the7ones.comOn Todd Deaver’s response to my review of Facing Our Failure
The following is a response to an article by Todd Deaver on his website.
As I continue to study through some fellowship passages on this site, I need to take some time to reply to some comments Todd has had on my review of his book.
Todd writes on his website,
Having begun a review of Facing Our Failure several weeks ago with a summary of the book’s argument (Part 1), Matt Clifton has resumed his critique this week.
In Part 2, posted 25 March, Matt lays some groundwork by offering three basic facts about fellowship that all must admit:
1. God wants his people to be united.
2. Not every instance of sin is a reason for the breaking of fellowship.
3. There are cases where fellowship between God’s people must be severed.
I can offer my unequivocal agreement with all three principles, so we do have at least this much common ground on which to build.
It is good to read of Todd’s agreement on these principles. There are some out there who are arguing from the point of inclusiveness merely on humanistic, social grounds. They interpret the Bible in light of current culture, instead of understanding it as God’s inspired message for all time. While I do think many so-called “progressives” are steeped in postmodern and “emergent” philosophy, if we stick to these three rock-solid principles, we do indeed have a base from which to work.
Todd also says,
it is the fact that conservatives preach and practice differing positions on what is scriptural and what is sinful and remain in fellowship with each other, while claiming that it is sinful to have fellowship with brothers who teach or practice error regarding what is scriptural and what is sinful.
Todd is correct in this statement, but incorrect in limiting it to only “conservatives.” So-called “progressives” also are inconsistent in their fellowship practices. I have talked with many since first becoming aware of Todd’s book, and some have expressed that they will fellowship even those who have not been baptized for the remission of sins according to the New Testament teachings. Others will fellowship only those baptized according to God’s plan, regardless of whether they are living faithfully. Further still, some “progressives” will not fellowship those continuing in living open, sinful lives. So you see, Todd is only pointing at “conservatives,” when he should also be indicating that even those who support his views are in disagreement over their own fellowship practices, as well. Will Todd admit that “progressives” are also in contradiction in terms of fellowship?
On his website, Todd says:
The problem can be seen in this example:
• Bro. A (who opposes instrumental music in worship as unscriptural) refuses to have fellowship with bro. B who teaches that IM is a matter of opinion, because bro. A believes it is sinful to continue in fellowship with anyone who teaches error regarding what the Bible allows and forbids.
• Bro. A (who also opposes rhythmic clapping during singing in worship as unscriptural) remains in fellowship with bro. C who teaches that such clapping is a matter of opinion.
The dilemma is created not simply because of the differences of view, but because of the rationale that serves as the basis for A’s withdrawal from B (the belief that it is sinful to continue in fellowship with anyone who teaches error regarding what the Bible allows and forbids). Bro. A accepts this rationale in his relationship with B, but rejects it in his relationship with C. That, I contend, is the self-contradiction. Please don’t lose sight of that vital point. This is what Matt must eventually get around to addressing if he is to answer the book’s argument.
This is really where Todd and I part company drastically. His approach to attacking this real problem is to say we need a “new paradigm” in regard to fellowship in the church.
My approach would be that we need to start practicing the Biblical principles that we already know!
For instance, Brother A is indeed being inconsistent in his handling of Brother B and Brother C. But Brother A’s inconsistency does not mean that he is not practicing correct fellowship standards in at least one of the cases. It could be in the other case he is simply failing to implement biblical concepts, possibly due to being a respecter of persons.
This, in fact, is what many “progressives” are willing to do, but on a much larger scale. Brother A likely does this because IM seems “further away” from the truth, while hand-clapping is “closer” to the truth. “Progressives,” on the other hand, do not seem that concerned about how “close” one is to the truth, but are willing to build fellowship upon simply believing in Jesus as the Son of God (which could encompass nearly all of “Christiandom”), or alternately believing and being baptized (which would be a smaller number of believers), or perhaps believing, being baptized and remaining faithful in terms of morality. Very few progressives will make an issue of worship practices, however, because this is the wall they are currently trying to break down.
Todd has an appendix in which he discusses the controversy over marriage, divorce and remarriage. He claims that this example is one that should show the church its failure in fellowship practices, since many preachers fellowship other preachers whose views are diametrically opposed to theirs. While this is true, I do not think Todd would throw the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle out the window in order to solve the problem. Among all these teachers teaching different, contradictory things, someone is wrong. Either it is the case that divorce is allowable only in instances of adultery, or it is not the case. Both positions cannot be correct, and thus one case cannot be approved by God. One case must be part of the teachings of Christ, or it is not. Both cannot be true.
