1. Free to Change
2. Freedom and Responsibility
3. My Kind of People
4. "Come Out And Be Separate"
5. Private Intepretation
6. A "Monkey-Wrench" Scripture
7. The Truth That Frees
8. Literary Devices
9. Fear of God
10. A Love Story
11. The Three Trees In Eden
12. Imputed Righteousness
13. Different Essentials For Different People
14. God's Sons In All Ages
15. Looking To Lust
16. Divorce Her!
17. "While Her Husband Is Alive"
18. "They Won't Let Me Preach!"
19. God's Perplexing Prophets
20. Religous Titles
21. Who Sinned?
22. "I'll Join Your Church"
23. The Church As The Route To Heaven
24. One Hundred Years Old
25. Can Our Churches Unite?
26. Can The Cause Of Sickness Be The Cure?
27. When Life Begins
28. Abortion: Law Or Principle?
29. Human Chattel
30. The Hope of Israel
31. The Great Temptation of Jesus
32. The Rich Man And Lazarus
33. My Hermeneutic
34. Is Immersion Proved By Example?
35. Who Gets The Credit?
36. Hook's Points
37. Heresy
38. I Am A Debtor

Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Some friends came for a visit one evening. As time went by and we all became hungry, we ordered pizzas. They were spicy and tempting, and I soon found myself to be over-stuffed. In the night my discomfort went into indigestion and progressed to nausea and vomiting. It was a miserable night with no relief. About five o'clock in the morning, I waked my wife to tell her that the nausea was unbearable but that I thought I had a remedy for it. I asked her to warm up some of the left-over pizza and I ate three pieces in order to cure my sickness. Then I felt much better.

"Now, wait a minute," you may be thinking, "if pizza made you sick it surely would not be the remedy to make you well!" And you would be right. So, don't believe the above.

One of the spicy pizzas which brought sickness and division into the Restoration Movement was the effort to determine by law whether instrumental accompaniment to singing in worship was scriptural, unscriptural, or anti-scriptural. The more that issue was discussed, the more devastating was the result as a definite breach was made among disciples. That sickness has remained with us into the final decade of this century. What will be the remedy to make us whole again?

In the last few decades little was heard about the use of instrumental music in our churches as the issue had gone to sleep, as it were, even though the division remained. But more recently, discussions of unity within the Restoration heritage have revived the old issue. Now it is a rewarmed topic of debate intended to cure the damage it caused in the last century. Can the very thing that caused the division become a cure for it a hundred years later? Have new arguments been devised to determine if it is scriptural, unscriptural, or anti-scriptural? I think not. I think that a different treatment is needed. Let me be bold enough to give my diagnosis of our malady and to prescribe a cure.

Our real problem is not instrumental music or cups, classes, women teachers, congregational cooperation, the millennium, paid ministry, or other such doctrinal and practical matters. It goes back to our basic concept of "Scriptural authority" which supposedly demands, specifies, and regulates our worship and to the misunderstanding that worship is a segmented part of our lives exercised only at certain times in ritualistic performances. This misdirection stems from the concepts of legalism which have had a strangle hold on us. Legalism is the deadly virus that has brought destructive division into our beloved heritage. Legalism is not just the keeping of laws or rules but the dependence upon the keeping of them for justification and sanctification___our right standing before God.

Worship is not a legal requirement but a response to the grace of God appreciated in our lives. Worship is not a fulfillment of law but a privilege given to all men in all ages of man's history. Worship originates in the heart; worshipful actions are only efforts to express what the heart feels. There is no sacramental value derived from expressing those feelings.

"Authorized Worship"

"Authorized worship" is a concept which we have borrowed from the code of law given to Israel which specified in detail the rituals to be performed. Those rituals were given to a special people for a special time and purpose. They all pointed to Christ in whom they were fulfilled. Jesus was offered in fulfillment of all the types of the law. Through our identity with him, when Jesus offered himself, we may think of our being offered to God in totality in him because he brought us to God. In this reconciled state we are presented to God in a new relationship "in Spirit and in Truth!" The legal type is replaced by a spiritual relationship because he brought us to God. He has presented us as living sacrifices___living and constant offerings, whole-life offerings of worship and service.

