THE DIVIDED ASSEMBLY


The practice of dividing into two or more groups during the worship service is not a new thing to the Lord's church. It has been practiced for at least twenty five years to my first-hand knowledge, and probably much longer in some places. While this article will not cover every situation where such is practiced, we will look at 1) two specific examples of the divided assembly, 2) why the divided assembly is wrong in general, and 3) what is wrong with the two specific examples.


TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

Accommodating children. Many people practice the divided assembly by taking the small children out of the worship time and providing a different program for them during that worship time. This is done for differing age groups and to various degrees, and it is called different things, Children's Bible Hour, Youth Worship, Children's Church, etc. Some congregations might provide an alternative activity for their small children during all of the worship assembly. Other congregations might simply send the children out just before the sermon and deliver them a lesson they feel is more appropriate to their age and level of understanding.

There was a time in my life when I condemned the practice of taking the children out for the whole assembly, but rationalized that if a congregation sent the children out only during its sermon, it was at least having a general assembly up until the time the children went out, so it was not doing wrong. I have since come to believe that even sending the children out just for the sermon is wrong, and to regret of my tolerance of this wrong in the past.

Accommodating different worship styles. In more recent years, those who want to change the worship style of the Lord's church to something they view as more “contemporary” and less “traditional” and yet finding some in their midst who feel uncomfortable with these changes have offered two worship assemblies, one traditional, the other contemporary.

Why the divided assembly is wrong. God demands a general assembly of the saints in a congregation. A list of verses written to the Corinthian church will suffice to prove this to any honest man. 1 Cor 11:18, “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.” 1 Cor. 11:20, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.” 1 Cor. 11:33, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.” 1 Cor. 11:34, “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” 1 Cor. 14:23, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” 1 Cor. 14:26, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”

God demands a coming together. It is in this setting of coming together that we partake of the Lord's supper, preach the doctrine of Christ, etc. Dividing the assembly is wrong because it denies the biblical imperative to come together. Coming together does not mean we cannot divide for Bible classes or other activities. But we must have a general assembly for the purpose of worship, where all in the congregation come together. This makes the practice of the divided assembly wrong.


WHY “YOUTH WORSHIP” IS WRONG

The specific objections to this practice may be more numerous than we care to name in this brief article, but notice at least the following concerns:

Adult Christians who lead in youth worship are forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. It is not just the small children who miss the assembly. We don't send the young children out to take care of themselves. Where is the Biblical authorization for some members to miss our general assembly to provide an alternative program for the children? This is a violation of Hebrews 10:25.

Youth worship deprives the children of things they need to learn. Ephesians 6:4, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Parents who want to bring their children up in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4) should want their children in worship services from the earliest possible age to learn.

Each child needs to learn the discipline of sitting still, of concentration, of having an attention span longer than a 30 second commercial. When they are adults, they need to know these things in order to pray, listen to a sermon, etc. This means they must learn them as children.

Each child needs to learn what true worship is. True worship is not watching a puppet show. True worship is not playing musical chairs or “duck, duck, goose.” Since children learn by observation as much as by instruction, why would we want them to miss what they can learn from observing adults in worship?

Each child needs to learn what true, good, sound preaching is. They will not learn this so long as we seek to entertain them in a setting alternative to the worship.

Youth worship may encourage attitudes in children which are detrimental to the soundness of the church. Is it any wonder that today's generation wants to be entertained during their worship services? If we raise and train children using entertainment, if we separate them out from the assembly and give them something “more fun” until they are almost young adults, is it any surprise they find a “traditional” worship service boring? Can I prove that youth worship is the cause of the entertainment craze that is sweeping the Lord's church? No, I cannot prove it is the sole cause. But can we not see the obvious truth that providing entertainment instead of contemplative devotion for the first years of their life is failing to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? If you give a child youth worship to keep him entertained instead of teaching him true worship, if you allow Vacation Bible Schools to be primarily shouting, raucous, noise with a sporting-event atmosphere, and if you send him to Youth Rallies, many of which are primarily entertainment þ skits, parties, and concerts, why would parents and elders be shocked when he doesn't want to worship decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40) as an adult?


