Featured Christian Tradition

Oh my! That would be terrible.

Martin, I can't really tell whether you are serious about the clerical dress and the cross in front thing or if you are trying to be sarcastic. Hopefully it's the latter. FWIW, we have a large cross down front in our church. I have been a member for 40 years and I am yet to see anyone do a little bow in front of it.

 

No, I'm absolutely serious. The cross and the clerical dress were just what came into my mind. Why do you have a cross? Would the church collapse if you took it down. What Biblical warrant do you have for it? If your minister wears a dog collar, why does he do it? Where's his Scriptural authority for it?

What about choirs? Are they not ultimately a form of entertainment? What are they doing in the churches of Christ? What about 'worship leaders'? Christ gave some to be prophets, some to be Apostles, but none to be worship leaders. Chuck them out and see if you don't have a simpler, purer form of worship.

FWIW, Spurgeon never had a organ in the Metropolitan Tabernacle. Everything was sung a capella, which, as I'm sure you know, means' in the chapel.' If musical instruments are used, they should be solely for keeping the congregation in time and in tune. Anything beyond that is entertainment and belongs in a theatre, not a church. People move from one church to another because the 'worship' is supposed to be better, usually meaning that the new church has a guitarist who does great riffs. Brothers, these things ought not to be.

 

Indeed there was, but singing can be justified with reference to Eph. 5:19 etc.

 

We have a cross because it reminds us of how Jesus suffered and died for us. Besides, it's part of our tradition just as no crosses are probably part of your tradition. Show me where the Bible condemns it and I will see that it is taken down.

As for choirs and instruments, read the book of Revelation.

 

So choirs are naughty now?

Huh?

Here is the account of the Fisk Jubilee Singers ministering at the Metropolitan Tabernacle with Spurgeon:

"[Spurgeon:] "I heard the Jubilee Singers sing a piece, 'Oh, brothers, don't stay away, for my Lord says there's room enough in the heavens for you.' I found tears coming in my eyes, and looking at my deacons, I found theirs very moist too. That song suggested my text and my sermon to-night. Now, as a part of the sermon, I am going to ask them to sing it, for they preach in the singing ; and may the Spirit of God send home this word to some to-night—some who may remember their singing if they forget my preaching." Then followed the singing, with such clearness and power, that all the vast audience of five or six thousand people could hear; some, forgetting themselves, broke out into spontaneous applause with clapping of hands at the close. I have heard it said several persons date their conversion from that evening."

 

Spurgeon on "very stereotyped brethren" of his time making using a musical instrument a bugaboo:

"we need to escape from these horrid ruts, and wretched conventionalisms, which are rather hindrances than helps. Some very stereotyped brethren judge it to be a crime for an evangelist to sing the gospel; and as to that American organ,—dreadful! One of these days another set of conservative souls will hardly endure a service without such things" —Charles Spurgeon, "Beware of Unbelief"

 

I can assure you that there was no organ in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in Spurgeon's day, American or otherwise.
I am currently reading the vast new biography of Spurgeon by Tom Nettles. I haven't got to Spurgeon's view on worship and on entertainment. I shall look at it with interest.
I do not object to choirs per se. Far from it; I am a member of a choir. But I do not see them in the New Testament, and therefore am very happy if they appear in concerts or elsewhere, but not in a church service.
Brethren will make up their own minds, but I would encourage you to try a simpler service following the example set out in Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16 and 1 Timothy 4:13. You may find it a blessing to your souls.

 

I think the bigger debate which divided early Christians was the use of musical instruments in the church.

 

Bro. Marvin,

Seems to me that possibly you're taking the NT way too literally in some cases.

Too take your interpretation too the fullest extent, apparently you think that nursery attendants are UNSCRIPTURAL because a person can't find them mentioned in the NT. Maybe that's because most NT church meetings weren't held in what today we have separate church buildings quite unlike the 1st century Christians. Rather, they were usually held in one person's (maybe two persons') private houses--if they were fortunate enough to have a house/houses in which to meet. In many situations some "church meetings" were held outdoors in the elements; others were forced to literally go underground in caves or catacombs and hold their "church services" in secret.

How'd you like to have to sit on a very uncomfortable, rocky floor during a "church service" that usually lasted much longer than a hour or so?

