Peace and serenity are wonderful commodities: they are the ideal, and they are by far what most of us prefer. What we experience, however, are conflicts. How should these be handled?
The Lord anticipated that problems would arise among His people. In the Old Testament, for example, there were so many difficulties (Ex. 18:19) that it was necessary for Moses to judge matters between the Israelites from morning until evening (Ex. 18:13).
The Corinthians mishandled their complaints, and some members of the body of Christ took their brethren to law–before unbelievers, at that (1 Cor. 6:1-8). A few other indications of disharmony are indicated in the book of Philippians. Paul exhorts the brethren to “stand fast in one spirit” (1:27) and to be “of one accord, of one mind” (2:2). Later, he singles out two ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, “to be of the same mind” (4:2). Paul charges brethren in Ephesus to endeavor “to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). If internal unity among brethren were automatic, there would be no need for all these admonitions. Harmony does not just happen; it must be sought.
How, then, should conflicts be handled? Jesus specified what to do in Matthew 18:15. “Moreover, if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” [Notice that this is a personal matter between two brothers, not a rationale for dealing with false teachers, authors, or college presidents.]
Many situations will be resolved at this point, if both parties are sincere and genuinely concerned about taking care of the matter. Of course, if the offending party persists, one or two more brethren are to discuss it, and finally the church must be informed and fellowship withdrawn from the stubbornly impenitent one.
But what happens when this divine process breaks down? What if, as in the case of Marian Guinn, aperson refuses to talk to the elders or anyone else, and then files a lawsuit for harassment? Or what happens if a person confesses sin before the church for appearance’s sake but never brings forth fruit worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Acts 26:20)? Or what happens if the individual leaves, attends another congregation, and misrepresents those he/she has left behind?
When the process the Lord authorized breaks down due to the impenitence of the person who has caused the problem, that itself reveals the insincerity of the individual who assumes such a rebellious posture. The congregation should withdraw fellowship from such a person.
No one should be allowed to repent verbally when no effort has been or will be made to correct the problem. Some have repented of fornication–after each illegitimate birth. Obviously, something did not change. Others have said things such as, “I repented; so I don’t have to talk to you.” How could an attitude be any more unspiritual than that? Who dares to play the hypocrite before God and the church by pretending to repent in order to “resolve” a problem? For shame.
And what of those who leave one congregation for another, in which they feel free to spread rumors and untruths? How can such matters be handled, especially when those listening to suchmisrepresentations have such itching ears? Some of these insults may be against individuals, or they may be against the church as a whole.
Handling Personal Attacks
Certain responses should be ruled out, such as smacking them “up side of the head.” Sure, it would feel good for the moment, but it’s not the Lord’s way. (Besides, if they have never developed a conscience or integrity in all the years they’ve been studying the Bible and listening to sermons, it probably can’t be beaten into them, either.) If Paul had personal enemies in the first century (and he did), chances are we are going to have a difficult time escaping false brethren, too (2 Cor. 11:26).
1. Be willing to discuss a problem with someone who is genuinely concerned about it, but the basis for the discussion must reside in objectivity. Nothing will be accomplished if all that is going to occur is an exchange of allegations and denials of private conversations which no one witnessed. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (Deut. 19:15, 2 Cor. 13:1).
2. Let someone arbitrate in a dispute. Both parties should select a neutral group of people to hear both sides and make suggestions. Paul says there ought to be at least one wise man among us to judge between brethren (1 Cor. 6:5).
3. But what if all these techniques fail? What if some do not want a resolution? What if they really enjoy reveling in hit-and-run character assassination?
“When somebody has been so unkind to you, some word spoken that pierces you through and through, think how He was beguiled, spat upon, and reviled. Let the beauty of Jesus be seen in you.” As English poet George Herbert wrote: “Living well is the best revenge.” In other words, keep being a faithful Christian, work for the Master, and forget those who have nothing better to do than carp,complain, criticize, and accuse falsely Another’s servant (or church).
If we devote ourselves to going on to perfection, people will come to doubt those whose favorite pastime is “badmouthing.” If the congregation busies itself in evangelism, edification, and benevolence, the inaccurate and false representations of others will eventually fall on deaf ears. We cannot allow others to disturb and distract us from doing and being what pleases our Lord.
4. Realize that those who engage in the negative behavior of attacking others have fallen prey to Satan’s influence. Wise brethren are not ignorant of the devil’s devices (2 Cor. 2:11). Pray that they see the errors of their ways, and repent. (Remember Matt. 5:38-48 and Rom. 12:17-21.)
