expediency

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
phelps
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

expediency

Post by phelps » Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:55 pm

I have posted a couple of formums with some great feedback and I have felt that what I am trying to look at is things that are expedient and how the church differs in determining what is expedient. I have been studying and have come to understand this. God means what he means. If he says it do it. If it is specific, don't change it. If it is generic then he gives us freedom to follow that command by any means as long as it does not go against any other command he has given.

for instance lets look at the great commision.

We are told to go, teach, preach,baptize, and make discpiles.

Lets look at go. Does God care how we go as long as we go? If we only go by approved examples and inference, then we could only walk, ride mule/camel, or go by boat. Planes, trains, and automobiles would then be unauthorized and therefore sinful. But that is not expediant.

We are all told to teach. Men and women belivers both. If we go by approved by examples then the women could teach anyone but the men because of Paul's instructins to Timothy for women not upsurb the authrity of the man.

Baptize. If the King James writers had translated this right the frist time it would be immerse. No way around it. You must be immersed in water.

The reasoning for this is there seems to be a difference in what is authorized compared to what is not athorized.

It seems when we look at silence a few names seem to arise.

Uzza
Arron's sons.

lets look at were the authority is at in these instances.

Uzza- would not have died had the ark been carried right in the first place. Sure he tried to do the noble thing and stop the ark from falling but was wrong to do so. If the hight priests had been carring the ark like they were supposed to have he would not have reached out to touch it and therefore would have lived another day.

Arron's sons used unauthorized fire and there fore God killed them. They did not get the fire from where God told them to. I don't know where they got their fire from, but we know where they didn't get it.

I will not disagree that we all need to stand on the specific commands and follow them to the letter. I think that on items that are optional we need to find a way to unite and not try to bind them on each other. I would not try and bind a youth group (this is optional in the realm of teaching) and I hope some one else would not try and bind partaking of the fruit of the vine out of one cup.

Look at somethings optional we as a church use.

Buildings
pews
song books
over head projectors
powerpoint slide shows
sunday bible school
fellowship halls
classrooms
other printed material
radio
T.V.


this is just a few things that are optional that we use as aids. A means to an end. After my study I am confident that when I worship with the congregation at my home church God is glorified. I see it in work we do. I see that he is working with and blessing us. I want to thank those who have responded to my eariler posts and doing so in a loving way.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

but expediency first requires generic authority

Post by m273p15c » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:30 am

Hello phelps,

Expediency is indeed an important topic for any serious study of Bible hermeneutics. In short, it is just a big word that refers to an area of judgment in the realm of generic authority. I believe your example regarding the Great Commission is quite apropos.
phelps wrote:If it is generic then he gives us freedom to follow that command by any means as long as it does not go against any other command he has given.

for instance lets look at the great commision.

We are told to go, teach, preach,baptize, and make discpiles.

Lets look at go. Does God care how we go as long as we go? If we only go by approved examples and inference, then we could only walk, ride mule/camel, or go by boat. Planes, trains, and automobiles would then be unauthorized and therefore sinful. But that is not expediant.
I would agree with most of what you said, except I am leery of this statement:
phelps wrote:If it is generic then he gives us freedom to follow that command by any means as long as it does not go against any other command he has given.
Do you believe authority only consists of commands? Do you not believe that examples and inferences are part of establishing Bible authority? If not, please let us go back to our discussion here...

The next statement seems to support the notion that you are disregarding examples:
phelps wrote:We are all told to teach. Men and women belivers both. If we go by approved by examples then the women could teach anyone but the men because of Paul's instructins to Timothy for women not upsurb the authrity of the man.
Hopefully, I have misunderstood you.

Again, I would agree with much of the following statement, but something seems to lurk beneath:
phelps wrote:I will not disagree that we all need to stand on the specific commands and follow them to the letter. I think that on items that are optional we need to find a way to unite and not try to bind them on each other. I would not try and bind a youth group (this is optional in the realm of teaching) and I hope some one else would not try and bind partaking of the fruit of the vine out of one cup.
I am concerned as to how you determine something is "optional". I agree that truly optional items, matters of judgment, should not be used as a basis of determining fellowship (Romans 14); however, you seem to place some items into this realm of judgment, which I believe are contrary to God's pattern for the church, as outlined in Scripture:
phelps wrote:Look at somethings optional we as a church use.

Buildings
pews
song books
over head projectors
powerpoint slide shows
sunday bible school
fellowship halls
classrooms
other printed material
radio
T.V.
How are "fellowship halls" optional? Yes, some of the other items are expedient, or optional:

The church is commanded to assemble (Hebrews 10:24-25). Therefore, they must necessarily have some place to worship. Where they worship is optional, because it is never specified in Scripture. Consequently, buildings and other things that accomodate assembly for worship fall under expediency, as you have described. They are just one way to carry out God's command for the church.

Similarly, the church is commanded to edify its own (Ephesians 4:11-16). Classrooms and related literature is just one, optional, way to carry out this directive. How the church teaches contains many options, but that they teach, who teaches, and what they teach are not optional (Ephesians 4:11-16; I Timothy 2:11-15; Romans 1:16; II Timothy 3:16-17).

