by Daniel H. King, Sr.
Synopsis: While expressing gratitude for the brotherly spirit manifested in these discussions, Dan analyzes certain arguments that were advanced and offers a simpler biblical alternative.
I was privileged to attend the public discussion between Kyle Pope and Doug Burleson that was held in Dickson, TN, on November 15, 2019. My immediate reaction to what I had seen and heard was that I was very pleased with what I had witnessed. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Dickson discussion was a follow-up to several previous events that had been initiated by Greg Tidwell, the editor of the Gospel Advocate. He invited a number of us to the offices of the Advocate and explained that he desired a different relationship to exist between brethren on the two sides of the various issues involved and that he intended to try to make that happen. Greg felt that the alienation that has existed through the years was not healthy for either side and that we ought to do better. (This is my summation of what I remember, so please do not consider this a direct quotation from him). He was kind to us all, as were those with him, and we left that meeting with a very good feeling about what the future might bring.
In two subsequent meetings in Cullman, AL, groups from both sides met and openly discussed commonalities and differences. Those meetings were both beneficial and, generally speaking, reserved, and brotherly. There were some tense moments, but such was to be expected. What was surprising was the almost total absence of bitterness and hostility. The passing of time has allowed much of that to die out. One of those meetings had Doug Burleson from Freed-Hardeman and Kyle Pope from Truth Publications discussing issues that separate us. Both men conducted themselves in a thoroughly gentlemanly and scholarly fashion, so it was decided for them to have this meeting in a public forum where other brethren could hear and perhaps benefit from the experience. The written discussion between them appeared in the October 2019 issues of Truth Magazine and the Gospel Advocate.
Once more, in the public discussion, these two men behaved in a fashion expected of two Christian gentlemen. Freed-Hardeman University offered its Renaissance Center in Dickson as the venue for the discussion. The setting was beautiful, and the atmosphere was outstanding. The two men were seated on blue sofa chairs in the center of the stage, with stage lights brightly illuminating the setting, and they were permitted to question one another back and forth all evening. This format and the resulting discussion, in my opinion, was the best one that I have attended. These two gentlemen expressed respect for one another, and even love for one another, something that is taught throughout the New Testament, but is often neglected during times of formal debate or public disputation (cf. John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; Rom. 12:10; 13:8; Gal. 5:13; Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 3:12; 4:9; 2 Thess. 1:3; Heb. 10:24; 1 Pet. 1:22; 5:14; 1 John 3:11; 3:23; 4:7, 11-12; 2 John 5).
Overall, the Dickson discussion was a wholesome experience in every respect. Even though both men pressed their points, asking pointed and probing queries, neither ever raised his voice or showed any anger or lack of respect for the other. It was a model of Christian behavior and conduct. Every discussion between brethren who differ on any issue ought to be like this one.
The discussion itself is now history. Each man set forth his arguments from Scripture, employing the best logic that could be offered in order to make his case. It is not our intention to revisit that aspect of the question and answer session. Nevertheless, I was quite intrigued by one argument that Doug Burleson made that I had never heard in precisely the form that he framed it and applied to these issues. He suggested that in our efforts to establish biblical authority for our beliefs and practices, we ought to give careful consideration to a full understanding of the idiosyncrasies of the cultures that surrounded ancient Israel in the Old Testament and those that affected the church in the days of the New Testament.
With much of what he had to say in this regard, we would be in total agreement. We believe that it is essential to have as educated an understanding of the background and setting of the biblical record as is possible for us to have. Failing to appreciate these concepts can lead to misunderstandings and misapplications. Indeed, issues have arisen in the history of biblical study where people have misunderstood a cultural practice, considering it to be something that taught an eternal reality and concluding that it must be duplicated in the present-day church.
The washing of feet is a perfect illustration of this. Some churches wash feet in conjunction with the Lord's Supper because Jesus washed the disciples' feet on the evening of the Supper (John 13:4ff). We understand that the practice of foot washing was a cultural phenomenon in a setting where people wore sandals and walked on dusty roads, and thus the washing of feet, when one entered a home, was a refreshing and much-appreciated act of hospitality (cf. 1 Tim. 5:10). Jesus noted when Simon the Pharisee did not extend this common courtesy to Him (Luke 7:44). In our cultural situation, such a practice would be silly and meaningless. Hospitality is still essential, and common courtesies are always to be expected and appreciated when extended, whatever the cultural means of expressing these important biblical virtues might be. Yet, this is the limit of application in regard to the present day. Practicing foot washing today in the Lord's Supper service would not only be unnecessary, but it would also be reprehensible. We see no indication, historically, where even the church of the second century duplicated this practice (even though foot washing was still being practiced as a common courtesy). Yet, it must be added that an understanding of these ideas, even though they might prove helpful and enlightening, does not require a Ph.D. in New Testament backgrounds and culture. The Scriptures themselves make these ideas sufficiently understandable so that comprehension of the text does not require anything at all besides an open Bible.
