Matthew 10:8 reads “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.” This verse has nothing to do with giving money to anybody. The teaching here is simply that the Apostles should pass on the benefits of the power they had received from Jesus to others. The power to perform miracles had come from the Lord. They were not to charge, in any way, for what they did. As H. Leo Boles remarks, “They had freely received and they were to give freely; they were to sell no miracles, not to sell the gospel; no bribe could be taken for healing any one.” This verse in no way teaches that the church today can take funds out of its treasury to help non-Christians. To so teach, is to misapply it. But, are there other passages that teach we can use the money in the church treasury to help people who are not members of the church? If there are, this writer is unaware of them. In fact everything that is said on the subject in the Bible is directly opposed to such an idea. The Scriptures teach that the church is to provide for its own, the needy saints (Acts 2:44,45; 4:32; 6:1-3; 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2Cor.8:8; 2Cor. 9:1,12,13). We find an example of this practice in Jerusalem, where none of the saints lacked (Acts 2:44 and 4:32). However, in Acts 3, the beggar at the gate beautiful, asked alms of Peter and John. Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none…” The church had funds, but Peter did not refer him to the church. Peter did not say, “Let me talk to the brethren about this matter. Ill see if I can get you some help.” Nor did he say, “This is a good opportunity for the church to make a name for itself in the community.” Wonder why? Because the church had no responsibility in the matter. The obligation of the church is to save the world through the preaching of the gospel, not by contributing to their financial needs. Notice the following scriptures that prove this point:

Romans 15: 25-31 “But now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things… Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; that I may be delivered from them that are disobedient in Judaea, and that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints.” Please note the following points in these verses: the church relieved saints– “ministering to the saints,” “contribution for the poor among the saints,” “my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints.” Saints are specified. No mention is made of non-Christians being the responsibility of the church. Why? Obviously the task would be impossible. The governments of the world cannot even feed all the hungry people in the world. How on earth do you think the church could undertake such a task? How would we pick and choose among the needy of our communities and decide which ones to help and which ones not to help? Our obligation is limited to the those in the church who are in need. What happens when a church has more needy saints than it can relieve? In the verse mentioned above other congregations sent funds to the Jerusalem church to enable it to relieve its own destitute saints. Such is a pattern for us today. If a congregation has more needy saints than it can care for, then other churches may send to that church to assist them in caring for those in need. Another important point that we need to consider in the above verses is that benevolence is the fruit of Christianity, it is not for the purpose of producing it. Because the Gentiles had been partakers of the Jews spiritual things, they should minister to the Jews in carnal things, (i.e. they should help them in their need). The Gentile churches did not do benevolence to make Christians. The benevolence was extended to those who were Christians. The gospel, not benevolent work, is Gods power unto salvation (Romans 1:16). The argument that the church will look good in the community, if it helps someone in need, places the emphasis where the Bible does not place it. We are not trying to convert people by helping them out of the church treasury. We are trying to convert them by preaching the gospel to them. Look carefully at I Corinthians 16:1-2 “Now concerning the collection for the saints The collection was for the saints. This verse should settle the issue once and for all. The Bible specifies for “whom” the collection would be used. “The saints.” Specific authority excludes. There are no non-believers in I Cor. 16:1-4. Note also that the same order had been given to other churches “I gave order to the churches of Galatia. .” The benevolent funds of the church are to be raised by the saints contributing into a collective treasury on the first day of the week. To collect the money on a Tuesday night gathering of the church would be in violation of the command. The money was to be used for the “saints.” To use it for non-saints is to violate the pattern. Question: If we may use church funds to help non-saints, may we also gather those funds every night during a gospel meeting? If not, why not? One other thought needs to be added. As individual Christians, we may, and should help those in need about us. Such benevolence is and always has been characteristic of God’s people. However, to teach that the church may or should relieve the needy of the world is without scriptural foundation.

Published in the OPA September 1, 1998

One such example of a church (Antioch), contributing to the needs of “brethren in Judea” is recorded in Acts 11:27-30.

The help was in response to a famine. The money was raised by the disciples (church) in Antioch when “every man according to his ability” gave into a common fund. I Corinthians 16:1-2 later supplied specific instructions and authorization for the method of raising such a fund in a congregation. Paul and Barnabas were chosen as messengers to take the fund to the “brethren which dwelt in Judea.” The money was delivered into the hands of the “elders” among the “brethren in Judea.” Since there were a number of churches or congregations in Judea (I Thess. 214; Galatians 1:22) we conclude that the funds were delivered into the hands of the elders in each church, who then made distribution among the needy saints of that church.

