WORSHIP FOR SALE (90% OF ALL CHURCH CONFLICTS ON MUSICAL ISSUES)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below is Terry Mattingly’s original, unedited article, “Worship for Sale, Worship for Sale.” The direct link to the source is: http://tmatt.gospelcom.net/column/2002/11/06/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

===================================================
WORSHIP FOR SALE, WORSHIP FOR SALE
Terry Mattingly's religion column for 11/06/2002
===================================================

In the beginning, there were the Jesus People. They had long hair and short memories and they emerged from the 1960s with a unique fusion of evangelical faith and pop culture. They loved fellowship, but didn't like frumpy churches. They trusted their feelings, not traditions. They loved the Bible, but not those old hymnals. So they started writing, performing, recording and selling songs. The Contemporary Christian Music industry was born.

And, lo, the counterculture became a corporate culture, one that was increasingly competitive and relentlessly contemporary, constantly striving to photocopy cultural trends. Out in the mega-churches, the definition of "worship" changed and then kept changing -- Sunday after Sunday.

Even though this industry "makes claims for musical diversity among its ranks, it is primarily a reflection of current folk, pop and rock styles," noted veteran pop musician Charlie Peacock, speaking at a recent conference on "Music and the Church" at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. "Even today's successful modern worship music is composed of these and does not have a distinct style of its own."

The "bandwidth" of worship music today is actually quite narrow, he said, even if black gospel and "urban" music is included. This reality is especially obvious if the industry's products are contrasted with the dizzying array of church music found around the world and across two millennia of history.

Today, the bottom line is almost always the financial bottom line.

While believers lead the companies that dominate Christian music, secular corporations now own these smaller companies, noted Peacock. Clearly this is shaping the "Christian" music sold in religious bookstores and mainstream malls. But this corporate culture is also affecting worship and the heart of church life.

"The industry cannot be expected to always have the best interests of the church in mind," Peacock told nearly 500 scholars, musicians, entrepreneurs and clergy. "Christians within the companies may. But the overriding ideology of the system is to serve the shareholder first." Serving the shareholders means an endless stream of new products, fads and artists -- just like in the secular world. The new always vetoes the old and the saints don't use credit cards or own stock. Thus, CCM is dominated by pop, rock, urban and new worship music. Classical Christian music is below 1 percent on the charts.

Most worship leaders are trying to blend these radically different musical elements, reported pollster George Barna, describing a survey of Protestant worshippers, pastors and "worship leaders." Sometimes the easiest solution is to have different services for different audiences -- a strategy the Barna Research Group found in three out of four churches. Thus, the GI Generation attends a different service than the upbeat Baby Boomers or the mysterious young faithful of generations X and Y. The result looks something like an FM radio dial.

"What we know about Americans is that we view ourselves first and foremost as consumers," said Barna. "Even when we walk in the doors of our churches what we tend to do is to wonder how can I get a good transaction out of this experience. ... So, what we know from our research is that Americans have made worship something that primarily that we do for ourselves. When is it successful? When we feel good." And sometimes people feel bad. According to the pastors, only 9 percent of the surveyed churches were experiencing conflict over music. But it's possible to turn those statistics around and note that 90 percent of all church conflicts reported in this study centered on musical issues.

Is peace possible? Peacock concluded that it will be up to ministers and educators to argue that there is more to worship than the niches on a CCM sales charts. The industry can play a valid role in shaping the content of Christian music, he said, even in "contributing to the congregational music of the church. Still, the industry is at the mercy of a consumer with narrow tastes. Until this changes, it can't possibly function as a definitive caretaker and should not be asked to. "This means that the stewardship of Christian music from the Psalms, to Ambrose, to Bach, to Wesley, to the Fisk Jubilee Singers and more, belongs to the church and the academy."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have watched the continuing banter of the experts on this site with amazement. It seems as though three or four people(Strom Sublett and Donnie-i know everything about everything, including their hearts and motivations-Cruz) enjoy twisting and subverting the real truth.
The real truth is Madison is alive and well. The Lord is blessing the work, and outside of the two of you, the world continues to spin on its axis.
Ken, your slanderous comments about christians
are the result of an old, dry, spirit that finds itself outdated and irrelevent. This is your only link to the outside world. This is your only source for attention, and the shame is, you use God as your source.
Get up from behind your computer screen and go teach someone. Go tell the good news to someone.
I frankly, could care less about what you think, and I believe that your Creator feels the same way. Your ramblings are incoherent. You seldom have nothing more than a grain of truth, before you set out on a raving. You attack people you have never had a conversation with. Never.
Yet, you know their motivations, their heart, you know everything about them.
Have you gone to them with your complaints as the Bible tells us to do in Matthew? No, its easier to write about them, isn't it?

I for one am sick of it. I am sickened too, by Donnie's refusal to meet with the elders at Madison, with teachers, members, and any number of people that have approached him. You do not look for resolution.
You look only for personal gain.

I am glad to report things are great at Madison. We had nearly 200 baptisms this year. Our outreach programs remain strong. We are fiscally on very solid ground. It is what Madison has always been, a loving, growing, vibrant family of God's children. Is it perfect? No, it isn't, but show me the place that is.
As long as man is responsible for God's church, problems will exist.

Ken, I'm sure the church in Holeinwald would benefit from your expertise. I know it surely become a growing, dynamic family.
Donnie, is there a place for you at Madison? I doubt it. It would mean you would have to put down your pen and contribute. That doesn't seem to be in the equation.

I appreciate you bringing to light though,that so many problems are rooted in worship. I would like to add I know one in particular, located in the balcony at Madison.

Dal

Dal Maxvill:

Now that you have freely expressed your outrage, hopefully, you feel much better for the sake of good health. This thread is all about “Worship for Sale, Worship for Sale,” written by Terry Mattingly, who is more likely not even affiliated with the church of Christ. This author was simply explaining the history of one CCM, the Contemporary Christian Music, and its effect in worship, in general, among churches regardless of their roots.

As to how and why you took this opportunity to attack Ken Sublett and me at this point, I don’t know. One thing for certain is that you made no comments related to the subject of contemporary “Christian” music. Obviously, you’re ignoring or denying this fact that: “Even though this industry ‘makes claims for musical diversity among its ranks, it is primarily a reflection of current folk, pop and rock styles.’ … ‘Even today's successful modern worship music is composed of these and does not have a distinct style of its own.’"

I don’t know your religious background. I don’t know which generation you’re in (old, not-so-old, X, Y or Z or whatever). But you seem to have very little or no idea of what really happens when a congregation of the church of our Lord Jesus is subverted and infiltrated by all sorts of “contemporary” forces. Call it the Saddleback scheme for church growth. Call it modern-day charismatic imitation. Call it contemporary “Christian rock” music. Call it doctrinal perversion: tithing made binding upon New Testament Christians; musical idolatry; being forgiven of sins before baptism; pagan holiday observances; etc. If you think these are not scripture-altering prescriptions coming from contemporary-spirited physicians, you definitely need to go back to the Holy Scripture basics. I do not recall ever “condemning” any individual in our posts. In fact, it is the other way around. A number of times have we heard this: “I condemn you, Donnie Cruz.” “I condemn you, Ken Sublett.” All we’ve done is simply provide scriptural references and accompanying historical facts and backgrounds that support the scriptures. We’ve been letting these facts speak for themselves and leaving the condemning to God and His word.

Dal, you have also ignored and denied certain facts about Madison’s growth. What do you make of contributions dropping from about $55,000 in 2001 down to about $39,000 in 2002? Of the attendance in the first service of 1100 in 2000-2001 to 525+ in 2002 (plus an additional 50 or so during Titans’ games) and in the second service from 1150 in 2001 to 900+ in 2002? (These are not exact figures, but they’re close. We’re not even taking into account the gradual decline in the last few years prior to the upheaval caused by the Saddleback Movement.) And what’s unusual about the 200 baptisms in 2002? Weren’t there that many from year to year in the past, anyway? No, Dal, MCC has a long road to recovery, if that ever happens! I believe that the best we can hope for, as far as recovery is concerned, is to consider going back to pre-upheaval conditions. This just might encourage the return of many of those who have been alienated because of interference and subversion and hostile takeover by these forces! This is the reason why this website exists: a plea to return to the “old paths” –- NOT continuing in the path of secularism and human schemes.

Dal, please don’t be too sure about the notion of Donnie’s refusal to meet with the elders. You and many others do not know that. As far as meeting with teachers (such as Tom Haddon, a very “enlightened” and impressed visitor of the Saddleback Community Church -– I am not making this up) and meeting with others … you are sickened by my refusal? Guess what? I’ve posted my messages on this website. If they want to abide by the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” they have all the opportunities to do the same: POST their rebuttals, POST their arguments, and POST their own scriptural evidences for what they stand for. Confrontations do not accomplish anything. Either side is not going to change! If it is a matter of them saying, “We love you, brother!” … nobody will benefit from that, either!

Instead of you and others accusing me of sowing discord, it is time for you to accept the reality and be no longer in a state of denial. I know that you cannot prove or give me a count of the number of people that have left Madison because of me or of this website. On the other hand, there’s overwhelming evidence of the hundreds of members who have left Madison because of the Saddleback infiltration.

I’ll let you brag about your being in the equation and about your own contributions that people KNOW ABOUT. Yes, your reward will be great in heaven, I’m sure.

Lastly, maybe you should consider relocating yourself in the balcony so that the place will not be full of empty pews and will not be so lonely.

===============================================~
Donnie Cruz

Donnie,
Thank you for the first sensible post that has been made on this site in quite sometime.
I have been in the Lord's church my entire life. I went to Freed-Hardeman, I have all of the c of c pedigrees. I have the good and i have the bad.
My contribution is simply this, I have opportunity to work in the Lord's kingdom, and so I do. I could and should do more.
I leave things undone. I say things I should not. I do things I should not.
I do not rely on anyone's opinion for my beliefs. i rely on God's word, and my understanding of it.

Nor, do I rely on tradition. I am simply a child of God. If "Heaven is in My Heart" brings me closer to God in my worship, I embrace it. If "Where the Roses Never Fade" brings the hope of heaven I embrace that as well.
I do not, however make people fit into a narrow scope of my understanding. My thoughts are not God's thoughts. What I want is not what he wants. I desire it to be, but, in the end I come up short.
None of my church of christ theology will bridge the gap. Only his grace will. It is not extended to me by anyone else, but God.
Donnie, there are a number of things that Satan does to cloud our eyes, and to dull our senses.
Dissecting every song, and its origin is fruitless.
Many of our hymns and sacred selections were written to the tunes of old bar room songs, or were written by people of other faiths.
Under the definition of whats good and bad, how do you discern? Because it was written by someone whose career is to write songs, it is suddenly unworthy?

All over America today their are church of christs engaged in vain repitition. In other words, we've always done it this way, so why change? Do we offer them condemnation as well. There are men serving as elders who are unworthy. Do we bring them onto a website and begin listing their transgretions one by one.
Do we bring the men that left Madison in anger and committed sins against their bretheren before the body and flog them publically? Does the idea, that they believe it was a plot to overthrow them, and send Madison spinning toward hell give them the right to sin against God's church and its people?

When Ira North was the minister at Madison, it was widely criticized then, as being too liberal. He wore loud suits and drove a Cadillac. So what!
You can't argue with the results.
The problem has been that Madison was in slow decline for years. This isn't a new phenomenon. In its hey day Madison was a suburban church. Now it is an inter city church.
Its next 20 yrs. will be spent redefining itself both spiritually and ethnically. It will no longer be a white, family of four, that is defined by attending three worship services a week.
It is being pruned. The branches must be cut back, so that it will grow.
I'm glad that many of the people that left are now happy worshipping at other churches. Perhaps, this is all part of a greater plan.
Living in the past is a fatal mistake. The Bible is filled with examples of that. The pharisees are a great example.
WE have believed for way too many years that we have all of the answers(the church of christ). I don't have any. I know this though. Condemnation is not mine to offer.
Everyday I recieve a second chance. Another opportunity to get it right, to make a difference, to bring glory an honor to my Lord. Making sure that you do things the way I want them done, is not part of that agenda.
Service Merchandise was a great company. They refused to change. They went out of business.
"To the jews I became a Jew so that i might win a few."

Dal

The problem with the church is that students become PASTORS while still YOUNGERS and before they have had the thirty years of study before presuming to replace Lord Jesus Christ in His Word.

I am sure that you must have Jubilated a bit to learn the totally absurd notion that Christians must, in the words of Rubel Shelly "be as much like the world as possible to win the world." Garbage.

"The late Dr. Charles R. Erdman, professor of practical theology at Princeton Theological Seminary at the turn of the century, also refutes the evangelism philosophies of modern day pastors, evangelists and church growth EXPERTS in his exposition of First Corinthians. Apparently, even in Erdman's day, Christian leaders were quoting the apostle
Paul's statement "I am become all things to all men" and using such scripture to support their QUESTIONABLE evangelism techniques.

Erdman says, "By this phrase Paul means EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what it means in common speech today. He does not signify any weak compliance with the wrong actions and immoral practices of others.

"He is not approving the maxim: 'When in Rome do as the Romans do.'"

"No, Paul knew that to be a friend of the world is to be an enemy of God. He knew that God is holy, His Word is holy and that all believers are to be holy and separated from the world unto the Gospel of Jesus Christ. FOUNDATION Magazine.

"To the Jews, he became "as a Jew." When Paul was in the company of Jews, he refrained from doing anything that would offend them, even though he had the liberty to do those things. Gromacki mentions that "[Paul] did not alter his message or his morals. He was both firm and flexible at the same time." Again, Martin says, "It is as though Paul were admonishing that

-----"if you want to give a testimony for Christ to an orthodox Jew,
--------"you don't begin by serving him ham for dinner." Matt D. Costella FOUNDATION Magazine, Jan-Feb 1999

Shelly believes that they might have had BARBECUE.

If you want to rid the church of TRADITIONALISM then you have to begin with PAID WORKERS IN THE KINGDOM from whence come all the warfare and fighting and false teaching.

This passage meant that if you want to EVANGELISE you have to become LIKE PAUL in Thessalonica and WORK when the people WORK and PREACH when they have free time. That means that you have to KNOW NOTHING BUT CHRIST: this does not mean "preach only Christ" but LIVE like Christ who didn't have a fixed pillow.

----"And be not conformed to this world: but ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2

You could begin by turning church into Christian Assembly or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE. That means READING AND DIALOGING and NOT preaching about 911. That means letting the ONE ANOTHER do the PREACHING AND TEACHING by the inspired Biblical songs with the singing (secular) and melody (twanging bowstrings and yanking hair) left IN THE HEART.

"It is a fact that many leaders of today's megachurch growth movement and many leaders of parachurch evangelistic organizations use this portion of Scripture to support their philosophy that
"One must become like the unsaved in order to reach the unsaved for Christ."

Read Rubel Shelly in several parts:

http://www.piney.com/AllThingsShelly.html

All of the CROSS ROADSISM specifically wants to abandon the church of Christ position against instrumental music and for baptism. The guys literally lie when they ascribe this to "church of Christism." That is where a certificate from FHU (where they send gargoyles (demons) out to evangelize) doesn't fill you in with the fact that these church of Christ issues are 100% Biblical and agree with all church history before the camp charismatics adopted Voodoo for CHURCH GROWTH CULTISM.

If you are tired of the VAIN REPETITIONS then get rid of the VAIN REPEATERS and let little Johnny lead the singing instead of hire a PROFESSIONAL for your Sunday gig.

Ken Sublett

Mr. Sublett,


Thank you so much for reminding me what I already knew.
There is nothing that you don't know.
It must be wonderful being you.
Perhaps the problem with the church is the same problem we see in so many areas of life. People that spend all of their time pointing fingers, and too little time in the vineyard.
Too many referees, and not enough players.
Age does not make one an authority. I do not read of us reaching a retirement age in the scripture.
We don't get a gold bible for thirty years of service. you enjoy using, and manipulating words to your own benefit.
Have you ever spoken to Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Keith Lancaster, Tom Haddon, Robin Guidicy, or any of the other people you slander?
You are a "clanging symbol".
I did not advocate becoming a sinner, to win a few.
You said I did. You missed the point.
That isn't unusual though.
Call me a jubilator if you will, but, the word that best describes your babblings is "regurgitator".
You continue to say the same thing over and over.
I can't wait until sunday!

Dal

Whew! AMEN Ken.

In regard to TRADITIONS and PHARASEES that I keep hearing on here, and I have even been called a Pharasee by a couple of people, I would just like to make a couple of remarks and I thought this might be a good place. If someone wants to call it OPINION, so be it. It is the way I understand what I am reading from the Bible.

Some "Traditions" are based on the knowledge aquired from past experiences. In others words, things learned the HARD WAY. The "Tradition" that the Pharasees were concerned with in Matthew 15 was the PHYSICAL washing of hands. This was probably due to the spread of disease. This was a "PHYSICAL" practice and probably a good "Sanitary" practice but had nothing to do with their "SPIRITUALITY" and it sounds to me like they "Just Did Not Get This". Jesus' response,vs 3-9,was an analogy that stressed that very thing. That's the way I read it anyway. If someone reads it another way please let me know.

Heres some other verses that have to do with tradition.

Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and VAIN DECEIT, after the tradition of MEN, after the rudiments of the WORLD, and not after Christ."

2 Thessolonians 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that WALKETH DISORDERLY, and not after the TRADITION which he received of us."

I Peter 1:18-19 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeened with corruptible things, as SILVER and GOLD, from your VAIN conversation received by TRADITION from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"

2 Thessolonians 2:15 "Therefore, Brethren, stand fast, and HOLD the TRADITIONS which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our LETTER."

What Would Jesus Do? I just hate it when someone ask me or anyone else that. Jesus was not concerned with THINGS OF THIS WORLD. He was looking at a much larger picture. The "SPIRITUAL" Picture.

Humbly and Looking to the Word,
Larry

Thank you Larry for more graveling at Ken's feet.
We can always depend on you for plenty of that.
I had understood you no longer worshipped at Madison,
once your father was defrocked.
Is your interest here simply revenge, or are you here
to lend an Amen to Ken?

Ken, I read a part of your post with interest.
Are you saying no preacher should be paid?
Or just the ones you don't like?

Aren't there some song leaders that are paid too?
You know the ones i mean. They sit on the front pew,
tear attendance cards into little slivers, and pick out the hymns that you like, five minutes before worship begins.
Some of them are paid as well.
Or is that okay? That doesn't seem like much spiritual preparation does it?

It will be interesting in a few years when virtually every church of christ has praise teams to see
where you guys go then.

Raising holy hands,
Dave

I enjoy people LICKING my boots better than LICKING my head with a rock.

Here is the fact. Once upon a time "ministers" saw their job as evangelizing the local community or world: he was not the CHIEF PASTOR whom you dared not contradict. So, most things which have a noble beginning go sour. The Antis were correct about lots of things.

TRADITIONALISM can be evil unless it is the traditions delivered by the Word. So, if you are pushed to the one extreme by so many preachers building sand castles and LADING the BURDEN on the people Jesus died to remove including musical performance and TITHING or even THE LAW OF GIVING, you have to revert to the LAW OF EXTREMES which is to return to the Bible and 2,000 years of scholarly opinion.

I won't go into all of the details here but I have collected about 35 articles, most of which look at what the Bible allows ONLY EVANGELISTS, and records of church theologians who almost universally repudiate a hired ministry (other than free will giving which never filtered through a church).

Professional preaching replaced vocational evangelists ONLY WHEN Constantine made Christianity "respectable" and paid priests. The result was that the pagan professionals flocked to the Baptismal font to join the new TRADE now open to them.

Preaching was in the hands of the POOR PREACHERS and most of Europe was educated if often in error religiously. When PROFESSIONALS take over you have an infusion of people who see PREACHING like DOCTOR and are not therefore so dedicated to MINISTRY that they cannot sow discord.

I am not being evil when I tell you that there is JUST NO AUTHORITY for the preacherhood and Jesus excluded the "doctors of the law." The gifts were for the EVANGELIST and he CANNOT be long located or the Pastor- Teachers (or Elders and Deacons) in the local congregations are NOT APT. If an elder is NOT APT to teach then he assuredly is NOT APT to hire someone to replace him and make YOU TITHE to support him.

Is it evil? Yes, I truly believe that it is. When you decide that the Biblical ONE ANOTHERS are incompetent to start the songs and hire a CLERGY PERSON, McClintock and Strong would identify this as "The first heresy largely pervading the church." This professionalizing SHUTS THE MOUTH of dozens of young men who can become song leaders and go on to further leadership.

I know of no exception to the rule that the HIRED PREACHER is hired to be the DOCTOR OF THE LAW or Rabbi and TURF PROTECTION will not tolerate contrary opinions. Many Biblically literate men might not be as slick as a salted slug but might be a SUPERIOR teacher.

I have done a bit of poling and I have never heard a preacher contradict this opinion. MOST of them would dearly love for you to sell off your GYMNASIUM and send him out as an evangelist: say, at least 100 miles out of Nashville.

http://www.piney.com/ChMinistry.html

Comments welcome but the Bible and 2,000 year testimony is on my side. I can also tell you that the world is catching on I think that this is why the Jubilators are so desparate to find a SCHEME which will replace "members disguised as empty pews."

Ken Sublett

Mr. Ricketts,
I am happy to hear that YOU feel that you have HOLY HANDS because your eloquence of dialog shows nothing even resembling the word HOLY.

Your tacky, unkind statements are an indication that YOU are the one looking for revenge, not I. Just for the record, My father RESIGNED and I might add (heartbroken) that the church where he had attended for so long and worked so hard for had turned away from the values of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. He was not the only one either. I have not been there lately and I do not know enough to comment on the services or anything else now. I am just here to use this medium to try to educate anyone reading here on the theology, values and reasons for the Church of Christ doing things the way they do, or supposed to do. Not that I am an expert, but the more I study the Bible, the more I come to a clear understanding of just why these things are and have been practiced.

I do not know Ken Sublett and I don't know if he even wears boots! But I almost always do, ask anyone who knows me. At times like this I am glad to have them on because, sometimes around here, the wit gets very deep. Your post emphasizes that!

Larry

Mr. Rickets: Thank you for your intellectual remarks.
I see from your comments you've never read the Bible.
You have no earthly idea what you are talking about and I would venture to guess you haven't contributed
$500.00 to the assets at the building which used to house the Madison Church of Christ. I attented 25+ years and never heard of you. Maybe, your were there but in the the young's people's class where you still apparently belong. Please provide the scripture
authorizing the raising of "your holy hands" except
in prayer. I understand your Chief Pooba of Madison
is no longer the unqualified elders but rather your worhsip leader, Mr. Lancaster. I'm not the judge and
only have an opportunity for salvation because of Jesus but I would hate to be in the Mr. Lancaster, Mr.
Gingles, Dr. White, Mr. Russ Kersten, et al on Judgment Day. There is no way to tell until then how many souls they have caused to be lost, including yours, sir. If you can read, please read the Bible and work out your own salvation the way God planned and not your "feely good, love me" way. And, I think you might find,(if you can with an open mind)it is not in a denomination.

I don't know who you are sir but I don't see in your attitude that of Christ like characteristics. I may have misunderstood your point here and if so I am sorry. I am a great friend of Mr Rickets and do know that he reads his Bible. How can you assume just from comments on this site that he never reads his Bible. Isn't that judging a brother? I don't know who you are but thats beyond the point. My point is this...when you say I'm not the judge, referring to yourself, I see your point there that God is the final judge, but how can you go on to say I would hate to be in with the Lancaster, Gingles, White, Kersten, et al....please expound on this. I'm not trying to judge you here but am just trying to see what the need for calling out people here is. Are you still a member at Madison or did you say you attended there? thanks, evan



Mr. Rickets: Thank you for your intellectual remarks.
I see from your comments you've never read the Bible.
You have no earthly idea what you are talking about and I would venture to guess you haven't contributed
$500.00 to the assets at the building which used to house the Madison Church of Christ. I attented 25+ years and never heard of you. Maybe, your were there but in the the young's people's class where you still apparently belong. Please provide the scripture
authorizing the raising of "your holy hands" except
in prayer. I understand your Chief Pooba of Madison
is no longer the unqualified elders but rather your worhsip leader, Mr. Lancaster. I'm not the judge and
only have an opportunity for salvation because of Jesus but I would hate to be in the Mr. Lancaster, Mr.
Gingles, Dr. White, Mr. Russ Kersten, et al on Judgment Day. There is no way to tell until then how many souls they have caused to be lost, including yours, sir. If you can read, please read the Bible and work out your own salvation the way God planned and not your "feely good, love me" way. And, I think you might find,(if you can with an open mind)it is not in a denomination.

Sorry about someone calling someone else the real name (like Evan Duncan or Donnie Cruz)! What about identifying someone else as “anonymous” or giving someone a name like “Annie Mouse”? Wait, that’s not respectful at all. The best solution to “calling” is a descriptive position or title. So, here’s what Horace should have said: (1) THE WORSHIP LEADER, (2) THE PREACHER, (3) CERTAIN ELDERS. Fair enough? That’s much better than judging a brother, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donnie Cruz

Alrighty, Donnie "thinks he knows it all" Cruz, I didn't ask for your two cents... This was directed at Mr Jones. I don't see the need for your sarcasm whether you feel you are right or not isn't the matter. Whether we agree or not, we still will have disagreements as it comes to worship and church. That's one of the things I dislike about church. We all get bent up too much in the political side of hte spectrum...when we lose the real meaning of why do we worship. I find this to be so truthful even in times of tension and times where God is really at work through people. To answer your questions I was born in the late 60's and met Will when I was volunteering with hte youth group there. I still attend and am involved in several ministries there... No I am no Saddlebacker, change agent, or whatever low down scum of the earth you wanna refer to me as. Call me what you want. God knows who I am and that is a child of his, a brother in Christ to others and even though I consider you a brother in Christ, I just at times don't see it in the attitude and words that you carry with yourself...Likewise with Mr Sublett who I totally don't understand and don't give me the excuse O I am too young to know because how old are you? Do you have children? Are you married? Just curious. What's their take on this site and your ramblings on it? Just my two cents and I look forward to a response....no nned to rip it up cause I am speaking the truth in love...thats scripture...I apologize if I sound offensive but no intention was meant.
Lifting up the name of the Lord,
Evan

Evan, you’ve put your own two cents in without being asked many times before. (Just to be sure about this, go back and reread your prior posts.) When it comes to praise and/or worship, it is an individual matter. Each Christian is responsible for his/her personal relationship with the Lord. Neither “corporate” worship (whether or not MCC is an “Inc.”) nor Keith Lancaster’s style of “MUSICAL WORSHIP” in a “corporate” setting is God’s directive. The ASSEMBLY of the saints, as SIMPLY described in Acts 20:7, is for the body of believers to observe the Lord’s Supper and to study and learn more about God’s will. And political correctness has no part in this assembly.

In regard to having met Will and in regard to your having returned to Madison, what did you mean and where is this “there” in: (1) with the youth group “there” and (2) still attend and involved in several ministries “there.” Is this “there” other than Madison? Evan, I must confess, you do confuse me a lot as to your whereabouts.

Finally, it doesn’t matter whether or not you are a Saddleback or Community Church or change agent. It doesn’t matter if you deny being associated with them and with those names. What matters is when YOU say and do what THEY say and do. You said: “Just my two cents.” Hmmm!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donnie Cruz

I think you are confusing yourself with so much being swung at you on the CM field. What I mean, so you don't ask for an interpretor is this, so many different viewpoints, so many opinions, facts, etc. It's very confusing to someone who looks at this site to really know what is happening at Madison. The only way someone can know what is actually happening is for them to visit for themselves and draw an honest approach and view for themselves. I believe that this site doesn't have a say in what truly happens becaues it is someone's own personal assessment "opinion". I do attend Madison and have made that clear read some of my other posts. There should be nothing that should confuse you about that. And this "there" that you were referring to is Madison.
Evan

Evan, if only your posts originated from your own PC and not from several of your friends’ or from several of your co-workers’ PCs, I wouldn’t be as confused about your instability.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donnie

Sounds like an honest request: Almost 4 years USN, Japan, offshore Korea. Off Russia when Armistice was declared but now repudiated.

Aged 72, BS Electronics Engineering, Honeywell Seattle, their Electronics Lab in Seattle, Co founded Electronics Co.,

Retired back to Murfreesboro 1980, 7 years on board of MTCS, Campus Minister, Teaching Staff of church.

Served as Deacon and Elder in Seattle and have suffered for 22 years for importing LOCUSTS from Broadway in Lubbock to found Campus Ministry. Their plan was called VANGUARD which means that they INFILTRATED AND DIVERTED. THEIR Barbelo is now MINISTER of musical evening service which sounds quite like WITCHCRAFT. The ORIGINAL OWNERS have moved on to MASCULINE churches. They turned to the Christian Church because that is where they got their education, and to WINESKINNERS CULTS from Fuller.

Three Daughters: first finished in pot-puffing public school--no lasting effect. Ended BROADWAY PLAGUE recently. Second, one year at MTCS and Lipscomb (severely tested). Third, 13 years at MTCS and has not recovered yet but successful. One wife of 45 years, four grand children.

Youngest wants no DISCUSSION of church tainted by utter evil from the MUSIC industry and school hypocrisy. Both oldest and middle daughter can give you a clear Biblical discussion of why there has never been THREE gods now worshipped in SOME churches of Christ. Can dissect SADDLE BACK and web pages defending the PURPOSE DRIVEN CULT. Can recognize the INFILTRATION of subtle warnings from locust teachers and will gag if they ever see a MUSICAL WORSHIP TEAM doing their itty bitty thangy.

Saw utter INSANITY of preacher's claim that God once loved instrumental music. But, "He changed His mind and now has PROHIBITED IT by using SILENCE." This is SCHIZOPHRENIC compared to what popped up all through the Bible: That ALL MUSIC terms and names of instruments have their origin in YOUTH seduced by Satan and His double-ended MINISTERS. That every mention of INSTRUMENTS in the Bible is related to typically CRUCIFYING Christ, telling God "we will not listen to your words", to PROSTITUTES AND SODOMITES setting up shop around the temple to sell their WARES, and to warfare.

Imagine my sense of HEARING the Spirit in the Word which 60 years of hearing sermons had hidden too well: that the SERPENT is understood by its name and ancient Hebrew commentary as a MUSICAL ENCHANTER. That God saw the MUSICAL IDOLATRY at Mount Sinai as their PRAYER to be allowed to return to their MUSICAL-SEXUAL idolatry practiced for over 400 years in Egypt. God "gave them their request but sent EMPTINESS in their souls." That is what YOU are watching with the WORKS-ORIENTED, legalism of music and PROGRAMS. Ask your preacher to tell yu the difference betweek THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT (forfeited because of musical idolatry) and THE BOOK OF THE LAW.

The ZOE MOVEMENT with SHELLYISM facilitated the hostile takeover in Seattle and I was LED to go looking for Sophia-Zoe-Barbelo-Eve-Inanna-Ishtar-Kirke (church). I found her, the "healing of the young girl), Gnosticism Paul warned against in his "uncovered prophesying" statement, in the church fathers and in modern denominations confiscated by FEMINIST and LESBIANS as the HOLY WHORE (Lucifer IS ZOE) in the Bible along with the ANE documents as ACTUAL documents which MOSES was commissioned to REFUTE and warn about in the return to CANAAN.

