Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Through the years, unity meetings have been held on several occasions between those of us who oppose instrumental music in worship and those who have elected to use instrumental music in worship. In recent years, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett were instrumental in arranging many such meetings in which some of us participated and others of us attended. Generally those of us who participated in those meetings taught what needed to be taught in such meetings. Our brethren stated that Bible unity can be attained in only one way. Those who use instrumental music in worship, support from the church treasury human institutions (whether they be missionary or benevolent societies, colleges, old folks homes or whatever), participate in the sponsoring church arrangement, or participate in any other unscriptural practice must cease and desist their practice of sin. That message is not much appreciated by people searching for a compromise which permits them to persist in unscriptural activities and to have some kind of unity with brethren who oppose such practices. The result has been that unity meetings do not generally include speakers who will give a clarion call for digressives to repent.

Those of us who have stood opposed to church support of human institutions, church supported recreation, and the sponsoring church arrangement have frequently noticed that some of the liberal churches of Christ are involved in many of the same practices as the conservative Christian Church. We have wondered just how long it would be before these two groups started talking about unity. Those in the liberal churches of Christ could logically object only to instrumental music in worship, and some of their own leading men have made statements which indicated that many of these brethren no longer believe that using instrumental music in worship is a sin.

Restoration Summit

During the week of 7-9 August 1984, 100 representatives from the liberal churches of Christ and the conservative Christian Churches met in Joplin, Missouri on the campus of the Ozark Bible College for a Restoration Summit. The consultation was held at the suggestion of Alan Cloyd, evangelist and editor of Restoration Leadership Quarterly, and Don DeWelt, publisher of One Body. I have not previously said anything about this Summit inasmuch as I wanted to read what some of those who participated in it would report. Many of the reports have already been published, so we can now make some observations about the event.

Some have objected to who was selected from among our liberal brethren.

We were told in the Restoration Leadership Quarterly, Volume 14, number 1, that fifty of our “finest” men would be participating in this endeavor. One look at the fist of men selected, and it soon becomes apparent that our “finest” were anything but our “finest.” Many of those named to “represent” us were among the most liberal-minded among us. Many of those fisted are well-known for their spirit of compromise. Those selected for this platform of compromise were not selected by Ken Butterworth and John Shaver, and as far as we have been able to ascertain, were not selected by any faithful brethren we know. When selections were made, where were uncompromising men of God like Franklin Camp, Curtis Cates, Roy Deaver, Bobby Duncan, Garland Elkins, Alan Highers, W.A. Holley, Roger Jackson, Wayne Jackson, Robert Taylor, Bert Thomas, Guy N. Woods and Ernest Underwood? These brethren, are some of our “finest!” (The Bible Way [October 1984], p. 2).

Those who did “represent” our liberal brethren included such names as Marvin Phillips, Rubel Shelly, Robert Hooper, Calvin Warpula, and Reuel Lemmons.

Some were quite concerned about the meeting from the beginning. Remembering similar meetings which had been arranged by Christian Church brethren James DeForest Murch and Claude E. Witty beginning in 1938 and the compromising spirit which they sought, some of the more conservative members of the liberal churches were concerned that a spirit of compromise might characterize this meeting. These brethren remembered that a speech by H. Leo Boles had effectively killed the spirit of compromise at Indianapolis in 1939 and they reproduced his speech for distribution at the Restoration Summit. Here is what brother Guy N. Woods related to have occurred:

Under date of September 5, 1 wrote brother Alan Cloyd as follows: “The report has come to me that copies of the speech H. Leo Boles delivered at the ‘Unity Meeting’ in Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3, 1939, later published in both the GOSPEL ADVOCATE and the CHRISTIAN STANDARD, and recently reprinted in tract form by the Getwell Church of Christ, Memphis, Tennessee, were on display at the ‘Unity’ meeting in Joplin, Missouri, and that they were removed and burned or otherwise destroyed by you. Is this report correct?” To this he responded, “I did in fact remove the tracts in question. They were uninvited materials which were not appreciated. Brother Boles’ language is abusive and crude. I did not feel that these tracts would be in the interest of the meeting. . .” (Gospel Advocate [4 October 1984], p. 580).