Another example is provided when the congregations of Galata, Macedonia, and Achaia contributed to the needs of the poor saints in Jerusalem. (Romans 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9) We do not know what precipitated this need, but we do know that the need was so great that the congregation in Jerusalem was unable to take care of it. Hence the help of other churches was needed. Gentile churches were called upon to help in Romans 15:25-27. Paul instructs the churches in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia regarding the need in I Cor. 16:1-4 and 2 Cor. 8 and 9. Those in Macedonia were willing above and beyond their ability to help in this matter 2 Cor. 8:1-5. Each church raised its own funds by the individual members making a contribution, on the first day of the week, as each had prospered I Cor. 16:1-2. Each church acting independently, chose its own messenger to whom it entrusted its contribution that it might be taken to Jerusalem I Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:19, 23. Since we have no information to the contrary, we conclude that when these messengers arrived in Jerusalem they delivered the funds to the elders, as Paul and Barnabas had previously done, and the elders made distribution to the needy saints. From these two examples, a number of very important facts emerge:

1. Each church gave their contribution to their own selected agent or messenger and he became responsible to them and the Lord for faithfully delivering it to the Jerusalem church. There is no hint that these separate contributions lost their identity in a pooled or combined fund. The receiving church could identify the gift as coming from a certain church and the amount sent by that church. Neither was not lost in some centralized fund. Such a fund simply does not fit the pattern.

2. No church sent its money through another church. There was no “sponsoring church” arrangement, where a church received funds and then forwarded the those funds to the church in need.

3. Since churches who participated in sending help, contributed directly to the church in need, that the need might be supplied, they avoided centralization of funds and power.

4. We today should not adopt what they avoided.

Brethren this pattern needs to be followed just like any other. There is a pattern for the mode of baptism. That pattern involves immersion Acts 8:35-39; Romans 6:3-4. The fact that someone wants to be baptized on the desert doesn’t give me the right substitute sprinkling or pouring. I am duty bound to honor the pattern and find sufficient water in which to immerse the individual. There is a pattern for the Lord’s Supper I Cor. 11:23-26. 1 am duty bound to honor this pattern also. The fact that someone does not want to drink after someone else does not give me the right to break the pattern and use a plurality of drinking vessels. The same is true in sending funds to other churches who have needy saints or in supporting evangelistic efforts. There may be difficulties in honoring the Bible pattern but those difficulties do not justify breaking the pattern revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Published in the OPA October, 2003

To correctly answer the above question, we must first determine the bible pattern for the  work of the church in the field of evangelism. The scriptures teach us that the  church in its universal sense is only a spiritual relationship and not an organization. Col 1:18; Eph 1:22-23; Eph 2:19-22 For the church  to function, therefore, it must do so through local congregations. There is no  unit of organization revealed in the bible larger than the local church. The local congregation has every characteristic of the church universal. 1 Cor 12:27 Each congregation has a work to do. Each  congregation has a treasury that it controls and with which it does the work of evangelism. In the bible there is no hint of a super- or extra- congregational  organization to carry out the work God has given the church to do. How then, did  New Testament churches preach the gospel?

PATTERN OF THE PHILIPPIAN CHURCH

1. Philippi sent directly to Paul when he was at Rome. “Your care for me hath flourished again” Phil 4:10; “Ye have well done that ye did communicate with my affliction” (4:4) “I am  full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you” (4: 18).

2. Philippi sends directly to Paul at Thessalonica. “For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” Phil 4:16

3. Philippi sends directly to Paul in Achaia. “Now ye  Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.” Phil 4:15

4. Churches sent directly to Paul at Corinth, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service” 2 Cor 11:8.  From whence came these wages? “And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was  chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied” 2 Cor  11:9

The  bible pattern is clear: local churches sent to preachers directly, rather than  through another church. Violation of this principle is what led to the missionary society and the current sponsoring church arrangement. In such an  arrangement a church usually undertakes a work or meeting, or crusade (such as the Herald of Truth television broadcast) which they cannot support alone. They  then ask churches all over the state or nation to help them. These contributing churches send money to the asking or sponsoring church which in turn proceeds with the work. Such an arrangement is wrong for the following reasons:

1. It  violates the autonomy of the local church. Churches sending funds to the  receiving church lose their autonomy. The work becomes the work of the sponsoring church. (No bible pattern for this.)