In the GREEK world of the KOMO revealed by the JUDAS BAG parable, gay males and prostitutes ONLY served as the MUSICAL MINISTERS: That is why the picture is clear that Jesus CAST them out using a word which CAN mean like CASTING OUT dung or like the JEWS trying to CAST Jesus over the CLIFF (A "pregnant" parable).

I searched in VAIN for ANY remote HINT which any honest and literate preacher could use to INFILTRATE AND DIVERT (and steal) the church houses of widows. THERE IS NONE and I DOUBLE-DOG-DARE anyone to put their SCHOLARSHIP at stake on this FORUM (YOU see how SILENT and slinking away the THOUGHT LEADERS are). They let their little monkeys try to rescue their nuts from the roasting fire. But, ALL of the history proves that they will burn for trying to SILENCE the Words of Jesus, our ONLY TEACHER, and CLAIMING to be the new MEDIATORS.

Using the LIKE THE NATION'S KING to facilitate carrying out the SENTENCE imposed conditionally because of the MUSICAL IDOLATRY (the "because of transgression"), the WARRIOR LEVITES under the SECULAR KING and the COMMANDERS OF THE ARMY were forced to SLAUGHTER the wealth of the POOR in order to FULFILL THE TYPE prophesied in Psalm 41 (and elsewhere) of their MUSICAL effort to EXORCISE Jesus as BELIAR OR BEEL-ZEBUB because it turned out that he was not BACCHUS and WOULD not do the perverted SONG AND DANCE while they Jews PIPED.

Tithing was to carry out the death sentence on the Israelites who would not "worship" in spirit by hearing the Words of God, living right and practicing social justice.

Nothing can make a pseudo-conservative preacher more HOSTILE than to tell him that Amos shows the FULFILLMENT of the WORSHIP OF THE STARRY HOST (Saturn 666, etc) which God TURNED THEM OVER TO because of their MUSICAL IDOLATRY at Mount Sinai. Read the Walling link about RISING UP TO PLAY in SPEWINGS against the church and the CLEARLY-TAUGHT doctrines of Anti-external melody and Baptism.

The RESTORED PLAY of Sinai is VIRTUAL PLAY in the modern world where the LAW is more ETHICAL than too many CLERGY. Some even boast of baptizing Santa, thinking about the S.U.N. god, Lucado's rejection of the incarnation by his little cosmic light vial passing through Mary without getting tainted. Yes, I watched TBN with Lucado high and lifted up above the tiny physical Jesus as the Oak Hills etc gang applauded Twila while 'itty bitty' Jesus was getting HAMMERED

I have no secrets, but when you RIDICULE what any non-clergy scholar will accept, I believe that you would do the same thing to Jesus Christ: Indeed, because if (in doubt) He REALLY is present with two or three THOUSAND then you are TRYING to get Him into the perverted singing, laughing, clapping and MOCKING. MODERN SCIENCE confirms what Jubal (rimes with---) in the Bible and books like Enoch and Jubilees knew: "Emotionally and sexually abnormal males became the first FOR HIRE clergy" because as FREAKS they could hold their attention and they could sell hysteria as the "gods speaking" as they "spoke" in the Witch of Endor's Empty Wineskin defined identical to the NEBEL (harp) played by the NABELS and the BOOMING GONGS in 1 Cor. 13.

There is nothing you can say about my life which will INVALIDATE the facts which Jesus warned were "HIDDEN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD IN MASHALS." They were hidden IN PLAIN SIGHT where only the SPIRIT OF CHRIST will allow you to comprehend. The Walling- Lucado, etc., crowd MOCKING our views of BAPTISM cuts you utterly off from the ONLY JESUS ORDAINED PROVISION which constitutes YOUR request for a CO-PERCEIVING or HOLY spirit.

Once you find that the MUSICAL-LAUGHING-CLAPPING is to sell you books and CDs SUPERIOR to the "old guy Jesus" and discover that the WATER OF THE WORD IS FREE OF CHARGE--PAID FOR BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST--Scripture and ancient commentary about Scripture, Paul in Hebrews 6 and all of the evidence warns you that there is no cure for SPIRITUAL CLAPP-ing.

The more PROGRAMS they come up with the more the LITERATE will understand that by imposing the TITHE and focusing LIFE around the temple on the destructive Methodist Social Gospel, they more you MUST grasp that they are filled with PHALLIC pride and are working their itty bitty hearts out trying to DIVERT you from the REST Jesus died to give you from THOSE VERY BURDEN LADERS where burden is defined as "spiritual anxiety because of religious rituals." If there is more INSANITY in churches of Christ then blame it on the LEGALISTIC HYSTERIA to try to boot strap people 'INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD' rather than to EQUIP THE SAINTS by teaching the WORD--which, by the way as I have noted and noted and noted, is the ONLY worship Word Paul applied to the ASSEMBLY as synagogue and NOT church or KIRKE as the end-time Babylon Whore. Why else would they lust for what the Bible calls BUFFOONS as symbols of God pouring out His wrath.

Ken Sublett

Brother Jones,

I’m pleased to see former Madison members (?) coming to this forum. We just might be able to get you to accept the invitation to visit our family as we worship and serve our Risen Savior. You and your family are welcome anytime.

The reason for the (?) above is as follows:

You said, “I attented 25+ years and never heard of you.” When I looked in my 1990 church directory, I didn’t see your family’s picture or a listing in the back. Did you leave before 1990? Did you attend but not place membership? When was the last time you participated in a worship service?

I will not ask you about any contributions as that would deprive you of your blessing in heaven (Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Does it automatically follow that when one leaves a congregation for a specific reason of opinion, that they become “lost?” I ask this question because of your statement, “There is no way to tell until then how many souls they have caused to be lost, including yours, sir.”

I thought the church was about the task of “saving souls.” (not that the church saves, but the church points the sinner to the Savior)

Brother Jones, you bring up some interesting points. It appears you have the “rock solid” understanding about God’s plan for man. I quote one last time, “If you can read, please read the Bible and work out your own salvation the way God planned and not your "feely good, love me" way. And, I think you might find, (if you can with an open mind) it is not in a denomination.”

Would you be willing to do a bible study with me to help me better understand your beliefs according to God’s Word? If yes, just reply to this message and I will get in contact with you.

Respectfully,

Cal

Cal,

You were doing a great job with the Horace inquisition. Why did you stop at the contribution item and not finish the inquisition? Your tone regarding accepting “the invitation to visit OUR [emphasis mine] family as WE worship and serve OUR risen Savior” sounds exactly like an ACQUISITION, according to plan, by some other force.

The complete reference by Horace to “work out your own salvation” is: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) Other related references follow: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:24) “…Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donnie Cruz

You are correct: It is the TRADITIONS OF CHRIST versus the TRADITIONS of the Pharisees.

Watch for Pharisees and sectarians to accuse you of being the same and telling the world that being non-instrumental should warn people that you might fire bomb restaurants and molest ladies wearing furs. There IS NO limit when they begin to lie. As an inventor of sonar for the fishing industry, I learned how to BE A FISHERMAN WHEN WITH THE FISHERMEN. I could wipe the fish off my hands on my pants, pick up a sandwich and enjoy the aroma. However, I didn't go to the nearest bar with twenty thousand dollars cash stuffed in my pocket.

It was the Pharisees who are identical to the modern CHANGE AGENTS who may actually believe their lies that TRUTH DISSAPPEARED IN Y2K AND "WE HAVE TO FIND NEW TRUTH FOR THE POST-MODERN AGE." Since the primary focus here is MUSICAL WORSHIP and TITHING we must assume that the opposition is anti-church of Christ. That is ok but minimal honesty would demand that they go find a church with which they believe rather than INFILTRATE AND DIVERT and steal the property of others. We noted above of the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION the pagan worshipers found it EASIER to find a clean temple, confiscate it and then defile it with music than to pay for their own.

Some sub-nitwit read something about Quantum Mechanics and the "uncertainty" principle and decided that THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE in any realm. This is the meaning of post-modernism.

The NEW SWARM of preachers deny that that there is any certainty or that the DOCTRINES OF CHRIST can have lasting value. IF church is a ritual to ATTRACT THE WORLD then we need to change with the World. However, if "church" is really a synagogue or SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE then nothing changes. The meaning of PHARISEE is not one who is faithful to the OLD BIBLE. Rather, a PHARISEE is one who:

** Obsoletes the Laws of God.

** Improvises their own TIMELY laws SPECIFICALLY to silence God and His word.

** They do it to give themselves glory.

** They BEAUTIFY their rituals like MUSICAL PERFORMERS (Ezek 33).

** They make long prayers and probably sermons.

** The invent NEW SCAMS which are most effective at EATING UP THE LIVING OF WIDOWS.

** If you OPPOSE them they toss you out of YOUR OWN building. That is why the locusts as musical performers also have STINGS in their tail.

The non-instrumental church of Christ does not specialize in performance preaching, playing beautiful music, do not CHANGE GOD'S laws JUST SO they can impose their own laws, don't do performance praying and do not impose giving or tithing to steal the living of widows and welfare livers. No! Pharisees: the non-instrumental is the UNIVERSAL BIBLICAL and Historically proven practice forever. The CARPETBAGGER improvisers tried--with zero success--to force the historical non-instrumentalists in Tennessee to IMPOSE the instrument and SIGN UP for the missionary society where even children became 'Life Members.' Sure, Just like Jim Bakker.

Those who try to make the church practices conform to the Word of God are neither sectarian nor hypocritical as are the Post-Modern, Post-Biblical new hermeneuts. Of Pharisees:

----"They interpreted the Law according to its spirit;

--------"when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a NEW and MORE acceptable meaning,

Of the new Pharisee Sect, they were:

"seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of HERMENEUTICS. It was due to this PROGRESSIVE tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah CONTINUED to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism. Catholic Encyclopedia, Pharisees.

The HAND WASHING was one of the PROGRESSIVE teachings of the Pharisees SPECIFICALLY so that they could ignore the Revealed Word of God. The MUSICAL INNOVATORS believe that the PAYING AUDIENCE can be purified and LED INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD. Therefore, as music has always been the PURIFYING ritual of all pagan superstition, there is no difference between the Pharisees washing of hands and the modern Pharisees "washing of souls." But, Paul said that "we are washed" and we can COME BOLDLY BEFORE THE THRONE OF GRACE where NO musical can enter--with fish scales sticking to our hands.

----"Thus have ye made the COMMANDMENT of God of NONE EFFECT by your tradition. Matthew 15: 6

-----"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, Matthew 15: 7

___"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Matthew 15: 8

----"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS of men. Matthew 15: 9

The COMMANDMENT OF GOD is that we TEACH OR PREACH as the Word in "singing." The very late TRADITION OF MEN is that "We can progressively keep up with the times in INSERT the MUSIC CONCEPT."

***They do it do VIOLATE the old, outdated Bible in order to SEEK more MONEY.

***Their INNOVATIONS allow them to "steal the church houses of widows."

Therefore, the NEW AND IMPROVED religion fits perfectly Jesus' definition of HYPOCRITES (ACTORS) AND PHARISEES.

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their LIPS, but their heart is far from me.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in VAIN do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:8 For LAYING ASIDE the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Here is how JESUS identified modern change agents as Pharisees:

**Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
**that ye may keep your own tradition. Mark 7: 9

HERE IS WHAT JESUS WAS CONDEMNING:

And they come unto thee as the people cometh,
--and they sit before thee AS my people,
--and they hear thy words,
----but they will not do them:
for with their mouth they shew much love,
--but their heart goeth after their COVETOUSNESS. Ezek 33:31

And, lo, thou art unto them
--as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice,
--and can play well on an instrument:
for they hear thy words,
--but they do them not. Ezek 33:32

And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,)
then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them. Ezek 33:33

Here are some more reviews of the BAND's MANTRA calling non-instrumentalists PHARISEES because we don't WASH SPIRITS.

http://www.piney.com/Sectarian Pattern.html

http://www.piney.com/WinRSThemes27.html

Ken

Dal,

Are you the same guy I saw as a kid in St. Louis? I remember your best home run year in 1969. You hit 2 home runs. That was the most you ever hit in one year. If we count this post as a "homer" that brings your lifetime total to a perfect "7."

If you are not the same one, thanks for the memories anyhow.

At bat for the LORD,

JQ
<")))><

Now, let's look at the Proof-Text: All proof texts have a context.

1 Cor 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ WITHOUT CHARGE, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
--"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a SLAVE to EVERYONE, to win as many as possible. 1 Corinthians 9:19

USE PAUL AS PROOF TEXT TO PAGANIZE AT YOUR PERIL: TEACHING TRUTH NEVER CHANGES.

Paul said nothing about making himself a Rock Star to gather the applause of the people. He did not speak in tongues to prove his inspiration. He did not sing and play instruments to attract the theatrical performers who had the same reputation in all history as today. Rather, Paul made himself a SLAVE to everyone. That is the meaning of a MINISTER who is discredited when he attempts to become a MASTER.

Therefore, he became a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles by becoming a slave or SUBSERVIENT to any person. When the preacher assumes a clergy role He is nothing to no one.

So, Paul becomes a slave and not a performing master.

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 1 Corinthians 9:20

"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 1 Corinthians 9:21

"To the weak I became WEEK (feeble), to WIN the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 1 Corinthians 9:22

HERE IS THE PUNCH LINE: IF YOU CLAIM "PAUL" AS YOUR EXAMPLE HE TOLD YOU WITHOUT DOUBT THAT YOU WILL GO PREACH THE GOSPEL AND EAT WHATEVER THEY SET BEFORE YOU AND HELP THEM MEND THEIR TENTS AND REPAIR THEIR SHOES:

1 Corinthians 9:23 And this I do for the GOSPEL'S sake, that I might be PARTAKER thereof WITH YOU.

BECAUSE THERE ARE NO POLLUTED RACES, THE PREACHER IS FREE TO GO TO ANY LAND, LABOR IN ANY FIELD, MEET WITH THOSE WHO WIPE WITH THEIR LEFT HANDS AND PREACH IN THE INNER CITY AND EAT WHAT THEY EAT.

A For Instance: Rubel Shelly claims that John got the idea of the LOGOS from the sifting of Greek philosophy and applied it to Jesus. We know that to be false. However, the Greek CHIEF SPEAKER was Mercury, Hermes or their perverted "logos."

To literally become an "all things" could not exclude BECOMING a god but Paul refused to be HONORED.

"When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" Acts 14:11

"Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes (Mercury) because he was the chief speaker. Acts 14:12

"The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought BULLS and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. Acts 14:13

Now, here is the ideal place for Paul to PARTICIPATE with the prostitutes, homosexuals, women prophetesses, MUSICAL WORSHIP TEAMS and some good old Rock (a vulgar, sexual word) and Rap:

--"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they TORE their CLOTHES and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: Acts 14:14

Like, WOW! Paul didn't become ECUMENICAL with animal sacrifices with instrumental music. He could have disavowed his GODHOOD and PARTICIPATED with the pagans. He DID NOT and he WOULD NOT sit in a TEMPLE with people making a loud noise while Jesus was present: like Jesus, he would CAST THEM OUT as one might cast out DUNG.

We have quoted 2 Maccabees which was in the Septuagint and the original KJV with a penalty imposed for removing it. Antiochus Epiphanes went into the holy places and the APPEASENIKS adopted MUSICAL worship of Zeus and Dionysus as well as the GYMNASIUM. Thus they piped hoping to get John and Jesus seduced into their SINGING and DANCING.

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION IN THE INTERTESTAMENT PERIOD

2 Macc 6:1 - Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God,

2 Macc 6: 2 - and also to pollute the temple
> in Jerusalem and call it the temple of Olympian ZEUS,
> and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of ZEUS the Friend of Strangers, as did the people who dwelt in that place.

http://www.piney.com/2Macc.html

Euripides in Helen notes: Chorus doing exactly what they did at Mount Sinai and condemned in Amos 5, 6 and Isaiah 5.

"When she made an end to banquets for gods and the race of men, Zeus spoke out, appeasing the Mother's gloomy wrath: "Go, holy Graces, go and with a loud cry take from Demeter's angry heart her grief for the maiden; and you, MUSES, with song and dance." Then Kypris, fairest of the blessed gods, first took up the rumbling voice of bronze and the drum with tight- stretched skin; and the goddess smiled, and received in her hand the deep-toned flute, pleased with its loud note (See 1 Cor 13:1)

"Euripides Ion I am ashamed before the god of many HYMNS, if he, the sleepless night watcher, shall see the torch procession on the twentieth day, beside the springs with lovely dances, when the starry sky of Zeus also joins in the dance, and the moon dances, and the fifty daughters of Nereus, in the SEA and the swirls of ever-flowing rivers, celebrating in their dance the maiden with golden crown and her revered MOTHER;

----"where this vagabond of Phoebus' (Apollo, Abaddon, Apollyon) hopes to rule, ENTERING upon the LABORS of OTHERS. (Hmm! Like INFILTRATE and DIVERT).

---You who turn to music and sing in discordant hymns our beds and the lawless, unholy loves of Kypris, see how we surpass in piety the unjust seed of men. (Erotic praise songs)

----"Let the song recant and let discordant music go against the beds of men!

----"The descendant of Zeus shows his ingratitude, when he does not breed children for the house in common with my mistress; showing favor to another Aphrodite, he has found a bastard child.

----"You made burnt offerings that were neither right nor holy, in the CHAMBERS OF THE GODS, and you have incurred the wrath of the great mother, child, by not honoring her sacrifices.

---Oh! Great is the power of dappled fawn-skin robes, and green IVY that crowns a sacred thyrsos, the
-------whirling beat of the tambourine circling in the air, hair streaming wildly for the revelry of Bromios, and the night-long festivals of the goddess. . . . You gloried in your beauty alone.[This was the naked dance with the flute case and the Judas Bag attached]

THEREFORE, we know ABSOLUTELY that Paul never adopted pagan practices to SUCK IN THE SEEKERS. I believe this "all things to all mens" is truly people trying to RESTORE the ancient gods (ZOE and Dionysus the New Wineskin god) of SONG, DANCE, INSTRUMENTS and worse. Isn't it astounding that Paul and the CLASSICS 101A which he often alluded to EXPLICITLY REPUDIATES the musical performance of ZEUS worship in the JERUSALEM TEMPLE which was the Abomination of Desolation IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE GODS. You do know that the claim is that MUSICAL WORSHIP LEADS US INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD. That would be the HOLY PLACE where even Jews polluted both Mount Gerezim and Jerusalem.

The MARK is getting you to GIVE HEED to the MERCURY as the SPOKESMAN FOR THE GODS. Therefore, to make the Restoration Leaders who WENT OUT and BECAME the MESSENGER for the One God into DULL AND MOROSE jerks INTENDS to make a PLACE and a LAW for Pharisees quite willing to TAKE THE LORD'S SUPPER WITH SWINE FLESH IN THEIR TEETH, build THEATERS so they can allow the MUSICIANS INTO THE HOLY PLACE and building GYMNASIUMS or COMMUNITY ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS is the END TIME PROPHECY FULFILLED.

We have noted that this latter day ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION does what not even the VILEST PAGAN TEMPLES ALLOWED unless CONFISCATED by the Antiochus Epiphanes of the world in fulfillment of Revelation 18.

If you are going to PRETEND to be a Paul then you MUST SUBMIT YOUR BODY TO BE DESTROYED:

--"Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. Acts 14:19

Funny thing, Dal: the PRAISE word most often used in the OT means to MAKE YOURSELF VILE and gave rise to the word LUCIFER. An almost identical word CHALAL means to "Play the flute, pollute, prostitute or PRUNE YOUR VINE." The word for MELODY is also derived from PRUNING OTHER PEOPLE'S VINE. The PRUNING HOOK now being THRUST IN is the name of a musical instrument in Hebrew.

I have been telling you that Apollo or Abaddon or Apollyon the GOD OF MUSIC or the Phoebus noted above comes with his MUSES or Locusts (musical performers) to SEPARATE those with the MARK of music from those with the MARK of the Word of God. When the FRUITS YOU LUSTED AFTER in Revelation are PRUNED it is not so that those with the ABADDON MARK can grow WITH MUSIC and restoration of Judaism which was paganism under the monarchy: it is for the final REFINEMENT. Another prophetic HOME RUN.

Ken Sublett

Dal,

You are contradicting yourself.

In one post you say "Condemnation is not mine to offer", yet in another post you say "Ken, your slanderous comments about christians are the result of an old, dry, spirit that finds itself outdated and irrelevent" and "Donnie, is there a place for you at Madison? I doubt it. It would mean you would have to put down your pen and contribute. That doesn't seem to be in the equation."

You are also a hypocrite.

You said "Responding to the questions that are asked isn't part of your agenda. Character assassination is" yet you continue to attack Lawrence, Kenneth and Donnie.

You said "I rely on God's word" yet you also say
"Please don't throw a bunch of diversionary comments and scriptures at me". Since when is scripture diversionary?

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Your most revealing words; however, were "Service Merchandise was a great company. They refused to change. They went out of business." What you and the change agents just don't get, Dal, is that the church of Christ is not a business. You can't fix your "perceived problems" with the church by coming up with some new gimmick or new marketing scheme.

Acts 2:47 And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Prayerfully Onward,

Kevin

Kevin,

Thank you so much for your response. It shows great analytical skills on your part.
I have noticed you seem to, like Mr. Sublett, spend a great deal of time expounding your knowledge on the events at each congregation.
It is so good to have another expert on this site.

I'm sorry to have used the Service Merchandise example, your correct it was a bad one. I should have used a couple of the Churches of Christ in Nashville that have sold off the contents inside of their building, and have gone out of the soul-saving business altogether. Does that make you feel better?

I want to thank as well for reminding me about the
use of ALL scripture. Very timely.
Perhaps you might want to relook at the definition of a hypocrite. You have misaplied its meaning.

And if you get today, pick up some more peanuts for the gallery.

Dal

Mr. Maxvill: I am a member of the Church of Christ and therefore and cannot in good conscience call you brother. I just want you to know that you and the people who believe in your "feel good" religion are really disgusting. I hear Jeff Walling is coming.
I would expect Max Lacado in the near future. I hope
your leaders will make an announcement.

Ah, it has always been the case and nothing is more DANGEROUS than to question the SILVERSMITHS:

Farb notes that: "The United States in recent years has witnessed a resurgence of SHAMANISTIC cults among all classes and all races. Storefront salvationists prosper in Harlem, and SNAKE HANDLERS in APPALACHIA: these are psychedelic prophets who advocate hallucinogenic drugs (music produces endorphins, a powerful morphine-like drug), revivalistic preachers who capitalize on the medium of television, prophets of a strange new cybernetic age (throw away the old computers), and MYSTICAL seers who bring suburban matrons a revelation from Tibet.
-----"All these people, despite the evident sincerity of most of them, are really religious entrepreneurs or shamans..." (Farb, Peter, Man's Rise to Civilization. 182)

Of Ezekiel 13 Matthew Henry wrote:

2. They profaned the name of God by pretending to have received those LIES from him (v. 19): "You pollute my name among my people, and make use of that for the patronizing of your lies and the gaining of credit to them.'' Note, Those greatly pollute God's holy name that make use of it to give countenance to falsehood and wickedness. Yet this they did for handfuls of barley and pieces of bread.
---They did it for GAIN; they cared not what dishonour they did to God's name by their LYING, so they could but make a hand of it for themselves.
---There is nothing so sacred which men of MERCENARY spirits, in whom the love of this world reigns,
---will not PROFANE and PROSTITUTE,
---if they can but get MONEY by the bargain. "
===================
"Those who lord it over the people will soon begin to destroy Them. The word Balaam means 'the destroyer of the people.' If we turn back to the history of this strange figure as recorded in the book of Numbers we find that which clarifies three passages in the New Testament where 'the error of Balaam' (Jude 11), 'the way of Balaam' (II Pet. 2:15) and 'the doctrine of Balaam' are discussed." (Barnhouse, D.G., Revelation, Zondervan, p. 54

Nicolatains: Nike (pagan clergy) TRUMPS laity.
====================

Similar to the Feast of Tabernacles:

"They made their voices sweet with MUSICAL cadences and modulations of tone and echoed resonances. They thought not of what they were saying, but of how they were saying it.

"Their thought might be poisonous so long as it was enveloped in honeyed words.; Philostratus tells us that Adrian, the sophist, had such a reputation in Rome, that when his messenger appeared with a notice that he was to lecture, the senate emptied and even the people at the games abandoned them to flock to hear him.

"You might hear many poor wretches of sophists, shouting and abusing each other, and their disciples, as they call them, squabbling; and many writers of books reading their stupid compositions, and many poets SINGING their poems, and many jugglers (buffoons) exhibiting their marvels, and many SOOTHSAYERS giving the meaning of prodigies, and then a thousand rhetoricians twisting lawsuits, and no small number of traders driving their several trades. (William Barclay)

"The Greeks were intoxicated with fine words; and to them the Christian preacher with his blunt message seemed a crude and uncultured figure, to be laughed at and ridiculed rather than to be listened to and respected. (Barclay, William, First Corinthians, p. 19-20)

"Perhaps professor would be a rough modern equivalent to Sophist. It has a similar range from Professors of Greek to Professors of Phrenology and
----"although some Professors research, all teach, and all are paid which was a great REPROACH to the Sophists.

"Some of them were serious philosophers, educators or scholars; others only cheap-jacks, who professed to teach only the sublime art of getting on. Did you want to improve your memory: Did you want to be a 1,000 pound-a-year man? Some Sophist would teach you--for a fee. Sophists went from city to city, lecturing on their particular subject,
----"some indeed undertaking to lecture on any subject, but always for a FEE. (Kitto, The Greeks, p. 168).

Clement of Alexandria.

"But he who is enrolled in the number of men [Ps. li. 7-12.] ought not to desire recompense.
----"For he that vaunts his good services, receives glory as his reward.
----"And he who does any duty for the sake of recompense, is he not held fast in the custom of the world, either as one who has done well, hastening to receive a reward, or as an evil-doer avoiding retribution?
----"We must, as far as we can, imitate the Lord. I And he will do so, who complies with the will of God, receiving FREELY, giving freely, and receiving as a worthy reward the citizenship itself.
---------"The hire of an harlot shall not come into the sanctuary," it is said: accordingly it was forbidden to bring to the altar the price of a dog. (male prostitute)
=================

John Calvin

These are Paul's words. Let them, then, show us that they are ministers of the gospel, and I will have no difficulty in conceding their right to stipend.
----The ox must not be muzzled that treadeth out the corn [1 Cor. 9:9]. But is it not altogether at variance with reason that the ploughing oxen should starve, and the LAZY ASSES be fed?"

Erasmus who gave us the Textus Receptus

another produces more bundles of ceremonies
than seven of the stoutest ships would be able to carry;
---another brags he has not touched a penny these three score years
---WITHOUT TWO PAIRS OF GLOVES at least upon his hands;
---another wears a cowl so lined with grease that the poorest tarpaulin would not stoop to take it up;
----another will tell you he has lived these fifty-five years like a sponge,
----continually fastened to the same place.

Alexander Campbell

----"Give money to make poor pious youths learned clergy, or vain pretenders to erudition; and they pray that they may preach to you; yes, and pay them too. Was there ever such a craft as priestcraft? No, it is the craftiest of all crafts. It is so crafty that it obtains by its craft the means to make craftsmen, and then it makes the deluded support them!" (Campbell, Alexander, Christian Baptist, Dec. 1, 1823, Vol. 1, p. 91).
-----""Money is of vital consequence in the kingdom of the clergy. Without it a clergyman could not be made, nor a congregation supplied with a 'faithful pastor.' O MAMMON, thou wonder-working god!" (Ibid., p. 124).

PU Leee zzzz eee do read som ERASMUS:

http://www.piney.com/ErasmusMonks.html

The Bible and all of church history AGREE: So saith the Oracle of the P.M. (pre me) Jesus. "Going into all the world because the LAZY ASSES won't." Paul said: "Don't look for Jesus in YOUR model CITY."

So here's what i understand from the three of you to date: (Donnie, Larry, Ken)

Responding to the questions that are asked isn't part of your agenda.

Character assassination is.
The "my way or the highway" doctrinal stance is as well. In other words "straight is the gate, and narrow is the way" as definded by your interuptation, based on your very narrow understanding, and life experience. So, I am also to understand that based on your beliefs that all other "denominations" are hellbound. Is that right? Please don't throw a bunch of diversionary comments and scriptures at me, just answer the question, if that is possible.

The undoing of the Lord's church, and i'm asking here, as i understand it Ken, is tied directly to ministers being compensated. Again, please just answer the question.

Larry you are here as defender of the faith, in an effort to let the world know "what the church of christ is", and what it isn't, is that correct?

I might suggest a review of the Corinthian letters, as a benchmark. For all of the problems found there, please notice carefully, Paul's thanksgiving for them as bretheren, and read the letters entirely. Do not, remove items from them to make a point, but rather look at them as a body of work written to a body of believers, in love.

Donnie many of the things you have written are inacurate, laced with inuindoes, and half-truths. You embelish what goes on in worship, and make comments about people you have never met. Then when they appproach you, you slink off. You come to the Lord's assembly late, and many times leave early. Is that what the Lord calls his worshipper to do?

God doesn't need any of us to defend him. He doesn't need any of us for his kingdom to flourish on this earth. In fact without Him, we are nothing.

That is what is happening here. There is alot being written about nothing.

I expect the answers will be just as they always are;
Saddlebackers, Jubilators, Shellyites, Willow Creekers,
Community Churchers, etc.... I wanted to go ahead and get those hollow, veiled, slanderous terms out of the way.

Dal

Just those MANUFACTURED by professors who have taught professors who have taught professors and given them degrees about wage negotion, postmodernism, narrative theology so that the CANNOT even read a simple response to a simple question YOU asked and I gave you the Bible and HISTORY'S answer.

I am not aware of anyone else MANUFACTURING or digging up heresies such as TRITHISM, restoring the Jubilee and repudiating Christ, restoring the TITHE and repudiating Christ, restoring MUSICAL WORSHIP TEAMS and restoring what He cast out "more or less violently," the PURPOSE OF CHURCH IS SOLELY WORSHIP, churches become VORTEXES to suck in seekers, restoring the Agapae for the Lord's Supper, restoring Saturn (666) worship by SABBATH MASS WITH INSTRUMENTS, DOMINANT PREACHERS, elders as "board"(bored), firing deacons who have the same teaching authority as elders, turning the command to READ and dialog the word into SERMONS gleaned from an outline book just confusing the Bible, the LAW OF GIVING as mandatory rather than free will, confiscating giving to the poor and DIVERTING it to the educated and rich, lying that if you want to MEET GOD you will have to be here at 6 P.M., Singing Twila Paris rather than Jesus Christ, singing as MUSIC rather than singing as PREACHING AND TEACHING, performance PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS to play the role of Jesus Christ, adding DRAMA (which works only when we know that it isn't true), Ad Filibusting.

http://www.piney.com/ChMinistry.htm

Captain Edward Johnson, in about 1631, wrote on what became Harvard University. The learned, reverend, and judicious Mr. Henry Dunster had received a patron for establishing a college. And he notes:

"And as in all the other passages of this history the Wonder-working Providence of Sion's Saviour hath appeared, so especially in this work,

the Fountains of learning being in a great measure stopped in our native Country at this time,

so that the sweet waters of Shilo's streams must ordinarily pass into the Churches through the stinking channel of prelatical PRIDE,

beside all the filth that the fountains themselves were daily encumbered withal,

insomuch that the Lord turned aside often from them, and refused the breathing of his blessed Spirit among them, (Matthew 13)

which caused Satan (in these latter days of his transformation into an Angel of light)

to make it a means to persuade people from the use of learning altogether,

that so in the next generation they might be DESTITUTE of such helps as the Lord hath been pleased hitherto to make use of,

as CHIEF means for the conversion of his people and building them up in the most holy faith,

as also for BREAKING DOWN the Kingdom of Antichrist."

http://www.piney.com/ColEpith.html

The RESTORATON MOVEMENT fixed that for about 50 years.

