Jun 17 2013

Trust and Obey


I started studying the Bible when I was in my early twenties. I had been in Sunday school classes, Vacation Bible school, and  church services but had never had an appetite for learning about God and the Bible. My interest peaked when I started growing up and realizing the responsibilities of being an adult. I was married, struggling financially much of the time, the few prayers I prayed were seemingly not being answered, and I was searching for truth.

As I began to read long passages of Scripture, (even whole books of the Bible), and tried to understand what they really meant to me, I was shocked that at least some of what I had been taught was in my view not biblical. Later, after I entered Bible school for ministry training, I was also shocked that there were so many different views of what I considered to be important doctrines among the staff. It was there that I first was convinced that people of good will can have differing views of many things in the Bible and still work together for the greater good of Christ and the gospel. I learned that the gospel of Christ is truly of first importance, it is the watershed of Bible doctrine and everything else is somewhat less important.

So it was that my training was a mixture of ideas, opinions, and traditions all of which were supported by the Bible according to those who taught them. We were Southern Baptists, we were “free will” people, with many of us coming from the Free Will Baptist perspective. My parents fit that description. Both of my parents were shaped by Free Will Baptist preachers from the hills of Western North Carolina. In their understanding of God and salvation there we many, many more ways to lose your salvation than to find it.

By the time I was in my late 30’s my mother (who was blind) had been exposed to many, many hours of Bible teaching by a variety of teachers by way of radio. She was greatly influenced by J. Vernon McGee, and by her fairly new pastor, Rev. Kenneth Ridings, a great Bible man. My dad had been saved and was on fire for Jesus, and he too, had left some of the old teachings that he had learned in his earlier years. He had been baptized in his 20’s but it was pretty obvious to my mom and everyone who knew him that he really was born again much later in life. His passion was Jesus and telling others about him until he went to meet him in the late spring of 1993.

I was in my late 50’s when I first started to grapple with what some refer to as “the doctrines of grace”, known more widely as Calvinsim, and more narrowly as “monergism”. It was not that I was reading writers who embraced the TULIP of Calvin, it was quite the opposite. I was reading my Bible and started to see dozens of texts that I usually either ignored or believed as I had been covertly taught, “they don’t mean what they say”. The more I studied and read the Bible the more I saw! I came to the place where I had to deal with those obvious truths, many of which were the opposite of what I had believed for decades and taught myself.

It became clear to me that I was in a theological pickle, so to speak. I could not embrace the 5 points of Calvinism, at least the way I understood them. Neither could I any longer believe as some of my friends that election and predestination are “not true”. I was and am a member of great Church of Christ and trust me, “Reformed” or “Calvin” are ugly words in the minds of most Restoration people.

Somewhere around my yearly 60’s, (I’ll be 68 this month) it all started to come together. My mountain of a problem had been that I was trying to find out which doctrine was right. I thought I must believe either the doctrines of grace, or be a full blown Armenian. I knew for sure I was not a true blue “free will” guy and I couldn’t buy all that the Reformed guys were saying, so I was “between a rock and a hard place’, as the saying goes”.

I have said this many times before but I don’t believe people get it. My options as a Christian, as to the written revelation of God is not “either, or“! Christians are not given the liberty to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they will believe and live by. Our’s is to try, the very best we can, with God’s help, to believe and live by ALL of the scriptures. Of course we must use the wisdom God gives to understand it in context, we can’t ignore the widely accepted methods of biblical interpretation.

When dealing with complex and difficult differences in the Bible there is a better option than “either, or”. The far better option is “both, and“. If it is in the Bible it is true! I now have peace about what I was finding in Scripture because I just believe it! Does God bring men to himself and open their understanding and cause them to repent and trust Jesus? Yes! Is man required to repent, and does he have the freedom to say yes or to reject? Yes! The Bible emphatically teaches both, and both are true. So let’s just believe what God says and let him be God!

Today I stumbled across something that perhaps makes much more sense of this idea than I can convey myself. I quote from Justin Taylor’s blog…

What is compatibilistm?

