Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Readers of this journal are no doubt well aware of the biblical teaching on miracles (including glossolalia or the ability to speak in languages other than one’s native tongue). The Scriptures clearly teach that when such ability was present in New Testament days it was indeed miraculous, consisting of the ability to speak in a known language which one had not studied and which could be understood by those who had learned that language; that it was available to apostles and to those upon whom they laid their hands; that its purpose was to confirm that the speaker proclaimed a message from God; and that such confirming signs were temporary and would “fail, cease, and vanish” when God’s revelation was complete (Acts 2:4-16; 8:12-19; Heb. 2:14; Mk. 16:14-20; 1 Cor. 13:8-13). These concepts are well-known to careful Bible students, and it is not the purpose of this article to discuss them.

However, one is sometimes confronted with the claims of a cheap imitation of New Testament miracles in the form of modern-day “tongue-speakers. ” An argument frequently made by “speakers” of the gibberish or pseudo-languages which they pass off as “tongues” is that “it works,” that is, that many people can learn to speak such :’languages” without training. Thus, it is argued, such ability to ‘speak” must be construed as being produced by the Holy Spirit never mind that it is still not a true, understandable language as in the New Testament.

A recent study by Canadian psychologists puts the lie to such claims. The study is reported in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (95: 1), February 1986, pp. 21-23. Psychologists at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario invited practiced glossolalists into a sound studio, where they recorded their utterances. These tapes (audio and video) were “obtained from speakers who defined their glossolalia as religious activity, belonged to religious groups that encouraged glossolalia, and had been speaking glossolalia, regularly for over two years” (p. 22).

The psychologists then assembled a volunteer group of 60 Carleton University undergraduates (ages 18-44 years). Of the 36 men and 24 women, “none spoke glossolalia or had heard it spoken,” and several students who had heard or spoken glossolalia were excluded from the group. This group of non-glossolalists was then given the following assignment:

Your task today is to listen to a 1 -minute tape of a person speaking pseudo language. As you listen to the tape, try to get a sense of the language rather than trying to memorize certain phrases. Notice any rhythm, repetitions, or patterns in the utterances. Immediately afterward you will be asked to produce pseudo language yourself for a 30second period. This will be taped. Pay close attention.

After listening to a sixty-second taped sample of glossolalia, the subjects were asked “to do their best to speak pseudo language continuously for 30 seconds.” These “baseline” attempts were likewise tape-recorded.

Half of the subjects (having previously been designated as a “control group”), were then dismissed and asked to return in several days. The other half began immediately to undergo the first of several training periods, in which they listened to further samples of glossolalia, by both male. and female demonstrators, using both audio- and video-tape. Modeling and “how-to-do-it” type instructions were given, and then the subjects were asked to try to speak pseudo language themselves for thirty seconds, during which they received encouragement and direct instruction and feedback from the experimenter. A second training session several days later followed similar procedures, but utilized demonstration samples from different speakers. In both training sessions, the subjects in that group were allowed a “practice” session to see how well they could imitate or speak in pseudo language.

Following their own training sessions, each person in the experimental group was asked to make a final attempt to produce a thirty-second sample of glossolalia. The control group, which had heard only the initial demonstration and had not been trained in the interim, returned and heard only a final one-minute sample, following which each individual was asked to produce a thirtysecond continuous sample of pseudo language.

Then the “baseline” sample (taken from everyone in the control group and the experimental group alike) and the final sample from all the subjects were judged by

Two judges, one of whom was blind to subjects’ treatment or session, rated each baseline and postlest pseudolanguage segment. Both judges who were experienced listeners of religious glossolalia, and in addition, the judge who was blind to subjects’treatment or session had, for over a year, been a speaker of religious glossolalia.

The results are intriguing.