We say with Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ who lives in me..." (Gal. 2:20). Paul explains, "And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised" (2 Cor. 4:15). Christ has cleansed and sanctified us to be presented to himself. We are presented or offered continually and wholly as a living offering/sacrifice. So now, "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him" (Col. 3:17). This inclusiveness of whatever we do relieves the perplexing decisions concerning our various scruples, for "He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:6-8). You may enlarge on this brief, sketchy statement that expresses our "Scriptural authority" for whole-life worship.

It is no longer a matter of going somewhere to worship or of performing certain acts of service because the entire life and total being is an offering. While it is true that praying or singing praises may be more formal and emotional expressions toward God than cooking dinner or planting corn, these and all other activities of the child of God are accomplishing the same purpose of honoring God as Lord of our lives. We honor God by providing for our family as well as in formal praise. An obedient child honors his mother by taking out the garbage as well as by saying, "Mom, I love you." In this context, the difference in serving God and worshipping him formally fades, and the question of what can and cannot be done in serving and in worship is deprived of practical significance.

In the Nineteenth Century as the Restoration Movement, as it came to be called, was developing its course and identifying its purpose, it veered from its beginning direction in three ways. It began to look upon the New Covenant scriptures as another legal code. Law demands specifics. Specific law establishes patterns. When the pattern is not followed perfectly, restoration is necessary. These concepts foster an endless chain of debate as to what the law requires, what the pattern is, and when the perfect is restored. Thus, legalism, patternism, and restorationism, the things we have espoused in our misdirected plea for unity, are divisive by their very nature. We have demonstrated that divisiveness in every generation, but we continue to eat pizza to cure our indigestion! Removing Jesus as the focal point of unity, this concept replaced unity in Christ with unity through conformity to a perceived pattern.

Most of us of the Restoration heritage have been nurtured from spiritual infancy on legalism, patternism, and restorationism. Our whole frame of reference is off course. We have become so conditioned to relate every question to law that, after we have begun to recognize our justification by grace rather than through law, we still find ourselves gnawing at the warmed over pizza to solve current ailments. I may be trying yet to prove my premise in this essay by law. Our hermeneutic has been oriented to legalism.

No more legal authority is required for you to love and honor God than for you to love and honor your mother. These are not accomplished by command. "Mom, I'm calling to wish you a happy Mother's Day because I am commanded to honor you!" "We have met to pray and sing praises to you, dear God, because you have commanded us to do it!" Can you not see the absurdity of the concept of legal worship? "Commanded worship" fosters ritualism and sacramentalism.

Inherent in man is a desire to worship a spirit higher than himself. God made man to be a worshipful creature, and God has always permitted man to express his devotion even when there is no law which specifies it. God has never refused the sincere worship of anyone even though the acts performed were neither commanded nor specified! Now, hold on! Don't jump on your horse and ride off in all four directions at once! I can well understand how you would reject that statement with indignation. It has taken the Spirit many years to get me to begin to comprehend such a thought.

What about the worship of Cain, Nadab and Abihu, and the vain worshippers of Jesus' day? Cain worshipped with an evil heart of hatred toward his brother (l John 3:12), and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination (Prov. 15:8). Nadab and Abihu defied God rather than humbly trying to honor him. The Jews sought to evade God's law by following their own traditions. Their hearts far from him, they were not sincerely trying to honor God. Let me urge you to investigate any other example of rejected worship to see whether it was the act that was condemned or the heart of the worshipper. Those condemned for "doing what was right in their own eyes" were setting aside God's revealed code given through Moses and following their own perverted wills. We are giving no license to any such attitude.

The Privilege of Praise

In various ages we see persons offering unspecified (unauthorized!) acts of worship that were accepted. All people of all ages have been granted the privilege of praise. God has accepted, and expected, sincere worship even from those who had no direct or written revelation. He has looked upon the heart of the worshipper more than the technique of his praise. Men have been permitted to worship in formal procedures that expressed the feeling of the worshipper's heart so long as it (1) accomplished the purpose of praise, (2) was upbuilding to others present, (3) avoided sacramental and idolatrous concepts, (4) did not venerate objects, and (5) did not set aside what God had prescribed. Let us look as some Biblical precedents that give basis to this premise. We have tended to overlook or misapply these.

