RO 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

RO 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

RO 14:9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written:

" `As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
`every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "

RO 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

RO 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

RO 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

RO 14:22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

RO 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

RO 15:5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

RO 15:7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9 so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name."

RO 15:10 Again, it says,

"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people."

RO 15:11 And again,

"Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples."

RO 15:12 And again, Isaiah says,

"The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him."

RO 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

From the King James Bible:

Rom. 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Rom. 16:18 "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Gal. 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"

Gal. 1:7 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Gal. 1:9 "As we said before, so say I now again, if any (man) preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Gal. 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Gal. 1:11 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."

Gal. 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught (it), but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Yes, there are disputable things in life, and even in the Church, like the hour of worship, order of worship, the number of songs sung, and even heating and cooling units, for example. These do not alter the basic doctrine of the New Testament. The doctrine of the New Testament is not disputable. When the Church alters the New Testament pattern of worship and Christian living and introduces worldly practices so that it becomes like the world, it violates Romans 12:2 and James 4:4. Christians must learn to live and worship according to the indisputable pattern as set forth in the New Testament. To consider the New Testament doctrine as "disputable" introduces discord and strife. It is a reflection of man's preferences over Christ's commands.

Dr. Bill Crump,

Thank you for your post. Your post has a wealth of information in it that I need I am not trying to be smart with you but do you mind if I ask you a honest question? Why do you use the King James Version? I might have some questions for you later on.

Thank you for your time.

Tom

Readers, do me favor and let me know if you think that I am being sarcastic. Knowledge without love is nothing.

Tom, thanks for your question. I believe the KJV to be a reliable translation, a literal word-for-word translation and not a paraphrase, of the Greek manuscripts that have survived the ravages of time. I believe the KJV puts into very formal English as close a meaning as we can get to what the manuscripts intended to say, given the problems with languages, without altering the original meaning of the original authors.

Further reasons are too complex to outline here. That would be like asking me to tell you everything there is to know about medicine. But there are scholarly treatises on the KJV that compare that translation to the modern versions and paraphrases like the NIV, Living Bible, and The Message. A good place to start is the online study entitled SPIRITUAL DECEPTION IN THE HIGHEST: An In-Depth Study of the Authorized King James Bible vs. All Other "Modern Versions." The link is: http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm

One problem with the modern translations and paraphrases is that they are based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two fourth-century manuscripts which have been proven to be monstrously flawed. Yet modern scholars still "rely" on these texts, because they are supposedly the "oldest" extant manuscripts we have of the New Testament. But in this case, "older" is not always "better."

A valuable but difficult work which discredits these two codices is that by Dean John Burgon, a 19th-century English vicar, who wrote The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. This work proves the validity of Mark 16:9-20, a passage which many modern translations otherwise treat as spurious. Hence, modern translations either place such passages in brackets, banish them as footnotes, or delete them altogether. By dealing with Mark 16, Burgon also shows how flawed the two codices are. Burgon's works should be available in most public libraries.

Another source is the Trinitarian Bible Society, which publishes authoritative information about the KJV, its history, its translation, those who made the translation, and articles comparing the KJV with modern versions. You can order materials from them at:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

I hope this steers you in the right direction, for it summarizes the sources I have used to convince me that the original KJV (not the New KJV) is a far superior translation (despite some archaic words) to any modern translation. The RSV and ASV would probably be as reliable, although I have less experience with them. I don't use the KJV because of tradition; I use it because of what I learned through study.

Thank you for the great information.

As you can tell that I have not checked into this but I personally cannot stand the King James Version. I use the easy to read version because it's easy to read. I have both the easy to read and the niv paper versions and I also have more versions on e-sword.

Have a great day.

Tom

Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida

Tom, just like the two codices, in which older is not necessarily better, remember that just because a Bible version is easier to read does not necessarily make it a more accurate translation. Contrary to popular belief, all Bible versions are not the same.

You may also want to peruse the thread entitled "Are All Bibles the Same? Do All Bibles Contain the Inspired Word of God?" which is located in the Sunday School in Exile forum here on this site.

Something tricky is going on. I put in www.concernedmembers.org and it took me to the Madison COC website. I might be telling you something that you already know.

 

Have a great day,

 Tom

Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida

Thank you. Yes, we're well aware of that. It's a ploy that the Madison Church uses to steer as many people away from the CM site as possible, for obvious reasons.

The NEW Madison is built on the INFILTRATE and DIVERT. As a way to use the Concerned Members popularity they got the .org version. So when you THINK you are goint to concerned members they DIVERT you to Madison. Isn't that slicker than a salted slug. Very devious!