2. A treasury larger than the treasury of the local church is created. We have in effect a central treasury i.e. one made up of funds received from numerous churches. (No bible pattern for this.)

3. This arrangement is a substitute for the one revealed in the bible which provides for each congregation making up its own fund, by the contribution of  its own members and sending directly to the work they are  supporting.

It surprises and disappoints me when I hear of churches writing and requesting  funds from other churches for a particular work, which they have undertaken, and these churches in response to the letter send monies to the treasury of the  requesting church. Brethren, this is wrong. Just as wrong as Sunday school or  individual cups. In fact there is just as much scripture for one as there is for the other. All such practices fly in the face of God’s approved pattern. Another area we need to be careful about is the desire of a church to have a “big meeting” or a “brotherhood meeting” which they cannot support themselves. So, in order to have it, they write for help and several churches send money to the  treasury of this requesting church (to do whatever needs to be done) so the  meeting can be held. In the first place, the very concept of a “brotherhood meeting” or a meeting belonging to several churches strikes at the tap root of congregational organization and church autonomy upon which the universal church depends. Secondly, the only way sending churches can have control over the funds  they have sent would be for there to exist some type of conference consisting of  delegates empowered by their respective congregations to speak in behalf of the  sending church. Such a practice would be an example of sectarianism and  digression gone to seed. Brethren let us stay with the bible pattern in all  things and avoid the pitfalls sin offers.

Published in the OPA February, 2001

The New Testament church gathered for the communion. (Acts 20:7) Regarding that gathering together Paul commands in Heb 10:25 “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together…” This command is clear and our duty in obeying it is obvious. New Testament corporate worship is congregational in nature. The observance of the communion is a function of the congregation 1 Cor 11:20-30 . The structure of the local church is detailed for us in the Bible. Elders, deacons, and all members working together for the good of the cause of Christ, and worshipping together on the Lord’s day in spirit and truth. In Matt 6:33 Jesus teaches us that the Kingdom must be first in our lives. Nothing should come before it, or our obligations to it. When things do, that is evidence that our priorities are out of order. The question is this: should I make my plans (vacations, business trips, etc.) fit the arrangements of God, or should I bend His arrangements to fit my plans? It is the belief of this writer that when I plan a trip, knowing that on the Lord’s day I cannot be with a church to worship, and I seek to do my duty by having communion in a motel room or by the side of the road, I have in effect tried to fit the Kingdom of God into my plan rather than making my plans fit God’s schedule. If I can meet by the side of the road in a far away place, where there is no church on one Sunday, why not every Sunday? How many miles from a church does it have to be before such a practice would be right? Is it wrong to stay at the lake on Sunday and have communion if there is a church ten miles away, but all right if the nearest church is several hundred miles away? Does the distance make the difference? I submit to you that it does not. The right thing to do is obey the scripture and “not forsake the assembly.” The right thing to do is always make your plans so that you can be at the assembly. The wrong thing to do is go where you know you cannot worship. Carrying the Lord along in a suitcase, so to speak, as a matter of convenience, will not get the job done in heaven’s sight.

Published in the OPA July 1, 1999

Before I give an answer to the above question, there are several observations that I would like to make. When I first began preaching over forty years ago, it was rare to find very many women in the churches who cut their hair. Now and then there would be one, but they were few and far between. Today, the opposite is fast becoming the norm. More and more women are not only cutting their hair, but many openly declare that there is nothing wrong with it. Often as a first step there seems to be an idea among some that if a woman just trims a little of her hair it is not wrong, but if she were to cut a significant portion of it off, she would he in violation of the above passage. Is this sound or correct reasoning? Please note the following facts before you draw your conclusion. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” I Cor 11:15 . The expression “have long hair” translates a Greek word which means “let the hair grow” Thayer p.354. The idea of length is not relative. Paul is not contrasting the length of a woman’s hair when compared to the length of man’s hair. (To argue that a woman’s hair is longer than a man’s misses the point.) In fact, the idea of a certain lineal length in so many feet or inches is not under consideration. Our hair is either natural length or not natural length. We either let our hair grow or we do not. If we let it grow we do not cut it. If we cut or trim it, we do not let it grow. Thus Paul is actually saying: “If a man let his hair grow, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman let her hair grow, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. “How much of her hair is given her for a covering? The word “hair” in this verse translates a Greek word meaning “head of hair” Thayer p.354. Thus it is a woman’s “head of hair” or all of her hair that is given her for a covering. When a woman trims the edges or the last few inches of her hair, she no longer has “long hair” in God’s sight. She ceases to “let the hair grow” by trimming it. To argue that trimming the hair will cause it to grow, also misses the point. Paul is not suggesting ways to get the hair to grow, but merely telling women to not interfere with its growth. When a woman trims her hair, she has cut her hair, and in so doing has violated this passage.