The present findings are consistent with the social learning hypothesis that glossolalia, can be acquired with relative ease by almost anyone with the requisite motivations. All of our subjects were unfamiliar with glossolalia, prior to their participation in this study. Nevertheless, after only two brief training sessions that included practice at glossolalia, encouragement, and modeling, 70 percent of them spoke fluent glossolalia throughout the entire posttest trial and all of the remainder spoke recognizable glossolalia throughout most of the posttest interval. Importantly, 21 percent of our subjects spoke fluent glossolalia. after their one baseline exposure. This finding is consistent with reports indicating that, in religious groups, some individuals begin speaking glossolalia on their first try and after only brief exposure to other glossolalics (Samarin, 1972).

Although our posttest was only 30 s long, it is worth noting that in naturalistic religious settings, even experienced tongue speakers often maintain uninterrupted glossolalia for only relatively short intervals, and they frequently intersperse their glossolalia with meaningful utterances of varying length (e.g., thanks or praises to God; Samarin, 1972). Moreover, glossolalia invariably involves a high level of redundancy. By periodically reorganizing relatively few basic sounds, even the novice speakers can continue glossolalia for extended periods of time if they so choose (Samarin, 1972). For example, the two experimenters in the present study learned glossolalia preexperimentally by using the same procedures that were later administered to subjects. With relatively little practice, both experimenters found it easy to maintain fluent glossolalia for as long as they wished.

Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia. upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance (Samarin, 1972; Spanos & Hewitt, 1979), support the hypothesis that glossolalic utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.

The references cited in the articles include William J. Samarin’s interesting books, Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972). As is often the case with psychological research, this study merely confirms in “scientific” dress what many individuals who have observed glossolalia or otherwise dealt with modern-day tonguespeakers already knew by observation or even intuition: Twentieth-century pseudolanguages are learned behavior, acquired through motivation to imitate practiced glossolalists. They are not even biblical in the sense that what is uttered is not true language, but pseudolanguage – and not even this can be attributed to the power of the Holy Spirit, but rather to the “desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. 2:3).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 707-708
December 4, 1986

By Mike Willis

Formerly known as “one of the seven deadly sins,” pride is rarely mentioned in discussions regarding the building of Christian character. Webster defines “pride” as follows:

1. An overhigh opinion of oneself; exaggerated self-esteem; conceit;

2. The showing of this in behavior; haughtiness; arrogance;

3. A sense of one’s own dignity of worth; self-respect.

Everyone must have a sense of self-respect. We learn to take a sense of pride in our appearance in order that we not dress slovenly or in filthiness. We maintain our cars, homes, and lawns in a respectable manner. However, when selfrespect becomes exaggerated, pride develops. Man begins to think too highly of himself. Warning of the danger of pride, an old Chinese proverb says, “He who stands on a pedestal has nowhere to step but off.”

Pride Is A Sin

Pride, an exaggerated, overhigh opinion of oneself, is a sin. “An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin” (Prov. 21:4). It is the mark of a generation without reverence for God (Prov. 30:13; Rom. 1:30). It stems from a corrupt heart (Mk. 7:21-23).

Pride Is An Avenue of Temptation

In describing how the Devil tempts men to sin, John includes the “vainglory” or “pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:15). There are many things in life in which men take pride; through these avenues the Devil tempts us. Some take pride in their (a) appearance; (b) education; (c) race; (d) job; (e) possessions (cf. Prov. 30:7-9). They brag about these things and want to display them to others.

What Pride Does

When one considers the fruits of pride, he will better appreciate why God considers it an abomination (Prov. 6:17). Here are some of its fruits:

1. Pride dethrones God in one’s heart. In Romans 1:30, Paul describes the Gentiles as “despiteful, proud.” The word “despiteful” (Greek: hubristes) means “an insolent man, ‘one who, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong… (Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 633-634). William Barclay further described this character:

The basic evil of hubris is that when hubris enters into a man’s heart that man forgets that he is a creature and that God is the Creator (More New Testament Words, pp. 77-78).

A proud man has such as exalted view of himself that he dethrones, God as Lord over him.

2. He exalts himself. Paul told the Christian “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). The wise man wrote, “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory” (Prov. 25:27). Putting oneself up on a pedestal, even if limited to a pedestal in one’s own mind, is sinful and will lead to destruction.

