CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name. The reformers of every age, whether political or religious or literary, have protested against the tyranny of the dead, and in doing so have called for innovation and insight in place of tradition.[1]
This dissertation is designed to assist elders, preachers, and members within the Churches of Christ to become more adept in correctly handling the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15).[2] In order to accomplish this goal, it is my intention to share with leaders and members the tools needed to recapture the art of how to read the Bible in order to maintain the unity for which Jesus prayed in His priestly prayer (John 17:20-23). This first chapter analyzes Paul’s handling of differences within the congregations at Rome and Corinth. This summary demonstrates that imperfection in understanding does not, in and of itself, warrant the stigma of false prophets as a result of misinterpretation. Also this chapter discusses the failure on the part of many Christians in their oversight to differentiate between certain views that have contributed to a breakdown of unity among God’s people.
To illustrate the importance of the unity for
which Jesus prayed, Paul is called upon to emphasize the urgency of the
matter. It is in this regard that Paul
pleaded with Christians at Ephesus to “Make
every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”
(Ephesians 4:3). This mandate
is essential on the part of every believer in order to fulfill the prayer of
Jesus for unity so that the world may believe. Not only did Paul plead with the Ephesians, he also encouraged the
Christians in Rome to “Accept one another,
then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (Romans
15:7). Since God accepted them with
imperfection in their lives and in their knowledge, then Paul called upon them
to exercise the same kind of love and forbearance toward their fellow
Christians for whom Christ died. The
purpose of Jesus’ prayer is not realized by many devout Christians because they
do not discern who is or who is not a false prophet in the light of the context
of Matthew’s narrative. Since Jesus
prayed for oneness and Paul also called for union, then this paper explores
ways to bring about the fulfillment of Jesus’
and Paul’s prayer for singularity of purpose.
Since my personal ministry is primarily confined within the parameters of the Churches of Christ, I feel that a part of my ministry is to help correct the abuses of God’s Word handed down to us from our forefathers within the Churches of Christ. This movement (Campbell/Stone) started out as a unity movement, but soon crystallized into warring factions, each promoting its own brand of Christianity.[3] Today, for example, within the Churches of Christ, one soon discovers that there are approximately twenty-five divisions – each claiming to be the loyal church.
Each group maintains that it is speaking where the Bible speaks and is silent where the Bible is silent. For one not to subscribe to the orthodoxy of a particular group is to receive the label false prophet. Whenever a distinctive religious group sets forth its interpretation of a singular Scripture, then for one to disagree with that traditional exposition is tantamount to disagreeing with God Himself. In this philosophy of explanation, one does not distinguish between one’s critique of God’s Word and the Word of God itself. If one group sets forth a perception of Scripture that does not conform to the status quo of another camp, then the “at odds” fellowship is accused of not speaking where the Bible speaks.
Unity among many Churches of Christ is based upon conformity, not unity in diversity.[4] But numerous Churches of Christ are returning to the Biblical concept of unity in diversity. And, as a result of this stance on unity in diversity by many elders and preachers, the unity in conformity group labels the unity in diversity fellowship as false teachers or liberal brethren.[5]
Today, the Churches of Christ are hopelessly engaged in combat. These skirmishes are based upon a faulty
reading of many Scriptures that are employed as means of justification for
separation from other Christians. One
such Scripture is Matthew 7:15: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in
sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”[6]
In order to combat this loose
type of explanation, it is necessary for me to expound upon the principles of
examination to combat an illegal use of Scriptures to foster division. The Word of God provides its own environment
for a proper understanding of its teachings.
This dissertation explores the presupposition that false prophets in the
Gospel of Matthew are not necessarily individuals who fail to make clear the
Scriptures, but rather the false prophets are individuals whose ethical
behavior is not in harmony with God’s law. To accomplish this target of
correctly identifying the false prophets in the Gospel of Matthew, this
dissertation sets forth various standards of exposition on how to read the
Scriptures with understanding—especially narrative interpretation.[7]
In other words, this dissertation
studies in detail the context in which the phrase “false prophets” occurs, and
also deals with obstacles that might hinder a proper application of a healthy
understanding as to whom the phrase false prophets designates. This in-depth development of context[8]
is essential for proper growth and development and unity in God’s ekklesia (church). To facilitate the usefulness of contextual
studies, this chapter briefly explores two congregations in Biblical times in
which differences existed in order to help believers in Christ today to
determine how Christians should react to similar circumstances in which
deficiency in knowledge was prevalent.
