IN REPLY TO SOME QUESTIONS

The past several months have brought a number of questions from here and there that call for more than a personal reply, being matters of general interest. While our replies have to be brief, we trust they may prove helpful.—the Editor

Fellowship and Withdrawal

How can we be united when one binds a human opinion as if it were the law of God? What is opinion and what is doctrine? When is one to refuse to have fellowship with a brother and why?

You must speak out on these subjects and be clear cut about them.—Memphis, Tennessee

I take it that the first question is rhetorical in that it is asserting that the making of opinions into laws is divisive. But we are slow to see that this is what we have been doing all this time. We all have our opinions, of course, and this is all right. But it is not all right to insist that others conform to our way of seeing it before fellowship is possible. This may produce conformity, but not unity. It is important to remember that the demand for conformity is a very divisive practice. It is, indeed, what has divided us all these years.

The next question is most pertinent and I think the answer is easier than we have supposed, for practically speaking there is no difference between opinion and doctrine. It is easy enough for us to say that doctrine is the teaching of the scriptures; it is the didache (teaching as distinguished from kerugma (gospel). But in the final analysis what the scriptures teach becomes a matter of my own personal interpretation, and that is opinion.

There is, of course, a portion of scripture upon which there can hardly be different interpretations. They are the hard facts of history and biography. The story of the prodigal son is, for instance, a narrative that we all read alike insofar as the facts of the case are concerned. But when it comes to the meaning of the story, there will be differences of interpretation (or opinions). The way you interpret the story is Christian doctrine to you, and you would not consider it mere opinion. But I might say, “That’s your opinion. Here’s the way I see it,” and my interpretation would be doctrine to me. How can it be any other way unless we select someone or a committee to serve as the supreme court of interpretation for all the rest of us?

This leads us to the conclusion that no doctrine, which has to be our own interpretation of scripture, can be made a test of fellowship. This will make for the kind of diversity that is healthful and invigorating, for when we quit demanding conformity of views we will all learn from each other in a spirit of free inquiry.

The brother did not ask about the difference between doctrine and faith, which would be different. I would equate the faith with the gospel, which is the basis for fellowship—the only basis there is.

This position does not make doctrine unimportant. It only recognizes that we can never all be of one mind doctrinally, and that there is no indication that God ever intended it. The oneness we seek is in Christ, which is ours once we are called by the gospel and immersed into him. Once we are enrolled in the school of Jesus we will all be in different grades, with different insights, and different doctrines (or opinions). Have not dedicated Christians always had different ideas about the scriptures? I mean sincere and informed Christians. Can we really believe that it will not always be so? It is folly to suppose that we must see the scriptures alike before we can enjoy fellowship together. If so, we will never be united.

The third question implies a mis-interpretation of the nature of fellowship (my opinion!—and that is why you do not have to agree with me for us to be one in Christ), for it suggests that fellowship is something at our disposal, to extend and withdraw as we please. It is rather a relationship, a partnership, a sharing of the common life because of our mutual ties with the Christ. It is only when one behaves in a way that it constitutes a denial or a rejection of that relationship that we can conclude that one is no longer in the fellowship of Jesus. By his behavior or his attitude he no longer shares the common life. I only have to recognize this. It does not come about by some act on my part, by my withdrawing it or by issuing some bull of excommunication, for the common life is not mine to extend or withhold.

The scriptures indicate that there are three conditions in which the shared life is repudiated: (1) In the case of the heretic, explained in Tit. 3:10; (2) in the case of the fornicator, who is not one who fell into sin through weakness, but who takes up immorality as a way of life in a shameless manner, as in 1 Cor. 5. What is included in such immorality is listed in verse 11, so the same would apply to all who so live; (3) in the case of one who repudiates Christ, rejecting his unique sonship, as in 2 John 9-10.

Quite obviously I have omitted cups, classes, Sunday School, premill, literature, lodges, pastor system, colleges, organs, societies, and all such as indications that the shared life (fellowship) is repudiated. We may differ on all these things, and even prefer a particular congregation because of our preferences, and still be one together and enjoy the blessings of the shared life. It is enough that we reject heretics, the immoral, and those who compromise the fact of Christ. Let us not reject our brother for who Christ died because he differs with us on our pet interpretations.

Role of Women

You made the comment “We have so subjected the woman’s role as to have what is tantamount to a man’s church.” What do you mean and would you elaborate on this subject in a future issue of Restoration Review?—Connecticut

The sister who asks this question goes on to say that she is interested in a restudy of the question of woman’s role in the church, believing as she does that the subject has been badly neglected, but that it cannot be ignored much longer.

By saying that the Church of Christ is virtually a man’s church I meant something like what the sister went on to say: that the woman’s role is too subordinate, that her potential in the church’s edification and outreach has been all but ignored. But I mean more than this, for I see the church failing to do what the world has long been doing: tapping the creative resources of women. They conduct much of the nation’s business, control more than half its wealth, and are prominent in education, the arts, the theatre; and they are now making their way into science and government. But in the church, and especially among us, her role is that of spectator, unless perhaps she has a class of children to teach. This is beginning to change with the emergence of “the new look” and the underground. Young women especially are going into the ghettoes to witness for Jesus. Women are now much more active in house meetings, and prayer groups, and the working woman is finding her Christian profession even more relevant to the office than to the pew.

All this is, of course, part of the answer. But this, along with much more, is to be more encouraged. For example, the working girls in a congregation could have group meetings in which they share their experiences, and the congregation could in some way get involved. And surely we can find many ways to employ women’s creative genius in furthering the kingdom of God.

Part of our hangup has been in the trappings of the institutional church. Once we return to the biblical concept of “the church in thy house” much of the problem will be solved. In the institutional church, which I see as big as well as traditional, our sisters are not merely kept subordinate, but even thwarted. It seems inappropriate for her to say or do anything in such assemblies. It is indeed awkward for anyone to say or do anything except those who occupy the pulpit, which is now often as large in area as some small chapels.

But what daughter is there in the home, around the family table, that cannot speak to the father, along with her brothers? What family circle is there where the girls do not have as much liberty as the boys in expressing their views and exuding their enthusiasm?

We are all aware of the limitations that the scriptures place upon the woman, and these are to be duly respected, for they do indeed mean something. But while we have over-acted to these passages, mixing them as we have with a Puritan view of women, we have grossly ignored others. It is clear enough from Rom. 16:1, Philip. 4:3, and 1 Tim. 3:11 that the women ministered in word and deed in the early church. We insist on having elders and deacons, but the primitive church had deaconesses as well.

I am optimistic about the future role of our women, however; not only because “You can’t keep a good woman down,” but because of the high esteem I have for our many dear sisters who are dedicated to the cause of Christ. I have long been suspicious that there will be more women in heaven than men. That, however, is not my main reason for wanting to go there!