Published in the OPA January 1, 1997

Few subjects have given rise to more controversy than the one suggested by the above questions. In recent years people with strong feelings on both sides of these issues have protested what they feel to be abuses of governmental authority and individual rights. Dealing with crime has never been easy. In the past, in some places, the punishment often exceeded the crime itself. In Assyria, for example, if a man flirted with another’s wife and touched her, his finger was to be cut off; if he kissed her, his lips were to be cut off. A man who slandered a woman’s reputation was to be castrated, flogged forty times, sentenced to work a month on the road and fined sixty shekels of lead. (Jerry Vardman, Archaeology and the Living Word) Other codes of justice sought to make the punishment correspond to the crime. The Law of Moses was such a system. We read in Ex 21:22-24 “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound of wound, stripe for stripe.” In our country today, it seems that often the crime far exceeds the punishment. One may be guilty of killing several people and is given only a few years in prison.

Another may inflict cruel punishment upon his victim only to be given a slap on the wrist. Reactions to such examples of injustice have caused many to cry out for rein statement of the death penalty, with swift enforcement. In answering the above questions, there are two important points that need to be recognized. First, the Bible indicates that there is a standard of justice and morality that God expects of nations. “Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov 14:34). David declared “The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, even all nations that forget God” (Psa 9:17 ). Alexander Campbell, in his sermon on Capital Punishment, summed up the matter when he said “the Bible, in the name and by the authority of its Author, demands of all persons in authority that they protect the innocent, that they punish the guilty, and that they dispense justice to all.” (Popular Lectures and Addresses)

Secondly, we need to note that the principle of non-retaliation taught by Jesus in Mt. 5 :38 is an obligation of the individual Christian, and not a restraint upon civil governments, who are charged with dealing with those who are lawless (I Tim 1:9). The Christian is a pacifist. He does not kill, he does not go to war, he does not execute vengeance upon anyone. Capital punishment was an integral part of the law of Moses. Certain crimes were considered worthy of death as in Deut 21:22. We read in the law of people being stoned (Lev 20:2,27), executed by sword (I Sam. 15:33), and by burning (Lev 21:9 ). The general teaching of scripture is that in certain cases the government has not only the right, but the obligation to inflict the death penalty. During Paul’s day when he was on trial before Festus (Acts 25:1-12 ), he contended that he had neither sinned against the law of the Jews, the temple, nor Caesar. He declared “If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. .(Acts 25:11).

It seems that Paul acknowledges the fact that there are certain crimes “worthy of death.” In fact he says that if he were guilty of such a crime he would not refuse to die. In Romans 13:1-7 the Apostle discusses the relation ship of Christians to civil government. He makes the following points: 1. Every soul is to be subject to the higher powers. 2. These rulers are appointed of God. 3. To resist them (except in cases where disobedience to God is mandated, Acts 5:29 ), is to resist the Lord’s ordinance. 4. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Herein lies the implication of their right to punish the evil-doer. 5. The civil magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. Sword is used as a symbol of the right to inflict capital punishment (Vincent). 6. The civil servant is the minister of God executing judgment upon those who practice evil. Those of us who are Christians must remember that the Lord’s Church is not a theocracy as was the nation of Israel. We are not in a position to seek vengeance upon anyone, nor are we to administer the punishments of government. The powers that be “wield the sword,” not the followers of the Prince of Peace. Our only weapon is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17; 2 Cor 10:4-6 ).

The following words from the pen of Roy Davidson seem appropriate here: “God has instituted governments to exercise capital punishment as a deterrent to crime (Rom 13:1-4; 1 Pet 2:14). God has also instituted His church and has forbidden Christians to exercise retribution (Rom 12:17-21; Mt 5:38-48). According to Romans 13:4 governing authorities are ministers of God’s wrath. According to 2 Cor 5:17-21 Christians are God’s ministers of reconciliation.” The answers to the above questions are: yes, capital punishment may be used, by civil governments whose obligation it is to maintain order and justice. Judicial killing, carried out by the state, falls within the frame work of God’s plan for civil authorities to deter crime and injustice. Christians, however, are not allowed to be executors of God’s wrath, and are out of place when they seek to do so. (For a fuller discussion of this subject, the reader is directed to an article by Wayne Jackson appearing in the book Moral Issues Confronting The Kingdom published by the East Tennessee School of Preaching, Knoxville, Tn.)