Just FYI, and I think I pointed this out a few years ago, the same goes for www.concernmembers.net.

The reason that ALL MUSIC is associated with Satan, prostitutes and Sodomites in RELIGIONISM is that it was BROUGHT to earth by Satan to BLEED OFF worship due to God and SILENCE His Word. Making a Spectacle of Worship INTENDS to tell Jesus Christ our only Teacher and Comfort Speaker to "shut His face." Even if there was a preacher who understood Romans 14-15 if he described it AFTER all of the brains had been thrown into schizophrenia which Paul called MADNESS, it would not be possible to COMPREHEND the message of the chapters. I hope you will copy this out and try to comprehend the fact that Paul OUTLAWS outward forms of MUSIC based on common sense for the "school of the Bible" if nothing else.

BOTH of the PAGAN SECTS in Rome were highly musical and charismatic. Paul speaks of the Orphics who did not drink wine and lived on nuts. The Dionysiacs drank wine, ate meat and were also addicted to the homosexual rituals with music. The KINGDOM does not consist of external things but it is DEFILED by what comes out of the mouth. MEATS are to prove that the KINGDOM IS WITHIN YOU and nothing you can do to satisfy or deprive the FLESH has any value.

Matt 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which COMETH out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Jesus had just alluded to both Isaiah and Ezekiel who connect MOUTH RELIGION to beautiful singing and playing instruments. This is connected to the HOMOSEXUAL ritals the Jews were lusting for.

We KNOW from history that these two MUSICAL sects caused problems in Rome until their WORSHIP SERVICES were finally outlawed. Paul didn't STOP defining the DISCORDING elements in chapter 14 when he began chapter 15. (You know, there is no break between CHAPTERS.)

Besides NOT making the PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY DIVISIVE over MEATS and DRINKS, Paul said to those with Eyes and Ears: "DON'T SOW DISCORD OVER MUSIC. "

NEXT, Paul says DON'T PLEASURE YOURSELVES In your assemblies but do EDUCATION ONLY. The word PLEASURE speaks of SINGING which was used to LIFT UP the people or PLEASURE them SEXUALLY. The ACT behind pleasuring was called HERESY where the DEMAGOGUE carried them away for his OWN PLEASURE AND PROFIT. The word KLEPTOMAI is connected.

Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to EDIFICATION. (education) Rom 15: 2

For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. Rom 15: 3

If SINGING sexually-arousing erotic praise songs DO NOT EDUCATE people about THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN then this is a DIRECT LAW CONDEMNING IT.

For whatsoever things were WRITTEN AFORETIME were written for our LEARNING, that we through PATIENCE and COMFORT of the SCRIPTURES might have hope. Rom 15: 4

Now, whatsoever was written is the SCRIPTURES. In Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 he calls them Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs. These are ALL types of the BOOK of Psalms and much of the other Bible in metrical form. YOU CANNOT MAKE A MISTAKE. THEREFORE, IT IS A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO SPIT IN THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST OUR HOLY SPIRIT COMFORTER.

ONLY Jesus is our MEDIATOR or INTERCESSOR: He COMFORTS as the PARAKLESIS through the WORDS OF THE PARAKLETOS. If your singy-clappy is NOT named Jesus Christ then He is not THE Holy Spirit and HE is the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION claiming to BE God.

1 Jn. 2:1 MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an ADVOCATE with the Father, JESUS CHRIST the righteous:

Jesus the ONLY PARAKLETOS said MY WORDS are SPIRIT and they are LIFE (John 6:63).

Paul DIRECTLY COMMANDED you to speak THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN.

with ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH

He calls that SCRIPTURE and

He says that this is HOW Jesus Christ COMFORTS us through the Word.

That is also EDIFICATION or EDUCATION.

And it is the ONLY way to Glorify GOD who as THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST inspired the Scriptures.

And it is the ONLY way to KEEP THE UNITY of the Assembly.

You remember that Paul never commanded SINGING but SPEAKING one to another to TEACH and ADMONISH one another. All of the resources Paul defined are inspired by the Spirit of Christ.

Teaching is not SANGING but speaking to one another with Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs which are ALL the inspired text. The word SING is ODE and means to speak and it further defines PSALMOS as in "Hebrew Cantillation." That is why Paul said SPEAK to one another and not SING to one another..

Didaskalia (g1319) did-as-kal-ee'-ah; from 1320; instruction (the function or the information): - DOCTRINE, LEARNING, TEACHING.

The direct command to Timothy was:

Till I come, give attendance to [public] reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1 Tim 4:13

Attendance is a "worship" word meaning to hold the mind to.