So, to be Specific and personal: IF preachers USURP THE AUTHORITY of the body and become KINGS SET OVER US then I can tell you that to be TECHNICAL:

Jesus fired the "doctors of the law" because the TAKE AWAY THE KEY TO KNOWLEDGE.

Paul discussed the OXEN'S nibbles and the temple servants DAILY DOLE OF FOOD (nothing more) as a matter of RIGHT. HOWEVER, he made it clear that because the gospel is FREE and is NOT dispensed locally you will not be effective EXCEPT as VOCATIONAL EVANGELISTS. IF THEY WILL NOT WORK NEITHER SHALL THEY EAT applied to the roving preachers trying to piggy back on widows and orphans.

Church history proves that THERE WERE NO professionals: they were SENT OUT by their friends and, like Paul, supported by his fellow workers.

Church Fathers REPUDIATE the notion of a PROFESSIONAL MINISTRY (That is like HIRED SLAVE).

Denominational leaders such as Luther, Calvin, Erasmus agreed.

Alexander Campbell agreed. In the early part of the 20th century the TRADITIONALISM arose which claimed that EVANGELISTS were LOCATED PREACHERS who exchanged pulpits once a year. That froze out the dwindling number of VOCATIONAL EVANGELISTS. I had the honor of knowing ONE of those trained in what became Lipscomb.

The present SOWING OF DISCORD comes out of Jubilee, Tulsa Workshop, Unity Forums etc. where professionals meet to STEAL PROPHECIES from one another as God warned.

There, that is NOT opinion: that is FACT. Too bad for perhaps the majority of honest ministers who are TOO BRIGHT and TOO SPIRITUAL to join the PREACHERS LABOR UNION and making themselves indispensible: "You cannot RULE OVER people without destroying them."

I would be encouraged if you could FOCUS IN on the numerous Biblical and Historical evidence rather than personalities. BUT, musical or charismatic WORSHIP actually destroys the brain's power to filter incoming information through the LOGICAL side. Sound Byte Boomers, xers or whatever garbage people make up to DIFFERENTIATE people, have lost and WILL NEVER recover the ability to take complicated truth and break it down into bytes. That must have been the warning in The Book of Enoch, sister documents and the Bible that those who FELL into musical rituals had fallen and could never get up.

If your brain gets MARKED with the notion that worship is something you do with your body which STROKES all of your never endings then THERE IS NO RETURN PATH.

The TECHNICAL EVIDENCE is 100% on my side: if DOMINANT PREACHERS choose to do so, they can REBUT.

Ken Sublett

Ken
I don't get it and I certainly have yet to figure you out. I even wonder if anyone ever will--even if you will ever figure yourself out. How come every response has to be so lengthy that you should publish a book with all these nonrelevant facts that you call proof when it comes to worship issues and other things? I know if I had a say so and a choice I would be the first to burn it because you think you are holier than the man who created the very air that we breathe. If you do respond to this there is no need for a lengthy dissertation of pointless history of Babylon or things that happened when you were born. Keep it to just worship as it relates to the Madison Church of Christ. This is supposed to be a forum about posting info about What is taking place as it relates to the events taking place at Madison it is not a forum intended to be name calling as Dal put it so eloquently. Thank you Dal for truly putting into perspective the significance of and importance of why God put us here in the first place. As for Ken and the rest of the peanut gallery may God bless you with sincere hearts and actions as you apparently claim to serve God but definitely don't reflect it in your posts and actions towards people you have not even met. Please Ken if you post, do not give some lengthy filtering and babbling of useless information.
Lifting Up The Name of The Lord,
Evan

You get it: this is just your way of trying to LIFT up above the entire Bible and church history.

Don't try it: I know that you musicians can replace Jesus Christ as the MEDIATOR to lead the laity into the presence of God but God is too great for you to lift up even with destructive decibels:

Isa 33:3 At the NOISE of the TUMULT the people fled; at the lifting up of thyself the nations were scattered.

Isa 33:4 And your spoil shall be gathered like the gathering of the caterpiller: as the running to and fro of LOCUSTS shall he run upon them.

Isa 33:5 The Lord IS exalted; for he dwelleth on high: he hath filled Zion with judgment and righteousness.

THE CHURCH'S PART IS TO BE FILLED WITH THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF KNOWLEDGE WHICH RESTED ON JESUS. YOUR SINGING IS LIFTING UP YOURSELVES:

Isa 33:6 And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation: the FEAR of the Lord is his treasure.

Is.33:10 Now will I rise, saith the Lord; now will I be exalted; now will I LIFT up MYSELF.

BUT, BUT, BUT:

Isa 33:11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath (your spirit), as fire, shall devour you (eat you up).

THAT MEANS THAT WITH THE PERFORMERS YOU ARE GETTING PREGNANT ON TRASH AND GIVING BIRTH TO TRASHERS.

YOU GET IT.

Ken

Every week I go to church I get it. I get filled with the spirit of Christ and it refreshes me and molds me into the person that God has so greatly made me. I don't claim to be perfect and never will be. Tell me one person who is? Other that the almighty God we serve, there is nothing? From your posts however there is nothing to get. Nothing but a bunch of facts, that were important some number of years ago but nothing that I wish to dwell on. The past is important in some instances but it is more important to look ahead and not dwell on it. God has envisioned great things for those who wait on Him. Maybe if you weren't so scared yourself you would step foot into the Madison Church of Christ before you go about name calling every person there. I think you are afraid. That's my take of it. You like Mr Cruz seem so antzy when it comes to confrontation that you fret at the thought of it. Let me extend an open invitation to you to visit at Madison before you go criticizing every part of it. Donnie has a right to say what he feels is taking place because he is there, you on the other hand don't. People like myself and others that I know who post on this site have a say because we are there and you are not. Because when you are talking about someone in the Lord's church, through name calling them, you are talking about another brother or sister of yours in Christ. Now is that the Christian attitude to have? Just answer the question.
Evan <>><

Evan,

I think it would help the ones you accuse as “name callers” if you could encourage your fellow “confronters” to identify themselves as you do. Since you no longer attend Madison regularly, doesn’t that mean that your “right” to post should be reduced to almost nothing? You see, you can’t handle it when someone else who is a member of the Lord’s church outside of Madison speaks the truth on this site. And just listen to your own words “when it comes to confrontation.” What is this confrontation bit that you’re making a big deal about? If I were you, I would just concentrate on CONFRONTING the devil.

==================~
Donnie

Donnie, You and your fellow "crusaders" must REALLY be scared of me and my opinions. You are not posting me and you try and ban me from this site. Well, it is 10:26pm here in TX. Come on to the chat room and face me like a MAN.

You guys are such COWARDS! By the way....CHECK THOSE POLES!!!!!

CL

There have always been TWO spirits: the first holy Spirit is the Mind of Christ and HE refused to get in the MUSICAL spirit.

The second SPIRIT is music-induced sexuality which destroys the HOLY Spirit Christ gave us only when we PUT OUR FLESH TO DEATH.

Ancient scholars knowing the original Hebrew and Greek define the FALL in the garden as being SODOMY. You see, Satan using the NACHASH or MUSICAL ENCHANTER can seduce either sex.

They also noted that he/she TRIED was prophesied to seduce Jesus. If the Jew's PIPING caused Jesus to engage in the DIONYSUS or BACCHUS abomination of desolation practiced during the Intertestament period in the temple, then He would SING or LAMENT and do the dance of Dionysus. We noted that Judas would try to TRIUMPH over Messiah in Psalm 41. In the worship of Dionysus one part of the WORSHIP RITUAL was the KOMOS or naked, perverted, drinking song and dance "facilitate" by large artificial phallus and horse tail. The JUDAS BAG was attached to the FLUTE CASE which constituted the exclusive CLOTHING of those engaging in the KOMOS. This was prophesied of Judas so we know that the message is contained with the PIPING to PERVERT JESUS.

This worship had several 'ACTS' but the object was to pollute or prostitute one another while blowing the flute.

The NEW STYLE WORSHIP is unashamedly facilitated by the NEW WINESKIN creed: Dionysus was the god of NEW WINE.

Tertullian wrote:

"Accordingly Pompey the Great, less only than his THEATER, when he had erected that citadel of all impurities, fearing some time or other censorian condemnation of his memory, superposed on it a temple of Venus (Lucifer, Zoe); and summoning by public proclamation the people to its consecration,

----he called it not a THEATER, but a TEMPLE, "under which," said he,

----"we have placed tiers of seats for VIEWING the SHOWS."

So he threw a VEIL over a structure on which condemnation had been often passed,

----and which is ever to be held in reprobation, by PRETENDING that it was a SACRED place; and

----by means of SUPERSTITION he blinded the eyes of a virtuous discipline.

"But Venus (Lucifer, ZOE) and Bacchus are close allies. These two EVIL SPIRITS are in sworn confederacy with each other, as the patrons of drunkenness and lust. So the theatre of Venus is as well the house of Bacchus: for they properly gave the name of Liberalia also to other theatrical amusements-which besides being consecrated to Bacchus (as were the Dionysia of the Greeks), were instituted by him; and, without doubt,

----the performances of the THEATER have the common PATRONAGE of these two deities.

--That immodesty of gesture and attire which so specially and peculiarly characterizes the stage are consecrated to them-the one deity wanton by her sex, the other by his drapery; [Hey, watch that hand waving and clapping and moving to the beat]

----while its services of VOICE, and SONG, and LUTE, and PIPE, belong to APOLLOS, and MUSES, and Minervas, and Mercuries.

Apollo, Abaddon or Apollyon and the MUSES are the 666 of the end time Babylon Harlot worship which will be practiced almost universally. Apollo is the father of EVERYTHING MUSICAL you can use to PERVERT the minds of the "church."

"A fourth-century BC hymn in honor of Dionysos contains the invocation: 'Come to us, King Dithyramb, Bacchus, god of the holy chant.'"

Dithurambos, Dithyramb "comes to be used of a Dionysiac song which possessed some infectious quality that led his votaries to take it up as a ritual chant. Later it became the subject for competition at Dionysiac festivals, and with its formalization it lost any spontaneity it may have possessed originally."

"At the beginning of the fifth century BC tragedy formed part of the Great Dionysia, the Spring festival of Dionysos Eluethereus. Three poets completed, each contributing three tragedies and one satyric play. The latter was performed by choruses of fifty singers in a circle, dressed as SATYRS, part human, part bestial, and bearing before them huge replicas of the ERECT PENIS, as they sang dithyrambs." - John M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross

The modern PHALLUS is seen in the use of non-functional pillars in NEW WINESKINS or VINEYARD churches.

Origen Book VI, Chapter XLI.

In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to write against the Christians, he says that, "having become acquainted with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician,

----the latter told him, with respect to magic arts,

----that it was ONLY over the UNEDUCATED and men of CORRUPT MORALS that they had any power.

And THAT is why APOLLO restores the LOCUSTS (musical performers) to PUNISH the CORRPUT people while PRETENDING or VEILING the unholy theater as "worship."

AND THAT DESCRIBES THE END-TIME RESTORATON OF SEXUAL- STIMULATED "NEW STYLE WORSHIP" WHICH HAS ALL OF THE MARKS OF SATAN AND HAS ALMOST NOTHING IN COMMON WITH CHRISTIANITY.

ANYTHING WAS AVAILABLE IN THE END-TIME GOD OF THE NEW WINESKIN WORSHIP--FOR A PRICE TOO HIGH. WHY ASSOCIATE CHRISTIANITY WITH WHAT HAS UNIVERSALLY BEEN SEEN AS ANTI-CHRIST AND CALLED SPIRITUAL PROSTITUTION THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT.

THOSE bright enough not to fall for "worship superstition" and NOT CORRUPT ENOUGH to be deceived, have been RAPTURED out of these new theaters. At the first advent, RELIGIONISTS hoped that Jesus was DIONYSUS: at the second advent-----guess what!!!

Ken Sublett

I don't know who in the world you think you are but I certainly do...My opinion of this site is that it is a disgrace and is ruthless in the eyes of those seeing it fit to call themselves Christians. People constantly bickering about church politics and the way things "should be". I know it has been like this for years and it just didn't start developing here recently as many of you think. People like Ken and Donnie think they have it all right in saying that they have all the answers and have the truth. How can anyone have the truth when they are constantly biting others heads off at the choices they are making to follow the God they serve and serve Him. I sit in disgust at some of the stuff I have read on this site. Stuff that seems to have no relevance whatsoever and carries with it not one ounce of defense on the part of Ken and Donnie. I'm not happy at all with it! What this site is all about doesn't reflect it at all. Think before you speak--Ken and Donnie--Make sure it is worth spitting out of your mouth before you say it..because not a lick of it matters. Who do you think looks at this site? In my opinion, the members and leadership at the Madison Church of Christ would probably find it to be humorous and a waste of their time. I have a right to voice my opinion on this matter whether you want to hear it or not. I don't care if you agree with me or not on this matter. I am just stating the facts as I see them.

Dear Multiform: This is Bacchus who was the end time attacker of Jesus:

Hippolytus: The Worship of The Mother of the Gods--Serpent Worship

"They rashly assume in this manner, that
whatsoever things have been said and done by ALL MEN,
(may be made to harmonize) with their OWN particular MENTAL VIEW,
--alleging that ALL THING become spiritual.

"Whence likewise they assert, that those EXHIBITING themselves in theatres,not even these say or do anything WITHOUT PREMEDITATION.

Therefore, he says, when, on the people ASSEMBLING (EKKLESIA) in the THEATERS,
----any one enters clad in a remarkable robe, carrying a HARP and playing a tune (upon it, accompanying it) with a SONG of the great mysteries,
----he speaks as follows, NOT KNOWING what he says:

-------"Whether (thou art) the race of Saturn (Satans) or happy Jupiter, or mighty Rhea (ZOE), Hail, Attis, gloomy mutilation of Rhea. Assyrians style thee thrice-longed-for Adonis, and the whole of Egypt (calls thee) Osiris, celestial horn of the moon; [The bull, Apis, at Sinai]

[ATTIS was an earlier false Christ mutilated by the PHALLIC BEARING musicians]

"Greeks denominate (thee) Wisdom (Sophia); Samothracians, venerable Adam; Haemonians, Corybas; and them Phrygians (name thee) at one time PAPPA, at another time Corpse, or God, or Fruitless, or Aipolos, or green Ear of Corn that has been reaped, or whom the very fertile Amygdalus produced-a man, a musician."

"This, he says, is MULTIFORM Attis, whom while they celebrate in a hymn, they utter these words:
----"I will hymn Attis, son of Rhea, not with the buzzing sounds of trumpets, or of Idaean pipers, which accord with (the voices of) the Curetes;
-----but I will mingle (my song) with APOLLO's music of HARPS, evoe, evan (Eve, ZOE), ' inasmuch as thou art PAN, as thou art BACCHUS, as thou art shepherd of brilliant stars."

"On account of these and such like reasons,
----these constantly attend the mysteries called those of the "GREAT MOTHER,"
----supposing especially that they behold by means of the ceremonies performed there the entire mystery. [Moved into the presence of the gods with music]

"For these have nothing more than the ceremonies that are performed there, except that they are NOT emasculated:
----they merely COMPLETE the WORK of the EMASCULATED.

"For with the utmost severity and vigilance they enjoin (on their votaries) to abstain, as if they were emasculated, from intercourse with a woman.

[THESE were the emasculated A CAPPELLAS reserved for the males}

"The rest, however, of the proceeding (observed in these mysteries), as we have declared at some length, (they follow) just as (if they were) emasculated persons.
----And they do not worship ANY OTHER object but Naas, (from thence) being styled Naasseni.
----But Naas is the serpent (ZOE) from whom, i.e., from the word Naas, (the Naassene) says, are all that under heaven are denominated temples (Naos).

"And (he states) that to him alone-that is, Naas-is dedicated EVERY SHRINE and EVERY initiatory rite, and EVERY mystery; and, in general,
----that a religious ceremony COULD NOT be discovered under heaven,
----in which a temple (Naos) has no existence; and in the temple itself is Naas, from whom it has received its denomination of temple (Naos)

"Then NAAS became angry because he could not seduce (Jesus), and had him crucified. He left his body to Eden by the tree and ascended to the Good.

"NASS the SERPENT is worshiped in ALL religions. Christianity is UNIQUE in that it is NOT a RELIGION. It is a DISCIPLINE, a School of the Bible and Christ specificially to prepare believers not to be BLOWN ABOUT by the evil winds of doctrine.

"I keep fulfilling my ABSOLUTE statement that a religion focused on WORSHIP in ritual of music or performance has 100% of the evidence to prove that it is PERVERTED and dedicated to keeping people's MIND away from God and His Word.

[And the other ABSOLUTE is that you will never find (without perverting Scripture) ANY music used in connection with Judaism or Christianity as CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP.]

"Therefore, while the MULTIFORMS are stealing church houses of widows JUST SO they can make it a VENUE FOR ROCK AND ROLL (CCM) then we will keep feeding you TIDBITS (although apparently not digestable) of our 100% ABSOLUTE connection of MUSICAL WORSHIP with homosexual worship of the homosexual "gods" and "goddesses."

Hidden One, Slinking Away: is Dan Shouse DAN'S HOUSE?

Ge.49:17 DAN shall be a SERPENT (NAAS) by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.


Ken Sublett

Ken,

Out of your latest discertation I was able to pull something that I could not agree with more.

Christianity is a discipline.
We don't have to shave our heads, and go and live in
a hut somewhere, but we must maintain the purity of the covenant relationship that has been forged.

Having said that, I really dont understand the relevance of this site any longer.
You have made your points concerning our "doctrinal error", in your minds.
You have clearly stated that you are warning the world about the "Saddleback-Community Church movement" that
threatens the core of our belief.
You have shown us the sexual content of our worship,
which I have yet to enjoy personally. I don't have any plans too, but, I will alert you should people jump into a pile.
I think we know what the difference is, between a song leader and a worship leader.
I think we understand the difference between "charasmatic" and "vegamatic."

This site has clearly stated as well, how "Godly Men"
were basically run out of the eldership at Madison.
It has stated that hundreds of people have left because of the apostacy.
It has shown scorn and contempt for the current leadership, and the "change agents."

In short, you have "Siskel and Eberted" the Madison Church. If i understand the reviews, you give it
"two thumbs down."
So, what now?
Do you begin video taping worship?
Or audio taping?
How about having conversations with members of the Madison Church that have left?

The great news is, you have the support of many of the demi-gods of our brotherhood.
Those who have no relevance in the church today whatsoever.
Those who are simply going through the motions of condemnation in order to make a name for themselves, by "standing on guard for the truth."

Now, we can begin to crystalize the positions of churches of christ.

We'll eventually define them by their song books.
Lets see, "Songs of the Church"?,oh yes, their faithful.
"Praise for the Lord"? They are moderates. Well, no it depends on whether their books have the supplements.
If it contains the Nine hundred numbers they are moderately liberal. If not they are moderately conservative.
"Songs of Faith and Praise"? Bleeding liberals!!

And so it goes.
The redefining of "faithfulness."
Under the rules, you draw the line tighter and tighter until so few are faithful the rest don't measure up to the redefined standard.

I guess my point is this. You have broadcast your message. Under your defintion and by your written opinions, we are lost. We are going to hell.
We are heretics at Madison.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your views and opinions. Thank you for your love and concern. Thank you so much for the contributions you have made in pointing out "the error of our ways."

Who else needs to be warned of impending doom?
Surely they can gather all of the information they need
to make an informed spiritual decision.

The bottom line we disagree. We always will.
I won't have the final word, and neither will you.

Pass the peanuts.

Gyrating for the Lord,

Dal

Dear MULTIFORM, Dal, Evan, etc., etc., you are wrong: I don't care a PEANUT'S WORTH for any mega church. Besides, I am allergic to PEANUTS known to be a deadly poison to many people--just like music.

Thanks for the SHIFT to SADDLE BACK which STRAUSS wanted to EASE you into.

CLAIMING SUPERNATURAL POWER:

http://www.piney.com/Strauss1.html

--"The authors, having led hundreds of congregations through change, present a compelling, sequential process for moving a church toward renewal.

--"This program offers practical training to help instill the necessary confidence in revitalizing any congregation through SPIRITUAL transformation. The authors teach essential church leadership disciplines,

----"such as SUSTAINING CREATIVE TENSION and team learning. Their approach enables leaders to TREAT their congregation as a spiritual and HUMAN COMPLEX that is complex, connected and ever changing.

WHEN THEY OBSOLETE THE BIBLE THEY HAVE TO REVERT TO THE WORSHIP SATAN TAUGHT THE YOUTH SUCH AS JUBAL.

Shelly - Anderson would call that PRAYERFUL BRINKMANSHIP to destroy a congregation JUST SO the clappy-happy people can PERFORM.

SADDLE BACK SAM SEZ:

"Come enjoy an inspirational (spirit infusing) time of worship featuring the Saddleback Creative Arts ministry which will incorporate beautiful music and a variety of worship from dance styles that include jazz, HIP HOP, lyrical and ballet, to comedic and dramatic acting, to painting, poetry and sculpture. Admission is free. Limited seating available.

THE UNIVERSAL EVIDENCE IS THAT SATAN USED THE ARTS TO TAKE THE MIND AWAY FROM THE WORD OF GOD.

RELAX: JUST COMEDY AND HOPPING FOR NOW!

The Liberalia

--"This is the seventeenth day of the Festival of MARS. The daily SPECTACLE of the priests of Mars LEAPING and DANCING through the streets of Rome would continue this day. In fact, the multiple processions going on throughout the day would have borne a resemblance to the multiple parades that go on throughout New Orleans during Mardi Gras. The philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius died this day in 186 AD. On this day the Bacchanalia, the Festival of Bacchus, would have continued.

An early Christian Church leader says "that if it is good enough for MARS then it is good enough for the church."

http://www.piney.com/MuAc.html

Tertullian in The Spectacle notes of the NEW WINESKINS GOD AND GODDESS:

"But Venus (Lucifer, ZOE) and Bacchus are close allies. These two evil spirits are in sworn confederacy with each other, as the patrons of drunkenness and lust. So the THEATER of Venus (LUCIFER, ZOE) is as well the HOUSE of Bacchus: for they properly gave the name of Liberalia also to other THEATRICAL amusements-which besides being consecrated to Bacchus (as were the Dionysia of the Greeks), were instituted BY HIM; and, without doubt,

---"the performances of the THEATER have the common patronage of these two deities.

"That immodesty of gesture and attire which so specially and peculiarly characterizes the stage are consecrated to them-the one deity wanton by her sex, the other by his drapery;

---"while its services of voice, and song, and lute, and pipe, belong to Apollos, and Muses, and Minervas, and Mercuries. (See Revelation 18:22 etc.)

"In the Comedies the high-and-mighty, whether God or mortal, will be lampooned. Comedy (Com-oidia = Comos-song) echoes the less formal REVELS (Comoi), both of which celebrate the resurgence of Indestructible Life. The comic actors wear grotesque masks and over-stuffed body-suits with padded buttocks and stomach and a LARGE leather PHALLUS - even if the actor is playing a female character!

SEE FHU AND THE GARGOYLE TEAM!

"This is because Comedy harks back to our rural PHALLIC PROCESSIONS to invoke the powers of Fertility and to DRIVE off PESTILENCE. These processions include Contests (Agones) in which the bystanders and members of the procession will hurl verbal abuse and invective at each other (a magical act in itself, as many know). So also, Comedy incorporates such Contests, between the actors, between the chorus and an actor, and between TWO HOSTILE semichoruses.

YOU REMEMBER THE SIMICHORUS WHEN ISRAEL CROSSED THE JORDAN: ONE FOR BLESSINGS AND ONE FOR CURSINGS.

"The COMIC CHORUS is larger than the Tragic, 24, often in rectangular formation (4X6 or 6X4). They may wear elaborate robes representing animals, clouds, cities, etc., which may be REMOVED for part of the performance. The chorus members engage in both SOLO and ENSEMBLE song and DANCE. Many dance forms will occur in the Comedies, including parodies of those used in Tragedy and religious Ritual. As in the Tragedies there may be ritualized slapping and beating to stimulate Life, promote Fertility and drive out Evil, as well as spinning, LEAPING, high kicking and HOPPING.

"The Kordax is the most characteristic dance of Comedy; some say it promotes Fertility, like the Courtesan's (WHORE'S) Dance to which it is probably related."

The entire SADDLEBACK gets its ENERGY from ancient pagan worship in which the Jews tried to PERVERT Jesus into the Dionysus SONG AND DANCE.

Jesus Christ REPUDIATED a long HISTORY of PRETEND GODS and GODDESSES by refusing to GO SADDLEBACK in bowing to baal.

===============================================

MULTIFORM ATTIS or Dal, etc., etc., CONCLUDES:
-----"Gyrating for the Lord,

I assume that you speak for the TEAM!

VERY INTERESTING! Keep up the Bump and Grind because the CHILDREN Jesus spoke about were connected with the SATYR play which seems like males getting SADDLEBACKED:

-----"Although the Satyr Play may borrow or parody any of the dances of Tragedy, Comedy or Ritual, its characteristic dance is the Sikinnis, which is for Protection and Fertility. Some call it "lively, rapid, vigorous and lewd" and it has much in common with the Kordax and other dances of COMEDY. As in Tragedy, the dances involve expressive gestures, but in the Satyr Plays they are often bawdy. In addition to whirling, LEAPING, kicking and slapping dances, there is The Itch and the Konisalos, a spirited leap intended to expose the genitals. Other dances involve sexually suggestive SHAKING or TREMBLING, such as we have in our fertility dances. We may also expect THEFT and GOBBLING Dances representing the stealing and eating of food, often with consequent beatings (see above); such dances are common in our Rites of Purification. "

===================================================

The charismatic music with the barely- contained singing, dancing and falling in the floor is both the BEGINNING TIME and ENDING TIME Mark of Apollo, Abaddon, Apollyon and the MUSES polluting "worship" to silence the Words of Christ. Look at Donnie's list of "songs" to verify the MARK.

Bottom Line: All of this is an end time SECOND INCARNATION OF THE GOD OF NEW WINESKINS.

There is ZERO evidence for music or the PERFORMING ARTS in the worship of a Spirit God.

The evidence 100$ connects ALL musical performance to the PERVERTED WORSHIP of homosexual Gods.

History has the LAST WORD: it is you guys versus EVERYTHING. You have NOTHING to say and spend too much space saying it.

Ken Sublett

More on the Strauss - Pepperdine - Purpose Driven Witchcraft Movement!

Note again how GOD- LIKE THESE CHANGE LOCUSTS ARE!

"The authors teach essential church leadership disciplines, such as sustaining CREATIVE TENSION and team learning. Their approach enables leaders to TREAT their congregation as a spiritual and human ORGANISM that is complex, connected and ever changing."

MISSED POINT: GOD DOESN'T CHANGE AT THE SHOUTED COMMAND OF ANY GENERATION! FOR THE NON-READERS (My middle daughter had to RECOVER from Lipscomb too) I have posted some "PITCHERS" on the Strauss-Madison PAGE--more obscene than Jerry Springer! Hey, you gonna like the CREATIVE TENSION the perverted clergy pulled on Jesus: BUT, JESUS as the SPIRITUAL VIEW OF GOD IN CONFLICT WITH THE MUSICAL-PERVERTED "FALSE CHRISTS" AND UNLIKE THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS refused to do the perverted SINGING and DANCING.

This is a PARABOLIC message which NO ONE who has fallen into the Lucifer- Zoe form of MUSICAL MADNESS will ever be able to grasp. I hear the THRASHING AROUND but you are just saying: MY EARS ARE PLUGGED AND I CANNOT GRASP it.

http://www.piney.com/Strauss1.html

The ANXIETY the LOCUST AGENTS want to impose is attempting to DESTROY THE SPIRITUAL ORGANISM:

"May writes that the PHYSICAL symptoms an artist experiences in this condition are very similar to those one experiences in any "moment of intensive encounter":

"quickened heart beat; higher blood pressure; increased intensity and constriction of vision, with eyelids narrowed so that we can see more vividly the scene we are painting; we become oblivious to things around us (as well as to the passage of time).

"We experience a lessening of appetite--persons engaged in a creative act lost interest in eating at the moment, and may work right through mealtime without noticing it."

"We SHUT DOWN our nonessential systems in order to direct all our energy to a vital task. May puts it this way:

"Now, all of these correspond to an inhibiting of the functioning of the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (which has to do with EASE, COMFORT, nourishment) and an activation of the sympathetic nervous division.

"And, lo and behold, we have the same picture that Walter B. Cannon described as the "FIGHT-FLIGHT" mechanism,

-----"the energizing of the ORGANISM for FIGHTING or FLEEING.

"This is the neurological correlate of what we find, in broad terms, in ANXIETY and FEAR."

"According to the theory proposed here, ANXIETY is understandably a concomitant of the SHAKING of the self-world relationship that occurs in the encounter.

"Our sense of IDENTITY is THREATENED; the world is not as we experienced it before, and since self and world are always correlated, we no longer ARE what we were before. Past, present, and future form a new Gestalt.

"So music is a uniquely human form of communication. It appeals to some LOW LEVEL of human thought, and it reaches us in a different way.

"there is not even a SECOND CREATURE in the history of our entire evolution that seems to have the SLIGHTEST CLUE about what we are up to when we get AROUND to MUSIC." [EVEN, or ESPECIALLY even dogs do it].

MUSIC has always been the WEAPON of Satan, Lucifer, Dionysus etc., etc., to PERVERT the spirit and TENDERIZE the entire soul so that you can be STUFFED into the PAGAN PATTERN of the end-time LOCUSTS (musical performers) sent to MARK YOU and to PUNISH YOU while making YOU think that it is SPIRITUAL. Paul did say "fools love to be fooled."

Yours is not a CHURCH OF CHRIST or Synagogue or school of the Bible. Here is how the BODY OF CHRIST is the ORGANISM and no human FOOLER OF FOOLS has any right to make changes to it.

--"Do not conform any longer to the PATTERN of this WORLD,

---------but be transformed by the RENEWING of your MIND. Then you will be able to test and APPROVE what GOD'S will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. Ro.12:2

--"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the OLD MAN, which is CORRUPT according to the deceitful LUSTS; Eph 4:22

-------to be made new in the SPIRIT (attitude) of your MINDS; Ep.4:23

THE MUSICAL LOCUSTS HAVE MARKED YOU: NOW THEIR JOB IS TO PUNISH YOU UNTIL THE TIME IS RIGHT. Meanwhile, they have RAPTURED the faithful out to faithful churches or ARKS OF SAFETY. The MARK OF THE BEAST (Zoe, Lucifer, etc) is that you try to DIVERT TO YOURSELF TIDBITS OF GLORY which passes between the worshiper who NEEDS NONE OF YOUR MEDIATION and God WHO ACCEPTS NONE OF YOUR MEDIATION. Nevertheless, the THEATRICAL PERFORMER'S attempt at grasping glory is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to SORT OUT those with the MARK OF ZOE which is promoted as worship using "singing, drama, dancing and instrumental music."

