Truth Magazine

By Forrest D. Moyer

II. The “Author” of Bible Authority.

A. We cannot talk about “authority” without talking about “author” from which our word “authority” comes. The real question concerning religious practice is, “Who is the author of the practice?”

B. The prime authority is God (1 Cor. 15:27). He has the right to command and to enforce obedience. When He gave the ten commandment Law in Exodus 20, He began by saying, “I am Jehovah your God.” That showed His right to command! That showed His authority! Observe v. 5: “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, Jehovah your God, am a jealous God. . . . ” No man could rebel against His authority without dire consequences (v. 5).

1. This principle is seen over and over again in the Old Testament.

a. The man who violated the Sabbath law was stoned to death (Num. 15:35-36).

b. Nadab and Abihu were destroyed because they brought strange fire.

c. Uzzah perished because of His violation of God’s law.

2. Further, we must observe that the laws of a dispensation are in effect throughout that dispensation. We see this when after several hundred years, Ezra and Nehemiah brought the Israelites back to the law that had been given on Sinai (Neh. 9:13ff). Then when Jesus came on the scene, He emphatically told the people to do what Moses in the Law had commanded them. Now, this principle will help us when we come to consider the covenant under which we live that began on Pentecost. The laws of the New Covenant will last until the end of time and we absolutely must observe them.

C. Jehovah has now given all authority to His Son (Mt. 28:18).

1. Jesus has the right to command (exousia) and expect obedience (Lk. 6:46). Thus, He stressed the necessity of our “hearing these sayings of mine” (Mt. 7:24). It was then that the people were astonished at His teaching because He was teaching them as one having authority (v. 29).

2. Contrasted with Jesus, man has no right to command, for man is not the author of religious doctrine. This was clearly recognized by Jesus and by the religious leaders of His day. The chief priests asked Jesus, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (Mt. 21:23) They may not have been thinking about the authority of God, but they recognized the necessity of authority to act. Jesus responded, “I will ask you one thing too, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?” They refused to answer His question for obvious reasons. What He placed before them must constantly be in our minds. Is our practice from Heaven or from men? Is it authored by God or by man? This is a legitimate question. If it is authored by God, then it will be in the book that He authored. If a practice is not in the book, it is not authored by God and it is from men. We shall proceed to application of this as we continue.

D. But another vital question is, what about the silence of the Scriptures? Or putting it another way, what is authorized by the silence of the Word? To be even more elementary, what is authored by silence? When there is no sound, there is no echo; and the echo that comes from the silence of the Scriptures is thunderous in its own silence. Nothing whatsoever is authorized by the silence of the Scriptures.

Probably the most common religious question asked is “Why can’t we?” The full form of the question is “Why can’t we do this thing not mentioned in the Bible?” “Why can’t we baptize babies?” “Why can’t we use instrumental music in worship?” The apparent motivation that prompts this question is the desire to have as broad a liberty as possible to do as many things religiously as we possibly can. If we are permitted to do those things which are not mentioned in the Bible, then we can do not only the few things which are mentioned in the Bible but also the thousands of things not mentioned in the Bible. There are two basic answers to this “Why can’t we?” question: (1) “You can do anything not mentioned so long as it is not specifically forbidden in the Bible.” (2) “You cannot do any unmentioned thing since one specific thing forbids the thing not specified.” For example, the command to sing excludes the use of an instrument. The “why can’t we? ” question is an appeal to the silence of the Scriptures, and there is no authority based on silence.

(To illustrate: you can’t quote an authority on something if that authority has never spoken on that something. For example, you could not quote C. S. Lewis on some matter regarding which he has never said or written anything. Jesus is our great authority. He is our Lord and Master. We cannot quote Him or His word as authority to act religiously if He has not spoken on the matter in question. Things that are outside of the Bible are things in the area of which God has not spoken; therefore, they are outside of the realm of the authority of the Bible. God’s silence is really nothing at all – that is, it is not a creative act of God. God authorizes by speech – by His written word.

“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). There are two classifications of things set forth in this passage: (1) the things that are secret and (2) the things that are revealed. The secret things belong to God and must remain with Him. Man is out of place in authorizing things God has not made known. Our business is involved in the things which are revealed. Silence is not revelation! What He has revealed is ours and we need to diligently study what is revealed and be guided by it. We have no revelation by silence!

