Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Our society has an attitude toward worship that teaches that God is obligated to accept whatever worship we offer to Him. Some in our society devise their worship to please themselves and then expect God to accept it.

This concept is contrary to everything God has revealed about worship. God has revealed how men should worship Him. Men please God in worship when they worship according to the revealed pattern of worship. Whenever man steps outside the pattern of divine worship, he displeases God.

A past generation of Christians heard many lessons on this theme and understood the dangers of changing the worship of God. I am not so sure that is the case today. During the Christmas season just past, I saw several references to liberal churches of Christ participating in the celebration of Christmas in one manner or another. The 14 December 1986 issue of Bering Today, published by the Bering Drive church in Houston, Texas contained the following notice:

Our Christmas Celebration This Sunday

This Sunday is our Christmas Celebration. A number of wonderful, uplifting activities have been planned for our church family to enjoy together.

CHILDREN’S CHRISTMAS PARTY for all children, 9:45 to 10: 10 a.m. in the Children’s place.

MORNING WORSHIP SERVICE at 10: 15 a.m. “Born in a Manger To Sorrow and Shame,” Bill Love, Speaking.

CHORUS PROGRAM: “A Christmas Rose,” immediately following morning worship.

CHRISTMAS DINNER – catered by the Table Servants Ministry

COLLECTION DAY for food and money for our Outreach Christmas Baskets. . . .

From the Central News Bulletin (21 December 1986), published by the Central Church in Nashville, Tennessee, the following is taken:

Children Enjoy Christmas Party

The children of the Central church, including those of our members and all the children who ride the buses, enjoyed a very happy occasion last Saturday afternoon when they met at the church building for the annual party . . . . The highlight of the occasion was the presence of Santa Claus . . . .

The Tennessee Magazine (November/December 1986), published by the Tennessee Electric Cooperative Association, announced that on 18 November 1986, the Main Street Church of Christ in Springfield, TN would present a Christmas Demonstration on “A Time To Enjoy.”

The 6 November 1986 issue of the Gospel Advocate contained a dicussion of the celebration of Christmas from two points of view. Thomas W. Franklin wrote that the celebration of Christmas was as unauthorized in worship as instruments of music. However, he recommended that “the best way to handle Christmas, Easter or any other unauthorized and non-biblical special day is to ignore it and continue with our regular worship and teaching programs” (p. 668). He criticized the practice of using the Sunday before Christmas as a day to “lambaste the observance” of Christmas because it develops “negative views toward the church” (p. 660). Hence, his point of view was to say nothing about the practice and continue with the regular program of worship.

Larry Stalley wrote an opposing point of view. He observed that “just because something is not commanded in Scripture does not mean it is prohibited.” Then he added,

Fourth, when my daughter asks for a piece of bread, I don’t give her a stone; when she asks for a fish, I don’t give her a snake (Matthew 7:9,10). Why is it that when people want to rejoice about Christ’s birth during December, many in the chruch try to discourage it by their comments and teachings? Visitors come to church asking for a sermon about Jesus, but instead many are given a stone. One man who visited the church on Christmas Sunday wanted to hear an appropriate sermon regarding Jesus. Instead, the preacher spoke on adultery. He told himself he would never come back; he had asked for fish and had been given a snake.

Personally, I believe we abuse opportunities when we don’t take advantage of “the spirit of Christmas.” Instead of drawing people nearer to the Lord, we often repeal them by our anti-Christmas spirit and our negative approach . . . . By no means should anyone make the observance of Christmas a commandment (Galatians 4: 10), but on the other hand, no one should prohibit its celebratory spirit by all the people because of the lack of commandment (Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:4-6).

Neither editor Furman Kearley nor query editor Guy N. Woods made any comments about either article.

In addition to this, I noticed in this year’s bulletins a conspicuous absence of articles which show that the religious celebration of Christmas is an unauthorized practice which is a perversion of worship. In the past, gospel preachers used this occasion to teach Christians that the denominational celebration of Christmas was an invention of men which renders worship vain. This year, I saw only two or three such articles. Does this lack of teaching in the bulletins reflect a similar absence of this teaching in the pulpit? If so, what lies ahead for us is what our liberal brethren are presently facing – the first acceptance of the religious celebration of Christmas in their corporate worship. We need to be reminded of the danger of tampering with divinely revealed worship.

Examples of Worship Which God Rejected

1. Cain’s worship. Genesis 4 reveals the instance when Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God. Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord” (4:3) and Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof” (4:4). Abel offered his sacrifice “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) and “the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering” (Gen. 4:4). One can only do something “by faith” when he has a revelation from God and obeys the revelation communicated to him (Rom. 10: 17). Hence, Abel’s worship was accepted because he offered his worship according to the pattern God revealed to him. Cain’s worship was rejected by God.

