I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope to get together again sometime. I agree with your comment, wholeheartedly.

—JLP

I appreciated getting together over coffee this morning and you pointing me back to your later comments here.

In regard to those: Sometimes love and fellowship are dirty things in which we come out smelling like things we would rather not smell like, metaphorically speaking. It doesn’t change who we are or who we belong to. I still think it falls to you to show forgiveness and love time and time again with those you think have stepped away from fellowship to show them biblically where they are wrong.

I look forward to our next conversation.

Thank you so much for reading and commenting. I’m glad to discuss the important points you bring up. Before I do, allow me to say, the thesis of your whole comment is something I come real close to agreeing with, if not completely. However, one of my main problems with the “progressive vs conservative” thing going on in cofCs today is the false dilemma that the idea of living out lives of discipleship in Christian community and being zealous for ecclesial doctrine are mutually exclusive. We’re in this present period of growing division, because of a failure of one group to live out the heart of Christianity in favor of doctrinal precision, and because the other, in trying to reclaim and restore that heart, has in all too many cases minimized the importance of Scriptural authority in determining the will of God. If I’ve misjudged, please help me out, because I’ve watched this thing happening for the last fifteen years (wasn’t really aware of it before then, though I know its roots are as far back as the early 80s or earlier), sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, and I’ve decided I don’t want to go either way. I want balance.
We have a history, and it has shaped our collective mind–no doubting that. We all–no exceptions–come to the text with presuppositions & prejudices. Because of that, we must lovingly consider the fragility of Christian unity, and be very patient with one another. The fact that we have “blinders” on, and that we’re all at different levels of ability & maturity means it’s very unlikely we’ll ever all see everything in the Bible exactly the same way. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t. That’s why I said it’s our fault, not God’s. The words of Scripture don’t change. They mean what they mean. We must all strive to understand them accurately, being merciful toward those with whom we disagree, and relying on the guidance & grace of God to help us along–and forgive us our mistakes. That said, the Bible teaches Christians to withdraw from some on the basis of departing from doctrinal truth. That isn’t the only reason, but it is one. These departures are to be with regard to key, fundamental doctrines, not every little disagreement, and I admit, this is where many cofCs have really failed and it grieves my heart.
Concerning 1Cor 14:33, you’re correct that the particular purpose of the verse in it’s context isn’t to prove the exact point for which I cited it. However, without making this reply any longer than it has to be (because, I’d rather talk about it than write about it at present), I think my use of it is in keeping with one of the purposes underlying the context (think about the 8 words that follow v.33 in any major translation), and so I don’t think it’s a prooftext. The point I was making is correct as I presently understand things.
I’m considering starting grad work at Lipscomb within a year or so, so maybe I’ll get a chance to meet bro. Camp and talk with him face to face. Please note, I tried not to ascribe any motives to him, and didn’t write with any animosity. Concerning the 18th century set of eyes, and the 21st, and so on, it strikes me as profound that worship in 1st & 2nd century eyes, & 18th-19th century eyes, & to the present among acapella cofCs is remarkably alike (just read from the manuscript of a 1994 lecture by Dr. John Mark Hicks of Lipscomb that impressed this point upon me even more strongly than before). There are periods in which innovations such as we see happening today have been the big thing, and history doesn’t flatter them as the best eras of the church’s existence.
With your “beyond that,” and forward, I have numerous disagreements & a few notable agreements. I’ll lay them out orderly for the sake of my own cluttered mind:
(1) You said, “what little “scripture” they had (nothing had been cannonized in the first century, so it likely wasn’t considered scripture yet).” —True, the Bible wasn’t complete, but they had apostles & prophets who served as living Scripture until its completion. There was no doctrine we have that they didn’t and there isn’t any essential point of it that was lacking (that I know of) in any of the partial canons various leaders adopted during the period before the final canon was “universally” accepted. However, what they had was accepted as Scripture during the 1st Century (see 1Pet3:15-16).
(2) you wrote, “For instance, the first century church shared everything they had, lived lives of radical discipleship, taking in the poor and oppressed, breaking social norms by giving women a voice and even putting them in positions of leadership.” —I agree with you here, except for the women in leadership point. While there may have been situations in which women were wrongly put in leadership, or usurped such authority, it wasn’t apostolic (1Tim2).
(3) “The refused to participate in empire, even going so far as to refuse to serve communion to unrepentant roman soldiers. They believed in non violent resistance….” —Right on, I agree with you. I’m a conscientious objector. That said, there are alternate interpretations to the peace passages that present some difficult challenges I can’t difinitively answer. Some argue the opposition to soldiery was a 2nd century change. Fergusson’s “Early Christians speak” has some good reading on this, though, that I think strongly supports the non-violent position. Historically, most of the best known & beloved preachers among churches of Christ have been basically pacifists.
(4) “Iesus es Kurios.” Amen!