Silence is not above speech. Silence is not equal to speech. Silence is not even under speech except all the way to the bottom at zero, for it is nothing. If your religious practices are in the realm of silence, there are two very significant problems: (1) The non-permissiveness of silence versus the permissiveness of speech. (2) The worthlessness of silence versus the pricelessness of speech. We might further observe that there are only two possible reasons for God’s leaving anything out of the Bible: intentional omissions or inadvertent omissions. If God deliberately left something out, by what authority do you dare to put it in? One would hardly want this alternative. The other is certainly no better. To say that God inadvertently left some things out of His word would charge Him with being incompetent – He didn’t know what He was doing. But the God of the Bible is the Almighty! He won’t let even one thing in that He doesn’t want in, nor will He leave a thing out that He wants in. If a thing isn’t in the Bible, then we must know that God left it out for good, divine reasons, and that we must not meddle with things left out of the Bible. Our options form an either/or situation. We must either show that our practices are in the Bible, i.e. authorized by what is said or admit that those that aren’t are not there and give them up.)* To say, “the Bible does not forbid it” is sectarianism gone to seed! The Bible authorizes by what it says not by what it does not say. In fact, there can be no faith without there being the spoken or written word (Rom. 10:17). We cannot believe that something is from God unless God has authored it! We cannot speak religiously unless there is faith (1 Pet. 4:11). As it is written, “I believed, therefore I spoke” (2 Cor. 4:13). One cannot truly say, “I believe in counting beads in worship” since there is no word of God to that effect. Since the New Testament does not authorize instrumental music, one cannot truly say, “I believe in using instrumental music in worship.” “I believed, therefore I spoke.”

1. But brethren have often turned to the silence of the Bible to seek to justify their practices. In the Otey-Briney Debate, brother Briney said in defense of the missionary society:

I allege that where the Scriptures require this to be done, and are silent in regard to the method by which it is to be done, this silence authorizes these men, whether they be many or few, whether it be one congregation or a hundred congregations, to meet in the name of the Master, and under the commandment to go, inaugurate such a work and carry it on; and whenever you have that, you have a missionary society (Otey-Briney Debate, p. 169).

Brother Pendleton in defending the society said: “You say, ‘Your Missionary Society is not scriptural’ – and you mean by this, that there is no special precept in the Scriptures commanding it. We concede this without a moment’s hesitation. There is none; but what do you make of it? Is everything which is not scriptural therefore wrong?” (W. K. Pendleton as quoted by Earl West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol II, p. 50)

Brother Otey responded to brother Briney: “He says that the ‘silence of the Scriptures authorizes these societies. . . . that these societies are ‘authorized by the silence of the Scriptures.’ It (the proposition) says that these organizations are ‘authorized in the New Testament Scriptures.’ How is he going to prove it? By silence? We can prove anything by silence, so far as that is concerned, that is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament” (Ibid., p. 204).

2. But what is wrong with an appeal to silence? I believe that we should give an answer to this vital question. The writer of Hebrews illustrates this point vividly. In Heb. 1:5, he asks, “For to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee?… The silence of God on this subject proved that no angel could occupy the position of being the Son. He proved it by showing that there is silence concerning the matter. God never authorizes by silence!

3. The Hebrew writer continues in 7:14. “For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” His argument was that Jesus could not be a priest on earth because He was of the tribe of Judah. And there is silence concerning the priesthood of those from Judah. There was no Old Testament authorization for one from Judah serving as priest. The silence of the Scriptures not only did not authorize it, but did not allow it.

4. Another salient point along this line is seen in Acts 15:24 in regard to circumcision of the Gentiles: “Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment. . . . ” The absence of apostolic commandment meant that it was wrong for these teachers to teach what they did. The fact of silence authorized nothing and they were in error in presuming to teach something on which the apostles had not taught. So likewise today! We dare not teach or practice anything that is not taught in the Scriptures. Absolutely nothing is taught by silence. Nothing is authorized by the silence of the Scriptures!

F. Those under this age must follow the authority of Jesus. Brother Wayne Jackson wrote it so well:

“In the New Testament, scores of passages demand adherence to the divine pattern. Consider the following:

1. The early church is commended for ‘continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine,’ etc. (Acts 2:42); moreover, as a consequence of such, ‘the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul’ (Acts 4:32). These passages suggest a unity of practice in religion.