Let me say it again: I don't have the slightest BURDEN to convince you or convert you: ZERO. So, don't think that I am spending my time ON YOU. There are thousands of other readers and I am trying to CONTRAST the empty speech about ME AND MINE because they AIN'T A-GONNA get it from songs and sermons.

Ken

Brother Maxvill,
I am not trying to be a smart alec but I have to ask a question here.
If you think that this site is so "irrelevant", then why are you gyrating here? Are you being "Entertained"?
Again, if this sounds tacky to you, it was not my intention.

Larry

You know what Larry and the rest of the peanut gallery!
We all have disagreements....in our friendships, on our jobs, through our churches...the list just goes on and on. These all just didn't start recently. Each of these and others we could add to the list began long long time ago and has been a problem even to other generations. So, I don't see how people like yourself, Ken and Donnie can say that this has been a problem that has just developed. My understanding is that people not of just the gen x or that of the present generation caused this diversity and disagreement. You can also go onto say that it is not just something that the boomers and that of earlier times than that caused either. No matter where we go and where we are somebody isn't gonna be happy. You can't please any and everyone in this life--it's just not possible. I don't see how you guys can go blaming colleges for being so liberal in their thinking and in their theology. I graduated from Lipscomb University and many of the professors I had held some deep grounded beliefs that they stood on...however, they were open minded and I did highly respect each of them. Donnie, Ken, and Larry (you notice I don't care to make name calling essential through labeling people a particular thing) as each of you do (calling people Saddlebackers, Change Agents, Hypocrites, etc...) You probably think each one of us, like myself, who worship with the Madison Church of Christ are condemned to hell for their even associating with this body of believers. I don't think any single person can be the judge of that....only God knows and has the final answer of truth and we can see that not by trying our best to understand His word to the best of our ability through not misinterpreting it and fully relying on His promises that He grants to us.

Remember "It's not about you, It's about Him!" (there is nothing no more truer than this statement here)

Larry,

This is VERY entertaining. Have you, Ken and Donnie considered late night TV or a trip on the Jerry Springer Show? (Why should you be content with a website when you can hit the airwaves?) Maybe Saturday Night Live...no wait, they already have a regular skit about someone who condemns the religous acts of everyone around..."The Church Lady". Have you guys considered taking your "superior dance": on the road as a missionary team? "Isn't that special?" Oh wait...Ken's agaist Praise Dancing, right? That won't work...let me think of something else and I'll get back with you.

Dal,
Does a "charasmatic" slice dice and do julianne fries? Where can I get one of those?
Loved your comments!

Seriously...everyone have a nice day!

Larry,

Thank you for your question. I'll try to answer it as best I can.
I certainly understand your contentions and believe them to be genuine.

I can't speak to Ken's and Donnie's intentions, but the appearances are evident.

My convictions are the same as yours. We just happen to not agree.
I'm here because this has become the "Theatre of the Absurd."

Most of these battles really boil down to ego. They are not scripture based. They are based on our limited understanding, and our inablilty to do God's will.
Let's look at "grace" for a moment.
I can make just as many contentions as you do about mine, that your practices are doctrinal error as they concern worship.
I'm sure Ken will weigh in with his, opinion that this is one of the Saddleback-Community schemes. The "grace based" faith.
I don't give a hoot about Saddleback. Or WillowCreek.
Or Southeastern Christian.
I have no allegiance to Max, or Rubel per say.
I will however, add these remarks.
Those churches, have evangelism as a cornerstone of their faith, and are making a difference.
Ken rails against the "mega-church." Who cares what he thinks. I'm sure a mega-church in Holeinwald is one with central heat and air. His ramblings are just short of diabolical.

What do we have? What difference are we making on this generation, in this world?
We have tradition. We have another generation of believers. Well, frankly thats not good enough.
Is questioning what we do, and why we do it wrong?
Is embracing what I believe to be a better way, based on scripture wrong, just because you don't agree with it?
Where do we begin to split hairs?
With the invention of the song book? Or the microphone?
Do we pitch Guettenburg's printing press into the fires of hell because it led us down this slippery slope?
Or was it Edison's phonograph? We would have never listened to this contemporary christian music if not for him?
There are churches stll placing a table clothe over the Lord's Supper. Some do and some don't.
Is that a salvation issue? If it isn't is a microphone? Is one worship leader/song leader?

We use both models at Madsion. A single leader, and a praise team. Is one service sanctified, and one lost?
Or is everybody going to hell?

My point is, this is a fruitless journey. The Devil's quarrel is with you and I.
If he can turn us against one another, he has won.


The message this forum sends to the world in my opinion,
is the Church of Christ, or church of christ, or church of Christ, (depending on which is correct, upper case, lower case, or a combo, i've seen all three) is what we have been accused of for years.

"We think we're the only ones going to heaven."

One of the primary reasons community churches have grown to the point they have, is because of religious
arrogance.
I'm not sure anyone is as arrogant about their beliefs as we are.
Until we offer the hope of Jesus Christ, we will continue to turn people toward alternatives.

Dal

Dal,
Thank you for your response, but I don't believe you do understand where I am coming from, if you think I am just being "Contentious". Being GENUINE is a very good word, it sort of resembles the TRUTH.

I do not know Ken or Donnie and I know nothing about Saddleback or Willow Creek or Rubel Shelly. I do know about what the values of the Church of Christ are, and why they are. What I had "personally" seen happening at The Madison Church of Christ did not resemble these values. That is why I placed membership at the Goodlettsville Church of Christ.

The Goodlettsville Church of Christ services are so much more Spiritual,Truthful,Unified and Peaceful and those are the most important qualities for a "Worship Service to the Lord" to have. And besides this, the people are friendlier and oh so much more HUMBLE.

If your convictions were the same as mine, we WOULD AGREE wouldn't we? The only thing absurd about this theatre is when people post things, especially ugly remarks that do not even sound like a Christian, offer no biblical stance for their remarks and/or do not have the decency or self-assurance to sign their name to them.

You said couple of things exactly right. It DOES ALL boil down to EGO, and RELIGIOUS ARROGANCE probably is the reason for Community Church growth. But human arrogance and artificiality in any aspect of worship will never be OK in the Church of Christ. It just does not go along with how Jesus told us to worship.

If you can make contentions about my (ERROR?) in doctrinal stance, please do so.

Thanks again for the response,
Larry

Larry, Dal, Ken, Donnie and the rest,

It now appears that we have reached the “focal point” of what this is all about. Our purpose as the church (called out from the world) is to share the message of God’s love for mankind. Can we agree on this foundation point? If we can, I believe our message is uniform. He came to this planet in the body of a human to be the final sacrifice for mankind. He (Messiah) willingly offered Himself as the payment that we all owe for our sin, which has separated us from our Creator. Because we have accepted His gift we can now boldly come directly to our Creator with praise and requests for others and ourselves. We have been promised an eternity with our God as a final reward at the end of our human experience.

What is our responsibility as individuals regarding our human experience? As so simply stated by our Redeemer when confronted by an attorney with an agenda to test Him, the reply was basic. It dealt with the attorney’s knowledge of God’s Word regarding this specific responsibility. It was direct and to the point. His response:

Luk 10:25 An expert in the Law of Moses stood up and asked Jesus a question to see what he would say. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to have eternal life?"
Luk 10:26 Jesus answered, "What is written in the Scriptures? How do you understand them?"
Luk 10:27 The man replied, "The Scriptures say, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.' They also say, 'Love your neighbors as much as you love yourself.' "
Luk 10:28 Jesus said, "You have given the right answer. If you do this, you will have eternal life."
Luk 10:29 But the man wanted to show that he knew what he was talking about. So he asked Jesus, "Who are my neighbors?"

I have used a contemporary English version of the text for clarity.

If we love God and mankind the way described above, is there a better gift to both God and man than sharing this message with all we meet? THAT SHOULD BE THE MOTIVATING FORCE BEHIND EVERY ACTION WE TAKE, EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY BEGINNING WITH THE DAY THAT WE MAKE THAT OBSERVATION AND DECISION!

When it comes to the “worship experience” in our meetings on the first day of the week, there is but one purpose…worship our God. If we have many thoughts that are running through our minds before, after and during this time, the enemy has won that specific battle. I can never judge how another is going through that experience. It should not even be my concern. When I walk out the door after that time of worship I should ask myself that very question. “DID I WORSHIP?”

Larry, this is specifically addressed to you. I know you from times past at Madison, as well as your father. I had spoken to him on several occasions along with some other elders, both individually and collectively. Our conversations always came from the same perspective. I was interested in personal evangelism for our congregation at Madison. There has never been a time I can remember that we just had an unrestrained zeal for the lost. It was never a primary issue to teach personal evangelism for the saint to take to the workplace or schoolyard. These things are still not primary at Madison. I will say this. We are having a meeting on February 8, 2003 to discuss “ministries” that exist currently and those that we would like to see. I’ll be there to share my desires, if not in person, by letter. I’ll be there! I’m sure you would be welcome to the meeting also. There may be some ideas to take back to Goodlettsville, or you may have some ideas for us. We are the Lord’s church…all of us. Let’s let the enemy know that!

Larry, I respect your preference in worship styles. We all have that right. If I come to worship and can’t focus on my Lord because of diversions then I have to make a choice. Is it me or is it the surroundings? Remember just two things that I have said about worship. 1) Did I worship? 2) The audience is ONE!

Blessings to you and your family,

Cal Abrams

Mr. Abrams,
"AMEN" to everything you said. This is a post that definately shows the attitude of a Christian Brother.

The only things that I did a double take on was your reference to the "Worship Service" as a "Worship Experience" and your statement that the "audience is One". The term experience denotes something "Earthly". The "Worship Service" is a "Spiritual" gathering and the "Body" is or should be one. Maybe it is just a matter of interpretaion.

Your desire for personal evangelism is very respectable. There is probably always a need for more of that at any congregation. Although the "Worship Service" can be evangelistic, I don't believe that to be its purpose. You can call that an opinion if you wish but I believe the Worship Service to be for "Expressing our Thankfulness and Appreciation to God for blessing us". It should not be a Show to just to attract more members.

Thank you for your salutation.

Blessings to you and your family also,
Larry

Larry,

Thanks for the kind words to me and my family.

Just a quick answer to your questions.

1) I think of worship as an experience. I say that because one can attend a service without participation...just attendance. You can't experience worship without involvement.

2) When I said the audience was one I was referring to the fact that our worship is for God...not each other. HE is the audience. Our purpose is to please HIM only.

I'd love to see you on the 8th.

Cal

Brother Abrams,

I firmly believe the statement that you made in your first post about; when we are members of the Church of Christ, we ARE all, or supposed to be, part of the same body in Christ. These were not your exact words but thats what I got from it. We are all "in the same boat" so to speak, In matters of Worship, Faith, Evangelism, Doctrine or any other charateristic. In your response, you have mapped out what, "In my opinion", are the main problems with "Showy Worship". Both of the statements, (1) and (2), "In my Opinion" are both right but here is an example of "ONE" dilemma that I have in what I have personally witnessed.

When you refer to worship as an "Experience", that is labeling it as a "What am I going to get out of it" type of activity. While "I" do believe that you SHOULD be UPLIFTED and STREGTHENED after you have worshipped God, that is really not the purpose of the service. When there are people visibly and dominately audible singing in the service, it DISCOURAGES PARTICIPATION and ENCOURAGES UN-INVOLVEMENT, (in the 'song service' anyway). At the same time, whether you agree or not, these people are "putting on a show" which makes the AUDIENCE the congregation. Is it a SIN? We'll just have to wait on that one but it IS Artificial, Separational and has a worldy influence on the "Spiritual Body".

There are some other aspects that I could talk about here but I'll have to save them for another time.

You did not mention what time the "personal evangelism" meeting was on the 8th And where. I don't know if I will be able to make it, but maybe I can.

Thank you for you kindness.

In Christian Love and Humility,
Larry

Mr. Bennett,

What may I ask makes your view more significant or better than Mr. Abrams?
Your opinions are based on what "you have seen."
You and I have no way to see the heart. We may presume to know, or suppose to know, but, we don't.
Thanks,

Dal

Dal, youse guys SEE with the heart and READ hearts! Like, Wow, that's cool. I depend on the ORIGINAL heart reader who left a message for those who LAUGH at being fooled:

Paul said in effect "Fools love to be fooled" and it seems that they just HATE anyone who tries to tell them that GOSPEL means, according to Jesus, firing the DOCTORS OF THE LAW whom, he said, "TAKE AWAY THE KEY TO KNOWLEDGE." The more they CHARGE the more your LAUGHING EXERCISES makes you rejoice.

Myers, Jacob M., Invitation to the Old Testament, Doubleday, 1966 wrote—

"The religious leaders tacitly assented to the FLEECING of the public because they were themselves the indirect benefactors.
--Her chiefs judge for PAY,
----Her priests TEACH for REWARD,
--Her prophets DIVINE (sing) for CASH,
----Claiming to trust in the Lord, saying, Is not Yahweh among us?
------Evil cannot come against us" (Micah 3:11)

"No wonder local magistrates ABOMINATED right at the courts of justice and DISTORTED the truth to gain their OWN ends. Together they were building Zion with the LIFEBLOOD of the poor and making Jerusalem a gigantic CESSPOOL of guilt..The only salvation for Judah, therefore, would be the destruction of the hotbed of iniquity (3:12) so that the people of God might live." (Myers, p. 119).

The pagan PROFESSIONALS in Israel tried to send Amos back to Judah and tried to prove that he had no credibility because he "got his bread" by being a professional prophet. Amos could make the legitimate claim that he was not a professional but a farmer or orchardist.

"The great prophets were often at odds with these PROFESSIONAL prophets, and Amos in particular did not want to be identified with them (Amos 7:14). But despite the attempt of kings to SILENCE the prophetic voice, it was heard more and more plainly in the period AFTER the death of Solomon." (Bernard Anderson, p. 232).

You cannot hear the word in MEGA CHURCHES.

"Amaziah, assuming that Amos was just another professional prophet who EARNED HIS LIVING by his RELIGIOUS TRADE (See I Sam. 9:8; I Kings 14:2; II Kings 8:8, warned him to return to Judah and there 'eat bread'—that is, seek fees for his prophetic oracles. Amos reply was..."I was no prophet, nor a member of a prophetic guild." (Anderson, Bernard, O.T. Theology, p. 270).

Paul warned that we not DEVIATE from the truth put in EARTHEN VESSELS (Not WINESKINS, fools who love to be fooled) for a very good reason):

And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing (pacifying) words. Col 2:4

Paralogizomai (g3884) par-al-og-id'-zom-ahee; from 3844 and 3049; to misreckon, i.e. delude: - beguile, deceive.

Commenting on Macedonia's gifts—which Paul called robbery when the men in Corinth wanted to be paid—Lenski stated:

"Paul says that he 'ROBBED' other churches, he took from them what he should really NOT have taken, namely 'SUSTENANCE.' 'Wages' is too liable to be misunderstood as meaning regular pay,

-----"which Paul NEVER took from any church. This was a fixed principle with him."

"The noun has no article and means some sustenance.' It denotes a GIFT that was sent to him after had left those churches, which he could, therefore, not refuse. Yet even then he felt that he was ROBBING those churches,

"letting them press something upon him which he would not let the Corinthians press upon him." (Lenski, 2 Cor. p. 1250).

"These men had funds and came to Paul's assistance.

--"This is sometimes taken to mean that they brought Paul a collection from Philippi or from Macedonia,

----"but the words contain NO HINT of a collection." (Lenski, 2 Cor. p. 1251).

"These so-called apostles are NOT in Paul's view genuine apostles at all, but only spurious COUNTERFEITS of whom his church should beware. Paul is therefore extremely SCORNFUL of those 'false' (2 Cor. 11:13) or, as he ironically describes them, 'superior' apostles (12:11),

--"who go beyond the boundaries of their commission

----"and GIVE THEMSELVES a position in local churches to which they HAVE NO RIGHT.

"Such men, he says, 'commend themselves' (10:12, 18), 'compare themselves with one another' (v. 12) and 'boast beyond the limits in OTHER MEN'S labours' (v. 15).

--"In order that the churches 'may make much of them' (Gal. 4:17) they "PUT on airs', 'TAKE ADVANTAGE' of others, 'PREY' upon them and, in effect, "MAKE slaves' of those they are to serve." (Banks, Robert, Paul's Idea of Community, Eerdmans, p. 174).

The message to the PRIESTS in MALACHI, usually lied about, was TAKING WAGES.

Beguiling means using "para-logic." That is, the songs and sermons are sound-alikes. They get close enough to logic to look like "gospel sermons" or "gospel songs" but they are just to fool you. The "tares" look much like "wheat" but tares are weeds. Therefore, sermonizing and versifying are most often tares to, as Amos 5, 6, 8 makes plain, to STARVY you to death.

"The system of SERMONIZING on a text is now almost universally abandoned by all who INTEND that their hearers should understand the testimony of God." Alexander Campbell

Why are those who SUFFER FOOLS and let SELF-SERVERS rid e on the backs of WIDOWS and WAGE EARNERS such superior creatures or CELESTIAL BEINGS, and TRUTH SPEAKERS who take no pay (like Amos and Paul) are called the FOOLS.

All to supernatural to be accidential.

Ken Sublett

Colossians 3:1-17

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

I really like the following:

8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: 11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

And these:

12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Mr. Maxvill,
You may ask but I don't think my view is more significant or better than anyone. I read the Bible and I make statements based on what I read not only what I have seen. Most of the statements that I make, I do not consider "OPINIONS".

True. No one can see the heart except God. However, everyone can see, or should be able to see and understand what is "Artificial" and what is "Truthful" as well as what is "Carnal or Physical" and what is "Spiritual".

Thank "YOU" Brother,
Larry

Brother Larry,

Thanks for your cordial response to my answers. Apparently there still needs to be a little clarification.

It doesn’t matter to me what the name over the door or marquis reads. It doesn’t have to say ____________church of Christ(or capital C in church). My particular preference for worship is cofC mostly. That doesn’t mean that the cofC has the corner on heaven. I don’t think we’re “all in the same boat” where it comes to worship, doctrine, Faith and evangelism. I believe what matters is only one thing…am I in Christ…are we in Christ. As we have repeatedly seen on this site, as well as others, the cofC seem to choose sides even within our own ranks. I say “our” because that is where my “membership” is currently. I believe that one is in Christ if he/she has accepted the redemption that was executed for any that would receive it. I’m not going to slice and dice the meaning.

Larry, I was using the word experience as something one does, not as an observer. When looking up the word in the dictionary, I noticed that it could be defined both ways…participant or observer. I thought it funny that the Devil’s Dictionary had a cute twist. It may apply here also.

EXPERIENCE, n. The wisdom that enables us to recognize as an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced.

I agree with you 100% that in no way should worship be entertaining. That does not mean that one shouldn’t enjoy worship. To the contrary, aren’t we just practicing for our eternity in heaven? If we don’t enjoy it here, wouldn’t heaven really be hell?

The meeting on the 8th of Feb. begins at 8:30 AM at Madison cofC and runs until noon. There will be presentations of several ministries that could use our involvement. After the presentations there will be break out sessions with elders for us to share new horizons of ministry that we may want to get into…sort of a think tank or dream session. I’m looking forward to some fresh ideas. I have some of my own. We will see if we are ready to walk the talk, so to speak. I’m sure you would find it interesting and beneficial. You may want to get involved or take some of the ideas back to Goodlettsville. We are in the same boat so to speak, aren’t we…(pun intended).

Hey Maxville…I can field this one…my fielding average was better than yours too.

I look forward to seeing you Saturday.
Cal

Brother Cal,
The way in which you worship "DOES" matter. We have a direct command on how to do that and numerous examples. I didn't say that the Marquis is what matters. It's what goes on and is projected within the gathering inside the assembly of three or more. I will say that the inspired word of God, "I believe", is "not" only a guide for what and how the Heavenly Father wants things to be, but a guide to the BEST way for us to live our lives here on earth. This guide is for everything including worship and, "I believe" this includes the best "ways" to "Enjoy Worship" and still maintain Order and Spirituality. To practice anything contrary to the commands and examples set forth in the Bible causes problems. Jesus Christ was the reason for the Church to be built, thus the "Church (of Christ)" and thus what the marquis reads. We should follow the Bible as closely as possible.

Thank you for the invitation. Sorry I did not make it. I was almost completely out of firewood and I had to cut some Saturday. Its getting cold again and I love to have a fire in the fireplace.

Larry.

P.S. What is the "Devils Dictionary"?

Brother Larry,

I really enjoy the discourse and interaction with you. You are a true gentleman and I value you as a brother in Christ.

I agree that the manner of worship has been given to us….in spirit and in truth. I believe that phrase to indicate order, honesty and sincerity. I believe when summed up we are to have a desire to please God with our worship. It’s not about when, where or how often we assemble. It’s all about our intentions to please God in all we do.

Larry, when I look up words in the dictionary online there are a variety of definitions from different sources. I guess it’s just the link I go to for answers. One of the resources that is listed is the “devil’s dictionary.” Here is the link that led me there for the word “experience.”

http://smac.ucsd.edu/cgi-bin/http_webster

If you go to this site and look up words you will see what I mean. It doesn’t come up as a resource for all words.

I hope you have enough fuel for the rest of the season. Was the exercise good for you…or do you have one of those nice hydraulic splitters?

In His service,
Cal

I just wasted about 30 minutes of my time reading some of these articles. It would seem that some people don't have enough to do, so they spend a great deal of time writing back and forth. "Brethren" stop the arguing and get the Bible out and study it then teach it to others and you want have time to do all of this "stuff" that takes so much time.

If anyone responds to this I will not see it because I am not going to waste any more time reading these articles. Sit down with each other and discuss these issues. Herman

Horace:

Right on!

The change advocates REALLY take notice and become VERY IRATE and PERTURBED when someone, who opposes their “Saddleback” or “Community Church” GOSPEL, brings to light their motives and scheme in TRANSFORMING churches of Christ into Community Churches. These people love obstructing and interfering with the affairs of long-established congregations like Madison and Hendersonville. Look at the Hendersonville Church of Christ, for example, which had undergone this unwelcome process some years ago, which, of course, resulted in the Hendersonville Community Church. Even now, it appears that the remaining HCC is going yet through a similar unwelcome interference again; hopefully, that is not the case.

I’ve pointed out under Timeline at MCC the various events and activities and other goings on at Madison, proofs of the gradual transformation that is/has been taking place in that body. The change agents refuse to accept or claim responsibility for the upheaval about two years ago and are quick to blame everything on the several elders who have resigned. I completely agree with you that the community-church-spirit-filled MUSICAL WORSHIP LEADER, the charismatic-spirit-filled minister and a number of current elders, who all should be exerting efforts and their energies in deterring the CCM and charismatic influences, are in fact doing just the opposite: encouraging the change agents in the process of completely transforming Madison FROM what it used to be. In fact, some of these leaders have simply ignored God’s will that the body of Christ be united. If only the WORSHIP LEADER had not introduced his own human-designed form of worship, the Madison body would still be intact today. Perhaps, it’s not too late to send the troublemaker somewhere else where he belongs and can practice his WORSHIP design.

Don’t worry about the number of souls that these leaders have caused to be lost because of their greater interest in propagating the Saddleback gospel than in keeping the unity that God so desires of His people. But the omniscient God knows!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donnie Cruz

This website is attempting to expose the secular elements of the Community Church Movement. It is attempting to maintain what the church of Christ has believed and practiced consistently for so long and within the bounds of the Holy Scripture. It is defending the all-important principle of the Restoration Movement that the New Testament is our only guide. It is NOT CHANGING or ADDING ANYTHING NEW to the doctrine of Christ.

On the other hand, those who propagate and sympathize with the Community Church Movement’s cause have continued to ramble on and on in its defense. The more recent CCM supporters who have posted under this thread are: an FHU graduate, an elder’s daughter, a member of MCC, non-MCC members, a banned poster, etc. Yet, they admittedly resent being identified with the Movement that they support. Let’s examine their ramblings and diversions while they provide no scriptural basis in support of Community Church-ism:

==================================================
Dal Maxvill: Donnie's Diversion (January 21 2003, 5:04 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[…It seems as though three or four people(Strom Sublett and Donnie-i know everything about everything, including their hearts and motivations-Cruz) enjoy twisting and subverting the real truth. Donnie… You do not look for resolution. You look only for personal gain.]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: The Glory Days.... (January 22 2003, 5:24 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[I have been in the Lord's church my entire life. I went to Freed-Hardeman, I have all of the c of c pedigrees… None of my church of christ theology will bridge the gap… All over America today their are church of christs engaged in vain repitition. … In its hey day Madison was a suburban church. Now it is an inter city church…. It is being pruned. The branches must be cut back, so that it will grow…. Dal]]]
==================================================
JQ: Another Home Run (January 22 2003, 8:50 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Dal, Are you the same guy I saw as a kid in St. Louis? I remember your best home run year in 1969. If we count this post as a "homer" that brings your lifetime total to a perfect "7." … At bat for the LORD, JQ]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: All of the Answers (January 23 2003, 11:20 AM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Mr. Sublett, … Age does not make one an authority… You are a "clanging symbol". Call me a jubilator if you will, but, the word that best describes your babblings is "regurgitator".]]]
==================================================
Dave Ricketts: licking ken's boots (January 23 2003, 2:51 PM )
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Thank you Larry for more graveling at Ken's feet… I had understood you no longer worshipped at Madison, once your father was defrocked. Is your interest here simply revenge…? It will be interesting in a few years when virtually every church of christ has praise teams to see where you guys go then. Raising holy hands, Dave]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: Filibustering (January 24 2003, 11:43 AM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Donnie many of the things you have written are inacurate, laced with inuindoes, and half-truths. You embelish what goes on in worship, and make comments about people you have never met… God doesn't need any of us to defend him. He doesn't need any of us for his kingdom to flourish on this earth… I expect the answers will be just as they always are; Saddlebackers, Jubilators, Shellyites, Willow Creekers, Community Churchers, etc.... I wanted to go ahead and get those hollow, veiled, slanderous terms out of the way. Dal]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: Peanut Shells (January 27 2003, 10:04 AM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Kevin, … I'm sorry to have used the Service Merchandise example, your correct it was a bad one. I should have used a couple of the Churches of Christ in Nashville that have sold off the contents inside of their building, and have gone out of the soul-saving business altogether… Dal]]]
==================================================
Dan Shouse: Standing for and not stretching the truth! January 28 2003, 4:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------
[[[… My opinion of this site is that it is a disgrace and is ruthless … I sit in disgust at some of the stuff I have read on this site. Stuff that seems to have no relevance whatsoever and carries with it not one ounce of defense on the part of Ken and Donnie. I'm not happy at all with it! … Who do you think looks at this site? In my opinion, the members and leadership at the Madison Church of Christ would probably find it to be humorous and a waste of their time. ]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: The Pearl of Truth (January 29 2003, 11:13 AM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[ Ken, Out of your latest discertation … I really dont understand the relevance of this site any longer… You have shown us the sexual content of our worship, which I have yet to enjoy personally. … I think we understand the difference between "charasmatic" and "vegamatic." … In short, you have "Siskel and Eberted" the Madison Church. If i understand the reviews, you give it "two thumbs down." So, what now? Do you begin video taping worship? Or audio taping? … Pass the peanuts. Gyrating for the Lord, Dal]]]
==================================================
Evan Duncan: The Pearl of Truth (by Dal Maxvill) (January 29 2003, 11:47 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[My understanding is that people not of just the gen x or that of the present generation caused this diversity and disagreement. You can also go onto say that it is not just something that the boomers and that of earlier times than that caused either.]]]
==================================================
T. Melton: Yes, Larry...this is VERY Entertaining! (January 30 2003, 11:11 AM)
-------------------------------------------------
[[[Larry, This is VERY entertaining. Have you, Ken and Donnie considered late night TV or a trip on the Jerry Springer Show? (Why should you be content with a website when you can hit the airwaves?) Maybe Saturday Night Live...no wait, they already have a regular skit about someone who condemns the religous acts of everyone around..."The Church Lady". Have you guys considered taking your "superior dance": on the road as a missionary team? "Isn't that special?" Oh wait...Ken's agaist Praise Dancing, right? That won't work...let me think of something else and I'll get back with you. Dal, Does a "charasmatic" slice dice and do julianne fries? Where can I get one of those? Loved your comments! Seriously...everyone have a nice day!]]]
==================================================
Chicken Little: The sky is falling...... (January 30 2003, 11:24 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Donnie, You and your fellow "crusaders" must REALLY be scared of me and my opinions. You are not posting me and you try and ban me from this site. Well, it is 10:26pm here in TX. Come on to the chat room and face me like a MAN. You guys are such COWARDS! By the way....CHECK THOSE POLES!!!!! CL]]]
==================================================
Dal Maxvill: Peanuts, Pearls, and Piney (January 30 2003, 12:15 PM)
--------------------------------------------------
[[[Larry, … I'm here because this has become the "Theatre of the Absurd." Most of these battles really boil down to ego. They are not scripture based. … I don't give a hoot about Saddleback. Or WillowCreek. Or Southeastern Christian. I have no allegiance to Max, or Rubel per say. … One of the primary reasons community churches have grown to the point they have, is because of [our] religious arrogance. Dal ]]]
==================================================


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The original intent of this thread, “WORSHIP FOR SALE (90% OF ALL CHURCH CONFLICTS ON MUSICAL ISSUES)” was to look at the article by Terry Mattingly, who writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. As an independent religious writer, he has provided us with very important statistics dealing with worship problems that are confronting the religious world in general. This writer has seen the transformation or CONVERSION, e.g., of “Grace Baptist Church” into “Grace Community Church” or the “Belmont Church of Christ” into the “Belmont Church” or “First Church of the Nazarene” to the “First Nazarene Community Church,” etc. This transformation is NOT at all THE SAME AS the CCM starting its own “FROM SCRATCH.” Thus, the hostile takeover by the Community Church!

