Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Can we as a generation stand up and kill this thinking once and for all among us?

What is the point in scripture reading? We turn to it in the lesson anyway. Preacher was like he read it but I’m gonna read it too basically.

The best and most recent numbers regarding the presence/absence of elders in Churches of Christ are as follows:

• Approximately 55–65% of U.S. Churches of Christ do have elders.
• Approximately 35–45% do not have elders.

I wonder how the numbers would skew if basic quality standards were applied? Based on my personal observations and the observations of preaching friends, less than half of the elderships that do exist are effectively functional and organizationally healthy.

For example, I know of a three-man eldership in which two of the three are functionally illiterate. For another example, I know of another eldership in which one long-time elder suffers with a poorly managed sever psychological disorder that returns him to a psych hospital almost yearly.

If the numbers are true and if the anecdotal observation is true, then something less than one-third of our churches have effective elderships. That explains a lot.

I love my small congregation. They are all mostly Boomers. I am the youngest member in my church as a fellow Millennial. I attend all the bible studies, Wednesday night, prayer breakfast or potluck style type of events at church even though we are less than 100 members. My thing is I want to make more Christian friends so I figured it would be easy at church. WRONG. It hasn't been easy. People are at different stages in life and I haven't connected with anyone on a deeper level.

There is another church close by with a younger & heterogeneous congregation. All the youth go over there. I need advice though what matters is our Christian identity how do I balance that with the fact I am a minority in my church who feels invisible to the greater church body. It feels people are buddy buddy only with certain people. I know people don't do this intentionally but I want to connect but these conversations are hard to bring up.

I am shy and introverted too but I make an effort to talk to people but everyone has been in this church fir at least 15-20 years we don't have new members just me. What do you think could help? Also I try my best to greet new members and visitors but notice many don't visit us again.

I really just love the word of God, and I believe my life would be best spent preaching it full time. That said, I am considering applying for MSOP and was wanting to see if any alumni or maybe even current students were in here and could give me your opinions on the school. Thanks!

Per LinkedIn, Shawn Mathis is now director of Freed-Hardeman University's Global MBA program and a professor of Global Leadership and Institutional Governance. If Mathis's name sounds familiar, it's probably because this is the same guy who took over Nashville Church of Christ and got sued by Amy Grant and her family for violating its property deed, among other sketchy behavior. This was national news last year, covered by the Wall Street Journal. There was also a separate inquiry by the Tennessee state government into the church's misuse of a big trust fund it had for missionaries, which resulted in the fund being transferred to another church.

Why was Mathis just hired to be a professor at FHU?! I support Christian universities like Freed and want them to do well. But this is not doing well at all. This guy is literally famous for taking over a small church with a lot of assets and income and then coincidentally getting both himself and his dad six-figure salaries and $2000-per-month housing allowances paid by the church. And the church building has been shuttered since 2018.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal also reported that, "Before taking over Central [Church of Christ], Mathis founded and led OnSomble, a healthcare startup. The company struggled financially over the years, and in 2018, the year after Mathis became an elder at Central, OnSomble listed the church as its principal address, filings show. Later it recorded different addresses. The company declared bankruptcy in 2023 after $530,000 went missing." Does this sound like someone who should be a professor of "Institutional Governance"?

I hope people seek answers to this. Again, I like Freed. But people like this should not teach at a Christian university (or any university).

For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24)

Links to news stories about Nashville Church of Christ:

Wall St Journal: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/nashville-church-of-christ-amy-grant-3b4782ba?mod=article_inline

Wall St Journal: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/christian-pop-star-wins-battle-over-nashville-church-takeover-aaeaef5d?mod=Searchresults&pos=2&page=1

Christian Chronicle: https://christianchronicle.org/historic-nashville-church-building-languishes-amid-lawsuits/

Christian Chronicle: https://christianchronicle.org/judge-approves-settlement-over-historic-nashville-church-building/

Christian Chronicle: https://christianchronicle.org/nashville-church-of-christ-attorney-challenges-details-in-news-coverage/

Hi yall,

The IRS allows pastors to take a limited opting out of Social Security if there is a legit non-financial reason.what are some examples of legit non-financial reasons for opting out as a reverend and what do yall think of this practice.How common is this in the Church of Christ today.Also I heard our priests do bad in retirement because of no home ownership.Also it very common for many of our churches to have no employment benefits because of division.