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH
Within the Churches of Christ,
the epithet false prophet is assigned to individuals who do not subscribe to a
particular interpretation of a distinctive fellowship. Correctness in doctrine, according to some,
is the measurement of right standing before God. Imperfection in one’s knowledge calls forth the title of false
prophet. Since this
project/dissertation is concerned about the identification of false prophets in
the Gospel of Matthew, then an analysis of certain historical situations in the
New Testament should help to dispel an incorrect classification as to who is
and who is not a false prophet in Matthew’s gospel.
Paul rebukes the Corinthians for
not making allowances for shortcomings in understanding among some believers in
the congregation. Paul calls attention
in his first letter to Corinth to a wrong perception of correctness as the
criterion by which one is placed in a right relationship with God.
Now about
food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge
puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not
yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God (1
Corinthians 8:1-3).
Paul did not castigate those with
imperfection in knowledge as false teachers/prophets. As one peruses the various citations from Scripture, one
immediately recognizes that deformity in knowledge does not necessarily mean
that one is a false teacher. In the
Corinthian letter, Paul is clearly dealing with insufficient knowledge and
one’s relationship to God—a relationship based upon love, not upon absolute
knowledge.
Paul develops in the Corinthian
letter the concept that God loves the person with limited knowledge as well as
the person with clear insight. With
Paul, as long as one loves God—in spite of deficiency in aptitude—this person
is acceptable to God. The “intent of
the heart” does play an important role in deciding who is and who is not
acceptable to God. Paul further
demonstrates the principle of love and relationship in the following comments
about idols and one’s belief system:
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this (1 Corinthians 8:4-7a).
THE ROMAN CHURCH
To set the stage for sounder
principles of hermeneutics, a brief reflection upon Romans 14 and 15 should
shed further light on how Paul reacted toward those whose knowledge was
deficient. In these two chapters, Paul
deals with those who wanted to make exact interpretation the criterion by which
one determines one’s faithfulness or unfaithfulness to God. The first four
verses of chapter 14 demonstrate forcefully Paul’s attitude in this matter of
reception and rejection. Paul captures
this spirit of patience in graphic language in this letter to Rome.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without
passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another
man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who
does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To
his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to
make him stand (Romans 14:1-4).
Paul
did not accuse the misinformed as being false prophets/teachers, but rather he
rebuked those who passed judgment on those who were mistaken. God can make one stand even with deformity
in one’s knowledge.
DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCEPTS
This project/dissertation seeks to eliminate
the confusion of certain terms that encourages and promotes division within the
Churches of Christ. In not distinguishing between certain
terms exercised by the Spirit, many Christians have brought about chaos in the ekklesia of God and are hopelessly divided
into numerous camps. Part of the
problem lies with the failure to differentiate adequately between terms
employed by various branches within the Churches of Christ. For example, one’s delinquency in not differentiating
between unity and fellowship, unity and conformity,
fellowship and agreement, gospel and doctrine, and fellowship and endorsement
has contributed to a proliferation of sects within the Churches of Christ.
And an inexact use of the above terms continues to uphold the orthodoxy of each
divided circle. Thus, when one does not
make proper applications of the various phrases employed among many Christians,
then this lack of proper differentiation contributes to an abuse of the phrase
“false prophets.”
By
distinguishing between specific key phrases adopted by many, this clarification
of understanding will help to clear away the underbrush that prevents
Christians from properly interpreting false prophets in the book of
Matthew. By eliminating certain
presuppositions, one can approach the text without a lot of excess
baggage. The following scenario is a
brief analysis of the various cliches employed by many well-meaning Christians
to uphold their brand of orthodoxy.
This chapter seeks to awaken within every individual a correct
understanding of the numerous rigid formulas in order to promote the unity for
which Jesus prayed and to correctly identify the false prophets that He warned
against.
Some leaders
within the Churches of Christ do not make a distinction between unity and fellowship. According to some Christians, unity is
founded upon fellowship of agreement, not unity created by the Holy
Spirit. Many Christians advocate that
the unity of the Spirit is as a result of fellowship with other believers in
the same interpretative community,[9]
but this philosophy is not Biblical.[10] Unity is that which the Holy Spirit creates,
not man. It is the Spirit’s unity.[11] In fact, Paul writes, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit
through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:3).
In other words, Paul says, “spare no effort.” To what end? Not to
produce a unity, not to create a unity, not to try to arrive at a unity, but to
keep the unity. This unity is already
in existence. It is unity of all those
who believe and respond to the
message of redemption expounded in chapters 1—3 of Ephesians. In other words, fellowship is a fruit of
unity, not unity a fruit of fellowship. Carl Ketcherside is therefore right when he
says,
The Spirit
introduces all of the obedient believers into one body and thus forms an active
fellowship of all who respond to the Good News. He does this without regard for nation or social distinctions. He generates a vital unity of all who are
regenerated.[12]
Unity and
Conformity
Again, Christians must
differentiate between unity and conformity. Within the Christian community, Christians have sought to base a
superstructure of religion upon attainment to a certain degree of knowledge and
wisdom. The traditional concept of
unity is based upon conformity in knowledge and wisdom.[13] But, it goes almost without saying that
conformity in the absolute demands equal ability of perception, simultaneous
arrival at perfection in knowledge, and universality of wisdom. Alexander Campbell drove home this point
extremely well when he penned:
It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of
the imbecility of his intellect. I have
been censured long and often for laying too much stress upon the assent of the
understanding; but those who have most acrimoniously censured me, have laid
much more stress upon the assent of the mind than I have ever done. I never did, at any time exclude a man from
the kingdom of God for a mere imbecility of intellect; or, in other words,
because he could not assent to my opinions.[14]
The unity for which Jesus prayed
is not external organizational unity.
This unity is the unity of persons.
It is a fellowship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with all
those who believe. This means that the
unity in the ekklesia of God
involves this fellowship of being. When
one is born again, born of the Spirit, or becomes a partaker of the divine
nature, this person shares in this unity for which Jesus prayed. And so He calls everyone into the fellowship
through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
There can be no unity at all in our Lord’s sense apart from the
operation of the Holy Spirit who creates within every believer this new
nature. Paul wrote: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one
body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit
to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Jürgen
Moltmann once said with his typical pungency:
The unity of the congregation is a unity in
freedom. It must not be confused with
unanimity, let alone uniformity in perception, feeling or morals. No one must be regimented, or forced into
conformity with conditions prevailing in the church. Everyone must be accepted with his gifts and tasks, his
weaknesses and handicaps. This unity is
an evangelical unity, not a legal one.[15]
Fellowship and
Agreement
Another concept that divides many
within the Churches of Christ is that some do not make a separation between the
terms fellowship and agreement. In many camps, if there is no agreement, then there is no
fellowship. Leaders and members
throughout Churches of Christ are now realizing that fellowship does not come
as a result of one’s agreement upon matters of opinion and interpretation, but
rather one’s ability to reach agreement upon doctrinal issues comes as a result
of fellowship. Christians are not one
in opinion; they are one in Christ. One
does not become a child of God through study,
acquisition of knowledge, learning of the law, skill as teacher but
through procreation not education.
Ketcherside is quite correct in observing that
As God accepted us in our weakness, with
mistaken ideas, warped views and unhealthful attitudes, so we must accept each
other in the same state or condition.
