CHURCHES OF CHRIST ARE TOO PICKY
Sometimes critics of
churches of Christ accuse us of being too picky. They seem to believe we should
interpret the scriptures in a very broad and liberal way. We should not pay too
much attention to the details of scripture. For example, one left-leaning
preacher among churches of Christ does not believe we ought to stress the
tenses of verbs. I shall give you one example of how tremendously important it
is to take notice of the tenses of verbs. If we do not emphasize the tenses of
verbs, what the Apostle John wrote to his readers makes no sense. The King
James Version reads: "Whosoever is born of God does commit sin; for his
seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John
3:9). Charles Williams' translation of the New Testament renders this verse:
"No one who is born of God makes a practice of sinning, because the
God-given life principle continues to live in him, and so he cannot practice
sin, because he is born of God."
If we do not take
into consideration the tenses of verbs, we put ourselves in an impossible
situation. If John means that those who are born of God cannot sin at all, the
apostle contradicts himself. Earlier in this same epistle, John affirmed:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us" (1 John 1:8). Even our Calvinist friends believe Christians can sin.
But they do not believe a Christian can so sin that he can be lost eternally.
In his set of books, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville:
Southern Baptist Convention, 1933), Dr. A. T. Robertson, one of the world's
greatest Greek scholars, says concerning 1 John 3:9: "The child of God
does not make a habit of sinning .... A great deal of false theology has grown
out of a misunderstanding of the tense of the verb hamartein, that
is, go on sinning" (volume 6. p.223).
The duty of every
Christian and not just preachers is to examine every word in scriptures to
ascertain its meaning. Honesty demands that we must examine every word in its
context. If we are not careful to examine a word in its context, we can make
the Bible mean whatever we want it to mean. That is being dishonest with the
text. We would not treat any other document the way some theologians treat the
scriptures. Tragically, there are preachers and theologians who make up their
minds what they believe or what their denominations teach and then reinterpret
the scriptures to harmonize with their preconceived ideas.
Let us take notice of
how God dealt with his people under the Mosaic covenant. After God had delivered the Israelites from
Egyptian bondage and they were wandering in the wilderness, they could not find
enough water for that vast army of people. "And all the congregation of
the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their
journeys, according to the commandment of the Lord, and pitched in Rephidim:
and there was not water for the people to drink.... And the Lord said to Moses,
Go on before the people, and take with you the elders of Israel; and your rod,
wherewith you smote the river, take in your hand, and go. Behold, I will stand
before you there upon the rock in Horeb; and you shall smite the rock, and
there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so
in the sight of the elders of Israel" (Ex. 17: 1, 5-6).
On a later occasion,
when the Israelites came to Kadesh, they could find no water. The Lord
commanded Moses: "Take your rod, and gather the assembly together, you,
and Aaron your brother, and speak unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall
give forth his water, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock;
so you shall give the congregation and their beasts drink. And Moses took the
rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the
congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, you
rebels; must we bring you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand,
and with his rod smote the rock two times: and the water came out abundantly,
and the congregation drank, and their beasts also" (Num. 20:1-2, 7-11).
Did you notice in
these passages how picky God was in his dealing with the Moses? God explicitly
told Moses to smite the rock in Horeb (Ex. 17: 6). Moses did exactly what God
told him to do. At Kadesh, God told Moses to speak to the rock and water would
come forth for the Israelites (Num. 20:8). I know and so do you that there is a
difference between striking the rock and speaking to the rock. But should it
really make any difference? After all, the water came forth on both occasions.
The results were exactly the same. So what was the big deal? If you have any
doubt that God always means what he says, please listen to what God told Moses
after he had disobeyed him. "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron,
Because you have believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of
Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I
have given you" (Num. 20:12).
To the modem mind,
this just does not seem reasonable or relevant. What possible difference could
it make whether Moses struck the rock or spoke to it? The difference was that
Moses obeyed the Lord in the first instance and disobeyed him in the second.