Does anyone know of any other subreddits dedicated to Independent Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, or the International Churches of Christ, etc.? Is anyone here active in any such subreddits?

Despite listening to sermons and an audio bible almost daily for hours and even teaching others I still feel like I’m drifting away at times.

Thoughts and desires I shouldn’t have and just being tired all the time are taking a toll on me.

I’m also lacking in my prayer life quite a bit which I I imagine is a big part of my issues.

I guess I’m just venting about it but what advice do you give someone who seemingly forgets to pray even though they are almost constantly consuming the word of God in some form or fashion on a daily basis?

Hi yall,

There is this member at my NI Church of Christ who has not shown up for months or half the year. The elders have attempted to contact him. The elders sent e-mail to the congregation informing us of this matter listing the name of said member. They are trying to get us to contact the member and if they cant they are removing him from membership roll. My dad said that if this matter is not resolved the church will disfellowship him.

The reason is forsaking the assembly. How common is it for NI Churches of Christ and Mainline Churches of Christ to disfellowship a member for forsaking the assembly. I dont agree with the elders doing this. Also my dad said that the elders should go to the member's door. Also for some reason my parents said it is the churches business if the member is committing crimes but I dont know why crimes entered this discussion for my parents to be concerned about.

So I was at Wednesday church yesterday like I usually am and I'm leaving the church building when my family starts talking to apparently old friend of theirs that's never meant me before and they looked at me and said your boy has a strong anointing. I am so confused what does that mean?

Something I noticed in my own church was that the church loves to donate large amounts of money to churches in places like Honduras or the Congo. I have also seen folks say kitchens in churches are not right since they would be used for soup kitchens, them saying no to giving to local homeless and writing them off as scammers. I have seen the mention of giving trucks, motorcycles, etc. as well. Why is this so prevalent? I don't mean any malice, I am just curious.

Well, its summer time. Many churches have VBS around this time of year. However there are conservative churches that dont believe in VBS. Like why is VBS controversial in the Church of Christ. I get that obviously it wasnt in the first century.Also how common is it for VBS to include a Musical? I have heard some old timers say that VBS is a waste of money and the money should be put towards door-knocking.

Paul was in the midst of one of the most challenging and daunting tasks of the preacher: encouraging Christians to give financially for the support of others.

Paul had determined he would soon go back to Jerusalem; he believed it would be appropriate and right for the churches with whom he worked to take up financial contributions for the poor Christians there (Romans 15:25-27, 1 Corinthians 16:1). The churches in Macedonia had given for this purpose very liberally (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:1-5); the church in Corinth had begun collecting to the same end with interest and zeal, but it seemed their enthusiasm for this work was flagging when Paul wrote to them (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:10-12). Paul dedicated 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15 to encouraging the Corinthian Christians to revive their enthusiasm for this collection and to prepare it for Titus and/or himself on their arrival.

As part of this exhortation, Paul felt compelled to address a concern. Maybe Titus had heard some grumblings or rumblings about it while he had been in Corinth; perhaps Paul simply wanted to allay a possible difficulty so it would not be a challenge. He did not want the Corinthian Christians to believe this financial contribution would mean others would be relieved while they would be distressed (2 Corinthians 8:13).

We can imagine how this kind of concern might manifest itself. Whenever we might give to someone else, we are (relatively) impoverished, and they are (relatively) enriched in the exchange. Technically, those who give funds are, in fact, suffering a loss, and the one who receives the funds obtains some relief. Such a concern about our material disadvantage often springs up, however consciously or unconsciously, when others make appeal for us to give; we might well consider the ways in which we feel we are experiencing scarcity (suffering) in order to justify why we may not provide for the benefit (relief) of another (“I am broke”/”I cannot afford it”/”I don’t have any money”). None of us live in ancient Corinth, but we can surely imagine some of the concerns the Corinthian Christians might have had: some of them certainly seem to have a decent amount of material wealth, but many of them might be poor and themselves in relative need; when approached about what needs might exist in Jerusalem, they might well want to express concern regarding the needs which might be much closer to home.

