Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Can a man serve as an elder after his wife passes away?

Reply: By fulfilling the qualifications of an elder as prescribed by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9, a man has thus proved himself to oversee the local church. There is no reason that he must cease serving as an elder because he suffers the loss of his wife. He has already proven his ability to rule his family. Should any of the members of his family pass away, a man does not for that reason, become disqualified.

Not only do the Scriptures teach that for a man to qualify to serve as an elder he must be “the husband of one wife,” but they also teach that he must have children. If after he has been appointed and serves as an elder, suppose his children should be killed. This would not disqualify him to continue to serve as an elder. He has already proven himself to be qualified by the fact that he has had “children in subjection.”

His being married (the husband of one wife) and having children in subjection are qualifications which he has met to become an elder. After proving his ability to be a God-approved elder in the local flock, there is no reason that he ceases to be qualified because of family loss whether it be his wife or children, or both. Should it be argued that a man who is an elder loses his wife by death does not then have a wife, therefore would be disqualified, let us remember that there is a vast difference in having had a wife and never being married. The reason for a man having a family in order to be an elder is to prove his ability to rule his family and thus be able to “take care of the house of God.” A man could not be considered to become an elder who has no family because there would be no way to prove his ability to rule. It is a different matter with the man who is an elder and has proven this ability.

This is my conviction about the matter. In the event, however, that an elder’s wife dies and there are objections to his continuing to serve, rather than to have trouble over it, it would be best for him to cease serving. But it should be for this reason, not because his wife or some other member of his family passes away. He has the same character and the same ability that he did before he lost his wife. I see no reason, therefore, for a church to be deprived of a godly elder’s services simply because he suffers the loss of his wife or children.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, p. 613
October 17, 1985

By Mike Willis

(3) The Greek words. psallo and psalmos mean to sing with mechanical instruments of music. In recent years, those who believe that Bible authority must be provided for what one practices have resorted to this argument to prove that mechanical instruments in worship are authorized. The argument is difficult for the common man to evaluate because he has no knowledge of the Greek language and no ability to find out whether or not it is true. In my reply to this argument, I will try to present information easily discernible to the English reader without becoming bogged down in Greek lexicons.

(a) If the Greek words psallo and psalmos in Ephesians 5:19 mean “to sing with mechanical instruments of music,” then one must use mechanical instruments of music in his worship to be obedient to God. The Greek word baptizo (baptize) means “to immerse in water.” One cannot obey the command to be baptized without being immersed; sprinkling and pouring are substitutes for baptism. In a similar way, if psallo and psalmos mean “to sing with mechanical instruments of music, ” one has not obeyed the command unless he sings with mechanical instruments of music. In this case, those who do not use mechanical instruments of music would not be obeying the Lord. The use of mechanical instruments of music would not be optional, but required.

(b) If psallo means “sing with instrumental music,” the early church stood in violation of the will of God because they did not use mechanical instruments of music. The church did not begin to obey the Lord’s command until the latter part of the seventh century.

Translations of the Greek Psallo

Translation	Year	Rom. 15:9	1 Cor. 14:15	Eph. 5:19	Jas. 5:13
1. German & English	1453	sing	sing	make melody	sing
2. Tyndale	1535	sing	sing	make melody	sing
3. Cramer	1540	sing	sing	make melody	sing
4. Geneva Bible	1560	sing	sing	make melody	sing
5. Rheims	1582	sing	sing	make melody	sing
6. Douay	1610	sing	sing	make melody	sing
7. King James	1611	sing	sing	make melody	sing
8. McKnight	1795	sing	sing	make melody	sing
9. Rhemish	1833	sing	sing	make melody	sing
10. Anderson	1864	sing	sing	make melody	sing
11. Bible Union	1865	sing	sing	make melody	sing
12. Ellicott	1866	sing	sing	make melody	sing
13. Tischendorf	1868	sing	sing	make melody	sing
14. Living Oracles	1873	sing	sing	make melody	sing
15. English Revised	1901	sing	sing	make melody	sing
16. American Revised	1901	sing	sing	make melody	sing
17. Revised Standard	1945	sing	sing	making melody	sing
18. Phillips	1945	sing	sing	making music	sing
19. New American Standard	1960	sing	sing	making melody	sing
20. New English	1961	sing	sing	make music	sing
21. Today’s English	1966	sing	sing	with praise	sing
22. New American	1970	sing	sing	sing praise	sing
23. New International	1973	sing	sing	make music	sing