2. Paul reminded the brethren in Rome that they had been made ‘free from sin’ due to the fact that they had been obedient to a certain ‘form [pattern] of teaching’ (Rom. 6:17-18). That is ‘pattern theology.’

3. The saints in Rome were admonished to ‘mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them’ (Rom. 16:17). If there is no set pattern of New Testament doctrine, how could one ever be required to ‘turn away from’ those who do not practice it?

4. The inspired Paul taught those at Corinth that they were not to go ‘beyond the things which are written’ (1 Cor. 4:6, ASV). This clearly shows that spiritual activity is circumscribed by the Word.

5. To the brethren at Thessalonica and also to Timothy, Paul warned of a ‘falling away,’ indeed, a ‘departure from the faith’ (2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff). The expression ‘the faith’ denotes that body of doctrine proclaimed by inspired teachers (cf. Gal. 1:23; Jude 3). If the church has the option of continually modifying biblical truth, how could one ever fall away from the faith?

6. The apostle informed Timothy that there is a ‘pattern of sound words’ (2 Tim. 1:13), and the young evangelist was to abide in the things he had learned from Paul (2 Tim. 3:14). Timothy was to commit that same to other faithful brethren (2 Tim. 2:2), and charge men not to teach a ‘different doctrine’ (1 Tim. 1:13). Paul states that those who digress from the ‘sound words’ are merely ‘puffed up, knowing nothing’ (1 Tim. 6:3,4).

7. The writer of Hebrews affirms that Moses, in constructing the tabernacle, was warned by God that he must ‘make all things according to the pattern,’ which was showed to him at Horeb (Heb. 8:5). Do we, as recipients of the ‘better covenant’ (Heb. 7:22; 8:6), have a lesser responsibility as we minister to God in his church, of which the tabernacle was but a type (cf. Heb. 9:1-10)? It is unbelievable that anyone would even suggest such!

8. John plainly declares that those who go beyond the ‘doctrine of Christ’ have no fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9).

In view of the foregoing passages (and a host of others), the notion of an ‘evolutionary church,’ a sort of plastic Christianity, is demonstrated to be totally false. The plea for a restoration of first century religion is valid. It is thoroughly biblical, and those who repudiate it have sorely drifted from the Holy Scriptures” (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, May, ’86).

Brother Jackson and I may differ on some applications of authority, but we are totally agreed on the points just quoted, and I appreciate what he had to say.

*(Some of these thoughts from an outline by Abnon Williams.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 8, pp. 232-233, 248
April 16, 1987

By Donald Townsley

The word of God has much to say about preachers and preaching. The New Testament says much about the qualifications of men who preach the gospel. Men who preach should be Christians in the fullest sense of the word. They must: (1) Be careful students of the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:13,16); (2) Be “apt to teach” (2 Tim. 2:24-25; Acts 20:20); (3) Be impartial in the dealings with people (1 Tim. 5:21); (4) Not seek the glory of men (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:6); (5) Be pure in life (1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 5:2); (6) Not be lovers of money or covetous (1 Thess. 2:5); (7) Be blameless in behavior (1 Thess. 2: 10); (8) Be bold in their preaching (1 Thess. 2:2); (9) Be gentle and have affection for people (1 Thess. 2:7-8); (10) Not handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2); and (11) Rebuke sin in all its forms (2 Tim. 4:2).

The above is a partial list of what men who preach are to be and not to be. I also think we need some teaching on the subject of men who should not preach. Let us look at this subject and make a list, with the gospel as our guide, of men who should not preach.

1. Men who do not love God supremely and do not put Him first in their lives, should not preach (Matt. 22:37).

2. Men who do not know the will of God should not preach (Acts 22:14; Eph. 5:17).

3. Men who are afraid to preach the “whole counsel of God” should not preach (Acts 20:26-27).

4. Men who have a desire or need to please men (and strive to do so) should not preach (Gal. 1:10).

5. Men who see preaching as a way to make gain should not preach (2 Pet. 2:3; Tit. 1:11).

6. Men who will not pay their honest debts should not preach (Rom. 12:17).

7. Men who have “eyes full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14), who “creep into houses” (2 Tim. 3:6) and beguile unstable women (2 Pet. 2:14) into adultery should not preach (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Tim. 5:2).