Published in the OPA June 1, 1998

First of all it should be noted that when one stops coming to the services of the church that individual has violated the teaching of the bible. We are commanded to “seek first the kingdom…” (Mt 6:33). When one, through neglect or rebellion, ceases to assemble with the church, choosing to be somewhere else, they have failed to put the church first. Such actions are also a violation of Heb 10:25. It is a sin to forsake i.e. (abandon, leave in straits, or helpless,) the assembling of ourselves together. It doesn’t matter whether we have gone deer hunting, fishing, on vacation, or we are working, the result is the same. We have chosen to be someplace other than where we are commanded to be. Paul and others chose to be together on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) to break bread.

We should make the same choice. Secondly, when one attends a digressive church, they participate in practices that violate plain Bible teaching. Such practices may involve singing with a mechanical instrument of music, drinking out of individual cups, or a system of teaching unauthorized by the Bible, as well as other things. The fact that no one contacted or discussed with the individual what had happened in no way diminishes the wrong done by this person. It should be noted, however, that the leadership of the congregation where this happened had an obligation to not only contact and discuss this matter with the person, but also should have tried to get them to repent and return to the Lord before it was too late.

If this person on his or her own decide to return to the church, they need to seek the forgiveness of God, and inform the church of their repentance and desire to once again be a part of the congregation. How may this be done? In any number of ways. The individual might come forward at a church service and let it be known that they are sorry for failing to assemble and request prayer on their behalf. Or they might call up some of the brethren, during the week, requesting prayer on their behalf for their sins. Since all Christians are priests and have access to God in prayer, when we come in repentance, this person might realize they have done wrong and pray to God to forgive them. It is only proper, if such be the case, that the person then let the church know of their repentance and prayer as well as their desire to once again be back with the church.

What constitutes a public sin? A public sin is one about which people generally have knowledge. A private sin in my life is one about which only I have knowledge A sin between me and another person is between the two of us and should be taken care of by the parties involved (Mt 5:23-24). The sin of choosing to stay away from the services of the church or of worshiping with digressive congregations is one generally known by all. When someone fails to come to church, everybody knows it. When someone starts worshiping elsewhere, everybody knows it. Hence, the necessity of letting people know that we have repented and desire their prayers. In Mt. 18, a private matter escalated to the point that the church had to be made aware of the situation. Since the church was now aware of the problem, any resolution to the situation must be shared with the church.

While the querist made no reference to this, I am wondering why anyone who has left the church feels they should have a right to come back without some kind of explanation as to where they have been, why they left, as well as a confession for any wrong doing? It always puzzles me when someone leaves the church and then approaches the brethren asking “what do I need to do to come back?” It seems to me that most any one should know the answer to that question. What does an adulterer need to do to come back? Quite obviously, they need to repent and confess to God their sin. What does a thief need to do to come back? The same thing. What does one need to do who has been in digression or just not attending services at all? The same thing. What God requires of one, he requires of all.

Whose forgiveness do we seek man or God’s? Anytime we sin, we must seek God’s forgiveness. Seeking God’s forgiveness might also mean that we seek forgiveness of a brother if we have sinned against him. But basically when one comes before the church and confesses sin they are confessing to God and seeking forgiveness from Him. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I John 1:9

Published in the OPA January 1, 1998

The Bible has nothing to say about Christmas. We are commanded to remember the death of our Lord on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7 but are never commanded to remember the birth of Christ. Thus for basic information about the origin and purpose of this day, we are forced to look elsewhere.