(c) None of the standard translations have correctly understood the meaning of this word. The chart on page 2 will demonstrate what the best Greek scholars through the centuries thought the Greek word psallo means:

The Greek scholars are consistent in translating the word “sing.” The only deviation from the normal is the translations “make melody” and “making music” in Ephesians 5:19 and there the instrument on which the music is to be made is specified as the human heart, not some mechanical instrument. Hence, the Greek words do not provide authority for mechanical instruments of music in worship. (For a more detailed study of this argument, read the Boswell-Hardeman Debate published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation in Bowling Green, Kentucky.)

(4) The piano is just an aid to our worship, like a pitch pipe, song book, and song leader. Is the piano and organ only an aid or are they additions? How does one distinguish aids from additions? One could argue that putting peanut butter on the unleavened bread in the Lord’s supper would improve its taste and make worship more palatable. Would this be an aid to worship? I think most of us would agree that it is not an aid; it is an addition-an unauthorized addition. But, how do we arrive at this conclusion?

An addition is a violation of specific authority because it introduces another item of the same class. For example, the Lord specified unleavened bread and fruit of the vine to be used on the Lord’s table. The use of another kind of food on the Lord’s table is an addition. In contrast, the use of one container or many for the fruit of the vine and the use of plates to pass the unleavened bread are simply aids; they aid in distributing the elements which the Lord authorized but do not introduce unauthorized items.

In like manner, a pitch pipe, song book, shaped notes, and a leader all assist us in doing what God authorized-to sing. The introduction of another kind of music, like the introduction of another kind of food on the Lord’s table, is not an aid; it is an addition — an addition unauthorized in God’s word.

(5) Revelation 14:2 describes singing with a harp in praise to God. The book of Revelation mentions many things in heaven which are not to be practiced in the worship of the New Testament church, such as incense with prayers (Rev. 8:4) and an altar (Rev. 6:9). The figurative language of the book of Revelation draws from the symbolism of the Old Testament to convey its message. Its symbolic language is not to be understood literally or to describe what items are to be used in the worship of the New Testament church.

(6) Many members of the church of Christ sing at home with a piano. We can do many things at our homes which we would not make a part of the worship of the church. We watch TV, play baseball, listen to records, cook, sleep and many other things at our homes which have no place in the worship of the church. Many Christians who are talented in music play secular music in their homes. Such is not inconsistent.

However, some see nothing wrong with singing spiritual songs with an instrument at home but oppose the same practice at the church building. Some of us are very inconsistent in our application of the word of God. In the worship of God in song, one should not use mechanical instruments of music, whether done in one’s home or the church building. Yet, a member’s inconsistency does not provide authority for something otherwise not authorized. If every member of the church of Christ is inconsistent in his application of God’s word, that does not prove that mechanical instruments of music in worship are approved of God.

(7) I have the talent to play the piano and I want to use my talent to praise God. I suppose that the man who has a talent to grill hamburgers, play baseball, auctioneer, lift weights, perform magical tricks, tell jokes, and other things should also be given an opportunity to display his talents in the worship services. If not, why not?

These are the most frequently heard arguments to defend the use the mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the saints. None of them, when examined carefully, provide authority for the church to use mechanical instruments of music in its singing services. The arguments that have never been made in the defense of mechanical instruments of music in worship are these:

The Lord commanded us to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. The Lord recorded an example of an early church using mechanical instruments of music in its worship. This Scripture necessarily infers that the early church used mechanical instruments of music in its worship.

