Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

Have you gone to the worship services of various churches? There is an amazing variety among them. In fact, there is so much variety that one wonders how so many practices could come from people supposedly following the same book, the Bible. The obvious fact is that they do not follow the simple New Testament pattern for worship. Instead, they add to and subtract from that biblical pattern to suit their own desires.

Examples of denominational “worship” seem to be reaching a new high in lows these days. We all remember the denominational group in California several years ago that added a drive-in window for all of their members who could not spend the time to come in for the whole service. It was a kind of “Jiffy-Prayer” booth. So many gimmicks have come down the line that it is impossible to list or even remember all of them.

A few weeks ago, however, I was intrigued by the scheme of a group who came to the Living Stones church here in Alvin, Texas. Several fellows of muscular build, called “the Power Team,” did karate chops pulverizing huge blocks of ice in “worship” to God. I thought surely that was the worst it could get – until last Sunday. On that Super Bowl Sunday, the Second Baptist Church in Houston had services in the gymnasium where they erected a 20-foot TV screen to watch the football game. During the whole thing, the deacons sold nachos, hot dogs, popcorn, and cokes while young women dressed as cheerleaders pranced around and lead cheers. At halftime the preacher, called the “headlines man” for the evening, gave his address. I am certain all were edified. Is this “worship” as God intended it?

Let’s look at what the New Testament says about the worship of the church. In Colossians 3:17, we are reminded that we need authority for whatever we do, either in word or in deed. Let us see what that church in the New Testament did and what they were instructed to do. In this way we can determine the full pattern regarding worship as God gave it by the inspired writers.

First, we see that the New Testament church engaged in prayer to worship God. Jesus taught the disciples that prayer was an act of worship and reverence to God (Matt. 6:9). In Colossians 4:24, the church at Colossae is enjoined to pray. The church in the book of Acts is seen praying (Acts 2:42).

Second, we see the preaching and teaching of God’s word in worship. Acts 2:42 says that the early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13 makes it clear that the apostles’ teaching is in fact the word of God. When men speak “the oracles of God,” it is so “God may be glorified” (1 Pet. 4:11).

Third, we see Christians in the first century singing praises to God. They were commanded to speak “one to another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). Nine times in the New Testament we find commands to or examples of singing in worship to God.

Fourth, we find New Testament Christians gathering on the first day of every week to partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). This was in fulfillment of the command given by Christ on the night of his betrayal (Matt. 26:26-29). Paul makes clear the place and manner of partaking the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-34).

Fifth, we mad of first century Christians giving of their means upon the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2). Paul affirms that this is an act of worship in 2 Corinthians 8:5. Christians gave to meet the needs God authorized the church as a unit to discharge, but they gave only on the first day of the week.

When we have noticed those five acts of worship, we have covered completely what the New Testament calls “worship.” No ice smashing, nacho selling, cheerleader prancing, TV watching and so on – just things that focus on adoration of the God of heaven.

The term “worship” in our New Testament is defined as “to make obeisance” or “do reverence to.” It is said to denote “an act of homage or reverence.” Praying to God does that. Singing praises does that. Preaching God’s word does that. Thinking upon Christ’s death in the Lord’s supper does that. So does contributing out of love for God and his cause.

Where in the world did people get the idea that these other things give homage and reverence to God? They may be things in which men like to engage, but “worship” is to please God! We please God by doing the things he says we ought to do.

Brethren, we need to be very cautious about these principles, too. There is always some well intentioned soul who comes along and decides that we could add “enthusiasm” into our services by various means. What lies behind the well intentioned, but often errant suggestion that follows is a basic misunderstanding about the nature of worship. Worship is to please God! The uplifting we derive from it ought to be a by-product of the fact that God is praised, not the other way around. I hear a multitude of brethren talking about the main purpose of worship being the energizing of ourselves and our brethren. That concept is nothing short of sectarian thinking and will lead all who follow it into the same practices we see in the denominational world! The denominations structure their services around what will excite them the most. The Christian seeks to worship, adore, and praise the Almighty God of heaven and receives joy as a by product of his service to God.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 195-196
April 7, 1988

By Wayne S. Walker

The word of God contains many excellent examples of faith and righteousness – consider, for example, the lives of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, and Paul, as well as the perfect life of Jesus Christ. The Bible also pictures several negative examples – illustrations of what God does not want us to be or do – like Cain, King Saul, Bar-Jesus, etc. However, many of the people who are described in the Bible are like most of us – a mixture of good and bad. One such individual was Lot. We are introduced to Lot in Genesis 11:27. “This is the genealogy of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran begot Lot.” Haran died, and when Abraham departed for Canaan as God commanded him, he took his nephew Lot with him.