8. Men who do not set a godly example before others should not preach (1 Tim. 4:12).

9. Men who love to have preeminence and cannot work under godly elders should not preach (2 John 9; Heb. 13:17).

10. Men who do not love the brethren should not preach (John 13:34-35).

11. Men who are “eaten up with jealousy” of other preachers, elders, and brethren should not preach (Gal. 5:20-21).

12. Men who are given to hate, revenge, and bitterness should not preach (Eph. 4:31; Rom. 12:19).

13. Men who cannot learn contentment should not preach (1 Tim. 6:6-8; Phil. 4:10-11).

14. Men whose wives are discontent, worldly, jealous, carry gossip, or who have no real devotion to the Cause of Christ should not preach (1 Tim. 2:9-10; Tit. 2:4-5; 1 John 2:15-16).

15. Men who are not willing to make real sacrifice should not preach (Rom. 12:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:3).

16. Men who are not able to “bear up” under constant problems should not preach (2 Tim. 4:5; 2:3).

17. H. Leo Boles said: “No hypocrite can preach the truth of God with the power and persuasion that should ever accompany the preaching of the gospel.” “No preacher can preach the gospel as it should be preached unless he preaches because his heart is in the work, and not for ‘filthy lucre’s sake,’ but of a ready mind” (Gospel Advocate, March 31, 1932).

18. Men who are not willing to “take hold” and deal with vital subjects which directly affect his hearers in the workplace, in business, home, and social life – subjects like honesty, immodesty, fornication, drinking, cursing, divorce and remarriage, etc. should not preach (Rom. 12:17; 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Cor. 6:18; Matt. 19:9; Gal. 5:19-21).

19. Men who cannot preach the vital truths of the gospel just as stern and unrelenting as they are written in opposition to error and sin, week-in and week-out, should not preach (2 Tim. 4:2-5).

20. Men who can be “bluffed off” preaching what needs to be preached by guilty members who “squirm” under the fire of the gospel of Christ, should not preach (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

21. Men who will not deal with vital issues that face God’s people should not preach (1 Tim. 4:1-6).

Let us conclude this article in the words of H. Leo Boles:

“If churches today are to continue their mission, they must be taught . . . by preachers who are clothed with the humility of Christ and have the courage of their convictions. All the churches should be praying that God will give us Godfearing, truth-loving, earnest, faithful men for preachers and teachers of His word” (Gospel Advocate, April 7, 1932).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 208
April 2, 1987

By Tom M. Roberts

Twisted passages and perverted Scriptures are nothing new, indeed they are essential to every position of error. Scarcely a passage of Scripture has avoided a re-definition by proponents of false doctrine. But true exposition of Scripture is the answer to every perversion. “Preaching another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) must always be met by the “true gospel” (Gal. 2:5). Faithful exegesis of Scripture is a most ennobling and rewarding occupation of time and will put to rest the gainsaying of the boldest adversary. I fear that we preachers do not spend enough time in exegesis because of the demands it makes on our time, opting too many times for topical subjects in our preaching because it provides a handy short-cut for pulpit work. However, reserving the discussion of hermeneutics for another time, let us consider now the effect of twisting Scripture as it relates to our text, Hebrews 10:7. Remembering the warning of Peter concerning damnation to those who “wrest the scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16), let us learn what is meant of Jesus when He came to do the will of God.

Text and Context

Our text states: “Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.”

This is set in the context of the entire Hebrew letter of comparing the Old Covenant with the New, the New being built on better promises, with a better mediator, etc. The immediate context deals with the fact that the new Covenant is built upon a better sacrifice, namely, the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, if you will notice, the word is sacrifice” is found in 10:1, “they” refers to the sacrifices in v. 2, 40sacrifice” in v. 3, “blood of bulls and goats” in v. 4, “sacrifice” in v. 5 (tied directly to the prophecy of the body of Christ being prepared), “sacrifices” in vv. 8, 11, 12, and “offering” in v. 14. Thus, any position which ignores this context and leaps outside of it to teach something else is truly guilty of “wresting” the Scriptures. So we need to consider carefully what this verse is saying that Jesus was doing when He “came to do thy will, O God.”