Of course, murmurers and complainers would be out of business in a week were it not for the fact that too many people delight in hearing what they have to say. All of us need to turn away our ears from “hearsay.” If a brother has some objective evidence to present against another brother, fine. Present it. Otherwise, keep silence. The body of Christ does not need to “bite and devour one another” (Gal. 5:15).
We should be careful not to be foolish enough to hear only one side of a story. “He’s my friend, my child, my neighbor. That’s good enough for me.” Since when do personal attachments take the place of evidence? Friends, children, and neighbors have been known to lie or be mistaken. As Solomon wrote: “He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him” (Pr. 18:13).
This week the analysis continues of the lead article of Leroy Garrett’s Last Time Around from October, 1995. A woman had written him a letter which he published. Much of his article responds to this sentence: “All these years I have been able to ignore this ‘in error’ applied to others but not ourselves.”
The reader can tell that the editor is delighted with this sentence since it affords him the opportunity to launch into one of his favorite themes. Garrett writes: “As for this ‘in error’ mentality, it is a judgment that one will find only in Churches of Christ. I am not sure how or why it got started. It is a dubious construct, reflective of our inability to see ourselves as others see us. Even when we refer to others in the Movement who have been baptized, we refer to them as ‘brothers in error.’ If there are Christians in other churches, which we often question, they too are ‘brothers in error.’ I have never in all these years heard anyone among us refer to ourselves as ‘in error.’ It is always others who are ‘in error,’ not ourselves.”
Is it true that the “in error” mentality is found only in Churches of Christ? One wonders if Leroy has ever heard of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He may be unaware of it, but there are some fairly staunch Calvinists who would not hesitate to say that those who subscribe to the opposite doctrine (in this case, the Truth) are “in error.”
Anyway, the point should not be how many groups would say such a thing; the question is, “What does the Bible say?” So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen…” (2 Chron. 33:9). The people were in error–spiritual and moral error.
Consider these two statements in Isaiah: “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths” (3:12b); “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (9: 16). Jeremiah 23:13 states: “And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err.”
Would Leroy like to convince God that this “in error” mentality is of dubious construct? When people embrace lies in place of the truth, they are “in error.” It’s that simple.
“Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have despised the law of the Lord, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked” (Amos 2:4). Just as people can walk in the truth (3 John 3), so can they walk in error, according to the Scriptures.
The reason that people are “in error” is that they are like the Sadducees, not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29). Jesus warned the disciples, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Saducees” (Matt. 16:6). Later, they understood that he referred to their teaching (Matt. 16:12). They were “in error” on their teaching!
What else could Jesus mean when He refers to them as “blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:14) except that, like many religious leaders of today, they are in error and teaching error. James says that brethren who wander from the truth must be turned back; those outside of truth must be brought back from the error of their ways (and are even called “sinners” instead of brethren). Peter speaks of those who “live in error” (2 Peter 2: 18) and warns against being led away with “the error of the wicked” (2 Peter 3:17). Hopefully, these few passages will serve to provide Mr. Garrett the origin of the concept.
“As Others See Us”
Leroy seems concerned about how others see us. It is always nice to be well-liked, well-thought-of. But whatever men think must take second place behind what God thinks? Elijah, Jeremiah, and Amos were not highly regarded in the community. Jesus was hated by the religious leaders of His day. In teaching the truth, He offended them (Matt. 15: 12). “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Likewise, we must teach truth regardless of how those “in error” feel about it.
“The Movement”
Many people are baptized for the remission of their sins, including Mormons. Why does Garrett choose to use this phrase? And whom does he include in it? Wouldn’t it be better to use Scriptural terminology so that we all might understand what he means?
ARE WE “IN ERROR”?
Garrett seems surprised that we do not refer to ourselves as “in error.” Is this phenomenon really a mystery? The Bible says, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…” (1 Peter 4:11). Would it not be the height of folly to tell someone, “I don’t know the truth; I am in error. But come and let me teach you anyway”?
“Buy the truth and sell it not,” Proverbs 23:23 advises, and the New Testament likewise emphasizes this sentiment. “Sanctify them through thy truth,” the Lord prayed, and added, “Thy word is truth. “Others may not care about Truth, but members of the Lord’s church do. For such reasons we study carefully and are willing to test our beliefs in public debate. Liberals seem unwilling to do so, and we can’t help wondering why. We sincerely believe we are teaching and practicing the truth, but if someone thinks we are “in error,” let him point out the error and be willing to discuss it rather than hide behind vague innuendoes.
