I offer the following article, written by John Waddey, for your reading and comments. I feel Mr. Waddey hit the nail on the head. What do you think?


DISCERNING THE ISSUES

Those who lead God’s people must be men of discernment, able to recognize the difference between truth and error, between the holy and the common and to teach and lead the saints in righteous paths. (Ezek. 44:23). To protect the infant church the Holy Spirit endowed some leaders with the gift of “discerning of spirits” (I Cor. 12:10). As the church of today is confronted by a host of false teachers who are clamoring for drastic changes in our faith, worship and practice we desperately need wise men who can discern what the real issues are.

The issue is not new songs. All songs were once new. Every generation of Christians have learned new songs. Many Christian have written hymns that have were introduced to our people. Some proved acceptable and appealing and found a permanent place in our hymnals. Others did not. The choice of songs belongs to the elders and the congregation who use them in worship; certainly not to university professors. It becomes an issue when a few seek to impose their choice of hymns on the whole church and are willing to press their preference to the point of division. Faction and division are sinful (Tit. 3:10).

The issue is not short songs with few words or songs not printed in our hymnals. All hymns, save the Psalms, are the products of uninspired men. Two hundred years ago no hymnals had musical notations and harmony lines.

The issue is not songs that originated among other faiths. Most of the great hymns we sing were written by poets of other churches. The issue is the content of the songs. Do they convey Biblical truth? If they express true worship and do not promote error they are acceptable.

That lyrics of songs are projected on a screen is not the issue. Remember, song books for each member are a fairly modern convenience. I have worshipped with churches in Africa where only the song leader had a hymnal. They were a luxury the rest could not afford.

Having a group skilled singers sitting together or having microphones is not the issue, not so long as the singing is congregational. Back in the 50s some congregations, in order to improve their singing, encouraged their skilled singers to sit together near the front of the auditorium. But when the group becomes a choir performing as others listen that is an issue to be met.

Having more than one song leader stand before the congregation at the same time is not the issue. The Bible says nothing about song leaders, one or more, standing before the congregation and leading the singing. I have seen two and even three song leaders standing before a church in mission fields where there were no trained and accomplished song directors. They needed the help and reassurance the others could lend them. If they sang different songs at the same time that would cause confusion. If they were there to perform for the entertainment of the audience, whether a solo, duet or trio, that would be an issue. Worship is not entertainment.

The issue is not casual dress worn at church. God does not prescribe a fashion standard for his worshipers. We have a cultural and even religious tradition of “Sunday dress” for worship. Such is neither scriptural nor unscriptural. I prefer to dress up for church. But not every one shares that preference. In the ancient times, when many slaves were brought into the church, I suspect they did not have the option of dressing up for worship. So long as our dress is modest (I Tim. 2:9), and appropriate for Christians assembled before Jehovah, customs and conventions of the age and place will having a bearing on the degree of formality. The real issue is having a casual attitude toward the church, the Word of God and his worship. God rebuked the prophet-preachers of Israel who were “light” and treacherous (Zeph. 3:4). Proclaiming the gospel and worshiping Jehovah is serious business, and should be approached with proper solemnity. Preachers should leave the comedy routine to the comedians.

The issue is not raising the hands in prayer. Ancient Christians sometimes lifted up holy hands when praying (I Tim. 2:8). A similar reference is found in Ps. 134:2. But if someone thinks by such outward actions we can generate a superior spirituality, they deceive themselves. Lifting up of hands is an outward posture in prayer just as kneeling, standing or falling on ones face. It has no special spiritual value. An issue occurs when a preacher or praise leader calls on the congregation lift up their voices in simultaneous prayer, (such as I recently witnessed) with many praying aloud there was confusion. That is an issue since God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). He wants all things to “be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40).

