MuddyPuddles

One of my favorite “light-shedding” passages is Mark 12:28-34 because it not only gives the story, but it adds additional events which help us to see where the emphasis should be placed. This passage starts out with,
“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
[29] “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [30] Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [31] The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
[32] “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.” (Isn’t it interesting from this side of the cross to see that this teacher of the law was giving Jesus, the Master, a pat on the back? Then the teacher of the law added the following interesting statement,) [33] To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (That seems like a pretty brazen statement for this teacher of the law to be down playing these legalistic requirements. And what was Jesus reaction to this?–
“[34] When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.”

(Was Jesus just confirming that loving God and loving your neighbor was more important than keeping the rules? I think he was. And when you compound that with other passages like the one that said “Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath,” and “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” you start getting the idea that maybe we’ve been placing the emphasis in the wrong place all these years.

One final passage from 1 Peter 4, “Love covers a multitude of sins.” How many sins does sound doctrine cover? If I mess up, I hope I err on the side of love, because I sure don’t want to be a sounding dong or a clanging cymbal. As Jesus told Martha, “Mary has chosen better.”
God Bless,
Dennis

I was discussing the Bible with some brethren who interpret the scriptures from what I would call a “more legalistic approach” to biblical interpretation than what I believe is correct.  During the course of our discussion one of the brethren asked me if I was a part of the “unity in diversity” movement (I can’t remember his exact wording but it was something like that).  When he asked that I got the impression that there was some specific movement out there that I was not specifically familiar with and I hesitated to answer the question because I wasn’t sure what all was included in that label.  Since then I have thought a great deal about the question and am more fully prepared to give a more complete answer.
As I look back at the first century church I see passages which seem to me to be talking specifically about unity in diversity.  For example, 1 Corinthians 12 is full of verses that talk about diversity as in different kinds of gifts (v. 4), different kinds of service (v. 5), different kinds of working (v. 6), but the same God works all of them in all men.
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,
10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.  

 

That sure sounds like unity in diversity to me—but wait, there’s more!

 

12 The body is a unit (as in unity), though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.
13 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.
14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.

 

So he’s talked about the diversity in roles that members of the body fulfill.  He’s talked about the diversity in racial make up, religious backgrounds, and slave/freedmen status.

 

That sure sounds like unity in diversity to me—but wait, there’s more!

 

We see in 1 Corinthians 8 that in this body there were very diverse opinions about doctrinal issues—specifically, eating meat offered to idols.  This chapter not only reveals the facts about those doctrines but it also points out that the church is diverse in that it is made up of a wide range of spiritual maturity in it’s members.  Some are weak brothers, some are not.  Some are correct in their thinking and some are not.  Paul does not require either side of this differing doctrinal opinions to change before they should accept or be accepted by the other.
Then in chapter 11 he talks about the diversity in incomes and financial status.

 

In spite of all this diversity—in gifts, roles, backgrounds, status, maturity and doctrinal positions—God, through Paul, tells them they can have unity and that this, in fact, is what he is asking them to strive for.  They each have an important role to play.

 

If you listened to my more legalistic brethren, they would say that the only way to have unity is through perfect agreement on doctrinal issues—specifically “the five acts of worship.”  This is not biblical.  As my friend, the Middleman says, “Unity is not the same as conformity” and if someone has become a child of God through belief in Jesus as the son of God and has put him on in baptism, we have no biblical right to reject him based upon his unwillingness to conform to our interpretation on worship regulations—even if he’s wrong.  That is up to God (Romans 14).

 

So to answer the original question, yes, I do believe in unity in diversity, because that is what the Bible teaches.  The more I think about it, how could I believe otherwise.  God Bless, Dennis

 

I’ve been reading a book about the life of Cecil Hook, one of my heroes in the faith.  It’s called “Grit in My Gizzard.”  Cecil was a very poor, hard-working country boy who eventually attended ACC and wound up being a long time Church of Christ preacher.  Because of his practical nature, after many years in the pulpit and much study and introspection, he started coming to different conclusions about what he had been teaching for most of his life—our legalistic doctrinal stance.  In 1984 he wrote the book “Free in Christ,” which very clearly points out so many flaws in our thinking and practice and it reveals a more accurate way to follow the Lord.  Though I was already starting to doubt some things about our “legalistic righteousness by obedience to worship doctrine” ways, this book gave so much voice to what I was feeling inside that I’ve recommended it quite a bit through the years.  Cecil has made it available free of charge to those who want a copy. 