How misled are defenders and supporters of the Community Church Movement in thinking that this hostile TAKEOVER is not happening in churches of Christ!!! They have NO OPPOSITION whatsoever to this trendy movement! Now, it is true that the church of our Lord Jesus Christ has been unique and distinctive for a long, long time in its beliefs and practices because of its determination “to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent.” This principle has withstood challenging times, but is really being put to test with all the trendy movements in the last couple of decades. Change advocates of the CCM (Saddleback) and the Charismatic Movements, and their sympathizers [including some of the ones who have posted here] find this principle ludicrous and inapplicable in contemporary times. But they fail to see and acknowledge the fact that each passing generation has been CONTEMPORARY in its own time. The generation of the 20’s and the generation of the 50’s were contemporary in their own times. The generation of the 90’s is no different. Just because each generation is CONTEMPORARY in its own age is NO REASON or EXCUSE why the principle of “only and only when the Bible speaks” should change. Because of this principle, the churches of Christ, in general, have been the most resistant to this Saddleback culture-driven SCHEME for church growth. Some of the congregations of the church that have succumbed to this SCHEME have experienced much difficulty in making this UNNECESSARY transition to and affiliation with the Saddleback affair.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

==================================================
PARALLEL QUOTE: WHAT IF THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, CHAPTER 1, STATED THE FOLLOWING IN “CONTEMPORARY” LANGUAGE (THAT WE UNDERSTAND)…
==================================================
[11] To what purpose is the multitude of your [WORSHIP STYLES] unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the [display of MUSICAL TALENTS OF WORSHIP LEADERS, and the [PERFORMANCES OF THE PRAISE TEAM]; and I delight not in [PROGRAMMED HANDCLAPPING], or [THUMPING], or [SWAYING TO THE MUSIC]. [12] When ye come to [BE CALLED TO WORSHIP] before me, [DOES THE WORSHIP LEADER PLAY MEDIATOR], to tread my courts? [13] Bring no more vain [CHRISTIAN ROCK MUSIC]; [HOLY ENTERTAINMENT] is an abomination unto me; the [EASTER AND CHRISTMAS AND HALLOWEEN], the calling of [OTHER HOLIDAY CELEBRATIONS], I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the [PRAYER CIRCLES]. [14] Your [OPEN FELLOWSHIPPING] and your [LOVE] feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. [15] And when ye spread forth your hands [OR LIFT UP HANDS FOR DISPLAY], I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye [EXCEED THE NUMBER OF “HALLELUJAHS” AND “PRAISE THE LORDS AS YE] make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. [16] Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; [17] Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. [18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
==================================================

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Donnie Cruz

I've read your threads with much interest. I have no personal stake in this whatsoever, except to offer an outside viewpoint. I noticed a lot of anger in the attacks against Donnie and others, who seem wantingly to preserve the focus on Christ in your church's worship services. I think it is worhtwhile to review what has been said and reflect on your feelings and intentions. Feel free to worship in your owne way, but if a church is changing its doctrine to win parishioners that SHOULD be a concern for the church and its members, because it is not going to be the same church.

Without a doubt there are many churches that make people feel good but are not in line with GODs teashings. I have attended "modern" services and left feeling empty because there was no gospel sermon or time of reflective prayer. These seem more like a social events than church. I call it the church of whats happenin now syndrome. They provide a show and community. But without proper "measure" such as solid church doctrine that does not wave with popular opinion they fall away from GOD. This problem faces all churches. There are even those who think Church needs to bless abortion. The downside to change can be very big and should occur slowly or it takes great risks,I think. Unless you accept a notion that God just wants us all to sing praises but his scripture really means whatever feels right to you. If thats so, why is the road to hell described as wide, but heaven narrow? Be sure to go to Church for God, not the social activities.

As the editor of “Christianity: Then and Now” has said: “. . . it is not change that we reject, it is unlawful departure from God’s authorized Word and way.” For example, he states, “We are willing to try new songs or new hymnals, but not a new kind of music . . . We are willing to change our methods of evangelism but not the gospel message given by Christ . . . We can adapt to modern improvements in our meeting houses but we cannot be party to those who would ‘modernize’ the church which Christ built, which is revealed in Scripture . . . We can preach salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9), but we will never be able to preach salvation by grace alone or faith alone (Jas. 2:24).

“Change in non-essentials, in matters of judgment and expediency our people have been making for the last 200 years. Changes in the God-given faith and practice of Christianity apostates have been engaging in for the same period of time. . . . Changes in the teaching of the role of miraculous gifts of the Spirit led Don Finto and the Belmont Church of Christ into Pentecostalism. Changes in the government of the church and the doctrine of Christian liberty led Chuck Lucas and Kip McKeen of the Boston church into the International Church of Christ cult. The changes proposed by the ‘change agents’ centered in Abilene, Texas are leading toward a new denominational body with which we want no part.”

——————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: http://www.god-answers.org/Online_Tools/Sermons/SmallGroups.htm
——————————————————————————————————————————

The question of how churches worshipped in song in the first century and how churches should worship in song today is important for anyone who seeks to do the will of God in every respect. While churches of Christ have generally agreed that vocal music is authorized and that instrumental music is sinful in worship, they are now questioning the roles people play in worship. They are asking if the Scriptures warrant solos or "special" singing by groups during the worship services. They are asking if humming, clapping, and unintelligible vocal sounds are Scriptural in worship. They are wondering if the boundaries of Christian worship apply to hymns used in entertainment settings. Is it authorized to use small groups who sing hymns to entertain gatherings of Christians? If it is all right to have groups sing hymns after a banquet, why cannot it be used in worship services? How do entertainment and worship differ? Can worship be entertaining? Can entertainment also be worship? What is edification and how does it relate to entertainment? Are small changes in our worship today opening doors for greater changes in the years to come? Are churches of Christ in imitating denominational methods of worship losing their distinctiveness? Are "worship teams" actually choirs in disguise?

Another source of confusion in the church today is the existence of so many professional performers among the many religious television programs outside of the churches of Christ. Many members of the church watch such programs and wonder why worship services in churches of Christ cannot be more like the denominational churches. Many who watch such programs are convinced that the simple, traditional worship in churches of Christ cannot possibly compete with the slick, theatrical performances of others. It may be that some of the changes we are seeing in churches is to appeal to an audience that does not understand New Testament Christianity.

These questions disturb and confuse many. They are leading to a great deal of controversy and could divide the church. It is for this reason that we must reexamine the Scriptures in coordination with a honest look at our own practices. The Christian's goal is not only to remain Biblical but also to please God in every way (Col. 1:10). Jesus made it his business to "always do what pleases him" (John 8:29).

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:

• Some Basic Definitions
• The Difference between Worship and Entertainment
• How Did the Church of the First Century Worship in Song?
• Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• What about "worship teams?"
• Colleges, quartets and banquets
• What about humming, clapping and unintelligible sounds?
• Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: http://www.god-answers.org/Online_Tools/Sermons/SmallGroups.htm
——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part II—Some Basic Definitions
——————————————————————————————————————————

1. Worship: "to adore or pay divine honors to as a deity; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration" (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Deluxe second ed. [New York: Dorset & Baber, 1983], p. 2109).

2. Entertain: "to engage the attention of, with anything that causes the time to pass pleasantly, as conversation, music or the like; to divert; to please; to amuse." Entertainment: "something that entertains; an interesting, diverting, or amusing thing, as a show or performance" (Webster's, p. 607). Entertainment in and of itself is by no means sinful. It has its place in the Christian life.

3. Perform: "to give a performance of; to render or enact, as a piece of music, dramatic role, etc." Performance: "a formal exhibition of skill or talent, as a play, musical program, etc.; a show" (Webster's, p. 1332).

4. "Special" singing is often used to describe song sung by solos or small groups.

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:

--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I

• Part II—Some Basic Definitions
• Part III—The Difference between Worship and Entertainment
• Part IV—How Did the Church of the First Century Worship in Song?
• Part V—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• Part VI—What about "worship teams?"
• Part VII—Colleges, quartets and banquets
• Part VIII—What about humming, clapping and unintelligible sounds?
• Part IX—Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part III—The Difference Between Worship and Entertainment
——————————————————————————————————————————

The worship of the church in song was meant to be both vertical and horizontal. First, Christians were to "sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 5:19,20). They were to "sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God" (Col. 3:16). The Hebrew writer urged, "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name" (13:15). This vertical dimension must be present for any hymn to be regarded as worship. God is first and foremost the audience of our worship. Our first task is to adore and to please Him. Any act that takes the focus off of God or acts to the glory of man rather than God can never be regarded as worship. Those who seek or accept praise for themselves rather than glorify God have in all times been responsible for grave error (Num. 20:12; Psa. 19:13; Acts 12:20-23). Christians are to do all things to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

Second, musical worship has a horizontal dimension. Paul exhorted the Ephesians to "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph. 5:19). He instructed the Colossians: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and counsel one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Col. 3:16). One reason why Christians assembled together was to "encourage one another" (Heb. 10:24,25). Paul instructed the church at Corinth that their psalms were to edify; "let all things be done for edification" (1 Cor. 14:26). Worship directed toward God was also to "build up" brethren. All Christians have the responsibility of speaking, teaching and counseling one another.

The function of entertainment as a pastime must never be confused with the reverence and sacred character of worship. One must wonder at some of the behavior some of the modern groups who have blended their religious songs with an entertaining style. It has left everyone confused whether to call their activity entertainment or worship. One group described as leading the congregation in worship wore hats and sunglasses as they performed their concert. Such language about this event has a tendency to confuse and mislead. Did they worship or did they entertain? Are they ministers or performers? This serves their purpose; for if they are criticized for their actions in worship, they are entertaining. And if they are accused of entertaining, they speak of their ministry leading the congregation in worship.

A further confusion related to worship and entertainment is the function of the heart. Some, not understanding the nature of worship, believe that the stirring of their hearts constitutes worship. Songs of all kinds have the ability to stir the heart. Dramatic, theatrical and love songs can be charged with great emotion and passion. This does not make them songs of worship. Many songs that contain religious thoughts may be filled with fervor and passion but not be worship. For example, one might think of the hauntingly beautiful song that Mary Magdalene sings about Jesus in the Broadway play "Jesus Christ: Superstar." Such lovely melodies may move us emotionally, but one could hardly recommend this song for worship (doctrinally or otherwise) because of the words. Singing to worship requires understanding (1 Cor. 14:15); its purpose is to teach and admonish, to give thanks and to praise. Worship is the intentional act of the heart and lips to glorify God. One must remember that simply because the hearts of an audience are stirred, God's name may not have been glorified or His heart pleased by the aroma of the sacrifices.

Things that are holy are not to be cheapened by making them common. God's name is never to be taken or spoken in vain. To turn our worship into a performance or a show can never please God. It fails to give God the glory due His holy name. The worship of the tabernacle in the Old Testament was a serious matter to God, because He is a holy God. He insists on being treated holy. This theme is a major tenet of the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. To treat worship as a common matter is a great offense to God, no matter how pleasing it may be to men. Those who enter into a time of worship must never do anything that takes to focus off of the holy respect due to our God.

Jimmy Jividen correctly observed: "God desires worship directed from the heart of man. All of the pomp of men, all of the orderliness of form, all of the beauty of art and all of the emotional stimulation evoked through drama and music cannot substitute for the simple devotion of an humble heart." (Worship in Song, p. 19)

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
• Part II—Some Basic Definitions
• Part III—The Difference between Worship and Entertainment
• Part IV—How Did the Church of the First Century Worship in Song?
• Part V—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• Part VI—What about "worship teams?"
• Part VII—Colleges, quartets and banquets
• Part VIII—What about humming, clapping and unintelligible sounds?
• Part IX—Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: http://www.god-answers.org/Online_Tools/Sermons/SmallGroups.htm
——————————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part IV—How Did the Church of the First Century Worship in Song?
——————————————————————————————————————————

Knowing how the early church fulfilled the instructions of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 is important for discerning truth from error and for knowing how to apply these passages today. We really know very little about how the early church rendered its hymns in the earliest centuries (Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p. 160). The performance was more in the nature of what is called a chant that it was melodic. The more melodic compositions are attested only for the fourth century. Even then, the singing was homophonic (all singing on the same pitch), and not polyphonic as in modern harmonies (Ibid., p. 161). The sacred music of the early church probably consisted of a few simple tunes which could easily be learned, and which, by frequent repetition, became familiar to all. According to Hilary, A.D. 355 (Comment. in Psa. xxv.), everyone participated, young and old, men and women, and had a part. John Chrysostom said,

It was the ancient custom, as it is still with us, for all to come together, and unitedly to join in singing. The young and old, rich and poor, male and female, bond and free, all join in one song. . . .All worldly distinctions here cease, and the whole congregation form one general chorus" (Hom. xi, vol. xii; and Hom. xxxvi. in 1 Cor. vol. x. See McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. VI, pp. 757,758).

It is possible that the early church fulfilled the directive to "sing," "speak," "teach and admonish one another" in a variety of ways:

Antiphonal singing: when two groups would sing the lines or phrases of a psalm back and forth to each other. "Antiphonal singing in which the congregation was divided into two choirs and chanted alternately came in alongside the responsorial chant in the late fourth century" (Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, p. 161 citing Egon Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961], p. 35).

Responsorial singing: when a leader would sing the lines or phrases of a song, and the congregation would respond in unison with the words of the chorus. Psalms 107 and 118 may have been sung in this manner. Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, spoke of Christian singing "in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god" (Letters, Book X.xcvi). Ferguson observes that the phrase, "alternate verses" "should not be understood as 'antiphonally.' What can be deducted from Jewish influence on Christian practice suggests congregational responses to what is recited by the leader" (Early Christians Speak, p. 84).

Some scholars argue that responsive singing was not generally practiced until early in the fourth century. They argue that since responsive singing was then common in the theatres and temples of the Gentiles, it may have been discarded by the primitive Christians for the first three centuries (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, VI:758b).

Congregational singing: when the congregation would sing a familiar psalm or hymn together in unison. In Rom. 15:6 Paul wished that God would give the Romans a spirit of unity among themselves as they follow Christ Jesus, "so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ignatius about 110 A.D. wrote to Smyrna, "Therefore by your concord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is being sung. Now all of you together become a choir so that being harmoniously in concord and receiving the key not from God in unison you may sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father (Ephesians 4)" (Smyrneans 7:2).

Solo singing: when an individual sang a psalm for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:26). These songs may have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. In context, the purpose was likely didactic (for teaching). The early church had no songbooks or overhead projectors. An individual would teach the song to others so that all might sing. We cannot imagine one singing a psalm in the early church in order to showcase one's artistic skills or presenting a concert (complete with tapes and T-shirts for sale).

What kind of singing is spoken of in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16? The exhortation to "speak to one another" and to "teach and counsel one another" is an important help in understanding what kind of singing was practiced in the first century. According to Dana & Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, the phrase "one another" in both passages may be considered as "reciprocal pronouns." They define reciprocal action: "when a plural subject is represented as affected by an interchange of the action signified in the verb, it is called a reciprocal construction" (p. 131). Others describe these as reflexive pronouns used reciprocally. A.T. Robertson says that this pronoun brings out the mutual relations involved (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, p. 692). The idea is that a plurality of people are having an interchange of action with each other. All are participating and involved in both the giving and receiving of the action. Neither passage speaks to individual alone; both assume that a plurality of people is present. It is poor reasoning that argues these passages refer to the Christian life in general and has nothing to say to an assembly of saints. Both Ephesians and Colossians were cyclical epistles, designed to be read to churches while they were assembled. An epistle is not a personal letter between individuals but a formal, public letter from an authoritative person to a group. Everett Ferguson notes:

The corporate life of the church is the theme throughout Ephesians and certainly chapters 4-6, the so-called practical section of the treatise. The corporate nature of what is described in Eph. 5:19 is made explicit by the "one another" (cf. the same word in 4:32). Colossians adds that the "word of Christ" is to dwell "among you," "in your midst." Moreover, Ephesians is making a contrast between pagan religious practices, where drunkenness and immorality were often associated with the cult, and Christian worship (verse 18). Both Colossians and Ephesians are describing a setting where the word of the Lord is dispensed and song to God is engaged in. (Ferguson, A Cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, p. 17)

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
• Part II—Some Basic Definitions
• Part III—The Difference between Worship and Entertainment
• Part IV—How Did the Church of the First Century Worship in Song?
• Part V—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• Part VI—What about "worship teams?"
• Part VII—Colleges, quartets and banquets
• Part VIII—What about humming, clapping and unintelligible sounds?
• Part IX—Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part V.1—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
——————————————————————————————————————————

1. Small group singing and solos take the focus off of God and puts it on the performer(s).

A recent advertisement for youth encouraged them to "showcase" their talents as part of a singing group that would "perform" before thousands of other young people. The purpose of worship is to glorify God. One must wonder at the wisdom of teaching our youth that worship is a time to "showcase" their talents! The emphasis here may be put on the beauty of the voice rather than on the greatness of God. Such a concept forgets that God Himself is the audience. Our worship is to be directed to Him so that we might offer to Him a sacrifice of praise. Worship was never intended to be showy. Such an idea could never reflect the respect and reverence due to our Creator and Savior. Singing hymns is a sacred act of heart and lips; its sole purpose is to express love and gratitude for God.

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
• Part V.1—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• Part V.2
• Part V.3
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part V.2—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
——————————————————————————————————————————

2. Small group singing and solos are exclusive rather than inclusive.

By their very nature choruses ask for trained singers and melodic voices. One music ministry advertised for singers to audition to be a part of their chorus. One must wonder if there are qualifications as to which Christians may worship publicly. The Scriptures, after all, instruct every Christian to sing. Why should anyone be excluded from worshipping if one is a poor singer or tone deaf? When small groups perform, there will always be the question of who may be a part of it. Artistic concerns, then, become a standard of inclusion and exclusion. Such standards could never have been part of the first century church. Paul opposed at every turn the sectarianism, arrogance and jealousy that the immature church at Corinth had experienced with their spiritual gifts. Solos and small group singing will inevitably lead to conflicts among the immature. The problems of jealousy and ego based upon musical skill will abound. Most denominations have had enduring problems with choirs, for it grants the opportunity for the worst in personalities to come out.

One must ask why anyone would pursue unnecessarily a course of exclusiveness. In many cases those who support special singing are those who have good voices and want "showcase their talents." One may rightfully ask if the good singers were excluded from a program, how they might feel. Would they still feel that the worship is pleasing? Would they be hurt by being excluded? Would they feel unneeded? If one were putting together a choir, there are some Christians who would never be asked to join. The reason is because they aren't good singers. In small group singing and solos artistic concerns become more important than one's right to adore God. We must ask when has God ever considered musical skill as a criteria for his worshippers. Why should anyone who has that skill have the right to include or exclude anyone on the basis of that skill?

The quibble is brought up here about part singing. If some parts sing while the rest remain silent in part of a song, why can't some parts sing the whole song while others listen? Further, if one part can sing a whole song, why can it not sing the whole service? If only the sopranos or only the basses sang a whole service, how could the others fulfill their responsibility to sing? Every Christian has the responsibility to sing when he has gathered with his brothers and sisters. In part singing where one group sings part of a song alone (such as the females singing the verses in "Angry Words"), the men temporarily do not sing the verses but are not altogether excluded from singing. This is not unlike the action in antiphonal or responsorial singing, both of which do not exclude anyone from singing some of the song.

Choirs as a separate group from the congregation were not present among the earliest Christians. It was an innovation that led to special singers for the congregation. Because they sang more difficult songs, others ceased to sing. According to McClintock & Strong, (VI:758).

The appointment of singers as a distinct class of officers in the Church for their part of religious worship, and the consequent introduction of profane music into the church, marks another alteration in the psalmody of the Church. These innovations were first made in the 4th century; and though the people continued for a century or more to enjoy their ancient privilege of all singing together, it is conceivable that it gradually was forced to die, as a promiscuous assembly could not well unite in theatrical music which required in its performers a degree of skill, altogether superior to that which all the members of a congregation could be expected to possess. An artificial, theatrical style of music, having no affinity with the worship of God, soon began to take the place of those solemn airs which before had inspired the devotions of his people. The music of the theatre was transferred to the church, which accordingly became the scene of theatrical pomp and display rather than the house of prayer and praise, to inspire by its appropriate and solemn rites the spiritual worship of God.

McClintock and Strong further observe that until the sixth or seventh century the people were not entirely excluded from participating in the singing. They were allowed to sing in the choruses and in the responses. But "it soon came about that the many, instead of uniting their hearts and their voices in the songs of Zion, could only sit coldly by as spectators" (Ibid.).
——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
• Part V.1
• Part V.2—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
• Part V.3
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part V.3—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
——————————————————————————————————————————

3. Solos and small group singing asks the members of a church to worship through others.

If one silently listens to others sing, one has not fulfilled his responsibility to praise God with his lips, to speak, to teach or to admonish. Every Christian has the responsibility to sing, and no one else can fulfill that responsibility for him. Though one's heart has been stirred by another's singing, one hasn't sung if one has merely "sung in his heart." Singing is an act of both the heart and the lips! To sing and not make melody in one's heart is not worship. It mocks God! In the same way, to stir one's heart but not speak with one's lips, is to fail to do what God has asked.

May one please God simply by observing others partaking of communion? Though one's heart may be stirred greatly in the remembering, has one obeyed the directive if he has not eaten the bread or drunk the cup?

May one please God simply by observing others contributing to the Lord's church? Though one's heart may be stirred deeply with love and gratitude, has one obeyed the Lord's instructions?

Has one become a Christian who has observed another being baptized? Though in his heart he may have believed and genuinely repented, is he regarded as obedient if he has not been baptized? Obedience must be heartfelt (Rom. 6:17,18), but one is not free from sin until he has acted in obedience. Both the heart and the act are necessary.

No one can worship for another. Observing another fulfill his responsibility is not the same as one worshipping for himself.

The quibble is made that the mute are not able to speak and thus fulfill the command. Does God not accept his worship in his heart? Yes, God accepts what a man can give and does not expect from him what he cannot do (2 Cor. 8:12). But this is far different from a man who can sing and doesn't except in his heart. May one who is capable of giving money to the Lord do so in one's heart only? What has this brother really given?

Another quibble is that only one person prays audibly, yet the whole congregation is praying. Actually, churches did often pray corporately. In Acts 4:24 when Peter and John were released from prison, they went back to their own people and reported all that had happened. "When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God." The word for "together" in Greek is ___, an adverb, meaning "with one mind or purpose or impulse; unanimously" (BAG, rev., p. 566). Ferguson notes that prayers "as well as the Psalms were performed responsively (bTaanith 16b)" (A Cappella Music, p. 34). It was the custom for the whole congregation to say "Amen" at the conclusion of a prayer (1 Cor. 14:16).

There is a difference between the nature of prayer and singing. Prayer is one way communication from man to God. One may pray for others to God. It is vertical. Singing, on the other hand, is both vertical and horizontal. Singing is speaking to one another, teaching one another, and counseling one another. It is to be reciprocal. Each one has the responsibility of edifying his brother through his own singing.

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
Part V.3—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
Part VI—What about “Worship Teams”?
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part VI—What about “Worship Teams”?
——————————————————————————————————————————

A worship team is a group of singers who lead the congregation in singing. While there is a song leader of the team and congregation, the group of both men and women singers each lead the congregation in his or her voice part. While they may not stand in front of the congregation as a choir would, they might sit on the front row. Each of them usually has his or her own microphone to amplify the voice part he or she sings. The purpose of worship teams is to enhance the worship and to encourage others to sing.

There are some advantages to worship teams. Each voice part is amplified so that the altos, for instance, may hear and sing their part correctly. The teaching capability in this matter is certainly advantageous. The sound of all parts takes on a richer tone quality, so that it is quite pleasing to the ear. One might even suppose, because of the amplification, that there are more people present than the crowd appears to have. The amplified voices are much more harmonious than merely amplifying only the song leader.

On the other hand, like choirs there is the tendency with worship teams to sit and listen to the group sing rather than to sing along. The amplified voices occasionally drown out the congregation much the way a piano or organ stifles singing. Another stifling aspect of this approach is that the team often sings new songs unfamiliar to the congregation. During these times the congregation becomes little more than spectators. While it is beneficial for the congregation to learn new songs, a regular practice of singing unfamiliar songs could make the team appear to be an exclusive and elitist group. The problems of the past come very much into play here. Will worship teams over time lead many in the church to quit fulfilling their obligation to edify one another in song? Are worship teams merely a step away from choirs?

——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
Part V—Objections to Small Group Singing, Solos and Choirs During Worship Services
Part VI—What about “Worship Teams”?
Part VII—Colleges, Quartets and Banquets
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part VII—Colleges, Quartets and Banquets
——————————————————————————————————————————

Christian colleges are not churches. They have every right to have choruses who represent their schools. Christian colleges have done immeasurable good by training young men and women in vocal music. The singing in churches everywhere is better because of the training thousands of students have received. College choruses have provided programs for their lectureships and to churches around the world. Their positive influence for the Lord and for their respective schools is unquestionable. Many souls have been drawn to the Lord by their efforts.

Everyone enjoys hearing trained voices sing the spiritual songs they love most. It uplifts, encourages and edifies one to hear beautiful hymns either in person or on tape. Colleges and singing groups have provided a wonderful source of encouragement by recording the moments when they are praising God. Christians who buy such inspiring tapes have invested wisely.

Christians who gather informally for festive occasions often ask trained groups or quartets to sing religious songs and hymns. Usually this practice is considered entertainment, though it may have religious overtones. This practice should not be looked upon with suspicion. Entertainment that delights our hearts and causes us to think of the Lord and His love for us is positive and not negative. Such groups are not attempting to worship for others or replace worship with a performance. They do not seek to exclude others from worshipping, because that is not their aim. Their aim is to pass the time pleasantly by providing delightful songs with religious themes. Christian entertainment is not unjustified.

Entertainment settings should not be regarded as periods of worship. It would be better for some religious entertainment groups who are performing not to leave the impression that they are there to worship. Herein lies the confusion. Hats, sunglasses, cute remarks and jokes are appropriate for entertainment but not worship. There is no harm in clapping with appreciation for the entertainer, but clapping in worship seems to take the focus off of God and put it on the performer. To be caught up in the skill of a performer and to lose sight of God dilutes and cheapens worship. The rock star status accorded to some entertainers has little place next to the cross. In worship the focus must be on praising God not the skills of men. Worship put on for show is clearly condemned in Scripture (Matt. 6:1-18; 23:5-12). Such worshippers have already received their reward.

What is done in entertainment settings, though it be a gathering of Christians, should not be held as a pattern for what is to be done on the Lord's day. Distinguishing between such settings, as the church has done for many years, keeps the boundaries of entertainment and worship definitive. The recent blurrings of these distinctions, coupled with the exposure to so many denominational worship services on television, services which feature professional performers, has created the confusion.

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
Part VI—What about “Worship Teams”?
Part VII—Colleges, Quartets and Banquets
Part VIII—What about Humming, Clapping and Unintelligible Sounds?
——————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————
NOTE: The following article is presented here for your review. Neither the church of Christ nor the Holy Scripture endorses this doctrinal error that the Grace Centered Magazine, the publisher, apparently teaches. Please read and study the exchange below very carefully. Note the statements in the exchange with the author, Paul Woodhouse, and the misinterpreted scriptures used to discredit the significance of the purpose of baptism. We welcome your comments of approval or disapproval, and let’s discuss.
———————————————————————————————————————————


———————————————————————————————————————————
ARE YOU READY? NOW … THE ASSAULT:
———————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————
An Exchange on the Subject of Baptism

by Paul Woodhouse

I received an e-mail the other day from the wife of a Pentecostal preacher in Canada. Here is the text of the letter and my answer.

"Hello...I have a question with one of your sermons and what you believe. You have a sermon on Rev 2:18-29 and at the end of your sermon you say, "declaring Jesus as Son of God and Lord of your life and then be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins."

"Do you believe that in order to be forgiven of your sins by God you have to be baptized. I thought baptism was a picture of what happens on the inside when a person gets saved. If you could explain to me what you meant that would be great."

Here was my answer:

Baptism is, as you say, a picture of what happens on the inside of a person. Baptism is a passive act where we stand while someone immerses us. Trusting faith in Christ is a passive act, allowing God to save us.

Must a person be baptized to be forgiven of sins? The thief on the cross wasn't. The woman caught in adultery wasn't. However, on Pentecost Peter commanded it (Acts 2:38) in fulfillment of the Great Commission that Christ gave Peter and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16.

God chooses whom He will forgive. Baptism is not a work that puts God in our debt and in no way obligates God to do anything, except that He has promised that those who repent (surrender our wills to His will) and are baptized in Jesus' name, will have their sins forgiven. But baptism is not a work of righteousness designed to procure forgiveness. Baptism is an act of trusting faith, gratitude, which is an outward expression of an inner reality.

Exactly when sins are forgiven is God's business.

For our part, baptism in Jesus' name is commanded. I have done it. I teach others to do it. I'll leave it at that.


Then I received this note from her husband the Pentecostal minister:

I want to say "thank you" for responding so quickly to my question on Baptism for forgiveness of sins. I am a pastor as well in Canada. I pastor a Pentecostal church of about 100 and things are going well. I understand where you are coming from with
your answer but need some clarification on something.

You said "God chooses whom He will forgive" Doesn't God forgive all people who ask for forgiveness and when we ask for forgiveness and submit our lives to Him, we are forgiven right at that moment.

That's all I have to say, I am glad that we can have this discussion and learn from each other, and maybe I am just not understanding where you are coming from.
***

Here was my reply:

I agree that God will forgive all people who seek forgiveness and come to Him with a penitent spirit trusting Christ to save them. "A broken and contrite heart, You, Lord, will not despise."

Your question, however, addresses a subject that I do not believe the Bible specifically and directly addresses--the *exact moment* when sins are forgiven.

Peter commanded water baptism on Pentecost along with repentance. One was not separated from the other. It was a dual command and one was no more or less important than the other. I think our debates begin when we begin to try to subdivide the command that Peter enunciated in Acts 2:38. It was one command: repent and be baptized. Saul of Tarsus was told to get up and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16) Saul's teacher and the Lord's prophet Ananias commanded Paul to connect his penitence to baptism.

It seems to me that all of the arguments Christians have about the "exact moment of salvation" are the upshot of an effort to divide penitence and baptism from one another. In the book of Acts when people came to faith they were baptized immediately.

Paul Woodhouse
Grace Church of Christ
Fayetteville, AR
———————————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————————
• We welcome your comments to agree or disagree with Mr. Woodhouse, and let’s discuss.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Thanks,

Donnie Cruz

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part VIII— What about Humming, Clapping and Unintelligible Sounds?
——————————————————————————————————————————

In recent years some groups have tried to enhance their singing by making unintelligible, background sounds with their voices. These sounds imitated instruments of music and often functioned as an accompaniment. Some were so good that the casual listener might not be able to tell the difference between a drum, for instance, and the vocal sound. The reasoning behind such vocal accompaniment was that as long as the sound was vocal, it was approved.

The fact that a sound is vocal does not mean that it necessarily fulfills the instruction to speak, teach and admonish. Drums, for instance, cannot speak; why would one want to imitate them as an act of worship? They don't do what God asks. People imitate drums to make their music sound more like the music of those who use instruments.

Jimmy Jividen points out that understanding is an essential element in worship in song (1 Cor. 14:14-16).

The importance of "understanding" is shown by Paul in his correcting the abuse of spiritual gifts at Corinth. It would appear that those who possessed the miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages were causing confusion in the assemblies of the church. In their enthusiasm to show off their spiritual gift, they would all speak at the same time in whatever language their gift allowed. Confusion was the result.

Paul tried to correct this situation by showing that one cannot worship God or edify others with words which are not understood. Speaking words in a prayer or a song which one does not understand is not worship. It is unfruitful to the one uttering the words. Speaking words in a prayer or a song which those in the assembly do not understand is not worship. It is confusion. (Worship in Song, p. 22)

If speaking a foreign language is not edifying, how much more so is making unintelligible, vocal sounds! The fact that it enhances the effect of the music does not make it biblical. It smacks of hypocrisy to claim all sounds are vocal yet make vocal sounds that sound as if they were instruments of music. The Hebrew writer urges, "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that confess his name" (13:15).