WHY DIVIDING THE ASSEMBLY FOR “TRADITIONAL” AND “CONTEMPORARY” WORSHIP SERVICES IS WRONG

Of course, dividing our worship assembly for different worship styles also denies the need for a general assembly during which the whole congregation comes together. Since the Bible commands such an assembly, any practice that denies the need for a general assembly is sinful. But there are also other reasons that dividing to accommodate different worship styles is sinful.

Much of what is called “contemporary” worship is itself sinful. Many of the modern innovations are not simply matters of opinion, expediency or judgment. Some of the things which go under the guise of “contemporary” worship are wrong. For example:

Special singing groups (solos, quartets, choirs, etc.) are wrong because they do not fulfill the Biblical obligation to sing to one another (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19).

Drama. The word of God is to be preached (2 Tim. 4:2). We have no authorization to act it out as a skit or a play. This type of sensationalism is the natural outgrowth of members wanting to be entertained and preachers wanting to be applauded, but it is not biblical.

Hand-clapping. If hand-clapping is done as applause, it is the wrong tone and atmosphere for the formality of a worship service. Worship is not a sporting event. Not only are we commanded to do all things decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), we are to retain an attitude of fearful respect for what we are doing and who we are worshiping (Eccl. 5:1-2). Turning the worship service into a sporting event or developing a carnival atmosphere does not demonstrate such respect. Applause shows praise to men as they perform certain acts, solos, etc., if we want to show respect to God and to the proper exercise of worship, let's stick to the biblically authorized “Amen” (1 Cor. 14:16). On the other hand, if hand-clapping is done in time to music, to show the beat or the rhythm of the song, then it constitutes music. However, it is a type of music with no more authority than a piano or a guitar and therefore it is sin (Col. 3:16-17).

These types of things and more are being practiced as “contemporary” worship. These are sinful. They should not be practiced at all, much less having a separate assembly for those who want to practice such things.


DIVIDING OVER WORSHIP STYLES IS SINFUL DIVISION

1 Cor. 1:10, “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Are we to believe that Paul desired the Corinthians to have unity of doctrine, but not be able to come together to worship? If the difference in worship styles are matters of doctrine, we should be able to agree on what to do. If the difference in worship styles are simply differences of preferences, can we not put aside our preferences for the sake of unity? In light of God's command that a congregation come together for worship, the solution of having two separate services is simply not acceptable.


CONCLUDING THOUGHT

The divided assembly denies the need for a general assembly. It is man's substitution of his own idea instead of following God's plan. Since God's plan clearly requires a general assembly, anything which denies the need for such is wrong and sinful.

_____________________________________________
Rusty Stark
1495 E Empire Ave.
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
“Seek The Old Paths”: Vol. 12, No. 11

“UNITY OF ALL BELIEVERS”

Rusty Stark


Once again news comes to us about Rochester College (once Michigan Christian College). It comes to us in the NORTH STAR (volume 43, #2, Summer 2002), a newspaper published by Rochester College about Rochester College. The article is titled “Unity of All Believers” (page 3).

The article reports on the annual Sermon Seminar held at Rochester college in May of this year. The opening paragraph reads as follows:

In the spirit of the Restoration Movement’s plea for the unity of all believers, 140 ministers from 14 Christian fellowships and 27 states assembled on May 20-22 at the College’s fifth annual Sermon Seminar.

The article goes on in paragraph four to say this:

“This seminar brought together people from a variety of faith backgrounds for a unity of purpose to improve preaching through a biblical perspective,” said Dr. Michael Westerfield, Rochester College provost. “I believe that this is a critical part of our mission.”