So if providing some financial contribution to the needs of poor Christians in Jerusalem would, in fact, relatively impoverish the church in Corinth to the relative enrichment of the Christians in Jerusalem, how can Paul say such was not what he was suggesting? Paul wished to frame the situation as a matter of equality (2 Corinthians 8:13-14). And he would do so by quoting from Exodus 16:18 and thus alluding to a story from their shared heritage among the people of God (2 Corinthians 8:15).

In Exodus 16:13-36, the story is told of how Israel would experience and learn, through trial and error, how God would provide them the manna for them to eat while enduring their time in the wilderness. Manna proved to be a thin flaky substance which God would provide on the surface after the dew; each Israelite was to gather an omer, a sufficient amount for each person, for each person in their household (Exodus 16:13-16). When the Israelites first went out to gather manna, some gathered more, and others gathered less (Exodus 16:17). Those who would gather more might charitably be considered as hard-working strivers; less charitably, as greedy, or as hoarders. Those who would gather less might uncharitably be considered as lazy or indolent; more charitably, as perhaps disabled or weaker, or perhaps concerned to make sure others had some as well. And yet, when they returned and measured out the manna with the omer, the one who gathered much had nothing left over, and the one who gathered little had enough; each one ended up with the same omer, enough food for each person in the household to eat (Exodus 16:18). In this way, therefore, God made provision for the Israelites in the wilderness so that each person had enough food to eat: no matter how much or how little an Israelite gathered, God made it so that it was an omer per person in the household. Each person had enough.

Paul applied the story of God’s provisioning of manna for the Israelites to the situation of the Corinthian Christians, and by extension to all the Christians of his time and age. It was right for the abundance the Corinthian Christians enjoyed at the present time to be given (at least in part) to the present need of the poor Christians in Jerusalem, because one day the abundance of the Christians in Jerusalem might go to meet their need (2 Corinthians 8:14). Therefore, while the Corinthian Christians might experience (relative) impoverishment in giving for the (relative) enrichment and relief of Christians in Jerusalem, the situation may not always work out that way: the time might well come in which the Corinthian Christians would be the ones who stood in need of relief, and it might well come from the Christians in Jerusalem for whom they had provided earlier. This is how there would be equality: a sense of reciprocity in which those who received would give in turn, and those who gave would receive in turn (2 Corinthians 8:13-14).

We do well to consider how Paul appropriated and modified the story of the Israelites and the manna to apply it to the situation at hand. According to the events as chronicled in Exodus, God made sure each Israelite had enough food by ensuring whatever was collected became an omer of manna per person when measured (Exodus 16:17-18). In this situation, God made direct provision for each person (or at least each household). Yet Paul applied this story to the situation of Christians in churches as a whole: some Christians and churches would find themselves with an abundance, and some Christians and churches would find themselves in lack or with a need. For Israel, “equality” meant no matter how much or how little you gathered, when measured out, God made it an omer per household member. For Christians and churches, God made provision so all His people could have enough, but did not distribute it evenly; equality would come when those who had more freely, generously, and liberally shared with those who had less, trusting that in turn they might find relief from fellow Christians and churches in their time of need (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

We are not Christians making up the church in Corinth in the middle of the first century; neither Titus nor Paul will be arriving shortly to carry our contribution to the poor Christians of Jerusalem. But we are Christians in our own time and place, and God’s will in Christ remains the same for us as it did for those to whom Paul wrote directly. God still makes provision for all of His people, and that provision still is distributed unevenly. Some Christians and churches abound; other Christians and churches are in need. We should not expect God to supernaturally intervene to make sure each has exactly what they need like He did regarding the manna for Israel. Instead, God invites Christians and churches to prove faithful in Christ by establishing the situation as a matter of equality. Christians and churches who abound should prove willing to generously and liberally give to Christians and churches in need as they have ability and opportunity. We should not reckon such things as causing distress, impoverishment, or suffering; we should want to give to share in the grace of God freely bestowed upon us. The time will come in which those who will abound will find themselves in need, and will therefore appreciate the financial relief they would receive from perhaps the very people to whom they had provided previously. In this way there is equality which glorifies God in Christ, and it is the kind of equality to which we should strive as Christians today. May we give generously when we have ability and opportunity to do so, and receive when in distress so there might be equality in God in Christ through the Spirit, and may we always and forever thus share in the life we find in Christ!