Clapping during worship has a long history. McClintock & Strong (VI:758) observed that Neander regretted that in his day the sacred music of both Eastern and Western churches had already assumed "an artificial and theatrical character, and was so far removed from its original simplicity that even in the fourth century the abbot Pambo of Egypt complained of heathen melodies being introduced into the worship of the church accompanied "as it seems with the action of the hands and feet." Isidore of Pelusium also complained of the theatrical singing, especially of the women, which instead of inducing penitence for sin, tended much more to awaken sinful desires (in Biblioth. Patr. vii, 543). One must wonder at the wisdom of clapping. Would it not be more Scriptural for brethren to say a hearty, "Amen!"?

——————————————————————————————————————————
TO BE CONTINUED:
——————————————————————————————————————————
--- TITLE: Small Group Singing and Solos—Part I
Part VII—Colleges, Quartets and Banquets
Part VIII—What about Humming, Clapping and Unintelligible Sounds?
Part IX—Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

SUBJECT: SMALL GROUP SINGING AND SOLOS (BY PHIL SANDERS)

——————————————————————————————————————————
• Part IX—Conclusion
——————————————————————————————————————————

Michael R. Weed stated a few years ago in the Christian Chronicle, "It is high time that Christians decide whether the church—and particularly Christian worship—is going to become a kind of religious Disneyland—entertainment and excitement for both young and old—or, if it is going to be something else."

Perhaps our problem is that we are far more concerned with the effects of worship on the worshipper than on the One we worship. Have we pleased God in our acts of adoration? Singing praises to the Father is a privilege as well as an obligation. We must not allow our feelings and tastes to keep us from the primary task of glorifying His name. Nor can we in any way exclude any brother or sister from participating in the joyful celebration of God in our songs of praise. Yes, we must strive for excellence in our singing, for God deserves our best. But God wants the best from everyone not merely the selected few who are trained.

Let us strive to make our worship more reverent and meaningful. Let's sing with our hearts and lips a message of love and thanksgiving to the Father, while we teach and counsel one another. Let's not be afraid to learn new songs or to sing old ones in a fresh, new way. May our hearts and minds focus upon the words that we may sincerely and with understanding praise our God. Let's also examine our songs that we may worship in truth and not promote any error.

During those periods when we relax with each other, let's not be afraid to laugh and enjoy ourselves with entertainment. Rejoice in the Lord, and again, I will say, rejoice! Let some sing spiritual melodies that uplift and encourage our hearts. There is no sin in Christian entertainment, as long as we do not confuse our entertainment with worship.

Gotta love the www. Worldwide web baby. Nothing under the covers. No closed doors. Look at me world and see it all.

No wonder the world at large sees us protestants as "missing it." Heck, it gets worse the more you drill down the Christian "authority line."

We get way to obsessed with ourselves. Dang that ego. Odd how I don't see many women posting here.

"When ya learn to use a hammer, everything becomes a nail."

Maybe some wisdom in that. Either side could take it and run with it.

I have not gotten this worked about anything since I was in a Theology program at one of "Our" institutions. I often read Contending and Firm Foundation. I couldn't quite get all the anger. The rage. Especially in light that when ya get right down to it, just being a member of the CofC needs to be viewed and taken humbly. Shaky ground in these here parts.

Go hang with some atheists and such for a while. Just being a Christian becomes enough to hang onto. Much less goin Gonzo over worship blunders.

Yeah, my writing is casual. Quite friggin aware of it. But, now you are in MY domain. And the web is full of people who ain't goin back to any old way any time soon.

It allows for question asking and views to be expressed. Even ones from the Firm crowd. (Both the exercise device users and the foundation newsletter readers.)

Point is, Christianity as a whole is not making a difference. Do the math.

Want to talk about something that makes a difference? How bout figuring out why in all these years Christianity can't change hearts enough to make the divorce rate go down 10%. Then we can talk about why secular nations have lower crime rates and sexual crimes.

And I refuse to edit btw, it will give someone the opportunity to use it as a write off ;)

————————————————
• DREAM: No wonder the world at large sees us protestants as "missing it." Heck, it gets worse the more you drill down the Christian "authority line."

• REALITY: Political correctness and scriptural authority don’t mix.
————————————————
• DREAM: We get way to obsessed with ourselves. Dang that ego. Odd how I don't see many women posting here.

• REALITY: Check out this site’s archives further. If not, stay with where you see many women posting “there.”
————————————————
• DREAM: I have not gotten this worked about anything since I was in a Theology program at one of "Our" institutions. I often read Contending and Firm Foundation. I couldn't quite get all the anger. The rage. Especially in light that when ya get right down to it, just being a member of the CofC needs to be viewed and taken humbly. Shaky ground in these here parts.

• REALITY: So, how much have you retained out of your “theology” program at one of “our” institutions? Some of “our” institutions are now “their” institutions—you know. Is the “Firm Foundation” still firm?—I haven’t read it in years, perhaps, you can tell me. I believe it is more meaningful to begin expressing one’s membership along these lines: “I am a member of the Lord’s church … I am a member of the body of Christ … I am a disciple of Christ … I am a member of God’s church … I am a member of God’s family … I am a member of the church of our Lord … etc.” These expressions stated with all honesty and sincerity, IMO, would lessen or remove the stigma attached to the church being a denominational body.
————————————————
• DREAM: Go hang with some atheists and such for a while. Just being a Christian becomes enough to hang onto. Much less goin Gonzo over worship blunders.

• REALITY: I agree. It’s misleading to respond to a question: “Which Church do you belong to” with this: “I am a Church of Christ.” How can one individual be a “Church of Christ”? Best response: “I am a Christian”—the implication being that one is a member of a body or church that belongs to Christ. On “worship blunders”?—the issue goes deeper than that. Change in “worship style” or “worship format”—as “they” call it—actually and really translates to change in WORSHIP CONTENT. Under its guise is the sad commentary about MAJOR CHANGES in the scripture-based fundamental teachings on baptism, grace, the Holy Spirit, disregard for “works of righteousness,” etc.
————————————————
• DREAM: Yeah, my writing is casual. Quite friggin aware of it. But, now you are in MY domain. And the web is full of people who ain't goin back to any old way any time soon.

• REALITY: Your writing is too casual. Going back to the New Testament way may be a slow, painful process; but in this case, later is better than never.
————————————————
• DREAM: Point is, Do the math. Want to talk about something that makes a difference? How bout figuring out why in all these years Christianity can't change hearts enough to make the divorce rate go down 10%. Then we can talk about why secular nations have lower crime rates and sexual crimes.

• REALITY: Assertion worth pondering upon: that “Christianity as a whole is not making a difference.” That’s because “Christianity as a whole” is not whole with all denominations claiming to be right. No better solution there is than to return to New Testament teachings and principles—Catholicism and Protestantism have unnecessarily made fundamentals of Christianity too complex. Technologies do advance quite rapidly and can certainly benefit the church and its mission to evangelize the world. However, basic and fundamental teachings found in the scriptures need not be improvised—they are the constants, not the variables. Varying cultures should adapt themselves to the simple truth—without changing or improving upon God’s will for His people.

————————————————
Donnie Cruz

I will ignore the casual writing style comment ("too casual" is a bit subjective dont ya think?) and it linking to ignorance of the NT. Oh, well, guess I did not ignore.

For what it is worth...

If you want to get your message out (though I do not agree with it), it might be helpful to learn how to write code that validates along with a a simplified design scheme. Search engine optimization would give you the ability to be found easier as well as giving you more reach.

As it stands now it the poor design and poor Page Rank send a louder message than your words.

I see. “Linking to ignorance of the NT”? Oh, well, you did mention way too many things: Christian “authority line”; not “many women posting here”; “our” institutions; “Contending”; “Firm Foundation”; “just being a member of the CofC”; worship blunders; Christianity not making any difference; etc. Plus—how can we forget “people who ain’t goin back to any old way”? Sorry, the “old paths” or “tradition” has been excessively attacked by the post-modern culture—how could I not link it all to “ignorance of the NT”?

And the other things! Getting the message out … learning how to write code that validates … simplified design scheme … search engine optimization … being found easier … more reach … poor design and poor page rank. And what’s this stretchingthought.com?

Donnie Cruz

In a post back from 2003, a guy said that 'virtually every Church of Christ will have a praise team'. If my home congregation ever begins a praise team, or something of that nature. I will definitely go to the Elders. If they won't do anything, then I will have to find another congregation. I have a Methodist friend whose church has a "Praise Team".

Justin,

You are familiar with the hymn, “Ring Out the Message,” aren’t you? I believe it’s not too soon to ring out your message: “If my home congregation ever begins a praise team….” Consider it just like the song that conveys the idea that anything could happen “any day now.”

Among other things, needless to say that the introduction of the “PRAISE TEAM” and its “professional” services to “enhance” EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER’S worship to our Reverend Father in heaven, coupled with rhythmic handclapping exercise [clap-clap … clap-clap-clap], ultimately aided the quick exit of many members from their own Madison HOME congregation. I’m sure many of the alienated brethren sought fellowship with nearby congregations, such as Rivergate.

It’s still going on at Madison—the Praise Team has replaced congregational singing. Some of the PT members have infiltrated the “traditional” assembly also. So long as they’re scattered and without microphones and performance is not an issue, I’m not in opposition.

Caution: it may be on its way to Rivergate. Be vigilant!

Donnie

SONG SERVICE is such a profoundly obscene term that my mind struggles to take it all in. This is not unusual. Remember that Paul told the musical, charismatic Athenians that they needed to graps that "in Him we live, move and have our being." Jesus said I will return to you as "another" Comforter (Anothen means a fuller but different dwelling with and in you). That means that the SPIRIT world exists side by side with the 4 dimensioned physical world. Only to those who believed and were baptized did Jesus promise to sweep out the "demons" and make our spirit A holy spirit. Then and only then is it possible to see as obvious that which religion as the grandest "cottage industry" will kill you for saying out loud. The total message is that it is music which blinds the eyes and plugs the ears "lest they should hear, repent and be healed."

FIRST: SONG

Remember that the passage which the "religious" world cannot grasp is that Paul said SPEAK to "one another." Or in Colossians, Teach and Admonish one another. In Romans 15 Paul defined a SYNAGOGUE which is exactly what Jesus died to build: there was no praise or song service in the synagogue. In chapter 15, he solved all of the DIVERSITY issues by telling the Romans to use ONE MOUTH and ONE MIND to speak "that which is written." Speak in Ephesians 5 is PREACH and not SING.

Jesus said that God only SEEKS those who worship in the PLACE of the human spirit. The spirit is the mind is the heart. Because Paul had been taught by Christ as Spirit he understood. However, like Jesus and warned about by Peter, Paul spoke in clear as God's light can make it, but in language which cannot be grasped even as in a dull mirror. As the speaking is external for the purpose of teaching and comforting by the Spirit of Christ which is the Word of Christ (John 6:63), both the singing and melody is in the HEART where, in Col 3:16, it exercises GRACE which is the "divine enfluence on the heart."

Paul said SPEAK in the external sense. Especially in the Greek, when you speak metrical material using the normal inflections of the language, you ARE singing in the cantillation sense. However, odeing, like melody in the external sense create panic (under the influence of Pan, the beast of Revelation) has a destrutive result.

Aeidô to sing, Il., etc.:--then of any sound, to twang, of the bowstring, Od.; to whistle, chant.

Sing and praise are two different words. Aeido includes Tollo Latin raise up consume in speech making. This is why MUSICA and EXEGESIS has the same goal and effect

Aeido is used with TETTIX which is the locust of Revelation. "The male makes a chirping or clicking noise by means of certain drums or 'tymbals' underneath the wings." This has the same meaning as HAND CLAPPING. "It is a simile for sweet sound made by the Mousôn prophêtai. These are the locusts or musicians of Revelation 18:22. Modern teams confess to being MUSICIANS, they claim that their songs are inspired and claim that they can "lift you into the presence of God." That is, they claim to be God the Messiah. Therefore, at just the right time, they rose from the netherworld and are the locusts under Abaddon. Find the fella who promoted musical worship teams and you have your APOLLYON.

Aeido has the same meaning as aeirô. It means "to lift up for ONESELF, raise or LEVY a tax -- TITHING to raise or stir up, to undertake a long war. Metaphor to be lifted up, excited. Words such as enthusiam derive ONLY from "Enthu O mania"

These words include the word HERESY. A heretic or sectarian is not one who chooses not to be FORCED into using instruments. A heretic is one who CHOOSES to take or lift up or carry away YOUR "house." His weapons are MUSIC to arouse you with SINGING in the external sense. This is to STING you with the locust tails which have scorpion venum. This is why both in the Old and New Testament God promised to build a "house" in the hearts of mankind and not a mega-temple dedicated to Circe. Remember the STING or MARK: the use music and excitement to DRIVE AWAY those with the mark of the Word and Baptism. They hold captive the HERETICS in the "house" they have stolen. If you can find a church which is guilty then you have the high seat in the "theatron" or spectacle of the prophesied end times.

SERVICE

External oiding, melodia or Cantus carry the idea of creating excitement or panic. ALL musical terms and names of instruments send the MARK of Lucifer's attempt to BLEED OFF worship for herself.

SERVICE of the Levitical "singers" spokeof HARD BONDAGE related to that of Abaddon. The same is true. Music or the Muses including all fine arts were under the control of Apollo or Apollyon.

The only EXTERNAL odeing and playing as minstrels in the New Testament speak of the polluted and polluting minstrels. Jesus CAST them out more violently than I had previously grasped.

Jesus built an ekklesia which is synagogue in the Greek. This was a school of the Bible and a place of prayer. It held several open sessions through the week and was a place were you could find a scholar who would teach you the Word of God. It is a fact that at the time of Jesus males at 5 were entered into synagogue schools (under males for heaven's sake) while the girls were schooled in skills needed for their roles. In German they called church SKUL.

If you find a School of welding or Cosmotology being overwhelmed by a band of singing and clapping juveniles, and it improves the EDUCATION, then I might change my mind. If you would not insult the instructor then think about what you are TRYING to do to God.

So far, God has let me see this fact and you cannot comprehend the violence heaped on the heads of anyone who declares, "But the king HAS no clothes." If this was NOT true then some scholar would tell you that he has a speck of evidence that the Christian Synagogue has any AUTHORITY or NEED for music. They could surely find a sentence which does not have the SPIRIT 100% of the time saying that music and the names of instruments used to AROUSE people with song or speech is NOT deliberately STINGING them so that they CAN NO LONGER hear the Word. Remember also that if you could get people to comprehend that AROUSAL services are evil, the whole SUPERSTRUCTURE, [T. Campbells word], would come tumbling down. And as surely as God speaks through His word it WILL HAPPEN and with its contribution to the GNP the ride on the back of the whore will end and a great, fatal depression will hit the world.

Hand clapping speaks of the confused MALES making DRUMS or CYMBALS out of their "cupped hands" which are identical to the "cupped cymbals" of Paul's warning that instruments speak of WARFARE or someone trying to CONVERSE with the angels: the claim of musical worship teams.

More later. Ken

SINGING, HANDCLAPPING, AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

GARY W. SUMMERS


"Which things have indeed a shew of willworship, and humility, and neglecting the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh" (Col. 2:23, KJV). The New King James uses for the word willworship the phrase self-appointed religion. The Greek word from which these translations come consists of a compound word, which literally translated is "will worship." Kittell defines it as a "cultus which is freely chosen, which is not commanded or forbidden" (3:159).

Will worship, therefore, consists of offering up worship according to our will (because we like it) rather than giving God worship as He has commanded. It is an old problem, dating back to Cain, who gave God what he desired to give Him rather than the blood sacrifice He required (Gen. 4:1-7). People have not changed; they freely choose the kind of worship that pleases them, "which is not commanded or forbidden."

Does this phrase sound familiar? Every time men have sought to add something such as instrumental music, handclapping, or vocal sounds in addition to the singing of words, they have made the argument, "The Bible does not forbid it." Such is the essence of will worship--doing that "which is not commanded or forbidden." The Bible does not forbid fund-raising as an alternate way for churches to increase their bank accounts, nor does it specifically forbid having the Lord's Supper on Saturday (or on weekdays). In the Old Testament incense was offered; the New Testament does not forbid doing so. David danced before the Lord; no Scripture would prohibit Christians from dancing for the Lord in worship today. All of these constitute "will worship."

Nowhere has "self-imposed religion" been so applied, however, than in the corruption of the New Testament emphasis upon singing. Singing was designed to be a spiritual practice, in which God is glorified and brethren are edified (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Handclapping, foot-stomping, imitating sounds of instruments, or adding literal instruments perverts and prostitutes the worship God designed.

Although these things are not forbidden, they likewise are not authorized (Col. 3:17). The worship that God commands and authorizes is pleasing to Him; that which He does not authorize is will worship, even though it "is not commanded or forbidden." Just as God refused to accept Cain's "self-imposed religion," so does He reject ours, which makes it worthless.

Abundant Violations

Recently, I spoke with a minister who works with young people in a certain geographical region. Youth from several congregations periodically get together for special worship and activities. He said he was experiencing a problem. Since these teens have grown accustomed to clapping along with singing spiritual songs, they now are wondering why they cannot do the same thing in the assembly on Sundays. The same problem has occurred in time past with instrumental music. Many have wondered why we can sing hymns around a piano in someone's home on Saturday night but not in the church building on Sunday a few hours later on the first day of the week. This brings to mind three important aspects: the quality, place, and purpose of worship.

By the quality of worship we mean that God designed our worship in this age to be spiritual. Clapping hands, adding instruments, or imitating the sounds of instruments changes singing to a carnal affair. They appeal to our carnal nature; as some are often prone to say, "I like a song with a good beat." It would be just as appropriate to add peanut butter or jelly to the unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper (to liven it up a bit) as it is to add these things. If young people have no spiritual appetite, clapping hands is not going to produce it.

Second, some say, "It is the place that determines whether or not a practice is permissible." Really? What verse sets forth that principle? If we are sitting around a campfire somewhere, and the group decides to sing, are they somehow not speaking to themselves "in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody" in their hearts "to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19)? Where is the authority for young people to clap their hands or for someone to play the harmonica while they sing?

If brethren gather for a singing in someone"s home, (rather than the church building), how does the location alter the precept of "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord" (Col. 3:16)? Adding the instrument is done out of will worship, which means doing what WE want to do because it pleases US.

Jesus and His disciples were certainly not in a church building when they sang a hymn in an upper room and then went out to the Mount of Olives (Matt. 26:30), but no violins or trumpets accompanied them. When Paul and Silas sang praises unto God, their feet were in stocks; apparently their hands were free. Paul did not charge Silas to give him a handclapping beat so they could keep up the tempo when they sang (Acts 16:24-25). Why cannot Christians ever seem to be satisfied with just singing? A geographic site does not change either the purpose or the manner of singing.

A third consideration of worship is that its purpose is to honor and praise God. Is it right to change worship into entertainment for our enjoyment (which relates to singing groups, choruses, etc.)? Some argue that these groups are worshipping and entertaining at the same time; others opine that they are only entertaining people--but that it is all right to entertain people with spiritual acts of worship.

Although many arguments have been presented from both perspectives, one continues to wonder, "Where is the Biblical authority for special groups and using worship as entertainment?" Do we enjoy their singing? Yes. Are we inspired by it? Yes. Is it entertainment? Yes (if it is not, why do people feel compelled to applaud?). Is it authorized? If so, where? Are we guilty of adopting a man-made tradition?

Christian Rock Music

Seven years ago we published an article by this title in Spiritual Perspectives, which was originally written for the Columbia City Crusader (October 1995). In that article we pointed out that "Christian rock" is a misnomer, since the first word signifies something spiritual, and the latter word is a type of secular music, which usually encompasses instruments of music.

A speaker at a "Family Adventure Seminar" had advocated Christian rock, and those arguments were refuted. His first one was that many brethren were endorsing it. The same could have been said in favor of instrumental music being used in our assemblies around 1900. At least one congregation in Asia Minor had some that held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:15); did that mean that other congregations should follow suit?

A second argument was that "Christian rock music got a girl off of illicit sex." Testimonials are usually effective, but could not the Scriptures have accomplished the same result? What caused the people around Ephesus to burn their books of magical arts (Acts 19:18-20)? It was not Zamfir and his pan flute; it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Often times a false dilemma is presented: "It's either Eminem or DC Talk." No, most markets have a variety of musical selections; anyone can choose a suitable style of music to enjoy. As we asked before, why not teach young people to exercise good judgment? Whenever anything is played in their hearing that is objectionable, they should automatically turn it off.

Some will argue: "What I listen to by myself is my business." This statement is not entirely true. What a person does privately is his business--but not his alone, since God is also involved. Do we not need authority to do what we practice in private, as well as what we do publicly? What makes it wrong for the church to use instruments collectively but right for me to do so privately? Are we still not to "make melody in the heart"?

Besides, if everyone kept such matters private, how is it that we know all about it? As soon as someone tells another, "Here is what I do privately," it has ceased to become a private matter. Now he has encouraged others to practice privately what he does. Furthermore, if we are accustomed to listening to spiritual songs (with instrumental accompaniment) by ourselves in our cars, then what do we do if a guest rides with us? And do not our family members wonder why we have "Christian rock" CDs in our cars?

Most people would view us as inconsistent, to say the least, having one type of conduct for the assembly and another set of rules for ourselves. It will be difficult to teach someone else that we are serious about "singing only."

Is it not the right course to pursue to practice what we know we are authorized to do and eliminate those things that are questionable? Should we not be persuaded in our own minds that we are within the boundaries of acceptable worship set forth in the Scriptures? If we are unsure of a practice, what does wisdom encourage us to do--refrain from an activity or forge ahead regardless? We might also ask if there is anything comparable in the Scriptures relative to various innovations.

Can anyone imagine Peter imitating the sound of a harp and James doing that of a tambourine, while Jesus snapped His fingers to "Amazing Grace"? Can anyone envision the apostles scheduling appearances around Jerusalem to sing songs of the crucifixion with a rock beat? Is it possible that Paul could have taken around a lyre with him and strummed his way through the sermon on Mars' Hill? Better yet, since music can have a soothing effect, he might have defended himself in Jerusalem with a pleasant melody as he sang of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:16).

In light of the spiritual emphasis in Jesus' teachings, these various scenarios sound blasphemous! But we have brethren changing the sacred into the profane all the time, and few think anything about it. We need a better spirit of discernment to be able to distinguish the spiritual from the carnal. The combination of the two is both demeaning and dangerous--whether we are alone or together.

And let us save our applause for secular events. Nobody applauded Jesus after the Sermon on the Mount; Philip did not applaud the eunuch after he baptized him; the apostles were not applauded by the crowd after they spoke in tongues; those in the house did not applaud the Lord after He healed the paralytic. When our efforts are directed at Heaven, Divine approval is sufficient. Knowing that we are pleasing our heavenly Father is reward enough.

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "SINGING, HANDCLAPPING, AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS" (04/20/03)."

———————————————————————————————————————————
garysummers@spiritualperspectives.org
http://www.spiritualperspectives.org/articles/documents/music.html

I made the mistake of being an organist for a Southern Baptist church a few years ago. While I tried to stick to the "traditional" hymns for preludes and postludes (classical was definitely out at that church), sometimes a guy would pass by the organ while I was playing and say, "Why don't you play something with a BEAT to it?" I felt like I was in a saloon or night club (where people are apt to holler out this number or that number and expect you to play it while they get their kicks) and not in a worship service. I saw the light about what was happening at that church, which brought in a rock band. While the teens and young adults "moved and grooved" to the beat, all reverence was cast aside as heads bobbed and hips rocked to the driving beat. I eventually left, never to play an instrument in a church again.

Perhaps the same thing happens at congregations that don't use instruments, or have a praise team. I've attended congregation where the Sunday night worship was a song leader taking peoples song request and then singing it. Maybe the song they chose was "up beat" and they put more focus into how the song went, then worshiping God. So it's my assumption that you think that only instruments can be "entertaining", and that just singing (even without a praise team) can't be entertaining. People have been going to see choir's sing for a very long time. How is a congregations with just one song leader not a choir? It is a group of people singing just like a choir and being lead by someoene. What isn't entertaining about that? The fact that they sing church hymns, and if that's so then what about those that find church hymns entertaining? There has to be some people out there that just like to listen to church hymns for it's musical quality. Lets face it, us church folk have some pretty good voices. Just something to give thought to. I think it's always good to see things from both sides. Don't you? I am glad that you left the congregation that you felt was too much about a show and not about worship. It's hard sometimes to do the right thing, but it's always good to see people that take a stand for what they believe. So few do. God Bless.

In Him,

Charles Green

P.S. Thanks again Donnie for taking the time to resond to my questions. They were helpful to me in understanding your point of veiw.

The "Entertainment", if you want to call it that, of a worship service should come from the Spirit of the "Entire Congregation". The definition of the word applies as far as "Receive" and "Show Hospitality to" others/visitors but it should not even resemble an attraction, "performed" by a few, for people to come and watch or listen to. It is all about participation. Congregational Participation, in SPIRIT.
Notice the "one-ness" or "unity" of these verses.

Ephesians 4:3-6
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is ONE BODY, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling;
5 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM,
6 ONE GOD and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and IN YOU ALL.

Colossians 3:14-16
14 But above all these things put on love which is the bond of perfection.
15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in ONE BODY; and be ye thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing ONE ANOTHER in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in YOUR HEARTS to the Lord.

I am a musician of 30+ years but I know that no kind of strings, no kind of keys, no kind of horns and no kind of percussion instrument has a SPIRIT. The ONLY way to make TRUTHful music from the SPIRIT is to SING. In a worship service to God, the entire congregation should be SINGING (individually) as ONE in the Spirit.

In Love and Humility,
Larry

Is Clapping of Hands Appropriate in Worship?

T. Pierce Brown


The question was raised primarily in reference to applauding at a baptismal service. The one who asked it remarked that it seemed to him that it was equivalent to saying "Amen" at the end of someone's prayer, and merely indicated approval of what was being done. If it were merely equivalent to taking his hand and saying, "I rejoice in your obedience," I would have no objection to it. However, it involves other significant principles.

Let us examine some and try to arrive at a scriptural answer to the question. When we say "scriptural answer" we do not claim that we know a scripture that deals directly with the question, for if there was an approved example of early Christians doing it, or a command that indicated the propriety of it, we would not need to discuss the matter. If we could find a scripture that said, "Do not clap hands" we would not need to discuss the matter. So we must examine principles and scriptures that deal with broader matters, and strive to make logical application of them.

First, let us look at the assumption that the clapping of hands is no more than simply expressing agreement with a statement or action, as "Amen" might be. When an audience claps and shouts approval of Michael Jackson's performance, would it evidence about the same thing if the audience said, "Amen?"

The basic meaning of "Amen" is "may it be so." It has various nuances in other contexts, but the basic idea is approval of what another has said. The basic purpose of clapping of hands in our society is to show approval of a person's performance, involving his skill or ability.

When a person is baptized properly, it is approved of God and by all subjects of God. When a person prays appropriately, takes the Lord's Supper or sings properly, the same thing is true. Should we applaud at any or all of those times? If not, why?

Note two or three significant things. If a professional singer performs and the audience applauds, they are normally applauding the performance of the musician. Is there anything in God's word that leads one to assume that when a person leads a song, leads a prayer, or preaches in worship, his performance is to be applauded? Is he, or his performance the center of attention? Or should our attention be on the message and the Christ whom the message should exalt?

In fact, if one applauded when a person got through leading a prayer at the Lord's supper and removed the top of the containers of the fruit of the vine, would anyone know whether you were applauding the beautiful way he led the prayer, the superb flourish with which he removed the lid without banging it against the table, or the fact that Jesus died for us? Is either of them the fit subject for applause? Just because you said, "Amen" when he offered the prayer, and approved of what went on, assuming that God also approved of it, would you advocate applause at that point? If the argument about clapping hands being equivalent to saying "amen" were valid, you would. If you had been standing at the foot of the cross when Jesus died, and knew the purpose for which He died, would you have approved of his loving sacrifice? If so, would it have been appropriate for you to applaud as the soldier thrust his spear into the side of our Lord? If you can see why not, it should not be too difficult for you to see why not in the other cases mentioned.

There are other principles involved. The performance of a singer or pianist on the stage is supposed to be a performance which calls attention to the skill or ability of the artist who is performing. Thus, it is appropriate to applaud or withhold applause in terms of how you valued the skill or ability of the performer. That is not true with reference to the act of baptism, preaching, prayer, singing in worship, or waiting on the Lord's Table. If one applauded at a baptism, he might be applauding the skill with which the baptizer put the person under the water without getting himself wet. I saw a person baptize another on one occasion by grabbing him around the throat with both hands and bending him backwards with no other support. I might have applauded the fact that he came up alive without being strangled or choked to death. But my point here is that applause always calls attention to the performers of the act, whatever the act may be. At a baptism, preaching, praying, etc. we should be calling attention to the grace and love of the Savior who authorized those acts. When a preacher is preaching and I say, "Amen," I am not calling attention to the performance of the preacher, but to the message which exalts Christ. When a person is praying, and I say, "Amen" I am not calling attention to the beauty or eloquence of his phraseology, but to the validity and worth of his petition. If I applauded, I would be calling attention to his performance. This is inappropriate, and has no place in an assembly for the worship of God. When a person is baptized, I approve of his action, if it is in obedience to the command of the Lord, who said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). I also approve of the action of the person doing the baptizing, if he is doing it by the authority of Christ, in the way Christ commanded, for the purpose Christ ordained. If applauding by clapping of the hands was nothing more than a way of saying, "I'm glad he did that, for it glorifies God," I would have no objection to it. But since God's word gives no indication that He wants to be glorified in that way, and since that kind of applause is always used to call attention to the performers of the act rather than to God, or the God ordained purpose of the act, I object to it.

If you have thought it appropriate to applaud at a baptism, because you are merely showing gladness or approval of the act, and still think so, then try to give a sound and sensible answer to the question, "At what place in the worship or service of God would you not want to applaud by clapping the hands, since you should approve of every scriptural act? " Should it be done after the songs, after the reading and/or prayer, after the Lord's supper, after the sermon, or any time and every time you feel like rejoicing?

T. Pierce Brown

[Editor's note: Showing approval by saying "amen" is specifically authorized by scripture (1 Cor. 14:16). The New Testament contains fifty examples of "amen" being used to solemnly confirm a prayer, blessing, statement of praise or statement of truth. No authorization or example of clapping hands to show approval or for any other purpose is found. R.D.]

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Brother Brown,
Everything you said in this wonderful article is absolutely right! I would like to comment on one thing.

You said ...
"But since God's word gives no indication that He wants to be glorified in that way, and since that kind of applause is always used to call attention to the performers of the act rather than to God, or the God ordained purpose of the act, I object to it."


I believe...
God's word DOES give an indication that he DOES NOT want to be glorified or worshipped in this way. This is a "physical response" and "worldy stimulus" to excite "Human emotions" in a "Spiritual Gathering". It has nothing to do with spirituality and Spirit is what we are suppose to worship God in.

Thanks,
Larry

what about Psalm 47:1?