At least you wouldn't have to get up earlier for SS that may be taught by someone reading directly from a printed SS quarterly because SS's as we know them today are only about 200 or so years old. Oh yes, my NT is strangely silent on SS's. Guess SS's are grossly UNSCRIPTUAL too, right. Moreover, according to how I interpret your criteria for something being Scriptural or not, even the suggestion of having a nursery separate from the "corporate church service" needs to be totally erased from any "church planter's" mind--If a person can't find it mentioned in the NT, by golly, it's something some "messenger of satan" must have devised, right?

And what about having a song accompanied by a well-trained guitarist or a violinist or a pianist or a flutist, etc.? I can't see why that, per se, is a blatant violation of the NT.

Nothing thrills this old sinner saved by grace more than popping in a CD of Sir Colin Davis conducting the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus of the grand choral finale of Handel's Messiah than the words he took from Rev. 5:9-14 to form the numbers "Worthy Is the Lamb That Was Slain" and "Amen" choruses.

Maybe that doesn't move you like it does me. Maybe you don't care much for Baroque-era "classical" music like I do.

That's OK with me because I don't read anywhere in the NT where our Lord demands of any of His children to enjoy only one genre of music and no others.

Moreover, I do enjoy some Christian music that was composed after 1950.

The Gaithers' "I Know He's Alive" (I think that was the title...Maybe it was another song along that theme) was written sometime in the 1970's.

We sung that song one Easter morning in 2003 while my Tenn. Air National Guard unit--along with another half-dozen ANG units from various other states--were deployed in Saudi Arabia to a Saudi AFB that was only about 200 miles from Jerusalem.

There wasn't a dry eye among the crowd of BDU-clad troops--whose only seats were some beat-lawn chairs they managed to have--after we finished singing that song only a thousand or so feet from a Saudi highway on which none of the occupants of the cars that were driving on it were going to an Easter Sonrise service at their local mosque. That I can pretty much guarantee wasn't on their Sunday schedule. After all, their "worship services" are held on Fridays, not on Sundays.

The late Dottie Rambo's "We Shall Behold Him" (c) 1981, is one I hope I'll remember for the rest of the time God let's me live on earth.

At the church of which I've been a member for over 20 years, we have what's called a "blended music service." Some songs are newer (post 1950) ones, some are pre-1950, and some combine both era songs--"Amazing Grace" and Isn't Grace Amazing?" is just one example that popped into my mind as I'm typing this post.

How you "do worship service" might be different than we do it at the church in which I belong. One thing I can guarantee, our worship services are not exactly the same as the Ethiopian congregation we sponsor, nor is it exactly the same as the Korean congregation we sponsor either.

In fact, nowhere in my NT do I find any specific "rules" or "order of service" or how many songs we must have, or when the announcements must be made, or how often we must observe the Lord's Supper (or must it be "open," "close," or "closed" communion), or anything like that.

Maybe your NT does have all these many details by which we MUST CLOSELY ADHERE listed, so that her "candlestick" (Rev. 1:20) won't forever be removed--maybe yours does--but I seriously doubt it.

Why have I spent my time typing this post to you? Basically to let you know that I conclude (and I maybe wrong...Hopefully I am.) that the God we call Our Heavenly Father gave us some common sense that He expects us to use when it comes to things He chose not to include when He inspired the 8 or so people to write what we call the NT some 2,000 years ago.

 

Sure it does.

Comes under the heading of working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12).

And also:

1 Corinthians 8:4–13 (AV)
4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Just change the subject matter from meat to air conditioning. The same biblical principle is intact.

 

"Service at the Metropolitan Tabernacle" The Christian, 22 April 1875, p. 31:

 

Bro. Marvin,

Seems to me that possibly you're taking the NT way too literally in some cases.

To take your interpretation out to its fullest extent, apparently you think that, say, nursery attendants are UNSCRIPTURAL because a person can't find them mentioned in the NT.

That's because NT church meetings weren't held in "church buildings" such as we have today. Matter of fact, these "church buildings" are a relatively modern concept....Probably no more than 1,000 years old--which would be some 10 centuries after John penned Rev. 22:21. Guess all modern-day "church buildings" are "inventions of the devil" and must immediately and permanently evacuated and destroyed since they really are places wherein pagans worship Baal, or Dagon, or the Roman emperor, etc., correct?