D. A. Carson provides a good introduction when he argues that the following two propositions are both taught and exemplified in the Bible:

  1. God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in Scripture to reduce human responsibility.
  2. Human beings are responsible creatures—that is, they choose, they believe, they disobey, they respond, and there is moral significance in their choices; but human responsibility never functions in Scripture to diminish God’s sovereignty or to make God absolutely contingent.

Carson right argues that “We tend to use one to diminish the other; we tend to emphasize one at the expense of the other. But responsible reading of the Scripture prohibits such reductionism.”

“Hundreds of passages,” he suggests, “could be explored to demonstrate that the Bible assumes both that God is sovereign and that people are responsible for their actions. As hard as it is for many people in the Western world to come to terms with both truths at the same time, it takes a great deal of interpretative ingenuity to argue that the Bible does not support them.”

I agree! I was mowing my lawn today as I thought about these things and it dawned on me that most of us believe as Carson does to some degree. We hold that a sinner is required to repent and that he has the God given free will to choose to follow Jesus, to come to faith and be baptized. All very true. But, why do we pray for him to come to God? If we don’t on some level believe that God can move a man toward repentance and faith, why pray? If we ask God to change the person’s will are we not admitting that God can change it?

I believe that almost all of us who are Christians would agree that we would not be believers today except for the work of God in our lives. When Jesus said to those rough cut fishermen and others who would be his inner circle, “Follow me”, could they have refused? Yes. But it’s a big deal to me that they didn’t.

Royce Ogle

 

Jun 11 2013

THE PLAGUE OF PATTERNISM, by Edward Fudge


The New Testament provides the pattern for each of us as Christians, and that pattern is Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 16:24; Phil. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:21). When God’s people follow Jesus, they also become a pattern for each other (1 Cor. 4:16; Phil. 3:17; Heb. 13:7). Healthy teaching that is consistent with trusting and loving Jesus can also be called a pattern, and it is worthy to be followed (2 Tim. 1:13).

The patternism that I am calling a plague is something very different from all that. It is at the same time a doctrine, a way of reading the Bible, and an approach to “doing church.” And, although it is somewhat an oddity on the Christian landscape, it has been important to the thinking within the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement from its movement’s beginnings in the early 19th century.

Background

The Churches of Christ flowed from the merger of two 19th-century, back-to-the-Bible movements, led by three former Presbyterian preachers. The smaller movement resulted from the work of Barton W. Stone, who had been a participant in the famous Cane Ridge Revival as part of the Second Great Awakening. Stone called for internal restoration of the spirit of primitive Christianity, revival of a heart-religion by the power and intervention of the Holy Spirit.

The larger movement was initiated by the father-son pair, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who had immigrated to America from Ireland and Scotland. The Campbell’s called for the restoration of “primitive Christianity,” which they defined primarily in terms of external details of the institutional church.

Just as God provided Moses with an exact pattern for building the Tabernacle, the Campbell’s believed that he also provided an exact pattern for his people to follow while restoring the apostolic church of the first century. Does not the book of Hebrews say: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5)? If people would only use their common sense, they could quickly discover that divine pattern and get on with the task of restoring God’s church.

Looking back, we can now see a number of flaws in the Campbell’s’ proposal. Yes, God gave Moses many exact details for building the Tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 25-40), just as he did concerning the priests and the sacrifices (Leviticus). However, if we read the New Testament from cover to cover, we will not find a book that even slightly resembles the books of Exodus or Leviticus.

Indeed, when the writer of Hebrews refers to the “pattern” that God gave to Moses, he is making a contrast with the Christian order. He is not suggesting that Christians also have such a pattern for the church (Heb. 8:1-6). Nor does the author of Hebrews suppose that Christians will ever build or reconstruct God’s spiritual house. They should not even try to do that, for the “true tabernacle” is built by God and not by man (Heb. 8:2).

If that were not problem enough for pattern-seekers, matters get even worse. For some reason not yet fully clear, whenever people set out to restore the visible or external marks of the New Testament church, two things usually happen: they finally disagree on which details revealed in the New Testament are supposed to be restored, and the “marks” they finally endorse fit the picture they already portray or were inclined to portray to begin with. In the case of the Campbell’s and their followers, the “common sense” in which they had placed so much confidence, proved to be far less “common” than previously anticipated.