I. Lot’s bad example can be seen in Genesis 13. Because of strife between the herd men of Abraham and Lot, Abraham suggested a separation. Since the plain of Jordan was well watered, Lot chose it, leaving Abraham with the less productive hill country. Here we see Lot’s greed and selfishness. His choice was seemingly based only on monetary considerations, rather than on any feeling of respect for his uncle or concern for how his decision might affect himself and his family. Too many men today are making moves with the company to places where there are no faithful congregations solely on the basis of getting a promotion or receiving more money instead of the spiritual needs of their wives and children.

We are told that Lot “pitched his tent even as far as Sodom. But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD” (Gen. 13:12-13). In fact, the city’s wickedness was so manifest that God determined to destroy it. And evidently ten righteous people could not be found there to spare it (Gen. 18:16-23). The overthrow of Sodom is used throughout the Bible as an illustration of God’s punishment of sin (Deut. 12:23; Jude 7). Even Jesus used it as an example of wickedness (Matt. 10:15; 11: 23-24). Today, the term “sodomite” is still a synonym for homosexual (Deut. 23:17). And the Bible specifically teaches that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).

The result of this choice upon Lot and his family is clearly seen in Genesis 19 by the evil influence that it had upon them. His own sense of values had become warped enough that he apparently thought offering his two virgin daughters for fornication was preferable to allowing his guests to be seized for homosexuality (v. 8). And even though he knew that the city was to be destroyed, “he lingered” so that the angels had to take hold of his hand and lead him out of the city (v. 16). His sons-in-law, and apparently his married daughters, thought he was a fool for trying to convince them to flee (v. 14). His wife was so attached to her life in Sodom that while fleeing she took one last, longing look in direction violation to God’s command and was turned into a pillar of salt (vv. 17, 26; cf. Lk. 17:32). And Lot’s unmarried daughters were so corrupt that they got their father drunk and enticed him to commit incest so that they could have children (vv. 30-38). What a sad story.

II. Yet, as we turn to the New Testament, we find that Lot had some redeeming qualities. He is, in 2 Peter 2:7-8, referred to as “righteous Lot, who was oppressed with the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).” If we did not have this statement in the New Testament, we would probably not be left with this impression of Lot based upon the picture we are given in Genesis. Still, even in Genesis 19, we can see glimmers of the righteous character of this man in spite of his weaknesses and mistakes.

He knew enough about the condition of the city to recognize a clear danger for his visitors if they stayed in the street (vv. 23). Though living in Sodom, he did not participate in nor even condone the conduct of the Sodomites, pleading with them, “Do not do so wickedly” (v. 7). It seems that he had even been warning the men of Sodom concerning their evil – “he keeps acting as a judge” (v. 9, NKJV). Once he saw that he had been wrong, he tried to save others, though he was unsuccessful with his sons-in-law (vv. 12-14). And in the end, whatever else may be said of him, Lot heeded the instructions of the angels to flee, and thus saved himself from the destruction of Sodom (vv. 15-22).

III. Let us look at some applications for us today that we can make from the account of Lot. We must exercise our senses so that we are able to recognize the danger of sin and to learn right from wrong (Heb. 5:14) Like Lot, we live in a sinful environment and must also torment our souls that we do not allow our consciences to become seared (1 Tim. 4:2). This can occur by becoming so familiar with evil that we grow calloused to it. The great English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) wrote in his Essay on Man,

Vice is a monster of so frightful men,

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

May we, who are to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and be God’s peculiar people, never allow this to happen to us.

We should never enter into any evil relationships, especially those that would make it appear that we are condoning that which is wicked, and most certainly those that would pull us into participating in sinful activities. “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. . . . Come out from among them and be separate” (2 Cor. 6:14-17). Yes, we must live and work with the people of this world, else we could never have an influence for good upon them. But let us be careful as to who is influencing whom. “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Cor. 15:33). We need to watch the kind of friends and associates we have. You cannot throw one good apple into a barrel of rotten ones and expect the good one to make the others better. Remember that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (Jas. 4:4).