Brother Woods is reproducing brother Boles’ excellent speech in the Gospel Advocate to give it wider distribution.

Shortly after the Summit, glowing reports were published in several periodicals. Sam E. Stone, editor of Christian Standard, writes,

The Joplin meeting marked a major effort to restore communication between the two groups. . . . In announcing the sessions, brother Cloyd explained, “Everyone realizes the restoration movement was not fragmented overnight-its wounds will not be healed overnight. This exciting event will, however, be a noble beginning of a healing process as scores of great thinkers and leaders begin to deal honorably and cordially with the fundamental differences dividing us.”

. . . The Joplin meeting represents a major breakthrough in lines that frequently have been drawn between the two fellowships (“Restoration Movement Leaders Meet,” Christian Standard f16 September 1984], p.3).

Editor H. Sherwood Evans wrote in The Restoration Herald under the-title “Historic Restoration Consultation” (October 1984). He reproduced an article from Frank Brown, minister of the First Christian Church, Carmi, Illinois. Brown was quoted as follows:

Never have I attended a meeting with so much love being shown and so much profitable intellect being expressed. One of the major-and surprising-revelations found out early on in the meeting was that much of our misunderstanding of one another is a matter of semantics. . . .

For three days there was such an expression of love and fellowship that no one would have even suggested anything that would compromise a brother. One speaker said, “I am one of those who fought our fellowship. Please forgive me.”

At the conclusion Max Ward Randall was called to the podium by his nephew Dennis, to lead in a closing prayer. Those two men on opposite sides of the instrument issue wept openly during prayer. What an impact it had on me to hear many of the hundred men of both persuasions quietly weep during the prayers, touched by this attempt to express a real love for one another” (p.2).

The 21 October 1984 issue of Christian Standard carried an article by Rubel Shelly entitled “A View From ‘The Summit. “‘ He projected his hopes for the future in these words:

Attempts are now being made to set up two meetings in 1985 which will follow the general procedure of the Joplin conference. Within a couple of years, it would be good to hold some sort of national lectureship which could be attended by any and all from either fellowship where communication and study can be broadened.

(2) Meaningful exchange can take place between the two groups of believers. On a national level, we can read each other’s books and periodicals-and write for one another. (My personal thanks go to brother Stone for allowing me to write this article for Christian Standard). We can attend each other’s lectureships and conventions-and interchange speakers.

On a congregational level, we can establish contact with one another during gospel meetings, VBS, and special activities. It would be wonderful to worship together and to have some pulpit exchange. It is at this point, of course, that the instrument creates a barrier. Some brethren are more willing to suspend the use of a piano or organ in times of joint worship for the sake of those of us who cannot use it in good conscience-just as was done so graciously at Joplin (p.4).

Observations

This seemingly complex issue of unity between those associated with the churches of Christ and the Christian Church has never seemed that complex to me. There are only a few alternatives:

(1) Those associated with the Christian Church must give up the instrument (and anything else not authorized in the Scriptures) and return to the New Testament pattern of worship. This does not mean only giving it up occasionally while working out a compromise at some annual “unity meeting,” such as was done in the Murch-Witty meetings and more recently at Joplin (as noted by brother Shelly above). Rather, the sin of unscriptural worship must be repented of and forsaken altogether.

(2) Those of us who are associated with the churches of Christ must quit teaching that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is sinful.

(3) We must accept a unity in diversity. This view states that each of us will go on teaching and practicing what we believe but will recognize and accept each other as brethren equally acceptable to the Lord.

From my observations, I have not concluded that there is any movement at all by Christian Church brethren to cease and desist the use of mechanical instruments of music in their worship. I have observed that some brethren in the churches of Christ no longer put the issue of the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship on the same level as other things which are sinful (see, for example, Rubel Shelly’s book I Just Want To Be A Christian, p. 113). Hence, the movement which is being made to make unity possible is coming solely and exclusively from those in the churches of Christ. They are compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of unity.

Personally, I resent criticisms of our forefathers in the faith with reference to the division. To imply that the division with the Christian Church occurred just because people in the two groups did not understand or love each other is an insult to both groups. They perfectly well understood each other, but could not walk together because they were not agreed (Amos 3:3). Sound brethren and digressives understood each other as well as they understood people in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian denominations. Our faithful forefathers simply were as unwilling to compromise what the Bible said about worship for the sake of unity with the Christian Church as they were unwilling to compromise what the Bible said about how to be saved in order to have unity with the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians. They loved the truth more than they loved unity with brethren. Hence, the division was inevitable. One side would not give up the truth, end the other side would not give up the instrument.

I am for unity. Anytime that brethren can work together to promote unity, good can and will be accomplished. The only ground for unity which I am willing to accept is one that rests squarely upon the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 17:17; 2 Jn. 9-11). A unity which ceases opposition to anything unauthorized in the word of God is unacceptable (Eph. 5:11; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). Unfortunately, some of our brethren are ready to enter the same kind of unity talks as our politicians entered with the North Vietnamese. I suggest to you that the results for brethren will be similar to the results of those peace talks-evil will triumph.

What Does The Future Hold?

I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, so do not misconstrue comments as predictions. They are simply one individual’s attempt to assess what is going on among our liberal brethren.

Just as we have been hurt by the influence of the grace-unity movement which is led by Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside, so have the liberal brethren. Whereas we have sought to deal with the issue by calling attention to the issues and attention to the men circulating the false doctrines, those in the liberal churches of Christ have done very little of this. Consequently, it is difficult to assess how deeply they will be affected by the grace-unity movement, but it is certain that the atmosphere of liberalism is perfectly suited to the compromising spirit of the grace-unity heresy.

However, one can already detect the beginnings of division in their ranks on the issue. The Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation are under the control of brethren who win stand against fellowship with those who use instrumental music in their worship. Others, represented in part by Mission Messenger and Integrity , are ready and willing p accept those in the conservative Christian Churches as brethren. Hence, there will probably be a division in the liberal churches of Christ somewhat similar to what has occurred in the Christian Church, which has divided into at least two branches-the Disciples of Christ and conservative Christian Church/instrumental churches of Christ. Whether or not Joplin turns out to be a watershed, it is at least a straw in the wind. It is the portent of things to come.

We will follow the writings of these brethren, watching with interest. We would be delighted to see progress toward scriptural unity on such matters as worship, institutionalism. and the mission of the church. We will never rejoice in iniquity and we are not glad to see the spirit of apostasy waxing worse and worse. But hopefully some of those who have drifted into liberalism during the last thirty years will be alarmed by this portent of more radical digression and retrace their steps to the solid ground of doing only what is authorized in the word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 22, pp. 674, 694-695
November 15, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Tired of controversy and religious argument? Me, too. However, it is like a doctor who is weary of seeing sick people. It goes with the territory.

Sadly, “the man in the pew” often wants to leave the dirty work of contention to the “man in the pulpit.” There should not be such a concept among the people who claim to be Christians. We are all in the faith together. “Isms” are ever before us. They must be answered over and over and over. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Another deplorable disposition has developed. Like little girls who are “made of sugar and spice and everything nice,” some think the gospel of grace, peace and love is to see who can smile the biggest and broadly beam, “How ya’ doing? Good to see ya… the most often. Religious debate is out of harmony with their view of a “warm, loving spirit.” Mention a “discussion” of a “vital issue,” and they feel like someone who is sitting in a bathtub full of cold liver. Well, friend, the faith of Christ is addressed to the mind and heart of man (Jn. 6:44,45; Lk. 8:11,12), and disputing is one means to combat false theories, philosophies and doctrines. Or do you deny that such things even exist (1 Jn. 4:1)?

The condescending, “I’m too sweet to argue” attitude is an insult to the Lord and the apostles. Besides, one cannot answer the doctrines and commandments of men with his best grin. It is not enough to gently and benignly clear your throat when a false teacher seeks to lead away disciples. You may radiate your most non-violent smile and squirm ever so graciously in the presence of error, but that, as they say, it won’t quite cut it.” You have to study, meditate and “give an answer,” “speaking the truth in love.” The Lord Jesus gave us a sword to wield, not a wand to wave (Eph. 6:10-17).

Further, some seem to believe that gospel preachers are too picky, too contentious. True, some are. Every institution known to God, men or angels has its billy-club bullies and loud-mouthed busybodies who want to transform every question into the Spanish Inquisition. Generally, such arrogant, strife stirrers are obvious. Their cruel crusades and taunting tirades against the good and godly are evident, transparent. Admittedly, there are embittered, jealous, selfish souls who think they can build themselves up by sarcastically and sadistically tearing others down. Their veiled and not so subtle caricatures and innuendos are evidence of sickness. Pity them. But there is no need to lump all honorable disagreements with the dishonorable. “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good”-that rule works regarding discussions and argument, too. Yes, even some essential contentions can be rather messy (Matt. 23; Acts 13:10; 7:52-60; 17:5; 18:12).

So then, the next time you hear and read a sharp, pointed discussion, do not turn away in pious disgust. You admit that such a task must be performed; therefore, do not sit back and smugly disdain controversy and argument. Even a plumber’s work is not all pleasant, but it must be done, and plumbing is not the only profession that deals with items that are dirty as a drain.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, p. 663
November 1, 1984

By Ron Daly

Since apostolic times, faithful preachers of the gospel have forcefully and scripturally requested biblical authority for every practice in which they engage themselves religiously. It is the abandonment of this worthy plea which has been the forerunner (harbinger) to all apostasies, both ancient and modern. It is mandatory that we remember the church of the Lord is continually only one generation from possible apostasy (cf. Judg. 2:6-15; 1 Tim. 4:1-6; Acts 20:28-32). If we fail in our responsibility to teach even one generation what the Scriptures teach concerning the work of the church, the organization of the local congregation, the standard of authority for the church, the worship of the church, and the other undenominational aspects of the church, we will very quickly see the conception and birth of a “generation that knows not the Lord nor the church for which He died! Brethren, this fact concerns me greatly!

The need of requesting and producing (from the Scriptures) authority is as pertinent to the present generation as it was to the Lord’s disciples in the first century and during the restoration movement, inaugurated by men who reasoned that sectarianism was not regulated by the dictates of God, but by the dogmas of men! Their plea was, “Let us speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.” This was simply one of many ways of saying, “we must respect the authority of the Scriptures in every detail! ” In matters of doctrine, speculative theories are not to be tolerated as God’s divine law! This is a truth to which Christians must adhere.

Regarding the message of the Scriptures relative to authority, the reverberating doctrine is, “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). “If any man speaketh, speaking as it were the oracles of God. . .” (1 Pet. 4:11). “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written…” (1 Cor. 4:6). We who are Christians (members of the churches of Christ, Rom. 16:16) ought to always understand the obligation of walking by faith, which occurs only when we walk exactly as God’s word directs, for this is the only way that we will ever be well-pleasing to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:6).

A multiplicity in the brotherhood seems unconcerned with citing biblical authority, i.e. a (1) direct statement, (2) approved apostolic example, or (3) implication, for recent innovations in the worship of several local churches. Two of these modem practices particularly disturb me, and they are: (1) The introduction of special musical performers such as choirs, soloists, duets, quartets, and quintets into the worship assemblies of churches of Christ. (2) The frequent custom of many churches consisting in the participation of “taking up” so-called “love offerings” or “mid-week collections” while engaged in gospel meetings or special classes during the week. The fact is: these practices are gaining momentum! Their acceptance is accelerating! Of course, it is a well known truth that whenever a small hole is allowed to remain in the dam, enabling some of the water to ooze out, the time is forthcoming when the hole enlarges, therefore allowing all of the water to proceed out! The same truth is applicable to the church. If we tolerate the entrance of one erroneous activity into the church of our Lord, the time is quickly coming when numerous things for which there is no authority will be accepted without question! I am convinced that many brethren have not seriously questioned the scripturalness of the special “singing groups” and the so-called “love offerings/mid-week collections!” Please, consider with me some information concerning the two innovative practices which have crept into the worship of various local churches.

The “Group Singing” Crisis

I distinctly remember a gospel meeting sponsored by one of the local congregations in LaMarque, Texas in February of 1975. The local evangelist announced that the next night “The Lemon Five” would be present to perform for the church. It was (and is) difficult for me to accept the reality of what actually happened the following night. The choir was robed and gave a spectacular (?) musical demonstration. They flabbergasted and charmed the audience like a chicken snake does a baby duck! Their musical skill was so flamboyant and remarkable (?) that the brethren cheered and laughed!

At the conclusion of the service the local preached asked, “Does anyone have any comments and/or questions?” I raised my hand to ask a question, and it was a long time before anybody recognized me! Finally, the moment came when I was allowed to ask the brethren one question at the end of a short talk which I had prepared. I asked in essence, “Brethren, where is the divine authority for what has occurred in this assembly tonight?” In response they laughed at me, some threatened to do bodily injury to me, and one challenged me to a public debate regarding the issue of chorus groups singing for the assembly! The evangelist whom they had selected to do the preaching in the meeting is the gentleman who issued the challenge for a debate. On the morning of February twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and seventy-five, Grover C. Washington of Dallas, Texas signed to affirm the following proposition: “It is in harmony with the scriptures for the churches of Christ to bring into the assembly chorus type groups, composed of members of the church which would sing for those assembled. ” I signed to deny the proposition! The arrangements were finalized and, I contacted brother Washington many times prior to the actual debate in order to inform him of all the details. All seemed to have gone well until the night when the debate was supposed to have begun. Friends, this is the night when Grover C. Washington did not show! At least one worthwhile factor resulted from his absence; many of his spiritual cohorts were appalled at his apparent cowardice! Many asked, “Do you think brother Washington bit off more than he could humanly handle?” Others asked, “Do you think some of his preaching brethren in the Dallas area were able to show him how utterly ridiculous the proposition is which he signed to affirm?”

Regardless of the many reasons one may state as to why he possibly did not attend to debate the proposition which he signed to affirm as a result of a challenge which he issued, there is one thing I do know of a certainty; brother Grover C. Washington did not appear at the appointed place (Dickinson Texas Junior High School) in defense of what he propagates with reference to chorus groups performing for churches! It is indeed a sad occasion when one who professes to be a gospel preacher will issue challenges and fail miserably to keep them! I still have the propositions, and so many times I groan in my spirit when I consider the influence that our brother has over so many churches and young preachers, yet at least once he failed to meet the demands of the New Testament to “be set for the defense of the gospel of Christ” (Phil. 1:15-17) and “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3)! 1 have definite plans to keep the propositions just in case our dear brother decides to accept a six-year-old challenge which he issued!!

This demonstrates in perfect fashion the kind of trouble which a man (even a preacher of the gospel) gets himself into when he tries to defend an unscriptural practice! Even an uneducated country boy (who has the word of God on his side) can fare well against an intellectual giant (who has abandoned the Bible)!

At this time, let us observe some of the reasons why it is sinful for a congregation to employ “chorus groups,” “soloists,” “choirs,” “quartets,” and other special singing groups to sing for the assembled ones.