These arguments have never and will never be made in the defense of mechanical instruments of music in worship because there is no book, chapter, and verse in the New Testament which authorizes its use!

There is one argument which has been made in defense of mechanical instruments of music in worship which is unanswerable. That argument is: “We like it; we want it; and we are determined to have it.” When man has set his stubborn will against God’s word, all of the arguments in the world will not and cannot change his mind.

Abuses Related to Instrumental Music in Worship

The introduction of mechanical instruments of music in worship has not been without its problems. Some of the problems are small and others are large. The problems begin with the petty feuding regarding who gets to play the piano and/or organ. Feelings are hurt and ill will exists between those in the local church with the ability to play the instrument.

Another problem comes in the second and third generation. Soon the younger people begin to see that there is no difference in using a guitar, cymbals, and drum than any other instrument of music. So the younger generation moves toward a full-scale band. As their taste for music differs from the older generation, the flavor of the music begins to change from traditional hymns to contemporary gospel, southern gospel, bluegrass gospel, or even rock gospel. There is no logical place to stop. Those who only wanted a piano or organ are now finding themselves uncomfortable with rock gospel singing groups.

The same instruments which are used to “aid” the singing are soon used to “set the mood” for offering the invitation, prayer, and the observance of the Lord’s supper. Soon the worship becomes centered around the use of mechanical instruments of music.

Conclusion

As churches have moved further and further away from demanding book, chapter, and verse for what is practiced in religion, the worship changes from the praise and adoration of God to what is most palatable and pleasing to man. What worship is offered to God is offered according to what man thinks will please God rather than according to what God has revealed will please Him. Worship devised by men is substituted for divinely revealed worship.

We encourage you to go back to the simple worship which God has revealed in the Bible that man should bring to God. We oppose the departure from this worship in any form, whether it be by using incense, burning candles, praying to Mary, or using mechanical instruments of music. Will you join hands with us in calling on men and women to go back to the Bible and offer to God the worship which He has revealed that we should offer?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 610, 631-632
October 17, 1985

By Luther Bolenbarker

It was late one evening as I worked; a deadline to meet was fast approaching and we were having problems with our computer. It was malfunctioning because improper information (we learned later) was being fed in. It seemed that every few minutes my supervisors were breathing down my neck. 1, in turn, was demanding more speed and accuracy from those in my charge. The deadline came and went right on by and I, out of frustration, “kicked that dumb computer. ” The computer still did not function and was unaware of the “kick” but I, rather, my foot was aware of the computer.

The most obvious difference in the mind of man and the computers’ which man creates is that man has emotions or what we call feelings. Computers have none, man does, especially in the toes.

The apostle Paul writes about feelings, “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye, and above all things, put on charity which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:12-14). Notice, everyone of the qualities we are to put on as Christians mentioned in this verse relates to feelings.

Some over zealous religious people allow their feelings to become extreme and also authoritarian that they fail to realize that feelings have limits. Some have reacted to this by subduing and denying their feelings to the opposite extreme.

Many Christians equate quietness with reverence, or outward polish as inward praise. The old joke about the man who was saying “Praise the Lord, Hallelujah and Amen” during the sermon was told by the preacher, “Look fellow, this is the church of Christ and we don’t praise the Lord here,” may apply too well to the average assembly of the saints. In our doing away with all the “shouts of joy” and verbal “hallelujahs” and “Amens” because they are associated with the “Pentecostals,” our silence may become an obvious counterbalance to their extreme noise. However, both extremes when artificial are vain.

Feeling good does not make us good. Feeling right does not make us right. Truth is of God and He revealed it, not through our feelings but by His revelation (2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Yet, on the other hand, there is no or very little virtue in not feeling anything.