However, where is the church ever given a social mission, which would be required to authorize fellowship halls? Furthermore, I Corinthians 11:17-34, which we examined elsewhere, seems to strictly forbid such activity in the assembly, strictly relegating it to the realm of individual activity, like the home. Where is a generic command given to the church to engage in social activities, as a church (not precluding individuals)?

Fellowship halls, youth groups, and other church sponsored social activities would only be expedient, if the Scriptures contained some directive for the church to be a social organization or contain a social mission. Instead, we see just the opposite. For starters, please look up "fellowship" in any concordance. Can you find any reference where the word is used in a social setting?
phelps wrote:this is just a few things that are optional that we use as aids. A means to an end.
But, it seems you have assumed that some "ends" are justified, with which some would disagree. The "means" are not really the point of discussion. It is the "ends" that you are seeking that is the point of disagreement, at least for some of your items.
phelps wrote:After my study I am confident that when I worship with the congregation at my home church God is glorified. I see it in work we do. I see that he is working with and blessing us.
I pray that you are not using this as any form of argument to assure yourself. I cannot tell you how many people of wildly varying faiths point to their progress, growth, and positive spirit as proof to their validity and correctness. Would you fellowship with a Mormon, Muslim, or Jehovah's Witness? Yet, many of the people I have met from these systems of faith would likewise point to their growth as a testament to God's favor.

Just keep in mind that sometimes the wicked prosper, and the righteous are afflicted. You cannot discern the favor of God based off the church's prosperity (Ecclesiastes 8:16-9:2). Otherwise, Job would have been the most wicked man ever (Job 1-2), and Noah would have been the most inaccurate preacher ever (Genesis 6:5-13; II Peter 2:5), and God would have been the greatest failure ever (Luke 13:23-24). Short-term success measures nothing. Somethings are only revealed in the light of eternity. The Scriptures are the only true witness we have for now (II Timothy 3:16-17; 2:15).
phelps wrote:I want to thank those who have responded to my eariler posts and doing so in a loving way.
Your charity is greatly appreciated. I pray we will have continued opportunity to study God's Word together on these important questions in a frank, honest, and loving way.

phelps
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Post by phelps » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:04 am

Sorry it has taken me so long to write back.

Let me clarify something that I wrote.
phelps wrote:If it is generic then he gives us freedom to follow that command by any means as long as it does not go against any other command he has given.

Example. We are all commanded to teach. Men and women. Women can teach children and other women. It is when a woman leads a class with men in it, that it goes against what we are commanded. There fore women are free to teach unless men are present.
On that you asked me if I disregarded examples and I don't. I was just showing what I meant in the previous statement.

You asked me
m273p15c wrote:Do you believe authority only consists of commands? Do you not believe that examples and inferences are part of establishing Bible authority?
Yes I do. On that discussion I was trying to get someone else's take on the subject. I was going for clarity.
m273p15c wrote:I am concerned as to how you determine something is "optional". I agree that truly optional items, matters of judgment, should not be used as a basis of determining fellowship (Romans 14); however, you seem to place some items into this realm of judgment, which I believe are contrary to God's pattern for the church, as outlined in Scripture:
phelps wrote:Look at somethings optional we as a church use.

Buildings
pews
song books
over head projectors
powerpoint slide shows
sunday bible school
fellowship halls
classrooms
other printed material
radio
T.V.
How are "fellowship halls" optional? Yes, some of the other items are expedient, or optional
Did the church not meet daily to break bread and fellowship with each other? The greek for breaking bread means to 1)partake of the Lord's Supper 2) eat a meal.

I would never press that it is a must for every congregation to have a fellowship hall, it is just not an issue of salvation. I was just using it as an example.
m273p15c wrote:However, where is the church ever given a social mission, which would be required to authorize fellowship halls? Furthermore, I Corinthians 11:17-34, which we examined elsewhere, seems to strictly forbid such activity in the assembly, strictly relegating it to the realm of individual activity, like the home. Where is a generic command given to the church to engage in social activities, as a church (not precluding individuals)?
Wasn't the church being social by meeting every day? Where did they worship when they were being chased down? In their own homes or caves.

Paul wrote that "everything is permissible, but not benificial, or constructive, and he would not be mastered by anything." I know this is paraphrasing a little, but what I am trying to say is on terms of expediancy and determinging if somethig is authorized, should we see if it is beneficial, if it edifies, and it does not gain any mastery over us"

as always I look forward to your response. I do enjoy our discussions. I like that we can agree/disagree and still keep a Christ-like attitude toward each other.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:14 pm

phelps wrote:On that you asked me if I disregarded examples and I don't. I was just showing what I meant in the previous statement.
My apologies. I misunderstood what you said previously. I thought you were hinting that examples were not binding. After rereading your posts, I see my error now. Again, my apologies.

Now, discussion regarding whether or not fellowship halls and youth groups are permissible, I would like to resume on the thread already devoted to the "social gospel". ...