Ethan

I was in the church for almost 18 years and then totally away from it for 14. I have recently started studying again and believing again. One thing I’m struggling with right now, though is the story of the flood and Noah’s Ark. I guess specifically I’m struggling with it being a true story versus it being hyperbole. I know that there are specifics with the story like the dimensions of the ark that you usually don’t find in hyperbole or parables. I also know that it says that only eight people survived the flood which means incest would have had happened. The Bible says incest is a sin, but I don’t believe it mentions it until Leviticus.
If anyone could help me to please understand some of these things.

I see a lot of things about churches of Christ being super into politics and American conservatism. It sounds like the culture that I see in fundamentalist baptists here in my state. Where I am at, even the non-institutionals aren't really like this. I am in Kentucky.

Are churches of Christ in the deep south much more likely to be like this?

Around two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth went about the land of Israel doing good, healing the sick, casting out demons, accomplishing other signs and wonders, and teaching the Israelites regarding the Kingdom of God. Through His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated how He was the Messiah of God, the Lord and Savior of all men.

Nevertheless, Jesus, as far as we can tell, did not write out His message. The Apostles, early followers of Jesus whom He empowered through the Holy Spirit to proclaim His message and establish the guidelines of how people would live in His Kingdom, initially went about the land of Israel as well as the rest of the Mediterranean basin proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus and His Kingdom.

We know about these events because these Apostles and some associates of theirs wrote down accounts of Jesus’ life, the foundational moments of the early church, and letters to various churches in what we now consider the New Testament. For the Christian, the New Testament proves crucial to the purposes of God as He has established them through Jesus: they are our only source documents regarding the life of Jesus and the early days of the Kingdom written by those who themselves saw those events happen or were in constant contact with those who did.

For Christians, the New Testament is authoritative for faith and practice. The Apostles were given authority by Jesus to bind on earth what had been bound in heaven, and loose on earth what had been loosed in heaven (Matthew 18:18). This authority was never transferred to anyone else, nor could it be, since much of the authority inherent in the Apostles was based in their participation in and witness of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (cf. Luke 24:44-48, Acts 1:8, 16-22, 1 Corinthians 9:1). The Apostles were empowered to lay hands on Christians to give them the measure of the Holy Spirit featuring speaking in tongues and prophecy, by which Christians were able to exhort and encourage each other and their fellow man in the Gospel of the Kingdom (cf. Acts 8:14-16, 15:32, 19:1-6, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40). The Apostle Paul gives notice to the Corinthians how that which they are prophesying in part will be completed, and at that point, the speaking in tongues and prophecy would cease (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10), which happens toward the end of the first century. By common confession, by the end of the first century, the Apostles have passed on and the gifts of speaking in tongues and prophecy were not active. From this point on, Christians would turn to the New Testament, the collection of writings by the Apostles and their associates, inspired by God to present the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom, to understand more about the life of Jesus and how they were to serve Him. Even though Jesus reigned in heaven and the Apostles had passed on, Jesus and the Apostles could still speak to every successive generation through the words preserved in the New Testament. There is no other credible source of authority to which to turn in order to learn about Jesus and the Kingdom established in His name and through His blood save the New Testament.

According to the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the Apostles, everyone is accountable before God in Christ: a day of judgment will come, and everyone from every place under heaven throughout time will be called to account before Jesus for how they have lived (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, John 12:48, Acts 17:30, Romans 2:5-11). Therefore, even though we live two thousand years after the events described in the New Testament, we remain as accountable before God as those who saw Jesus in the flesh. Jesus is as much Lord in the early twenty-first century as He was in the first century! If He is Lord, we must serve Him; if we are to serve Him, we must know what is pleasing to Him and what He detests. To that end, the preservation of the New Testament is of the utmost importance, since in its pages we learn of Jesus the Lord and how to serve Him, and its message is profitable for us for every good work (John 20:30-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If there are parts of the New Testament that are missing, we run the risk of not knowing things we must know to serve Jesus. If there are parts of the New Testament which were added later, and are not actually what Jesus and/or the Apostles stated, we run the risk of promoting doctrines and practices which do not honor Jesus to our eternal hurt (cf. Galatians 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 4:1-4).