3. He develops an attitude of superiority toward others. Thinking himself to be better than others, he begins to “look down his nose” at those he judges to be inferior to himself. His snobbish behavior makes him obnoxious to his fellow man (cf. the description of four intolerable things in Prov. 30:21-23 which describe men and women who, having been exalted, become proud).

4. He becomes a braggart. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). The man who is full of pride in his heart begins to brag about that in which he takes pride. He becomes a boastful man, a braggart (cf. Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2). This makes him more obnoxious to his fellow man.

5. He becomes self-willed. Proud men – men who exalt themselves and feel superior to their fellow man – usually become self-willed men. They think, “My way is best; my way is the only way; my way or else.” This leads to contention (Prov. 13:10), strife (Prov. 28:25), wrath (Prov. 21:24), and sinful speech (Prov. 14:3). Many churches across America are torn asunder by proud, arrogant, self-willed brethren who would rather see the church divided than to give an inch in judgmental matters. Such men are not qualified to be leaders in the church (cf. Tit. 1:7).

6. Pride prevents conversion. In order for a man to enter the kingdom of heaven, he must be “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). He must become as a child (Matt. 18:3). So long as man has the feeling that he is rich, increased with goods, and has need of nothing, he will never recognize his true spiritual condition – wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:17). Not sensing his need of salvation and feeling self-satisfied, the proud man will not seek forgiveness of his sins through Christ.

7. Prevents confession of sins to God and others. Some people are too proud to admit that they were wrong. They lack the humility to go to those against whom they have sinned and say, “I have sinned against you; please forgive me.” They refuse to bow their stubborn necks to God and seek His forgiveness. Humility is confused with weakness, in many people’s minds.

8. Prevents service to others. Some are too proud to do the menial tasks in serving the needs of others. Jesus was the “God of the towel,” the God who took a towel, girded Himself, and washed His disciples’ feet. The proud man expects his feet to be washed but has no intention of lowering himself to wash another’s feet. Hence, the proud man expects others to serve him but he will not serve others.

Pride Leads To Destruction

The proverbs repeatedly emphasize that pride precedes destruction:

When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom (Prov. 11:2).

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall (Prov. 16:18).

. . . he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction (Prov. 17:19).

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility (Prov. 18:12).

A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honor shall uphold the humble in spirit (Prov. 29:23).

Paul warned, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

Pride Is Hated By God

A proud look is included in the list of seven things which are an abomination to God (Prov. 6:17; cf. 16:5). “The Lord will destroy the house of the proud” (Prov. 15:25). Inasmuch as pride is hated by God and the proud will be destroyed by Him, men should learn to view pride as God does and to hate it. “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate” (Prov. 8:13).

King Herod: An Example of Pride

A New Testament example of pride is recorded in Acts 12. King Herod killed James the brother of John. He then put Peter in prison, planning to kill him. The Lord miraculously delivered Peter. Later King Herod went to Caesarea. There Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to the people. They shouted, “It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.” Herod accepted their homage.

However, God smote Herod “because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts 12:23). Truly, his pride preceded his destruction in the most literal sense.

Conclusion

Let us remember our place in God’s creation: we are creatures who have sinned against an holy God. Let us not be guilty of self-exaltation. Rather, let us be humble children, subjecting ourselves to the will of the Lord who made us.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 706, 726
December 4, 1986

By Tom M. Roberts

In an age of almost unbridled institutionalism, it is difficult to speak particularly about the local church and our responsibility to it without being misunderstood. Advocates of church-supported institutions take for granted that any encouragement given to the local church automatically includes encouragement for the institutions they have attached to the local church. On the other hand, opponents to the local church (a.k.a. the “organic institutional body corporate – functional unit”) charge one with supporting “churchianity” instead of Christianity. Nevertheless, we must recognize and discharge our responsibilities in whatever way the Scriptures indicate, whether or not we are misunderstood. Let’s try to define our limitations and then proceed with an understanding of our subject.