A Body Prepared for Sacrifice

The Hebrew writer began chapter 8 by asserting that we have “such a high priest” (holy, guileless, undefiled, 7:26) who “needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people, for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself” (7:27). Rather, our high priest is sitting on the right hand of the throne of God, a “minister of the true tabernacle” (8:2). As a high priest, He must have something to offer, but Jesus could not serve on earth under the Old Covenant, so the covenant was changed (8:8-13) to permit Jesus to minister. But what is He to offer as a sacrifice for the sins of the people? Not the “blood of goats and bulls, but through his own blood, entered (he) in once for all into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption” (9:11-12). This blood also became the basis for the new covenant, showing the death of the testator (9:15-22). But while the blood of animals served well under the old covenant, it was necessary that the “heavenly things themselves” (9:23) be cleansed with “better sacrifices.” It was for this reason that Christ entered into the holy place (heaven), “having been once offered to bear the sins of many” (9:28).

It is with this background that we now approach chapter 10 which considers the sacrifice that Jesus ministered in the “true tabernacle.” To prove to his original readers (who had a Jewish perception regarding sacrifices) that the sacrifice of Jesus’ body was not some new and strange doctrine, the writer now quotes from the Old Testament, accepted Jewish Scriptures, to show that God had intended this from the first. No less an authority than David had stated by inspiration that God “had no pleasure” in “whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin” (10:5-6; confer Psa. 40-6ff). From this, the writer concludes that God took away the first covenant that He might establish the second (10:9), in order that Jesus might sacrifice something better than animals, namely, Himself. “To do thy will, O God,” quite obviously, in keeping with the context, was that Jesus offered His body instead of animals as this new sacrifice. God had no pleasure in animals, i.e., they did not satisfy the divine will for full redemption. As Isaiah foretold it: “Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied (emp. mine, tr): by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities” (53: 10-11). Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself did something which no animal could have done: provide reconciliation on the basis of atonement. “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (10:14). In this instance, in verse 7, “doing thy will” refers to Jesus submitting to death (Phil. 2:5-8) and becoming the sacrifice for sin. This is the text in agreement with its context.

Some Twist This Verse

“To do thy will, O God,” is taught by some to mean that Jesus lived a. perfect life, honoring the law which sinful man could not do, and providing perfect obedience for (and instead of) man, this moral perfection being transferred to the account of man. That Jesus lived a perfect life and that this sinlessness honored God and His law, none will deny. But this verse does not teach it, nor does any verse teach that Jesus lived perfectly in my stead and that His obedience is transferred to my account. All of this fanciful doctrine is but an extension of the Calvinist’s belief that man is corrupted in nature, unable to think or do any good. Since man cannot do any good, God must do it all for him. It is with this view of man that the error affirms that Jesus came to fulfill law-keeping for man and uses this verse as a proof-text. Their faulty conclusion is that “doing thy will” refers to perfect law-keeping instead of offering Himself as a sacrifice. But, I ask you, in the light of the context, what is the Scripture teaching?

“TO DO THY WILL, O GOD”
Perfect Obedience	Perfect Obedience
For (instead of )Man’s Faulty Obedience	As God’s Son (servant) Which “Perfected” The Sacrifice On The Cross
Law-keeping As That “Offering”	His Body: The Offering
No SCRIPTURE	Perfect Obedience: Heb. 5:14-16; Heb. 7:26-27 Perfect Sacrifice: Heb. 9:11-14; 9:23-26; 10:12-20

Quotations

So that all might realize that these faulty concepts are not a figment of someone’s imagination, I offer the following quotations in evidence to prove that people have the wrong concept of the life of Christ.

“By our sins we became God’s enemies rather than his friends, and this broken relationship left us with a double burden. We had not given God His demanded perfection as creatures; we had brought on ourselves the death penalty for our sins. And we could not remedy either situation ourselves. Jesus, the eternal Son of God, came as our Savior to do both” (A Certain Salvation, Edward Fudge, p. 38).

“The sinner can be justified on no other basis than perfect obedience to the law (Rom. 2:13). The Law Giver Himself came to this world to render that perfect obedience in man’s behalf. By His own perfect living in human flesh He magnified the law and made it honorable (Isa. 42:21)” (Present Truth, Special Issue, “Justification by Faith,” p. 27).

