Many “religious” people and some brethren do not enjoy reading or hearing sermons about actions that are “worldly.” The reason usually is that they stand guilty of the practice. If they do not personally participate in the sin, then a family member or a close friend does. How do we know that is the case? The answer is that only someone with an emotional attachment to the sin or to a loved one could fail to see what the Scriptures teach.
First of all, many people entirely divorce what they are taught in Bible classes and worship from their everyday lives. Even preachers make a distinction between the principles they teach and the way they live. They would teach, for example, that brethren must communicate with each other when they have a problem (Matt. 5:23-24; 18:15-17), but in reality some just ignore others and refuse to communicate, Apparently, teaching Scriptural truths is a lofty goal, but practicing them is too strenuous.
This dichotomy between teaching and practicing was highlighted in a recent question in the “Personality” section of Parade, the Sunday supplement to the news-paper. A writer from Riverview, Florida wanted to know how tennis great, Serena Williams, could justify wearing sexy clothes, since she is a Jehovah’s Witness. The answer was that she dresses conservatively while she is at the Kingdom Hall, “but there’s no religious dress code preventing her from wearing revealing clothes on or off the court” (April 26, 2009, p. 2).
Oh! I get it. When Paul wrote about women wearing modest clothing, he was only referring to the time they were in the Kingdom Hall. If women are on a tennis court, at the beach, or on the sidelines at a football or basketball game, cheering on the students, it’s all right to wear immodest clothing. How anyone could miss these exceptions in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 is beyond me, since they are so clear!
This interpretation, therefore, means that, when God clothed Adam and Eve properly (with coats of skins that went from the shoulders to the knees), they were standing in a Kingdom Hall. Undoubtedly, when they went outside the Kingdom Hall, they could put their fig leaves back on and enjoy a day in the sunshine. That’s probably the reason it was all right for the seductress to wear the attire of a harlot in Proverbs 7:10; after all, she was near a street corner—not in a Kingdom Hall.
Does this principle work for speech, also? When Paul said that our communication should be for edification, did he mean only in the Kingdom Hall? Outside it must be all right to curse, blaspheme, and tell dirty jokes, right? In other words, God sets standards of holiness for His people while they are in the Kingdom Hall, but outside they are like the proverbial troubles that “melt like lemon drops.” Standards of speech can be ignored in the world.
Leaving the sarcasm aside, it is sad that some think that this is a wise way of looking at things. Is that how some justify receiving contributions from mobsters? As long as they do not shake down anyone in the gathering of the “saints,” it is all right. What a deal! Anyone can be respectable in the assembly, so long as they keep their immoralities outside. Is this the kind of religion that Jesus taught?
Divorce
In the June 21, 2009 Parade, someone else wrote to the “Personality” section, asking how it could be that a devout Catholic like Mel Gibson could get a divorce? Based on the earlier question, one would assume that the answer would be that he is not getting a divorce in the Kingdom Hall (maybe a Hall of Justice); so it did not violate the Catholic religion’s teachings. But, no, this time the answer was different. “In the Catholic Church, adultery is a grievous sin” (2)
How about the fact that in the Bible adultery is a grievous sin? Consider its destructive influence upon David’s kingdom. His concubines were violated in the sight of all Israel, and four of his sons died long before their normal span of life had ended, due to his sin and his “cover-up.” Yes, adultery, when discovered, affects the lives of many innocent souls. So—has the Catholic Church said anything to Mel? Have they excommunicated him for this “grievous sin”? If not, why not?
Furthermore, it is disappointing that someone who would produce as great a movie as The Passion of the Christ would take so lightly the concept of sin for which Jesus died on the cross. The movie portrayed graphically the types of sufferings Jesus endured, and with such scenes vividly imprinted in our minds, it should be difficult for us to persist in sin. Making a mistake out of weakness is understandable (although wrong), but divorcing one’s wife for another woman and persisting in an unauthorized relationship is unfathomable. John told Herod it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife (Mark 6:17-18). God still expects men—even rich men—to honor their wedding vows.