One thing Cecil reminded me about in this autobiography is the fact that Barton W. Stone and Thomas Campbell, who are generally highly respected amoung our brotherhood, were individuals who were instrumental in uniting two fairly diverse groups of Christians.  We have articles written for the Christian newsletters of their day by which we can study their positions on various biblical topics.  Anyone who has studied them much realizes that their beliefs were quite different from each other in what many today consider to be salvation issues, and yet, they were uniters of the two groups.

Some decades later, a new philosophy cropped up.  It was the philosophy that everyone had to see those critical worship service doctrinal issues exactly the same or the alternative was that they must split—withdraw themselves from the “erring brothers.”  There was no tolerance for error. 

It appears to me that our brotherhood shifted a little bit from the ¨seeking and saving the lost¨ category to the ¨seeking and evicting the lost¨ category. 
Thank God that this self-righteous way of thinking is gradually fading away and grace and mercy and love are once again coming to the fore in the brotherhood.  Hopefully those of the “old school” will get this figured out before long.  Though I know that there can be a drift away from what God wants us to be and that we must be diligent to remain focused with grace, the alternative, to be saved by legalistic righteousness is a direct violation of God´s will by it´s very nature.  We must be discerning as we strive to be his children, knowing that his love for us is immense. 
God Bless.  Dennis 

Because of my conservative background in the Church of Christ, when I hear the words “sound doctrine,” I am reminded of the mindset that has been prevalent in most of the smaller Churches of Christ during my lifetime.    It most always refers to the state of being precisely accurate in how “the church” is supposed to conduct worship services on Sunday morning, according to “the pattern” of the first century church.  It has also encompassed a few issues surrounding those worship services like what kind of physical plant is acceptable (“ Family Life Center ” okay?  Kitchen okay?  Water fountain okay?) and how church funds can be used (Supporting Children homes okay?  Helping non-members okay?  Paying a preacher okay?). 

Because of differing interpretations upon which parts of the first century pattern are acceptable (or required), most small towns have at least two Churches of Christ.  We have four in our little town of 3,000.  Though I believe the intent of the founders of these congregations was usually noble—trying to be exactly what God wanted them to be—I believe their efforts to follow the first century pattern were misguided. 

In one sense they actually took the Old Testament template and placed it onto the New Testament to get their answers (When God said “gopher wood,” he meant “gopher wood” only; When he said “sing” he meant “sing” only.)  They should have used the New Testament template to interpret the New Testament and left the Old Testament template alone. 

In response to this, many would say “God is the same yesterday, today and forever.”  And I would agree, God is the same.  But the covenant he made with Abraham is different than the covenant he has made with us.  It has changed.  It is different.  The old no longer applies.

            Hebrews 9:1-10 (NIV) “[1] Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. . .  (a list of detailed regulations described in verses 2 through 9) . . .[10] They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”  

That new order is here and those external regulations no longer apply.  There are no regulations for worship services in the new covenant.  But man’s desire for a checklist has overridden his comprehension of the fact that God, on purpose, left it out.  Therefore “we” have come up with our own set of regulations and called them the “five acts of worship.”  And then, we’ve put tremendous pressure on people to conform to those five acts of worship and to do so in a worthy manner so they can be acceptable (to us and) to God.  Otherwise they are guaranteed eternal damnation in Hell. 

We’ve been wrong.  I encourage each of you to just go back into the word and notice that there is no reference to “worship service” in the New Testament.  Also notice that not one of the acts of worship is ever referred to as an “act of worship.”  Notice that the scriptures we have used to require non-instrumental singing weren’t even written until AD 60—twenty-seven years after the establishment of the church.  We are never commanded to partake of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week.  The scriptures we’ve used to require four of the five acts of worship (Acts 2:42) were something the first century church did daily (as opposed to something they were required to do during a “worship service” on the first day of every week).    And one of those acts, fellowship, we’ve skewed to mean “giving of our money.”  We’ve totally ignored the other things the first century church did in the verses following 2:42.  We’ve been remiss. 