Again, I am almost certain that Todd will affirm his belief in the law of non-contradiction. To throw this principle out the window is to jump head-first into the wide chasm of postmodern irrationality, and I do not think he will go to that extreme. So, with the law of non-contradiction still standing, Todd has a much bigger task to handle than he realizes. Here’s why:
If there are 20 preachers and each has a view of marriage, divorce and remarriage that differs slightly from the others, there is absolutely no way for Todd to say that at least one of these preachers is not practicing the proper biblical standards. It is impossible to claim that no one is practicing biblical standards, and thus it is impossible to prove that a “new paradigm” is needed.
Proving that two preachers contradict one another is not satisfactory. One must additionally prove that neither of the teachers is practicing correct fellowship.
Another factor to consider is that there is an “ontological” sense of the church, and there is a practical sense. The ontological reality of the church is what God would have us to practice. It is the standard to which the church must struggle toward. This version of the church is perfect. The practical reality of the church, however, is that men are involved who make errors. This means that men will make errors in fellowship, and this is a proven fact. We make errors in both fellowship practices, and moral issues. However, the fact that men make errors does not cancel the fact that there is a standard for fellowship, or a standard for morality.
This reminds me of a conversation during a Bible class over “white lies.” One brother said it was okay if it saved another person from harm or hard feelings. Others said, “No, lying in any case is a sin.” Now, just because these two sides of the issue had differing practices in regards to lying, does not mean we need a “new paradigm” in regard to lying, but rather we need to learn and practice the ones God has already set out for us in the scriptures.
Someone may say, “But Matt, the Bible’s teaching on lying is very clear.” With this I would agree. Rev. 21:8 says liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Paul says lying is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10). But still yet, Christians sometimes lie! You see, the practice we see does not always line up with God’s standard, and the same is true with the fellowship issue. I believe the standard is pretty clear on what issues could be a cause for withdrawal of fellowship. But more on that later.
Told also wrote,
The second point I want to make about the above quotation is that it is potentially misleading. When Matt asks, “does this necessarily entail that there is no correct standard?,” he is apparently suggesting that this is the position for which I argue. But this, of course, in not my view at all. Matt seems to recognize this in the following statement where he refers to “Todd’s standard” (implying that I do, in fact, espouse one), but then why erect the straw man in the first place? Raising the previous question only tends to leave the impression that I am arguing against a standard altogether instead of suggesting a different one. The mistake recurs in the last paragraph, where Matt says, “I admit that often those who hold contradictory positions will still fellowship one another. But the fact that we do this does not mean that a standard for fellowship does not exist, it just means we do not practice it perfectly” (emphasis added). Again, I have never suggested that a standard for fellowship does not exist. The statement is misleading.
I certainly did not intend to send the message that Todd has no standard for fellowship. Granted, he has not told us his standard yet, which makes it difficult to dialogue. We will have to await his grand unveiling, however, with this reminder: in order to prove a new paradigm is needed, one has to prove that no one is practicing a “correct paradigm” currently. Just because a majority of elders or preachers are not practicing biblical fellowship, does not mean there are not some who do.
Also, please remember that there is so much more to say about the reasons and processes of withdrawing fellowship than can be said in this space. It is an unfolding study here on the7ones.com, so feel free to contact me with questions.
Todd writes,
Third, the last remark in the quotation above could also be easily misconstrued. Let me make it clear that I am very concerned about teaching the truth regarding what constitutes sin. It is not that I’m saying we need not concern ourselves with what is sinful and what isn’t. Every Christian teacher, including myself, has a serious responsibility to proclaim the truth in this regard. What Matt is saying here, in trying to explain my point, is that in deciding the question of who can be fellowshipped, it is not enough simply to establish that certain brethren are going beyond what the scriptures authorize. They may well be doing that, but as the book demonstrates, conservatives often maintain fellowship with many whom they believe to be teaching or practicing various unauthorized activities (i.e., sins). So the central question regarding fellowship is: what sins must we break fellowship over and what sins may we tolerate in the fellowship?
And this question is exactly what we are beginning to try to answer here on this site by examining God’s word. Todd acknowledges that I am in process here, and raises some further questions about this concept. I will address the rest of his comments toward me in another article.
But allow me to leave you with this idea: When the central question is answered to Todd’s satisfaction, even by his own study and proposal, will people really stop being human and perfectly practice the “new paradigm” standard?
Whether Todd’s undisclosed proposal is biblical or not remains to be seen. But the fact is, men will not cease to be men. I suspect that God’s standard for fellowship is already in place in many congregations. But just like the standard for lying, it is not practiced perfectly. Todd’s proposal, whatever it may be, will not solve this.
Comments are currently closed.