Alcohol
Dressing immodestly and adultery are both forms of worldliness, and so is the drinking of alcoholic beverages. A third article from Parade (Feb. 1, 2009) is titled, “How To Stop Drunk Drivers.” The first line of the brief piece informs us that there are 13,000 Americans each year who are killed by drunk drivers; hundreds of thousands more are injured (6). One would have thought we would have learned by now that alcohol is a dangerous drug, but, no, we lose more each year to alcohol than we have lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the past eight years. Whereas war protestors can just about always find press coverage, where are those outraged by the effects of drunk drivers? Or do we think the privilege of drinking alcoholic beverages is worth the price?
The article goes on to describe a device that one blows into which locks up the car ignition if the would- be driver’s blood alcohol level is over the limit. Apparently, this system works well and cuts down on traffic accidents. No one has yet devised a way to keep children from being abused and women from being battered; perhaps a breathalyzer should be placed just above the doorbell, and if the blood alcohol content is too high, an inebriated parent would be prohibited from entering his house by means of an uncooperative lock.
Probably we should applaud these efforts instead of mocking them, since they do cut down on the number of fatalities; our only goal is to show that, as a society we are dealing with the symptoms instead of the disease. If some type of swine flu killed 13,000 people in the United States in one year, it would be declared pandemic, and the Center for Disease Control would kick into high gear to make people safe. Alcohol-related problems have a cure, but few are willing to try it.
Worldliness
Whether it is drinking, committing adultery, or dressing immodestly, these are all things that are not spiritual but associated with the world. All of them (and many more) are listed in Galatians 5:19-21 as “works of the flesh.” Adultery and fornication are both listed, which apply to Mel Gibson. Licentiousness applies to Serena Williams because she has taken the license to dress in a way that the Scriptures do not authorize. The problem of alcohol is addressed when it is included in the works of the flesh by the descriptions of “drunkenness, revelries, and the like.”
Why would a Christian want to have any association with any of these? If the dynamite is about to explode, how many bystanders say to themselves, “I wonder how close I can get without being injured”? Anyone with any sense would run the other direction until sure the distance is sufficient. Likewise, anyone who is thinking clearly does not say, “How provocative can I wear my clothing without actually crossing the line?” And rather than putting oneself in a position where he might be tempted to continue drinking beyond the ability to stop, why is it not just easier to stay away from alcohol altogether?
The promise of “no condemnation” is for those who do not walk “according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). Shouldn’t we be feeding ourselves in this manner and encouraging others to do the same? What do we think we will gain if we sow to the flesh? The Bible answers, “Corruption!” (Gal. 6:8). But if we sow to the Spirit, we reap life everlasting. There should be no discrepancy between what we teach in Bible classes or worship and what we practice in our daily lives. God is interested in those who practice what they preach.
IS THE LORD’S SUPPER THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF WORSHIP?
Randy Robinson
Unfortunately, there are a significant number of brethren who would answer the above question in the affirmative. There are others who, although would not necessarily answer that way, demonstrate their belief that this is true through their attitudes and actions. Jesus once noted, “Ye shall know them by their fruits… “ (Matt. 7:16). Indeed, we often employ the cliché, “Action speaks louder than words.” By the same token, there are brethren who perhaps would not admit that they believe one act of worship is more important than the others, but their actions would indicate otherwise.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during His final Passover observance with His disciples. Matthew records that “as they were eating” (Matt. 26:26), Jesus took the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine and offered thanks for it and then explained to the disciples what these elements would now represent—His body and blood that would be sacrificed for the remission of sins. It was also a symbol of the fellowship that the Lord would continue to have with them and with all others who would believe and obey Him. Jesus told the disciples:
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (Matt. 26: 29).
This signifies that, although Christ is reigning at the right hand of God and not physically present with the body of believers, the fellowship is maintained through that observance. Paul noted to the Corinthians that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper that they would “proclaim” [ASV] the Lord’s death until His return (1 Cor. 11:26).