The issue is not whether or not to have Sunday evening or midweek services. Those are wonderful practices; edifying, educating and exhorting those who attend. But God does not command three services per week. He ordained that we assemble on the first day to break the bread (Acts 20:7). Other classes and services are options that elders may use or not use. Many churches, operating in less favorable circumstances, such as mission areas, do not have them. Many of our churches in days past, when transportation was more difficult, did not have them. The issue is what do the leaders do or not do when their people assemble. Do they honor God by obeying His will to the very best of their knowledge and ability?

The real issue is not which translation a preacher, teacher or congregation uses. A false teacher can promote his error from the King James Version as well as from the New International Version. All translations are the products of uninspired men. All have strengths and weaknesses. All stand in need of wise teachers to explain their meaning; even the tried and true KJV. It is the doctrine they teach that is the issue. Is it true to God’s revealed will or contrary to it? That is the issue.

The issue is not were some of our earlier preachers limited in their education or unpolished in their methods. Of course some of them were. They were human, men of their generation. Some of them had few talents and opportunities to improve them, but the used them in a remarkable successful way. But others had advanced education, were true Bible scholars and were polished orators. The real question is do today’s change agents have the love and respect for God’s Word, and his church that those pioneers had?

The issue is not have we have too much division and strife within the church. The answer is yes. But such problems are not unique to Churches of Christ. All other religious bodies have their problems as well. Even one division is too much, especially if I am the one responsible for it. The question is who has been responsible for the divisions of the past? It is unfair to blame the wife whose abusive husband beats her for not maintaining peace in her home. Likewise it is unreasonable to blame the Lord’s church because ambitious, misguided, carnal, contentious brethren fomented strife and division. They bear the blame, not the church which suffered from their abuse.

The issue is not shall we adjust to face our changing society and culture. We have always adjusted in areas where Christ left us free to do so. We don’t dress like our 19th century forebearers did. We have modern buildings. We have adjusted our methods for evangelism. We don’t have 2-3 hour sermons. We have all the modern conveniences such as electricity, air-conditioning and indoor plumbing. The issue is the kind of changes the change agents wish to impose upon our churches. They wish to touch those things sacred and holy; such things as worship, how we are saved, the role of women in church leadership, the unique and separate nature of Christ’s church. That God does not allow, nor can we stand idle while they profane that which is holy.

The issue is not are their some radical, vituperative, ultraconservatives among us. Yes, there are. There have always been such folks. The church in general does not endorse, approve or support their methods or narrow views. The real issue is are the change agents any better than those on the far right? In dishonest fashion, they hold these radials up as typical of all who oppose then. God’s truth always lies between the extremes of legalism and liberalism, between radical conservatives and liberal change agents (Prov. 4:26-27).

The issue is not change. Faithful brethren have and will always welcome changes from bad to good; from the mistaken to the correct; from unscriptural to scriptural; from poor methods to better ones; from ineffective means to effective ones that advance the Cause of Christ according to his will. The real issue is the kind of changes the “change agents” would have us make: changes from the Biblical way to non-biblical ways; changes from Christ’s authority to that of the multitude; changes from the sacred to the worldly; from the apostolic pattern to that of our secular culture; changes from the teaching of men appointed by Christ (the Apostles) to men appointed by themselves to remake his church.

Only when we understand what the real issues are will we be able to deal with them in an effective way. May God give us preachers and elders who can discern between the “holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” (Lev. 10:10). Without them we will be overrun by the those who are enemies of the Cause of Christ.

Written by John Waddey
Found at www.christianity-then-and-now.com

Donnie,

Isn't it interesting how you and I can look at the same statement and see two different things. Consider the statement below:

"As the church of today is confronted by a host of false teachers who are clamoring for drastic changes in our faith, worship and practice we desperately need wise men who can discern what the real issues are."

You read that statement and emphasize the part "confronted by a host of false teachers who are clamoring for drastic changes in our faith, worship and practice." I read the statement and emphasize the part "we desperately need wise men who can discern what the real issues are."