” . . . man is guilty before God – legally. That problem had to be solved before man could be free of his moral pollution. One had to come and magnify the law and make it honorable” (Persuader, 11/8/76, p. 1).

Many more quotations, with much greater detail, could be given to illustrate how Scriptures are twisted with regard to this matter. Many passages of Scriptures are used by Calvinists as proof-texts for their contentions, but each is twisted rather than exegeted. I heartily recommend Bill Reeves’s work in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ, “Proof texts Examined” (pp. 206ff), as he takes passage after passage and shows its true meaning, especially as it ,regards this subject.

Just Accept the Truth

Brethren, there is no need to make more, less, or something else of any Scripture than what God intended. We have a full salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ. We can accept the gift of God’s grace without pushing and pulling it out of shape to try to conform to the creeds of men. Why not just accept the fact that Jesus offered His body on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. Jehovah could accept the sacrifice because it was without spot. When we accept Jesus, we receive the benefits of that sacrifice and are redeemed. Our sins are not transferred, but forgiven, through the precious blood (1 Pet. 1:19). A “certified gospel” (Gal. 1:11) needs no improvement.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 195-196
April 2, 1987

By Weldon E. Warnock

Paul wrote, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient” (1 Cor. 6:12). Obviously, this verse means, “All things are lawful that are lawful, but not all of these lawful things are expedient” (useful, advantageous, profitable). Paul is not including sinful and unauthorized acts in “all things.”

Brethren have had (and are having) difficulty in differentiating between the lawful and unlawful and the expedient and inexpedient. Some of us erroneously oppose inexpedients on the basis of being unlawful and others erroneously advocate unlawful practices as being justifiable expedients. Among those things wherein our thinking is warped are:

1. Eating in the meeting house. God never gave any legislation on this matter. In fact, the first century churches did not have the kind of buildings in which to meet as we do. Hence, the usage of “church buildings” was not a problem with them. Those who met in their private homes would, of course, eat in the place where they assembled.

The nearest the New Testament comes to dealing with this issue is in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 where Paul condemns the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. The apostle states in this regard, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?” (v. 22) It is apparent that Paul is teaching the Corinthians (and all other brethren, including those who meet in private homes) to separate home functions (common meals) from church functions (observing the Lord’s Supper). There is no prohibition of eating a common meal in the meetinghouse, or else a preacher could not. take a sandwich to his office and eat it, or men working on the building could not sit down on a pew and eat their lunch. Surely, no one would go to this extreme.

You will observe that Paul said “eat and drink” (emp. supplied). However, I know of no person who opposes a drinking fountain in the building. We are told a drinking fountain expedites a public assembly (indeed it does) and, therefore, it is permissible. But though a drinking fountain is expeditious, it is not absolutely necessary. Where I grew up we had no drinking fountain in the building, nor a water bucket. Brethren somehow, someway, got by without a drink of water.

Now then, if there is a need to eat in the church building, then eat. There are situations where a family or two may travel a long distance to worship, like the northwest, spread their meal in a classroom after worship, have another religious service after lunch, and then go back home. What is wrong with this? Not a thing I can see.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently sinful about “dinner-on-the-ground” at an all day meeting. These proved to be uplifting in the past and enhanced brotherly affection. But times have changed and in most places such would be inexpedient and unwise. The trend today is toward the social gospel. Kitchens and “fellowship” (banquet) halls are the modern fads in many churches of Christ. Any practice that would encourage churches in the direction of building kitchens and banquet halls, yea, toward the social gospel, is wrong and should be abandoned. Wisdom teaches us not to use the church building and grounds for pot-luck-dinners, but to obtain other facilities for such social and individual activities. We are now seeing the evil fruits of congregations which have gone too far. (Parenthetically, I have never known a water fountain to encourage brethren to build “fellowship” halls and kitchens.)

2. Busing. We are hearing a lot about the “bus ministry.” This has been, in not a few places, a fiasco. Children gathered up in the neighborhood and bused to “church” have created a disciplinary problem for those involved. Some have discontinued the “bus ministry” because of the various difficulties encountered.