Not Institutionalism

When one speaks of duties to the local church, it should not be assumed that such duties extend to any and every business enterprise that some promoter attaches to the treasury of the Lord’s church. We love our idols! Whether the college-in-the-budget, a local day-care center, benevolent society, or some other human enterprise, such institutions can scarcely be distinguished from the Lord’s church in the minds of their supporters. Colleges mix and mingle their buildings and budgets in such a fashion that one cannot tell where the college work leaves off and the work of the church begins. Personnel from various institutions act as though they are working for the church when they promote the affairs of the institution that pays their salaries. To criticize the institution is to criticize the Lord! To work for the institution is to work for the church; to work for the church is to work for the institution. This is the typical institutional mind set, the reason why institutions end up controlling the church, the “tail wagging the dog” syndrome so familiar to students of church history. If one doubts this, do a personal study of the development of Texas Christian University and its connection to the Christian Church. Let it be clear that we do not have this kind of concept in mind when we speak of local church responsibilities.

Not Church Universal

When one is baptized, he is added to the Lord (Rom. 6:3), which is the same thing as being added to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). This is the aggregate of all the saved, “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). The Ethiopian nobleman belonged to this body (Acts 8:26-40) though he, in the beginning, belonged to no local church. This body of Christ, of which we speak specifically, has no obligation to meet, perform any congregational activity, appoint world-wide officers, collect a treasury or do anything as a collective body. It exists as a spiritual entity, so far as we are informed in the Scriptures, as a body denoting spiritual connection to Christ. Only the Lord knows their number and only He can add to or take away their name from that list which would be equated with the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 3:5).

There are individual activities which we ought to do because of our relationship to Christ in this universal body. I am a Christian (and a part of the universal church) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and every action of my life should reflect my spiritual connection to Christ. As a Christian, I vote, choose a job, perform as a citizen, act as a husband ought, and do all human activities under the realization that Christ is in me and I in Christ (1 Pet. 1:13-4:19).

Admitting this does not negate that there is a relationship in the local church that is in addition to those responsibilities that I have as a member of the universal church. As one who might move from place to place, I may leave one local body and join one in another city (Acts 9:26) while never ceasing to be a Christian nor ceasing to belong to the “general assembly” of saints.

The Local Church

But the Scriptures do teach that there is a relationship to the Lord we sustain in the local church. Those who would deny its existence collide headlong with many clear statements to the contrary. That the local church is an entity is seen from many factors, including: (1) local identity: the Corinthian church as distinct from the Jerusalem church, the Roman, the Philippian, etc.; (2) corporate action: as in discipline (Matt. 18:15-17), or the “lump” (1 Cor. 5:6), and “being gathered together” (v. 4) as distinct from individual members at Corinth; (3) principalagent relationship: the church chose a messenger to act for it in a distant place (2 Cor. 8:23); (4) ability to appoint servants and submit to overseers (Acts 6:3; 14:23; Tit. 1:5); (5) to pay wages (2 Cor. 11:8); (6) to have a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 11:8); (7) to have an individual candlestick assigned to a local church by the Lord (Rev. 1:20); and (8) the use of collective nouns, giving a group of people a single identity: “church,” “body,” “it” (1 Tim. 5:8), etc. Though not an exhaustive list, this should provide proof that God expects us to belong to a local body of believers and work within this group in an assigned way in service to Him. What, then, do I owe the local church?

Obligations To The Local Church I owe to the local church the same kind of allegiance which I give to the Lord, for it, too, is the body of Christ. True, there are many problems in the local fellowship due to the imperfections of us all. However, I must be able to differentiate between the human side of the church and the divine side. Whenever I think of a church having troubles, I think of the Corinthian church. But Paul did not give up on it because of its internal struggles, choosing rather to work to solve their sins. Note his tender address to this troubled group of saints in 1:2: “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints . . .” Contrast this attitude with that of the “church hopper” who jumps from church to church every time there is a problem, never staying at one congregation long enough to solve anything. They have no true allegiance to fellowship or unity, choosing to run away rather than mediate, to flee rather than stay and solve a problem. Such allegiance is cosmetic and superficial, itself a problem rather than a solution. Additionally, there are some whose allegiance is mixed: as much loyalty to the world as to the Lord. They love the church, but not in hunting season; they want to be used, but not when the fish are biting; they want to be active for the Lord, but not on Sunday night. Like Demas, their true colors finally show (2 Tim. 4:10). 1 owe better allegiance to the local church than such divided loyalties.