Nonsense Versus God’s Sense
Leroy further pontificates: “It is nonsense because no such distinction can be drawn between those ‘in error’ and those who are not. We are all in error about some things, unless we presume that both our knowledge and behavior are perfect…” Anyone who is not absolutely stupefied by the preceding statements needs to read them again. Garrett believes that one cannot distinguish between those “in error” and those not. No wonder he can fellowship anyone!
Fortunately, the Word of God teaches no such foolishness. “You reject all those who stray [err, KJV] from Your statutes: for their deceit is falsehood” (Ps. 119:118, NKJ). Notice that: (1) God can distinguish between those in error and those not; (2) He rejects those who do err; and (3) There must be some who do not err from God’s statutes, or there would not have been a psalmist left to record this verse!
Certainly, God knew that all are imperfect, especially in behavior. And He knows that all of us may hold a peculiar view or two, but even so, it is still possible to determine that someone has gone “onward” (2 John 9-11) into “error.”
During the 14th Annual Denton Lectureship last November my task was to review Monroe Hawley’s 1992 book, Is Christ Divided? Attending that particular session was Leroy Garrett, who has lived in Denton a number of years and now attends the Singing Oaks Church of Christ, which observes Christmas and Easter with special programs (and which has departed from the faith in a number of other ways).
After the discussion forum had ended, Leroy introduced himself to me and gave me a copy of his current paper, Last Time Around (he used to publish Restoration Review, which I first saw thirty years ago). The invitation was to read it and let him know what I thought of it, which I am now doing. He was very cordial, and the analysis which follows reflects no personal animosity since he was in no way personally unkind to me.
Perhaps he is not unkind to anyone. On page four of the October, 1995, issue that he gave me, he provides an “update” on the “International Church of Christ, formerly Boston Church of Christ.” He extends no criticism to the group which has correctly been identified by many as a cult; in fact, he considers them “phenomenal.”
The front page article is entitled “Concerning Those ‘In Error.'” Leroy says he suspects many will identify with a letter he has received from a sister who has “hung in all her life.” She apparently is on Garrett’s mailing list (who else would write to him?), which means she must have been pondering his views for a while, which may explain her confusion.
She identifies herself as one who “grew up in the Church of Christ,” which presumably means under its influence since one can only be Jewish by birth; one becomes a Christian by being taught (Heb. 8:10-11) and then obeying the gospel, not by birth. She (seemingly unashamedly) confesses: “I have never as an adult believed that only those in the Church of Christ are Christians,” and wants to know if she should leave it.
Now many faithful gospel preachers would probably ask her some questions, such as, “How does one become a Christian?” Or “If you think there are Christians besides in the Lord’s church, could you explain where they are and how they came to be there?” Or even: “What you think is not nearly so important was what the Bible teaches on the matter; what does It say?”
It may be very high-sounding and in harmony with the spirit of the age to allege that Christians can be in all denominations, but it is altogether different to explain how such a phenomenon occurs. Take the Presbyterian Church, for example (which the woman’s husband grew up in). It is a man-made denomination, not the Lord’s church. Calvinism, which doctrine they follow, teaches that children are depraved sinners at birth; they are thus baptized (actually sprinkled) while mere babies.
Is the letter-writer willing to assert that those who have never heard the gospel and who have been baptized as babies are saved? If so, exactly what New Testament has she been reading? Certainly, she did not get such an idea from Jesus (Mark 16: 15-16), Peter (Acts 2:38), or Paul (Romans 6:3-5). In order to become a Christian, one must “obey the gospel” (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 6:17-18). Those who fail to obey it are lost (2 Thess. 1: 6-10). So how can there be a Christian in the Presbyterian Church, when they neither teach nor practice what the New Testament teaches?
Leroy’s Response
Most faithful gospel preachers would probably answer somewhat along the lines presented above (and send along some lessons on the nature of the church), but Leroy Garrett does not see fit to reply in such a fashion. He “advised this sister and her husband that leaving one church and going to another does not always solve the problem.” Please understand that Mr. Garrett is equating the Lord’s church with a denominational church when he gives such advice. The woman had written about leaving “the Church of Christ.” Since there is only one true church (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:4), Garrett must know the only other “church” she could attend would be a denomination, and that appears not to bother him–even though he encourages her to stay where she is.