Feelings do not make truth, or confirm it. A good conscience is often misleading (Acts 23:1), as many who are still lost “feel right.” Feelings do not lead, they follow. They do not act, they react! So when truth is known through evidence, feelings should surround, embrace and accept the truth. “And they went on their way rejoicing,” is recorded or implied again and again as a result of conversion (Acts 8:39; 16:34). The reaction of almost every person I’ve baptized; has been that of joy and thanksgiving and a feeling of relief as they are raised out of the waters of baptism. It is “by grace through faith” in Christ that we can “praise God.” We often have them in the right order but somewhere along the way we sometimes neglect to praise God.

When the eunuch from Ethiopia went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39), it was because he had reason to rejoice. He had believed and had been baptized therefore, his rejoicing followed his obedience of faith that led him through the waters of baptism. None of us rejoices in dying, and the house of death is hardly the place for “shouts of joy,” but, the resurrection (figuratively in our baptism, and for real when Jesus does come), the beginning of life, that is where the rejoicing begins and continues.

Our knowing the truth, believing the truth, obeying the truth brings out within each of us that “gut feeling” (bowels of mercies) and knows no other way of expressing itself other than to “praise God” in our every waking moment.

Remember, saying, “Praise God, Praise Jesus, or Praise the Lord,” does not necessarily constitute true praise to God. Sometimes they are just empty words without feelings. We can praise God by being quiet, too. It is a matter of attitude and truth, just as Jesus told the woman at the well, “Worship of God must be in Spirit and Truth” (John 4:24).

We cannot worship God and it be acceptable to Him without our feelings being involved. I am afraid that some may be like the computer: no spiritual or physical feelings. How do you feel as you worship and serve God? Are you just going through the motions without any real emotions or feelings?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 589
October 3, 1985

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel (Judg. 2:10).

While introducing a sermon, I apologized to the audience for preaching on something that I knew they had heard time and time again. A young preacher friend came to me after the services and kindly rebuked me for being apologetic for preaching on that subject. He said, “You forget that many of those other times you preached on this subject, that my generation was not old enough to get it. It is all fresh material to us.” He made an important point that I hope I never forget: it just takes one generation of failing to teach and you have a generation that knows not the ways and works of God.

It is a thrill to read all that God accomplished for Israel through Moses and Joshua. It is an inspiration to read of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the working of God to bring them into the promised land, against all odds from the human point of view. It is wonderful to read of how this people, with little military power or training, were able to stand against all enemies-because God fought for them. But, alas, they can no longer stand before their enemies (Judg. 2:14). Why? A generation arose “who did not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel.” A generation arose that had more in common with its enemies than it had in common with the Lord (Judg. 2:12,13).

This generation was far enough removed from the events that brought them out of Egypt, making them a separate and distinct nation, that it did not mean as much to them as it had to Joshua and his generation. After Joshua and “the elders who outlived Joshua, who had known all the works of the Lord which He had done for Israel,” had passed away, things changed. It was a new day-a new generation. This generation was unable to appreciate the hardships, the sacrifices, the battles and the reasons for loyalty that the other generation had experienced in order to establish Israel as God’s great nation. They could not have known them by experience and somehow Joshua and the elders who outlived him were unable to sufficiently impress them upon their minds. Surely, they must have known they were a distinct nation-the Lord’s nation. But, they did not appreciate what made them so, or the background struggle that brought them to this point. So, it became much easier for them to reach some accommodations with the people around them and adopt their ways of worship. And I suspect it would have been hard to make them understand why the older generation was so hide bound in their opposition to at least some worship of other gods and at least some of the more pleasant aspects of idolatry. And why must they maintain their fathers’ hardline stance, if there could be a way found to lessen the friction with their neighbors by accepting as much of their ways as possible?

God’s people, His church, has had to fight many a battle, endure great hardship, and engage in much labor in order to establish and maintain their distinction in the world. They have had to be delivered from many “Egypts” since the establishment of the church in the New Testament. After almost every case of deliverance there arises a generation that does not know the sacrifices, the toil, and the reasons behind the positions taken by the preceding generation. The new generation becomes all too willing to reach an accommodation with the very people with whom their fathers struggled, not only for their own good, but to see that this new generation would be God’s distinct people and enjoy His blessings and favor.

