Think on These Things
February 2001
1. What Religious Leaders Should Bind
3. Resolving Issues of Binding
What Religious Leaders Should Bind
To
“bind” in this context means to force everyone who is in a given religious
organization to accept. It is
obvious that the tendency is to bind far too much, as it was in Jesus’ time
(Mt. 23:4). All religious
organizations in this country are voluntary, and therefore, everyone has the
option to walk. Most of us
understand, however, that it is impossible to have any kind of religious
organization whatsoever without binding something.
And we are commanded to meet, worship and work together (i.e., organize). Thus, the questions of what to bind and what to loose is
important (Mt. 16:19).
A
good rule is that religious leaders should not bind anything that they do not
have to bind (2. Jn. 9; 1 Cor. 4:6), for when they do they are being
presumptuous and usurping God’s authority.
So, the question is: what has to be bound?
It is clear that the structure and specification of group worship must be
bound (Jn. 4:24), since the alternative is not truth but mayhem (1 Cor. 14:33,
40). In this regard, it is
necessarily inferred that the leadership set some expedients that are not
spelled out in detail in scripture, such as the meeting times. The authority to set the time is given by the authority to
meet.
A
second area that must be bound is the morality of the membership; for, if not,
there is no church discipline. This
is clearly inferred in 1 Cor. 5, where Paul chastised that church for not taking
proper disciplinary action. A third
and final area is in the matter of insuring that the work of the church is
limited solely to the work Christ gave it (Mt. 28:18f). Since this includes “teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you,” this binds the collectively taught doctrine.
In things not bound, individuals should have freedom to serve God
according to the dictates of their consciences (Ja. 4:11f).
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
Religion
for Political Purposes.
We hear much today about the “religious right wing” and the
“separation of church and state.” Those who are concerned with having religion imposed upon
them have a legitimate concern. It
should not be the role of government to promote any particular religion.
This is foreign to New Testament practice — the church never used the
political process to advance its cause. God
wants our service voluntarily, not as a matter of coercion.
While
this is all well and good, our government has gone way beyond religious
neutrality in recent years. Examples
abound — its international promotion of abortion as a birth control technique,
its funding of abortions and promoting them through “planned parenthood,”
its promotion of homosexuality as merely an “alternative life style,” and
its entering into the gambling business. (Fortunately,
some of these have been recently corrected.)
In things like this our tax money and governmental institutions are being
used for immoral purposes.
Yet,
at the same time we hear politicians at the highest levels appealing to the
large number of religious people in our society by invoking the name of God.
Let us not be taken in. The
proof is not in what our leaders say but in what they do.
When you see someone who is willing to sacrifice his/her political power
for religious principle, then (and only then) can you be sure of their motives.
And
that leads us to the real dilemma. Is
it even possible to elect someone with a high sense of moral and religious
principles? While clearly difficult
in a system that is so dependent on big money contributions and political
maneuvering, it is not impossible. Someone
who thinks independently and is willing to stand up for what is right would be
refreshing to the electorate. The
fact the s/he would not be elected is a reflection of our society.
In the absence of a candidate who is clearly willing to stand up for what
is right, all we can do is select the one that we perceive to be the lesser of
the evils.
Back to the Contents
Consider
a very simple example today. Many
church leaders make the decision during the holiday season to decorate their
buildings with a Christmas tree. In
so doing they bind all of their members to be influenced by this tradition.
Suppose that a member of one of these churches has conscientious
reservations about the religious aspects of this practice, given that it is
commonly known that this practice is of pagan origin.
Perhaps they could, in some cases, petition the church leaders to have it
removed. However, there would
probably be an outcry from the rest of the membership that would result in an
informal breaking of fellowship with most of the group.
Anticipating this, most religious leaders would not wish to make waves,
and would probably tell those raising the objection that this is just how things
are done. No choice.
The
solution is to identify things that are not authorized; or alternatively, to
introduce into group work and worship only those things that are clearly
authorized. This results in a very
simple worship free of Roman Catholic (or any other) influence, very similar to
what history tells us were the practices in the second and third centuries.
But it is the first century, the scriptures, which give us apostolic
authority, not history. Bible authority is only obtained by command (1 Cor. 14:37),
approved apostolic example (by command — 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17, 4:9), and
that which the scriptures necessarily infer.
See Acts 15 for the use of all three in resolving the binding of
circumcision. (The individual right
to this practice was not in question; Acts 16:1f).
Most
religious error today is caused by the binding of things that the scriptures
have not bound. Often practitioners
of these things argue that the bible is not definitive enough to resolve these
issues. (The alternative, of
course, is that they become the authority, since the rest of us somehow lack the
ability.) In reality, we can take
any issue and go to the bible looking for what God has said on it.
Look at all of the commands, examples and inferences throughout the new
testament. Collectively put our
heads together and synthesize the parts. Consider
all of the alternatives that anyone might present.
Then choose the one that comes closest to our understanding of biblical
practice. This is doing our best to
serve God in His way.
Back to the Contents
“That is just your opinion.”
but
the apostle Paul said (1 Cor. 14:37) ...
“If anyone thinks he is a
prophet or spiritual, let him recognize
Was
this just his opinion? Did he
expect us to understand it (Eph. 3:4)? Has
God not spoken to us through the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16f)? Does the bible have no meaning for us at all?
That is the conclusions that we must draw if whatever we read in the
bible is just our opinion. This is the lazy person’s way out of intensive bible study,
and shows no desire to seek after God (Heb. 11:6).
We
have no choice when it comes to determining what we can and should bind on one
another. Either we are going to use
the bible to do this or else we must depend upon some man or organization of
man. If we are not using the bible,
then the comment: “that is just your opinion” is valid.
For, without depending on scripture, what else do we have except our
subjective feelings?
The
New Testament is a very short collection of books.
It is the most cross-referenced book in the world, with concordances and
indexes to help us survey any subject. But
even if we have to read the entire book to discover all the truth on a given
subject, this would not be too much to ask. The most important requirement is faith.
Faith that God has not left us floating and out in the cold.
Faith that God will keep His promises and provide us with all that we
need to serve Him.
Back to the Contents