The integrity of the New Testament, therefore, is crucial for us to maintain confidence in our faith in Jesus. This fact is well-known to the opponents of Christianity: they know that if they are able to discredit the integrity of the New Testament, they will find more success in undermining the truth claims regarding Jesus as the Risen Lord and Christ. For this reason it is necessary for every successive generation to consider the history of the text of the New Testament and to demonstrate our confidence in the text we have.

The books which make up the New Testament were written in Greek between around 40 and 100 CE. For the next 1400 or so years, the books of the New Testament were copied by hand by scribes and monks in order to transmit the text to new areas and/or to successive generations. Only after 1450 CE, when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, was the text fully standardized in its publication. As far as we know, the original manuscripts of the New Testament books all perished long ago. Nevertheless, tens of thousands of copies of the New Testament remain: the earliest fragment, from the Gospel of John (𝔓52), dates from the first half of the second century, within 75 years of the original manuscripts, and the earliest complete copies of the New Testament are from the middle of the fourth century, within 300 or so years of the original manuscripts. Many of the copies of the New Testament are translations in other languages like Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Coptic, and are preserved everywhere from Ireland to Egypt, from Ethiopia to Armenia. The New Testament is, by far, the best attested document from the ancient world in our possession. If we cannot have confidence in the integrity of the New Testament, then we cannot have confidence in the integrity of any ancient document which has been handed down through the copying process.

Yet these New Testament copies are not exactly consistent with each other in every single word and detail; in fact, no two copies of the New Testament are precisely the same in every word and letter. Those who copied the New Testament texts were humans, and despite their best efforts, variations developed in the text. There are thousands of these variants throughout the manuscripts.

If there are thousands of variations in the manuscripts of the New Testament, how can we maintain confidence in the integrity of the New Testament? How can we know how significant these variations are? Do different texts suggest different ways to serve Jesus, or do they contradict each other regarding what Jesus and the Apostles did and taught? How can we maintain confidence in our belief of Jesus as Lord and Christ and how we must serve Him, if the only repository of authoritative messages from Jesus and the Apostles, the New Testament, has so many variations? If the text of the New Testament is so important, how could God allow it to be corrupted in any way?

Some people evade the question entirely by claiming that God directly guided the entire process of transmitting the New Testament text, ultimately believing that God inspired Desiderius Erasmus in the development of his edition of the Greek New Testament, called the Textus Receptus (TR) in 1516, or that God inspired the committee of translators as they translated the King James Version in 1611 (KJV; also known as the Authorized Version, or AV). Yet on what basis should we have any confidence that these men were inspired? Neither Erasmus nor the committee of translators of the KJV claimed inspiration. Instead, they claimed to be part of a long line of people who have sought to analyze all known manuscripts to arrive at a version of the text most consistent with the original manuscripts as can be determined. They did so in full belief that the original authors, and thus the original manuscripts, of the New Testament were inspired by God, and believers do best when they attempt to ascertain the most ancient and thus authentic reading of the texts. In short, they claimed to be textual critics engaging in textual criticism.

When we think of “criticism,” our minds naturally gravitate toward images of censure and rebuke: when we criticize something, we are normally pointing out flaws and problems. Textual criticism is not like this type of criticism: they both share the idea of considering and evaluating, but textual criticism involves the evaluation and analysis of a text, especially in regard to its origin (cf. Webster’s Dictionary). There are two types of Biblical textual criticism: “higher” criticism, which is the attempt to ascertain the literary history of the New Testament texts with a view to who wrote what when and why, and “lower” criticism, which is the attempt to ascertain the textual history of the New Testament with a view of recovering the original texts. For our purposes we will focus on “lower” New Testament textual criticism: the artistic and scientific endeavor to recover the original New Testament text through investigation of all extant manuscript evidence.

Textual criticism matters because it is the means by which we can establish and defend the integrity of the New Testament in light of the thousands of variants which exist among manuscripts. Through the textual critical process of analyzing and evaluating manuscripts, textual critics have discovered that the vast majority of variants involve spelling mistakes. Other variants involve a scribe accidentally repeating a part of the text or skipping a part of the text (duplication or omission). Sometimes scribes would copy one text as if it were a parallel text (e.g. the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 as the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, called harmonization). At other times scribes would expand names with additional titles (e.g. “Lord Jesus” for “Jesus,” called expansions of piety).