Why do we emphasize different parts of the statement?? Now that I have asked the question, let me seek to answer it. If I am wrong, then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the reason(s) behind our difference of emphasis.

I believe the key reason behind our reading the same statement and emphasizing different aspects of that statement is because our FOCUS is different. Our focus is different, perhaps, because we have experienced different things. I don't know your background; my guess is that you were part of a church that was taken over by liberalism and you are fighting to keep that from happening to others. And, it appears to me that you are so focused on exposing error that you see error in everything that is not identical to the way it has been for the past hundred years. I mean, Donnie, read some of the statements you have made in various discussions on this site. You have ridiculed the idea of singing 6-7 songs back to back in succession. Why? The only reason I can come up with is that it hasn't been done that way in the churches of Christ. I have sat in the "seat of the scornful" and spent my time being critical of everything that people have done, said and written in their service to God -- all in the name of defending the faith. Now, as I look within my own heart, I realize that my focus was more on proving people wrong than it was on helping them in their relationship with God. The desperate need in the church today is "wise men who can discern what the real issues are" and focus on them. And, believe me, singing 6-7 songs back to back in succession isn't one of them.

In your post, you listed quotes from John's article and highlighted certain parts of those quotes. I would like to comment briefly on the ones you mentioned.

First, you are correct in your assessment that issues arise whenever people seek to impose their choices on other people. Just remember, Donnie, that is a two-way street. As you emphasize -- the issue is the content of the songs -- nothing else. Both sides can be guilty of imposing their choice in the matter of song selection. Older members tend to like the older songs, younger tend to like newer songs -- surely some kind of compromise can be reach so that there is no issue.

Second, you are correct in that it is "the content of the songs" that is the key. As you emphasize, the should "convey Biblical truth." However, we need to understand that songs can mean different things to different people. You may look at the words "the hour I first believed" and refuse to sing because you believe it to be teaching salvation by faith only. I can look at the same verse and envision the salvation process from initial belief to submission in baptism and have no problem singing that song. Do we have an issue?? Only if either one of us seek to impose our view on the other.

Third, you are correct in emphasizing that choirs are an issue to be dealt with. Yet, something to consider in this arena is the group of individual christians who never sing. Doesn't their listening to the rest of us sing instead of joining us cause the rest of us to become a choir -- performing to them??

And, we could go on and on... but the point I want to make to you is that these non-issues become issues because BOTH sides seek to impose their choice or preference on the other. You seek to impose your choice on those who would like to raise hands or sing 6-7 songs in succession because you feel that is wrong. They seek to impose their choice on you because they feel there is nothing wrong with those things. The real question is, who wins -- certainly not the church. What we need is the wisdom to seperate issues from preferences and learn to grow in the grace of our Lord and Savior.

Thanks for your comments.

Donnie,

I have been out of town the past couple of days and haven't had the opportunity until now to review your post. I will provide a more detailed response in the near future but felt it necessary to provide the following right now.

I appreciate your pointing out that I have "incorrectly" attributed comments to you that you have not said. I assure you that my doing so was not intentional; I have read so many comments on here and confused another person's comments with yours. FOR THAT MISTAKE I OFFER MY APOLOGY AND SEEK YOUR FORGIVENESS.

For those reading this thread, PLEASE note that Donnie has not ridiculed the singing of 6-7 songs in succession. I will research and find out who it was that was doing such -- BUT IT WAS NOT DONNIE.

Again, Donnie, I am sorry for the mistake, please forgive.

Donnie,

In your latest post you stated that you would be “really interested in what I have to say concerning the somewhat hidden lessons that John Waddey is really trying to teach in his article.” At first, I must admit, I was humored by your comment because it fell right in line with my assessment of your focus. If you recall, Donnie, I stated that it appeared “to me that you are so focused on exposing error that you see error in everything.” I recognize that type of “always on guard, can’t read anything without dissecting it, critical approach” because that was something that characterized me for several years. YET, the more I thought about your comment/request, the more I thought I would honor it and give you my thoughts concerning his article. Therefore, I submit the following in an effort to satisfy your interest.