Why does he advise her to remain with a group that makes her feel like a “hypocrite” since she can not agree with them? “… they have a better chance of being a catalyst for change if they remain where they are.” Such is apparently the philosophy of Shelly and others–don’t leave the church; be a “catalyst for change” instead. Remain as the Trojan Horse to destroy (oh, excuse me) reform it from within. The church needs these people about like a house needs termites.
Notice to the Fifth Column
To all of those who think they can “help” the church by subtly getting it to change, consider the response of at least one conservative.
Thanks for your consideration, but we do not want or need your help. We have the Bible and find it utterly sufficient in matters of doctrine and morality. If you had something constructive to offer, we would be happy to listen, but all you seem to want to do is tear down those things it took faithful brethren generations to build.
You mock the old hermeneutics of “command,” “example,” and “implication” (which Jesus Himself used as methods of interpretation) and have replaced them with the touchy-feelies (if it feels good do it). You accuse us of causing division over the instrument when you know full well that the source of the problem involved those who introduced it and who still refuse to renounce it for the sake of unity.
You would make of the Lord’s church a denomination and do away with the Bible’s teaching about salvation (Acts 2:38). Truth is of no consequence to you whatsoever; it has been cast aside for “love,” a soft, warm, gooey feeling that overlooks practically everything instead of looking out for the best interests of others (1 Thess. 5:15), such as communicating the truth that could set people free (John 8:31-32).
Many of us intend to stand with the Scriptures rather than follow the lead of the culture we live in. Homosexuals will not convince us that the Bible is in error about them, nor will feminists cause us to be silent about 1 Timothy 2:9-14. Neither will you remove us from the Biblical doctrine of fellowship (2 John 9-11).
By aligning yourselves with the denominations you have robbed yourself of the chance to offer anything of value. Those defending the concept have been met and defeated by us for decades. And you don’t even have the courage to defend your beliefs in honorable public debate. Instead of remaining among the churches of Christ, why don’t you shed a modicum of your cowardice and join your denominational buddies? You will be happier not associating with those you hold in contempt, and we will be free of “catalysts.”
She was 21, single, poor, and pregnant. Too poor, in fact, to afford even a back-alley butcher in her home state of Texas, where abortion was then illegal. Too poor to travel to California, where the procedure was permitted. Supposedly pregnant from a gang rape, she filed a suit challenging the Texas abortion law, then went ahead and reluctantly had her child, who was put up for adoption.
This is the history of Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” whose lawsuit led to the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. Now, McCorvey, an abortion-rights activist, has admitted to columnist Carl Rowen that her gang rape story was a fabrication to bolster her legal claim. Like so many other young single women in her predicament, McCorvey says, she became pregnant “through what I thought was love.”
Jesse Whitlock wrote the above two paragraphs, citing as his source U.S. News and World Report (Sept. 21, 1987, page 13). This information, as well as the chart across the page, appeared in the August 24, 1989, issue of The Edifier.
As most people are probably aware, Norma McCorvey has recently (1995) changed her views: she is now thoroughly pro-life. These historical notes are of great value since an entire generation has now grown up with abortion being legal.
Historically, people have seen a need to protect life before birth. Hippocrates, in the fifth century B.C., wrote the “oath” which doctors have used for a long time: “I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius… I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion” (The Abortion Holocaust 142).
Christians, by 150 A.D., mentioned specifically this sin in The Didache : “… thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born…” (The Apostolic Fathers 123-24). Of course, the New Testament is our authority, but this quotation shows that brethren were consistent with the Bible.
Doctors under the rule of the Third Reich were required to destroy life, as well as conduct grotesque experiments on the living. Perhaps this fact explains the wording of the Declaration of Geneva, which was passed in 1948: “… I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor” (Abortion: Questions and Answers 184-85).
It is time once again to restore the respect for life–from the womb–that our forefathers also found necessary to protect.
When does human life begin? Many have disputed the point over the past twenty-three years, but Christians have no difficulty in determining a truthful and accurate answer to the question. Although several Biblical passages relate to the issue, the four verses cited last week (Luke 1:41, 44 and 2:12,16) are more than sufficient to know and understand that God views the babe a human being whether in or out of the womb. The Bible is the greatest proof and the final authority in the matter of abortion or any other moral issue. God reveals truth; the Bible is right.
