It Shall Not Be So Among You

About five years ago, a controversy in the church caused me to question how some Christians were treating other Christians.[1] Unable to reconcile what I was seeing with the way I thought the church was to function, I studied the difference between "the flesh and the spirit" in Galatians 5:19-22. I also began to study church history noticing the hierarchy Paul warned would develop in Acts 20:30.

As a result, I began to view sound doctrine in terms of behavior instead of limiting it to conducting the "five acts of worship" on a weekly basis--singing, praying, giving, preaching, and communion and tri-weekly attendance as I had primarily done before.

I had been a Christian for about eight years, earned a diploma from the Memphis School of Preaching, and was an associate minister in southwest Little Rock. The only major influence toward Biblical interpretation I had at that point was from Memphis, and from a year, or so, in Commerce, Georgia where I was baptized in late 1998. The preacher in Commerce who baptized me was also a graduate of MSOP, so my understanding of the Bible was certainly channeled, since we are all a product of what we are "told and taught and sold and bought."[2] With very little private study in my background, and being so young in the faith, I soaked up as much Bible knowledge as I could while at MSOP, but had no real basis to evaluate what or how I was being taught. At that time, I was unable to prove anything for myself and any additional study would be interpreted based on MSOP influence.

I am thankful for the sacrifices others made for me, so I could learn the Bible. Being the youngest in my family, I have always wanted to repay the love others have shown me. My Bible knowledge would not be possible without others, and it is with gratitude and respect that I pen the following words. Of course, my recollection and interpretation about what I was taught could be faulty, and I have been influenced by many other things since MSOP in the last ten years; therefore, this article is certainly not an indictment of anyone at MSOP or her financial supporters (and mine at the time). My hope is that God will be glorified and that no shame will come simply from an attempt to ascertain truth. I began this blog, because I love the church of Christ. I have no disdain for the people who are the churches of Christ. My problem is with an institutional system that has hypnotized Christianity since the time of Constantine and before. [3]

          Having a "new view" of sound doctrine that focused on human behavior and treatment of one another, ultimately I would learn that my dying, doctrinal approach to interpreting the Scriptures was fleshly and hierarchal. I found that legalistically interpreting the Bible maintains and encourages a long lasting hierarchy which callously causes clerical dependency and stagnates the growth of the individual members of the Lord's body while sustaining a quest for power among leaders. On the other hand, a behavioral approach to interpreting the Scriptures encourages integrity, independence and spiritual growth through taking personal responsibility. This blog seeks to explain and illustrate a paradigm shift in thinking for every Christian to apply on his or her own. Retelling my experiences are anecdotal illustrations, but they are not presented for another to follow by abdicating his or her personal responsibility. This blog promotes an independent mindset, so to encourage the reader to stop "looking up" to others and start "looking up" to me is not my goal. By paradigm shift I mean replacing a doctrinal, "possession" (noun oriented) mindset with a behavioral, "functional" (verb oriented) mindset which I believe is being prevented and compartmentalized by the current institutional system.

Institutional Christianity amplifies a modern orthodoxy of "possessing the right doctrine" in its approach to understanding and teaching the Scriptures (show up three times a week, maintain five ritual acts of worship, quote a book, chapter and verse correctly to feel faithful), but minimizes a behavioral approach of taking personal responsibility regarding interpretation of the Scriptures, self-help independence and respecting the personal freedoms everyone has in Christ.[4] Behavioral sins as depicted in Galatians 5:20-21, and the reasons for them, take a back seat to maintaining the institutional system. By minimizing personal responsibility for growth through dependence upon the institutional church, there is really a lack of growth which transgresses 2nd Peter 3:18. If this is indeed true, then how can institutional Christianity not fit Matthew 15:3-9 as a "tradition of men" which "transgresses the commandment of God" by hindering the "growth" commanded in 2nd Peter 3:18? What I saw in the controversy surrounding elder reaffirmation in the conduct of some, whom I had only known from my time at Memphis to be long standing leaders in the church of the past twenty or thirty years, were some of the very behaviors Paul condemned in Galatians 5:20-21.[5]

When behavior is discussed it is generally applied to "keeping" the institutional forms—mainly that of making sure we "go to church" above all else. Plenty of mercy is available for private sins, but don't publicly sin by threatening the institution with lack of attendance or not giving on every first day of the week! The amplification of these public aspects are evident, but is not this doctrinal approach simply to maintain the institutional system? What if Hebrews 10:25 which instructs not to forsake meeting together (in no specific terms) and 1st Corinthians 16:1-2, which provides instructions concerning a temporary collection (for saints in Jerusalem), have been misinterpreted and misapplied by now behaviorally "unsound" clerics upon whom many Christians have passively depended for their interpretation of these Scriptures? A personally responsible, behavioral approach to interpreting the Scriptures focuses on a self-respecting—non-busybody—joyful growth experience with Christ through genuine desire to do His will (Mat. 13:17). A relationship that in no way compromises the truth of God's word, but does not view the commands of God as "laws for control" over others, but "laws of living" provided to bring freedom to self and others. The best way I have found to distinguish these different usages of law is by contrasting a "good—bad, right—wrong" view of myself, circumstances, other people, and even my obedience to God's commands with an "if—then, wise—unwise" view toward myself, circumstances, others and God's commands. This view is in no way dependent upon an institutional system, but I think it is hindered by it. I am convinced that institutional Christianity is not necessary to be faithful to God.

