Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 25, 1999 at 12:13:20 {yaNwUlwC5chxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: The Greater Issue posted by AP on November 25, 1999 at 07:56:54:
AP
I agree pretty much with your analysis and will add that, to some extent, what you have proposed is ideal Christian leadership.
Christian leadership should teach how to follow Jesus by relying entirely upon scriptural directions without imposing personal opinions. In essence it teaches what the Bible says rather than an interpretation of the Bible. In that case Christian leadership will entrench itself in that which the Bible unquestionably teaches and will share ideas on the rest without imposing those ideas.
However, the question of what is unquestionable occurs at precisely the same intersection of interpretation. What is unquestionable to one is questionable to another reading the same text. That is where defense or evidence of a claim/view is critical. In the end, ideal Christian leadership will be exactly what Jesus manifested, adherence to unquestionable Bible teachings by establishing which ones are unquestionable.
Naturally establishing unquestionable Bible teachings requires scrutiny. Ability to scrutinize varies from person to person. Some can accept an idea and follow it. Others can accept and relate an idea but cannot establish it on their own. Yet others can accept, relate and establish an idea if called upon to do so. That is where teachers are important and why teachers are held more accountable by God. Inherent to that accountability is more than whether unquestionable teachings are being taught. Also is the matter of whether things beyond the unquestionable are being taught as such. In that case a teacher has crossed the line of (a) teaching the unquestionable and sharing the rest to (b) teaching the unquestionable and their own opinions also as unquestionable.
I think sometimes it may be hard to differentiate between the unquestionable and our opinion of what is unquestionable, because, after all, each of us makes decisions based upon our opinions. In that case what becomes very important is whether teaching is offered in genuineness. That is, is that taught as unquestionable genuinely taught so or is unestablished opinion mixed in for ulterior motives? Willingness to alter a teaching manifest genuineness and humility, both of which are critical to those submitting to the leadership in question as is individual effort of scrutiny.
As for individual teachings (i.e., blood transfusions), it is necessary to scrutinize each one so that 1) what is unquestionable can be determined and taught, and 2) what is questionable can be shared as such.
There is much more to share on this issue (and that about the KM insert) but right now I am tired. Perhaps later I can address more or responded to whatever else you have to say. I appreciate all that you are doing for our brotherhood and our neighbors. Your willingness to openly and decorously discuss issues is refreshing!
Friend