So continuing along in line with my previous post, I would like to continue to discuss the problem with the traditional hermenuetic used in Churches of Christ. When is an example binding? We have upheld traditions based on a “they did it so we’ll do it logic” but have remained incredibly inconsistent. We sing a capella, but we meet in church buildings (which they clearly didn’t do). We take communion every first day of the week but we’ve reduced the “meal” to a small piece of cracker and a quarter shot of Welches (by the way neither of which they took in the first century). We baptize through immersion taking confessions, but do not uphold the tradition of catechismal training that even as early as the third century was two or three years long.
The argument goes we want to “restore” the New Testament church, but is that even a legitimate cause? (Check out Adam Ellis’ blog and his podcast regarding what he terms “post-Restorationism). Is that what God ever intended? What if God simply wants us to worship him however we can doing whatever we feel would best honor and glorify him? Is that not what worship is about? Is that not how God’s people have always worshiped him? Noah comes out of the ark and doesn’t know what else to do but build an alter. Why? It just seemed appropriate to him.
This would scare the pants off alot of Church of Christ folks, but why? What is there to be scared of?
I stand in the tradition of the Apostle’s Creed. If someone comes to challenge the values upheld there, then maybe we can engage discussion of heresy and orthodoxy, but until God is challenged in the longstanding tradition of the Church, or in the standing of the moral image of holiness presented in Scripture, you are my brother, you are my sister. Let’s be busy in kingdom work!