One last quote later in the article (paragraph 8):

Organizers said the seminar experience emphasized the participants” unity of purpose in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

FALSE UNITY

How can people from a “variety of faith backgrounds” have a “unity of purpose” in preaching? Amos the prophet thought (and by inspiration also taught) that such unity of purpose was impossible with disagreement of doctrine. Amos 3:3, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Furthermore, are we even supposed to have unity of purpose with those who are of a “variety of faith backgrounds?” Those who teach different doctrines, including the creeds, disciplines, confessions of faith, and church manuals that men have devised are vain in their worship (Matt. 15:9). Are we supposed to be unified with vain worshipers? The unity that God demands is not simply unity of purpose while we hold on to our divisive creeds. God demands unity of doctrine (1 Cor. 1:10). Jesus prayed that we would have the kind of unity he enjoys with his Father (John 17:20- 21). Jesus didn’t teach one doctrine and his Father another (John 7:16).


FALSE BELIEVERS

It is true that we must be in unity with all believers, but we must understand who is a believer and who is not. The word translated “believer(s)” or “believe(d)” is also translated as “faithful” (Heb. 11:11; 1 Tim. 1:15) and “true” (1 Tim. 3:1; 2 Cor. 1:18). This carries the unmistakable meaning that believers are those who are faithful, dependable, and true.

People from a “variety of faith backgrounds” are not faithful. If they were all faithful to the word they would not be of various faith backgrounds.

It is especially true that preachers from various faith backgrounds are not faithful. There is only one Gospel. Those who pervert it and teach something else are accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). Why would we want to be unified with those who are accursed? Do we want to share in their eternal fate -- hell?


THE ANSWER

“A variety of faith backgrounds” is a smooth way of saying denominationalism. And denominationalism is the enemy of Christ and therefore our enemy. In this sermon seminar, Rochester College is waving a white flag, aligning themselves with the enemies of the cross, and becoming part of the division which is so hateful to God. They may call it unity, but in reality it is surrender!

If men truly want unity, let them lay down that which divides. The word of God is not divisive. The doctrines which come from its pages, baptism for the remission of sins, one church, worship in spirit and in truth, none of these things is the cause of division. Those who have denied and perverted these things are the cause of division.

We call on those who are part of a “variety of faith backgrounds” to lay down the creeds that make them distinct and to give up all doctrines that cannot be supported from Scripture. Let us become one on the platform of truth, not on the shaky ground of false unity with false believers.

________________________________
1495 E Empire Ave.
Benton Harbor, MI 49022
“Seek The Old Paths,” Vol. 13, No. 9, September 2002

Rusty Stark certainly is right in emphasizing the need for the Lord’s church to be united in Christ. Whether division results as the result of selfishness, loyalty to various parties and personalities or a lack of respect for the most basic of Christian doctrines, all of which are addressed by Paul’s pen, guided by the Holy Spirit, in 1 Corinthians, it is certainly wrong.

While I respect his devotion to Christ and his obvious knowledge of the Word of God, I do find some assertions in his article to be less than convincing when viewed in light of the biblical text. I would hope that Christians could discuss these matters without automatically assuming that those with whom they may disagree on one or two points are devoid of love for God, the Body of Christ or unwillingly to submit to the leadership of the Spirit provided by the Word of God.

From a review of the book of Acts it seems apparent that the church in Jerusalem would have been compelled to practice what may be described as a “divided assembly.” It is difficult to conceive of the over 5000 male believers, not counting women and children, all meeting in the same place and at the same time–especially if they were observing the Lord’s Supper in the Temple Court (the Jewish authorities certainly would not have allowed this if the mere teaching and preaching of Jesus caused such a stir, Acts 4-5). It is obvious some members of the church, and not the whole church, met together at least for prayer (Acts 12) and from the latter portion of Acts 2 (:42-47) it appears that much more than this took place in individual homes.

That they remained one church is adequately demonstrated by unified fashion in which a specific problem was addressed (Acts 6).