I owe to the local church the exhortation that we mutually need to remain steadfast. “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). There are many pitfalls in our walk with the Lord. Each of us can become discouraged. The Lord proved His wisdom when He made provision in the local church for us to help one another. Even wild animals know there is strength in numbers. I am told that wild asses will form a tightly knit circle with heels outward to ward off attacks of wolves. There are times when I need the help that comes from being with others “of like precious faith.” We neglect to receive a blessing when we fail to be with other Christians, exhorting and being exhorted. You see, the world is constant in its exhortation: TV, worldliness in fellow-employees, the sinful environment to which we are exposed daily, etc. The world has a grinding effect on faith and we need to have it renewed constantly. My brethren in the local church need it and so do I.

I owe the local church faithful attendance to its work. This will include participation in all its efforts, but especially so in opportunities of worship. Show me a one-hour-a-week Christian and I will show you a weak Christian. From the ranks of those who attend but one hour a week (or a month, or less) come no elders, no teachers, no preachers. They cannot be depended on for any kind of work on a regular basis. They are not steadfast (1 Cor. 15:58) except in their unfaithfulness. When the local church has a crisis, they are never present to help share in the work to overcome the adversity. They expect the building to be kept open, cooled, heated, cleaned, paid for and all the services staffed by those who see that the job is completed, but the church cannot count on them. I say it with sadness, but it needs saying: some brethren are so distant from the church and its work that a local church could close its doors and some members would not know it for six months! Contrast that with the attitude of the early disciples: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:42).

I owe the local church my financial support. While it is true that TV preachers have made a mockery of giving, it is also true that faithful Christians will support the work of the Lord with their money. Over and above opportunities for individual giving and good works (Gal. 6: 10), we are commanded to support the local treasury (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8, 9). Some may label such giving cynically as “obeying and paying” but noble motives are immune to such carping. When one gives to the local treasury, one is giving to the Lord (Acts 5:1-11). It is proper to support the work of Christ through the “functional unit” (the local church) since it is not possible to support the church universal nor contribute to a fund for the “general assembly.” The local church will always have a need since the Lord assigned it evangelism, edification and benevolence. There will never be a surplus of money above that need. Money is the medium of exchange whereby the local church may pool its resources and carry out the work God gave to it. As a member of the congregation, I have a responsibility, yes, and a rare privilege, to share in the support of this blessed work.

I owe the local church a proper attitude toward each and every member. The Corinthians were “carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1), “puffed up” (5:2), contentious and litigious (ch. 6), factious (11:18), jealous and envious (12:15). These problems hindered that church until Paul stated that, in those conditions, “it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper” (11:20). We hear of churches today that are split with hatreds and animosities, yet physically occupying the same building. The Lord addressed this attitude when He, said, “leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23ff). I owe it to the Lord and my brethren to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Perhaps we have not learned the difference between “contending for the faith” (Jude 3) and being contentious. However, there is a joy of brotherhood and blessing of unity that ought to prevail in the local church that I can contribute to or hinder. Such unanimity is possible only when we have the “mind of Christ” (Phil. 2:5), “doing nothing through faction or through vain glory, but in lowliness of mind, each counting other better than self” (v. 3).

Conclusion

God, in infinite wisdom, provided a congregational setting for His people so that we might grow together, encourage and be encouraged, worship in peace and harmony and get a foretaste of heaven itself. In order to realize this blessing, we should sense an obligation to the local church to promote these things. If we do, we are made better in the process and are “fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:16).