But the medical evidence for the child being a human being is also compelling. Consider the following factual information derived from the book, The Rites of Life, by Landrum Shettles, M.D., and David Rorvik (pages 47-57).
1. Within the first 30 days, “the embryo has already developed a beating heart and put down the foundations of its nervous system, including brain, nerves, and spinal cord. The eyes have begun to develop, as have most of the major organs” (47). All of this has begun to occur even before a woman knows for sure that she is pregnant.
2. During the fifth week “leg and arm buds are becoming prominent” (52); “the jaw has begun to form” (53).
3. During the sixth week “bone begins forming”; “the heart becomes more complex as its chambers are completed” (53).
4. During the seventh week “the tongue takes shape, and the stomach assumes its final position. Muscles are strengthening, nerve fiber is rapidly growing” (53); “differentiation is occurring in the sex glands” (54).
5. During the eighth week “the digits of the hands and feet are now well-formed… The lungs and heart are now in an advanced state of development. Major blood vessels are in permanent place. Taste buds and olfactory apparatus, serving the sense of smell, are present” (54).
6. During the ninth week the face becomes quite “appealing, exhibiting large eyes, button nose, and expressive lips which often as not are sucking a tiny thumb. The internal organs are in place” (54). “Teeth, fingernails, toenails, and hair follicles are all forming. The fetal heartbeat can now be detected through the mother’s abdominal wall by listening through a stethoscope” (55).
7. During the tenth week “palms close into fists if something brushes across them… Bone growth is rapid.”
8. At the end of the twelfth week “the limbs are well-shaped,” and the “rib structure is visible through the skin. The digestive system is complete. Blood is beginning to be produced in the bone marrow” (55).
From this point onward nothing new is formed. The baby begins to grow rapidly and to mature. Is this fetus a human life? The baby has had brain waves that can be measured by an EEG since the sixth week (56).
More importantly, the child has been a unique individual since conception, at which time 23 male chromosomes united with 23 female chromosomes to produce a unique individual with his own distinctive DNA. Medically, as well as Biblically, the “fetus” is a human being.
Perhaps now that the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is upon us the media will pay scant attention to the subject of abortion. As an issue, it has all but disappeared since the 1992 election. Neither major political party has talked about it much, and one wonders if the abortion “issue” will surface during the 1996 campaign at all. In fact, one wonders if either political party will have a pro-life plank in this year’s platform.
Many wish the abortion “issue” would just disappear entirely; they cannot understand why pro-life people are so adamant. “Why can’t they compromise? Why can’t they tone down their rhetoric? Why can’t they just downplay the abortion ‘issue’?”
Such thinking betrays a total lack of comprehension about the subject of abortion. Those who believe the Bible know that the “fetus” is a human being. The Bible does not refer to such as a “blob of tissue,” and neither do Christians.
Christians do not have any authority of their own; the reason is that Jesus possessed it all (Matt 28:18-20). All we can do is recognize what He commands and teaches–and abide by it.
The Bible teaches that the life within the womb is human life. Consider Luke 1:41 and 44. The babe (Greek, brephos), referring to the unborn John, leaped in the womb of his mother Elizabeth when Mary greeted her. Is brephos just a Greek word for fetus? Consider Luke 2:12 and 16. The shepherds were told, “You will find a Babe (brephos) wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” Verse 16 adds: “And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe(brephos) lying in a manger.” God chose the very same word to describe the unborn child in the womb as He used to refer to the newborn infant. What can we properly conclude but that to God the brephos is a human being both before and after birth?
Now if the unborn child is a human being (and it is!), then what is it called when someone terminates the life of a human being. If the individual is not worthy of death (and babies are the most innocent of all), then we rightly define the shedding of innocent blood as murder!
Abortion is not murder because a group of right-wing fanatics are emotionally charged up about the practice; it is murder by Biblical definition. Is murder something that should be down-played? Should we just all be willing to compromise on it? When someone’s wife or husband is murdered, do they want justice, or are they willing to just let it pass in silence?
Those who want the pro-life community to remain silent or just fade away are unrealistic. For us, this issue is not an option; it is a matter of life and death, right and wrong, morality or corruption. The person who does not respect the innocent life in the womb is subject not to respect life in any other form, such as the elderly, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, etc.
To our shame, we have an entire generation that has never known a time when abortion was illegal. If Roe v. Wade is not overturned soon, it may be too late to ever do anything about it again.