First, in order to give you my thoughts concerning the supposed hidden lessons that John was really trying to teach in his article, I decided to spend a little time researching at his website to see if John himself would relinquish the key to unlocking these hidden lessons. The following is what I found as I read from the homepage of his site.

“Today winds are blowing gale-force across the face of our beloved brotherhood. They are urging us to abandon the old ways for new ways learned from our denominational neighbors. These winds, originating primarily from our large universities, are sure to drive the ship of Zion on the rocks of destruction, should they prevail.”

“The purpose of this site is to address the changes being advocated; to examine them in light of Scripture.”

“Pray that we will do only good and no harm at all. If we can help one preaching brother to clarify his thinking and avoid taking the road to the left; if we can assist one eldership in protecting their flock; if we can help to reclaim one soul who has been beguiled by false teachers; if we can light a candle to guide one or a hundred in the way of Truth, our efforts will be well repaid.”

Donnie, I may be a simple-minded person, but it seems to me that John’s agenda is quite clear. He seems to be sincerely interested in the Lord’s church and in protecting her from those that would seek to do her harm. And, in my opinion, if you look at his site, he defines the scope of this battle when he writes: “The road to the right is the road of ultra conservatism that inevitably leads to radicalism, faction and division. The road to the left is the road of liberalism. It leads away from the simplicity of the gospel to a denominational version of Christianity that stands without Christ's approval.”

From the quotes found on his website homepage, I have determined that John’s real message in the article at the beginning of this discussion is one of using wisdom to discern what is and is not an issue confronting the church. Which, by the way, was the exact thought I had whenever I first read his article.

Second, because I know that what I just wrote didn’t sit too well with you, I have decided to pursue your interest a bit further by giving you my thoughts regarding what I believe to be one of the key issues at the heart of our discussion. Hopefully this will both satisfy your hunger and give us a launching pad for further discussion.

As I am sure you have noticed, I am not a big proponent of condemning things as sinful simply because they are different than what we have normally done in the churches of Christ. For your information, I am also not a big proponent of condemning things as sinful simply because they are dangerous. In my understanding of things, different or dangerous does not equal sinful. Now, having said that, I emphasize the comment made by John in his article that it is “only when we understand what the real issues are that will we be able to deal with them in an effective way.”

Donnie, if I understand you correctly, I think your main issue pertaining to this discussion is revealed in your belief that “it’s not so much with what's wrong or sinful as it is with what would be controversial and/or unnecessary.” Because, those things, according to your belief, are what “what might spark division and alienation among the brethren.” Well, that appears also to be the thought John had in his article because he wrote “it becomes an issue when a few seek to impose their choice … and are willing to press their preference to the point of division. Faction and division are sinful (Tit. 3:10).” And, it may surprise you, but I agree that imposing one’s choice and pressing that choice to the point of division is sinful. Yet, what I gather from many of your posts on this site is that you fail to acknowledge that BOTH sides are guilty of imposing and pressing choice to the point of division.

Is it the case that there are individuals in the church who want to raise hands during prayer? Yes. And, I tend to agree with John that “lifting up of hands is an outward posture in prayer just as kneeling, standing or falling on ones face. It has no special spiritual value.” Whether the hands be lifted, the knees bent or the head bowed, the important part is that the heart be submissive and reverent toward God. But, in the church, even though we understand that the posture isn’t the issue, we press to the point of division. And, usually, the battle rages around the concept of maturity – or the lack thereof.

