0139 \u2013 Do YOU have DOGMA? (Part 2)<\/p>\n
Note:\u00a0 Part 1 was posted 7\/14\/2009.\u00a0 THIS part, Part 2, includes the first posting, for continuity, but then concludes the posting below, i.e., if you read the 7\/14\/2009 posting when it was published you may<\/em> think the below is a duplicate, but only the first<\/span> part below is a duplicate \u2013 the bottom part is new!<\/p>\n Well, do you?\u00a0 Have DOGMA, that is?<\/p>\n What is dogma, anyway?\u00a0 Is it bad or good?\u00a0 Well, I suspect that the answer is:\u00a0 It depends.<\/p>\n What is dogma?<\/p>\n Merriam-Webster thinks it is:<\/p>\n 1 a:<\/strong> something held as an established opinion ; especially<\/em> :<\/strong> a definite authoritative tenet<\/p>\n b:<\/strong> a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma<\/em>><\/p>\n c:<\/strong> a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds<\/p>\n 2:<\/strong> a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (Oh, by the way:\u00a0 I\u2019m going somewhere<\/em> with this.\u00a0 The point of the post is not DOGMA; but the DOGMA discussion gets us where we can discuss the real point <\/em>!)<\/p>\n I\u2019ve normally associated the word \u201cdogma\u201d with definition 2 above, and that most often with respect to the Roman Catholic church, which has raised official church dogma to a very exalted position.\u00a0 I\u2019ve pointed that out to people before, and commented about how we need to be using only the inspired scriptures as our guide to Faith and Practice, and not teachings passed down by men, and subsequently deified.\u00a0 Talk about trying to see around the beam in my own eye!<\/p>\n Continuing that analogy, I think I HAVE begun to see around that beam a little bit.\u00a0 I wish I could say I\u2019ve removed the beam, but I don\u2019t know that I can say that yet.\u00a0 I\u2019ll wait awhile before claiming that.\u00a0 I have begun to see dogma in my own life, particularly the \u201c1.a\u201d type from the dictionary definition.<\/p>\n When one has grown up hearing people state that \u201cwe believe such-and-such\u201d because it\u2019s in the Bible, one does not associate those statements with dogma.\u00a0 Rather, they are the simple truth.\u00a0 After all, if it\u2019s \u201cin the Bible\u201d it can\u2019t be dogma, right?<\/p>\n But what if it\u2019s \u201cin the Bible\u201d only if the reader assumes certain \u201crules\u201d for reading the Bible\u2026 for interpreting the Bible?\u00a0 In other words, I may read the Bible and not see a particular teaching, only to have another person who uses his set of \u201crules\u201d when he reads, and comes to the unambiguous (to him) decision that indeed the Bible DOES teach \u201csuch and such!\u201d<\/p>\n One \u201crule\u201d that I have been told is \u201cin the Bible\u201d is:\u00a0 The Law of Silence<\/strong>.\u00a0 Have you ever heard that one?\u00a0 It goes like this:\u00a0 \u201cIf the Bible doesn\u2019t say anything about some practice, that means it is forbidden.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 And not to poke fun at anyone (it\u2019s too serious to handle that way), but I have very close friends who, as near as I can tell, believe that rule (The Law of Silence) was written in the Foreward to the Bible, by Inspiration!\u00a0 I have come to believe that this \u201cLaw\u201d is not a law at all.\u00a0 So I am immediately suspect by those who DO believe it is a Law.\u00a0 Do they ask WHY I don\u2019t believe in this rule\/law?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 They\u2019re not too interested\u00a0in understanding the Bible study that brought me to this point.\u00a0 (In a nutshell, in case you are wondering:\u00a0 Jesus did several things while walking the earth that were not \u201cauthorized\u201d by the Bible, i.e., the Bible was silent on various religious practices, but He practiced them.\u00a0 And we are told He did no sin.\u00a0 My conclusion:\u00a0 there is no such law as The Law of Silence.\u00a0 Usually we don\u2019t even get that far in the discussion though because they have concluded that I do not observe the right DOGMA.\u00a0 [They would never state it in those terms, of course!])<\/p>\n What began as \u201ctype 1a\u201d dogma has progressed to the \u201ctype 2\u201d dogma, but when I look at [some of] it now, what I see is \u201ctype 1c\u201d dogma.<\/p>\n OK, so I\u2019m belaboring the point.\u00a0 Let\u2019s move on.<\/p>\n I\u2019m working around to introducing you to a document that I just became aware of a couple of weeks ago.\u00a0 I simply haven\u2019t had the time to read it all yet, but I\u2019m impressed with what I\u2019ve read so far.<\/p>\n The author has clearly dealt with \u201cdogma\u201d in the churches he grew up in.\u00a0 He writes,<\/p>\n \u201cIn practice, we have a tendency to question not just the credentials, but even the moral character of anyone who would write on the wrong side of our topics (where wrong<\/em> means the opposite view to one’s own).\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is clearly the result I observe personally, too.\u00a0 In fact, a group of men whom I should be able to confide in at church, to discuss theological issues with, to share my struggles and studies with, have told me, \u201cDon\u2019t send us any more of those emails which express ideas that don\u2019t hew to the party line of the church!