I was raised a lot less radical. You know, "Those stories about miracles happening today are all lies...", "God doesn't work that way any more...", "Satan is doing the miracles to deceive...", and so on. I didn't have any reason to question it because I wasn't interested in knowing God - my affections were set on the wrong things anyway. Of course, I now regret that wasted part of my youth. Nevertheless, I came to the point where I wanted to submit to God before it was too late. It was about that time that I was challenged by a couple of fellow-workers (Patrick Kelly and Dave Bement) affiliated with the Church of Christ denomination, if I may call it that.

     Their beliefs were even more conservative than what I believed, and I saw we couldn't both be right. I also decided very strongly I didn't want to be on the wrong side of the issues. But how to find out who was right? As I thought about it, I came to these conclusions:

• If there is a God (& I knew there is), His message to us is the Bible and He would keep it accurate
  
• Bible college and seminary training wasn't bringing everyone into agreement about what the Bible says, so why should I have to go to them?
  
• The teachings of the Bible were only going to be obsolete IF the Bible itself says they are obsolete
  
• I would have to see if the Bible was able to be understood, and if so I need to keep my ego from getting in the way and change my beliefs to fit what the Bible teaches.

     The first step for me after that was to grab some Greek and English Bible study aids (NOT commentaries, mind you) and see if I could ascertain with absolute certainty whether some of the ideas of these two friends were right. It took a few hours, but I was thrilled to find absolute Scriptural support for a doctrinal stance on the issues. I won't say who was right in that case, but my point is that I could go back to the Scripture in Greek and English and PROVE a position without resorting to any high-powered, confusing theologic reasoning. I still believe that way - and don't know of a single Christian denomination who I trust over this Bible study method. Many people try to temper certain Bible teachings with historical tidbits, but they do so because they are offended with the obvious meaning of the text, rather than having found a Scriptural deficiency that requires us to understand it's teaching in light of historical background from some other (human-authored) source. I believe that all we need to understand the Bible is IN the Bible. Period. Our problem is that we take offense at what would otherwise be obvious, clear instructions. No other reason.

     Some people think there is Scriptural evidence to explain away some teachings like women's silence in church. But, "truth" is consistent with itself and with other "truth", or else it can't be "truth". This means that the Bible can never have anything in it that is inconsistent with that teaching. In the case of the apparent conflict between women's "silence in the churches" and "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth", we must see that I Corinthians 11:17 begins addressing church service behavior. The verses prior to that (v.5) are not intended for an "in church only" understanding. Look for yourself in a concordance at how many times "...in the church[es]..." and "...come together..." are found from I Cor. 11:17 until the end of chapter 14 compared with the rest of the book of I Corinthians. It's all very simple if you just accept what God is saying. Don't add or subtract from it.

     So, please don't try to pin me down to a particular denomination. Do you remember that radical children's song, "...I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E"?