In our view, though, we fail to see the appropriateness of this observation with regard to the practices of the New Testament churches of the apostolic era, other than in its application to some particular cultural phenomenon like foot washing. We do not see how it applies in this instance, and Doug did not show how or in what particular way that was the case. His intimation was that there was something that was merely cultural that we on our side are failing to apply properly. We could have wished that he would have explained himself more clearly. However, it should be pointed out that we must resist the tendency of many in our time to depend so heavily on scholarship in the areas of linguistics, history, sociology, etc., to the point where we are afraid to read the Bible and attempt to apply its truths to our own lives and the life of the modern church.
Similarly, in making his point about church benevolence in regard to Galatians, he argued that "much that has been written about individual vs. corporate responsibility in Galatians 6 superimposes a post-Enlightenment milieu of individualism back into a predominantly group-oriented Greco-Roman setting." He went on to say, "The patrilocal, group-oriented, first-century context of the NT writers is far removed from a context where individualism is primary in the mind of most post-Enlightenment readers . . . ." Frankly, all of this seems to contradict what Paul said in 1 Timothy 5:8, where he emphasized the need for Christians to take care of their own widows and then later said, "let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened." There is a clear distinction between the church and the individual in this passage. Although Paul lived before the Enlightenment, yet he obviously believed in individualism in the sense that people ought to take care of themselves: "For each man shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6:5); and that those who avoided work in the hope that the church and other Christians would take care of them should be allowed to go hungry (2 Thess. 3:10). Thus, it could be said that the NT teaches individualism, very emphatically, regardless of the theories of modern scholarship.
As Mark Mayberry observed in regard to arguments such as this one that are calculated to encourage us to bow to academia in such instances:
Modern scholars say we must understand the ancient world before we can understand Sacred Scripture. While I agree that it is helpful for us to have a working knowledge of the cultures that impacted the nation of Israel and the Christian church, and to understand the religious culture of Judaism in the first century, how much external knowledge is necessary before we can comprehend the Bible? Yes, it is helpful to know the meaning of biblical words (Hebrew and Greek), and to recognize the literary genre of the Bible (historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, the gospels, the epistles, apocalyptic literature, etc.), but where do we stop relying upon scholarship and start relying upon the Sacred Text? If I have to fully comprehend the cultural, historical, and literary context of a passage before drawing any conclusions about the same, I will never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth because scholars will offer six different opinions about every event described in the pages of Holy Writ. There is no agreement among scholars on anything.
So how can I know the truth? In the Dickson discussion, Kyle showed clarity of thought and presented a much simpler approach to biblical understanding than Doug did with his professorial methodology. By employing a common man's approach to the Bible, "If I can see it, I can do it," Kyle effectively recast Paul's statement, "When you read, you can understand" (Eph. 3:4). The crowds heard Jesus gladly, often perceiving His point more quickly than did the religious scholars (Mark 12:35-37). An academic background is not required for one to fulfill the injunction of Ephesians 5:17, which says, "So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
We must be very cautious in making arguments that are based too heavily on the cultural milieu of the New Testament era and are greatly dependent on the opinions of degreed professionals rather than on the force of the text itself. As the old saying goes, "It can come back to bite you."
A case in point illustrates this observation very well: Kindalee Pfemmer DeLong (a member of the Conejo church of Christ in Thousand Oaks, CA) in an article titled, "Woman and Culture in the NT World: Social Values Related to Paul's Teaching in 1 Corinthians" (Pepperdine Digital Commons, 2012), makes the case for women preachers and teachers in the modern church on the understanding that Paul's prohibition of women speaking in the assemblies was based on cultural taboos rather than on divine considerations. She draws her extensive argument to a conclusion with the following summation:
When approaching Scripture we must remember that the culture of the first century was far different from that of modern America—not just in mores related to behavior, but in deeply rooted conceptions of space, honor and the nature of human beings. Writers of Scripture sometimes rejected these values by reason of theology; most often, however, they lived their faith within the context of their world. When Paul limited women's behavior, we must ask whether he did so to accommodate culture. Living in a culture in which a woman's public behavior no longer brings shame to her family, we must also ask whether accommodations to a very different culture remain central as we strive to live out our faith in God today (4, 5; Leaven, Vol. 4, Issue 2; Women and Ministry, Article 8).
The problem with Ms. DeLong's whole case that Paul's prohibition of women's public participation in the assembly is based on culture rather than divine principle is the fact that the apostle made his case against it on divine principle rather than culture: By inspiration, Paul said, " . . .for Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled fell into transgression; but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:13-14). I might also add that a very strong case could be made for female leadership in the Greco-Roman period, but we shall save that for another time.
Suffice it to say that scholarship can be quoted on every conceivable side of every imaginable argument. In the end, the Lord's people will have to depend on their good judgment of the biblical text itself. Also, it is the text of Scripture that must determine the issue: "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible."
Author Bio: Dan preaches for the Locust St. church of Christ in Mt. Pleasant, TN. The church website is lscoc.com. He can be reached at danielhking@hotmail.com.
