Communications

Legalism vs. Faith

Dear Bro. David (David Levin, author),

I would love to find the words that could express how grateful I am to you. Your book Legalism vs. Faith has been so uplifting, encouraging, releasing and eye-opening. It deals with things we should already know — but you have been blessed with the ability to express them more clearly and in a wider context than I had ever understood or adequately appreciated before.

I asked my husband to read it and he looked at me when he had finished and simply said, “How I wish I had read that 20 years ago.”

Anyone I have spoken to who has read it has brought further copies to share with relatives and brothers and sisters. It is highly relevant and appropriate reading for both the baptised and the unbaptised.

It says something perhaps about the topics our community emphasizes/ neglects that this book is received so very thirstily.

It contains the perspective which we long to pass on to our children. The perspective you outline arms them with what they need to see beyond the rules and to be freed from fear to offer works of faith in gratitude for their freedom. That is what we would hope for, for each of our children—just as it is what our Father hopes for, for each of us.

I feel that the scriptures have been significantly further opened to me. I know I am not the only one to feel this. With all my heart I thank our Father for this, and you, dear brother. Sandy Robson, Swansea, UK

Editorial on Factious Leaders

Dear Bro. Don,

Bro. John Warner’s guest editorial in the July/August Tidings raises a timely warning.

We are deceived if we think factious brethren can easily be identified because their practices are always obvious. It is probable that those brethren in the first century who were factious or seeking the preeminence were well-intentioned brethren.

We have to look beyond the action and stated motivation of brethren to the underlying effect of their actions to see who is factious. A brother can be well-intentioned when he wishes to maintain the “purity of the truth” at all costs. However unless his basis is clearly scriptural, there is the possibility he is factious — though he himself would deny that.

It is always worth asking ourselves whether what is proposed is edifying (I Cor. 14:26) or tending to unity in the ecclesia (John 17:11,21).

Peter Forbes, Glenfield, UK

Unchosen Minority

Dear Bro. Don,

I wanted to thank Sis. Deborah and her daughter for their courage in sharing their experiences. I have cried over their articles. I was a very depressed youth for many years and, while I am so thankful to be well now, I feel for those whose lives have been so tragically affected. We do need more awareness that depression does affect young people.

Jo Richardson, Honey, UK

Women’s Issues — Silence

Dear Bro. Don,

This comment raises serious questions — not just about the topic, but about the approach of the writer. After quoting 1 Corinthians 14:34­35 where Paul says “as also saith the law” the writer says “When we look.. .for the reference.. .we cannot find it.. .but nowhere are women told to be silent in the assembly.” Now either there is or there is not teaching in the “law” to which Paul appeals. Given our understanding of inspiration to say that there is no teaching is clearly wrong. A review of scripture will demonstrate that an appeal in the New Testament to the Old does not necessarily require a direct quotation from a single source in the Old Testament. For example Matthew 2:23: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” While there is no individual place in scripture which contains the phrase Matthew uses, there are numerous scriptures which, put together, provide the origin of the teaching Matthew states. The same is true of the position of sisters.

When “we wonder how women who prayed and prophesied.. .could exercise their gifts” this shows our lack of appreciation of what actually happened rather than creating a problem about what scripture teaches.

In suggesting that Paul is quoting rabbinical tradition when he speaks about women keeping silence, requires that whenever this injunction is made in the New Testament the writer is appealing to the same erroneous Rabbinical teaching. It is unwise to commit ourselves to such a position when it is based on a lack of understanding of what the apostle was actually teaching.

In saying “could it be” twice in the article, we are presented with uncertainty. Likewise in saying “Paul is probably…,” we are not seeing certainty but rather speculation. We should be aware that uncertainty is no basis for changing a currently held view — even if it were wrong. Paul says in I Thessalonians 5:21: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

That a Greek word carries the meaning “in peace and quietness, undisturbed” of itself is not proof as to how the question of sister’s using their voice in the ecclesia should be understood.

I have not addressed the position of sisters in the ecclesia because no evidence has been presented which actually faults the traditional view held by us and, for that matter, the pioneers. While this might seem simply a criticism it should be appreciated that we must use careful scriptural reasoning to make our points rather than speculation and questioning. Nor is this an injunction that we should not question. Questioning is essential for growth. However a question is a request for information — not a speculative suggestion of an alternative understanding.

Peter Forbes, Glenfield, UK

Thank you for providing opportunity to comment on the handling of scripture in this article. Regular readers will know our great reverence for the word of God and opposition to any attempt to undermine its validity. But many ecclesias have based extreme positions on only two Bible passages and these ecclesias absolutely forbid women to raise their voice and speak in any assembly of the congregation.

One of these two passages, I Timothy 2:11-12, while being clear about the general subjection of women to men in ecclesial worship, does not justify the extreme position taken by some ecclesias. The Greek words used do not mean complete silence. In fact, as Sis. Linda rightly points out, Paul’s instruction actually countermands some Jewish opinion of the day in that the apostle encourages Bible study on the part of sisters. Surely some form of sister’s participation in Bible classes is acceptable in the context of this passage.

As Bro. Peter points out, I Corinthians 14:34-35 is like the “Nazarene” passage in that we can not find the specific Old Testament  reference in mind. That should give rise to some serious questioning of an extreme application of these verses to our present ecclesial life. Again we should note the Jewish teaching prevalent in Paul’s day; he could be refuting such wrong ideas especially when we note Paul’s use of “What?” in verse 36. The apostle clearly uses “what” when refuting error in: Rom. 3:5; 6:1; 7:7, I Cor 10:19, etc. Now consider the use of “What?” in I Cor 6:16 and 19. While the wrong idea is not spelled out, it is apparent from the context that some brethren claimed sexual relations with a temple prostitute was not covered by Christian prohibitions of immorality. The wrong idea Paul rejects would be clearly known to his readers just as the prevailing wrong Jewish attitude toward women in worship would be clearly known to the readers.

Accordingly, we do not feel our sister’s article contained inappropriate Bible study. Furthermore we feel her comments should cause a serious examination of policies which impose an extreme position of silence on sisters in Bible classes, business meetings, and board meetings.