It’s time to take another look and to reassess our positions on these matters.  We’ve been wrong.  It’s time to get it right.  Dennis Ensor  quicksand@dishmail.net

According to the study notes in my MacArthur Study Bible, “Early Rabbis had determined that there were 613 commandments contained in the Pentateuch, one for each letter of the Ten Commandments.  Of the 613 commandments, 248 were seen as affirmative and 365 as negative.  Those laws were also divided into heavy and light categories, with the heavy laws being more binding than the light ones.  The scribes and rabbis, however, had been unable to agree on which were heavy and which were light.”

            Beyond that was the problem of the interpretation of the commandments themselves.  For example, they knew they weren’t supposed to work on the Sabbath.  On that they could all agree.  But exactly what that encompassed raised many questions and debates. “Could a man wear a wooden leg on the Sabbath?  Was it lawful to eat an egg laid on the Sabbath?”  They did come to some conclusions.  “Some knots could be tied or untied on the Sabbath, but not others.  Vinegar, if swallowed, could be used to relieve a sore throat, but it could not be gargled.  No woman was to look in a mirror on the Sabbath lest, seeing a gray hair, she might be tempted to pull it out.” (from A Church That Flies, Tim Woodroof, page 103)  It’s enough to drive you crazy.  It’s a good thing that God provided a way for us to get rid of all those trivial questions and wranglings by nailing the law to the tree and giving us a law of the spirit—or did he?

            As I look around I see a whole new set of laws being debated weekly in our midst.  You know what I mean:  How should we sing?  Is it wrong to use an instrument?  Can we use an instrument to sing “church” songs outside of the church building?  Can we clap during the songs?  Can we raise our hands during the songs?  Can we snap our fingers?  Can we sing the newer more contemporary songs?  Can we sing while partaking of the Lord’s Supper?  It is okay to use more than one cup?  Is it okay to use church funds to help non Christians, support orphans homes, build a fellowship building?  Can a young man who has not been baptized serve communion?  Can a young man who has not been baptized lead a prayer?  Can women start songs or say a prayer during small group devotionals?  Can we pray with our hands lifted up?  Can we study, in our Bible classes, from a book which was written by a person who worships with instrumental music? Can we even have Bible classes at all?  And there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other issues on top of that.   

            In a high percentage of our Bible Belt towns, several groups proclaiming to be the Church of Christ are divided over these issues.  They will not fellowship with one another because they each have come to different conclusions about one or more of these issues.  On top of that, a majority of their Sunday preaching topics include a condemnation of some other group that has come to a different conclusion on one of these “all important” matters.

            When Jesus was asked about the commandments of God, he spoke with a paradigm shift in mind.  Some of our astute brethren have somehow failed to pick up on it—even though he said it several times and in several ways.  He said,  “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ [38] This is the first and greatest commandment. [39] And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [40] All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22). 

            Did you hear that?  “All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  In case that wasn’t clear enough, he also said,

 

Matthew 7:12 (NIV)  So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.   And,

 

Romans 13:8 (NIV)      Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  And,

 

Romans 13:10 (NIV) 

    Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.  And,

 

Galatians 5:14 (NIV) 

    The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  And,

 

Galatians 6:2 (NIV) 

    Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

 

How many ways must Jesus say it before we get it?  Jesus could not care less about whether we clap, or raise our hands or wear pant suits or have Bible class or use church money to help anyone in need, as long as we are doing what ever we do out of love for him and for our neighbor.  God wants our hearts and if he has our hearts he knows we will sincerely try to please him and respond to the needs that are placed before us.

Maybe if he would have said something as plainly as “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love,” we would have gotten it by now.  O yeah, he did say that, didn’t he (Gal 5:6)?