Perhaps the situation posed in the article is the idea of a body of believers who have the room in their place of meeting but choose to meet separately. In 1 Corinthians 11, the passage most often cited, there is emphasis on coming together. However, taken to the lengths seemingly suggested in the article, if a congregation were to out-grow its building it would be forced, because of what is suggested as biblical authority, to meet elsewhere. To have two services therefore, and no allowance or provision for any circumstances appears to be offered or forthcoming within the article, is forbidden. A few decades ago, at Freed-Hardeman College, brother Dowell Flatt often mentioned in his class, “An argument that proves too much proves too little.” Brother Stark’s argument, that indeed points out some crucial truths, may in the end prove too much.

It seems to miss the point of the passage cited. 1 Corinthians 11 is specifically addressed to a church that is plagued by selfish worshipers who have no concern for those around them. Some eat and drink (to excess) and others are hungry. The Lord’s Supper, communion (a time that is to emphasize what they have in common in Christ because of his sacrificial death), has become a mockery of the unity that Paul has argued for throughout the book (1 Corinthians 1 & 3).

Paul’s emphasis, it could be argued, is more a response to these selfish impulses and disregard for others within the Body of Christ, than it is a directive about the geographical location of each member (if “all” means “all” then there is no accommodation made for those that are ill, traveling, forced to work by their master, etc.) Everyone, I believe, recognizes the validity of the exceptions mentioned parenthetically above and that shared knowledge provides a negative answer to the Brother Stark’s assertion: “But we must have a general assembly for the purpose of worship, where all in the congregation come together. This makes the practice of the divided assembly wrong.”

Now, if we wish to begin discussing the results of the path chosen by many congregations to divide the assembly to “accommodate” different worship styles or to “entertain” the children, then we might have a more fruitful discussion. I would disagree with some of his assumptions but believe there is a need for congregations to thoughtfully consider their actions rather than simply mimicking those around them because it “contemporary.”

Nonetheless, many may find it difficult to enter into a discussion of the “divided assembly” when Brother Stark’s concludes his article in this manner:
“The divided assembly denies the need for a general assembly. It is man's substitution of his own idea instead of following God's plan. Since God's plan clearly requires a general assembly, anything which denies the need for such is wrong and sinful”

Again, with all due respect, while practically he may make some powerful points, biblically his conclusion goes beyond what is supported by the text.

Joe,

The title of your post is a great one—and the answer is YES, a DIVIDED ASSEMBLY is a sin.

I believe that brother Stark is not speaking of separate assemblies scheduled at different times due to the SIZE OF THE CONGREGATION and/or due to a member’s preference of SCHEDULE. I also think that your examples from Acts and I Corinthians are somewhat unrelated to the “worship” issue.

In all honesty, personally, I prefer the word “assembly” to “worship” when it comes to the gathering of the saints. The assembly was intended to be a gathering so that Christians can feast upon God’s word and commemorate the suffering and death of Christ—this is best exemplified in Acts 20:7. Of course, “worship services” can occur in the assembly.

MUSIC (which by definition can be vocal and/or instrumental) is never mentioned in the New Testament as ever related to worship. SINGING is infrequently mentioned, although we can teach and admonish one another through that avenue. Yet the contemporary movers have often successfully convinced the spiritually gullible individuals that MUSIC in worship or MUSICAL WORSHIP is the major purpose or reason for the assembly. What a perversion of the truth! That’s correct—and one form of deception leads to another. Before you know it, the Lord’s Supper is observed on Thursdays and/or immersion in water in order to receive forgiveness of sins is a non-essential in God’s scheme of redemption and/or we now share doctrinal fallacies of the denominational world, etc., etc.

In a “worship service,” when the emphasis is on the “MUSICAL” aspect of singing, rather than on the message or letting “the word of Christ dwell in you richly … teaching and admonishing one another,” then it is certainly a form of deviation from the true purpose for which the saints gather. I can not imagine the Christians in the first century assembling only to be sung to or performed for by a group of holy musicians called the Praise Team. For simplicity sake, let’s call it a concert—where the gathering is entertained with either a bunch of overly simplistic “singly-clappy” choruses (e.g., “Clap Your Hands” or “I Want to Sing a Love Song to You, Jesus,” etc.) or overly complex pieces that only the select musicians are capable of singing to “perfection”— hardly qualifying the category of singing that teaches and admonishes.

