From time to time we change our “worship service” – just because; because it’ll be more interesting or edifying. The consensus is “I liked it; we should do that more often.” At most, a few dissenters complain. Rarely dissenters walk out and want the change officially banned by leadership, or else. I appreciate dissenters who just honestly admit: “I just don’t like change.” Once I responded: “Well, if you don’t like change that much, you’d be Amish, wouldn’t you?” I am glad the person understood I was joking. Yet truth is often said in jest.
The truth is that we have all changed a great deal, not just from New Testament times, but even since the last two or three generations. Do you think that present innovations in the church’s worship and work happened without offending other members? Some still living can produce a list of things that caused great offence in their time; for example, Sunday school, multiple communion cups, paid preachers (yikes!), etc. What if change never happened? Would that really be a good thing? Surely, even the Amish must weigh the wisdom of when to change or not? (I remember reading news about contention among the Amish over whether or not their children would be allowed to use inline skates). If we decided never to change anything, would none ever be offended? Not a chance!
I dispute that a change that offends is unloving and divisive by definition. Many changes are needed to get things right, to ignite revival, and get the mission accomplished. Behold Jesus. Did Jesus love his Jewish brothers? He voluntarily laid his life down. The cross was the pattern of his whole life and his way of the cross was an offense of stumbling to the Jews (John 12 and 1 Corinthians 1-2). Jesus loved by offending, not for selfish interests but to serve his Father, the people of God and the whole world. There are many examples of how Jesus taught and did things differently from the religious teachings and customs of the day. In the view of many Jesus violated the Sabbath and did not support the religious customs of washings, fasting, and discrimination between the clean and unclean, whether eating food or associating with sinners and outcasts (For example, Matthew 12, Mark 15, and Luke 15). What if Jesus for the sake of peace, goodwill and unity among brothers, followed the teachings and practices of the venerated Pharisees and their devoted disciples? Instead, I am so glad Jesus offended and offered new wine in new wineskins.
Paul was not a stranger to the way of offense either, for he embraced the offense of the cross and wisely exercised his freedom to be free or to be bound for the sake of the gospel mission (Galatians 6 and 1 Corinthians 9). In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul exhorted those with knowledge of their freedom to give it up for the sake of mutual edification; not because the offended brother is right. He did believe we should take care to avoid causing the offended to stumble – sin by violating conscience. Christ died for all, so we must not develop contempt for an offended brother that would lead us to value him less. Nevertheless, Paul affirms that matters of freedom were rights that should not be judged sinful or prohibited just because some are offended.
I supported clapping at youth camp because for the many years I have been associated with the camp, the children have freely clapped during certain songs. Yet some think it is sinful. This is a dilemma. My love is conflicted, because I love those who have freely clapped with praise and joy; and I love those who do not clap. In most congregations of our heritage, I believe the custom is no clapping. Should that make a difference? Those who would accept clapping often argue for banning clapping to preserve unity. Can they be faulted for this concern? Neither should they fault those who desire the change: for the sake of their own freedom, to correct wrong knowledge, to protect the conscience of those who are accustomed to clapping, and to lead the church to joyful shouts of “Hosanna” and “Glory to God in the highest!” If change fails, Jesus will call upon the rocks to cry out and the trees to clap in praise. (See my blog “Clap Your Hands” for these Biblical metaphors). I think many adults could learn from the children of the youth camp.
What a dilemma. One brother assessed the situation and blurted: “This whole thing stinks!” What got us into this dilemma? I think faulty interpretation, bully pulpits, mediocre leadership, and sectarian identity. Courts of law often establish tests in order to balance interests. Mediocre leaders do not balance interests; they let the weak in conscience lead. This is visionless and careless, because the weak in conscience are lacking in clarity on gospel knowledge – it stifles enthusiasm and invites legalism. The way of the spiritual leader, however, is to patiently instruct, build understanding, and prudently lead God’s people into the freedom for which Christ set them free. Paul proclaimed restoration to the gospel of joy and freedom in Galatians. This is the restoration movement we need.
Buttram, Bryan. “Freedom and Conscience: The Offense Issue.” Bryanbuttram.wordpress.com: 2007/12/03.
Thought to Thought 
Bryan, thanks for your time and effort.
I agree wholeheartedly with your summary, “Mediocre leaders do not balance interests; they let the weak in conscience lead. This is visionless and careless, because the weak in conscience are lacking in clarity on gospel knowledge – it stifles enthusiasm and invites legalism.”
Maybe the question of our age is, “How do we train leaders to rise above this style?” New elders enter the eldership every year and are trained by the old guard. Many elderships today lead by first taking a poll of the congregation and leading based on popular opinion rather that having a purpose and vision and asking the congregation to follow.
Capncaveman, I think you have identified two flaws in present church leadership that we need to remedy: Training in the Gospel and Following Popular Opinion above purpose and vision based on an understanding of the Gospel mission. The latter is like walking a large dog who is set in his ways and very stubborn. It makes you wonder who is really on the lead. Since the things we are discussing touch and concern worship, you may be interested in the 12/04/2007 blog on Stoned Campbell Disciples blog: New Wineskins & a Gathered People. Find the link in my BLOGROLL in the right margin.
Jesus’ entire message was one of change, which is essentially implied by the call to repentance. I wish more people understood that.
Really, I wish more people understood that Jesus’ call for change is related too and cannot be separated from his proclamation that the Kingdom of God has appeared. If more people were to understand this then perhaps the growing seeds of narcissism within churches would cease.
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
I think you are right; and I have also observed inconsistencies. For example a congregation will hire a preacher to challenge them, spur them to revival, and help them to change their ways. But when the preacher is actually pulling on the arms of the members, urging them to get up and start changing; then it’s NIMBY.
I know that predicament all to well.
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY