Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

Tribute Presented in Memory of Ron Lloyd at the Lakewood Funeral Chapel, Clute, Texas, Wednesday, September 13, 2000.

Brother Ron Lloyd, evangelist for the church of Christ in Clute, Texas, has passed from this life. A loving husband, father, brother, and friend has been taken. A soldier of the cross has fallen. A faithful Christian is now safe in Abraham’s bosom, resting from his labors, awaiting his eternal reward. Outside of my own family and relatives, there is no one on earth with whom I have shared a longer or more affectionate relationship. Some friendships wax and wane, but the bond that Sherelyn and I share with the Lloyd family has continued, growing deeper with each passing year. Although sorrow wells up in our hearts, and tears fill our eyes, our grief is tempered with the realization that our momentary loss is heaven’s eternal gain.

How do you honor the memory of such a man? By talking about the things that were important to him. When the family asked me to conduct the funeral services, they said, “Preach to the lost. That’s what Ron would have wanted.” So that is exactly what we are going to do. Indeed, funerals are not for the dead, but for the living. Ecclesiastes 7:2 says, “It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.”

Although Ron was a man of varied interests, well-read, and conversant on a variety of subjects — science, literature, history, especially that of the Civil War — yet, his favorite topic of discussion was the Bible. Invariably our conversation would turn toward spiritual matters. We discussed the biblical text, the meaning of some particular passage, the sermons we had recently presented, the classes we had taught lately, and the issues currently confronting the church. So, for a few minutes, let us turn our thoughts to spiritual things. This is as Ron would have wished.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only,  but unto all them also that love his appearing (2 Tim. 4:1-8, KJV)

These inspired and inspiring words were penned by Paul upon the eve of his death many, many years ago. Despite the passage of time, they continue forcefully to communicate the conviction, the commitment, the character and the confidence that belongs to faithful Christians. Not only do these words express the sentiments of an apostolic ambassador of the first century, they are also echoed in the lives of present day soldiers of the cross. Such is particularly true of our fallen hero, the dearly beloved and now suddenly departed Ron Lloyd. In fact, as we stood beside his bed on Monday afternoon, I was not surprised to hear 2 Timothy 4:7 quoted as Ron breathed his last breath. For the friends and family that encircled him, these words seemed a most suitable benediction to his life of faithful devotion. Moreover, as we assemble today in this house of mourning, I can think of no more appropriate text for us to consider. Therefore, just as the apostle Paul could use the example of faithful Christians as a means of encouraging others to greater service (2 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Thess. 1:3-4), so we would spend a few moments reflecting upon the devoted life of brother Ron Lloyd. As a backdrop for our comments, let us contemplate the parting admonition that the apostle Paul penned to Timothy, his son in the common faith.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom (v. 1).

Wisdom dictates that we live each day in view of eternity. Indeed, it must be so, for we do not know what the day will bring forth (Prov. 27:1). As a preacher of the gospel, Ron’s highest aim, like that of the apostle Paul, was to be well pleasing unto God. Understanding the certainty of divine judgment, he sought to persuade men (2 Cor. 5:9-11).
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (v. 2).

Many today would accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative. Not Ron Lloyd. His preaching was a healthy mixture exposing error, rebuking sin, and encouraging the faithful to greater service. Like Paul, brother Lloyd understood the obligation of preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26-27). Like Jeremiah, he knew that individuals cannot be built up in the most holy faith until the temples of deceit have been torn down and its rubble taken away (Jer. 31:27-28).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (vv. 3-4).

Ron was a young man, newly married and just beginning to preach, when the church was torn asunder by the institutional controversy during the 1950s. He knew first-hand the heartache and sorrow of such times. He observed, from a close personal vantage-point, the compromising attitudes that lead to apostasy. In public proclamation, in private conversation and in personal correspondence, brother Lloyd repeatedly warned in recent years that the liberal mind set that presaged the last major division was making reappearance among many so-called “conservative” brethren. The same old arguments used to justify error in the 50s are being picked up, dusted off, and reused by modern day agents of change. The same old attitudes — i.e., an accommodating disposition toward error and a strident opposition toward distinctive preaching — are beginning to resurface.

On many occasions, Ron and I talked about the dangers facing today’s church. The issues currently troubling brethren are legion: erroneous positions on marriage-divorce- and-remarriage, false views of fellowship, a perversion of Romans 14, an epidemic of worldliness among God’s people manifested by increasing immodesty, a growing toleration for social drinking, smoking, gambling, and sinful choices of entertainment. Witness also the amazing redefinition of false teachers and false teaching, the continuing controversy over the deity of Christ, and most recently, the tragic compromise regarding the Genesis account of creation. In each of these, brother Lloyd was willing to take a stand for truth. Unlike some, who stand in the shadows until they can discern which way the majority is leaning, Ron was always willing to stand and fight. He was willing to put his name on the line and be identified among those brethren who love and defend the truth. With courage and confidence, he preached what he believed.

I share Ron’s deep concern for the church. Brethren are drifting in the wrong direction. Indeed, we live in an age of doctrinal softness and moral compromise. Like those of Jeremiah’s day, many today have turned away from the Old Paths and are unwilling to heed those watchmen who warn of impending danger. However, then as now, unless men hearken to the word of God and halt their slide toward digression, disaster awaits (Jer. 6:16-19).

Rather than seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, many today are satisfied with a partial gospel. Instead of declaring the whole counsel of God, many preach from an abridged version of the Bible. Oh, yes, they preach some truth, but only to a point. Much truth remains unstated, much error remains unrefuted. Jehoiakim’s penknife has been unsheathed (Jer. 36:20-24). Doctrine is being neglected, distinctiveness is being lost, application is not forthcoming, and accommodation is the order of  the day.
Many are no longer appreciative of old soldiers of the cross who wield the sword of the Spirit with courage and precision. Instead, they prefer young telegenic performers who are long on illustrations and short on Scripture. Instead of 45-minute sermons, they prefer 15-minute sound-bites. Instead of feasting on the meat of the word, they prefer to nibble on nuggets of truth. Rejecting the combative style of yesteryear, new-agers who dominate Up-And-Coming churches demand a kinder and gentler approach. Instead of drinking deeply from the Water of Life, with its refreshingly healthy, though sometimes acidic taste, many today prefer a bubbly beverage that is all sweetness and light.

Such folly was never characteristic of brother Ron Lloyd. He was of the old school: Preaching was paramount. Substance was more significant than style, Scripture more than delivery. For him, “sound doctrine” was an ever-important concept. Ron always placed a premium on the truth. He never forgot the words of the Lord Jesus, who said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:30-32). He fully believed in the sanctifying power of truth (John 17:17).

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry (v. 5).
Like the apostle Paul, and every other faithful preacher, brother Lloyd suffered hardships for the cause of Christ (2 Tim. 2:8-10). Whenever someone stands for the truth, he can expect opposition (John 15:18-21). As a faithful evangelist, Ron endured afflictions. He faced such in California. During our years of association in Tyler, we faced various trials together. I know somewhat of the struggles that he experienced here. Yet, through it all, he made full proof of his ministry.

In the last several days, I have received numerous notes from various preachers who have known and loved Ron. Time does not permit me to share them all, but I would like to quote from two men who have known brother Lloyd for a much longer time than me. These honorable men share my respect for another equally honorable man.

First of all, hear the words of Truman Smith, a beloved brother who labored in Henderson, Texas while Ron was in Tyler. He said,

Mark: I appreciated so very much your message concerning Ron. Then to learn of his death has come with such deep regret and sadness. It was my privilege to have known Ron and his good family for many years. I guess it was when he first moved to work with the Chandler Highway congregation in Tyler that I first met him. I honestly believe that I have never known a better man! And, oh, how we do need him at this time! I know his sweet family and the brethren there at Clute must be in complete shock at this time! May God bless all of them! Thanks again for informing us. Brotherly, Truman Smith

Next, reflect upon two messages from brother Bill Cavender, who labored with Ron in a variety of circumstances. The first note was in response to a notice concerning Ron’s illness, the second was in response to the announcement of his death:

Dear brother Mark: Thank you so much for your e-mail regarding the serious illness of brother Ron Lloyd, faithful preacher of the good church in Clute, Texas. I am so sorry to hear of this heart attack, and I am praying fervently for his improvement and recovery. Ron is a good man, an outstanding preacher and teacher. His beloved, lovely wife, Lolita, is such a godly and good lady and wife. I have been with them many times, when they lived and taught school in Tyler, Texas, and he preached for years for the Chandler Highway church in Tyler. And then after they retired from teaching and moved to Clute, Texas, I was with them there for two meetings. He is one of the finest men I have ever met, completely honest, and a true lover of God and of Jesus Christ, and of the Truth of the gospel. Without any fear or favor, and without any compromise, I have known him to stand for what is right and good and true for all the years I have known him and Lita. Please tell Lita and all the church at Clute that Marinel and I are praying for them, and for him in particular. . . . Please let me hear often and further from you as to his condition and progress. Thank you so much, Mark, for writing to me.

Faithfully,

Bill Cavender.

Dear brethren Ainsworth and Mayberry: I’ve just picked up your messages regarding the death of brother Ron Lloyd. I am greatly grieved in heart and saddened in spirit. It breaks my heart to have to tell him good-bye for a little while. Soon I will be joining him. He was one of the truly good and great men I have known in my life in the church and as a preacher of the gospel, a man without guile as Nathanael in the Scriptures. In the so many times I was with him in Tyler, in Clute, and temporarily at other times and places, I never saw or heard an unbecoming word, deed, or expressed thought or feeling of malice, ill-will or rancor. He was a true “Christian gentleman” in every way. He was a lover of truth and of good things and good people. There was no compromise with him. He feared no man, nor did he play favorites with anyone. His love of the truth of the gospel of our Lord compelled him to stand for what is right without regard to who might oppose him or what might be the cost and loss in finances, friendships and/or influence. I am so saddened when we lose a brother and a preacher like him. His kind is not often found nowadays, what with the time-serving, water-it-down, non-offensive, work and preaching of most of the present generation of preachers — and the brethren love to have it so!
Indeed, he did the work of an evangelist. During the many years when he taught school, and humbly referred to himself as a “part-time preacher,” he was, in fact, a “full-time evangelist.” He held down, not one, but two full-time jobs. Always he was industrious, energetic, and active.  Never once, during his long years of service, was Ron accused of being a hireling. He loved the church. He loved his brethren. He spent himself in the service of Christ.

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand (v. 6).

Like the apostle Paul, brother Ron Lloyd was ready to die. The question of the hour is: Are you? Am I? Each man has an appointment with death: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Ron lived in view of eternity. He often spoke of the time of his departure. In view of his frail physical condition, he knew that death was an ever-present possibility. Now his life has been poured out like water. Death has won a momentary victory. Yet, one day soon, death will be swallowed up in victory. When Christ comes back, along with the redeemed of all the ages, brother Lloyd will be given a resurrected body, imperishable, incorruptible, and glorious (1 Cor. 15:50-58).

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith (v. 7). I have fought a good fight. In the original language, the word translated “I have fought,” agonizomai, means “to contend, to fight, to struggle.” In it one can hear echoes of the word “agonize,” which means “to suffer extreme pain or anguish in making a great effort.” Brother Lloyd expended great energy in furthering the cause of Christ. As a minister of the gospel, he waged spiritual warfare against all that is opposed to God (2 Cor. 10:3-6). Ron fought a good fight. He is now at rest, but the conflict continues. Who will take his place?

I have finished my course.

The word translated “I have finished” means “to bring to an end, to complete, to fulfill.” When Jesus was upon the earth, he was driven with a sense of urgency, even though the agony of the cross lay before him (Luke 12:50; John 9:4). Similarly, the apostle Paul was driven to finish his course, even though he knew that bonds and afflictions awaited (Acts 20:22-24). In like manner, brother Lloyd was a driven man. Many encouraged him to slow down, but I believe that he was constitutionally incapable of such. Ron, ever diligent and industrious, has now finished his course. But the need for laborers remains. Who will take his place?

I have kept the faith.

The word translated “I have kept” means “to watch over, to guard.” It was used to describe the work of prison guards. It also describes the spiritual responsibility of those who would lead the lost to Christ. Not only must we make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but we must also teach them to observe (keep, guard) all things whatsoever Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). In this passage, the thing that must be kept is “the Faith” the objective standard of the Christian faith. Along with the apostle Paul, brother Ron Lloyd believed that Divine Truth was both identifiable and knowable (Rom. 1:16-17; Eph. 3:3-5). Ron earnestly contended for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). He is now in Abraham’s bosom. Yet, truth remains locked in combat with error, and The Faith must yet be defended. Who will take his place?

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing (v. 8).

I have known Ron Lloyd for over twenty years. For five years, we labored together at the Chandler Highway congregation in Tyler, Texas. During much of that time, Ron served as an elder. I know of his concern for the lost. I know of his concern for brethren. I know of his concern for family. Although he tried to hide his emotions under a gruff exterior, I know for a fact that he was quite sentimental. In an age of contrived emotions — when presidents and preachers can shed tears on demand — sometimes folks mistake self-control as callousness. Ron cared deeply. His heart could be touched more deeply than most. He tried to keep his emotions under control, so as to fulfill his work as an evangelist.

While his preaching was often pointed, it flowed from a heart filled with love. He wanted the church to be strong. He wanted the lost to be saved. He wanted others to be right with God. His preaching was such that he genuinely encouraged others to that end. If there was ever a time when you thought his words were cutting, rest assured it was not malice, but the piercing quality of truth that caused you discomfort (Heb. 4:12).

He was an encouragement to his family. He was an encouragement to his preaching brethren, young and old alike. He was an encouragement to fellow-Christians, both the strong and the weak. Perhaps, most of all he was an encouragement to those who had no hope — i.e., the prisoners with whom he labored.

After moving to Clute, not only did Ron work with the congregation that meets on Main Street, but he also taught in various prison facilities in the area. On Sunday afternoons, instead of taking a customary nap, Ron would make his rounds at the local prison. He also had a regular weeknight Bible study with the prisoners. Over the last few years, he baptized 25-30 inmates. In leading these men to Christ, he gave hope to those who had none.

Such concern, repeatedly demonstrated throughout his life, has never been more evident than in recent months, regarding a certain prisoner with whom he had labored  named Manuel. Concerning his criminal past, Ron only said, “Manuel has done terrible things . . . terrible things.” Yet, this formerly wicked man, serving a life sentence for unspeakable crimes, was converted to Christ. The hope of heaven, the crown of righteousness, not only was promised to Paul, but also to Ron, to you and me, and even to those like Manuel. All those who obey the gospel, who live in view of eternity, who eagerly anticipate Christ’s coming, share in this hope.

Brother Lloyd helped lead Manuel unto Christ. Over time, they developed a very close relationship. Ron treated him like a brother. In recent months, whenever he would pray, whether in public or private, Ron would mention Manuel. You see, Manuel, is dying of cancer. No longer in the Clute area, Manuel as been transferred to the facility up in Tennessee Colony where he can receive better medical attention. Manuel has no family. He does not know the whereabouts of his relatives. Because of his past crimes, they will have nothing to do with him. Thus, he is facing death alone. As a sign of his affection, Ron had promised to go be with Manuel when the end comes. And yet, in an unexpected turn of events, Ron has died first. This situation has weighed heavily upon Lolita. Hopefully, some good brethren who appreciated Ron’s efforts among the prisoners will now step in and help keep this pledge and promise.

In closing, I affirm that there is no one in whom I have more confidence than Brother Ron Lloyd. I have known many good brethren. Certainly, others were his equal, but none, in my judgment, was his better. Ron Lloyd is one of the finest men I have ever known. With the exception of my wife, Ron has been my best friend for over twenty years. With his untimely passing, the cause of Christ has suffered a grievous loss. The ranks of the stalwart have now been weakened. Who will stand up? Who will take his place? Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come over!

To all those assembled this day, brethren, Ron’s family and friends, but especially to his children, Tammie and Dennis, Kelly and Kevin, Sterling and Deborah, I leave you this parting admonition, taken from the book of Joshua: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). Ron and Lolita’s greatest hope and highest wish is that you all remain faithful to the Lord. May God bless you and keep you. Amen.

516 W. House St., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Don Hooten

Hermeneutic Argument

The second argument is in hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the “science and methodology of interpretation” (Websters II). In other words, the argument against instrumental music is couched in the methodology we use to interpret things, namely the Bible. 
 
Simply put, our method of understanding God’s will must presuppose that God’s speech permits us to do things by his authority but that his silence does not. If God has not addressed something, it is thereby reasonable to conclude that he does not want that particular thing practiced. In fact, God’s silence regarding any religious action has never served as authority for anything.  
 
When God prohibited in Israel the “cursing of the Name of God or blasphemy” (Exod. 22:28), no punishment was given. Still, the people waited “so that the command of the Lord might be made clear to them” (Lev. 24:12). This shows they would not act on his silence. God had to authorize in speech what they were to do. 
 
When a man in the wilderness had violated the law of the Sabbath, already declared a capital crime (Exod. 31:14-15), Israel still waited for the Lord to “declare what should be done to him” (Num. 15:32-34). Even the method of executing a capital case was one in which Moses and Israel would not proceed in without “God’s word.” This was true in Old Testament law and worship (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). 
 
What believers must be impressed with is that New Testament Christians who aim to worship God in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:24) cannot proceed in any endeavor “in truth” without the speech of God. This method of understanding God’s will (i.e., hermeneutics) is crucial. Only what God has spoken about can be said to be approved of him. The silence of God is not permissive. 
 
As a life illustration, if I send my son to the store to buy bread with the $2 I give him and he returns with a bottle of Pepsi, has he acted with my authority? Of course not. I authorized him to buy bread with the $2 and that is all. Even if he bought the bread and the Pepsi, he acted without my authority to purchase the Pepsi. If my silence permits him to change what I wish at his whim in one situation, it permits him to do it in any situation.  
 
So too, if God’s silence permits Christians to change what he willed in words at their whim, it permits them to do it with any situation or teaching. And as a result, no one belief system can ever be said to be out of harmony with the will of God. And that is completely inconsistent with the inspired Apostle John who wrote, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God” (2 John 9). 

In fact, even New Testament writers use this hermeneutic principle to demonstrate biblical truth, making the principle just as valid and binding in the N.T. as it was in the O.T. In Hebrews, the inspired writer, in an effort to urge followers of Jesus not to leave the Gospel and return to the Mosaic Law, showed they could not serve Jesus and benefit from his ministry under the Old Covenant. Why? Because Jesus could not be their Priest! Under the Mosaic Law, only Levites who were descendants of Aaron could be priests. The writer reasons that Jesus could not be a priest at all under the Mosaic covenant because “it is evident that our Lord has descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:14, my emphasis, dh). No one from Judah, even Jesus, could be a priest under the Mosaic Law — not because the Law explicitly prohibited it but because the Law spoke nothing about priests from any other tribe. 
 
Consequently, the writer builds his argument around the hermeneutic principle that God’s silence prohibited things because only his speech authorized something. God did not have to say “No Judahite” could be priest. In fact, God never said that. All he had to say was what tribe he wanted priests to descend from and that he did. Therefore, no one from any other tribe than Levi could be or chosen to be a priest. When one king did that very thing, appointing priests who were not Levites, God called it sin and punished him for his transgression (cf. 1 Kings 12:31;13:34). Since Moses “spoke nothing” concerning a priest from any tribe except Levi, the only conclusion was and is that a priest from any other tribe would be unacceptable to God. God’s speech permits. But anything else is prohibited by his silence. 
 
If God’s silence prohibited certain tribes from priestly service in the O.T., then under the N.T. things are just as rightly prohibited if God is silent. Peter says, “If any man speak, (let him speak) as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). 
 
The truth is that if the only things that are prohibited in worship, the work of churches, and even the life of Christians, must have a “Thou shalt not” explicitly stated, then there are heaps of things that could never be challenged. No Protestant could ever prohibit a Catholic clergy-laity distinction because the N.T. never explicitly prohibits a separation in terminology between worship leaders and worshipers. No Catholic could ever prohibit the “Protestant” use of “lay-ministers” in the assembly because the N.T. never explicitly prohibits it. And on and on we could go. 
 
A universal application can be found in what we use as elements of the Lord’s supper. If God must specify what he does not want, then we could use lamb, T-bone steak, pizza or Kool-Aid and Coca-Cola as elements of communion because the N.T. nowhere explicitly prohibits it! The truth is all of them are prohibited because God’s word nowhere authorizes them! The Lord tells us what he wants in the communion by saying it was unleavened “bread” and “fruit of the vine” (cf. Matt. 26:26-29). To change his will is presumptuous and sinful, whether we are discussing the Old Covenant to appoint someone other than a Levite as priest or the New Covenant and discussing the elements of the Lord’s supper.

Therefore, since God nowhere speaks approvingly of instrumental music in the New Testament, the same hermeneutic principle teaches us that instrumental music today is likewise unacceptable to God. 
 
Scriptural Argument 

This brings us to the third line of reasoning we call the Scriptural argument since it takes what the Scriptures say Christians did or were commanded to do in musical worship of God. And just as intentionally, the Lord, through his Apostles, tells us what he wants in musical worship. The same Lord who described the communion to the Apostles has through the Holy Spirit used only one word to describe how Christians praise God in music: “sing.”  
 
And speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19). 
 
Let the word of Christ richly dwell in you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your heart to the Lord (Col. 3:16). 
 
I shall sing with spirit and I shall sing with the mind also (1 Cor. 14:16). 

 For the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, Therefore I will give praise to Thee among the Gentiles, and I will sing to Thy Name (Rom. 15:9-10). 
 
In the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise (Heb. 2:12). 
 
Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises (Jas. 5:13). 
 What God has authorized for the worship of him and his  Son according to the Scriptures is singing or vocal music not instrumental music. 
 
We are commanded to sing psalms, not play them (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Psalms, the liturgy of the O.T., was the most available inspired text early Christians had. And the Scriptures commands Christians to “sing” them — nothing else. That is just as clear as what the elements of the Lord’s supper were to be. 
 
We are commanded to sing hymns, not play them (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Hymns, single melody poems to God of praise or thanksgiving in strophic form (Grout, History of Western Music 18), were simple, comparatively easy to sing and “originally for the congregation” (ibid.). And Scripture commands Christians to “sing” them — nothing else. 
 
We are commanded to sing spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). These songs, likely inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:15, 26), were the newly growing collection of songs appropriate for the praise of Jesus and God. And how does the Spirit say Christians are to do them? “Sing.” 
 
Answering Challenges 

Still, people use the following arguments to justify its use today.  
 
“The Bible doesn’t say not to!” See the “hermeneutic” argument for a fuller discussion. But simply put, God has never explicitly prohibited everything he disapproves. He states what he wants. If using instrumental music pleases God, then so does pizza and cookies in the communion. 
 
“David used harps — therefore, so can we!” Yes, David did use harps because it “was the commandment of the Lord” under the Mosaic Law (2 Chron. 29:25). But so was circumcision “a commandment of the Lord.” And Paul clearly says that it does not belong to the Covenant of Christ (cf. Gal. 5:2) and is therefore unacceptable. In fact, Paul says if we use the Law to seek justification in our practice as Christians, “we are debtor to keep the whole Law” (5:3). Even if David worshiped with instruments with God’s approval, it does not mean that God approves of it in his worship today. 
 
“There are harps in Revelation!” Yes. And there are beasts too! Just because something is in the Bible does not mean God approves it! The “harps” of Revelation (5:8; 15:2) are being played by angels and “twenty-fours elders” “around the throne” of God (5:11) “in heaven” (15:1) on a “sea of glass mingled with fire” (15:2).  
 
First, this incident is in heaven not on earth. And Jesus tells us that God commands some things on earth like marriage that he does not permit in heaven (Matt. 22:30). Therefore, it is not conclusive to say if it is in heaven it is acceptable on earth. Besides, what God revealed in “the faith . . . delivered to the saints” here on earth (Jude 3) was that when “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” were brought to praise the Lord, Christians are to “sing.”  
 
Second, the language is obviously figurative: “sea of glass mixed with fire.” If the language surrounding the harps is figurative, why would the harps not be figurative too? 
 
Conclusion

So then, that is why you will hear no pianos when we worship God. It is not because we dislike them. It is because we like and are committed to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). All God’s truth tells us to do is to “sing” with grace in our hearts” (Col. 3:16). What more appropriate way for a child of God to honor God in worship than to worship him the way he said?  
 
Therefore, it is God himself in his word that should compel all of us to stop the “hearing of pianos” in worship of God. That is what God wants in his worship. And “true worshipers” Jesus says, worship him in “spirit and in truth.” So sing my brother and my friend! 

By Larry Ray Hafley

Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, “church of Christ,” perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited “the churches of God.” However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God.” In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned “the churches of Christ.” Since the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God,” what is the singular of “churches of Christ”? (If you do not know the answer to that question, there will be no need for you to worry, or to read further. Bless your heart, God will take care of you.) 

Over the years, some have said it would be best if we ceased to put the name, “Church Of Christ,” on our meeting houses. Various reasons have been given. “It’s confusing.” “People with a negative view of the church won’t attend when they see the name.” “It’s too traditional.” What shall we say to these objections?  

If we drop the name “Church of Christ,” and replace it with “Christians meet here,” we will confront the same set of problems and objections. The name “Christian,” too, is “confusing.” When we use it to tell folks what we are religiously, many wonder “what kind of Christian” we are — Baptist-Christian, Methodist-Christian, Catholic Christian? Others have a “negative view” of it (cf. Jas. 2:7 — “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”). It is a very traditional term, used widely and loosely around the world. Since the name “Christian” is greatly abused and misunderstood, shall we, therefore, cease to call ourselves “Christians”? 

Shall we quit referring to “elders” because certain ones may link us with the Mormons and their “elders”? Obviously, we dare not call our elders, “pastors,” for that would certainly confuse most people (even some of our own brethren!). 

Shall we drop references to “baptism” since it is a traditionally used and often misunderstood term? “Baptism” makes some think we approve of “sprinkling,” for that is their concept of it. Thus, they are misled about what we believe. Does that mean that 1 Peter 3:21, like the name, “church of Christ,” must go by the way side, for it employs that confusing, traditional expression, “baptism doth also now save us”?  

Neither can we speak of being “born again,” for that designation is misunderstood and misrepresented. To use it would identify us with Protestant churches. 

Obviously, we dare not speak of the Holy Spirit, or “Holy Spirit baptism” or “tongues,” for those are “buzz words” of wild-eyed faith healers in particular and Pentecostalism in general. Of course, we absolutely must not even breathe the word “miracle,” for everyone knows what would be assumed of us! 