2. Nadab and Abihu. The Lord revealed that the priest was to take fire from the altar of burnt offering to light the incense on the altar of incense (Lev. 16:11-14).

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2).

Though these men offered worship, their worship was not accepted because it was not according to the pattern revealed from God. Tampering with divine worship is serious business, as shown by God’s immediately smiting these men with death.

3. Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 12:25-33). When Jeroboam lead the Ten Northern tribes in rebellion against Rehoboam, he instituted another kind of worship. He established worship places in Dan and Bethel, instead of Jerusalem. He brought in idols made of gold in the image of calves. He made priests from every tribe and changed the feast days. “And this thing became a sin” (1 Kgs. 12:30).

Jesus Taught On Worship

There are many who gather around a manger on December 25th to reverence baby Jesus who have no interest in hearing what the adult Jesus taught about worship. In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus warned against perverting divine worship with the traditions of men.

1. He distinguished the traditions of men from the commandments of God (Mk. 7:7-8). He apparently thought that men could distinguish the two.

2. He stated that those who teach the traditions of men make hollo w pretenses of worshipping God and render their worship vain. He said, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from men. Howbeit in vain do they worship men, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk. 7:6-7).

3. He observed that men will lay aside the commandments of God in order to keep the traditions of men (Mk. 7:8). Men have a greater allegiance to their own inventions than to the revelation of God.

4. He observed that men make void the word of God through their traditions. Men’s traditions released men from obligation to obey the commandment of God (for examples, note the action and purpose of water baptism, observing the Lord’s supper, etc.).

Consequently, Jesus commanded that men worship God according to the revealed word of God rather than departing from the word of God in order to follow the commandments and traditions of men.

Conclusion

If Christians ever begin to look upon the religious observance of Christmas as a harmless practice of the word, they will soon decide to join the world in observing the day in worship to God. When that occurs, Jesus’ teaching regarding worship will have been rejected in favor of the commandments and traditions of men.

Sometime, brethren, whether it be in December, January, or July, we must teach our world, our children, and the brethren the danger of perverting the worship of God. In order for a generation to grow up seeing no harm in the religious observance of Christmas, all that must occur is for those of us who know better to fail to teach on the subject. What have you heard lately on this subject?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, pp. 66, 86-87
February 5, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: A young husband recently left his wife and baby. He is a member of the church but she is not; however, she attends services regularly. He soon started dating, obtained a divorce (not for fornication) and brought his girlfriend to services with him. Not having elders, the preacher asked if he could talk with him, but he refused. So, the preacher told him we could not fellowship him. Now he attends a nearby congregation with his girlfriend and parents. The elders are aware of the situation, but say they can do nothing until they place their membership? Do the elders have an obligation in this matter?

Reply: It is obvious from the Scriptures that this young man is guilty of sinful conduct. The preacher is to be commended for his effort to talk with him. We are to “admonish the disorderly” (1 Thess. 4:14); we are to “reprove, rebuke and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2). When all efforts to restore the erring have been exhausted, we must then withdraw from him – have no fellowship with him. Concerning the brother guilty of incest at Corinth, Paul wrote, “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). He also admonished, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Note also that Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6). This is the scriptural procedure.

Taking his girlfriend and attending another congregation does not acquit him of guilt. He remains guilty of sin until he repents. It is quite often the case that when a guilty party has been confronted, he will run off to another congregation, supposing that he is sheltered from any further rebuke, and will not be disciplined. The church is not a place of refuge (dumping ground) for those disciplined or those trying to avoid it. It is the conviction of this writer that the elders of that congregation do have a responsibility here to fulfill. Though not a member of the flock, nevertheless, his very presence has a bad influence upon those who are members. And, those outside the church who are aware of his situation and know that he attends there, will suppose that he is a member. Even though the people mentioned in the question have not placed their membership, the elders must protect the flock from their evil influence. A wolf does not have to be part of the flock before the shepherd can take any action against him. Suppose a false teacher attends a congregation, but has not placed his membership. Are the elders to sit idly by and allow the false teacher to continue his evil work? The mouths of false teachers must be stopped (Tit. 1:11). Are elders to act in this matter, but not in regard to one guilty of another kind of sin? Although neither has placed his membership with the local church, elders must take action with regard to both. Elders have the responsibility along these lines, more than they sometimes realize. It is true that this person is not under the oversight of the elders in the sense that the members of the congregation are; but elders are obligated to make an effort to talk with him and his parents in order to protect the flock for which they are responsible. They need first to inform him that they do not condone his sin, neither can they fellowship him, but then urge him to repent. The members should be publicly informed that this person is not in fellowship with his former congregation, and that this action is recognized until he repents. The brethren should be admonished publicly to avoid any social contact which would, in any way, condone or encourage his conduct (see 1 Cor. 5:9). When this is done, the guilty young man will probably do one of two things: leave, or repent. Should he not repent, but continue to attend, the elders would do well to suggest to the preacher that he preach some strong sermons on the home, marital obligations, divorce and remarriage. Preaching along this line is always appropriate and much needed. Good men serving as elders can do more than they think they can in this regard. A sinner should not be given the idea that he can tie the hands of the elders, simply because he has not placed his membership with this congregation where he is attending regularly.

