefore, per the teaching of our Lord, we must be able to apply biblical principles to avoid sin and the spiritual death it brings.

In the Lord's service,

... DRA

Good comments.

Like DRA, I think the key to unity is in the Word - and specifically how the Word draws us to Him. Unity is in Christ - specifically, "in" Christ.

When Paul dealt with the issue of unity in Corinth (I Cor 1), he brought them back to Christ and His crucifixion on our behalf. And more specifically, he brought them back to the point where they obtained their identity "in" Christ.

In Galatians 2:20, Paul isolates the issue - "I [identity] have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I [identity] who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I [identity] now live in the flesh I [identity] live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." In other words, our identity in Christ is a function of two things: what Christ did for us on the cross (His death, burial, and resurrection) and our corresponding response of obedience to what He did - our submitting to death, burial, and resurrection in His name so as to receive a new identity - in Him. Gal 2:20 mirrors what Paul says in Romans 6:1-6. Baptism is where we are given our identities in Christ and it is therefore no surprise it is baptism to which Paul draws attention when admonishing the Corinthians.

Whether one is a pie-crust eater or a stale cardboard eater (or one-cup or two, musical instruments or not, etc. - the list is truly endless) is irrelevant to the greater issue, which is our unity in Him, unity which is based on our identity in Him, identity which is from Him and because of Him. Jesus told His disciples the world would know them (we) are His [identity] because of the love they (we) have for one another - love based on His love for us.

I think when we put our personal preferences ahead of our corporate identity in Christ we shed (partially or in toto) our identity in Him for the sake of those preferences to identify with them instead. "Pie-crust eaters need not worship here..." The Word, being our source of faith and knowledge of Him, is the designated instrument for bringing about true unity. But unless we focus on the SUM of His Word, "The sum of your word is truth" (Ps 119:160), we risk spiraling into preferential interpretations of it - the result always being the inevitable destruction of unity - and we CofC'ers, particularly the longer we've been members of His body, have seen altogether too much of this sort of disunity for the sake of our traditions - traditions in this context meaning our personal interpretations of the Word which are based (if we're honest with ourselves) largely on our personal preferences which we've managed to spin into a multiplicity of inviolate doctrines over time.

No doubt the first century Corinthians had justification for identifying with Paul (powerful evangelist) or Cephas ("first" apostle) or Apollos (powerful speaker) or the "purists" with Christ - but such justifications resulted in the inevitable anyway - disunity - and Paul's subsequent letter of admonition (for them, and us).

Having said that - where can we get a hold of that pie crust of which you speak? I rather like the idea of a flakier communion bread with a touch of sweetness (manna? ). I'm sure there's a Psalm somewhere to justify its use....

__________________

If you wanna get technical than they would need to have a feast