Disciples are MADE by baptizing and teaching what Jesus taught and revealed through the apostles. Every school boy who aspired to be a DISCIPLE of a master tentmaker could comprehend that.

Now the God of PATIENCE and CONSOLATION [paraklesis] grant you to be LIKEMINDED one toward another according to Christ Jesus: Rom 15: 5

Jesus did not try to AROUSE spiritual excitement. If He had done so He COULD NOT be a Teacher of SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE.

That ye may with one MIND and one MOUTH GLORIFY God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom 15: 6

PRAISE means to tell the story of God and only God knows how. Paul defined the way to GLORIFY God which is by speaking HIS Words. If we "sang" Twila Paris then we WORSHIP Twila Paris.

That defines the ekklesia or synagogue which solves the diversity problem in Romans 14, BOTH of which had a music for PLEASURING practice.

Wherefore RECEIVE ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. Rom 15:7

SINGING as an act as opposed to teaching was introduced in the year 373 and unity has been destroyed every time people want to MUSICATE.

The NEW STYLE PRAISE SINGING from the OLD STYLE Towers of Babylon INTENDS to sow discord to drive the old people out into the cold so they can attract body worshipers: Pleasuring is still called heresy. I sense some GLORIFYING in being able to sow discord?

PRAISE means to tell the story. How are you gonna CONFIRM the promise of the Gospel while BEING a singy-clappy Peter Pan? Huh? NOW, Paul had COMMANDED how the SYNAGOGUE or EKKLESIA is to be conducted and it NEVER had a PRAISE RITUAL. Next, Paul speaks PROPHECY and not a DIRECT COMMAND to let the girlletts in piglett tails to do RING AROUND THE ROSY.

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to CONFIRM the promises made unto the fathers:

Now, notice that Paul ALWAYS defines the EXTERNAL for ONE ANOTHER but the SINGING and MELODY is INTERNAL and is directed TOWARD GOD.

Rom 15:9 And that the Gentiles might GLORIFY God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause
........I will CONFESS to thee AMONG the Gentiles,
........and sing UNTO thy name.

Rom 15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and LAUD him, all ye people.

CONFESS involves the word SPEAK to the GENTILES and tell them about Jesus. Consistent with ALL of the other passages the SINGING is directed toward God.

You have to GO INTO ALL THE WORLD to let JESUS SING to the Jentiles

Rom 15:16 That I should be
........ the MINISTER of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
........ ministering the gospel of God,
........ that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
........ being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

You simply CANNOT put false dogma into the mouth of Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit. He clearly identifies the SINGING which went on in Rome and in all pagan religions AFTER he has cleared up the FOOD problem.

Contrary to the false teaching that the LIBERTY Paul gives us to do ANYTHING even if it sows discord, Romans 15 DIRECTLY COMMANDS the same TEACHING of the synagogue which NEVER had any superstitious PRAISE RITUAL. In fact, it was OUTLAWED for the Qahal or church in the wilderness. To prove it, the Jews NEVER had "praise singing" or instruments in the synagogue.

Eddie

Good point. It is the utmost heresy, this new change movement that always finds something wrong with tradition Christian worship, therefore they must CHANGE things in order to suit their own lustful desires.

The change agents will always find something wrong with those who desire to worship in spirit & truth because change agents are antichrists.

JC

JC,

There's wrong on both sides of the coin.

Eddie:

The way I see it is those who want a "contemporary" style worship which usually includes instruments, women leadership, the rejection of preaching about hell and damnation, etc. should start their own denomination or congregation, why go into established congregations, that reject that type of worship and promote views that are rejected by it's membership and attempt to hi-jack or take over that that assembly?

The problem may be financing, and the funding needed to start their own assembly.

Since there are so many different denominations and this being a free country to start ones own assembly why don't the post-moderns go elsewhere instead of infiltrating & changing the complexion of so many once faithful orthodox churches of Christ?

Please think about this question very, very carefully.

To me it appears the post-modern agenda is interested in taking over the established congregations assets, I really see no other answer to the question which is also not unique to the churches of Christ only.

JC

Change is a good thing, especially if the congregation is dying or not moving forward. The way the changes are implemented can be the bad part. Education and going slowly are rules to be used.

Eddie

You wrote:

"Change is a good thing"

but God wrote:

My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those who are given to change, - Proverbs 24:21 nas.

Secondly, my definition of contemporary worship is worship that includes or add things that were not a normal part of church history, as I indicated earlier these include:

* theatre
* drama
* dance
* women leadership
* speaking in toungues
* amplifiers, drums, electric guitars, different instruments
* preaching a "sugar coated" gospel almost entirely about love and nothing about hell & damnation

these are a few of the growing trends in the last days church.