Serving as an elder in a local church is not as easy task; and no one knows this better than this scribe who serves as both an elder and a preacher. But all Christians must be firm, and with true love for the sinner, make every effort to save his soul. Disciplinary action is not merely to castigate the guilty, but rather to bring him to repentance. This is God’s will. Any failure to accomplish His purpose does not reflect upon His plan. The problem is the hardness of heart upon the part of the one who refuses to repent. This has been the problem in the past (Rom. 2:4-6), and it is the problem today.

In my opinion, the question under consideration is a challenging one which needs further study by all of us. Are elders, as shepherds of the flock simply to feed it, or are they also obligated to protect it?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 44
January 15, 1987

By Bobby L. Graham

In 2 Kings 5 we have recorded an incident that took place during the period of the Divided Kingdom and probably in the reign of Jehoram. This miracle performed by Elisha, successor to Elijah, centers around Naaman, a man mentioned only here and in Luke 4:27, who was army commander for King Benhadad of Syria.

The record relates that Naaman was highly regarded by the king, being what many today would call “a good soldier.” Nevertheless, Naaman had the dreaded disease of leprosy, which would render him unclean for the ceremonies of the Law of Moses if he had been under that Law. Leprosy afflicted people in both light and severe forms. In view of Naaman’s capacity for his military exploits and court duties (v. 18), it is probable that his leprosy had not advanced to a severe stage.

In an earlier raid on the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the Syrian forces captured a young woman who was forced into servitude for the wife of Naaman. It was this young servant that wished Naaman might visit the prophet Elisha for healing. Benhadad then intervened on Naaman’s behalf with Israel’s king, who became outraged because of what he was expected to do.

Upon hearing of the king’s rage, Elisha sent for Naaman, whom he directed to dip seven times in the Jordan River (v. 10). The details of the ensuing events form the basis for our present study.

Naaman’s Pride: “Behold, I Thought!”

The fury of this notable military leader is significantly included in the inspired account to depict the pride of presumption. Naaman thought (presumed) that ceremonious ritual would play a part in his healing (v. 11). Furthermore, he thought the rivers of Damascus superior to the Jordan (v. 12). Finally, he evidently thought he could do better elsewhere, as he left in a rage (v. 12). In all of this thinking, he thought big (v. 13). At this time of inflated ego, his servants took the wind from his sails through an appeal to his desire for cleansing.

Naaman’s Cure: Thinking God’s Thoughts

The pride of Naaman’s heart had deceived him to presume to know what was best. Such is always the course of one who thinks independently of God’s inspired direction. All who take pride in their independent thinking need to be careful that they not go beyond the thinking of God, set forth in His Word. While it is sometimes good to form one’s conclusions apart from what others have decided, God must always be included in one’s counsel. To do otherwise is to be guilty of presumptuous sin.

After the rebuke of a servant in verse 13, Naaman then accepted God’s simple solution and then enjoyed God’s profound benefit in verse 14. The cure of this malady, which man has been unable to devise even yet, was so simple when this man so accustomed to giving orders humbly accepted divine directions. The essence of Naaman’s cure was his willingness to think God’s thoughts. Only when we today have the faith to accept God’s way in every phase of life can we think God’s thoughts and be blessed by Him.

Naaman’s Gratitude: “Now I Know”

The proud presumption of an earlier moment had been transformed into reliance upon God and thankfulness to Him. Verse 15 describes his extolling of God’s power and majesty. He also offered a gift to Elisha and finally requested two loads of dirt from the land of Israel, whereon he might make sacrifice unto Jehovah.

Lessons To Learn

The New Testament says that “the things written before time were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). In keeping with this principle of deriving benefit from recorded sacred history, let us be sure to consider the following:

1. God’s thoughts are not man’s thoughts (Isa. 55:8,9).

2. Man must always humble himself before he can obey God.

3. God will not accept man’s substitutes.

4. Wise rebuke sometimes comes from unexpected sources.

5. Full compliance is the only obedience.

6. God’s benefits should evoke gratitude in our hearts and lives.

These lessons have definite application to people needing to complete their obedience to God in becoming Christians, as well as to the lives of all claiming to belong to Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, pp. 65, 87
February 5, 1987