Therefore, when we partake of those elements, we are to put aside the cares and concerns of the world and reflect on the sacrifice of Jesus and the opportunity that it provides for mankind. Ideally, we will reflect on the Lord’s final hours and the pain and degradation that He endured for our sakes. We have an example set by the brethren at Troas which indicates that this observance is to be done each Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7). Some have rebelled in protest at the idea of doing this every week. But when we examine the Scriptures, we still read that “upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7). Since every week has a first day, it is clear that this practice is to be done every week.
But does all of that, while indeed significant, make the Lord’s Supper the most important aspect of worship? God also desires that worshippers honor and praise Him in song (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). He has provided the avenue of prayer whereby we glorify His name, offer thanks to Him, and make requests for continued blessings (1 Thess. 5:17-18; Phil. 4:6). Out of what He has given to us, He expects us to return a portion of that to Him to conduct the work of the church (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 9:7). To promote greater Bible knowledge and spiritual growth, God also requires that His Word be proclaimed, as was done also by Paul at Troas (Acts 20:7). Are any of these acts of worship more significant than the others? Perhaps a case could be made for all of them. A preacher might consider the preaching to be more important. An eldership could decide that giving is most important, since so much of the function of what the church has to do is based on having the funds to do so. The song leader or those blessed with pleasant singing voices may believe that singing should be elevated to that status. Perhaps it could be praying since it involves literally addressing the throne of Almighty God.
However, there are some interesting aspects to this question to consider. For example, one rarely [if ever] sees a brother or sister come into the assembly and participate in the singing of one song and then leave. It is unheard of for someone to depart after the first prayer is led (unless they suddenly become ill or an emergency arises). It is highly unlikely that an individual will arrive at worship only in time to hear the sermon (unless the Lord’s Supper is served afterward).
Yet, we can cite several cases where brethren partook of the Lord’s Supper and then left before the sermon and in some cases even before the offering! What are we to conclude if or when this takes place? Should we not conclude that these brethren consider the Lord’s Supper as the most important act of worship and that all of the other acts are expendable?
The view that the Lord’s Supper is the most important element of worship is likely based on a denominational concept. Since many denominations observe it less often than each Lord’s Day, as scripturally required, there is a tendency to elevate it to a status that was not intended. Furthermore, some religions consider the Lord’s Supper to be a “sacrament.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, the term sacrament is defined as “an outward sign of something sacred.” This term is not a Biblical one and the declaration that certain things are sacraments is absent of New Testament authority.
Baptism is also considered to be a sacrament and while it is necessary for an individual’s sins to be forgiven and the Lord’s Supper is to be observed during worship each Lord’s day, that in and of itself does not make them sacraments in the way that denominationalism defines them. Although it is doubtful that those who believe the Lord’s Supper is more important than the other acts of worship would admit that their reasoning is based as a whole or in part in denominational doctrine, it is apparent that portions of this doctrine have been an influence upon some. It is perhaps akin to a new convert referring to the preacher as the “pastor.” It often takes time for the denominational influence to be purged.
To exalt the Lord’s Supper above the other acts of worship in effect, diminishes the significance of those other acts. It reduces the other acts of worship to a “second-tier” status which God never intended. It declares them to be less important and also it perhaps has the unintended effect of reducing the Lord’s Supper to a mere ritual rather than an observance based on the Lord’s sacrifice for the sins of mankind. When one attends worship merely to get their “Lord’s Supper fix” for the week, it diminishes the sacrifice that was made on our behalf.
We have previously noted that brethren can be providentially hindered from attending worship. When that occurs, God excuses our absence and we are released from the obligation of worship for that day, including the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. When we are again able to attend, we resume our worship to God, which includes all of the scriptural acts of worship, not merely the ones we wish to take the time for, or the ones we deem the most important. Failure to worship God completely in spirit and in truth attracts God’s disapproval and furthermore renders our worship insufficient. May we always worship according to God’s will.