The new generation knows that there are differences between “us” and “them,” but they know not the reasons behind the differences. The new generation knows that “our position” on certain issues are different from their neighbors, but they know not the reasons behind the positions. The new generation knows the result of the past struggle has been to isolate and separate us from “other churches,” but know little about the issues that produced the struggle in the first place. So, reaching some sort of working accommodation with those of good religious people around us and those brethren who have gone out from us may not be a big deal with the new generation.

It is not altogether the new generation’s fault. It is easy for the generation that fought the battles, endured the hardships, and worked their way out of error by hard study and much discussion to simply forget to pass the appreciation of it on the next generation. It is easier to hand them the end results of it all than it is to impress upon them the importance of the background behind the results. It is easy to let them grow by taking for granted that they know what we know about “Egypt” and its slavery and the importance to maintaining our freedom in Christ from the enslaving influences of the religious world around us. So, seeing what they consider to be unpleasant conditions (conditions that are a necessary part of being God’s distinct people and conditions created by our past struggles and toil), they see them as a tragic result and set about to remedy things in a way that would not please the Lord. They see the separateness without appreciating the reasons behind it. Knowing how pleasant unity is, they set about to establish the unity without regard to what caused the division in the first place.

In the early 1800s a movement back to New Testament Christianity, commonly called the “Restoration Movement,” took place in this country. Its aim was Christianity without denominationalism. Great strides were made. Debates were conducted. Great men, at great personal sacrifice, came out of ‘denominationalism and established congregations in many communities that had no denominational ties. But, there arose another generation and many of those congregations became a part of what is known today as the “Christian Church” or “Disciples of Christ” denomination with neither reservation nor apology for being a mainstream Protestant denomination. The sacrifices of the past and the scriptural arguments against denominational practices had little significance to the new generation.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a great struggle to free churches of Christ from and to keep others from being involved in institutional and/or centralized arrangements for church work. Much discussion took place in papers and from pulpits on the issue. The results were that some congregations were saved, others spared and still others established that were free of these things. But by the middle of this century, a generation arose that seemed not to appreciate that struggle, and many of these very congregations became involved with human institutions and centralized arrangements. The battle had to be fought all over again.

Brethren, we can take nothing for granted. We must do all that we can to pass on to the next generation all the reasons, knowledge of the toil and struggle, and good Bible knowledge behind our distinct position in the world. This generation needs to try to know and understand these things.

We still need to teach regularly on the first principles that many of us have heard over and over again without growing weary of them. We need to teach over and over the principles involved in institutionalism, instrumental music, and all else pertaining to church work and worship. We need to continually teach on God’s marriage law, worldliness, modesty, lasciviousness (as it applies to most mixed swimming, most dancing, most movies, much TV, etc.), etc., or not be too shocked if the new generation accepts them as a matter of course.

It just takes one untaught generation for the church to become denominational and worldly in its thinking. A young man, who had spent two years as a student in the very “Christian college” that I attended, recently asked me if I had ever “pastored a church” in Tennessee.

I am mighty afraid that in our efforts to make our preaching and teaching “relevant” that we may be neglecting much of the preaching needed to encourage this generation to maintain our distinctive place in the world. The great moral issues of our day are important themes and must be preached on. But let us not forget the old themes of the plan of salvation, the organization, work and worship of the church; the fundamentals of faith, the identity of the church, and other “old fashioned” principles that make us a distinctive people. Too much of our preaching sounds more like social counseling lectures than they do gospel sermons.

The older generation might do well to get out some of those old sermon outlines and class notes of 25-50 years ago, dust them off, and use them again. The newer generation would do well to borrow some of those outlines and notes, do some research into what produced them, and preach and practice the points in them. Or, we may well produce another generation that does “not know the Lord nor the work which He had done for Israel.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 609, 630
October 17, 1985