OUR CHANGING WORLD

 

The reaction to my article on Living in Adultery in the June issue has been resounding, indicating that much more work needs to be done on this sensitive subject. I have been reminded of a statement made by Pat Harrell in his Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church that relates to a point made in my article to Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. “If Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce and remarriage, then the woman would have had only one husband and several lovers,” says Pat.

Still another response to the problem comes from Marvin Pegg of the Matteson Church of Christ in the Chicago area. Referring to Heb. 13:4 where “marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled,” Marvin concludes that he cannot refer to any marriage that is recognized by the courts as legal as an adulterous union.

We continue to get questions about the meaning of “perfect” in 1 Cor. 13:10. This quotation from the European Evangelist by Frederick Norris, a close student of Christian origins, will be of interest: “No text in the NT demands that either the Spirit or the gifts have ceased. Some have suggested that 1 Cor. 13:10 means that when the ‘perfect’ came, that is the NT canon, the ‘imperfect,’ that is, the gifts of tongues and prophecy, were done away with. Yet in the first six centuries of the Church, and probably beyond, no one except heretics thought the ‘perfect’ had come.”

During the summer in Crane, Texas they had an old-fashioned debate between a Baptist and a Church of Christ preacher. Each affirmed that his church is scriptural “in origin, doctrine and practice.” What is new these days is that we have a lot of Baptists and Church of Christ folk who would consider denying that either of the two denominations (or “named” groups if that term is offensive) is scriptural in origin, doctrine and practice. They used to add “in name” to that list, and we’ll throw that one in for good measure. I am not sure how you would go about being scriptural in origin.

“Christ’s Church” has begun meeting in McDonough, Georgia at the Courthouse Square. It is advertised as “a joint mission effort by individuals who have been worshipping in area Churches of Christ and Christian Churches, and it is a Movement united in its desire to restore New Testament Christianity.” It is apparently “noninstrument.” The area phone is 957-9207.

Paul Crow in “One Church,” published by the Disciples’ Council on Christian Unity, says, “More than ever I believe Christian unity is a life, a call to every Christian.” He says it is not the call of the elitists or the professionals, but of all believers. He insists that we cannot rest comfortably with the scandal of division among Christians, and that we must find ways to translate our concern into prayers, strategies, and decisions.

James P. Needham wrote at length on “the fellowship issue” in his Torch, a paper generally associated with the conservative” Churches of Christ. One of his own fellow-workers responded to it rather vigorously, accusing him of showing sympathy for “the Garrett-Ketcherside-Fudge” position. The Torch editor does not buy that, but does insist that “what most brethren preach about unity is not necessarily what the scriptures teach.” There is, by the way, a great deal going on among the “conservative” churches along these lines. A lot of the young princes are talking about Jesus and the grace of God, and that will do it, you know.

We reported earlier on the Baptist Church of Christ gathering in Houston to share with Dr. George R. Beasley-Murray, the British scholar who is now at the Baptist seminary in Louisville. It was a one-sided affair, for the Church of Christ men outnumbered the Baptists 51-10. Since this gathering the Baptist sponsors have become disenchanted by what some of the Church of Christ fellows reported in their “war bulletins” about the meeting, as if the doctor got shown a thing or two by the faithfu1. But this cannot be said of the report by Robert Shank in Christian Chronicle, who reported positively on the meeting, and in hopes of other such affairs, opined: “As at Houston, attendance will necessarily be limited to men who will understand that such meeting is not a ‘confrontation’ at which the objective is to ‘clobber the opposition,’ and who are mature enough to contribute to and profit from an exchange with men whose understandings do not coincide at all with their own. A heated, noisy, chip-on-shoulder exchange would be a sorry spectacle and a disaster to the cause of New Testament Christianity and the unity of the faith.”