Are you paying what you owe to the local church?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 718-719, 728
December 4, 1986

By Weldon E. Warnock

Traditional bias and preconceived notions are difficult to overcome. They taint our perception of the Scriptures. Brother Pruitt has this problem in his approach to singing. He is accustomed, as well as myself, to congregational singing. Therefore, he concludes the early church must have done it just like he experiences. But such was not the case as was shown in my August 21, 1986 article in Guardian of Truth.

A child of God may sing any where and at any time, whether it be a solo or in unison with other saints, if he sings to the glory of God and the edification of those who hear. Paul and Silas sang praises to God while incarcerated at Philippi (Acts 16:25). James wrote, “Is any among you . . . merry? let him sing psalms” (Jas. 5:13). 1 Corinthians 14:26 states, “. . , when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm . . . … And, of course, we must not overlook 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16 and Hebrews 2:12.

I have conducted radio programs on behalf of the church where four or five brethren sang. This was worship to God, but the whole church did not participate. Some of our Sunday and Wednesday Bible classes have singing interspersed in them. Is this wrong because the whole church does not sing simultaneously? Certainly not! We also worship God in song at funerals, as well as in prayer and teaching. Many times at funerals only three or four brethren sing. Have they sinned in worshiping God through song when the whole assembly of people does not sing? Again, the answer is no! Whether a few or all sing on a radio program, in a Bible class, at a funeral or in the assembly of the whole church, we have done only what God has authorized.

Brother Pruitt has trouble with 1 Corinthians 14:26. He simply passes it off as an assembly where spiritual gifts were exercised. True, 1 Corinthians 14 regulates spiritual gifts, but there are principles in the chapter that remain. It was an assembly of the church (v. 23) and individuals sang solos (v. 26). We still have assemblies and we still have singing and the principle that allowed individual singing in the assembly at Corinth will allow the same today. Even brother Pruitt admits solo singing at Corinth. Hence, both of us are in agreement on that point. Let us keep in mind that this was at the same period that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. We conclude, therefore, that the Ephesians and Colossian passages did not (and do not) preclude the type of singing in 1 Corinthians 14:26. Neither did solo singing preclude congregational singing. We all must sing when we come together for worship in song, but not necessarily simultaneously. Here, brother Pruitt makes a law where God never made one.

The word, “simultaneous,” means “at the same time.” Brother Pruitt says this is the way we have to sing. His position would eliminate our part songs where we have alto, tenor or bass leads. Some songs have only soprano leads until the chorus, and in some cases the women are predominant with their soprano voices while the men are totally silent, waiting for the bass and tenor parts to begin. Brother M.C. Kurfees wrote, “His (Paul) admonition for Christians to sing is in the following words: ‘Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19) He uses the reflexive pronoun (emp. mine, wew), ‘speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ He does not say whether this speaking in psalms and other kinds of musical compositions shall be done by all in concert or by one at a time: hence, either is correct” (Gospel Advocate, May, 1913, p. 464).

Brother Pruitt would have you believe I just quoted a bunch of denominational writers in my former article that he is reviewing, but he inadvertently or conveniently omitted such honorable and knowledge able brethren as M.C. Kurfees, R.L. Whiteside and Marshall Patton whom I quoted as being in agreement with me. Ironically, brother Pruitt says we should see Barnes’ Notes. Barnes was a Presbyterian.

As to expediency we all (at least most of us) recognize that all things are lawful but not all things are expedient (1 Cor. 6:12). That is, all things lawfu! are permitted, but not all of those lawful things are proper. Such is the case with solo singing today in our assemblies of the whole church. Kurfees recognized this. R.L. Whiteside realized this. Marshall Patton stated this. I believe this. The apostle Paul taught this. Brother Pruitt says he cannot see this. Well, that is his problem, not mine.

A funeral is under different circumstances and its very nature would not, generally speaking, promot6 theatrical pomp and display, at least among us. This is why I maintain that solo or quartet singing at a funeral is expedient, while not expedient in our church assemblies.

“Surely our good brother has given little thought to his reasoning.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 21, p. 651
November 6, 1986