The CENI-S jigsaw puzzle

Pattern-seekers are very serious about serving God, which causes them to be both creative and persistent. Surely a pattern is in there somewhere, they reason, even if it is not immediately obvious. Perhaps it is fragmentary, or under the surface. With that, they begin to scour the New Testament Scriptures for scattered bits and pieces of any pattern that might be discovered. They gather a verse here and a phrase there. Occasionally, they pick up an entire paragraph.

Eventually they assemble the pieces like some giant jigsaw puzzle, to create their divine blueprint for the New Testament church. But for what did they look in their search? How did they recognize a pattern puzzle piece when they saw it?

Pattern puzzle pieces come in three shapes, according to Church of Christ pattern-seekers. Each piece bears the form either of an express command (“C”), an approved example (“E”), or a necessary inference (“NI”). According to the pattern-seekers, every detail of church structure, worship, leadership, and ministry must be “authorized” by one of those puzzle pieces, or else it is unlawful. By their reckoning, silence does not mean consent. It means absolute prohibition (“S”). We will refer to this doctrinal system as “CENI-S,” an abbreviation for “command, example, necessary inference” and “silence.”

I am not suggesting that we can ignore or disobey any commands, instructions, or guidelines that God has given for us to follow, and expect God to be pleased. We would also be foolish to read some word of approval or commendation by God in Scripture for someone’s action or forbearance to act, and then ignore that entirely without even considering whether we ought to imitate that example. It is admirable to want to please God. I would not knowingly criticize anyone for trying very hard to do that.

Patternism was unworkable from the beginning

However well-intentioned they might be, pattern-seekers create something that God does not require and that the Bible never even suggests. It is no wonder that patternism has been a horrible disaster. From the very beginning, the CENI-S approach was hopelessly ambiguous, completely unworkable, and incapable of consistent application.

For example, most patternists dismiss as irrelevant some commands that are inconvenient (such as feet-washing). They set aside other commands that clearly were shaped by a culture different from our own (such as a holy kiss or a woman’s veil). The patternists make into permanent, universal law some commands that God gave for limited application (such as Paul’s Gentile collection for poor Judeans).

On the other hand, patternists declare some historical events, however incidental, to be binding as “approved examples” (such as Paul’s weekend bread-breaking at Troas). But they dismiss as unimportant other events recorded in the same biblical context (such as eating in an upper room).

One person concludes that a particular inference is “necessary,” while someone else considers it entirely unnecessary. Sometimes people base conclusions on inductive arguments, then give those conclusions the authority properly assigned only to deductive reasoning. Because the whole approach has been fabricated by uninspired men, its survival requires constant persuasion (at best) or political pressure (at worst).

Restorationism eclipses unity

For Thomas and Alexander Campbell, pattern theology was only a means to an end. It was a tool for restoring the primitive church. The restoration of the primitive church was a means of uniting believers in all denominations. When believers united, the world would convert to Christ. The world’s conversion would trigger the beginning of the Millennium, which would climax 1,000 years later with the return of Jesus Christ (the Campbells were post-millennialists).

But the Campbell’s’ dream was not to be. Historical events, particularly the American Civil War, proved to be more than their utopian theory could endure. Without the Campbell’s’ series of cause-and-effect connections, the goal of restoring the primitive church gradually pushed aside the goal of Christian unity, and restorationism emerged as the reason for Churches of Christ to exist. In the process, pattern theology (“CENI-S”) increasingly became sectarian and legalistic, both in tone and in form.

Patternism prevailed as the primary mindset for most Churches of Christ until about the mid-20th century. In its wake were at least six (some say as many as 15-20) sub-groups or mini-Church of Christ “brotherhoods,” each usually recognizing only its own members as fellow-Christians, or certainly as the only “faithful” ones.

By the end of the 1950’s, most of the larger, white, urban, American Churches of Christ were well into the process of abandoning pattern theology. Among mainstream Churches of Christ today, patternism is found mostly in congregations that are either smaller, African-American, rural, or the products of church-plantings outside the USA.