We must not make the kingdom of heaven to consist of our convictions,
attitudes or opinions, but of citizens who must be tolerant of each other in
such matters, else there can be no kingdom of heaven at all.[16]
Gospel and
Doctrine
Next, one must discriminate
between gospel and doctrine, a separation drawn by the
writers of the New Testament. There is
as much difference between the gospel of Christ and the apostolic doctrine as there
is between the sperm from which a child is begotten and the food that he eats
after he is born. Paul knew the
difference between the seed from which life came and the daily bread upon which
the children fed. He knew the
difference between gospel and doctrine and between faith and knowledge. He knew that the gospel brought one into
being while the doctrine was essential to one’s growth and well being; Paul did
not make a test of fellowship out of spiritual digestion.[17] Those who confuse chastisement of a child
with begettal and cannot distinguish between correction and conception are in a
sad predicament.[18]
Fellowship and
Endorsement
Once more, one must distinguish
between fellowship and endorsement, which is one of the major problems within
the Churches of Christ. Many are under
the impression that to have fellowship with one another is to endorse whatever
the other person believes, which cannot be true. All Christians are in fellowship with God, but who is so foolish
as to believe that God endorses everything a person believes or does? In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he writes, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing
judgment on disputable matters” (14:1).
Again, “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order
to bring praise to God” (15:7). But
still, someone may ask, “Are you in fellowship with error?” No, one is in fellowship with
individuals. The question posed by many
is: “Are you in fellowship with brothers in error?” One’s response must be
“yes,” because that is the only kind of brothers and sisters one knows
about. As Alexander Campbell has made
clear:
So long as unity of opinion was regarded as a
proper basis of religious union, so long have mankind been distracted by the
multiplicity and variety of opinions.
To establish what is called a system of orthodox opinions as the bond of
union, was, in fact, offering a premium for new diversities in opinion, and for
increasing, ad infinitum,
opinions, sects, and divisions. . . . But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty
of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social union, established
by the author and founder of Christianity, consisted in this, that THE BELIEF
OF ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is
requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation.
The belief of this ONE FACT, and submission to ONE INSTITUTION
expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the
church.[19]
OBJECTIVES IN PROJECT/DISSERTATION
In the course of my project, it will
be necessary to allocate a specific study to the appellation of false prophets
as employed by Jesus in the Matthean narrative (7:15; 24:11, 24). This project
is designed to teach leaders and members of the Churches of Christ how to
determine who the false prophets are in the various texts in the Gospel of
Matthew, and then to teach these truths to other members in their own
congregations to bring about the unity for which our Lord prayed. As a preliminary to the major study on false
prophets, some time will be spent (Chapter 3) discussing the basic rules of
interpretation and how certain terms play a major role in how one reacts to
others who are not in their accomplished campground.
Since all Christians are under a
mandate to “Be
imitators of God . . . and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and
gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:1-2), then it is imperative
that everyone work toward making “every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit
through the bond of peace” (4:3). It is
the objective of this project to teach leaders and members of the Churches of
Christ to spell out the Word of God more completely and to increase one’s skill
in teaching others how to read the Scriptures more effectively. The highest mission in this dissertation is
to encourage oneness among God’s family.
My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught how to read the Gospel
of Matthew from a narrative viewpoint, then they will arrive at a correct
understanding and identification of who the false prophets are in Matthew.
SETTING FOR PROJECT/DISSERTATION
The settings for this
dissertation activity occurred within three congregations of the Churches of
Christ: (1) Luverne Church of Christ, Luverne, AL.; (2) Landmark Church of Christ,
Montgomery, AL.; and (3) Central Church of Christ, Montgomery, AL. The leaders and members in these three
congregations, like all Christians, are in a state of growth and development in
their rethinking many of the traditional views handed down by the forefathers
within the Churches of Christ. A brief overview of the make-up of each
congregation will help the reader to comprehend more fully the problems that
Churches of Christ are facing in their efforts to restore the Biblical
principles for unity set forth in the Scriptures.
Luverne Church
of Christ
The Luverne congregation originated
in 1900. Today, this body of believers
averages approximately 150 in attendance on Sundays. The composition of the congregation is about 40 under age 25,
about 60 between ages 25—55, and approximately 40 over age 60. The other Churches of Christ in this area
consider this church to be a liberal fellowship. The minister, Kenny Payne, related to me that he regularly
receives letters about his going to hell because of his willingness to question
traditionalism. The Luverne
congregation is made up of individuals who still hold to the more traditional
views of the Churches of Christ and also people that are questioning the traditions
handed down from the forefathers. Yet,
in spite of this diversity there is still unity. This acceptance of one another is unity in diversity in action.