It’s time to back off of these trivial pursuits and get down to what’s important—Loving God and loving our neighbors.  After all, these two commandments fulfill all of the Law and the Prophets.  If we will just do that, the rest will take care of itself.  Dennis 

There is a myth that is widely held by many of the more “conservative” members of the Church of Christ about what the more “liberal” members believe about doctrine.  That myth is that the “liberal” members are not interested in teaching “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” They hold that the “liberals” want to make the determination of what is right by using their emotions or by what feels good or by what is popular at the time.  In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Though I can’t speak for all “liberals” I can speak for myself when I say that my goal with my Bible study is to be exactly dead center correct in my interpretation of it.  I want to be EXACTLY right and I don’t want to vary from that standard by one nano-particle.

I have come to believe that the “conservative’s” misconception comes from the belief that the biblical principals of  “salvation by grace,” “freedom in Christ” “grace is a free gift from God,” “the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love,” and other similar teachings are not considered to be as important as the doctrines of “the five acts of worship,” “meeting three times a week,” “no instruments allowed,” “no guarantee of salvation unless you ask forgiveness right before you die,” “works are necessary,” and other such “high value” doctrines.  In their minds, the latter far outweighs the former in importance.  They believe that if you stress the former you are soft on doctrine and don’t care about the truth.  I submit to you that there is more absolute truth in the former than there is in some of the contrived items listed in the latter. 

The EXACT truth is that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works so that none can boast.  The EXACT truth is that Christ set us free from the law of sin and death and he does not want us to be burdened again by a yoke of slavery (which comes in the form of rule-keeping and relying on rule-keeping for our salvation). 

I also submit to you that it is really the “conservatives” ones who live by their feelings.  They don’t feel right unless they hold on to these doctrinal issues as a way of legitimizing their existence.  They don’t feel right by just accepting this free gift from God and giving their heart to him and living for him because he died for them.  They don’t feel right unless they’ve done something to deserve this salvation that God has made available to them.  Hopefully, before it’s to late, they will know the truth so it can make them free.  God Bless.  Dennis

I have a friend with whom I have been studying the Bible recently.  He is very “conservative” in his understanding of scriptures.  I would even describe him as somewhat legalistic.  To his way of thinking, we should all be able to agree on what the scriptures teach and that we should use command, example and necessary inference to make those determinations as well as the principle of the “Thundering silence of scriptures” (meaning that things not specifically authorized in scripture are necessarily unauthorized and therefore forbidden).” 

This approach seems very reasonable if this is the way you are first taught by seemingly wise and knowledgeable men for whom you have great respect.  But the reality is that those guidelines are not commanded.  Nor are they exclusively exampled.  And they are not necessarily inferred.  In fact the scriptures are “Thunderingly silent about how to interpret the scriptures.”  Well, maybe there are clues here and there, but historically we’ve “strained out the gnat and swallowed the camel” in this regard.  And, even after exhaustively examining the poop, some of us haven’t realized it yet.

 

What’s good about my discussions with this young legalist is that, though he is a legalist, he still seems to be open-minded.  What I mean is that he seems to genuinely consider the things that I say.  Most legalists that I’ve dealt with in the past few years remind me of the Pharisees that stood there and watched Jesus heal the man who had been crippled for thirty-eight years and then complained that Jesus had done it on the Sabbath.  They totally missed the point.  They focused on the wrong things and felt threatened by anything that didn’t fit their preconceived notions.  In short, they were not open to the possibility that they had been wrong or that they had been majoring in the minors for all those years.  They read the scripture, (1 Cor. 10:12 (KJV)),  “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” but didn’t consider the possibility that it might apply to them.

 

I am hopeful that this young man will not be a legalist one year from now.  In fact, because of his open mind, I feel optimistic that his legalistic days are numbered.  Legalism and open-mindedness cannot co-exist in one person for long.  I believe they are incompatible when it comes to studying the new covenant (which is written on men’s hearts rather than on tablets of stone).  Maybe that is why it is so rare to find an open-minded legalist.  They can’t stay that way for long.  If correctly challenged with scripture, they must either close their minds (like the Pharisees) or move toward grace, like the Galatian brethren.  