Remember Eddie, the Bible does indicate that as we go farther and deeper into the last days perious times will come, Apostasy will be much more rampant (2 Timothy 3, Revelation 18, etc.) and that judgement will begin with the house of God (church) see 1 Peter 4:17, certainly something to think about.

Also, as you correctly pointed out, there is two sides to a coin, so keep an open mind about this because it is very, very serious; keep reading your Bible and giving all the glory to God.

JC

JC,

Where have you personally observed the changes in worship you listed?

How do you reconcile the changes in technology today with the pattern of where and how they worshipped in the 1st century?

Ed

Dear Eddie,

I do not believe technology has a thing to do with changing how God instructed mankind to Worship Him, not one bit. In the Bible, in the very last book, in the very last chapter, God warns we are not to add or take away from His Word (Revelation 22:18,19) and this includes the mode of worship. Sunday sabbath worship is simply the gathering together with other saints who are likeminded (Hebrews 10:25) to:

1.) observe the LORD's supper, (1 Corinthians 11)
2.) to ask if anyone new desires to be baptized (Acts 2:38)
3.) to have older, mature, consistent members of the assemly teach the Word to the congregation and newer members (Acts 2:42; James 3:1)
4.) to address any benevolence requests of the brethren
5.) to pray (Matthew 18:20, Acts 1:14)
6.) perhaps sing a Psalm or a faithful hymn upon gathering and dismissing the assembly

Technology does not change the essential teachings one bit, the only difference maybe something like using lights instead of candles or a lampstand or having a baptismal instead of using a lake, but in either case I do not believe subtle changes such as these are adding to the commandments of the very simplistic assembly that God has commanded and outlined in His Word given to us.

JC

"How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!" - Daniel 12:12.

Jc,

You have not answered the questions. You did do a good job of skirting around them.

Ed

Eddie:

It is apparent that you are one of those who has no desire to learn what the Bible itself says about how Christians are to assemble so I'll stop wasting my breath right now.

JC

JC,

You are still skirting!!!

JC,
Please define "contemporary" style worship??

* theatre
* drama
* dance
* women leadership
* speaking in toungues
* amplifiers, drums, electric guitars, different instruments
* preaching a "sugar coated" gospel almost entirely about love and nothing about hell & damnation


Funny, I've been to contemporary services and seen none of the above. By the way, the gospel message is one of love. You might want to make sure that's an "authorized" KJV you've got there.

My point is that although that may describe the contemporary worship at Madison, it doesn't describe it everywhere. Since we have no governing body over the churches of Christ, not everyone will do a contemporary service in the same way. People shouldn't hear the word "contemporary" and run from it based on your descriptions.

"B" states that s/he has attended "contemporary" services at church(es) that had no theatre/drama; no dance; no women in leadership roles (pastor, elder, deacon, bishop); nobody speaking in tongues; no amplifiers, drums, electric guitars, different instruments; and no preaching a "sugar coated" gospel almost entirely about love and nothing about hell & damnation. "B" is saying that s/he has attended "contemporary" services that utilized no special gimmicks. That's remarkable!

If services have absolutely "none of the above," then what makes the services "contemporary?" The purpose of "contemporary" services is to make church more attractive and appealing, yea entertaining, to younger people and especially to the "unchurched," to get them into the seats (not pews), keep them interested, and keep them coming back. If traditional services without frills won't bring 'em in, then some gimmick(s) must be added. Contemporary services allegedly preach the "same Gospel" as traditional services do, but the difference is that everything is done in a non-traditional manner utilizing various contemporary gimmick(s), such as entertainment. Without gimmicks, without additional influences to boost interest in worship, services are merely traditional. Of course, not every "contemporary" church manifests the same set of "contemporary" gimmicks, yet gimmicks they do manifest in one way or another. They must or be "traditional."

Services are most commonly made "contemporary" if their gimmicks mirror those from the arts and entertainment industry: theater; drama; dance; pop/rock music with praise teams and assorted trappings (particularly amplifiers, drums, electric guitars); and preachers who mimic stand-up comedians. There may also be "food courts" (concession stands) selling pre-service snacks as in common theaters. Even newer churches are often (but not always) constructed to have the look and feel of performing arts centers.

Another gimmick is to appeal to various special-interest groups such as the Women's Movement and Gay Rights Movement. Having women, gays, and lesbians in leadership roles satisfies the PC crowd. Such churches are not only seen as "contemporary" but as "progressive."