The doctrinal approach among American churches seems to operate by a religious plagiarism of sorts. By this, I mean that when a number of preachers and teachers simply repeat what this "great brother" says, or what some influential member of society in the American church of the past "did one time," then either that person's proof-text interpretation of a verse becomes doctrine, or more realistically, your agreement with that "good brother or sister" becomes the modus operandi of that institutional assembly. One problem with this Talmudic method of operations is that some brethren become behaviorally unsound in their treatment of others as I witnessed in the elder reaffirmation affair, not to mention the replacement of the divine will with human reasoning, meaning that the interpretation of a "great preacher" may be what is ultimately accepted as universal law. This method descends into an "efficient unity" that is unnecessary and upheld in the name of "doctrinal soundness." By this, I mean that if you disagree with one who is determined by the ruling class to have been a sound brother, then how can you think of yourself as sound, since he is so great and you are, well, just you.[6] Even if this is not verbally acknowledged, it has become the way we behave. If the Pharisees "say and do not," then we "do and say not" on this one.

Proof-texts like 1st Corinthians 1:10-13 which demands "we all speak the same things," Colossians 3:17 which says "whatsoever" we do to "do all in the name of the Lord," Hebrews 10:25, mentioned earlier, and 13:17 which, in the KJV, states "obey them that have the rule over you" are used to maintain control over the institutionalized congregation, but in reality, it may be just that preacher's scruple, something some "famous" brother said fifty years ago, or what was simply introduced as an expedient a hundred years ago, but now has become institutional law.[7] The brethren of yesteryear, and those who currently agree with them, then become the standard for behavior in the institutional church arrangement—not imitating Christ's character which is what Paul says was God's predestined purpose from all eternity for every Christian. In Romans 8:29 Paul says that the eternal purpose of God is that every person behave, or conform, to the image of Christ. Peter describes how to do this in detail in 2nd Peter 1:5-8, and Jesus tells us what every citizen of His kingdom "looks like" in Matthew 5:3-12. The problem is that there are so many human rules we are supposedly to "add" to the eight graces commanded by Peter that we need a third testament in some churches!

The problem with submitting to the current system of hierarchy is that it stagnates individual growth and independent thinking among hundreds and thousands of Christians who become afraid to speak their minds in fear of "disobeying them who have the rule over them" or "not having a book, chapter and verse" for what they can see for themselves is patently false and no different from any western denomination like demanding attendance to Sunday and Wednesday night institutional "services" and giving every first day of the week into a metal tray with a velvet bottom to feel faithful. What if I "assemble" with Christians in my home every other day besides Sunday nights and Wednesday nights? What if I give to the poor directly six days a week, but do not "give" into the metal plate? Why must everything be done in an institutional way for one to be viewed as faithful? With a hierarchy, why would anyone really need to study? We can just sit passively and do as we're told. By the way, weren't those who are called "great" today, the independent and brave thinkers of yesterday? And haven't we, the masses, just conformed to what that "great one" said, or did, proof-texts not withstanding? The church will die of malnutrition from this penitentiary feeding.

The consequence of institutional Christianity is that truth is presented as a material possession to maintain three times a week to be considered sound, or faithful, and ignores the "false doctrine of behaviors" that may be being used to maintain the "unity" the Bible is said to demand, not to mention the prevention of real "services" to the needy on six other days of the week because of our "efficient unity" view of faithfulness. In this arrangement, it becomes very easy for the (accepted) ends to justify the means. For all practical purposes, we simply need to submit to the established hierarchy to be accepted, and if that troubles us, then we can look up the verse offered as proof-text, so we can see that what the ruling class says is from God and feel better. My suggestion is to implement the behavioral approach of taking personal responsibility to discover truth for ourselves. This demands a lot of time reading books and trusting God to deliver us from the status quo. It takes the courage to say that which in private situations is easy, but in the auditorium is never anything anybody would say—even though it's what a lot of us think individually. It is far easier to support the status quo of the institutional system than it is to take personal responsibility.

My pangs of conscience compelling me to write this blog began with my observations of how some brethren treated other brethren who disagreed with them surrounding the issue of elder reaffirmation. It will be interesting to see how I am treated by those who disagree with me about the institutional nature of the church in America. The seed of my conclusions was planted five years ago and has found its fruition in the writing of this blog. Five years ago, I didn't know if what I began thinking was "Scriptural." I didn't know if I was becoming a "liberal," or what! It has been a soul-searching journey, but one in which I knew I was being honest, even if no one agreed with me. I stayed the course and I am glad I did.