FWIW, John didn't make those chapter and verse divisions in our Bible, nor did any of the people from Moses to John do so in any of the 66 books in our Bibles. Since they were later additions (Probably 12-13 centuries after our NT was finished.), one could conclude that these also are UNSCRIPTUAL since God didn't include them when He inspired the human authors to pen His inspired, infallible Word. Using your line of reasoning, that's an easy conclusion to draw, isn't it?

Getting back to 1st cent. "church" meetings. They were usually held in 1 or 2 private houses--if they were fortunate enough to have a house/houses in which to meet. In many situations some "church meetings" were held outdoors in the elements; others were forced to literally go underground in caves or catacombs and hold their "church services" in secret.

How'd you like to have to sit on a very uncomfortable, rocky floor during a "church service" that usually lasted much longer than a hour or so?

At least you wouldn't have to get up earlier for SS that may be taught by someone reading directly from a printed SS quarterly because SS's as we know them today are only about 200 or so years old. Oh yes, my NT is strangely silent on SS's. Guess SS's are grossly UNSCRIPTUAL too (not to mention printed SS quarterlies, which probably didn't come into common usage till about 1900 or later).

And what about those nursery attendants I mentioned above? According to how I could possibly interpret your criteria for something being Scriptural or not, even the suggestion of even having a nursery separate from the "corporate church service" needs to be totally erased from any "church planter's" mind--If a person can't find it mentioned in the NT, by golly, it's something some "messenger of satan" must have devised, right?

And what about having a song accompanied by a well-trained guitarist or a violinist or a pianist or a flutist, etc.? I can't see why that, per se, is a blatant violation of the NT.

Nothing thrills this old sinner saved by grace more than popping in a CD of Sir Colin Davis conducting the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus in the grand choral finale of Handel's Messiah with the words he took from Rev. 5:9-14 and form the numbers "Worthy Is the Lamb That Was Slain" and "Amen" choruses.

Maybe that doesn't move you like it does me. Maybe you don't care much for Baroque-era "classical" music like I do.

That's OK with me because I don't read anywhere in the NT where our Lord demands of any of His children to enjoy only one genre of music and no others.

Moreover, I do enjoy some Christian music that was composed after 1950.

The Gaithers' "Because He Lives, I Can Face Tomorrow" was written sometime in the 1970's. We sung that song on Easter morning, 2003, when my TN ANG wing was deployed to a Saudi AFB only 200 mis. from Jerusalem. There wasn't a dry eye in the crowd of BDU-clad troops after we finished singing that song only 1k ft. from a Saudi highway on which none of the people in the cars on it were going to an Easter Sonrise service at their local mosque.

The late Dottie Rambo's "We Shall Behold Him"(c)1981, is one I hope I'll remember for the rest of the time God let's me live on earth.

At the church of which I've been a member for over 20 years, we have what's called a "blended music service." Some songs are newer, post-1950 ones, some are pre-1950, and some combine both era songs--"Amazing Grace" and Isn't Grace Amazing?" is just one example that popped into my mind as I'm typing this post.

How you do worship service might be different than we do it at the church in which I belong. One thing about which you can be sure is that our worship services aren't exactly the same as the Ethiopian congregation we sponsor, nor is it exactly the same as the Korean congregation we sponsor either. Most of them don't speak English, and most of us don't speak their native languages either.

Does God accept our different worship languages and styles? I believe He does, and probably every missionary both yours and my church supports that's on some foreign field would say the same. I'm sure our dear BB friend and missionary to Japan--John of Japan--would tell you that he certainly believes God accepts the worship services he's had to conduct over the years he spent in Asia.

In fact, nowhere in my NT do I find any specific "rules" or "order of service" or how many songs we must have, or when the announcements must be made, or how often we must observe the Lord's Supper (or must it be "open," "close," or "closed" communion), or anything like that.

Then there's the radio and TV and satellite downlinked programs of the last 90 or so years. What about them? Should they be put off the air because they aren't specifically mentioned in the NT--much less the OT? Your strained interpretation might lead some folks to conclude that they should be....And the sooner the better! Right?