Did you take careful notice of what the Lord told Moses? "You have not
believed me" (Num. 20:12). When it comes to serving the Lord God of
heaven, we are to do exactly what he says in the way he says do it. The New
Testament makes that truth very plain. "And whatsoever you do in word or
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the father
by him" (Col. 3:17). How can we do anything in the name of the Lord Jesus
if we do not follow his instructions?
One preacher was
quoted as saying he wished the story of Nadab and Abihu were not in the Bible.
If a man does not plan to follow the explicit teaching of scripture, I can
understand why he would have problems with that story. Nadab and Abihu were
priests, the sons of Aaron. They had the responsibility of leading the worship
services of the Israelite people. Each of them "took a censer and put fire
therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord,
which he had not commanded them" (Lev. 10:1). Frankly, I do not know the
difference between strange fire and any other kind of fire. But Nadab and Abihu
knew. We know the principle involved. The strange fire was fire which the Lord
had not commanded. The English Standard Versions calls it "unauthorized
fire."
Is God really that
picky? If you think God does not mean what he says, please listen to what
happened to Nadab and Abihu. "And there went out fire from the Lord, and
devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses spoke unto Aaron
(Nadab and Abihu's father), This is that the Lord spoke, saying, I will be
sanctified in them who come near to me, and before all the people I will be
glorified. And Aaron held his peace" (Lev. 10:2-3). Does the Lord mean he
cannot be sanctified and glorified unless his children do only that which he
authorized? It is no wonder that some religious leaders do not like the story
of Nadab and Abihu.
Tragically, there
were false teachers among the churches of Galatia who had the attitude of Nadab
and Abihu. They were trying to reinvent New Testament Christianity, somewhat
like former Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong attempts to do. Those false
teachers in Galatia apparently thought a synthesis of Judaism and Christianity
would be better than either religion alone. Some of those teachers were trying
to compel Titus, a Greek Christian, to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3). They were
like some of the men who came down from Judea to Antioch in Syria and taught
the brethren, "Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you
cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Besides, Paul approved of Timothy's circumcision.
Luke tells us what happened. "Then came he (Paul) to Derbe and Lystra:
and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain
woman, who was a Jewess, and believed, but his father was a Greek: who was well
reported of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him;
and took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those quarters:
for they all knew that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:1-3).
If Paul approved of
Timothy's circumcision, why did he balk at having Titus circumcised? Please
listen to Paul. "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and
communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but
privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or
had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares
brought in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that
they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not
for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal.
2:1-5).
Does it seem to you
that Paul was being too picky when he objected to the brethren's seeking to
compel Titus to be circumcised? There was a principle involved in Paul's
objection to compelling Titus to be circumcised. Titus was a Greek while
Timothy was half Jewish. Timothy being half Jewish would not have had the
influence among Jews if they knew he had not been circumcised. If Paul had
given in to the pressure to have a Gentile circumcised, it would have set a
terrible precedent. It might have left the impression that Gentiles have to
become Jews to be Christians. By the direction of God's Holy Spirit, Paul
stopped that movement before it destroyed many souls.
I need to say in
passing: circumcision is neutral in the Christian era, unless teachers or
religious institutions try to force it on someone as a condition of salvation.
Later in the letter to the Galatians, Paul says concerning circumcision:
"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision;
but faith that works by love" (Gal. 5:6). "For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creature" (Gal. 6:15). Paul told the Corinthians: "Circumcision is
nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of
God" (1 Cor. 7:19).
Does not all of this
amount to a great deal about nothing? If we are going to make up our rules, the
examples I have used are meaningless. But if we want to have God's approval, we
must do what he tells us to do, even if his commandments seem too picky. Is not
God the one who does the picking? He gave Moses instructions about speaking to
the rock so water would supply the needs of the Israelites. Moses did not honor
the authority of God. He had ordained the kind of fire the priests were to
offer. Nadab and Abihu must have thought they knew better or it really did not
matter what God had commanded. They paid with their lives for disobeying the
will of God. Paul knew he could not allow the Judaizers among the churches in
Galatia to alter even one biblical principle.