With both sides seeking to impose their choices, and division being the result when they press on, the question ultimately becomes “which group gets their way?” After all, if we are simply speaking about issues that are not sinful, then we are honestly battling over things that make no difference at all. Wouldn’t the elders of the church have the final say in matters such as this? And, in matters such as this, if the elders of the church decided it was acceptable for members to raise hands while praying or singing, wouldn’t those who opposed be the ones guilty of causing strife and division? If the shoe was on the other foot, certainly those who wanted to raise hands would be the ones causing strife and division if they rejected the leadership of the elders. And, when seeking to determine what it is that is causing the strife and division in the church, here are several questions for you to consider: [1] Is it the raising of hands or the imposing and pressing of choices? [2] Is it the singing of contemporary songs or the imposing and pressing of choices? [3] Is it the casual dress style or the imposing and pressing of choices? [4] Is it the use of a projection screen during worship or the imposing and pressing of choices? And, we could go on with each of the items mentioned in John’s article.

However, I will stop at this point and allow you to speak.

Donnie,

Now that I have extended my apology for attributing a quote to you that you had not said, let me make one clarification.

I had the person correct; I messed up the quote. What I was intended to refer to was your comment "7-11 singy singy clappy clappy songs." Or something very similiar to that. HOWEVER, I understood that to mean you were ridiculing the singing of songs in succession when you were actually downing/ridiculing the use of songs that contain phrases that are repeated several times. I am sure you can clarify your comment, but that is a discussion for another time and another thread.

SO, I still extend my apology -- but for misquoting and misapplying your statement.

Quote from Donnie:
No, and I’m sorry, I really do not have the time to explain anything else to you—that would be a waste of time since your thinking is not going to change—this has become evident after reading several of your posts.

Wow. If we all followed that advice, they might as well shut this site down.

Donnie,

I appreciate your taking the time to address my last post. As always, your comments are very revealing.

First, to be honest, I am somewhat concerned about your inability to differentiate between what was and what is. In other words, your inability to differentiate between the “before” Chris who was “so focused on exposing error that he saw error in everything” and the “after” Chris who is “seeking to help others avoid the same “always on guard, can’t read anything without dissecting it, critical approach that characterized him for years.”

It is in “memory” of how I used to be that I now attempt to help others avoid and escape that type of “all-consuming” attitude. The danger in what I am seeking to do is that it puts me within reach of that attitudes clutches. And, I realize that if I am not careful there is always the potential to be pulled back in – to become guilty of what I am seeking to help others avoid. Yet, as you will admit, Donnie, there are times when you must become as the weak, to save the weak and as the critical, to save the critical. According to the apostle Paul, that was his approach.

I appreciate your reminder.

Second, I am very concerned about your stating that you are “going to ignore my itemized list because, at the outset, I have already drawn my own conclusion” regarding those items. Donnie, that statement is hilarious. Are you implying that you had not, at the outset of this discussion, already drawn your own conclusions regarding those items? Are you honestly telling us that you did not enter this discussion with the already drawn conclusion that “the discernment in consideration in John Waddey’s article is the nature or history of the congregation that is being adversely affected by this type of display of behavior that had been previously NON-EXISTENT?” Am I mistaken or is that the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps, Donnie, you didn’t realize your inconsistency and are in need of a kind reminder. J

But, I am glad you made that statement because it reveals the point I have been trying to make regarding your focus. The issue here is not “the nature or history that is being adversely affected by this type of behavior that had been previously non-existent.” The issue, Donnie, is whether or not “this type of behavior that had been previously non-existent” is sinful or not. Whether or not John Waddey was making that point is not important – because the apostle Paul already had.

Do you remember the following verses from Galatians chapter two?
11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

Why did Paul “rebuke” Peter? Wasn’t it because Peter was incorrectly focused on the “nature or history” between the Jews and Gentiles and the fact that eating with Gentiles was “a type of behavior that had been previously non-existent?” Remember, the Jewish “nature or history” was that they viewed the Gentiles as worthless dogs; therefore, eating with Gentiles was considered sinful. However, Paul’s rebuke of Peter informs us that the sinful action in this passage was not eating with the Gentile Christians (“the type of behavior that had been previously non-existent”) but rather Peter’s inability to differentiate between what was and was not an issue. Because of Peter’s inability on this occasion to discern what was and was not an issue, he made the choice he made and stood in danger of being condemned? Peter’s hypocritical, sinful action not only affected him, it affected other Jewish Christians, as well as Barnabas, who were also eating with the Gentile Christians.