It is most important that we not allow our family to be influenced for evil. Parents have a spiritual as well as a material responsibility for their children. “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Lot put his family in a situation that contributed to their downfall. You would not allow your child to play in the middle of a busy street because of the evident danger to his physical well-being. Yet, many parents will let their children choose friends, go places, and do things that are clearly detrimental to their spiritual health without much effort to warn or guide them. Lot did save himself, but lost his family.

We have an obligation to warn and try to save others however bad the situation may appear. Lot was not able to convince his sons-in-law to escape, but at least he made the attempt. In our day, it is true, there do not seem to be too many people who are willing to hear and respond to the gospel. But how many people are we contacting in an effort to save their souls? In Ezekiel 3:17-21 the watchman was told that when the enemy attacked and he gave no warning to the people, their blood would be on his head. However, when he gave the warning, even if the people refused to act and were destroyed, he would have delivered his own soul. Will there be any blood on our heads in the day of judgment? Remember, Lot tried.

Finally, whatever else may happen, it is necessary for us to heed and obey God’s word. Lot made some bad decisions along the way, but when the angels told him to get out of the city, he got out. He saved himself. In Acts 2:40 Peter told the Jews on Pentecost to save themselves from that perverse generation. How could they do this? By obeying the instructions given back in v. 38. Then in Philippians 2:12, Paul wrote to the Philippian saints and said, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” This was possible because they had “always obeyed,” not only in Paul’s presence but also in his absence. The only way that we can have eternal salvation is by obeying him who himself obeyed God’s plan to bring about that salvation (Heb. 5:8-9).

Conclusion

Surely we can all see that Lot made some serious mistakes in his life and suffered the consequences. In these areas, his example serves to warn us not to make the same mistakes in our lives as well. Yet, Lot also exhibited some characteristics by which he was able to make the best of a bad situation and eventually overcome his mistakes, at least in saving himself. In these, we need to emulate his example and develop these same characteristics so that we might live as God would have us to live in this present evil world and ultimately overcome. Lot lived as we do, facing many of the same choices and decisions that we must make. May we consider the account of his life and learn from his example.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 198-199
April 7, 1988

By Larry Ray Hafley

The article by Thomas Sowell which follows below is, to use the vernacular of the day, “Right on.” Mr. Sowell “is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace in Stanford, California.”

Personal accountability, hence, personal responsibility, is lacking, but is much needed in the world today as Mr. Sowell clearly affirms. Some Christians, perhaps, would like to be obscured in the church and become blurred in an institution in order to dismiss, or at least diminish, their own individual duty. It cannot be done, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5: 10). Now, Mr. Sowell’s article:

More epidemics are appearing now than in the ages of the great plagues. A recent cover story in Newsweek magazine referred to an “epidemic” of drug use among young people. Before that, the media was sounding the alarm about “epidemics” of teenage pregnancy, of alcoholism, and of suicides, among other things.

When I was growing up, we were taught to stay away from crowded places during an epidemic, because someone might sneeze on you and you would come down with influenza or something. It is hard to see how you are going to come down with drug addiction – much less pregnancy – that way.

Reckless use of the word “epidemic” is more than just media hype debasing the language. Like most clever uses of words, it camouflages a hidden agenda. Personal responsibility is anathema to deep thinkers, for that would undermine their role as rescuers of the “victims” of society.

If everything is an “epidemic, then we have done an end run around personal responsibility and can now break into the clear with more government programs – which means more money, power and visibility for the rescuers. It is an old script, but the anointed keep using it, changing a few words here and there to keep on bamboozling the public.

Personal responsibility can be gotten rid of in many ways. Comedian Flip Wilson says, “The devil made me do it.” Deep thinkers say “society” made people do it. That means the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Flip Wilson is much funnier and not nearly as costly.

There are people with some unusual names. Just among economists, there are Orley Ashenfetter, Axel Leijonhufvud (“pronounced just the way it’s spelled,” he says) and Pedro Schwartz. But I have never met anybody named “society.” Yet, if you believe the deep thinkers, this is who is making everybody do everything.

Everyone is learning how to cop out of personal responsibility by blaming “society.” From teenagers in high school to hardened felons in prison, they can tell you how the “traumas” they were put through by “society” caused everything from failing grades to armed robbery. People who would rather mooch than work used to be called bums, but now they are homeless “victims” of “society.” You are supposed to feel guilty because more money is not being taken out of your paycheck to support them in the manner to which they would like to become accustomed.