There is no indication that Abel was commanded either to make an offering or to offer from his flock. He was a man of faith, and because of it he and his sacrifice were acceptable (Heb. 11:4). We must no longer misapply Romans 10:17 in an effort to prove that God instructed him.

When it is stated that, in the time of Enosh, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Gen. 4:26), and when Abram "built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord" (Gen. 12:8), there is no indication that they did this in response to a command or specification of God.

Jacob took the stone he had used for a pillow, made an altar of it, and poured an offering of oil on it in spontaneous worship without "authority" from God (Gen. 28:18). On another occasion, Jacob set up an altar and poured a drink offering and oil on it (Gen. 35:14).

Samuel drew water and poured it out before Jehovah and fasted (l Sam. 7:6). David took the water brought from Bethlehem and poured it out to the Lord (2 Sam. 23:16). Where was their command to do that?

Without instruction from the Law of Moses, the Jews had added wine to the Passover (Luke 22:14-18; Matt. 26:26-28), dancing before the Lord (2 Sam. 6:12f; Psalms 149:3), and the entire synagogue service. Rather than being condemned for those unauthorized activities of worship, they were privileged to serve/worship in those ways. Unscriptural activities are not necessarily anti-scriptural.

Paul commended the Athenians, declaring, "For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23). Although their understanding of God's nature was very limited and they knew not any code of laws from him, they had the privilege of worship. Paul did not condemn their devotion to the "unknown god" but enlarged on their understanding about his identity.

In Chapter 1 of Romans, Paul declared that the Gentiles were without excuse because, having known God as revealed in nature, they "did not honor him as God or give thanks to him..." (v.21), "and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). How could they have properly honored God, given thanks of praise to him, and worshipped and served the Creator since they had no revealed law? God has given all men, even the uninstructed, the privilege of praise and worship!

In the New Testament writings we see numerous "unauthorized" actions of worship which were undemanded, unrehearsed, spontaneous, and extravagant; yet they met with approval. Although these were not done in Christian assemblies, they were expressions of approved worship and they illustrate the principle of acceptable worship.

The Wise Men offered birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus without evident instructions to do so (Matt. 2:1-11). It was their privilege to praise through that means.

There are several instances of people falling before Jesus and worshipping him without rebuke for their impulsive action. They had no command or instruction to worship in such a manner.An adoring crowd took their coats and leafy branches of trees and spread them before Jesus (Matt. 21:8f). We do homage to God by bowing before him or by lifting up our hands to him. If the amen of approval at the end of a prayer is a part of the worship, so would the clapping of approval of the sentiment expressed in a song be worship also.

Mary was neither rebuked for anointing Jesus without authorization nor considered presumptuous in using nard without instruction to do so (John 12:1f).

The sinful woman was not commanded to wash Jesus' feet with tears nor to use her hair as a towel (Luke 7:36-50). She was exercising her privilege of spontaneous worship.

According to the rules we have made, Paul sinned in cutting his hair in a ritual relating to a vow (Acts 21:23-16) and when he purified himself ritually and arranged for an offering in accordance to the Law of Moses. We would also have to censor the Judean disciples who "are zealous for the law".

With the sacrifice of Jesus, God did not suddenly come to hate the worship rituals of the law. Disciples could still keep those rituals of worship so long as they did not seek justification by those means. Neither should we assume that, when Jesus died, God began to hate praise which was accompanied by instruments, which thing he had accepted for centuries. Who are we to limit what God likes or dislikes when he has accepted many different expressions of devotion?

Our great stress has been on the need for authority for all that we do in worship. We have emphasized the ritualistic aspect of worship. But where is our authority for segmenting worship from our daily and constant offering of self in whole-life worship? Where do the scriptures say that our assemblies for edification are to be changed into "worship services" with a different set of rules to govern them? Where do we read such expressions as "go to worship" (regarding Christian assemblies), "begin our worship service," "after the worship is over," and "missing worship"? Where do we read of the "five acts of worship" or a list of specified activities for our assemblies? Where do we find a limitation of the means whereby we may praise God and edify one another, either in or out of assemblies? Has our privilege of praise been granted in only a few activities? Is it a privilege of praise or a fulfillment of the demands of law to praise? Do we worship only in rituals? Are assemblies for the purpose of performance of rituals?