I've been to "contemporary" services that exhibited virtually "all of the above" on B's list. The exception: no one spoke in tongues. There were Christmas and Easter dramas replacing worship services; teenage girls sometimes performing interpretive dance during a service; pop/rock music with a praise team and assorted trappings and instruments; a female minister to senior adults; and a rather crude pastor who, though he didn't "sugar coat" the message, polluted it nonetheless with an alternative approach. As he stood behind a clear acrylic podium, he elicted laughter from time to time with "witticisms," such as saying he had to be sure that his "fly" was zipped up beforehand! So much for comedy in worship services!

The bottom line: Traditional services need no gimmicks to attract the faithful. The pure Word of God and worship in spirit and in truth will suffice. Contemporary services rely on gimmicks to bring in the entertainment seekers.

Dr. Crump,

My understanding of contemporary is more in line with being current, modern or relevant to the day. Does one have to include gimmicks to be contemporary?

"The bottom line: Traditional services need no gimmicks to attract the faithful. The pure Word of God and worship in spirit and in truth will suffice. Contemporary services rely on gimmicks to bring in the entertainment seekers."

Have you been to many contemporary services? Did you notice any difference if you have?

Would you share with me the order of where you worship now?

Respectfully,
Frank

Dr. Haliburton,

Actually, contemporary services incorporate several styles of worship. The main theme is not that it is "relevant", which is what all worship should be no matter the "style".

Contemporary has to do with meeting the wants and needs of today's society. It is actually based on a marketing design and was begun by non-denominational churches back in the 80's. I can remember the books that came out on the subject for preachers and leaders of churches. It was only accepted by a few congregations until ministers like Rick Warren finally set out a "growth plan" or marketing plan for churches based on basic marketing principals.

From what I remember and from the meetings that elders and preachers attended, contemporary services are specifically designed to attract the following:

1) youth
2) young single adults
3) young families
4) those who don't like the more serious and rigid services
5) upper-middle class with social connections

The services are created to overcome the following issues:

1) Youths' short attention spans
2) today's need for immediate gratification
3) need for entertainment and "emotion"
4) dislike for in depth bible study
5) dislike of long sermons with many scriptural references
6) dislike of negatives such as "don'ts" that conflict with today's acceptable behaviors
7) dislike of the more serious, orderly type services
8) dislike of scriptural based sermons instead of story based

These issues are overcome by the following marketing ploys:
1) entertainment and excitement that is not directly correlated to scripture
2) short story based sermons or "self-help" type speeches - not always based on scripture
3) limitation of scriptural reference during the sermon
4) Positive information and scriptures - avoidance of anything considered negative or upsetting
5) Only negative scriptures are those that society as a whole agrees on - adultary, murder, etc.
6) The churches goal is to get the people to attend, learning the scriptures and God's full instructions is up to the individual member.
7) Social type setting - almost a "junior league" type atmosphere
8) Marketing that states the church is open to everyone no matter their belief - no changes required to become a member.
9) Removal of elders/deacons and the new titles like "shepherd" to make people feel more comfortable.
10) New songs that invite emotion and clapping to get people into the "feeling". No songs that evoke strong, deep, quiet emotions like some of the older songs (It is well, etc).

And yes, I have been to churches that abide by these goals and are pretty open about them. They are large churches - upperclass and very social. No real in depth bible study or knowledge. Shockingly lacking in true biblical knowledge in fact. I asked questions and the Shepherds and preacher became upset and angry - it was not their job to tell people what was a sin - that's up to the individual. Just the basics. The Houston metro area has a lot of them and I have attended several of them.

In a nutshell - they are not truly churches as they are not teaching the entire Bible for fear of upsetting someone or losing a member. I call them "lite churches". More of an entry level type assembly. I have to admit that the ones I attended were extremely empty, false, shallow type churches, and though the people were nice, they couldn't have held an in depth discussion if they had tried. I don't remember anyone even opening their bibles in class or service. It was all "lite" meaningless stuff that you can learn from a Zig Zigler tape. Very disappointing. No wonder they have such a high turnover of members - entertainment gets boring/in the way after a while if you are trying to develop a deep relationship with God.

Thanks, PPB, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Dr. Crump,

Would you kindly answer the questions that I asked?

PPB, or any other contributor, would you have another name for a service that does not use the "gimmicks" that Dr. Crump refers to, but is not like the services that were prevalent 30 years ago? Is there a name for the relevant, scriptural assembly on the first day of the week that falls between the two names that you choose to label?