Someone says, “But isn’t economic reform and balancing the budget exciting?” Yes, but is it worth sacrificing millions of unborn children on the altar of TAX CUTS. For the child of God, the economy is not the thing; it’s morality. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
TODAY’S PROPHET
Prophets of old cried out against the sins of the people in the Old Testament times. What might someone like Jeremiah or Amos say of the existence of abortion of our so-called “enlightened society today? Some suggestions are given below (with Scripture references following in parentheses).
“For three transgressions of America, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because they abort the righteous for silver, and the innocent for a pair of shoes. They pant after the lust of the flesh, which is displayed shamelessly on the silver screen. They pervert the way God designed the body to be used; a man and his father lie with the same lad. They were like well-fed lusty stallions; everyone neighed after his neighbor’s wife. Shall I not punish them for these things? And shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?” (Amos 2:6-7. Jer. 5:8-9).
“Moreover abortion doctors shed very much innocent blood, till they had filled America from one end to another” (2 Kings 22:16). [If such a statement seems too strong, consider the chart below, which to be accurate should now have triple the amount of crosses as the ones shone for abortion.]
“Woe to the bloody country! I too will make the pyre great. Heap on the wood, Kindle the fire… I, the Lord, have spoken it; it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not hold back, nor will I spare, nor will I relent; According to your ways and according to your deeds they will judge you,” (Ezekiel 24:14).
These are just a few passages of Scripture that come to mind; how long can any nation endure that allows the heinous injustice of the shedding of innocent blood? God’s people dare not become indifferent on this subject.
“Which things have indeed a shew of willworship, and humility, and neglecting the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh” (Col. 2:23, KJV). The New King James uses for the word willworship the phrase self-appointed religion. The Greek word from which these translations come consists of a compound word, which literally translated is “will worship.” Kittell defines it as a “cultus which is freely chosen, which is not commanded or forbidden” (3:159).
Will worship, therefore, consists of offering up worship according to our will (because we like it) rather than giving God worship as He has commanded. It is an old problem, dating back to Cain, who gave God what he desired to give Him rather than the blood sacrifice He required (Gen. 4:1-7). People have not changed; they freely choose the kind of worship that pleases them, “which is not commanded or forbidden.”
Does this phrase sound familiar? Every time men have sought to add something such as instrumental music, handclapping, or vocal sounds in addition to the singing of words, they have made the argument, “The Bible does not forbid it.” Such is the essence of will worship–doing that “which is not commanded or forbidden.” The Bible does not forbid fund-raising as an alternate way for churches to increase their bank accounts, nor does it specifically forbid having the Lord’s Supper on Saturday (or on weekdays). In the Old Testament incense was offered; the New Testament does not forbid doing so. David danced before the Lord; no Scripture would prohibit Christians from dancing for the Lord in worship today. All of these constitute “will worship.”
Nowhere has “self-imposed religion” been so applied, however, than in the corruption of the New Testament emphasis upon singing. Singing was designed to be a spiritual practice, in which God is glorified and brethren are edified (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Handclapping, foot-stomping, imitating sounds of instruments, or adding literal instruments perverts and prostitutes the worship God designed.
Although these things are not forbidden, they likewise are not authorized (Col. 3:17). The worship that God commands and authorizes is pleasing to Him; that which He does not authorize is will worship, even though it “is not commanded or forbidden.” Just as God refused to accept Cain’s “self-imposed religion,” so does He reject ours, which makes it worthless.
Abundant Violations
Recently, I spoke with a minister who works with young people in a certain geographical region. Youth from several congregations periodically get together for special worship and activities. He said he was experiencing a problem. Since these teens have grown accustomed to clapping along with singing spiritual songs, they now are wondering why they cannot do the same thing in the assembly on Sundays. The same problem has occurred in time past with instrumental music. Many have wondered why we can sing hymns around a piano in someone’s home on Saturday night but not in the church building on Sunday a few hours later on the first day of the week. This brings to mind three important aspects: the quality, place, and purpose of worship.
By the quality of worship we mean that God designed our worship in this age to be spiritual. Clapping hands, adding instruments, or imitating the sounds of instruments changes singing to a carnal affair. They appeal to our carnal nature; as some are often prone to say, “I like a song with a good beat.” It would be just as appropriate to add peanut butter or jelly to the unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper (to liven it up a bit) as it is to add these things. If young people have no spiritual appetite, clapping hands is not going to produce it.