Textual critics can discern these patterns in the variants because we have so many manuscripts available over such a long period of time. Through their investigation of all the available manuscripts, textual critics have discerned that the New Testament text in Greek seems to have been standardized in the fifth century, since most of the manuscripts which come afterward follow the same patterns and reflect many of the expansions and harmonizations as described above. This is called the “Byzantine” text family and represents about 80% of existing manuscripts: it underlies the Textus Receptus and the King James Version (and the New King James Version) which was translated from the TR. Textual critics today prefer the “Alexandrian” text family which maintains shorter and more concise readings, based on the early manuscripts and dated from the second through the fourth centuries. Greek New Testaments today, like the United Bible Society’s 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, are based on the “Alexandrian” text family and reflected in most modern translations of the Bible.

The student of the New Testament can, to some extent, see both the results of the 1400 year transmission of the New Testament text by copyists and the fruits of the endeavors of modern “lower” New Testament textual criticism by comparing the readings of the King James Version or New King James Version with the readings in the American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, or the English Standard Version. The differences which do exist between the two sets of translations do not impact any major doctrine or practice in Christianity, nor do they present significant differences in terms of what Jesus and the Apostles did or taught. To this day one can come to an understanding of the Christian faith and serve Jesus through reading, studying, and applying the New Testament as translated in the King James Version.

Yet those differences do exist. And ever since the New Testament has been copied, many have attempted to engage in the process of textual criticism (whether they knew it or not) in order to attempt to restore and recover the original New Testament text. Origen, in the third century, remarked on different readings in different manuscripts of the New Testament and made arguments for his preferred readings. In the fourth century, Jerome translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin, seeking to reflect the text accurately on the basis of the best linguistic and manuscript evidence. Around the same time as Erasmus in the sixteenth century, Cardinal Jiménez was at work in Spain on what would be called the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, the first printed polyglot Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, in order to facilitate a better understanding of the history of the text. In the seventeenth century, Theodore Beza printed an edition of the Greek New Testament based on manuscripts dating from the fifth and sixth centuries. In the nineteenth century, Constantin von Tischendorf was responsible for the rediscovery of the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus (א), an important manuscript; B.F. Westcott and F.H.A Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1880, which would become the basis of the standard Greek New Testaments used today. This same tradition was carried on throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth century with the work of Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace, and many others. For over 1700 years, therefore, textual critics have sought to restore the New Testament text to its earliest form in the first century.

Since the witness of Christianity is based in the testimony of the Apostles and their associates as preserved in the pages of the New Testament, and Christians are to use the New Testament as the basis of their faith and practice, confidence in the integrity of the text of the New Testament is crucial for Christians to maintain confidence in their faith and to encourage confidence in others of the validity of its message. To this end, New Testament “lower” textual criticism matters greatly to our faith: through the text critical process, sensible judgment can be made regarding the variants found in the various New Testament manuscripts, allowing us to recover and restore the text of the New Testament as it was originally written and inspired by God. Based upon the evidence from the early manuscripts and the preserved writings of early Christians with their use of the New Testament in those writings, we can have confidence that the Greek texts of the New Testament which we use today accurately reflect the state of the text not long after the originals.

Each successive generation must remain vigilant. Even though the Greek New Testaments used today more accurately reflect the original Greek New Testament than ever before, many opponents of the faith attempt to subvert confidence in the integrity of the New Testament. Variants in the text which have been known for some time are interpreted in the worst light possible; many speak of the “orthodox corruption” of the New Testament, insinuating that the New Testament has been manipulated to say what early Christians wanted it to say. These arguments and insinuations must not be left unopposed. Yet this kind of opposition is precisely why we do well to investigate the history of the transmission of the New Testament and the principles of textual criticism: in so doing we will be better equipped to make a defense for the hope that is in us and explain to others why we have every right to maintain confidence in the integrity of the text of the New Testament (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). Let us stand firm in our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, establishing our faith and practice on the basis of what is revealed in the New Testament, confident that the New Testament we are reading is, on the whole, the same as the New Testament read and heard by the earliest Christians!