I was thinking of the dictionary definition of contemporary, just as Jesus was contemporary in His time.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Frank

PPB provided such a profound answer to Dr. Frank's questions that I could not possibly add anything to it. She and I have both seen contemporary services in different parts of the country that have all of what she described in various combinations. That's what makes them "contemporary." They are designed to please and delight man, not necessarily to praise and worship God in the long run. For that reason, the "contemporary" services of today cannot be likened to what Jesus did as a "contemporary" of His time. His purpose was not to please and delight man but to call sinners to repentance and salvation. The purpose of today's services is to call the worldly minded to entertainment.

Thanks Dr. Crump for your kind words!

bill,

you make this statement:

"That's what makes them "contemporary." They are designed to please and delight man, not necessarily to praise and worship God in the long run."

i don't question your use of "contemporary" in the vain of what has been called holy entertainment. it exists for sure!

can there not be an assembly on the first day of the week that is relevant to today in which people enjoy their time in prayer, praise, Word, communion and etc? should the assembly event be pleasing to God but burdensome to man? is that what He is looking for?

it seems like you would like to draw the line some place. if so, is there a simple list of acceptability? God has not made His precise will known to us in 21st century america. do assemblies in other areas of the world have similar problems and controversy?

frank

Dr. Haliburton,

Unfortunately, the term "contemporary" in the dictionary is not current in the case of worship services; and therefore, cannot be used to define the contemporary services of today.

I believe there may be some historical information lacking here based on the question you keep asking. It seems that you have been mislead into believing that the services of the last 100 years or so were current for their time. That would be incorrect. In actuality, the Reformation movement took the worship service backwards instead of forwards in it's style and function. The Catholic movement had changed the simplicity of the original services and added pomp and non-scriptural traditions for the last 1500 years or so. The Reformation movement, though not always correct in their beliefs and ideas, did try to return the assembly back to the basic style described in the NT - in a nutshell, they became "old fashioned" instead of contemporary.

As for the early church being "contemporary". Again, that is historically and scripturally incorrect. Much of how the early church's service was set up was very much like how the original Jewish assemblies had been held before they had taken on more pomp and tradition. There is a lot of information on this very issue if you wish to research it. It is believed that the assembly was set up to make the Christian Jews more comfortable with the transition. It was the Gentiles that had to make the most changes in their traditional religous ceremonies. They came from pagan backgrounds that were highly entertaining, with female priestess, shows, instruments, drunkedness, etc.

Historical documents from both early church leaders (before Catholicism) and Roman citizens clearly detail the type of services that were held and what was considered to be heretical and evil. In fact, the use of instruments during assembly, women leaders or preachers, emotional outbursts, dancing, and any highly emotional songs were forbidden and believed to cause one to sin. These issues were also seen as highly divisional and heretical - they turned their backs on "newer" churches that allowed such behaviors.

Letters, apologetics and other written documents clearly identify the original services as very simplistic, somber, orderly and based on a set pattern. The meetings included songs/psalms, prayer, reading of the Apostles letters/study and the Lord's Supper.

In fact, there are documents by church elders condemning heretical movements for the exact issues that are denounced on this website.

The scriptures tell us to stand firm in the beliefs and teachings. To not add or take away, to continue to assemble and teach as was first taught. To NOT be a part of the contemporary world. We are to turn away from worldliness. Why then, should our churches embrace worldliness? To whom are we catering? Why must the church change it's assembly to make the world happy? I thought we were to give up our needs and give in to God's?

You see, trying to make the world happy and accepting of religion only weakens God's word and the church. It does not add to the church - the contemporary services barely even address God's full word. It's a facade with no true foundation. It is worldly and not Godly.

ppb,

thanks for your history lesson. i'm fairly well versed in church history and the difference between those from different cultural heritage. in no way has the reformation, restoration or current assembly practices mirrored the first century assembly. all have been contemporary, or relevant and reflecting the culture of the day and geographical location. the western church here in the us has no resemblance to the middle eastern one of millenia past. i agree that they were more in line with the jewish practices with reverence, chanting and dialogue from scripture or letters. obviously the body and blood were central to the celebration, but fellowship meals were not uncommon as long as they were in order and hospitable to all.

i do have one question for you though in response to your following statement:

"I thought we were to give up our needs and give in to God's?"

exactly, what are God's needs?

frank

Frank,

You state you are farily well versed in church history, yet your next statement seems to be a direct contradiction. I have to respectfully question your source. As you didn't state any actual facts - I'm not sure what point(s) you are actually trying to discredit? It would help if you defined "well versed"? College degree(s)? Courses? Self-study?