Landmark Church
of Christ
The Landmark Church had its
inception on February 27, 1972. In its
beginning it was more traditional (five acts of worship performed in a
prescribed manner) in its concept of Christianity. This congregation re-evaluated (1996) many of its traditional
beliefs and made changes in harmony with its clearer understanding of the
teachings of God. This church has
approximately 700 in attendance on Sundays.
As a result of its change from the more conservative stance to a more
liberal attitude toward other Christians and the rethinking of its traditional
Sunday morning worship service, this congregation has come under fire from the
Seibles Road Church of Christ.[20] The spirit of freedom became the hallmark of
this congregation, especially with the arrival of Buddy Bell on September 15,
1996. Shortly before the arrival of
Buddy Bell, this church had begun to operate on the principle of unity in
diversity.
Central Church
of Christ
The Central Church
of Christ had its beginning in March 1997.
This congregation has approximately fifty members. The pulpit minister in this group, D. L. Calloway,
is not the traditional Church of Christ minister. He, as well as others in this congregation, has questioned the
“hand-me-down” explanations from the forefathers of the Churches of Christ. The Central Church is composed of a mixture
of those with traditional beliefs as well as the more moderate thinkers. This congregation, like many others, is
questioning and rethinking the more conventional stance. In this community there is also the
philosophy of unity in diversity.
Toleration for differences is the general tenor of this body of
believers.
Objectives
in Three Individual Four Hour Seminars
This project/dissertation revolves around three separate four-hour seminars designed to assist leaders and members within the Churches of Christ to become more adept in applying principles of Biblical interpretation in order to determine who the false prophets are in the Gospel of Matthew. This study will examine carefully the three occurrences of false prophets in this Gospel. This project/dissertation should aid one in accurately applying the phrase “false prophets” to preserve the meaning intended by Jesus. The objective of this dissertation is to help Christians promote the unity of the Spirit. Hopefully, this examination will reveal that false prophets are not necessarily individuals who fall short in their ability to interpret properly the Scriptures.
This in-depth study should demonstrate that one is a false prophet who denies that Jesus is the Messiah, one who advances social status as measure of right standing before God, one who loves wealth, one who is self-righteous, one who is not concerned about justice and mercy, one who is evil, and so on.[21] These seminars will investigate Jesus’ words to the religious leaders to determine if ethical behavior had any bearing upon His castigation of them as false prophets. Finally, an analysis of the conflict passages will be done to judge the context for the “false prophets” quotations.
There were a number of assumptions made concerning individuals who participated in this training process. The first presupposition assumed that each person had a basic understanding of the Christian faith. The second also understood that each person would be willing to come together for a four-hour seminar. And the final assumption presupposed that there would be five to twelve members each from three different congregations. As a result of these three seminars, I was able to get equal representation among the members for evaluation as to the effectiveness of the seminar training in determining who the false prophets were in the Gospel of Matthew.
The first seminar was conducted with the Luverne Church of Christ on January 31, 1999; the second seminar occurred on February 1, 1999 with the Landmark Church of Christ; and the third seminar took place on February 6, 1999. In the first seminar there were eleven in attendance; in the second, there were five in attendance; and in the third, there were five in attendance. In the first seminar, only one leader participated, the others were lay members; the second seminar involved only leaders (elders); and the third involved both leaders (three preachers) and lay members.
I began each of the three seminars with preliminary remarks about the dissertation. Following the introduction, I had each person to fill out a pre-test to determine their understanding of false prophets prior to the discussion about false prophets in the Gospel of Matthew. Following the three to four hour seminars, I, then, had each participant to complete the post-test to determine if there had been any change in their thinking concerning false prophets in Matthew.
The discussion began with remarks about principles of interpretation. In this discussion, examples were given to illustrate the necessity of looking at the context in order to draw out of the Scriptures rather than reading into the Scriptures one’s own preconceived ideas. A number of handouts were presented to each participant, but we did not take time to read any of the essays. I briefly presented the overall views set forth in the various papers to illustrate principles that one should apply in analyzing the three passages in Matthew that speaks of false prophets.