If we must cease references to “churches of Christ,” to be consistent we must do away with these other terms — Christian, elder, pastor, baptism, Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, and miracles. However, the truth is that we need not dispense with any of them. Rather, without shame or apology, we must teach the world the truth and use every opportunity to show the distinction between the words of men and the word of God (Acts 17:23; 1 Pet. 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521

By James P. Needham

Recently, 67 brethren signed a letter to the administration of Florida College opposing the erroneous teaching of one of its faculty members and a brother who appeared on the annual lectureship. These brethren interpret the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time, maybe millions of years, rather than six contiguous solar days of 24 hours. Rather than repudiate such teaching, the president has skirted the issue and assured us that he does not so view the days of Genesis 1, and the head of the Bible department has said he prefers to believe that the days are solar days, but leaves room for others to interpret them differently (unity-in-diversity). It appears from this that some believe we can’t see the Bible alike. He uncharacteristically proceeds to reflect unfavorably upon the motives of those who signed the letter, calling it a creed, etc. Others of like persuasion have also joined that chorus. Now, to the question, when is a creed a creed? Or when is a creed not a creed?

That depends upon what one means by “creed.” The word is derived from the Latin credo, meaning “I believe.” One can find this information in any good English Dictionary. But he also will find this modern usage definition: “A brief authoritative formula of religious belief, a set of fundamental beliefs.”

Here is what we have done: We have condemned denominational creeds to the point that the word carries certain prejudicial connotations. So, realizing this, the brethren who called the open letter a creed were appealing to this known prejudice whether or not they realized it. With some anything labeled a creed is bad news. I’ve even known brethren to deny that we have a creed. That is saying we don’t believe anything. It is bad for Christians to pander to prejudice. Prejudice is the lock on the door of a closed mind. This is similar to what has happened to the word “gay.” It is a perfectly good English word, meaning cheerful, or happy. But, it has been used so often to describe the homosexual community, that it is a gross insult to say that one is a gay person.
 
If the letter is a creed, meaning it contains what is sincerely believed by those who signed it, it is not a creed in the same sense as a denominational creed. It is not authoritative in the sense that it is bound on anyone. A denominational creed is an authoritative document legislated by the organization that contains more or less than the Bible to which one must subscribe to become a member of the organization.

Nobody can truthfully say that the open letter was such a document. It was not legislated by a human organization, and nobody was threatened with expulsion or exclusion for not signing it. It is a creed in the sense of the original meaning of the word, that is, a statement of belief, but it is not a creed in the sense of a denominational creed. Those who signed the open letter did so voluntarily, and those who preferred not to sign it suffered absolutely no negative consequences. This cannot be said of any human creed known to me. There was no human religious organization from which the no signers were excluded as a penalty for not signing. Those who have called the open letter a creed need to answer this question: If the open letter had stated that the signers believed that baptism is for the remission of sins, or that instrumental music in worship is sinful, or that it is sinful for the church to do its work through a human institution, would they have signed it? If they were to do so, would it be a creed in the denominational sense?

A denominational creed is the authoritative official statement of belief of a human organization and sets the conditions of membership; the open letter was a statement of the individuals’ belief who signed it and set no terms of membership, or rejection. Surely, these brethren know the difference between an individual and an organization; if not, where have they been the last 40 years? If the open letter is a creed, let those who make that charge tell us the name of the organization that legislated it and bound it upon its members. Let them also tell us who has been excluded from that organization or suffered other negative consequences for not signing it.

It is extremely sad that a sincere effort to correct a bad situation has received this kind of response. It has only made a bad situation worse by skirting the real issue and tends toward strife and polarization. In the minds of many brethren it has done serious and immediate damage to Florida College. Several good brethren have said they planned for years to send their children to FC, but will not do so under the present circumstances. One family known to me had planned to send their son to FC this year, but now has sent him elsewhere because of this matter. This will be repeated many times over to the detriment of the school. It is difficult for me to understand how the protection of one teacher and his erroneous position is worth the price the school is paying and will pay down the road.

It is saddening to see these good brethren at the school act out of character. It does appear that the winds of change are blowing at FC. Sad indeed! It is not too late to deal with the situation properly, but time is running out. The college is at the crossroads. The choice is theirs and if this matter is not handled properly, Florida College will have a different image in the years to come, and will be deprived of the patronage of many of the good brethren who have been her lifeblood over the years. Calling the open letter a creed is like calling a cat’s tail a leg; that doesn’t make it one.

This whole thing is a tragedy that easily could have been prevented had it been properly handled. I think it is even possible at this late date to stop the bleeding. First, the administration needs to stop trivializing the issue as a tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing. Second, they need to ask brethren of good will and sound judgment who signed the open letter to come to a meeting and discuss the situation as brethren, and stop the name calling. Third, every effort to portray the signers of the open letter as enemies of the school, out to “get” someone needs to stop. I have confidence that if this is done, it will have a positive effect, and we can put this behind us as a bad chapter in the history of the school.