During my years in college, I learned to re-evaluate the information provided by teachers and professors (Yes there are great professors out there - don't get me wrong!). I quickly came to understand that facts were not always facts. My investigations verified that many of the professors' own opinions/beliefs could at times be invalid, biased, out-dated or outright false. I had learned as a child to respectfully question what I was taught. It helped that I had access to a large personal library of historical and theological books in my own home (or next door in the church library). It is a trait that I inherited/learned and will never overcome.

After having read your comment, I find myself wondering how you would react to many of the early church writings and other historical evidences. Your comment about the fellowship meals was confusing. I got the sense that you were implying that when they worshipped, they ate a full meal as the LS. Though scriptural and historical evidence contradicts that notion.

As to relevant and or cultural - have you read the writings by the non-reformed churches against the backward practices of the reformed churches? They went against many of the cultural norms of their times. The Catholics had a fit over the simplicity and lowliness of the reformed assemblies. They were seen as antiquated and low-classed, even evil.

I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make with the "God's needs?" question. Are you asking me to quote the scriptures that mention standing firm in our beliefs and patterns of worship? Those that tell us to not be a part of worldliness? Those that tell us to mark and avoid false teachers? Or those that tell us to be orderly, somber, etc? I'm not sure what you are asking here as God has many commands - which one are you discussing?

ppb,

i thought my question was straight forward.

what are God's needs?

frank

Frank,

As you are fully aware, your question is not straight forward. Again, you need to be more specific in your question. Which of God's needs are you referring to? The beliefs/actions/love/obedience he requires, or his need for us to turn away from all that is sinful or could become a stumbling block to others? My original comment incorporated all of his commands.

Come now...do you really wish to continue to play this game? Do you not understand that your intent was evident from the first posting? Where are your facts? How do you support your hypothesis that assemblies always incorporate all things cultural?

How does Frank define a non-cultural assembly? Do you take away the chairs and the brick walls? What about the carpet and air conditioner? Do they change the meaning of the assembly - the pattern and intent? Did Jesus consider furniture and the building's construction materials to be part of his pattern for worship? If so, where is that written? Or is that just a cop-out for the "cultural" group?

As to songs - we know that the assembly is to be somber, orderly, simple, etc. Would that not include the songs that are sung? Can one not show love and joy for God without music that is meant to get the heart beating faster and the hands clapping? Does the style and tempo of the song help determine if it is somber and orderly?

What did Clement of Alexandria mean when he stated "If people occupy their time with pipes, psalteries, choirs, dnaces, Egyptian clapping of hands, and such DISORDERLY frivolities, they gecome quite immodest..."

Hmm...seems we are not the first "culture" to disagree over such issues.

ppb,

i know God has desires for man such as salvation and holiness. your statement inferred that He has needs. i was just curious as to what they may be. i was not aware that He was in need of anything. if there are some needs He is lacking, please present them.

frank

Frank: "in no way has the reformation, restoration or current assembly practices mirrored the first century assembly. all have been contemporary, or relevant and reflecting the culture of the day and geographical location. the western church here in the us has no resemblance to the middle eastern one of millenia past."

It is certainly true that American church assemblies today are geared to be "relevant" to society by reflecting the culture, and people find pop culture far more "relevant" than anything else. The most common ways to implement this pop culture include pop/rock music that everyone listens to on the radio, according to Rick Warren, and other forms of entertainment that mirror material from performing arts centers. If all assemblies of past eras have reflected the most "relevant" culture of the day, as Frank claims, then churches in the 1920s would have generally reflected the music of the "Charleston," jitterbug, and various ragtime pieces, because they were the pop culture of that era. Churches in the 1930s and 1940s would have generally reflected the big-band and "swing" music, because they were the pop culture of that era. Churches in the 1950s and 1960s would have generally reflected rock and roll music, because that was the pop culture of that era, and so on. But in general, that didn't happen.

Mainline churches in this country did not really set out to incorporate pop culture into services until some 20 years ago, when church growth marketing strategies like those of Rick Warren rose to set the trend: to get the attention of the unchurched (or world), you have to think like the unchurched (or world) and be like the unchurched (or world). This goes contrary to Scripture, which tells us not to be like the world (Romans 12:2, James 4:4).

Thus to say that the assemblies of all past eras have reflected the popular culture of the day is fallacious. Jesus did not bring a message that catered to one specific pop culture. To "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" is to rise above different cultures, because His message transcends all cultures. Because He presented a simple message without resorting to showbizz gimmicks, our assemblies should mirror that simplicity as found in first-century assemblies: a cappella hymn singing, prayer, expositon and study of the Word, monetary collection, and the Lord's Supper.