The World Book Encyclopedia says “Christmas is a Christian holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. No one knows the exact date of Christ’s birth, but most Christians observe Christmas on December 25. ..The word Christmas comes from Cristes maesse, and early English phrase that means Mass of Christ.” Then again “The first mention of the celebration of Christmas occurred in A.D. 336 in an early Roman calendar, which indicates December 25 as the day of observance. This celebration was probably influenced by pagan (unchristian) festivals held at that time. The ancient Romans held year-end celebrations to honor Saturn, their harvest God; and Mithras, the god of light.” The Academic American Encyclopedia says “Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century. The date was chosen to counter the pagan festivities connected with the winter solstice; since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the Invincible Sun on Dec. 25.” From Compton’s “The exact date of Christ’s birth is not known. For the first two centuries, while Christians were being persecuted for the few faith, the Christian church did not celebrate Christmas. Soon after A.D. 200, however, Christmas was being observed, but on various dates especially Jan. 6, Mar.25, and Dec.25. By the middle of the 4th century the church in the West (Roman Catholic Church) was celebrating Christmas on Dec.25.”

From these quotations, we learn several things: (1) there is no certainty, even from history as to the exact date of the Lord’s birth, (2) the early church did not celebrate the birth of Christ, (3) the Catholic church settled on the date of Dec.25 in the 4th century, and (4) the events surrounding the Christmas celebration are a mixture of religious practices from the Catholic church and previous pagan (non-Christian) observances.

It should be evident from the foregoing that Christmas is a religious observance built around the birth of Christ. Since there is no indication whatsoever from the Scriptures that the Lord wants us to celebrate his birth. To do so is to act without divine sanction. We are commanded to celebrate the death of Christ. We are not commanded to celebrate his birth. God’s silence rules against such a practice for Christians. In Gal 4:10 Paul chided the Galatians because “ye observe days…”. The days he referred were those set aside by the law of Moses, which they continued to observe even though the law was dead. How much better are we, when we observe religious days that are the product of Catholicism and paganism?

There are some who say that they realize Dec.25 is not the birthday of Christ, and that they do not observe the day in keeping with the season, observe it in a non-religious way. That raises the question as to whether or not one can observe a religious holiday in a non-religious way. Much of the advertising I have seen of late seems aimed at “putting Christ back into Christmas” and “Jesus is the reason for the season” It seems evident that most people even in the world know what the holiday is supposed to be all about. How then does it befit those of us who claim to be true disciples of Christ to argue that we want all that goes with Christmas, except the religious connotation? Not very well I would think. In fact if we can observe Christmas with all its trimmings, trees, bright lights, gift giving, etc. in a non-religious way, why can we not observe infant baptism in a non-religious way? The answer is apparent. My advice to all Christians regarding Christmas, is simple: leave it where it originated–with the Catholics and pagans.

Published in the OPA March 1, 1991

To so teach, in the view of this writer, shows a lack of information about the true nature of worship. While physical external actions nearly always accompany worship, such actions in and of themselves do not constitute worship. Worship is intrinsic, it is an emotion, a thought of the mind. In worship we render respect and homage to God. The worshiper expresses what he feels inwardly by some type of outward expression. In the old testament the most used Hebrew word for worship (shahah) means to bow down. However merely bowing down would not necessarily indicate that the person so doing was worshipping God. Abraham, for example, bowed down when he was buying a burial sight for Sarah (Gen.23:7).

But in Gen.22:5, Abraham said that he and Isaac “would go yon der; and we will worship (shahah) and come again to you.” Here his intentions were made clear. In the new testament the most commonly used word for worship is (proskuneo) and carries the meaning of “to make obeisance, do reverence to, kiss.” Ancient Persians would bow down on their knees, seeking to kiss the hand of the king. Through usage the physical act of proskuneo was transferred to the mental act of worship (see John 4:24).

Obviously one can “bow down” or “kiss” someone with no thought of worship involved. (Note Mark 15:19 and Mt.26:48 as examples) The essence of worship takes place in the heart, and may not be explained or defined by mere outward actions. Those advocating the idea that everything we do is worship usually contend that the life of a Christian is not compartmentalized into religious as opposed to secular activities, and since everything we do should glorify God (lCor.10:3l), then everything we do is worship. I believe these people are confusing worship with service.

While worship is service to God, all service is not worship. To contend that plowing a field, sewing a garment, eating a hamburger etc. etc. constitutes worship, seems far-fetched to say the least. It may be that some have been misled by some of the new translations that have removed the word “service” from Romans 12:1 and replaced it with the word “worship” (RSV, NASV, NIV). On this point Hugo McCord makes the following observation “It is true that in certain contexts that the Greek word in Romans 12:1 (latreuo) is properly rendered as worship (as in Romans 9:4). But in itself the word only means serve, whether the service is toward God or men (cf. latris, a hired servant; latron, hire, pay). Sometimes the word refers to a lifetime of service to God (Acts 24:14; Heb. 12:28), and the con text of Romans 12:1 shows ones offering his body as a living sacrifice is a lifetime of service, not of meditation (which is what worship is).” The scriptures indicate that worship is not continuous.