However, I think this statement is still relevant to this thread:
phelps wrote:Paul wrote that "everything is permissible, but not benificial, or constructive, and he would not be mastered by anything." I know this is paraphrasing a little, but what I am trying to say is on terms of expediancy and determinging if somethig is authorized, should we see if it is beneficial, if it edifies, and it does not gain any mastery over us"
You may not be advocating the following idea, but it is common to use "expediency" as a means of "trumping" all other forms of authority. In other words, if one judges something to be "beneficial", then it does not matter what other hermeneutics mandate - at least this is advocated by some. This makes our subjective view of "expediency" the primary rule, operating above all other hermeneutics. Instead, it should be followed as a secondary rule in matters of Scriptural indifference, where multiple options are permitted within the scope of generic authority.

The primary problem with this line of reason is that it presumes my reasoning is superior to God's. It provides a "mechanism" for disregarding God's revelation and following whatever we think is "beneficial". Too many times, studies with others have been stonewalled by the reasoning, "As long as I do it for the glory of God, it does not matter what the Scriptures say," or "The church is growing, so it must be right!". These are dangerous hermeneutics because they make our subjective, temporal evaluation the final arbiter.

By faith, we first accept God's revelation and will. Afterwards, we are free to decide according to expediency, but restricted within the boundaries outlined by all other hermeneutics (command, approved example, necessary inference, etc.). Otherwise, chaos ensues, and God's Word is practically dismissed outright.

Such thinking is refuted by the examples of Uzzah, Nadab and Abihu, King Saul, et al.

Was this your question? Or, did I misunderstand you again. :-D If so, we should take a closer look at Paul's statements in I Corinthians 6:12; 10:23.

...

I believe the bottom line, to me, is that expediency can only be used to authorize a matter, if it is first generally authorized. Determining that something is "beneficial" or "expedient" does no good, if there is no generic authority in the first place. Otherwise, we are getting the cart before the horse. Our reasoning is out of order. We should reason:
  1. God has generically authorized some course of action
  2. There are multiple ways to satisfy that course of action
  3. I think this one way of step#2 is best, and it does not violate any other specific aspect of the pattern.
  4. Therefore, it is authorized.
Instead of:
  1. I think this one way is best, and it does not violate any other specific aspect of the pattern.
  2. There are multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal.
  3. Therefore, it must be generically authorized.
Generic authority must be established first, before there can be multiple ways of satisfying the generic matter. Generic authority does not necessarily follow, because we first consider something to be "expedient" or "beneficial".
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

phelps
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Post by phelps » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:08 pm

I have often told my parents and my wife my brain acts faster than my mouth or in this case my fingers.
m273p15c wrote:You may not be advocating the following idea, but it is common to use "expediency" as a means of "trumping" all other forms of authority. In other words, if one judges something to be "beneficial", then it does not matter what other hermeneutics mandate - at least this is advocated by some. This makes our subjective view of "expediency" the primary rule, operating above all other hermeneutics. Instead, it should be followed as a secondary rule in matters of Scriptural indifference, where multiple options are permitted within the scope of generic authority.

The primary problem with this line of reason is that it presumes my reasoning is superior to God's. It provides a "mechanism" for disregarding God's revelation and following whatever we think is "beneficial". Too many times, studies with others have been stonewalled by the reasoning, "As long as I do it for the glory of God, it does not matter what the Scriptures say," or "The church is growing, so it must be right!". These are dangerous hermeneutics because they make our subjective, temporal evaluation the final arbiter.

By faith, we first accept God's revelation and will. Afterwards, we are free to decide according to expediency, but restricted within the boundaries outlined by all other hermeneutics (command, approved example, necessary inference, etc.). Otherwise, chaos ensues, and God's Word is practically dismissed outright.
I am not advocating God's word is not better than my reasoning. I am sorry if it came across that way. I like what you wrote here:
m273p15c wrote:I believe the bottom line, to me, is that expediency can only be used to authorize a matter, if it is first generally authorized. Determining that something is "beneficial" or "expedient" does no good, if there is no generic authority in the first place. Otherwise, we are getting the cart before the horse. Our reasoning is out of order. We should reason:
  1. God has generically authorized some course of action
  2. There are multiple ways to satisfy that course of action
  3. I think this one way of step#2 is best, and it does not violate any other specific aspect of the pattern.
  4. Therefore, it is authorized.
What I meant was that if a generic command was given, then we look how to act on that command. As long as I am not disobeying any other specific command given, then an item is expedient.

In looking at patterns in authority, I will never argue that when God says something specifically that he does not mean it. In looking at examples of Uzzah, Nadab and Abihu, King Saul, et al. Each person was given a specific command and did not follow through God's word. I have always felt sorry for Uzzah. Had David followed the commands on how the ark of the covanent should be carried, Uzzah would have never touched it.

I will never argue any specific command. As you are aware of how I want unity in the church, I belive if dialouge can be made on disagreements on how each acts on generic commands in brotherly love then we are one step closer. That is why I have enjoyed our discussions. I see each of us a seekers of God's will and each wanting to obey him and help sow seeds for the growth of his kingdom.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

sounds good to me

Post by m273p15c » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:44 pm

very good - I think we are on the same page here :-)
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Post Reply