Do some modern
churches think churches of Christ are being too picky when they oppose the
observance of the Passover and other Jewish feasts? The Passover belongs to the
Mosaic covenant - not to genuine Christianity. If we observe the Passover or
any other Old Testament ordinance, including circumcision, we are making the
cross of Christ of no effect (Gal. 5:1-4). In addition, we are dishonoring
Christ since he is our Passover (1 Cor. 5: 7). I cannot stress too strongly
that the Law of Moses has been removed. The book of Hebrews quotes our Lord as
saying, "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written
of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and
burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure
therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will,
0 God. He takes away the first that he may establish the second. By the which
will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once
for all" (Heb. 10:7-10). Observing the Passover in the Christian era is an
insult to our true Passover - the Lord Jesus Christ. But is that not being too
picky?
Many people in the
religious world believe Easter is the most holy day of the year. Most
denominational churches engage in elaborate celebrations during the Easter
season. Faithful churches of Christ do not participate in such celebrations. We
know and so does everyone else who has studied the matter with an open mind and
an open Bible there is no scriptural authority for celebrating Easter. But is
biblical authority all that important for what we teach and practice in
religion? Are we not just being too picky about such matters? Why do you think
the Bible includes the stories of Nadab and Abihu and of Moses? They were not
written just to fill up space.
You probably know
that some people criticize churches of Christ for not using mechanical
instruments of music in the worship services. I can assure you it is not
because we do not like pianos or organs or other kinds of musical instruments.
I grew up in a musical background. My late wife was a music teacher. She played
the piano and the organ. But worship services are not designed to please me or
my fellow church members or you. Our worship must be directed to God almighty.
Jesus told the woman at Jacob's well in Samaria: "God is spirit: and they
who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).
It may surprise you
to know that the founders of some of the leading denominations condemned
instrumental music in worship. That was true of John Wesley, John Calvin and
Martin Luther. A number of the leading scholars in those denominations strongly
opposed the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Charles Haddon
Spurgeon, one of England's most respected Baptist preachers, would not allow
instrumental music in the church where he preached.
John L. Girardeau, a
Presbyterian scholar, was for many years professor of theology at Columbia
Theological Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina. In the late 1800s his
students asked him why he opposed instrumental music in worship. He provided an
answer in a very scholarly book with the title, Instrumental Music in the
Public Worship (Fayetteville, TN: International Gospel Hour, n.d., a
reprint). The book was originally published in 1888 by Whittet & Shepherson of Richmond, Virginia. I thought the book was so
valuable that I had the book republished by the International Gospel Hour.
Several times in the
book, Dr. Girardeau stresses this theological position. Please listen to his
initial paragraph. "Attention, at the outset, is invoked to the
considerations which serve to establish the following controlling principle: A
divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and
worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in
the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from
their statements, is forbidden" (p.6). In very simple language, Dr.
Girardeau is teaching the absolute necessity of having authority for all we
teach and practice in religion. He could not find scriptural authority for
using instrumental music in the worship of the church; so he opposed the
practice. The truth is: Many of the older Presbyterian preachers, such as
Throneberry and Chalmers, believed using mechanical instruments of music in
worship of the church was without divine warrant, to use Dr. Girardeau's
expression.
Dr. Girardeau
appealed to the stories of Cain and Abel, Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan and
Abiram, Moses' smiting the rock, Uzza and the ark, and others to sustain his
thesis that we must have authority for all we preach and practice (pp.18-26).
There is much more in Dr. Girardeau's excellent book, but this will have to
suffice for this study.
There are unquestionably
people among our religious neighbors who think churches of Christ are being too
picky on such matters as observing Christmas, keeping the Passover and using
instrumental music in the worship of the church. Our goal is not to be
different just for the sake of being different. We are striving with God's help
to do everything in the name of our Lord, that is, by his authority (Col. 3:
17). I am fully aware that this approach is not popular in the denominational
world and not even among some left-leaning churches of Christ. In fact, one
elder of a church in Texas argued that we can do whatever is within our
"comfort zone." What if interpretative dancing or burning incense or
keeping the Jewish Sabbath is within our comfort zone, should we engage in
these? Only the Lord has a right to make such decisions. Our duty is do what he
authorizes and only what he authorizes.
Winford Claiborne
The International Gospel Hour