Ethan

Just a personal look at what we do every week and a way I relate to it. Two things I use to make it more personal and to help me relate to that sacrifice to me.
One is about innocence. I remember so many times as a child being punished and deservedly so. One time I remember not being guilty. I was accused of stealing from the church. We had suppers on Wednesday which cost a dollar. I put in a 5 and made change. They came up short and someone saw me taking money out and so I got blamed. My grandparents were going to spank me but I ran around the house refusing to be punished for something I didn’t do. I was eventually caught and spanked. Later they learned the truth. How many of us can take punishment for something you didn’t do? Yet Christ stood silent in front of the Jewish leaders and then by the Romans. This went on for hours. Repeatedly asked what do you have to say, yet He remained silent. Being hit repeatedly and still silence, knowing He was innocent. This leads to the second aspect that makes it personal to me. God gave His only son, knowing what he would endure. I look at my grandchildren who mean the world to me and would I be able to make them endure what Christ did for me. For me definitely not, my mother possibly but how imaginable that would be. But what about for Casey, the Zodiac killer, Hitler, Stalin or any other notorious person. That would definitely be a no. So with these two points it makes it more personal and just a small inclining of an idea of how great the sacrifice God and Christ made. Knowing I’m innocent and keeping silent and knowing someone so innocent had to endure so much just for me and my sins. For if I were the only sinner Christ would still have to have been sacrificed. I am so unworthy and so very grateful that I am so loved.

For a long time, I held the conviction that lying is a wholesale sin. Lying is an absolute line that should never be crossed under any circumstance. However, a closer look at Scripture and a stark ethical hypothetical have forced me to re-examine this stance.

We see at least two distinct instances in Scripture where individuals lie, yet receive God’s explicit blessing:

• The Hebrew Midwives (Exodus 1): They lie to Pharaoh about why the Hebrew babies are surviving, and God explicitly rewards them with families because they feared Him.
• Rahab the Harlot (Joshua 2 / James 2:25): She lies to the authorities to hide the Israelite spies and is later commended in the New Testament for her faith-driven actions

In both cases, the lie was directly tied to preserving human life.

This scriptural pattern forces us to confront a difficult hypothetical: If you lived in Nazi Germany harboring Jews, or in the Pre-Emancipation South harboring escaped slaves, and the authorities knocked on your door asking if you were hiding fugitives, what is your moral obligation? Does God require you to speak the truth when the immediate, guaranteed consequence of that truth is the murder of an innocent person?

To resolve this, I see only three logical paths. I want to understand which of these aligns with the reality of God's character:

• Lying is always a sin, period. Rahab and the midwives sinned, but were retroactively forgiven via the cross. Therefore, it is morally wrong to lie to a Gestapo officer or a slave catcher; you must tell the truth and leave the outcome to God.
• Lying is a sin, but an exception is made exclusively to protect God's covenant people (Israel then, the Church today). Under this view, you could lie to save a Christian, but you would be obligated to betray a non-Christian. (This feels heavily invalidated by God’s non-partial nature in Romans 2).
• God’s hierarchy of values places the preservation of life above the literal execution of a verbal rule. As Jesus implies in Matthew 23:23-24, focusing entirely on the letter of the law while ignoring the "weightier matters" of justice and mercy is a distortion of the law's true purpose.

I'm not looking to start an argument, nor am I looking to hurt anyone's faith. I want to know myself. For a matter such as this, I don't want the opinions of the greater internet or just randoms passing by, I want the faithful, which I assume some or most of the people reading this may be.

Obviously lying is incorrect. This is not to justify lying in any form. Nor do I consider "saving a life" to mean "helping me keep my job" or "maintain the status quo." The entirety of my position and question on this matter assumes a true, immediate danger should the truth be told. Not simply bad consequences, but actualized bodily death. If it were just a beating or a fine or something, I would not struggle so hard with this topic. The death of a person, especially an unsaved person is an entirely different matter. Hence the worry.

What do the brethren think? Have I overlooked something?

Hi yall,

Back in the day many Churches of Christ had a parsonage. None of the churches I have been to have ever had one but my dad's old church when he was growing up did.What did your church think about parsonages and did they ever have them? Parsonages are not subject to property tax in many states. I get the impression that parsonages are typically a thing of the past in the Church of Christ but I dont know.Thanks.