It is my belief that issues among brethren quickly cease to be about the initial and stated issue and escalate into damaging behavioral issues that the Scriptures condemn in Galatians 5:20-21 and that the reason this happens is because of the existence of an institutional hierarchy (Acts 20:30). I believe this occurs based on the quest for power that is inherent in the institutional system of the church that began as early as the time of the writing of the book of Colossians and 3rd John, is seen forming in the writings of Ignatius in A.D. 110, and which "mystery of iniquity" continued and ultimately solidified in the combining of state and church under Constantine. I believe men mistreat one another because of their quest for power and that the institutional church system is the means. I believe that the reason politics is present in churches is a quest for power and continues because of vested friendships and reputations. Why does this happen among followers of Christ who know Jesus has "all power?" It is certainly not how Jesus lived, nor what He taught His followers in regards of how to live as His body on earth (Mat. 22:21). John writes, "Whoever says he abides in Him, ought to walk as He walked."

After the last five years, I believe that I have come to understand what some of the fundamental problems are, or, at least, how they have affected me, and how I have become stronger by changing my way of thinking. I like to think that I have "increased in learning" as Solomon says a wise man will do (Pro. 1:5). You will be the judge of that. My thoughts in this blog are both original and not really original. By this, I mean that based upon my in-depth study of Scripture and twelve years of experience as a Christian, I have come to my own conclusions from my own thoughts, but then as I would read others' writings, I found that they were expressing exactly what I had come to believe on my own.[8] This was a rewarding experience to say the least (though I admit my pride was damaged somewhat). I feel that many of my personal doubts and questions have been answered and this has brought me relief. I desire the same for you. If you are someone like me, who can't quite reconcile what you see with what you know and feel based upon your study of the Scriptures, then I hope this blog expresses for you what the writings of others has for me. I doubt if anyone wholeheartedly agrees with another person, but that simply shows that we are unique and free individuals. Ultimately, you must decide for yourself, like I must decide for myself, because every individual will stand before the judgment seat of Christ—alone.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mabelvale Church of Christ Bulletin, November 5, 2006.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B3Yt-oU8nKMpMjg4ZGNhNDQtZmFlZC00NTdkLWJkZTAtODhiYWI1NzlmNThj&hl=en&authkey=CMvCj54F

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B3Yt-oU8nKMpZmVkN2E3ODItM2E2ZS00ZTgyLTgzOTYtZmE1YjliZmUyZThi&authkey=CIfC5O8K&hl=en

[2] Robert Anthony, The Ultimate Secrets of Total Self-Confidence (San Diego: New Thought, 1979); reprint (New York: Berkley, 2008), 3.


[3] My reason for giving this background information is to introduce myself to the reader and to show from where my initial understanding of the church comes. I do not mean to convey that anyone at MSOP from January 2000-2002 mistreated their brethren and that I learned to do the same from them, only that some who spoke on their lectureships during my time in school were understood by me to be leaders in the church who I felt later misbehaved in the elder affirmation controversy. Most lectureships I have attended focused on "false doctrine"—which focus I have come to believe is done primarily to maintain the institutional system. The time spent focused on false doctrine sacrifices time for the teaching evidently needed on behavior. In the last five years, I have also witnessed similar misbehaviors concerning the controversy over a Christian woman privately teaching the gospel to a non-Christian man. I attribute these misbehaviors, at least in part, to a lack of awareness, since teaching is focused primarily on what I perceive to be maintaining institutional needs through proof-texts and financial concerns, such as public buildings, salaried staff and program expenses, as well as, the time spent justifying why many other expedients are "Scriptural."


[4] I do not mean to imply that no teaching is done regarding behavior, or that preachers and elders in the institutional churches do not encourage private study and evangelism. I am simply referring to the inherent nature of an institutional hierarchy.


[5] I am not indicting anyone at the Memphis School of Preaching from January 2000 to 2002. I intend only to convey what my impressions were of the roles of some who spoke on lectureships.


[6] I take the term "ruling class" from Angelo M. Codevilla's article, "America's Ruling Class—And the Perils of Revolution," in the July—August 2010 issue of The American Spectatorr. Available at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print; Accessed 18 July 2010.


[7] Lynn Anderson in his book Navigating the Winds of Change states that Sunday night services began in the United States in the late nineteenth century after the introduction of street lights. In 2009, I witnessed a Christian woman repenting of not attending "Sunday night services" while visiting family out of state. The elder called down front to pray for her publicly announced that she had sinned, and that we would too, if we did the same.


[8] This argument is often used as a basis for the validity of the Restoration Movement. I hope it is viewed with the same credibility here.