The are many issues that the contemporary change movement has initiated—causing varying degrees of heartaches and heartbreaks among individual members and congregations in the body of Christ, not to mention upheavals, divisions, alienation, subversions, truth perversions, diversions, acquisitions. The change agents have become so adept at what they do—some of the hidden agenda being such as the few I mentioned above.

It is okay to have a preference as to which assembly period is more convenient to the member, but it’s not okay for a congregation to be divided over worship CONTENT with two different groups meeting separately in the same building. I say “content” rather than “style” because when MUSICAL WORSHIP is the emphasis, instead of the message of God’s love, His truth and grace or of Christ the Crucified, the purpose for which the saints gather has been voided—there is a change in CONTENT.

I know there’s so much more to discuss that sometimes it is difficult where to begin. But, Joe, I like the way you stated your first paragraph without qualifying it further. It contains a really powerful message, and so I hope you don’t mind me quoting you here. Joe Spivey states that Rusty Stark …

“… certainly is right in emphasizing the need for the Lord’s church to be united in Christ. Whether division results as the result of selfishness, loyalty to various parties and personalities or a lack of respect for the most basic of Christian doctrines, all of which are addressed by Paul’s pen, guided by the Holy Spirit, in 1 Corinthians, it is certainly wrong.”

Donnie Cruz

I've been reading the post on this web site for a couple of years but never posted as I felt I had nothing profound to say. However, that does not seem to stop most of the ones that post here. So, what I have noticed as the central theme for most of the postings on this site is the pronoun I. As in I believe, I think God meant, I think what God is saying here, I know, etc.,etc. Now what I want to know is what makes one's opinated "I" any more valid than another's opinated "I". It all reminds me of something I read recently. "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the only way or the correct way, it doesn't exist." To save some time I know someone will correct me and tell me there is an only way but in "my" opinion that would just be . . . "your" opinion.

Hey brother--
this will be short... you can't honestly mean to tell me you actaully believe those passages you put on your message are telling us (christians)that when the called out, come out to worship, we should all be in the same room at the same time or we are divided. That's absurd and it's not what the passage says or implies. I guess we should all get up and go to the drinking fountain or the rest room whenever someone gets up and leave the sanctuary during the service, becuz we will then be divided. Or maybe we should all get up and do a spiritual conga line whenever one of the deacons feels the need to get up and walk the hall ways (which deacons tend to do alot in my experience) or we will be divided... Come on now, I'm all for debate and lively ones at that, but I am surprised at the loosie-goosie way some are using scripture to make their points. You actually think the church in Ephesus, Corinth and Colosse all used the manner in which saints in Jerusalem worshipped as some kind of template to be used all over the world??? Man-o-man, i think maybe just maybe, this isn't as much of a big deal to the Father as it seems to be to some of us, who apparantly get more excited about being right than about right being... but what do i know, huh?!

MES,

I believe the author is speaking of the import of spiritual unity, of brethren “speaking the same thing … no divisions … joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. 1:10), all “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

With you mentioning “deacons” mistakenly for “elders” and with what your other forms of “cute” expressions seem to indicate—and I am saying this respectfully—you probably need to do more research and have a better understanding of what’s really going on “within” this fellowship. In other words, it would be an oddity, for example, for a Christian Scientist (an outsider) to offer suggestions to help resolve issues within the Jehovah’s Witnesses fellowship, or vice versa.

You haven’t even identified yourself to us—so far, a total stranger. Maybe, not totally, since you’ve posted a few. But please be brave … don’t be ashamed to tell us about “mesisme.” We would like to get to know you!

Donnie Cruz