Maybe your NT does have all these many details by which we MUST CLOSELY ADHERE listed, so that her "candlestick" (Rev. 1:20) won't forever be removed--maybe yours does--but I seriously doubt it.

Why have I spent my time typing this post to you? Basically to let you know that I personally believe that the God we call Our Heavenly Father gave us some common sense He expects us to use when it comes to things He chose not to include when He inspired the 8 or so people to write what we call the NT some 2,000 years ago.

Hopefully, you think that way too....At least I HOPE you do. Do you?

 

Dear brother Wpe3bql (how do you pronounce that?),
You have entirely misunderstood what I have been saying. Handel's Messiah is quite my favourite piece of classical music and, like you, I frequently listen to it or Zadok the Priest in my car. I also appreciate Hayden's Creation and various of Bach's choral works. But in the church, our songs should be congregational, otherwise church becomes a form of entertainment. If Spurgeon allowed Ira Sankey to do solos at the Met Tab, IMO he was wrong to do so. Those songs need not all be old ones; we like to sing some of the Stuart Townend songs and other modern hymns as well as the older ones. I would have no problems going to one of his concerts. But in the church our worship should be in Spirit and in truth. The word is read, and expounded by someone qualified to do so, and the congregation responds in unity in song.

There is an excellent article by a chap called Archibald Brown entitled, The devil's ministry of Amusement. Brown was a student and close friend of Spurgeon. I will try to find the link to it.

Here it is! http://www.gracegems.org/BLG/Amusement.htm

 

Tradition though became codified to us when it was incorporated and written down to us in the scriptures, as since the canon was closed, there has been no "tradition" in the sense as say the Church of rome would have, with verbal musings carried down to us with same weight as recorded texts!

 

Correct. Many here at the BB are former Catholics (as I am) and an example of "traditional teachings" would be the Marian (the mother of Jesus) Dogma:

1.) She is the mother of God
2.) She is a perpetual virgin.
3.) She was conceived without Original Sin.
4.) She was assumed into heaven.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

There is a fifth Marian Dogma in the works. The pope must proclaim it ex cathedra before it is binding upon all Catholics.

This one is quite offensive to non-Roman Catholics but is an example of how diverted from the scripture tradition may become.

While it is not officially a Roman Catholic dogma it is unofficially approved and even promoted (or should it be said that it is allowed) by some of the RCC hierarchy. It is controversial among some Catholic theologians and an embarrassment to some of the laity, if you read the URL and explanation you will see why.

5.) She is the CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatrix.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/

This is an example of the OP (IMO) and not an object of discussion.
That would have to come in another BB thread post preferably Other Christian Denominations.

HankD

 

1) You don't pronounce WPE3BQL. These are call letters--like my past BB identity KTN4EG was.

You're most likely not familiar with the world of radio amateur transmissions and/or SWL, etc., radio monitoring. If you were, you'd know what call letters are.

You probably have different hobbies than I do. Nothing wrong with that--just a matter of different tastes for different people.

2) Who decides what church worship is, or isn't, in "Spirit and in truth"?

Seems to me that you've set yourself up as the sole and final arbitrator on this. IOW, each and every local church--no matter where on God's green earth they're located, who their pastor(s)/leader(s) may be, or anything else about that church--must hold to YOUR personal interpretations of what is, and what isn't, the appropriate, God honoring way(s) of "doing worship."

I don't believe that IS the case--it probably isn't--with you, my Brother, but the way you come off on this thread, one could easily get that impression.

I post this reply not to disrespect you, Bro. Martin. I consider you to be my friend and only wish God's blessings on you, your family, and the church of which you're an integral part.

My advice is that you review your posts a little closer, so that you don't come off appearing to be someone that, in reality, you aren't.

Internet-based forums like BB are limited in how people present their views. Knowing this inherent limitation, people--especially me--need to sit back, take a deep breath, and preview their posts a few times to be as certain as they humanly can be before hitting their submit button.

Even after that, one needs to review what he/she has submitted, editing out what may be misinterpreted by some who read their submissions.

I do that with most of my posts, but, even then, I STILL give the impression to someone who doesn't personally know me that I'm way off on the subject about which what thread may be addressing, and I'm sure that's the case with most all of us here on BB, right?

In the words of radio monitors everywhere,

73 & DX! [Translation: Best Wishes and Have a Great Day, y'all!]