Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

Campbell challenges the assumption that joining in prayer, praise, or the Lord’s Supper necessarily signals “full and entire approval of all their views”; how would your approach to shared worship change if you adopted his distinction between approving *the act* versus endorsing *everything* about the group?

Another way to ask: Campbell says praying, singing, or taking the Lord’s Supper with a group doesn’t mean you approve of everything they believe. How would your view of shared worship change if you separated joining the act from endorsing the whole group?

Direct Answer You could participate in shared worship with other believers more freely, without feeling you are endorsing every doctrine and practice of their church—while still retaining the right (and responsibility) to “praise” what is good and “not praise” what is wrong.

Support from Transcript:

Campbell says the critic assumes “every act…express[es] full and entire approval of everything among them.”
Campbell counters: “I consider every act as only expressing approval of the thing represented and of them insofar as they conform to it.”
He defines his intent: he will unite in “prayer, praise, or breaking bread…if they confessed the one lord, the one faith, the one hope, and the one baptism,” and are morally consistent.
He adds a safeguard: there are congregations and individuals “with whom I would not unite in one single act,” showing this is not careless openness.
He models honest engagement: “declare…as Paul did…things in which I praise them, and…do not praise them.”

Discussion Follow-ups What shared acts of worship (prayer meetings, singing, the Table) have you treated as “automatic endorsement”? How might adopting Campbell’s distinction change your conscience and your relationships?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10