The decline of personal responsibility has been accompanied by a rise in social responsibility by people who had nothing to do with the individual decisions that brought on disaster. Along with this has come an increased role for people skilled at creating guilt.

One of the best performances of this nature was a television appearance years ago by author James Baldwin. He glared out from the screen in a coldly bitter stare, saying: ” I’ve just come from seeing a dead boy – and you killed him.”

“Not me, Jim,” I replied to the screen, “I’ve been here in the apartment all day.” It turned out that this “dead boy” was 28 years old and had died from an overdose of drugs. Baldwin never really explained how the television viewers had done him in – nor did he have to. “Society” is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

We laugh at people who believe in the tooth fairy, but we take it seriously when deep thinkers talk about “society”. as having done this or that – or having failed to do this or that. If they mean the government, then they ought to say government. But then we might see through the heightened words to the hidden agenda.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, p. 200
April 7, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

A problem that has a tendency to crop up every once in awhile is the effort to restrict those who are to be allowed to partake of the communion, or Lord’s Supper. Usually this is done with one of two approaches: (1) the concept of “closed communion,” or (2) challenging whether or not one deserves the right to partake (“worthy”).

“Closed communion,” as popularly practiced by denominationalism, carries with it two basic elements: (1) only faithful members in good standing are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and (2) no visitors are to be included in that number (as there is obviously no way to determine if they are “faithful” and/or “in good standing”). One Baptist church manual I have in my library even points out it is the responsibility of the church to examine the individual to see if he is “ignorant and ungodly.”

The fallacy of such reasoning is not hard to point out. For example, when Paul tarried at Troas (Acts 20) to meet with the disciples who gathered together to “break bread,” he would not have been allowed to partake in such a church today, since he was not a member of the church at Troas. And just how “ignorant” can one be and still be allowed to partake? Could he be allowed to partake in a congregation where the average IQ was not as high as it might be in a university town – but then the barred in the university town for being too “ignorant”? Is a new convert “ignorant” compared to a member who has studied for 30-40 years? And just how “ungodly” does one have to be before the church decides that he is no longer “worthy” to partake? Might it not depend on who is doing the judging? What criteria do they use to deem him “ungodly” and unworthy to partake and still excuse themselves (and/or others) also guilty of sins and allow them to partake. Suppose someone is engaged in sins they are ignorant of, do they become guilty of participating in his ungodly activities by accepting him as “worthy” to partake?

Actually, there is nothing at all in the New Testament to support the concept of “closed communion.” Some would seek to justify the idea on the basis of 2 Corinthians 6:15-16, which is not even dealing with the Lord’s Supper. Others would attempt to justify it on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:27 and the idea one must be “worthy” to Dartake. This is also a false concent.

Actually, though, the church is not the one charged to do the examining! Paul says, “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). Nowhere has Christ turned over to any church, or any other group of men, the right to exclude or dictate who may be allowed (or not allowed) to fulfill the command Jesus left us individually to do when he said, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). He did not say,.” Let the church examine a man.”‘ Paul said, “Let a man examine himself. ” The concept of “closed communion” is simply not found in the Bible!

Some, while recognizing “closed communion” is not taught in God’s word, attempt to do about the same thing by charging someone is not “worthy” to partake of the Lord’s Supper. So, they look over an individual, conclude he has done things he should not have (or may be even an individual that has been withdrawn from and simply keeps on coming), and conclude it is a mistake to even offer him the communion until he changes his way of living. The idea one must be “worthy” to partake does not die easily. It is a carry-over from Roman Catholicism, and again, it is not taught in the word of God either. Indeed, none of us was worthy of the death of Christ upon the cruel cross of Calvary. None of us is worthy of it today. If we had to be sinlessly perfect and so righteous we were worthy of such, there would have been no need for Christ to have come into this world to save us, or to shed his blood on the cross in our behalf. Our salvation would have been granted as a debt, and not by grace! (Eph. 2:8-9).

But the word in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is not worthy, but rather the word is worthily. The NKJV translates it “in an unworthy manner.” It is an adverb, describing how we are to partake -.not our condition in order to be allowed to partake. This distinction is a very important one to remember.

The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to bring us back to the death and suffering of Christ on the cross. Hence, we proclaim the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26) when we partake of the Lord’s Supper “in memory of me.” Christ died on the cross for our sins, and does not want us to forget that sacrifice! Nor does he want us to forget all the suffering he went through for us in that death. That is why the bread is to remind us of his body, and the fruit of the vine of his blood shed for our sins. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to focus all our attention on his death.