Second, some say, “It is the place that determines whether or not a practice is permissible.” Really? What verse sets forth that principle? If we are sitting around a campfire somewhere, and the group decides to sing, are they somehow not speaking to themselves “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody” in their hearts “to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19)? Where is the authority for young people to clap their hands or for someone to play the harmonica while they sing?
If brethren gather for a singing in someone”s home, (rather than the church building), how does the location alter the precept of “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16)? Adding the instrument is done out of will worship, which means doing what WE want to do because it pleases US.
Jesus and His disciples were certainly not in a church building when they sang a hymn in an upper room and then went out to the Mount of Olives (Matt. 26:30), but no violins or trumpets accompanied them. When Paul and Silas sang praises unto God, their feet were in stocks; apparently their hands were free. Paul did not charge Silas to give him a handclapping beat so they could keep up the tempo when they sang (Acts 16:24-25). Why cannot Christians ever seem to be satisfied with just singing? A geographic site does not change either the purpose or the manner of singing.
A third consideration of worship is that its purpose is to honor and praise God. Is it right to change worship into entertainment for our enjoyment (which relates to singing groups, choruses, etc.)? Some argue that these groups are worshipping and entertaining at the same time; others opine that they are only entertaining people–but that it is all right to entertain people with spiritual acts of worship.
Although many arguments have been presented from both perspectives, one continues to wonder, “Where is the Biblical authority for special groups and using worship as entertainment?” Do we enjoy their singing? Yes. Are we inspired by it? Yes. Is it entertainment? Yes (if it is not, why do people feel compelled to applaud?). Is it authorized? If so, where? Are we guilty of adopting a man-made tradition?
Christian Rock Music
Seven years ago we published an article by this title in Spiritual Perspectives, which was originally written for the Columbia City Crusader (October 1995). In that article we pointed out that “Christian rock” is a misnomer, since the first word signifies something spiritual, and the latter word is a type of secular music, which usually encompasses instruments of music.
A speaker at a “Family Adventure Seminar” had advocated Christian rock, and those arguments were refuted. His first one was that many brethren were endorsing it. The same could have been said in favor of instrumental music being used in our assemblies around 1900. At least one congregation in Asia Minor had some that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15); did that mean that other congregations should follow suit?
A second argument was that “Christian rock music got a girl off of illicit sex.” Testimonials are usually effective, but could not the Scriptures have accomplished the same result? What caused the people around Ephesus to burn their books of magical arts (Acts 19:18-20)? It was not Zamfir and his pan flute; it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Often times a false dilemma is presented: “It’s either Eminem or DC Talk.” No, most markets have a variety of musical selections; anyone can choose a suitable style of music to enjoy. As we asked before, why not teach young people to exercise good judgment? Whenever anything is played in their hearing that is objectionable, they should automatically turn it off.
Some will argue: “What I listen to by myself is my business.” This statement is not entirely true. What a person does privately is his business–but not his alone, since God is also involved. Do we not need authority to do what we practice in private, as well as what we do publicly? What makes it wrong for the church to use instruments collectively but right for me to do so privately? Are we still not to “make melody in the heart”?
Besides, if everyone kept such matters private, how is it that we know all about it? As soon as someone tells another, “Here is what I do privately,” it has ceased to become a private matter. Now he has encouraged others to practice privately what he does. Furthermore, if we are accustomed to listening to spiritual songs (with instrumental accompaniment) by ourselves in our cars, then what do we do if a guest rides with us? And do not our family members wonder why we have “Christian rock” CDs in our cars? Most people would view us as inconsistent, to say the least, having one type of conduct for the assembly and another set of rules for ourselves. It will be difficult to teach someone else that we are serious about “singing only.”
Is it not the right course to pursue to practice what we know we are authorized to do and eliminate those things that are questionable? Should we not be persuaded in our own minds that we are within the boundaries of acceptable worship set forth in the Scriptures? If we are unsure of a practice, what does wisdom encourage us to do–refrain from an activity or forge ahead regardless? We might also ask if there is anything comparable in the Scriptures relative to various innovations.
Can anyone imagine Peter imitating the sound of a harp and James doing that of a tambourine, while Jesus snapped His fingers to “Amazing Grace”? Can anyone envision the apostles scheduling appearances around Jerusalem to sing songs of the crucifixion with a rock beat? Is it possible that Paul could have taken around a lyre with him and strummed his way through the sermon on Mars’ Hill? Better yet, since music can have a soothing effect, he might have defended himself in Jerusalem with a pleasant melody as he sang of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:16).