I love the coC as well. I’m not convinced the Restoration Plea is faulty. I simply think humans are faulty. “The misuse of a thing isn’t a credible argument against the proper use of it.” I don’t know who you’re talking about when you say “church of Christ folk,” because as far as I know I don’t demand unity on anything not mentioned in the Bible. When you talk about “the bigger issues,” you make a case and point for my trouble with the present progressive mindset. I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the weightier matters, but you go beyond the Scriptures if by your statement you mean to say the NT is neutral about how we do corporate worship. I don’t believe it is.

I hope you hear everything I’ve said above in the kind tone with which I wrote it.

Thanks for reading & commenting!
—JLP

David,
Though I must admit I haven’t witnessed Otter Creek first hand, I have been in this area all my life and watched from afar, so the Tennessean article wasn’t the first time I heard of Otter Creek’s basic stance on things. But, hey, I’ve been misled before, and I am genuinely open-minded, so let’s get some coffee and talk!
Concerning “so easily” withholding fellowship, I don’t really withhold it easily, and I can say I’m a whole lot slower to withhold it than many among churches of Christ. However, with regard to fundamentals of the faith, the Scriptures are very clear. It’s not so much I who am withholding fellowship as simply recognizing a departure from fellowship with God that has already taken place. That’s how I see it. Please convince me that I’m wrong, and I’ll change my mind. I love you, and I love all the people at Otter Creek, and if unity is possible, even if it takes heart-wrending work, I’m willing to work toward it and glad to talk things through with a brother.

Murray, I’m glad you had a good experience, and if you were among the chorus, pardon my southern slang, but y’all did a real good job. It was beautiful.

It’s great to have all this activity on the blog here.

Thanks,
—JLP

As a single mom of two daughters, there have more times than I can count where I found myself asking God, WHY couldn’t you have given me a boy to help with the leaves, carry wood, cut brush, clean gutters, man the weedeater, etc….

It’s possible that an elderly brother or sister might really be able to benefit from the strength & energy capable of our teens, for many household chores & yardwork….

A 35-40’s married couple still having children 12 and under to care for might really appreciate being able to have a date night….

AND just think of the benefit it might give parents who are realizing that pulling out the ole wallet for every little thing isn’t helping ANYONE. There have been many times when I thought….if there was a way for little Janie to earn the money to replace that 3rd sweater she ruined, or Johnny for the 2nd window he busted rough housing… then they might actually learn something.

If the idea works, it could give birth to a “Rewards for Righteousness” type program where teens volunteer their time/skills to earn the non-profit community service recommendation letters so valuable for college program acceptance & scholarships.

Anyway, maybe its just another hairbrained idea (of which I have many) but thanks for listening!

I want to first say thank you for the cordial tone of this response. If you’ve read any of the comments at the tennessean, you know full well how vitriolic some get when disussing these issues (maybe going hand in hand with the statements made in the article). I also appreciate your respect for the restoration movement, acknowledging that there is in fact, a history is a step many inthe church of Christ aren’t too willing to take. And I think knowing where we began ( so to speak) is important towards figuring out where were going.