Please pray for me and this young man as we study the word together.  Pray that God will open our eyes and lead us both to the truth. Thanks in advance,  Dennis

I’ve been driving around in the State of Texas a lot over the past couple of weeks—hundreds of miles in three different directions.  In nearly every little town I’ve seen the obligatory “ Church of Christ ” signs just outside the city limits.  Most of these signs look pretty old and weathered.  Some are down right dilapidated.  Rust is creeping through in spots and colors have faded.  I can’t help but think that the condition of these signs is probably very much indicative of the conditions of the “churches” in these towns.  And I’m not talking about the paint job on the buildings.  I’m not saying it has to do with cause and effect; painting the signs won’t cure the problem.  It goes much deeper than that.

There was a time when seeing a C of C sign gave me a little boost—knowing that the “Lord’s church” was in this place.  But now, it doesn’t.  Because of my preconceived notion about what this little church is probably like and what positive impact it is probably NOT having on that community, the up tick in the heart beat is gone. 

As reality sets in more and more, I’ve been drifting toward the conclusion that most conservative small town Churches of Christ are pretty much irrelevant.  Though they are generally made up of pretty good people they, as a church, have little or no impact on the community.  In fact, they are pretty much ignored by the community.  Sure, everybody knows they are there, but that’s about it.  They are basically impotent but don’t know it.  They live in a vacuum.  Because they go through the motions of the “five acts of worship” each week, they think they are the exact replica of the 1st century church—the one true church—and that’s good enough for them. 

They would bristle with “righteous” indignation at the thought of someone calling them irrelevant.  But I shake my head in amazement that they can’t see it.  It’s beyond my comprehension that they can’t see it.  And yet, they don’t  

Though I think that there is some positive change taking place in isolated spots, I’m afraid that full scale change is unlikely in the near term.  I think that it is more likely that most of these churches will slowly die out completely rather than to risk change.  What happens after that is anybody’s guess.  Hopefully, they will be reborn with a new and loving spirit that will have a positive impact on their surroundings.  Until that time we must keep the faith and share the love. We can’t be the solution for everywhere, but we can bloom where we’re planted.  Though we can’t make a difference in every place, we can make a difference in this place.  And that is where we need to focus.  God Bless you this week as you make a difference your world.  Dennis

I’ve spent several days this week on the road and doing family research for my book.  I’ve interviewed several people who are in their 70’s or 80’s and who knew my grandparents and my father when he was a boy.  I have discovered quite a bit about my grandparents that I hadn’t known before. One of those things was about the fact that my grandmother was a very devout member of the Church of Christ .  I knew she was a member, but I didn’t know how “devout.” It became obvious that everyone knew exactly where she stood in those matters.  I got the idea that her mother was even stricter than she was and was even a little obnoxious and judgmental about it. 

One of the couples I interviewed was my 82 year old cousin, Royce, and his wife, Jewell Dean.  Jewell Dean said that when she started dating Royce, her mother warned her about dating a Church of Christ-er .  (One of the other interviewees, Leonard, informed me with a grin that the term that she probably  used was more likely to be “Cambellite” rather than “CofC-er”.)  She said, “Don’t be dating a Cambellite or you will start going to the Church of Christ .”  Jewell Dean assured her mother that she would not convert to the C of C, and she didn’t. 

I took the opportunity to ask her “What was it about the C of C that made you and your mother feel this way.”  She said that she had visited there a few times and they told her she was going to hell if she didn’t become a member of the C of C.   They even told Royce, who was a member, that he was going to hell if he continued to date this girl who was not a member.  He said he thought that was a little harsh.

The other couple I interviewed, Leonard and Rita, had similar experiences.  During the course of our discussion Leonard, with a grimace on his face as he shook his head side to side, said, “They drove away countless numbers of people with this condemning attitude.” And I think he is right.  There is no telling how many people “we” have driven away by our self-righteous, judgmental, “two by four between the eyes” approach to evangelism. 

Our “good news” has often been, “You are going to Hell if you don’t become a member of the Church of Christ .”  I can barely contain the joy that wells up inside me as I think about this approach (for those of you in Rio Linda, I’m being facetious (in other words, I’m joking about this approach bringing me joy.  It actually discourages and frustrates me.)) 