“Taken out of Context”

One of the first rules of quoting others is “keep it in context.” That means one must not lift a quotation out of its setting and cause the author to say something he neither said nor meant. To deliberately do this is to act dishonestly. To do it honestly may indicate a lack of comprehension or proper analysis. In either case the author is unfairly treated.

There are different ways to take a quotation out of context. (1) By quoting only part of a given passage, leaving off the author’s complete thought or explanation of his meaning. (2) Applying what an author says on one subject to another subject when it may not be applicable. (3) Making an unnecessary inference from what a writer says. There are at least three kinds of inferences: (1) Reasonable, (2) Necessary, and (3) Unnecessary. A reasonable inference often is not necessary. An unnecessary inference often is just a presumption without proof, and a necessary inference is undeniable due to the facts stated.

“Taken out of context” is sometimes a false defense of error, and an effort to divert attention from a given subject and place suspicion upon the person who is quoting. It is easier to charge that a quotation is taken out of context, than to deal forthrightly with the issue at hand. To say that a quotation is taken out of context when it isn’t, is as wrong as taking something out of context. “Taken out of context” is an overused charge that often is a false charge and is used to try to reflect unfavorably upon a writer or speaker and divert attention from the real subject.

In the present controversy over the false teaching concerning Genesis 1 by Shane Scott and Hill Roberts at Florida College, Ferrell Jenkins has used “taken out of context” as part of his defense of these men. Several have quoted from Ferrell’s writings in defense of these brethren, and Ferrell has charged that every quotation from his lecture has been “taken out of context.” He does not bother to prove his charge. He just makes it and passes on. To charge that one has been “taken out of context” obligates one to prove it and explain how it is the case, then declare his true meaning.

If Ferrell’s charge that quotations from his writings are “taken out of context,” this implies that he said something in the articles quoted that denies what he is charged with saying, and this is just not the case, so his charge is false. If the author said something in the article that denies what is quoted, he is guilty of contradicting himself. If that is not the case, then he has not been “taken out of context.” It is incredible and unreasonable to think that everyone who has  quoted from Ferrell’s writings on the present controversy has taken him out of context. There is just no way this can be true. If it is, the brethren are a lot less intelligent or more dishonest than I ever have known them to be. I beseech Ferrell to prove his charge or retract it. Is Ferrell willing to deny that he said he believes the six days of creation are literal solar days, but he leaves room for those who take a different position? Where did he say something in context that denies that?

Brother Jenkin’s Double Standard

In Ferrell’s introduction to the transcript of his class held in Puckett auditorium, February 8, 2000, he states, “Several people have quoted from the speech without my permission, but everyone I have seen have the quotations presented out of context” (Emphasis mine, jpn). Then sometime after the above statement was made Ferrell wrote an article entitled “James P. Needham Joins Those Who Don’t Know” (that is, those who don’t know the age of earth, jpn). Then he quotes a paragraph from my article “without my permission.” (Not that I think he needed it.) I about dropped my teeth when I read that incredible statement! I hate double standards, but brother Jenkins obviously has one. How can it be right for him to quote from me “without my permission” but wrong for others to quote from him without his permission? I was unaware of the article in which he quoted me until a friend called it to my attention.

When people practice double standards they are not dealing fairly and squarely with an issue, and appear to manifest a feeling that their writings possess an egocentric superior quality that’s not characteristic of the writings of others. Somehow their writings are sacrosanct, but others are not. Would brother Jenkins be willing to declare that he has never quoted from others without their permission? To those of us who have known and read after him over the years would consider that a travesty on truth. All of us have done it, and brother Jenkins is no exception. I have never thought I needed permission to quote from a brother who has written or spoken publicly. That which is expressed in a public forum is fair game for public review. If a brother doesn’t want his name attached to his teachings, he ought to stop teaching.

There is a certain squeamishness about quoting others and attaching their names to what they have said. This offends some. To avoid practicing a double standard they should also be offended at Paul and Peter, and Christ and other inspired writers for they practiced it freely. As Cled Wallace used to say, we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles!

Several brethren are saying we need to stop this discussion on this Genesis 1 issue. I agree. I will even go further than that and say it should have been stopped before it started. It can be stopped now that it is started, but it must be stopped in the right way by Ferrell and Colly admitting that they have used poor judgment and have wrongly defended false teaching at Florida College. All the whining and seeking to impugn the motives of the 67 who signed the open letter will not stop those who have at heart the good of the college and its students.

In earlier times a certain journal copyrighted its articles to keep brethren from quoting from and reviewing them. This was considered reprehensible, and the journal took a lot criticism. How things change! Now many brethren are attaching a copyright notice to what they write in journals. For what reason? Will one be prosecuted for quoting from them without permission?

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789