In light of the spiritual emphasis in Jesus’ teachings, these various scenarios sound blasphemous! But we have brethren changing the sacred into the profane all the time, and few think anything about it. We need a better spirit of discernment to be able to distinguish the spiritual from the carnal. The combination of the two is both demeaning and dangerous–whether we are alone or together.
And let us save our applause for secular events. Nobody applauded Jesus after the Sermon on the Mount; Philip did not applaud the eunuch after he baptized him; the apostles were not applauded by the crowd after they spoke in tongues; those in the house did not applaud the Lord after He healed the paralytic. When our efforts are directed at Heaven, Divine approval is sufficient. Knowing that we are pleasing our heavenly Father is reward enough.
“Some brethren are just on a witch hunt,” defenders of apostates like Max Lucado affirm. Of course, such a flippant accusation is absurd on the face of it–as if most preachers wouldn’t prefer spending time on other areas of endeavor. But even if the charge were true, in this case, we’ve found one. A witch, that is. Truly, Max has somehow cast a spell over quite a number of brethren.
So what follows is a portion of a speech that he made at Trinity Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas, and, yes, I have a tape of the entire “sermon” in case anyone thinks the transcribed portion below was taken out of context. [Why is it that faithful gospel preachers must be scrupulously careful about documenting one false teacher, but we may be lumped together, indicted wholesale, and summarily dismissed by thoughtless phrases such as witch-hunters (without any evidence whatsoever)?]
Max Lucado: “But the longer I’ve been in this battle, I’ve noticed that there are some curious soldiers who share these foxholes with us. For example: there’s an Anglican by the name of C.S. Lewis, whose books put muscle in my faith; a Presbyterian (of all people) by the name of Stephen Brown, formerly of Key Biscayne, Florida (somehow I got on his tape mailing list), and he helped me understand the sovereignty of God; another Presbyterian by the name of Frederick Boettner, who writes books somewhere in Vermont, helped me see the passion of Christ; a former Catholic priest named Brennan Manning convinced me that Jesus is relentlessly tender; a Nazarene by the name of Jim Dobson helped my family skills; a pastor of the Evangelical Free Church named Chuck Swindoll helped my preaching; a Baptist in Miami taught me about grace; a Pentecostal in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, helped me understand prayer.”
“Some day, when we all get to heaven, I’m going to finally learn the name of some radio preacher who was on the air in 1978. I was home working in an oil field job, wantin’ some extra money. My faith was very fragile. I had more questions than I had answers, and I was literally at a crossroads as to whether or not I was going to believe. While making some deliveries for an oil field company in a pickup truck, I could only pick up one radio station. I don’t know if that’s because of west Texas or because of the truck, or both. But that one radio station had a radio preacher, and in fifteen minutes, he put the heart and soul of the faith in a little sermon on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. And all of a sudden I realized it wasn’t what I knew, it was Who I knew. And I pulled over to the side of the road and rededicated my faith. [It] may have been a Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, or an angel. Or all four!”
Anyone should be able to read these word of Max Lucado’s and understand that he accepts all who abide in religious denominations as brethren, Christians. Never mind if they were immersed, sprinkled, or whatever. If they claim to be a Christian, that’s good enough for Max. The following observations are in order.
First, does not the Bible teach the grace of God? Who made the Baptists the guardians of this doctrine? In fact, when they teach salvation by grace and faith ALONE, they have perverted the Biblical doctrine. Did Max get his false ideas of salvation from them? Does not the Bible proclaim that God is sovereign? Must we go to Presbyterians to get a clue? Is the Bible so mysterious in its teaching about prayer that we have to import teaching from Brazil? Perhaps if Lucado had spent more time in the Book and less time with popular authors, he might have learned a great deal more than he currently knows.
Second, It’s too bad that in all of his gleaning he never found anybody to teach him a love of the TRUTH. Those lacking such a love cannot be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). Since he is so influenced by the writings of men, too bad he never read The Bible Only Makes Christians Only And the Only Christians by brother Thomas B. Warren. In fact, Max did not see fit to credit even one faithful brother with enough knowledge to teach him anything.
Third, the fact that these men have written some helpful things does not make them brethren. Fourth, it does matter what you know as well as Who you know. Who (Jesus) said it matters what (“If you continue in My word, then you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). [See also Romans 16: 17-18 and 2 John 9-11.]