My friend Dr. Edwin Harrell, a professional sociologist and church historian, and a positive influence within the patternistic “non-institutional” Churches of Christ, explains these demographics by saying that the poor and humble in this world are often closer to the heart of God. That is true of the humble as opposed to the haughty, but there is no reason to assume that all those who honestly seek to learn and to do what God wants finally become either patternistic or “non-institutional.” Nor are the “non-institutional” or patternistic folks among Churches of Christ necessarily economically-challenged from a demographic point of view.

Patternism the key to “non-institutionalism”

The most diligent advocates of patternism today are likely the sub-group of Churches of Christ who refer to themselves as “non-institutional.” By using this term they register their objection to congregations “as such” doing any good work through some “institution” other than the local church. However, the rationale offered in support of this conclusion depends entirely on their peculiar and thoroughly-institutionalized view of the church.

In the patternist view, the rules regarding “church action” and “individual action” are quite different. Many activities and good works that are not “authorized” for the local church “as such” are nevertheless permitted to individual Christians. However, anyone who makes a thorough study of the New Testament texts containing the word ekklesia will find in every case that the ekklesia is people, never an institution. This fact alone destroys the patternistic premise on which non-institutionalism ultimately rests.

One man and two books

From the close of World War II until the mid-1950’s, the differences became increasingly apparent between Churches of Christ that still held to patternism and those that did not. Power-brokers and would-be chiefs on both sides exploited the situation for personal advantage. By the middle of the 20th century, debates and special presentations on the subject had become commonplace.

One such milestone event was the debate between Guy N. Woods and Roy E. Cogdill conducted November 18-23, 1958 in Birmingham, Alabama. Although a ninth-grader at the time, I was a serious Bible student, and I attended some if not all of those proceedings and took copious notes. I remember writing the comment to myself that if salvation depended upon understanding what these two men were saying, no one but lawyers had a chance of getting into heaven. As it happened, both Woods and Cogdill were licensed attorneys, although neither man practiced law at that time.

Roy E. Cogdill was then owner and publisher of The Gospel Guardian magazine, the principal mouthpiece for readers of the non-institutional persuasion. He was already a legend larger-than-life among committed party-liners and sycophants, as seen in the following excerpt from a report of the debate written by one of Cogdill’s trusted lieutenants and published on page one of Cogdill’s own paper.

Nature was lavish in bestowing her endowments on Roy E. Cogdill. He is imposing in appearance standing six feet in height, weighing some 200 pounds, possessing a well-knit frame accentuated by a leonine head, and having handsome facial features dominated by a pair of rather deep-set, piercing eyes that project his power and personality to an audience with irresistible magnetism. He has a clear, resonant voice of unlimited volume that immediately attracts and holds his auditors. His enunciation is superb, and from boyhood, he has been famous for the marvelous choice of words with which he expresses with clarity and forces, his ideas. In pulpit presence, oratory, and personality, few men, certainly not Brother Woods, are his peers. (James W. Adams, “Cogdill-Woods Debate,” The Gospel Guardian, 9:36 [Jan. 16, 1958], page 1, online at http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org/gospel_guardian/v9/v9n36p1,13b.htm)

Because of their influence in non-institutional circles, I must say a word about Cogdill’s two books titled Walking by Faith and The New Testament Church. These titles are innocent enough, but they are sadly misleading.

The book titled Walking by Faith is practically a “Bible” for the most dedicated non-institutional patternists—a defense of the CENI-S system of religion, a manual explaining how patternism is supposed to work. However, instead of teaching readers how to walk by faith, this book actually teaches its readers to walk by logic.

Cogdill’s second major book is called The New Testament Church, but that name also is misleading. What the book really promotes and produces is a church as imagined through the grid, screen and filter of patternism. Both books mislead their readers and fail to give what their titles promise. Both books turn the readers’ attention away from Christ to a human system of logic. And in some perverse way, the doctrine of patternism, particularly when championed by men of fleshly moods and methods, seems to inspire a zealotry that itself is capable of doing much damage.

To be sure, there have been (and still are) many good men and women who believed in patternism but who served Christ humbly and loved their fellow man. But there also have been (and still are) others, patternistic zealots, who like Saul of Tarsus before he met Jesus Christ, traveled far and wide to enforce their teaching, and to punish and make examples of any who dared to resist their non-biblical system of interpretation.