Chorus groups, quartets, and other special singing groups are proven to be unscriptural when one considers the fact that no group should sing for the church because the church itself is to sing. Yes friends, each saint who is a member of a local congregation has the obligation to sing! No one can do that for you; it is your responsibility! Consider the language of the following texts of Scripture. “Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (ASV). In the Greek Testament, the phrase “speaking one to another” is lalountes heautois. Lalountes is the nominative plural masculine participle, present active of the root word laleo. The meaning of laleo is “to speak, to talk, to make vocal utterance.” (Note: The fact that Paul instructs Christians to make vocal utterance, i.e. “speaking” declares unauthorized the prevalent activity of “humming” in worship!) The word lalountes is one of the three participles in this text. The other two are adontes and psallontes. Heautois is the dative plural masculine of heautou. Heautou is a reflexive pronoun and is frequently used in the plural for the reciprocal pronoun allelois. And when it is so used the connotation is to do a certain thing reciprocally, mutually, and to one another. The idea in the, present text under scrutiny is this: Paul says by inspiration that everyone is to speak in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with the heart to the Lord. The actions are to be participated in by all! One New Testament Greek scholar says in commenting on the phrase lalountes heautois, “Heautols is for allelois, as in iv. 32, and cannot signify, as Morus and Michaelis would render it ‘with yourselves,’ or ‘within you,’ but ‘among yourselves,’ or ‘in concert… (Commentary On The Epistle To The Epheslans, p. 399, Greek Text, John Eadie).

There is not authority in this passage for “special groups” singing for the church, but to the contrary, this text flatly declares choirs and quartets, etc., to be without warrant, for it teaches congregational participation! B.F. Westcott, in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, The Greek Text With Notes, says on p. 82, “The Christian congregation as Christians join in the various forms of praise, and the same strains which set forth aspects of God’s glory elevate the feelings of those who join in them” (emp. mine and Amen RD).

We now go to the companion text of Ephesians 5:19 which is Colossians 3:16, where the same apostle writes, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God.” The two words “one another” are translated from the Greek term heautous which is accusative plural masculine of heautou. This is the same root word that was used by the apostle in writing to the Ephesians. Once again his instructions consist of mutual teaching, admonishing, and singing. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament uses the words “each other” to translate the word heautou in both passages! A similar construction to Colossians 3:16 is found in verse 13 of the same chapter “forbearing one another, and forgiving each other.” Question: Was the injunction given to only a few or to all? Was each one to forbear and forgive, or were only a select few to do the forbearing and forgiving? Authority cannot be found in this passage nor anywhere else in the New Testament for choirs and other special groups to sing for the church!

Churches that introduce chorus groups into the worship to sing for the assembly find themselves ignoring the voice of ancient historians who unitedly acknowledge that the singing of the early church was mutual/simultaneous as each saint expressed his heart sentiments to God Almighty. Schaff in his monumental work History of the Christian Church (Vol. 1, p. 463), speaks of “The song, a form of prayer, in the festive dress of poetry and elevated language of inspiration, raising the congregation to the highest pitch of devotion, and giving it a part in the heavenly harmonies of the saints” (emp. mine RD). In a volume titled Ancient Christianity Exemplified (pp. 329,330), Lyman Coleman testifies: “The prevailing mode of singing during the first three centuries was congregational. The whole congregation united their voices in the sacred song of praise, in strains united their ability. . . . The most ancient and most common mode of singing was confessedly for the whole assembly; men, women and children blend their voices in their songs of praise in the great congregation. Such is the testimony of Hillary, of Augustine, and Chrysostom. ‘Formerly all came together and united in their song, as is still our custom. . . .’ Each one blended all in one harmonious melody.” (Note: Other historical reference sources could be cited, but these will suffice to show that even sectarian scholarship in many cases will acknowledge what the truth ,really is! What a blessing it would be if brethren would always do the same.)

Choir singing is also denominational in nature. Singing which is done by special groups has not always been a part of the services of churches of Christ. Its acceptance is of relatively late origin. It, as is the case with so many innovations, was borrowed from denominationalism! The larger sectarian bodies had their trained choirs as a permanent part of their worship services, and they seemed to enliven their singing sessions, so why would they not do the same for our periods of devotion? Choirs (choruses) are simply one of the many “goodies” which churches of Christ have discovered in sectarian duffel bags (trash cans and garbage piles). Inasmuch as choirs (choruses) are denominational in nature, they are not authorized by the “doctrine of Christ” and therefore rest under the condemnation of Christ (2 Jn. 9; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19).