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Now I have to be honest and say that \u201chew to the party line of the church\u201d was not a direct quote.\u00a0 That is what I translated their words to in my mind, however, when I heard them.\u00a0 What they actually meant was, \u201cDon\u2019t share material with us unless the ideas expressed are all Biblical.\u201d\u00a0 And by that, similar to the quote I shared above from the yet-to-be-revealed \u201cdocument,\u201d they meant, \u201cDon\u2019t send us material to read that we might not agree with,\u201d because, of course, if they didn\u2019t agree with it it would mean it was not in the Bible, which meant it was heretical.\u00a0 Really.\u00a0 (Don\u2019t raise your eyebrows at me; I know some of you have \u201cbeen there\u201d too.)<\/p>\n I often despair of ever being able to reach Christians who are so closed to the Truth, who have neither the desire nor the willingness nor the patience to listen to the \u201cwhy\u201d if they have pre-judged the \u201cwhat\u201d to be wrong.\u00a0 Such brothers and sisters are content in their \u201cI\u2019m right and you\u2019re wrong\u201dness.<\/p>\n One of the big issues of course is that we (well, not me personally, \u2018cause I\u2019m into grandchildren now) train our children to have the same closed-mindedness.\u00a0 And I guess, since I\u2019m trying to be honest, that I did my share of that too \u2013 but I\u2019m trying to make it up to them now!\u00a0 Along those lines consider this second quote from the document\u2019s author:<\/p>\n \u201cStudents don’t reach conclusions like this on their own; our churches train them. I had to take into account the role of views like <XYZ> in the exodus of the students from our churches. Right now, you may think that whatever I believe about <XYZ> is wrong, but we must ask why our sons and daughters are most likely to leave our churches.<\/p>\n \u201cI’ll mention one other student who brought me a booklet opposed to <XYZ>, written by his new preacher. I took the first argument and showed the student how it was flawed. To my surprise, he shared my study with his preacher. To my greater surprise, the preacher said it looked like he couldn’t use that argument any more. I wondered if there was hope.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wow!\u00a0 Wasn\u2019t that great!\u00a0 He found a person (preacher in this case) who WAS willing to actually listen and study, and re-evaluate his thinking.\u00a0 My personal prayer is that the Lord would give us all hearts similar to that of this preacher who was willing to use his mind to study the Word, instead of limiting himself to simply repeating what he has heard others say for 50 years.<\/p>\n So what\u2019s the big secret about \u201cthe Document?\u201d\u00a0 The document\u2019s author, Danny Corbitt, has put together his thoughts on a non-issue to most of the religious world, but an issue that is, perhaps more frequently than any other, used as a \u201clitmus test\u201d by Churches of Christ.\u00a0 That issue is, \u201cIs it permissible to sing praise accompanied by instruments?\u201d<\/p>\n It is interesting to note that this book was self-published.\u00a0 (It is also available to view (or download) as a PDF document\u00a0here<\/strong><\/a> or from Amazon here<\/a>.)\u00a0 There were no brotherhood publishers willing to publish it.\u00a0 One of his footnotes reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cOne publisher would not read my manuscript because \u2018church politics would never allow me to print it.\u2019\u00a0 A former publisher explained that it would be \u2018commercial suicide\u2019 for anyone in the restoration movement to publish my work.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The title of his book is:\u00a0 Missing More than Music \u2013 When Disputable Matters Eclipse Worship and Unity<\/span>.<\/p>\n So why am I recommending you spend some time with this book?\u00a0 Well, for one, the spirit the author displays is wonderful.\u00a0 He does not lambast, he does not denigrate, he does not lampoon \u2013 he teaches.\u00a0 Secondly, I\u2019ve not seen more information on this topic, or more depth of study, in any other single source.\u00a0 Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, you will be enriched by becoming aware of the information he has collected all in one place for your consideration.<\/p>\n While I was considering the material in Missing More than Music<\/span> I also ran across another interesting word study document:\u00a0 Documents on Instrumental Music<\/span>.\u00a0 Note:\u00a0 Charles Dailey has made copies of this book available on his site at these links:<\/p>\n Documents on Instrumental Music.<\/em> Requires Acrobat Reader. Tom Burgess authored this intriguing document.\u00a0 Basically, it is an entire book on the meaning of the Greek word translated \u201csing\u201d in Eph 5:19, where we are told to \u201csing<\/span> and make music in your heart to the Lord.\u201d\u00a0 As\u00a0 you may be aware, those who believe that using instruments to accompany praise to God is sin do so because they believe that the Greek word for \u201csing\u201d in New Testament times meant exclusively \u201cto sing without musical accompaniment.