The papers given to each participant included subjects dealing with the Passover and the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26, a brief overview of the one-cup and non-Sunday school movement, the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9, the “judge not” passage in Matthew 7:1, the “narrow gate” Scripture in Matthew 7:15, and Burdette’s “Pilgrimage of Faith” that illustrates pitfalls to avoid in the interpretation of Scripture. These essays were written for this dissertation to illustrate the various strategies that Christians employ to justify their separation from other Christians on the basis that they are false prophets. But the essays were also written to teach individuals to be conscious of the basic principles of interpretation so that they will not misapply the “false prophets” passages to other Christians and continue to maintain division which violates the prayer of unity for which Jesus prayed as recorded in John 17.
Next, the three major divisions in Matthew were presented in order to help the participants to correlate the material in Matthew in order to grasp more fully the conflict in this Gospel. In discussing the larger sections, a considerable amount of time was given to the theme of the identity of Jesus beginning with the first chapter through the last chapter. Following this presentation, all the conflict passages in Matthew’s Gospel were analyzed.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. The following is a brief summary of the contents of each chapter beginning with Chapter 2:
The second major component (Chapter 2) of this dissertation scrutinizes the present emergency that exists within the Churches of Christ with regards to identification of false prophets within the Churches of Christ. This chapter discusses the nation-wide divisions as well as the local division within the Churches of Christ within the city of Montgomery, AL as well as one congregation within a fifty-mile radius of Montgomery.
The third phase (Chapter 3) of this dissertation explores basic principles of how to apply essential standards of careful Biblical exposition in order to arrive at a legitimate outlook as to whom Matthew identifies as erroneous instructors in his Gospel. This chapter seeks to set forth principles of interpretation in order to understand more clearly who the false prophets are in Matthew’s Gospel.
The fourth stage of this dissertation (Chapter 4) investigates the structure of the book of Matthew in order to ascertain the proper identification of false prophets in this Gospel. This chapter analyzes the three major divisions within Matthew’s Gospel in order to understand more fully the conflict that is revealed between Jesus and the religious leaders.
Chapter 5 sets forth a canvass of the “hostility” texts in the Gospel of Matthew (vertical) in order to understand more fully the warning of Jesus about false prophets. In the course of this examination of conflict in Matthew’s Gospel, it will be necessary to look at the direct and indirect confrontation of the religious leaders with Jesus to understand adequately and clearly why Jesus warned the disciples about false prophets.
Chapter 6 describes in detail the project conducted. This part of the dissertation will discuss the congregations in their present settings, the make-up of those present for the seminars, their reactions to the materials presented, and the papers dispensed for further study in seeking a solution to the many problems facing those within the Churches of Christ
Chapter 7 assesses the pre-test and post-test given to the participants to judge any difference in their thinking before and after the seminar. The pre-test and post-test set forth nineteen statements about false prophets. The statements center on current beliefs that are causing problems within the Churches of Christ. The objective of these tests is to determine if there are any significant changes in the participants’ thinking about who the false prophets are in the Gospel of Matthew at the end of each of the four-hour seminars.
My emphasis in this chapter has called attention to the unity of the Spirit that all Christians are to strive to uphold. Since Christians are to preserve this unity in all good consciousness, then a number of cliches were analyzed to help clear away the underbrush or cobwebs in their thinking so that they do not violate their beliefs. This chapter sought to assist individuals in eradicating fuzzy understanding in order to bring about an answer to Christ’s priestly prayer for unity (John 17).
This chapter explored the utter impossibility of making absolute perfection in knowledge the condition of salvation and fellowship. Since many Christians within the Churches of Christ advance unblemished perfection in knowledge of one’s party beliefs before they can extend the right hand of fellowship, Paul was called upon to see if this philosophy is what he taught before he extended friendly intercourse to other devoted saints. To refute faultlessness in knowledge as a prerequisite for association, this chapter looked at two congregations (Corinth and Rome) in which differences existed in order to determine from a Biblical perspective the mind-set to be exercised by Christians in similar circumstances today. In spite of disagreements within these two fellowships, Paul called for forbearance, not ostracism.
The subsequent chapter looks at the confusion that presently exists within the Churches of Christ that is splintering the body of Christ into numerous warring parties. Chapter 2 demonstrates that the term false prophet is indiscriminately hurled at other saints who do not agree with the one who thinks he has complete understanding.