As I look back over my own experience in the Church of Christ and think about what caused us to take such a confrontational approach to “evangelism” I think it was about the fear we had about missing any opportunity to spread the “truth”—not so much because of our desire to spread the truth but more out of the fear of our own guilt if we didn’t.  We thought about “What if I don’t say something and that person gets killed on their way home?”  So, to cover ourselves from this possible guilt and sin, we would choose to force-feed this “gospel” on anyone who came into our sphere—whether they wanted us to or not.  That way we were covered and if the person didn’t respond appropriately, then the guilt was on their shoulders instead of ours.  If they die on their way home we can say we tried to reach them and they just wouldn’t respond.  In reality, if they didn’t physically die on their way home, they may as well have in regard to our ever being able to reach them with the true gospel.  We’ve totally turned them off.

I still see some of that attitude today.  There is this uneasiness that creeps in to many of us if we allow anything unusual to slip by.  When someone visits the assembly and does something a little unorthodox, we generally have someone who is willing to “straighten them out” that same day—even if it means that this person will never set foot in that building again.  We are willing to lose their soul for the sake of our traditions or orthodoxy and in the name of “defending the faith” or in the name of doing things “decently and in order”.   And that’s just wrong. 

Our efforts should be more about loving those with whom we come in contact.  It should be about treating them the way we would like to be treated if the roles were reversed.  It’s about meeting needs.  God Bless you as you reach out in love to those around you this week.  Dennis      

The last post I wrote was triggered by an email I received from a young person that has been reading my blog.  I didn’t know they had been reading it until I got this email.  This person was raised in a very strict conservative, legalistic church environment.  I didn’t post this information earlier because I wanted to get their permission before going public with it.  I think it wonderfully illustrates the thinking of many of our young people and FORMER members.  I hope it serves as a wake up call to some who, though thinking they were defending the faith, were actually damaging “the faith”.  Look into this person’s heart and see the longing for a loving, grace filled fellowship of believers who are more interested in helping each other become more like Jesus Christ rather than condemning those who disagree with their understanding of the Bible.
 
“Dennis, I’ve been reading your blog and I really, really want you to know that I can totally relate to so many of the things you have expressed through your blog.  I have been struggling so long with the ” church of Christ ” mentality.  I love God, and I want so badly to go to heaven, and to please Him, and to help others, but how do we tell others to get there when we . . . are too busy worrying about the small things…obsessing over the legalistic issues that so often dominate the discussions and bible studies and services and fellowship…and on and on…  I call it the better safe than sorry religion.  But what have we really done if we speculate over all the details and crucify people who interpret the same word in a different way?  . . .
Don’t get me wrong, I hold dear to the upbringing I’ve had, but at the same time I think it is very judgmental.  I have all these thoughts, but then I feel as though I’m going to hell because I’m not holding fast to the traditions and doing things “decent and in order..”
. . . Instead of keeping people in the C o C they are running them away…  I am embarrassed to bring outsiders to my home church because other faiths are condemned from the pulpit instead of focusing on the truth, or talking about good things we could set into motion.  It is not about tradition it is about truth.  Have a great day!”

Isn’t it amazing how perceptive some of our young people are?  Isn’t it refreshing that there are those young people out there who truly do want to be all that God wants them to be?  Isn’t it a shame that someone who strongly desires to be what God wants them to be is uncomfortable bringing a friend to church because they fear that this friend might be insulted in some way?  Isn’t it a shame that a church family makes them feel guilty instead of redeemed?  Isn’t it time to rethink what we are doing and why we are doing it and how we are doing it?  Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. 
I don’t think it is wrong to set a course based upon your best understanding of the Word.  But if the results that you keep getting are not achieving what you were trying to achieve, then it’s time to rethink your course.  If what you are doing is driving seekers away, then you need to re-examine what you are doing.  If not, you will just keep losing those you are supposed to be loving.  God Bless us all as we examine what we do and why we do it and the effect it has on those around us.  Dennis