\u201d\u00a0 Burgess goes to great lengths to prove the opposite, i.e., that the word was commonly used to include the idea of musical accompaniment.\u00a0 It makes for fascinating reading.\u00a0 He includes photocopies of correspondence he entered into with<\/p>\n After he documents all this correspondence (in Chapter One), the author states:<\/p>\n \u201cA concise summary of evidence needs to be made here also.\u00a0 This will distinctly indicate that our English dictionaries observed no revolutionary change in \u201cpsallo\u201d or \u201cpsalmos\u201d just prior to, or during, the New Testament period, as is asserted by those who oppose instrumental music.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He summarizes from each source he contacted, but typical is this one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionaries company:<\/p>\n \u201c There is no evidence that pagan Greeks ever used the word for a vocal composition.\u201d\u00a0 (Note:\u00a0 Most pagan Greeks spoke Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written.\u00a0 <\u2026> the New Testament is written in the spoken Greek of daily life, which can be proved from inscriptions to have differed but little, as found in nearly every corner of the Roman Empire of the first century.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Chapter Two discusses Greek lexicons, Chapter Three \u201cCommentators, Encyclopedists, and Grammarians,\u201d Chapter Four\u2019s content is from Greek professors, etc., etc.\u00a0 You get the idea.<\/p>\n But back to MISSING MORE THAN MUSIC.\u00a0 The author builds his book around discussions of what he terms the \u201cFive Disputable Matters,\u201d which he says are<\/p>\n Spread around those 5 \u201cdisputable matters\u201d are 15 chapters.\u00a0 Chapter 4 is \u201cWhy do scholars disagree?\u201d\u00a0 A short excerpt will perhaps help you see the writing (and thinking!) style of the author, as well as illustrate the content of the book:<\/p>\n An example comes from Milo Hadwin as he argues for a cappella singing only. He observes that before the first century, Jews and pagans had used instruments when praising God, but that the early church praised God a cappella. From this he concludes,<\/p>\n Nothing less than a command of God would have been sufficient to account for such a radical reversal in belief and practice.<\/em><\/p>\n Notice that his reasoning runs backwards from what one would expect. Hadwin doesn’t say that the scriptures teach exclusively a cappella singing, and therefore that explains why the early church chanted. He rather asserts that only a command of God could explain the chant of the early church, so that’s what the New Testament passages must teach. He finds a way for those passages to teach a cappella only, because he believes that nothing less could explain the early church chant. The scriptures don’t form his conclusion; they conform to it. The presumption that the early church believed God commanded chanting is the underlying premise that directs how he interprets scripture. His premise will help us understand arguments that he makes when we consider them later in this book.<\/p>\n <\u2026><\/p>\n Sometimes people frame this argument by saying, “I just think there is something that those first Christians understood about our singing passages that we don’t understand.” The thought is that as Paul traveled about, he made something clear to the early church that he never wrote down so clearly in scripture. It says that we need to deduce what Paul might have told them and then interpret the Bible to match our conclusions. It is not the style of argument you come to expect from the Churches of Christ. We would never agree to let that line of reasoning filter scripture on any other matter of faith. At its heart, it implies that the Bible is incomplete. Trying to make sense of the early church chant, we re-evaluate the scriptures. Hardly realizing we are governed by a premise \u2014 much less researching whether or not that premise is true \u2014 we work to align the scriptures with this suspicion that God \u2014somehow \u2014 commanded the first Christians to sing a cappella only.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So\u2026 read his book.\u00a0 Examine his reasoning.\u00a0 And decide for yourself.\u00a0 But decide based on facts\u2026 not DOGMA.<\/p>\n In Christ,<\/p>\n Mark<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 0139 \u2013 Do YOU have DOGMA? (Part 2) Note:\u00a0 Part 1 was posted 7\/14\/2009.\u00a0 THIS part, Part 2, includes the first posting, for continuity, but then concludes the posting below, i.e., if you read the 7\/14\/2009 posting when it was … Continue reading
\nChapter 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Chapter 2<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Chapter 3<\/a>
\nChapter 4<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Chapter 5<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Chapter 6<\/a>
\nConclusion<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Appendices<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bibliography<\/a> <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n