Too, there are many abuses associated with the so-called “bus ministry.” If an outing is planned at an amusement park the buses are used to haul the children to the park. Churches also use their buses to take senior citizens shopping or on excursions of various sorts. These are abuses! Also, to offer candy, cookies, cokes and money to entice children to ride the bus is a carnal ploy that is contrary to the holy appeal of the Lord’s church. Gimmickry is beneath the dignity of the heavenly kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, we need to realize that a bus owned and operated by a church is not wrong in and of itself. Many of us have become prejudiced against churches owning buses for any reason simply because brethren have abused their use. Some equate owning a bus to liberalism. By and large, I do not see any practical use for churches, having buses (or vans), but if a church has a need for a bus or van, to preach and edify, then it is their prerogative to buy one. I see no difference in a church putting a preacher on a bus and sending him to people to preach than the church putting the people on a bus and bringing them to hear the preacher.

3. Singing solos, quartets, etc. Through the years I have preached against “special singing,” such as solos, duets, quartets, etc., because of the danger they propose of making worship theatrical entertainment and the worshipers nothing more than spectators. I doubt there have been many preachers in the last 25-30 years who have been more outspoken against choirs, quartets and other “specials” in the church than I have.

I know by experience what is involved in, “special singing” as I. used to do it when I was 17 and 18 years old. I sang in a quartet, and even sang solos, in some Christian Churches of eastern Kentucky. I was offered a scholarship, everything paid, by a Christian Church to attend Kentucky Christian College at Grayson, KY. I know what the Christian Church was and what it is. I know why I oppose this kind of singing and I know why it is practiced. I have no sympathy toward the false doctrines of the Christian Church.

However, objection to solos and quartets can be only opposed, reasonably and logically, on the basis of inexpediency. 1 Corinthians 14:26 plainly shows solos were sung in the assemblies of the first century church, even at the same time that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages in Ephesians and Colossians did not condemn and preclude what 1 Corinthians 14:26 allowed, namely, solo singing, and neither do they today.

But somebody says, “1 Corinthians 14:26 does not apply today because it is regulating spiritual gifts which are no longer in operation.” Are we to believe that nothing in 1 Corinthians 14 applies today? The first verse states, “Follow after charity.” Does this apply today? Verse 5 says, “. . . that the church may receive, edifying.” We still need this. Verse 15 reads, “I will pray with the understanding. . . . I will sing with understanding.” You suppose this has no bearing on praying and singing for our time? Verse 33 states, “God is not the author of confusion.” May not this verse still be used to show that God is not the author of confusion? Verse 34 says, “. . . but they (women) are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Did this principle cease with the miraculous age? “Let all things be done decently and in order” (v. 40) is certainly timely today.

Brethren, we still sing. That did not pass away. It is strange to me that solo singing was scriptural for the first 65 to 70 years of the New Testament church, but sinful today. It is also strange that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 allowed solo singing then, but not now. Indeed, it is strange! Brethren, let’s oppose “special singing” for the proper reason; not homemade ones.

4. Announcements of social events. Announcements in conjunction with the assemblies of the church have become a problem. This is also true with our bulletins. Some brethren contend that no social occurrences should be announced from the pulpit or put in the bulletin. For example, if there is going to be a picnic (on an individual basis) it will have to be made known by word of mouth before or after the service. Such cannot be announced publicly before the assembly.

Others will allow selected social announcements from the pulpit or bulletin. They will permit birth announcements, but they will not permit announcements of a baby shower for the mother. Women will stand in the vestibule and hand out shower announcements to the other women as they come, in or leave. Also, they may announce deaths, but nobody may announce the arrangements for food to take to a home during the interim between the death and the funeral. A few places dismiss and then tell everyone to remain a few minutes for a special announcement. Such narrow restrictions and convoluted reasoning curtail us in rejoicing with those who rejoice and in weeping with those who weep. This kind of thinking does not permit us to share to the fullest in the joys and needs of our brethren in Christ.

Certainly, some brethren have gone overboard in announcing every little frivolous matter that has nothing to do with church function or a Christian’s responsibility, but let’s not deny ourselves what is beneficial for our own good because of the abuse of others. We can, and do, paralyze ourselves to our own detriment. Some of us have become so rigid that the salutations of the epistles, some highly personal and social in nature, could not be read in our own assemblies without violating our self-devised rules. This is tragic!

In conclusion, let us seriously take to heart what Paul said, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, ” and follow it, applicably. Some good common sense needs to prevail.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 198-199
April 2, 1987