What I am proposing is no license to go hog-wild. Even though a watermelon seed spitting contest may fit into our whole-life service to God, it would be impossible to justify it as a form of edification or praise in an assembly. Even though no dishonoring act is permitted in daily life, all permissible conduct, such as taking a bath, is not upbuilding to others or a formal expression of worship. And because a thing is permitted does not mean that it must be practiced by all.

Incense and candles (lamps! Candles are a more modern invention.) were symbolic of prayer and worship throughout Bible history. Are they distasteful to God now? Perhaps he considers them immature. We should be able to understand that worship is more personal, mental, and expressive of feeling. We need no artificialities to create and express our feelings even though God has allowed and prescribed many physical reinforcements throughout history.

It is possible to express devotion to God acceptably through dancing, for David did just that. Who is to deny that one may worship in that manner today? You might express yourself to God in that way; however, interpretative dance, or any other activity, must be understood in order to upbuild. Being the unsophisticated person that I am, I can hardly distinguish between interpretative dancing and aerobics. Therefore, performance before an undiscerning assembly of my kind would be subject to the same regulation as Paul placed on the speaking in tongues.

Where Is The Pattern?

Where do the scriptures outline an exclusive and inclusive pattern for local organization or of the activities to be carried on when a group meets together? There are instructions and examples for saints to assemble for edification, but no prescribed pattern is given for those meetings which specifies the details of an agenda. Disciples may assemble to discuss the business and work of the group, to praise and teach in song, to pray, to eat together, to teach the scriptures, to commune, to deliver one of their number to Satan, to mourn and bury their dead, to celebrate a wedding, to select and appoint their elders or deacons, to give and hear announcements for the common good, or for any other activity which they consider to be of benefit to the group or individuals. They might assemble for any one of those purposes, or for a number of them, at any particular gathering. No specified pattern is set forth for such assemblies, nor are they required on specified days, nor must they be at a "church building." There is no code of law that gives legal details which must be fulfilled in these matters.

In 1 Corinthians 14, the purpose of edification in assemblies is emphasized: "Let all things be done for edification!" Do you leave your assemblies feeling stronger than when you arrived? Do you receive anything that relates to your deep concerns or gives you courage to face the coming week? Catchy tunes which express little meaning, rote prayers, casual communion, and doctrinal or negative preaching allow many to leave with an unfulfilled hunger and a depressed spirit. It is high time for us to give more attention to the relevance and content of the service than to the strict pattern of it.

Even the teaching and admonishing to be accomplished by psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is not a part of a blueprint for assemblies. These exhortations to sing are given in context with other exhortations toward proper social conduct rather than in context with "worship services." They say nothing about congregational singing. The context includes exhortations to husbands, wives, parents, children, and slaves and in "whatever you do, in word or deed." In their social gatherings, instead of singing only secular songs or the songs of the drinking party under the influence of intoxicating spirits, they were exhorted to be filled with the Spirit and to upbuild each other with spiritual songs. If you are inclined to reject this, please read Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3-4 again. Be honest with yourself! These exhortations are not a part of a legal pattern for worship in assemblies.

Surely, we are not free to disregard any directive or exhortation relating to any matter which applies to us. Precedents may be followed with assurance. Warnings and corrective instructions must be heeded. But to interpret these as a legal code in which we must discover the specifics of an inclusive and exclusive pattern is to go back to our original cause of uncertainty and division. That approach is the cause of our problem and cannot be the cure. It is a misguided concept of "Scriptural authority" which ignores that all that we are and have are devoted fully to God in worship/service.

My purpose in this essay is not to bring instruments into the assemblies where I meet or elsewhere. I am saying that the contentions about instruments, classes, cups, kitchens, congregational cooperation, and other matters over which we have divided have been argued from the standpoint of law. Our "Scriptural authority" concept is derived from our thinking of the New Covenant Scriptures as another code of law and, consequently, the belief that our justification and sanctification are through keeping tenets and rituals of law.

Unsettling as it is for most of us, when we can see the misdirection of legalism, patternism, and restorationism, we can begin to discover the true meaning of our relationship with God in Christ. Then our legalistic arguing and debating over these issues which we have created will be replaced by acceptance of one another, a broadened fellowship, and a praise of God with one voice.

Continued contentions based upon the concept of law will only create and perpetuate divisions. No, the cause of our sickness cannot be the cure also for the malady it brought.