My first point of contention would be the verses you quoted to support the idea that the bible can be read and understood correctly by all. God not being the author of confusion in no way supports your premise, and it’s part of the problem with the church of Christ hermenuetic of taking scripture out of it’s context, whether that be cultural, or textual, to affirm or deny said position.

Before we start throwig out scriptures, we’d do well to consider the context in which the letter or story was written to determine it’s original meaning. Too often we ignore the fact that the bible was written first and foremost to a specific group of people with a specific situation with specific purposes. Only later were those letters and books combined into our new testament cannon. What Dr. Camp is talking about is that we too often come to the text with cultural blinders, our assumptions and biases based on the culture we live in, the period in history, the technology we use, etc. An 18th century christian comes to the text with a different set of assumptions than does a 21sr century Christian, and if we truly want to be like the first century church, we have to understand their worldview, and how the nt scriptures spoke to their specific context.

Beyond that, if we wantto be the hur h of the first century, there are plenty of historical writings that help us understand how they interpreted what little “scripture” they had (nothing had been cannonized in the first century, so it likely wasn’t considered scripture yet). For instance, the first century church shared everything they had, lived lives of radical discipleship, taking in the poor and oppressed, breaking social norms by giving women a voice and even putting them
in positions of leadership. The refused to participate in empire, even going so far as to refuse to serve communion to unrepentant roman soldiers. They believed in non violent resistance (which Jesus introduced, turning other cheek, going e tra mile, they are subversive non violent responses to injustice) and many in the first two centuries spoke out against violence in all circumstances for followers of the way.

They claimed allegiance to Christ, saying “Christ is lord” which was a direct stand against the empire, which forced the confession “Caesar is lord”

and we can go on and on.

I love the c of c. I learned about Jesus there. Ilearned about forming community out of diversity. But the idea of restoration focused on by most c of c folks, IS faulty. There will never be unity on so many of the things church of Christ folk demand unity on because the bible doesn’t even mention them. And the reason they aren’t mentioned is becUsr they are periferal issues. Stuff best left to discernment of a community in light of the scriptural narrative (note not prooftexts). The bigger issues that the scriptures refer to over and over again is not how to do corporate worship on Sunday morning, but how to live out lives of discipleship in Christian community as well as our broader geographic communities.

Let’s focus on bring like the 1st century on those things, love joy peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, against such things there is no law.

Two comments:

Firstly, I find it unfortunate that you would so easily withhold fellowship. There are many familial connections between Otter Creek and Highland Heights. In fact, many of those that sang and celebrated a life well lived for Wilma Gilmore’s funeral recently were Otter Creek members. In my opinion, it is that type of attitude of withholding fellowship that is “isolationist” (as stated in the article) rather than expressing love, Christian unity, and forgiveness. From my experience, I know the hearts and hands of Highland Heights to be true and faithful to God’s calling.

Secondly, you are invited to come see for yourself if Otter Creek is acting on scripture. It is tragic that we get our opinions of one another from the Tennessean or some other third party source. I would love to sit down over coffee to talk about our differences and similarities. Feel free to email me any time.

as a member of another tribe, which has its own issues, everything has their extremes & we learn from both. i don’t know what their bad experiences from the past are you elude to. however, i’ve known some of their leardership for a number of years. they are good people and as Christ compels me & others to love God and neighbor as thyself, the greatest of the commandments, they have treated me & countless others very well. which is not something i can say about more conservative factions in your tribe as well as my own.

i say, that ‘at its best, the church is a family & at its worst the church is a family’ so go ahead and bicker amongst yourself like sisters & brothers. but know that even the crazy cousin eddie (christmas vacation reference for those that miss it) cares for the family just as much as you do, though it may be a bit unorthodox.