Choirs, quartets, and other special singing groups are condemned because they are engaging in worship by proxy! That is, they are doing for the church what the church itself is commanded to do. Whenever God stipulates for a certain activity to be done by each saint in an assembly, he means for it to be done by each saint, without getting someone to do it for him. If the church may, by divine authority, employ a “group” to sing for those assembled, why could it not employ a “group” to give for those assembled and/or partake of the Lord’s Supper for those assembled? It seems to me that, if the church may without divine authority employ a “group” to do one thing for the assembly, it may consistently employ a “group” to do everything which God commands each saint to do! If not, why not? Friends, would you consider letting a “group” go to heaven in your stead?

The so-called “love offerings” or “mid-week” congregational collections immediately fall into the very same category as the “special singing groups” and, as a matter of fact, most of the churches which participate in one of these innovations will endorse the other! Birds of a feather flock together.

God’s specified time (day) for the congregational contribution is “upon the first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:2). This is the only Scripture in God’s New Testament that tells us the day of the collection. If God Almighty had desired collections involving the congregation on some other day, He would have told us! Since He did not reveal any other day for congregational collections, we have no right to add another day, for we are to remain in what hath been written (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6).

Two acts of worship are restricted to the first day of the week: (1) collection (1 Cor. 16:2) and (2) the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). To observe either of these items of worship at any other time than God’s appointed time, the first day of the week, is to engage in a sinful practice, i.e. an act of transgression (Matt. 7:21-23; 1 Jn. 3:4).

The practice of “taking up” collections on days other than the first day of the week is unscriptural, denominational, schismatic, and a definite sign of an attitude which is ripe for apostasy from God’s divine way and order!

Brethren, let us get back to the time honored practice of “speaking where the Scriptures speak and being silent where the Scriptures are silent!” Repudiate all sectarian practices and unite upon truth (Jn. 17:17, 20,21) and be as a golden pillar whose brightness never fadeth because of the eternal light emanating from the majesty in the heavens!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, pp. 656-657, 660
November 1, 1984

By Titus Edwards

Tommy was the team’s second baseman and third best hitter. Unfortunately on this Wednesday night, the game had started late and was running long. They were losing 3 to 2 in the 5th inning and it was already 7:20. He was worried that church would be starting soon and the game would not be over. What should he do?

Karen was the first chair in the flute section. A concert by the band was to be given next Monday. But the church had scheduled a gospel meeting that week. The band director always required all students to be present at the concerts or their grade might be affected. What should she do?

These situations are common occurrences today. Most all young people who are Christians and involved in social things like sports, band, chorus, etc. will face this kind of dilemma. For many young people, the decision is no real problem. Their social activities involve a commitment and they see no problem in doing those things over their religious service. But for many of you it is a real problem! It should not be a problem just because you are worried what your parents (or others) might say if you did not go to church. It should be a problem because you yourself are truly concerned about your service unto the Lord as a Christian.

Let me suggest that the key to finding the answer to these dilemmas is keeping our priorities straight. Let us remember why we are here to start with. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). While God wants us to enjoy life, we are here first and foremost to serve Him. We must “. . .seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Mt. 6:33). The “these things” that will be added of this verse, involve the necessities of life, like food, shelter, clothing. If Christ is teaching us to put our service to God above even seeking life’s necessities, what do you think He would say about life’s extra, social affairs, like sports, band, etc.?

And let us not just talk about attending services. We can get ourselves so busy with social things that we have no time for Bible study, doing good works, helping others, etc. that we as Christians should be making the time for! Paul spoke of some who were ” . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4). Let us not be in that category. Get your priorities straight! Truly love God with all of your heart that you will put His service before anything else in life!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 21, p. 664
November 1, 1984