The future

Patternism itself has been wrong from the beginning. It is foreign to the Bible, a distraction from the gospel, and a constant competitor with Jesus as the object of attention. By the mercy of God, the light of God’s grace is growing brighter and brighter in the hearts of men and women. As it does so, the shadow of patternism is passing into oblivion where it always belonged.

Jun 7 2013

Meet Your Friendly Apostate


I learned this morning that once again a loving brother in Christ has lumped yours truly in with other Apostates. The New Mexico preacher/elder Al Maxey emails his publication “Reflections” to hundreds of people each week. His studies and articles are well researched and written. Bro’ Al is one of those damned “change agents” who is speaking truth to our beloved church of Christ people and a few of them are not happy.

One of those people who are less than pleased with Al Maxey is a preacher from Alabama, one Caroll Ray Sutton, who has been the preacher at a small church of Christ for about 50 years. He publishes a paper titled “The Instructor”. In the Feb 2013 issue Mr Sutton has this to say:

“When apostates (and other false teachers) like Edward Fudge, Al Maxey, Max Lucado, Leroy Garrett, Rubel Shelly, Randy Harris, Royce Ogle, Jay Guin, Lynn Anderson, etc. contend that there is no pattern in the New Testament for us to follow in order to please God and thus be saved eternally, I am made to wonder how any honest, truth-seeking person would pay any attention to what they have to say” [p. 2].

What an honor to be named with that group of men. Each is far more able than I as teachers, preachers and writers. This is the second time in the past few months that I have been honored to have been mentioned along with some of these good men. What is it that makes men like Mr Sutton so angry and so quick to damn us to hell?

Each of those men named as “apostates” are guilty of the same infraction. Each of those men preach, teach, and write about the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ for the needs of ungodly sinners. They teach that his worth and work is quite enough to reconcile sinners to God. Not one of them teaches that people are saved because of how good they can be but rather because of the goodness of Jesus our Lord. And, each of them, from time to time, point out the false teaching of  some in the churches of Christ who teach “another gospel” of good works for salvation. Not one of us teaches against good works but that all good works have their source in our union with Christ by the Holy Spirit and that God plans and produces our good deeds. (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:13) In the end the good news we preach leaves no room for human boasting. Our boasting is about the Lamb of God alone.

I remember the football player and former Congressman J C Watts saying once, “Dogs don’t chase parked cars“. How true! If the gospel we preach does not make religionists angry maybe we should make an adjustment. The good news (gospel) about Jesus is good news for those who receive it and believe it, and bad news for those who reject it and don’t believe it.

“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30,31)

May 28 2013

When you pray…


5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” (Matthew 6:5)

They say confession is good for the soul.

I fight against this temptation but fail far too often. The temptation is when asked to pray in public I tend to give as much attention to the human listeners as the One I am supposedly praying to.

I try to follow these simple guidelines when praying in public.

Keep it short

This past weekend my friend Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty give the prayer before the NASCAR race in Charlotte. It was the shortest  such prayer I have ever heard. It was to the point, asked what needed to be asked and he was done.

Don’t teach a lesson or preach a sermon

Praying is not telling  everything you know about the Bible and God. Prayer is asking God for what you want and need. And, it seems to me that most of the time it is unnecessary to tell God a bunch of stuff as if He might not know or has forgotten.

Don’t pray to be heard of men

It would be OK if men could give you what you are supposed to be asking for, but they can’t. If you hear someone say “That was such a beautiful prayer”, be alert. Prayers are not intended to be beautiful, they are intended to ask God for what you need or want.

Always be thankful

It is clear to me that in the Bible, thanksgiving usually accompanied prayer. Prayer is asking, giving thanks is not prayer. The Scriptures speak of prayer and thanksgiving in the same verse. I have tried to remember to either give thanks before I ask or after every time I come to him.

Remember. Only those who pray get their prayers answered.

I am firmly convinced from my study of prayer in the Bible that most everyone who prays on a regular basis can expect many specific answers to their prayers. We should teach our children to pray and expect answers. Answers to our prayers should be normal, not abnormal

Royce Ogle
Monroe, LA