I have posted a short paper on Psalm 41 and hand clapping here:

http://www.piney.com/Clapp.html

Remember that the elders "fired God" so they could win victories (by themselves) like the other nations and worship like the nations (Gentiles).

David was a carnal example who wanted to shed the blood of the Gentiles and have HIS boot on the head of the enemy. Jesus, on the other hand, shed His blood FOR the Gentiles and lifted up their head.

David was not a worship leader, not did he write WORSHIP SONGS. These were personal, poetic writings of history to be easily learned and recited by the people after learning them in various forms of the synagogue. They were not praise songs but textbooks easily held in the human spirit.

David committed all of the "major" sins except one and if scholars are correct about the meaning of his love for Jonathan, he committed that one also. On the other hand, the SPIRITUAL son of David would be perfect and sinless.

When David "worshipped" it was often "on his bed" as he sang the psalms silently to himself and meditated on them in the heart.

It boils down to this: the spirital Jews understood that the only pure worship was Bible study and meditating on it in the place of the HUMAN spirit. Jesus made this so clear that it can only be grasped if Jesus DOESN'T speak poetically or parabolically to you (Matt 13). He told the woman at the well that the MOUNTAINS and HOUSES could not be the new place of worship because GOD DOES NOT DWELL in houses made by human hands nor WORSHIP performed with the work of human hands.

You have the word of Jesus for it: the new PLACE of worship (and has always been) the human spirit as it gives heed to the Spirit of Truth. Paul confirmed it: those of the circumcision worship God IN THE SPIRIT as opposed to IN THE FLESH.

Therefore, ANYTHING which detracts fom READING the Word intends to PREVENT worship. Even the Lord's Supper is to show forth or PREACH the DEATH of Jesus. When Jesus assembles with us He GRIEVES OUT A HYMN: that is not musical.

Paul's definition of those who ASSEMBLED was a form of the word SYNAGOGUE. There was no praise service in the synagogue any more than one would jump up front, sing and clap while the professor is teaching. There was no external praise service in the historical church. Paul's unique worship word was to GIVE HEED to the Word "as it has been taught" or "as it is written."

Church worships in the HUMAN SPIRIT and any BODY WORSHIP is an attempt to surface Circe the holy whore who seems so evident to a growing number who are "eating" praise songs and "watching" performers until it is "coming out of their nostrils." But God will never forgive those by whom offense comes.

Clapping equates to HISSING and even to VOMITING.

Ken

If we adhere to Psalm 47:1, then we must also adhere to Psalm 150:3-5 and similar passages. One cannot accept clapping without accepting instrumental music; neither can one accept instrumental music without accepting clapping. Both are commanded in the Psalms. Furthermore, according to such reasoning, we must make sacrifices, observe Passover, and carry out a host of other rituals as commanded throughout the Old Testament. Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate. Just as Christ said that we cannot serve both God and mammon, we cannot serve two Laws, the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. The former is now studied for historical purposes to gain better understanding why Christ retired it and implemented the latter 2000 years ago.

Monique is asking, what about Psalm 47:1?

I’ll save for next time a discussion of why hand clapping and musical instrument enthusiasts are that selective from a long list of Old Testament choices (tithing, offering animal sacrifices, not doing ANY work on the Sabbath day, etc., etc.) of what they “enjoy” the most in their offering of worship and sacrifices to the Lord.

For now, let’s just deal with the subject of clapping hands. I’m not even in the mood for discussing hand clapping at this time. So, let’s just quote from the Bible those verses that mention clapping, including Psalm 47:1. Ready?

• Psalm 47:1—O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.
  
  
• II Kings 11:12—And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.
  
  
• Job 27:23— Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place.
  
  
• Job 34:37—For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God.
  
  
• Psalm 98:8—Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together
  
  
• Isaiah 55:12—For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
  
  
• Lam. 2:15—All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?
  
  
• Ezekiel 25:6—For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel;
  
  
• Nahum 3:19—There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?
  

Donnie

The article by Mr. Pierce is not well reasoned; it makes too many jumps in logic and ignores the human capability to determine when an act is appropriate.

Applauding is acceptable during any assembly of God's people where and when it is appropriate to the events taking place.

Applauding can be equivalent to "Amen" but it is not always equivalent. Trying to force "may it be so" onto the end of a Michael Jackson concert is silly. Applause at a concert may mean any number of things including audience intellectual or spiritual approval, audience sensual enjoyment, or a combination. I suspect at a MJ concert, the latter is usually meant. During a church service, likely the former and perhaps the latter too.

Let's take a parallel. If someone smiles at you, what does that mean? If someone were to suggest that it meant they liked the joke, would proving that smiling means someone likes you disprove that they liked the joke? Of course not. A smile is usually an indicator of approval based on any number of reasons.

Applause in fact, better fits a smile than an Amen, but it could mean both. Now, could someone smile at the preacher after a sermon? Could someone in the midst of reflection smile during a communion meditation? Could someone smile after a baptism? The answer of course, is a smile would be appropriate in all three circumstances.

Now, what would that smile mean? Perhaps they enjoyed the sermon? That they approved of the message? They want to encourage the preacher? Or perhaps the smiler would smile to themselves, expressing a deep knowledge of God's grace and love for them? Perhaps it could mean that the smiler appreciates and agrees with the decision of the new Christian. Maybe that they in fact do feel good and want to express their approval and joyous feelings following the baptism. It seems a smile would be appropriate. The point is that applause, much like a smile can mean a few different things. To base an argument on by attempting to make one event necessarily equate to another is baseless.

Now, can applause mean the same as those things mentioned above? Probably, and therefore may be appropriate in the same places and times.

But would applause be appropriate during a communion reflection? Likely not for a number of reasons. Most communion reflections are rather subdued events - by convention; most reflections have something to do with the death of our Lord and death, at least in human terms, does not evoke applause. Would it be appropriate following a sermon? Not after most I've heard, but I suppose it might.

Well, is it appropriate after a baptism? It is more appropriate here I suspect than other places. Even if it would not be appropriate anywhere else, could it be appropriate after a baptism? Likely so since following a baptism there is usually 15 to 30 seconds of nothing, and so an appropriate frame is available in which the applause would not distract from other activities or confuse the proceedings. Is there a reason to rejoice following a baptism? Yes; baptisms are about life, salvation, rejoicing. The angels in heaven rejoice. Somehow, it doesn't seem that the angels sit in pews and wait for a song. Applause it seems is appropriate for such an occasion.

Does it follow that every congregation should institute applause? No. Every congregation has its own culture and preferences for conducting their assemblies. But it also does not follow that any congregation - or Christian has authority to proscribe applause in another congregation.

The original article is not well reasoned and seeks to make an argument based on faulty assumptions.

H.Roberson

Brother Roberson,
I personally, do not feel as though I have the "Authority" to proscribe anything, anywhere. However, I feel that I do have the "Understanding" to know when to "Avoid",(Romans 16:17), something, somewhere. I am just sharing "Understanding" not "Authority", and I believe that to be what others are doing here as well.

Somehow, it doesn't seem (to me) that the angels (which are "Spiritual" beings) sit in pews (at all) and wait for a song or participate in applause (a "Human, Physical Reponse") on such an occasion.

My thing is this, A Worship service to the Lord boils down to four basic characteristics. Spirit, Truth, Unity and Peace. Applause in a worship service is absolutely contradictory to three of these and possibly all four.


Thank you for sharing your well reasoned article.
Larry

Brother Bennett,

While I agree angels likely don't sit in pews or clap, they do rejoice in whatever way they do. If the angels in heaven rejoice, would it be out of line for humans to do so? If they can't do it our way, likely we can't do it their way. We are stuck rejoicing as humans.

I don't understand how applause could be absolutely contradictory to any of the four characteristics you listed. Let me see if I can understand....

Applause would be contradictory to Spirit because it isn't spiritual? In that case I suspect then that singing is contradictory to Spirit. As would be preaching.

Applause would be contradictory to Truth because it isn't revealed in Scripture? I suspect then that song books are contradictory to Truth - or perhaps the church owning a van to take our senior members to a retreat.

Applause would be contradictory to Unity and Peace because we don't all agree with it? I suspect that no change would have occured through history had we all have had to agreed on every modification - like four part harmony, or church buildings dedicated to assemblies, water fountains, or several cups at communion. Or men and women sitting intermixed with one another. Or Black folk using the front door. No, absolute agreement is not required. Unity is in the fact that we are Christians and can treat each other Christ-like even when we disagree over applause in our assemblies. We seek Peace when we reason with one another instead of claiming someone else is not true to Spirit, Truth, Unity and Peace when we disagree with their congregation doing something differently than we would prefer.

The same is true inside a single congregation. Why argue over preferences? If someone feels it's appropriate to clap after a baptism, why tell them they can't? Does it really interupt the assembly all that much that we must proscribe it?

I suspect I've misunderstood the thrust of your comment. What I've written here is what came to mind and I admit there are likely numerous other options.

H.Roberson

Mr. Roberson,

1) Applause is NOT Spiritual. It is Physical. And since it is not Spiritual...

2) Applause is NOT Unifying to the ONE SPIRIT of the ONE BODY or congregation of worshippers even if EVERYONE participated which they do not.

3) Applause is NOT Peaceful. It is agitating and to TRULY worship in the bond of peace you must be FREE from Agitation.

The above are the three in which I was referring.

Singing is the only form of Music that TRULY Comes from the SPIRIT. Preaching also meets these characteristics.

There are two basic parts of a person. Physical and Spiritual. The Bible maps out the BEST way for us to harmonize both of these traits here on the Earth.

There are no human "Preferences" that are justifiable when they can be shown in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. We are all sinners and fall short of what God wants but the way in which we worship, (which is clearly laid out in the Bible), is the SIMPLEST and most SPIRITUALLY (AS WELL AS Physically) GRATIFYING thing that we can DO RIGHT.

P.S. The capitalized letters are only for emphasis.

Thank you Brother,
Larry

Brother Bennett,

Sorry for such a late response, but I overlooked this message of yours.

The statements in your note are rather absolute.

Why is clapping physical (and therefore not spiritual) but saying Amen, smiling, preaching, and yes, singing not physical and therefore somehow spiritual? Everything a congregation does (except perhaps for silent praying or mulling over scripture) is physical. Should we not do things because they are physical?

So, let me see...if everyone in the congregation supports applause it would still not be unifying to the One Spirit? I'm not sure I follow that.

Applause is agitating only if someone is agitated by it. It does not follow that everywhere applause occurs in an assembly that there must be a single member who is 'agitated.' If a person cannot be agitated and yet still worship in unity, why would any preacher want to agitate a Christian guilty of sin? Would that not completely eliminate the unity in that congregation? Let me use an example from some of my other posts...If the elders decided to let Black Christians worship with the White congregation - and some White folk were thereby agitated, would that be acceptable to you? Why or why not? My point here is not to engage you in a discussion of social taboos, but to try and make a point that simply because a member (or several, or most) members of a congregation may be agitated by something that occurs in their assembly, that in and of itself does not make that something unChristian and inappropriate in that assembly. Or does it? And who gets to decide?

No one has shown convincingly that applause following a baptism is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches. I don't believe it is intended as worship per se although it occurs in an assembly (usually - although I've heard of people doing wierd things such as baptising in rivers, ponds, and troughs. Would an applause following those baptisms be inappropriate?

Hoyt

I like the following statements: “Now, could someone smile at the preacher after a sermon? Could someone in the midst of reflection smile during a communion meditation? Could someone smile after a baptism? The answer of course, is a smile would be appropriate in all three circumstances.”

Since there’s no distraction in a smile and since there’s no question that a smile is appropriate in these circumstances, why replace it with something that might be distracting and questionably appropriate?

Donnie

The question is not "why replace it?" The question is "what difference does it make if another congregation elects to do so?"

Other folks don't need to meet my expectations for their assemblies.

Hoyt

Hoyt,

Since I haven’t visited but only a few congregations in so many years, I hope that I can safely assume that many churches in the brotherhood are still not “electing” to go with the “trend” of applauding or handclapping before, during or after just about any church activity during the assembly period. [Is this an accurate assumption on my part? I honestly would like to know.]

I was just wondering about your reference to: “if another congregation elects to do so.” Did you have a particular congregation in mind … perhaps your own home church? Your reference to “another” seems to imply that certain churches do applaud after baptism and/or do rhythmic handclapping to go with the upbeat contemporary music … and that other churches do not. By the way, I do not disagree that congregations differ in certain “other activities.” But I really have a problem with this phraseology—“elects to do so.” There’s a lot of difference between what a congregation [purposefully] “elects” to do and what [actually] “occurs” because of some trend.

If the crowd applauds for 15-30 seconds, instead of the “15 to 30 seconds of nothing,” can you really expect that there are not many in the crowd ever being upset or offended by the proceeding? This is very important to consider because the bigger issue is how an extraneous or unnecessary activity affects those who care not to participate in it. So, I respectfully disagree with you when you said that the question should be "what difference does it make if another congregation elects to do so?" I believe that although such a congregation may APPEAR to “elect to do so”—if measured in decibels (i.e., using the intensity of the noise as the “approval” indicator), I know there are folks in the assembly who are annoyed, distracted and offended by it. Besides, another point to consider is if the congregation did not do this during its past “peaceful” existence, but is now doing it because of some trendy movement and is experiencing conflict as a result?

Donnie

"another" refers to a congregation other than your own; no intent to increment the clappers.

It's interesting that you 'know' quite a bit about other congregations and the feelings of members concievably across the country. Assuming you do know that, or even if we just allow that you are correct, which I'm willing to do for sake of this discussion.

The point is, what any congregation, other than yours, does in relation to applauding is really none of your business. How any congregation deals with specific events during its assemblies or how it addresses any disagreements between its members is not open to inspection by you - or anyone else not in that congregation.

Any kind of change causes some folks to feel hurt, left out, or disappointed - and any change will likely continue to do so. One of the jobs of elders is to grow their congregations so that they can be mature about change and negotiate changes without unneeded meddling by those of us that may have different opinions on preferences. It is my understanding that singing moved from single part songs to those with multi-part harmony in the midst of folks decrying the day that that new-fangled singing would arrive at their congregations. Or when White congregations were being attacked by change-agents who wanted to let Black Christians worship with them. Should neither of those have occured simply because someone might be hurt? I doubt that. Or, are you suggesting that no modification of current procedures, meeting times, Bible versions, adult class selections or rooms can be made unless all members are 'on-board?' I don't think you are and so it is apparent that not all folks need to agree with something before a congregation can do (or not do) it.

It is not sufficient to not do something (or to do something) simply because folks - especially folks who are not members of your congregation - might not prefer it. The congregation's elders are charged by our God for using His wisdom in maintaining peace in the midst of change. They don't need, and I suspect don't appreciate, our help. If that eldership has decided that applause is appropriate and that the maturity of their congregation allows it - even if some individuals don't like it - they have the option of allowing applause.

Quite frankly, if a Christian of twenty, thirty, or sixty years considers their preferences are so important that they might be hurt by something like clapping, or allow their dander up to the point of leaving a congregation instead of bearing with less "mature" Christians, I'd question their maturity and urge them to study their Bibles a bit more.

Unless a person responsible for a congregation has asked our opinion on a non-faith-critical topic, we should do the charitable thing and withhold (especially negative) comment.

Hoyt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sunday Worship Services
* Max speaks at all three services when available.
Time	Service
8:30 a.m.- 9:45 a.m.	First Assembly
10:00 a.m.- 11:15 a.m.	Second Assembly in the Worship Center (This Service is very crowded, we suggest you attend the 1st or 3rd Services, if possible) South Room Services with musical instruments during this Service
11:30 a.m.- 12:45 p.m.	Third Assembly in the Worship Center (This Service is very crowded, we suggest you attend the 1st Service, if possible) South Room Services with musical instruments during this Service
Bible Classes for All ages	8:00, 10:00, & 11:30 a.m.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoyt,

I believe it is common knowledge (and as you also said) that “‘another’ refers to a congregation other than your own.” Actually, I was trying to insure that for discussion purposes we were making a distinction between (1) a congregation that is applause-oriented during worship and (2) a congregation that is not performance-oriented. Also, I wanted to know which side your own congregation is on because of the defensive arguments you have presented. It appears now that I won’t get that from you.

You brought up the usual “change” arguments and defense mechanisms—multi-part harmony, race, meeting times, song books, water fountains, one cup, church buildings, etc. Well, let’s not waste time on irrelevant issues and non-essentials that change movers want to bring up in order to defend their want for fun, entertainment and performances in worship. These tactics won’t work because these items are simply objects—not what subjects do. On the other hand, there are various threads on this board that deal with the change agents themselves—we need to know who these agents are; plus “strange” doctrinal matters that they would like adopted in the church—we also need to be aware of their false teachings.

I honestly believe that your preconceived notion of the spiritual benefits that applauding in worship brings has led you to misunderstand T. Pierce Brown’s article regarding the “appropriateness” of clapping hands in worship. Near the beginning of his article, and in the end, the author stated:

“… if there was an approved example of early Christians doing it, or a command that indicated the propriety of it, we would not need to discuss the matter. If we could find a scripture that said, "Do not clap hands" we would not need to discuss the matter. So we must examine principles and scriptures that deal with broader matters, and strive to make logical application of them. …

If you have thought it appropriate to applaud at a baptism, because you are merely showing gladness or approval of the act, and still think so, then try to give a sound and sensible answer to the question, "At what place in the worship or service of God would you not want to applaud by clapping the hands, since you should approve of every scriptural act? " Should it be done after the songs, after the reading and/or prayer, after the Lord's supper, after the sermon, or any time and every time you feel like rejoicing?

Hoyt, you made the following remarks in your preceding post: “One of the jobs of elders is to grow their congregations so that they can be mature about change and negotiate changes without unneeded meddling by those of us that may have different opinions on preferences. … The congregation's elders are charged by our God for using His wisdom in maintaining peace in the midst of change. They don't need, and I suspect don't appreciate, our help. If that eldership has decided that applause is appropriate and that the maturity of their congregation allows it - even if some individuals don't like it - they have the option of allowing applause.”

At man’s level of wisdom, what you’re saying sounds good. However, the duties and responsibilities of qualified elders are much better explained in I Timothy and other epistles. And as far as “maintaining peace in the midst of change,” I’m sorry that many elders in troubled congregations where unnecessary changes have been made have failed miserably in this regard.

By the way, I’m not surprised at your remark about the elders’ duties to “grow and … mature their congregations.” That is the same message—revealed or hidden—in “The Change Movement’s Handbook.” And I was reminded of what the elders of the Oak Hills [Mother] Church have decided “of their own” volition to do. The schedule of assemblies [above] clearly indicates the divisiveness in the use of musical instruments during worship—in this case, in a segregated gathering in the “South Room.” Wow! That hardly describes either “unity in diversity” or “diversity in unity”—but merely a great example of: DO AS THE ELDERS [“using God’s wisdom”] SAID TO DO [“meddling unneeded”].

Yeah, right! I’m trying very hard to forget having read this:

“South Room Services with musical instruments during this Service”
“South Room Services with musical instruments during this Service”

Is it any wonder that many “hurt” members [oops … I’m being reminded that doing hurtful things to others in worship does not matter] … any wonder that “hurt” members have left Oak Hills to fellowship with neighboring congregations? Is it any wonder that hundreds of “hurt” Madison members left when the Worship Leader “into the presence of God” and the Praise Team performers arrived?

Donnie

Donnie,

I will not digress from the applause question with you. What Oak Hills, or any other church does with instrumental music is irrelevant to applauding during an assembly. The two questions are separate.

I'm not all that interested in what change agents may or may not say, or the phrases you pick up on. None of that is important to the current discussion.

My reference to the job of elders in maturing their congregations is not from any particular modern person. It is from Paul. The purpose God gave apostles...elders...teachers is to mature the people of God. In any particular congregation, that primarily rests with the elders (they will be held responsible for the souls of those in their charge) - not outsiders who have knee-jerk reactions to buzz words or who think their conclusions should trump the wisdom and work of local elders.

What the congregation to which I currently belong, or any congregation to which I have ever belonged does or did is also irrelevant. The question of applause is what is at issue, not our preconcieved ideas. Let's stay with the topic, not each other's preferences on tangental topics.

My reference to other changes in the history of the church was in reference to your comment about Christians hurting. While you'd like to make a distinction between allowing Black folk in White churches as objects instead of things people do, that distinction doesn't wash. The word 'allow' is a verb, not a noun. There was considerable consternation in this country about integrating congregations. Your argument that elders that allow their members to be hurt when the elders pursue Christian ideals such as allowing Black folk in the building are somehow at fault, or are derelict in their Christian duty, simply fails the logic test. The fact is any change will make somebody uncomfortable. The decision of when to modify a congregation's behaviors for the betterment of the church or that congregation, is appropriately and scripturally left to that congregation's elders - well, at least as long as we accept autonomous congregations. They especially do not need folks who have never been elders taking pot shots at them based on personal preference.

I have already addressed Mr. Brown's article and don't intend to rehash it, except to repeat that he set up a straw man and sought to tip him over using poor arguments.

The bottom line is simply that my opinion on when applause may or may not be appropriate is not germain to whether the Timbuktu congregation allows it. And neither is yours.

Hoyt

Hoyt, this is the ministry of the Concerned Members. Jesus died to build an ekklesia or synagogue or school of the Bible and not a Circe of John's Revelation. You know, "go make DISCIPLES" is not go make "slaves of the watchtower." In the approved example of Jesus He stood up to read the Word (Paul's only worship word) and had the uncommon decency to SIT DOWN and dialog. The word PREACH means to go out as a herald or to SERMO which means dialog. Paul did not begin preaching at ten thirty Sunday morning and continued until midnight: the word is dialog or commune. No one is discipled with singy-clappy peter pans nor by elders who would drive away the lambs and spit out the wounded.

Because what we call "church" SHOULD BE a school of the Bible (sure even the Lord's Supper is a showing forth or preaching activity. Now how about elders who do not sharply rebuke the "team" what claps and cheers and mocks while remembering the DEATH of Jesus?

Now, with this FOUNDATION we dare suggest that Concerned Members is one of the very, very rare Synagogues of Christ: it allows the disciples of the assembly place to QUESTION without suggesting that they will find them a new church.

The owners are the ELDERS (pastor-teachers) of this world-wide Synagogue of Christ. They often question others about their activity.

They are scriptural because the elders and ministers work to the point of travil to help MINISTER TO or feed the poor and widows. Then, they "teach the Word as it has been taught" and even permit questions from the cheap seast.

My conclusion is that you are using psychological violence to change the church from which you "take away the keys to knowledge." How about you try that in any of the Towers of Babying?

These people are the STOLEES and have a right to operate their "synagogue of Christ"in the wilderness. Therefore, having lost nothing, you are doing the same thing with nothing Biblical to add to the "synagogue." In fact, you are doing the singy-clappy in the face of Jesus when you repudiate His teachings which you cannot refute. Jesus died to remove the BURDEN of "siritual anxiety created b religious ritual." The word also means "an extra tax." By insisting on TITHING these people are crucifying Christ all over again as they try to move back to the LAW which was "added because of transgression." That transgression is performing 'musical idolatry of the triad gods.'

Can they help you find a new "synagogue?" They would rather have you enter the dialog. But, for now, you are speaking with a forked tongue.

Ken

Brother Roberson,
What is relevant or irrelevant to you and me are probably/obviously very different things. However, if the issue of applause is so irrelevant to you then why bother trying to get your point across?
What is relevant to me, and I suppose others who read and write here, is that I make suggestions based on what I have gathered from studying the Bible. What happens after someone has heard these suggestions is up to them.
This statement that you made is absolutely correct....

"The bottom line is simply that my opinion on when applause may or may not be appropriate is not germain to whether the Timbuktu congregation allows it. And neither is yours."

But if the Timbuktu congregation began sprinkling babies instead of baptizing people for the remission of sins, handling snakes or even some of the other things that I have seen that others think are so trivial, (such as applause in worship), I would still be speaking out against it.

Thanks,
Larry

Brother Bennett,

I don't know that we are that far apart; we do seem to have some differences as to specifics. But that's expected since we are imperfect humans.

You seem to have a different impression of this website than many folks that post here. While you may attempt to simply make suggestions, there are many folks who like to accuse folks they have never met of being insincere, underhanded, and just down right mean. Accusations of subversion, wrecking congregations, and what not are not simply 'suggestions based on Bible study.' The article by Mr. Brown that started this thread was an attempt to show that anyone who applauded during a church assembly was motivated by personal pleasure primarily, had little regard for worship, scripture, and unity, and had been captured by 'change agents.' The article was poorly done, evidenced little insight, and provided imprecise arguments.

My initial response was simply to illustrate the article's shortcomings and to illustrate that there are legitimate reasons for applause, comparing it to a smile rather than Mr. Brown's convenient definition of 'amen.'

You last comment was somewhat telling though. After agreeing that your opinion isn't relevant and claiming that your posts are 'suggestions' that folks can do with as they please, you end by saying that you would still be speaking out against 'things.' Well, are your posts suggestions, or are they attacks against people that differ from you? What is the overall tenor of this website?

Hoyt

Brother Roberson,
I think that sometimes, some people who post here do not "think out" what they they are trying to say and come across wrong. Actions cause re-actions. On the other side of the coin, some just go right over my head. I don't feel I have much basis to accuse anyone of anything. Do you know of someone whom I have accused of something.

As far as the article, I believe that anyone who applauds "anytime" is motivated by "personal pleasure primarily", and I will add the adjectives physical and human to this. I hope you get my point.

I try to think things out and write down in as few words as possible what I want to say. My posts "are" suggestions and are based on what I gather from the Bible. If someone "differs" from this, I guess I "am" attacking, in a sense, not the person but what is published.

As far as the tenor of the site, I think it varies from day to day.

Thanks, Larry

Brother Bennett,

Fair enough.

re: applause "anytime" is motivated by "personal pleasure primarily", and I will add the adjectives physical and human to this.

I guess my question to this would be, "so what?" Let's grant, for the next paragraph or so, that I agree with you. What is inappropriate in that description of applause? All our worship can be said to arise from personal pleasure primarily, it is physical, and it is human. At its very base, worship is a physical response by humans to something they appreciate. We do not worship because we must, but because we want. Forced worship is not worship.

I love singing Amazing Grace, and enjoy The Old Rugged Cross. They remind me and paint a picture for me of the grace and love of our God. I sing them using my human, physical body and my prompting for doing so is my pleasure at praising my God. What is wrong with that?
------------
O.K., all applause is not prompted by personal pleasure primarily any more than any worship is. It can be used to show approval just like a smile, or yes, even an Amen. It is not necessarily prompted by the applauder's pleasure but by a desire to indicate approval. I have been in congregations where there was applause following the announcement of Mr. and Mrs. Smith's 60th wedding anniversary. That applause was not motivated by the pleasure of the applauders, but was intended to join their agreement with the pleasure of the Smiths on reaching such a milestone. On other occassions, I have witnessed applause upon the announcement that in the congregation that day was a congregational son and family who had returned from several years in a mission field. That applause I suspect was intended as a welcome, as a 'well done,' as a thank you. In both cases, the members of the congregation did enjoy offering the applause, but more importantly they enjoyed communicating their support of, agreement with, and congratulations to the receivers of that applause.

Applause can arise from various places and can be meant for various ends. A blanket accusation that applauders are motivated by human, physical, and personal pleasure, tied to the implication that such motivation is somehow sinful, insincere, and disruptive across the brotherhood is simply, well, simplistic. It indicates to me an emotional, poorly reflected understanding of scripture in response to peer pressure, group dynamics, and an over sensitivity to buzz words. It paints with too broad a brush and represents an arrogant attitude not becoming Christ.

A suggestion is not an attack, if worded correctly. It quickly becomes one however, if we castigate folks we don't know for not accepting the suggestion. If I remember correctly, you stated that the opinions on this page are given as suggestions, to be taken or left as a reader wants. That is not the tone of most messages posted here (at least to my limited reading). While "suggestions" are made, they appear as edicts, ad hominen attacks, and based on those "suggestions," elders and others are accused of subversion, being wolves, labeled as "change agents" simply for having some ideas similar to "change agents," and generally smeared as being unChristian. Of course these are the same folks that decry being themselves painted with too broad a brush, labeled as legalistic or narrow-minded.

I agree that your posts do not join in these cynical, sarcastic, and vitriolic posts but there are a few folks that do and their behavior breeds similar behavior by emotional and less disciplined folks - on both sides of any particular issue.

H.Roberson

Brother Hoyt,
Thank you for this excellent response. This is the kind of dialog that we need more of on this site.
Let me just say in the beginning that “whatever” a person does in a worship service is up to them. What bothers me is when the worship service direction is geared toward a show-off with planned congregational participants, especially when what they are promoting has more to do with physical, worldly attractiveness than spiritual, biblically truthful direction. A worship service should be orderly but as spontaneous as possible.
You are correct, “We do not worship because we must, but because we want. (Forced worship is not worship.)” I especially like the last five words. There is a lot of forced worship going on today.
Singing is the ONLY form of music that TRULY comes from your SPIRIT. True, you are using your physical body to make the sound but there are two basic parts to a person, a Spirit and a Body, and singing definitely comes from the spiritual part. The physical body is a vehicle for the Spirit.

Here is a section from Bobby Duncan’s post in this same thread…
“Clapping during worship fits into the agenda of those who are trying to change the church. Some of them have made it plain that worship must be changed to make it more appealing to the worshipper. Calvin Warpula wrote, “I also believe we should let individuals and congregations use the musical format they like without judging them.” Rubel Shelly said, “The inspiring event we call worship in traditional churches has to give way to the exhilarating experience of God that exhibits and nourishes life in the worshippers.” He also said in the same speech, “the church has got to change. If it doesn’t change, my kids are not going to stay with it.
These statements suggest that worship must please the worshipper. They ignore the fact that worship is designed to honor God. When the design of worship is to entertain the worshipper, we expect those being entertained to show their approval by clapping.”

I will have to disagree that applause is NOT prompted by personal pleasure. It most definitely is. That is a FACT. That is not a blanket “(accusation? I’m not sure what you meant by that)”. Personally, I see nothing wrong with applauding a wedding anniversary or any other “Non-Worship” event in the church assembly. In both of your examples, physical human beings were the recipients. I have participated in such things many times. However, they were few and far between and not done as a part of the worship service to God (in Spirit and Truth). Usually, it was after worship was over. Now, in many places, it seems to be a more and more regular practice at any time while the congregation is gathered and especially DURING worship. Clapping your hands is not spiritual it is physical and yes, “motivated by human, physical and personal pleasure”.

Clapping your hands is NOT sinful.
BUT…
Clapping your hands is NOT SPIRITUAL and has NO place in a SPIRITUAL worship service to God.

Thanks again Brother Roberson,
Larry

Brother Bennett,

Well sir, it seems we may be drawing this discussion to a close. We seem to be saying pretty close to the same thing.

There are a couple things I'd like to address though.

If applause can be appropriately directed toward humans, then it would be appropriate to applaud a sermon, a baptism, or a particularly well-led hymn.

I don't know what parts of our assemblies are worship and what parts aren't. I grew up with an opening prayer and closing prayer. It seems that just about anything could be done before and after those, but I'm not able to find that worship-bounding in scripture. I don't know that everything that occurs inside the hour 'worship' needs to be worship. Could we not sing "How Great Thou Art" in worship to God and then sing "Why Not Tonight" to the folks sitting around us? The latter song is not worship since it isn't directed toward God. If we can mix our songs between worship and edification, can we not mix our other activites? I think we could and an applause for a sermon, baptism, or to welcome or congratulate someone would all fit that definition.