Now, before you go and jump to conclusions that are not implied in my argument, let me offer the following.

Donnie, I am not advocating that we “abandon the old paths.” I am simply stating that in the church today we are in desperate need of wisdom so that we may properly discern what is and is not an issue – between what is and is not sinful. Whether the issue is the “lifting of hands” or having “a kitchen in the building,” wisdom to discern is a must.

Not only do we need that type of discerning wisdom, we also need to be people characterized by self-less love. By that, I mean that we are to be the type of Christians that do not impose our freedoms on other or press our freedoms to the point of dividing the church – because, as I have already stated in previous posts in this discussion, doing such would be sinful.

What troubles me, in regards to your comments about the “lifting of hands” is that you admit there is a difference in the way it is seen and affects people. You basically state that those who lift hands would not likely be offended by those who don’t, but that those who don’t lift hands might be offended by those who do. I am glad that you quickly informed us that this is not a double standard; otherwise I might have drawn that conclusion. Either that, or I would have reached the conclusion that those who don’t “lift hands” are the ones being divisive and controversial.

You then proceed to wonder why it is that those who want to lift hands don’t simply do it at home, alone, rather than wait for the congregation to gather for worship. I believe the answer to your pondering is contained in the very question you ask – you see, those who want to lift hands desire to do so in their worship to God. Isn’t worshipping God the reason the congregation gathers on the first day of the week?

Donnie, I honestly do not care if you ever “lift hands” during worship. As I have said before, I don’t lift my hands when I worship. However, I do care about the attitude you possess toward those who do.

May God grant all of us the wisdom to discern, the heart to love and the desire to grow.

Donnie,

I hope you will forgive my absence for the past month or so... I have been busy transferring from one company to another, going through training to equip me for my new position and spending time adjusting to my new schedule and work... But, I am fairly settled and ready to continue our discussions...

First, I would love to read the book you could write to answer the various point I brought up in my prior post... I encourage you to write it, I will wait the necessary days it takes to produce such a work...

Second, if I am accusing anyone of being controversial and divisive regarding this subject it would be you... And, I wish you would tell me exactly what it is about a person lifting hands that offends you...

From other threads on this site it appears that people are offended because [1] it puts forth the image that one is holy, [2] it puts forth the image that one is trying to bring God down, and, [3] it is a practice that came from the charismatic movement and wasn't previously practiced in the church of Christ... Let us briefly address these objections while we wait on you to supply yours.

((1)) Peter tells us that we (Christians) are a HOLY nation... as that HOLY nation we are to BE HOLY AS HE IS HOLY... So, any action that puts forth the image that God's people are holy shouldn't be questioned or considered controversial or divisive...

((2)) Honestly, Donnie, can one bring God down by merely lifting hands??? Although I don't lift hands (a fact that has been emphasized over and over again so that no one thinks I am trying to justify my actions) I can find nothing wrong with the act itself... Rather than seeing someone attempting to bring God down with their hands, I can easily see the image of a small child reaching up to his father, seeking his father's ability to pick him up and hold him close... An image seen in the parable of the prodigal son -- a father interested in his child, willing to reach out and eager to welcome into his presence...

((3)) While I agree that something can be controversial and divisive because it wasn't previously practiced by the churches of Christ, I do not believe that all such introduced activities are SINFUL... Whether I lift my hands, bow my head, bend my knees, close my eyes or whatever -- it makes no difference if the HEART IS NOT HUMBLE AND OBEDIENT... The position of a person's hands shouldn't offend anyone UNLESS those hands are doing something sinful...

I await your book and your comments regarding my words in this post...