This chapter is not designed to question the sincerity of those that disagree with the findings of this project/dissertation, for these individuals, too, are seeking to be true to the Word of God. But rather it is to encourage individuals to become peacemakers, not piecemakers. In other words, Christians are to promote peace and harmony, not to fracture the body of Christ into warring factions.
[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 65.
[2] All Scripture citations are from the NIV, unless stated otherwise.
[3] See Thomas Campbell, “Declaration and Address,” in C. A. Young, Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, reprint, 1985, 107, 108 where he writes in Proposition One: “That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.”
[4] For an example of this mind-set, see Jerry Dickinson, “Unity in Diversity,” Old Paths Advocate LXVII, no. 8 (August 1995): 1, 8-9. The one-cup, non-Sunday school, grape juice only, bread pinchers, and so on, publish this particular journal. See also Don L. King, “Proper Perspective,” Old Paths Advocate LXVII, no. 9 (September 1995):2, 7. Billy D. Dickinson writes another insightful article that discloses the inner feelings of this peculiar fellowship, “False Teachers and Fellowship, Old Paths Advocate LXVIII, no. 10 (October 1995): 1, 9.
[5] See J. E. Choate, “The Baby Boomers and Unity in Diversity,” Firm Foundation 108, no. 8 (August 1993): 18-20.
[6] See Chapter 2, “The Crisis and Identification of False Prophets Within the Churches of Christ” for documentation to validate this distinctive use of Matthew 7:15 within the Churches of Christ.
[7] See Chapter 4, “Narrative Overview of the Gospel of Matthew” for the advantages of narrative application in seeking to understand the individual texts such as Matthew 7:15; 24:11, 24.
[8] In order to ascertain the meaning that is attached to any word or phrase, one must examine the context. The word “context” is from Latin, which means to “weave together” and is applied to written documents. The context is the connection of thought that runs through every passage, which constitutes for itself a whole. The immediate context is that which immediately precedes or follows a given word, phrase, or sentence. Not only must the context be considered, but one must also investigate the scope and plan of the author.
[9] Interpretative communities are composed of members who share a particular reading “strategy,” or a “set of community assumption.” See M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, 6th ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993), 271. See also Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980). I have chosen to use “interpretative community” rather than “interpretive community” as employed by Fish.
[10] For a fuller explanation of these terms, see Dallas Burdette, “The ‘Is’ and ‘Is Not’ of Fellowship, Restoration Review 15, no. 10 (December 1973): 194-196.
[11] See Dallas Burdette, “The Spirit Makes Us One,” Restoration Review 16, no. 4 (April 1974): 276-277.
[12] Carl Ketcherside, “The Spirit and Unity,” Mission Messenger 25, no. 2 (July 1963): 3
[99]. To access all of the issues
of Mission
Messenger [On-Line], go to: www.unity-in-diversity.org
[13] For an insightful article on unity, see Leroy Garrett, “Unity is God’s Gift,” Restoration Review 15, no. 8 (October 1973): 150-152. See also Carl Ketcherside, “The Spirit and Unity,” Mission Messenger 25, no. 7 (July 1963): 1-16.
[14] Alexander Campbell, “Millennium—No. II,” Millennial Harbinger 1, no. 4 (Monday, April 5, 1830): 13, 14.
[15] Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991), 343.
[16] Carl Ketcherside, “Contrary to Doctrine,” Mission Messenger 27, no. 3 (March 1965): 4.
[17] See Dallas Burdette, “Restoring the Biblical Ideal of Preaching” in Restoration Forum VIII (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1990), 147-155.
[18] See Carl Ketcherside, “Gospel and Doctrine,” Mission Messenger 27, no. 2 (February 1965): 1-11. I am indebted to Ketcherside for assisting me in a clearer understanding of the distinction between gospel and doctrine.
[19] Alexander Campbell, “The Foundation of Hope and of Christian Union,” The Christian Baptist 1, no. 9 (April 5, 1824): 176, 177.
[20] Chapter 2 deals with this conflict between Landmark Church of Christ and the Seibles Road Church of Christ
[21] Chapter 5 will explore the various character traits employed by Jesus to characterize the sick state of being of the religious leaders called false prophets.