I won't quibble over how much of applause is personal pleasure; but it is focused on the target of the applause for the purpose of communicating approval or agreement (I am not speaking here of keeping beat or other gratuitous clapping during singing).

If clapping hands in an assembly is not sinful, I am at a loss to understand why we would say some other congregation's leaders are un-Christlike for allowing it in their assemblies. I'm not saying you have said that, just trying to stay with the topic of this thread.

Mr. Duncan's comment suffers from the same limitations as does Mr. Pierce's article (which started this thread). He moves from saying that clapping fits (I assume this means "is used and supported by") Change Agents' agendas to a summary comment that indicates anyone who claps is doing so because they have been 'entertained.' Unfortunately, the link is spurious, disengenuous, and is an emotional reaction to a broader issue that Mr. Duncan did not like. It is not relevant whether every Change Agent in the world supports something. The behavior or teaching deserves evaluation on its own merit. Change Agents also advocate singing, prayer, and preaching. Would Mr. Duncan speak against those?

The point is that applause during an assembly is not necessarily in response to entertainment designed to water down the Gospel. It can be, and often is as you have noticed, meant to communicate approval, agreement, congratulations, and welcome. In these uses it is no different than saying Amen or smiling; it is not sinful; and should not be criticized by non-members of any congregation.

My personal opinion is that elders in a congregation are responsible to God for the souls of their members, and therefore are charged and authorized by Him to teach, lead, and manage their congregations in accordance with their studied application of scripture and Christian character. If they decide that allowing applause during an assembly is appropriate in their setting, that is no business of ours. Additionally, if there are in their congregations, people who disagree with that decision, those folks need to follow the lead of their elders. Those members do not need to be coddled, supported, or comforted by non-members, but rather admonished to recognize and learn appropriate Christian behavior. Those elders do not deserve attacks from websites like this one, dedicated to 'warning' the brotherhood at large and providing a bully pulpit for outspoken, emotionally led folks.

You made a comment about worship being forced all over the place. I'm not sure I've got the whole gist of that statement, but I suspect it has to do with congregational leaders forcing long time, loyal members to worship in a way they don't like and aren't willing to overlook. I will simply refer to my earlier comments regarding the introduction of Black folk to White worship services. There were some White folk that 'couldn't worship with their kind' in the same room. The elders in those congregations, by continuing assemblies with Black folk present were correct even though long time, loyal members didn't like it. I suspect those White folk thought their worship was being 'forced' on them too. My advice to them would be, as Paul would undoubtedly say, 'get over it.'

The point is that we don't all have to like everything that happens in every assembly. What we must do is act Christlike. If we have been Christians for a few years, we need to have matured to a point where we can recognize what are faith issues and what are our preferences. If our preference, we need to let it slide, especially if our elders have decided to allow some behavior during an assembly.

Let me sum up (about time, huh;)). I'm not defending keeping beat during song services or gratuitous clapping during worship. I am simply trying to indicate that Pierce and Duncan's writings are poorly done and appeal, not so much to scripture, but to emotion and hysteria. As a result, congregational members are encouraged to 'warn' and begin agitation against such 'innovations,' with which they are upset. A better approach it seems would be to encourage those members to grow up.

H.Roberson

Brother Roberson,

The number one priority in worship is to worship God in Spirit and Truth WHILE endeavoring to keep the "Unity" of the "Spirit" in the bond of "Peace".

Applause is not a Spiritual exercise. A baptism is. A worship service is. If something is not Spiritual, according to what I gather from the Bible, it is of man's devise or un-necessary to God or both.

Applause would not be appropriate for a sermon because the person delivering the sermon is merely echoing the Word of God from the Bible, or should be. If someone feels they need to applaud a sermon, then something is very wrong with this picture.

Applause would not be appropriate for a "particularly well led hymn". The song leader needs only to chose, key, start and keep the singing going. The CONGREGATION is doing the singing, or should be. If someone feels they need to applaud the song leader, then something is very wrong with this picture.

The forced worship that I referred to had nothing to do with "black folk" and the analogy that you used had nothing to do with what I was talking about. The forced worship that I was talking about is best described as "eye candy to get people in the door". It's the putting on of the production (show) by a few selective individuals, that love the spotlight, using tactics that give people a sensation of pleasure and fun. This will make them "at least" want to come back and watch and maybe put something in the collection plate. I can not "get over" this and never will.

There are some preferences that do not matter. I won't go into this long, lengthy list but I will say again that at the end of the day, it it's contrary to Spirituality, Truth, Unity or Peace, it does not belong in Worship of the church to God. If the Elders at any church make decisions to allow "preferences" going against what I can prove goes against what the bible teaches, I will avoid them! And I have.

Thanks again,
Larry

Brother Bennett,

Hmm...

If 'Amen' can be a spiritual exercise, then applause can be also. They both arise from the agreement of the practicioner with what the practitioner has witnessed. You have stated that applause in an assembly is not a sin. If it isn't, then I don't understand your apparently strong objection to it.

"It's the putting on of the production (show) by a few selective individuals, that love the spotlight, using tactics that give people a sensation of pleasure and fun."

The problem with this quote is that it asserts you and I can know the hearts of the people "putting on the show." To make such as assumption is quite presumptious. It raises the question though that if they did not intend to "put on a show," whether what they were doing would be acceptable. Again, we accuse folks of motivations we presume them to have but have not proven they do. It may be that we do know that J. Smith in our local assembly has stated that he loves the limelight. In that case, perhaps it would not be appropriate for him to 'put on a show.' However, if S. Smith in Timbuktu wanted to do something that looked similar to what J. Smith did, but did so for the purpose of bringing people to God, could she not do so? We have to be careful here because I suspect that there are a few preachers who preach because they like the attention even if they also feel a calling to preach. If liking the attention disqualifies the activity, then we may well end up disfellowshipping quite a few preachers. Or at least, not letting them preach from the pulpit at the front of the building.

I know my example of "Black folk" wasn't what you were talking about, but I feel it is an appropriate illustration of the point I have been trying to make, vis...just because folks aren't happy with a particular change does not mean that change isn't appropriate. I included that example simply because in many of the posts in this thread and others on this site, the idea that applause was wrong because folks are upset has been proffered. There is not a direct correlation between folks being happy and whether a congregation should allow or proscribe an activity.

My reference to applauding a "well-led hymn" was not to the song leader, but to the congregation's experience in expressing themselves through that hymn - whether to their God or visitors in their midst. In effect, a coporate "Amen." The same would be true for the sermon. It would not be the preacher but the sermon itself that would receive the manual "Amen." Depsite Mr. Pierce's attempt to illustrate that an Amen and applause cannot be the same, in fact they can be. You have not demonstrated that they cannot be but have simply restated your conviction that they aren't. In fact, you've admitted that applause during an assembly can be appropriate. We seem to disagree over just what can be the object of a congregation's applause. I am advocating that just about anything in an assembly could be (I have my preferences, though), and you submit, without justification it seems to me, that we must pick and choose for others what those things might be.

I don't understand how you can allow (for argument's sake) applause at a 50th wedding anniversary announcement and yet proscribe it for other people following a baptism. Especially since we don't have any corporate baptism examples with which to form a pattern one way or the other. We do have baptism examples, but they are in people's homes, in rivers, or in desert pools; while there may be a crowd, they are not corporate in the sense that they occured during an assembly. How then do we determine what is appropriate and what isn't following a baptism - either in an assembly or down at the river?

I have no problem with you avoiding elders with whom you disagree. I object to them being labeled and slurred because you and I disagree with their decisions. However you haven't made the following point from scripture:

"If the Elders at any church make decisions to allow "preferences" going against what I can prove goes against what the bible teaches..." At least in regards to applause. You have stated your opinion, but have not demonstrated from scripture your point.

Over to you,

H.Roberson

Brother Hoyt,
Again, Applause is "Physical" and "Worldly". It is not of your Spirit, it is of your body which your Spirit gives life to. Saying "Amen" comes straight from your heart. You can say amen in your heart without even making a sound. Can you clap without making a sound? If you can, it's not clapping.
The only demonstration that I need to PROVE this point is John 4:24.

It's not that I believe this subject to be such a BIG DEAL, it's just that when a particular congregation, any congregation or anyone, entices and promotes christians to worship according to un-spiritual practices, it is un-necessary and it is influencing others in the wrong way. Worship has nothing to do with PHYSICS and everthing to do with SPIRITS.

I would like to comment on the "you don't know their heart" statement. It's not just individual hearts that we're talking about hear, it's the heart/spirit of the entire congregation. I Corinthians 12:12. I'm not going to nit-pick with anyone about when applause is or is not appropriate. I sincerely believe that they already know.

I also would like to submit to you that "you know when you are being entertained by something and when you are being compelled to participate in something".

Thanks, Larry

Afternoon, Larry.

I'm not sure how the John reference fits. What parameters and standards do you use to determine whether something is physical vice spiritual? It seems that worship is physical and spiritual; we cannot seperate the two. How does singing fit the spiritual designation, but applause does not?

That does not mean that we can do whatever we want in our assemblies. Some things are prohibited by Christian "moral" standards and therefore cannot be allowed - as would those things that lead to some 'disorder' in the assembly.

H.Roberson

Brother Roberson,
I have tried to portray the "parameters and standards" of "physical vice Spiritual" in a variety of ways. It is not just my opinion but the way it is. The Spirit is of the Mind, The Physics are of the earth/body. We "can" definately separate the two and that is exactly what we should be doing, as much as possible, when worshipping God. John 4:24 most assuredly fits in here. Here are some more. Matt. 18:20, Phil. 3:3, John 1:17, 1 Cor. 15:42-45.

Applause or clapping is physical (of the body) but singing definately comes from the mind/spirit and is the only form of music that truly does. Applause is also not Peaceful and more often than not, does cause "disorder" of spiritual reverence.

Thanks again Hoyt,
Larry

Brother Bennett,

It is still not clear to me how applause can be totally physical and singing isn't. My problem here is that they both arise from the individual and result in an outward physical expression. The spirit does not sing, the body does. The spirit does not clap, the body does.

Simply stating that one is physical and the other is spiritual does not make it so. How do we tell the difference? Upon what basis do you make the distinction between applause and singing?

You tried to make a distinction between clapping and praying, which was a little closer since there isn't always an outward expression of prayer. However, since the mind prays, the body or the physical is still involved even in silent prayer. All other forms of 'worship' combine the two.

Spirit and Truth do not mean that there is some physical separation between spirit and physical events. If so, Paul spends a lot of time instructing the Corinthians about their physical activity. Spirit and physical are combined in human worship and other activities in our assemblies.

The distinction it seems to me, should be made in the motivation of the behavior. If it springs from a spiritual place, it is spiritual. If it arises from a ego-centric place, it could be labled physical. However, that evaluation could be made of many more things than those that we do in assembly.

Why is singing not physical? Why is clapping physical?

H.Roberson

Brother Hoyt,
You can sing, say amen, pray or a variety of other things in your heart or mind, but to clap, you must use your physical body. That makes it physical. If you clap in your mind, it's really not clapping.

I am a musician, and to play an instrument, I must use my physical body. The instrument has no spirit of its own and even if I use my spirit to bring life to it, it still, has no spirit. If I play the instrument in my mind, the instrument is really not being played.

When you clap, you are using your physical body as an instrument which is not of/in your spirit but where your spirit as well as the spirit of God resides.

Thanks,
Larry

Jesus said nothing about whether something is or is not spiritual.

Jesus said that rather than the PLACES of temples made with human hands or worship by human hands at Mount Gerezim or Mount Zion (high places), God ONLY SEEKS those who worship in the NEW PLACE of the human spirit. The Samaritan woman knew that "when Messiah comes He will TELL US ALL THINGS." Sacrificial rituals with "music" to serve (hard bondage) the priests was ONLY in Canaan, in Jerusalem and in or at the temple.

Even under the law, personal as opposed to CIVIL STATE rituals, but learning and reciting the Words of God.

MY soul is weary of my life; I will leave my complaint upon myself; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. Job 10:1

I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my SPIRIT was overwhelmed. Selah. Psalms 77:3


And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Rom 8:23

I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search Psalm 77:6

Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate. Psalms 143:4

Jesus was a SHEPHERD and not a "worship leader." Paul defined the elder or shepherd as one who GOES OUT and finds lost sheep and feeds with by teaching that which has been taught.

It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

I believe that it is a fact that things like CLAPPING are evil because they seem to be a deliberate effort to silence both God in Christ and His Word. Paul defined "in the spirit"

And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. Acts 18:5

But he is a Jew, which is one INWARDLY; and circumcision is that of the heart (Col 2) , in the spirit, and not in the letter (body); whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:29

For we are the circumcision, which worship God IN THE SPIRIT, and rejoice IN Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Ph.3:3

The reason there MUST NOT be a gap between us and God, the Word or GIVING HEED TO THE WORD as Paul's unique worship word, is that if we "MAKE ROOM FOR THEATRICAL PERFORMERS IN THE MAINSTREAM" Paul will guarantee you that your PATTERNISM is pagan. Paul had just given the reason for worship in the PLACE of the spirit or in the CLOSET where no singer, musician or preacher could go is to:

Beware of DOGS, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Ph 3:2

Throughout the resources, "making music" was a WORK OF HUMAN HANDS and it was quarantined to the lower classes as performers. A "dog" or Kuon is a Catamite: a male prostitute.

For WITHOUT are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Re.22:15

Liddell and Scott

kuôn

II. as a word of reproach, to denote shamelessness or audacity in women, rashness, recklessness in men, Hom.

2. at Athens a nickname of the Cynics (homosexual ministers)

III. the Trag. apply the term to the ministers of the gods; the eagle is Dios ptênos kuôn Aesch.; the griffins Zênos akrageis kunes id=Aesch.; the Bacchantes Lussês k. Eur., etc.

I quoted stuff from FHU where the PERFORMERS were sending out a "missionary team" and performed as GRIFFINS (demons). It is a fatal flaw to make the mental (spiritual) connection between MUSIC or physical acts such as clapping with your MEMEBERS and worship. The Bible and other literature proves that you can make HARD WIRED changes as quickly and as rapidly as addiction to CRACK (Music makes endorphins in the brain)

Other quotes about worship being IN THE SPIRIT and not IN MY MEMBERS.

For I delight (rejoice within oneself) in the law of God after the inward man: Romans 7:22


Sunedomai (g4913) soon-ay'-dom-ahee; mid. from 4862 and the base of 2237; to rejoice in with oneself, i.e. feel satisfaction concerning: - delight.

External rejoicing is related to the dogs or Cynics or ministers of the gods. It is related to hedonisic or voluptuous or charismatic which is related to sodomy as an "act" and pederasty in particular. There was a lust (which I will not dare) in making children into SHOW AND TELL to promote and stimulate the pleasure centers. My God, my God, how can we lead our children to Canaan Land with send- off music?

Hedone (g2237) hay-don-ay'; from handano, (to please); sensual delight; by impl. desire: - lust, pleasure

But I see another law in my MEMBERS, warring against the law of my mind, (spirit)

and bringing me into CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members. Romans 7:23

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Romans 7:25

THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are IN Christ Jesus,

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1 (This defines being in Christ).

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus

hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk (deport ourselves) not after the flesh, but AFTER THE SPIRIT Romans 8:4

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; Ephesians 6:18

Clement of Alexandria notes that the "veil" of the temple is the head-dress:

But if one withdraw the veil of the temple, I mean the head-dress, the dye, the clothes, the gold, the paint, the cosmetics,-that is, the web consisting of them, the veil, with the view of finding Within the true beauty, he will be disgusted, I know well.

For he will not find the image of God dwelling within, as is meet; but instead of it a fornicator and adulteress has occupied the shrine of the soul.

And the true beast will thus be detected-an ape smeared with white paint. And that deceitful serpent, devouring the understanding part of man through vanity, has the soul as its hole, filling all with deadly poisons; and injecting his own venom of deception, this pander of a dragon has changed women into harlots. For love of display is not for a lady, but a courtesan.

I was IN the Spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, AS OF a trumpet, Revelation 1:10

The word APLOUDO is identical to EXPLODO which means to blast one off the stage with hand clapping. Hand Clapping is defined much as the cymbal: it creates a startle reflex even in adults. Words like musica, cantus, exegesis, hermeneutics is connected to MAGICUS. It works because it RIDES on the PANIC influence. Panic is named after the little perverted half goat-half man. He spends his time and music seeking sexual partners (he was ambidextrous). The BEAST is ZOE and the HORNS OF THE BEAST are musical instruments. His "priests" or agents use his PANIC rituals to gain control over their little one-of-the-seven hills or mountains or spheres of influence.

Applauding the winner in the literature was more a hissing or booing of the looser. The winning flute-player got to skin alive the looser as everyone applauded victory in all kinds of warfare.

I believe that the problem originally addressed was clapping even during the Lord's Supper when Jesus meets with us to "grieve out a hymn" appropriate to showing forth (preaching) his DEATH. As far as I can determine not only were children not the center of the SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE as they were in paganism but I know of no evidence that children were involved. The SPEAKING (what cannot the scholarly world grasp about that word?) was to teach the Biblical material which was much more poetic than we grasp. They went home and taught their children. You see, there was no worship in rituals which excited the senses and incited later trouble to which the children needed to be exposed. In fact, I believe that science can prove that exposing children to these dangerous levels of sound and motion is destructive beyond measure. If that is not a fact then ALL of the resources I have found are wrong.

Ken

Just found this website, after reading discussion, I still need an understanding about clapping during "Song service". Is it appropiate or not.

[The following article is cited from POWER, a monthly publication of the church of Christ in Southaven, MS. Emph. by D.C.]



LET GOD DO THE CLAPPING

by Bobby Duncan

From time to time a question arises concerning the practice of clapping during our worship periods to show our approval of something said or done. This practice is, generally speaking, relatively new among churches of Christ. That fact within itself does not make the practice either right or wrong. Neither does the fact that it is a practice borrowed by our denominational neighbors from the entertainment industry, and then by churches of Christ from our denominational neighbors. The rightness or wrongness of an act is determined, not by its antiquity or its novelty, nor by who has or has not made it a practice, but by whether or not it is in harmony with the teaching of the New Testament.

Clapping during worship fits into the agenda of those who are trying to change the church. Some of them have made it plain that worship must be changed to make it more appealing to the worshipper. Calvin Warpula wrote, “I also believe we should let individuals and congregations use the musical format they like without judging them.” Rubel Shelly said, “The inspiring event we call worship in traditional churches has to give way to the exhilarating experience of God that exhibits and nourishes life in the worshippers.” He also said in the same speech, “the church has got to change. If it doesn’t change, my kids are not going to stay with it.”

These statements suggest that worship must please the worshipper. They ignore the fact that worship is designed to honor God. When the design of worship is to entertain the worshipper, we expect those being entertained to show their approval by clapping.

There is the same authority for clapping in Christian worship as there is for playing a piano or organ. It is doing something for which there is no divine authority. Furthermore, those among our brethren who first started clapping in worship are the same ones who have stretched the tent of fellowship over the denominational world, and who will not say those who use the instrument in worship sin in so doing. While clapping has now caught on with some who are otherwise, it should be remembered that hand clapping in worship was originally borrowed from the denominations by some who believe those in denominations have God’s approval.

Who is being applauded when there is hand clapping in worship? Are those who clap their hands doing so to honor God? If so, they are seeking to honor God in some way He has not authorized instead of how He has directed. “God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

If hand clapping is something of value in our worship, then why didn’t God prescribe it? Could it be that those who initiated this practice think they have thought of something God overlooked? Or, did God simply not know of its great value? Brethren with such wisdom would do well to read First Corinthians 3:18:20, “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For this wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And, again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”

Those really interested in the peace and harmony of the church will not insist on clapping in worship. They themselves will agree that clapping is not necessary in order to have scriptural worship. They will acknowledge also that clapping is not an act God has prescribed. Therefore, they must confess they can worship scripturally and conscientiously without applauding. In love for those who conscientiously oppose it, and in the interest of peace and harmony, it should be omitted.

Occasionally one will be heard to say that hand clapping is no different from saying, “Amen.” But there is one slight difference: saying, “Amen,” is authorized in scripture: 1 Corinthians 14:16, “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” Where is the verse which mentions clapping hands in worship?

I would emphasize that I am not one who is opposed to change, provided the change is in harmony with the will of God, and provided the change will be an improvement. However, if we are to improve our worship, it will not be by adding other acts, but by improving the worshippers.

If there is to be applause in connection with our worship, let it be by God; He is the only audience. All of us are participants.

_________________________
Bobby Duncan has passed on to his reward, but “still speaketh” through his excellent writings.

This message by Bobby reflects the generally gentle nature he demonstrated in most of his writings. However, his articles suffers from some of the same problems as does Mr. T. Pierce Brown's.

He begins with a very cogent observation in that he allows that the merits of a thing have nothing to do with who else does the thing; that the thing is to be evaluated on its own merits.

Unfortunately, Bobby fails to remain committed to that precept:

"Clapping during worship fits into the agenda of those who are trying to change the church." and,

"Furthermore, those among our brethren who first started clapping in worship are the same ones who have stretched the tent of fellowship over the denominational world, and who will not say those who use the instrument in worship sin in so doing. While clapping has now caught on with some who are otherwise, it should be remembered that hand clapping in worship was originally borrowed from the denominations by some who believe those in denominations have God’s approval."

Clearly, Bobby does care who else uses, advocates, or supports a thing. In making that clear, he destroys the unbiased basis of the article.

Bobby's general argument seems to be that God is the audience of worship. While that may be the case, God is not the only audience of our assemblies, which Bobby unwittingly acknowledges:

"“Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”"

Clearly, God is not the only Bible-authorized audience of whatever we do in our assemblies. Some slight further reflection tells us that this has always been so. A Gospel sermon is aimed at sinners, as are 99% of our "invitation songs" (not mentioned in scripture). Neither have God as their object, but other humans. We are to sing and make melody in our hearts to God, but we are also to speak to one another in our singing. There are at least two audiences to our singing: God and others in attendance. In the Ephesian reference, the attendees may be envisioned to be other Christians, but in the 1 Cor reference, the unlearned, or inquirer, or non-Christian is in view. We have then, God, other Christians, and non-Christians who are the audiences of our assemblies.

No, God is not the only audience in our assemblies.

Bobby also misses the point of the verse he decides to use here. The point of the verse is not to authorize 'amen,' but to make certain that what goes on in the assembly can be understood and appropriated by those in attendance. The only point that can be gleaned from this verse is that if the assembly of the church is confusing and not understandable by those in attendance (not God), its usefulness in the Kingdom is dubious and those participating need to fix their approach. It proscribes confusion, not specific activities. A corollary would be that our assemblies are to conducive to communicating the Gospel to those in attendance however we communicate it. The mode of communicating is not addressed in this verse; simply the point of the assembly being 'understandable.'

As a side note, this verse, if it authorizes an amen, only does so for the untrained inquirer. It does not do so for Christians. What it does for Christians is charge them with making their assemblies places where that outsider would be moved to say 'Amen.'

Bobby also seems to confuse an assembly en toto, with worship. If worship's only object is God, then only those things which are directed at Him specifically are worship. Announcements, invitation songs, songs that edify or admonish, and virtually all sermons are not, by definition worship. These things are all directed at humans, not God. They therefore do not fall within the pale of 'worship.'

I suppose that Bobby would allow that if we did something that wasn't worship during an assembly, it would be OK for us direct that at someone other than God. In that instance, Bobby's argument that God has not expressed a desire to receive applause would fall flat. In fact, we have shown that the majority of our assembly time are not worship and therefore, any argument that suggests that only God-approved worship items can occur during an assembly is falacious.

Bobby seems to think that the peace and harmony of the church is paramount. Such is not always the case. The maturation of Christians is the utmost consideration. People that 'truely value peace and harmony' may do so, but understand that God's requirement for growth must be balanced and in some cases will overtake the peace and harmony of a particular congregation. I believe that Paul admonished the Corinthian church for ignoring their calling of God. They were likely happy doing what they were doing but Paul was willing to cause them some discomfort for their own good.

But some might argue that applause is optional and therefore those who like it should not be pushing it on those that don't like it. I suppose the reverse question would also be true: "If I don't like it, but I know it's optional, why do I insist on having my way over it?" This question is especially appropriate for mature Christians.

In short, Bobby's article has about as much strength behind it as does Mr. Brown's - which isn't much.

H.Roberson

Source: www.bible-infonet.org
[Emphases, D.C.]
________________________________________


The Bell Choir

By John Brown


A recent denominational church bulletin I received made reference to a "bell choir." A difficulty has arisen; the audience has taken to applauding when the bell choir sounds. The bulletin note said that the bell choir is "providing beautiful music to assist in our meditation upon the sacrificial death of our Savior." The minister chastises the church for applauding, telling them, "The applause tends to break the meditation we are seeking to produce. At a time when our hearts and minds are to be focused on Christ, clapping tends to pull us away from that. There are times when clapping is fine and appreciated," says this denominational preacher, "but perhaps the time we meet around the Lord's table is not one of them."

And so the request is made: no more clapping for the bell choir!

I have never heard this bell choir, but I know why people are clapping: they think they are being entertained. They are applauding the show.

Worship is not entertainment.

When we worship God, we are not the audience. We are not even spectators. We are supposed to be participants. God is the audience! Our worship is directed heavenward, and that is why we don't applaud each other.

Picture this scene: "That was a wonderful prayer, brother Tom, Dick, or Harry ... and sister Bertha, Sally, or Suzie looked so godly while taking the fruit of the vine; ... let's give them a big hand." (Thunderous applause.) Nobody is thinking about Jesus.

We come together as the body of Christ to worship, honor, venerate, serve, and reverence the God of heaven through Jesus. We don't gather with tooting, banging, strumming, and bell-ringing to amuse one another.

Our worship is toward God. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10). "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24).

By the way, if a bell choir creates a meditation that enables us to take better the Lord's Supper, I wonder why God didn't know that and include that in the biblical pattern?

This denomination's problem is not just with the bell choir, but involves their whole understanding and application of the purpose and pattern of worship. Many denominations know they have a problem; they don't know what it is. What they are reaping is bad fruit from the seeds they planted of departing from God's Word.

Would to God we could see and avoid that same trap. Brethren Shelly and Harris in their book, The Second Incarnation, say things about worship that are ridiculous, including recommending "raucous celebration ... jubilation ... applause and cheering" (pp. 139-140).

If applause takes the mind off of Jesus when partaking of the Lord's Supper, why wouldn't it do the same thing any other time during worship? We need to maintain jealously the simplicity and dignity of worship in spirit and truth.

Ringing bells would be classified as "clanging cymbals." Paul equated the booming bass and tinkling (screaming) cymbals to "weapons" of warfare or to sorcery. Because worship is "holding the thought of God in your mind or spirit, the preside-over musicians and the noise makes worship impossible. Whatever the "sincerity quotient" the result is that Satan has such groups which is consistent with the remnant concept that only a FEW are chosen out of all those who are called. This fits end- time prophecy 100% if you grasp that prophesies of the first advent did not inform the best "scholars." Thomas Paine in black text:

keladeô [kelados]

I. to sound as rushing water, to shout aloud, in APPLAUSE
2. of various sounds, to utter a CRY, cry aloud, of BELLS TO TINKLE, of the flute, k. phthongon kalliston id=Eur.
II. trans. to sing of, celebrate loudly, etc.

phthongos is

I. any clear, distinct sound, esp. the voice of men, Hom., attic; also of animals, Soph., Eur.

II. generally, a sound, as distinguished from a voice (phônê ), Plat.:--of musical sounds

Corrupt is the Greek:

Phtheiro (g5351) fthi'-ro; prob. strength. (to pine or waste): prop. to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (gen.) to ruin (espec. fig. by mor. influences, to deprave): - corrupt (self), defile, destroy

Phthoggos (g5353) fthong'-gos; from 5350; utterance, i.e. a musical note (vocal or instrumental): - sound.

Niqqud (h5350) nik-kood'; from the same as 5348; a crumb (as broken to spots); also a biscuit (as pricked): - cracknel, mouldy. [This is the SOP Jesus broke for Judas as a MARK. Satan came into Judas and being found out fled. The Judas Bag was for "carring the mouthpices of wind instruments." Psalm 41 prophsied of this MUSICAL attack.

Calal (h6750) tsaw-lal'; a prim. root [rather ident. with 6749 through the idea of vibration]; to tinkle, i. e. rattle together (as the ears in reddening with shame, or the teeth in chattering with fear): - quiver, tingle.

Chalal (h2490) khaw-lal'.. wound, to dissolve; fig. to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word),denom. (from 2485) to play (the flute): defile, break, defile.. take inheritance, pipe, player on instruments, pollute, (cast as) profane (self), prostitute, slay (slain), sorrow, stain, wound.

Thomas Paine witnessed a small boy slowly twisting in the wind imposed by the clergy for stealing bread. Thomas Paine was an expert on the Bible but probably rejected it because ALL religions had built an evil SUPERSTRUCTURE for their own profit. He notes:

But the men most and best informed upon the subject of theology rest themselves upon this universal article, and hold all the various superstructures erected thereon to be at least doubtful, if not altogether artificial.

The intellectual part of religion is a private affair between every man and his Maker, and in which no third party has any right to interfere.

The practical part consists in our doing good to each other.

But since religion has been made into a trade,

[NOTE: French: "since the most scandalous hypocrisy has made of Religion a profession and the basest trade." -- Editor.]

the practical part has been made to consist of ceremonies performed by men called priests;

and the people have been amused with ceremonial shows, processions, and BELLS.

By devices of this kind true religion has been banished; and such means have been found out to extract money even from the pockets of the poor, instead of contributing to their relief.

[NOTE: French adds: "du superflu de la richesse." (from their superfluous wealth). -- Editor.]

No man ought to make a living by Religion. It is dishonest so to do.

Religion is not an act that can be performed by proxy. One person cannot act religion for another. Every person must perform it for himself;

and all that a priest can do is to take from him; he wants nothing but his moneyand then to riot in the spoil and laugh at his credulity.

NOTE: The ten preceding words are replaced in the French by: "to take from us not our vices but our money." -- Editor.]

The only people who, as a professional sect of Christians provide for the poor of their society, are people known by the name of Quakers. Those men have no priests. They assemble quietly in their places of meeting,

and do not disturb their neighbours with SHOWS and NOISE OF BELLS

Religion does not unite itself to show and noise.

True religion is without either. Where there is both there is no true religion

[NOTE: "A Religion uniting the two [noise and show] at the expense of the poor whose misery it should lessen, is a curious Religion; it is the Religion of kings and priests conspiring against suffering humanity." -- Editor.]

The first object for inquiry in all cases, more especially in matters of religious concern, is TRUTH.

Again, Thomas Paine rejected the Bible primarily because "religion" and especially "Christenism" built evil systems rather than try to understand Scripture. His bitterness undoubtedly stemed from being ignored even when it is certain that he was a fundamental FOUNDING FATHER of American freedom: especially freedom FROM systems built on ignorance of the Scriptures. He, along with John Locke, grasped that tyranny is normally RIDING on the back of false religions.

Ken