We may not dress exactly as did the first-century Christians, we may not eat exactly the same type of food nor dwell in exactly the same types of residences as did the first-century Christians. These cultural aspects are of no importance unless they happen to clash with Scripture. What matters is that the simple pattern of assembly and worship in churches of Christ mirrors that found in first-century assemblies, which followed the pattern as set forth in the New Testament.

bill,

many hymns have been written during those dates you mention. you probably sing some in your assembly (if you attend one).

i dare say there was no a capella in the early church, or 4 part harmony for that fact. most likely it was chanting. does it really matter that we be precise? is reverence not enough? if precision is the key, could you list those things and how they be done?

once again, i'm not for the holy entertainment that is prevalent in many places. i have no problem with current offerings of praise that have been penned around the psalms or other scripture. i'm sure that offerings like the Lord's prayer, set to tune, are not offensive to God. do you ever sing that one? (Lk 11:2ff)

how about that monetary gift each week? who do we send them to in jerusalem? do we have a specific group of widows and orphans to give them to? can we justify other uses by the Word? have we become contemporary in that area?

i'm not looking for an arguement, just wondering how we determine where to draw the lines. who does the drawing?

frank

The guide for worship is the New Testament. Follow it. If a precise line must be drawn, we may be precise by not going beyond the pattern and principle of worship outlined therein.

Hymns can be written without resorting to pop culture techniques; that is, written to praise and glorify God with reverence, not to the please and entertain worldy minded, emotionally driven congregants.

The monetary contribution is distributed to those who need it most, just as the first-century Christians did. Follow the pattern, the principle, the plan as outlined in the New Testament.

The New Testament commands speaking to ourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in the heart to God (Eph. 5:19). Since we have the general commands to "speak" and to "sing" but are not commanded how to sing, then the manner of singing is left up to us; that is, chanting as well as 4-, 5-, or 6-part harmony for that matter are scriptural. Again, follow the pattern, the principle, the plan as outlined in the New Testament.

As stated earlier, the word "contemporary" in American churches today applies to that which would make the church more pleasing and acceptable to the world, but not necessarily to follow the New Testament pattern and principle for worship. "Contemporary" today not only appeals to pop culture, it seeks to abandon the somber, orderly "traditional" worship pattern of ages past and replace it with eye and ear candy, because worldly entertainment is far more pleasing to a godless society than a serious study of the Word and serious worship.

So let's cut to the chase. Arguments maintaing that worship assemblies always have been, are, and always will be "contemporary" are merely justifications for making the church more like, and more appealing to, the world. Romans 12:2, James 4:4, and 1 John 2:15-17.

bill,

i have no problem with your worship analysis. i do have one question here though about the following statement.

"The monetary contribution is distributed to those who need it most, just as the first-century Christians did. Follow the pattern, the principle, the plan as outlined in the New Testament."

i would venture to guess that the bulk of the contribution at most assemblies is not distributed as you have noted. how about your congregation? does 80% or more go to the poor? i'm betting most goes to staff, benefits, building and etc. we have changed the pattern to the clergy class on the dole. i believe brother ken refers to them as the staff infection.

frank

That’s exactly the point. Mega churches are too heavily involved in “Worship Ministry.” Where did the leadership (the elders) get the idea that worship is about “musical worship” and that worship is a ministry?

You see … a mega congregation can very easily “afford” to abuse the saints’ collection [“as God has prospered” them] by providing a “Worship Leader” full-time employment with benefits in lieu of part-time services—mainly by wagging his arms, providing holy laughter, a couple of hours a week? And calling these wagging-arms services … um … “serving the Master” … um … compensated with big buck$$$$ from the church treasury?

A great example of the “staff infection” prevalent in mega churches—the misuse and abuse of the saints’ collection!

Donnie

The mega-churches today are far more prone to sink large sums of money into "worship" entertainment programs to please and wow their congregants, in addition to providing robust salaries for church officers. For example, several years ago the newspaper in my city featured an article about a large, popular church that had spent over a million bucks to upgrade its "worship center" with state-of-the-art sound and lighting equipment and other trappings to enhance their drama/worship performances. The article noted a trend for more churches to acquire the "look and feel of performing arts centers." Such churches have lost sight of their worship priorities according to New Testament standards, including financial priorities. This hasn't always been the case. Only when the church growth schemes entered the picture did inflated churches really take a nose dive away from following New Testament worship standards. The same can hardly be said of smaller, rural churches of Christ, the services of which are plain, simple, and far more peaceful and reverent, not to mention the limited finances which are distributed to those who need them the most.