For example Abraham climbed a mountain to worship on its summit, and then after the worship, returned to his camp at the foot of the mountain (Gen. 22:1-5). If Abraham did not worship until he reached the summit of the mountain, then everything he did (the going and coming down from the mountain) was not worship. David (2 Sam. 12:20) learned that his baby was dead. He then bathed, changed clothes, and went into the house of Jehovah “and worshiped.” When he had worshiped, he returned home and ate a meal.

It is obvious that the bathing, changing clothes, and eating a meal were not considered worship. Luke declared that the Ethiopian officer had come to Jerusalem to worship, then returned to Ethiopia (Acts 8:27), distinguishing between that which was considered worship and that not so considered. From these examples we can see that not everything a person does is worship. As someone has noted, worship is perpendicular–up to God; service is horizontal– outstretched hands to help mankind. Perhaps the following outline will help us better understand the difference between worship and service.

Worship is toward God, John 4:24 Acts 17:25

Worship is internal, Acts 17:25

Worship is vertical, Psa.95:6; John 17:1

Worship is punctuated, Gen.22:5; 2 Sam.12:20

Worship is accompanied with five actions singing, praying, giving, communing, and teaching or studying the Scriptures, Acts 2:42, Eph.5:19
Service is toward mankind, Gal. 5:13; Hebrews 6:10

Service is external, Luke 10:33

Service is horizontal, Mt. 10:42

Service is durative or punctuated, Acts 6:2; 1 Tim.5: 10

Service consists of unnumbered deeds, Titus 3:1, Gal.6:9
Both worship and service are important areas of the Christians life. To conclude, however, that everything one does is worship, is to assume something the Scriptures do not teach.

Published in the OPA July 1, 1998

There are actually three questions here, and we will attempt to answer them in the order asked. (1) How long is a man responsible for the actions of his children? There is obviously a time when parents no longer have control over what their children do, even though they may be distressed by their conduct. Children reach a point in life when they become personally accountable to God for their actions. They have free will and are able to choose for themselves how they live and behave. Ezek. 18:20, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” A father is not responsible for the conduct of a child over whom he has no control or oversight. He does not bear the guilt, so saith the scripture.

This, of course, does not relieve him of the heartache or remorse that he feels at the rebellion and disobedience of his children. The fact, however, that a parent may not be responsible for his child’s conduct does not preclude the fact that such conduct might reflect unfavorably upon the parent. (2) If an elder’s forty year old child leaves the church, can he still serve as an elder? My answer will appear unreasonable and arbitrary to many, however, in my view the only safe and scriptural answer is – no he may not be an elder. If one child can be out of the church or unfaithful, and the man still qualify as an elder, then they all may be out of the church. Such an interpretation flies in the face of the qualification.

Either a man has faithful children or he does not. When a man has one or two faithful children and one or two that are unfaithful, he does not have “faithful children.” The elder must be one that “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?).” There are two considerations here: first of all even though the man whose children leave the church cannot be held responsible for their conduct, (it was certainly not his wish that they go wrong), the fact that they do leave the church reflects on his “ruling well his own house.” He obviously failed here. Paul asks, “How shall he take care of the church of God?” – a question every preacher should ask himself who appoints a man to the eldership who has children out of the church. His success in raising his family is a precursor to his success in taking care of the church. The qualification deals with something he “has” done.

Note: “having believing (or faithful) chidlren” is not something he might do later on. One whose children leave the church just has not proved himself worthy to “take care of the church” as one of its elders. While this conclusion is difficult for many to accept, I personally cannot answer it differently in good conscience. (3) If an elder’s child makes a huge public mistake while living at home, but makes a public confession, will the man still qualify as an elder? I have no idea what the querist means by “a huge public mistake” but will answer that if the child makes amends for his/her conduct, I do not believe that would disqualify the man from being an elder.

The very fact that the child makes amends for his/her conduct would indicate that the parent had taught them correctly in such matters. Remember the bible did not say “perfect children” but “believing children, not accused of riot or unruly.” Now, should that same child continue to do things that fall under the category of riotous or unruly, then it would be evident that the man has failed in ruling well his house, and is not qualified to serve as an elder.

Published in the OPA December, 2001