If we are not Christians, obviously the Lord’s Supper is not a “memorial” to us because we have not benefitted in the blessings his death made available for us – the remission of our sins. We are not any better for having partaken. (Does a Frenchman become an American simply because he joined.in shooting off fireworks on the 4th of July?) Nor are we actually any worse off (remember, if one is lost, be is not going to be “more lost?” by partaking of a memorial that does not affect him). True, such a one needs to be taught who the memorial was designed for, but sometimes some become almost paranoid if a non-Christian partakes, as if his participation is going , to cause him to be even more lost than he already is. Just teach him who it was designed for, and the issue will resolve itself.

If we are Christians, as we ponder what he went through to make salvation possible for us, it ought to humble us (“Who am I to deserve such love and suffering?”), and make us even more determined to live for him because of what he did in dying on the cross for us. Failure to meditate on such a purpose (i.e., if we regard it as a mere meal or a hindrance to getting home sooner) makes us as guilty of mocking (“making light of”) the death of Christ as were those who actually mocked him at his crucifixion (see Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29 for the same attitude involved in those who would turn away from the cross and back to the ways of sin).

For th is cause, many among those at Corinth were weak and sick, and some asleep (i.e., dead spiritually). They had perverted the purpose of the Lord’s supper from a memorial of Christ’s death into a common meal, and had completely lost sight of its true purpose. They were not even thinking of what Christ had told them, what he went through for them, nor why this “memorial” had been left. In “making light of” its true purpose, they were not “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – just as if they had joined those who made mockery of him on the cross. In this, they ate and drank “condemnation” upon themselves “not discerning the Lord’s body.” They had instead made it into an occasion of satisfying fleshly desires. Paul says such desires ought to be satisfied “at home,” and that they were not to corrupt the “memorial” of Christ by such! If they had in deed partaken of the Lord’s Supper for the purpose for which it was intended, just the opposite would have occurred. Instead of being weak, sick and some asleep; they would have been drawn closer to the Lord and more desirous of doing his will as a way of showing their appreciation for the wonderful sacrifice he made in their behalf.

Now, having said all that, let us reconsider the person who knows his life is not what it should be (or ought to know), and yet plans to go ahead and partake of the Lord’s Supper anyway. Should we rebuke him? Should we refuse to serve it to him? Or, should we encourage him to partake? I believe one who is openly being rebellious ought to be rebuked as any other sinner would be. Some, however, may be “pondering” the question; and others may just be waking up to the fact something is amiss (some sins are usually more “obvious” to everyone else than they are to the one engaged in them). Should we allow them to partake? Yes, they ought to be allowed, yea encouraged, to partake. As he thinks about the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, he ought to be indeed ashamed of what his life is, and how he has shown appreciation to Christ for the salvation and remission of sins be suffered and died to make available.

Failure to partake not, only pushes the purpose of the memorial even further from our minds (hence, we become “weak and sick and many asleep”), but it also gives the erring Christian a resigned sense of “being lost.” He is now tempted to “accept it” in that he has taken another step away from Christ and his love by turning his back on the very reminder Christ set up to focus his attention on that sacrifice. It now becomes a resigned sense of being lost, and he continues on his way with even less pangs of conscience to remind him, “it ought not to be this way.” In this sense, he now justifies himself even in not partaking, and continues to drift even further away with nothing to turn him back (if we fail also to do our part).

A Christian can not ponder the death and suffering Christ went through for us, and then feel comfortable in doing what is wrong daily in his life! Christ did not intend for us to feel such “comfort.” He did not want us to forget what he went through, what he suffered. In doing so, he knew it would also serve to deter us from the paths of sin. An erring Christian who partakes of the Lord’s Supper should indeed feel the “coals of fire” upon his head (Rom. 12:20), as he pauses to think what that memorial actually means. If we partake “in a worthy manner,” it will humble and rededicate us to the purposes of the Lord.

Let us always remember what Paul said, “Let a man examine himself.” He will have to answer to the Lord if he partakes, “making light of” that awful sacrifice Christ made in his behalf. On the other hand, by allowing him that right, maybe he will be brought to repentance and shame by pausing to ponder what that sacrifice really means. And isn’t that why Christ so designed it?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 206
April 7, 1988