The Church Today In Its Worship

The Church Today In Its Worship THE CHURCH TODAY IN ITS WORSHIP
JOHN ALLEN HUDSON

Since my subject has been assigned me to be a link in a series being delivered in this lectureship I am very glad to address myself to the subject, “The Order of Worship.” It is not mine to expostulate upon the importance of worship, nor to define worship. Others no doubt in this series have done that. But I am to develope in this lecture what we can learn of the form and items of worship as furnished us in the New Testament.

It is a notable thing that Churches of Christ have no creed but the Bible. No man-made book can describe for us in a ritualistic way what shall constitute worship, nor in what it shall consist as to form. The Book of books is the guide. What is says alone will suffice. It is true in all the Protestant world that final appeal is supposed to be made to the Bible, but in such cases as where appeal may be made the interpretation of the point is through denominational bias. Hence, this lecture prefaces the thought that Churches of Christ alone, as religious folk do actually take the Book of books as the all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and of practice. This position then upon the word of God prepares for the discussion of the order of worship as furnished us in the word of the Lord. In seeking to establish the order of worship, if a certain defiinite plan is given, it is necessary to arrive at another point, and that is what will constitute authority in the word of the Lord. In taking the old rule that the Bible establishes every point either by direct statement or by an approved example no originality is claimed, of course. Others long since dead have arrived at the conclusion that the way to prove a thing from the Bible is either by taking a direct statement made upon the subject in hand or else by taking the practice of inspired men as written out for us in the history of the New Testament as law. In must be admitted upon mature thought that what inspired men and women did and left behind as history approved of God does make a rule, and a very safe rule, for us to follow.

There are recorded actions in the New Testament that do not stand as approved examples, for later God saw fit to countermand them lest any one should get the idea that they are to be followed as law. Hence the Bible is infallably safe as a rule of action. God permits no flaws to stand in the wry. An example, or the history of the practice of the apostles upon a certain point that does not constitute a rule for us to follow, is in the early community of good furnished us as the volunatry acts of the members of the early church out of their generosity alone and not because God required such to be done. If this did not stand out in apostlic history as a sporatic or separate piece of history in the life of the church this example of the Jerusalem church would be forever fastened upon the Church of Christ as the law to be followed with reference to our material possessions. We are told that as many as had lands or houses sold them and came and brought the money and cast it at the apostles’ feet. The first great wave of enthusiasm that swept over the early church made them count as of no importance whatever they possessed as material things. They lost the sense of value of houses and lands. The eternal world became so important that they minimized this world. And this first great wave of enthusiasm swept them to give all that they had. But God recognized the property rights of even Christians in this world in what is implied in the case of Anninas and Sapphira. In their case the apostle Peter said: “While it remained was it not thine own? And after it was sold was it not in thine own power?” Hence, God did not require the members of the Jerusalem Church to give all they had of this world’s good when they became disciples. When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Chruch about the requirements of the Gospel on the subject of material possessions, he said that each member should give upon the first day of the week as he had been prospered through the previous time. (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). And again he said that giving of one’s means should be according to purpose (2 Corinthians 9:7). There are other phases of the subject of giving as outlined to us in the New Testament, but this is enough to show that the example of the Jerusalem Church in giving all they possessed did not rest upon all coming disciples and congregations as an approved precedent or example. Hence not every example in the New Testament is an approved example. But where God has written out in history of the New Testament actions that he evidently outlined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and did not repeal them, the example furnished us is a law for us to follow. This is an important point of interpretation of Scripture. The direct—statement—way of teaching needs no lengthy treatment. 'Jesus said for the apostles to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel to every creature. It simply means what he said to them. And he said moreover that those taught should believe, repent and be baptized. The person who hears the Gospel, believes it and repents of his sins and is baptized does what Jesus said he should do and the statement is direct and comprehensible. (Head Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47).

There are some students of the Bible who insist upon a third thought in interpreting the Scriptures, and that is what they call a “necessary inference.” Thomas Campbell took notice of this in the “Declaration and Address.” If a thing is necessarily infered from the over-shadowing com-mand, then it is a part of the commandment though not directly mentioned. Let us take the case of the Great Commission. Jesus said for the apostles to go into all the world. He did not say how for them to go. At times they walked, at others they sailed on ships, at others- they rode in carriages. Whatever way was best, or that seemed the most convenient was implied in the use of good common-sense by the Master in carrying out the commandment. Hence, it is necessarily infered. Such a thing is also true of many minor things in the acts of worship. The convenience of a com-fortable house, seats, song books, and many other things are implied matters in the New Testament. God did not permit himself to write out to men as though they were the veriest tyroes in his service such petty details as could be worked out in human judgment to the best advantage of all concerned and to the best ends of a spiritual worship. Then the Bible should have been such a weighty volume that an hundred and twenty books, and not sixty-six would have been required to tell men and women what to do.

We shall find in the study of the New Testament that God has written for us the example of churches at work that we are to follow, that he has made direct statements which we are to carry out, and that he has implied many tilings that we may have and use in order to worship.

It is necessary to think of worship as regards its definition a little in this lecture, for what constitutes worship must be thought about in order that we may take up the subject of the order of the items involved. Some make a clear distinction between worship and service, but it seems to me that such distinctions may be more or less arbitrary. One can worship God in many ways other than in the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. He can worship God while he farms his acres, doing such work as may fall to his hands as one who renders service unto God while he prepares to feed the hungry mouths of his family. And Paul said that even a slave in the days of slavery should serve God through the service to his master. God could be always in mind as the one to whom all homage and praise and service are due. In such a case we have a worshipful spirit going about the affairs of this world. There is some sense of worship in such a reverential heart. But of course the clear-cut thought of worship is bowing before and doing homage directly to a divine being, or to a superior being. When we come to the numbering of the items of worship in the New Testament, we shall find that they are very few in number. While here and there are elaborate systems of worship that are so complex that it takes a lifetime of study to master even the routine, and while we must consider that such an endless routine is always in danger of smothering the true spirit, we must bear in mind that God knows very well indeed the capablities of his creatures. He has made a religion that he has designed for all the world and for every age, and for all conditions of men. Therefore, he had to design something exceedingly simple to meet the requirements of the human family. We may expect to find but few things as items of worship.

We are told in Acts 2:42, “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” And so far as the order of worship is concerned, this is all that the historian Luke has told us. It would have made exceedingly interesting history for some one to have written about the personalities and their actions in the worship in that Jerusalem church. And if some reporter had told us of how they assembled, whether they sat, or kneeled, how they were dressed, and what they did in order when they came together for worship it would have been a record greatly enjoyed by countless thousands, but God mercifully covered such a history in the debris of the centuries so that persons easy to misunderstand could not bind some things of local color and custom upon all succeeding generations and in all the countries of the earth.

Since Luke’s history is so brief, only the initiated could understand what he meant by such things as the apostles' doctrine, breaking of bread and prayers. It requires other records and parts of Scripture for one to know just what such a statement could mean. What was this breaking of bread? Was it a common repast of an average sort of bread? Or was it a special bread, and consecrated to a special purpose? The latter was the case. When one goes back into the life of Christ while he lived and labored among the apostles in preparation for the coming kingdom, he will find that on the night of the betrayal of the Lord by Judas that he (the Lord) took bread at the passover supper, gave thanks and broke it and instituted a meal that was designed to keep him in mind throughout the generations as the one who gave his life that man might live. This is called the Lord’s Supper. But it did not consist of the breaking of a memorial loaf alone. There was used in the same connection a container of wine that he said was to represent his blood. These two items are sometimes in Scripture contained in the single item of bread, for they both represent the last supper. Therefore, what is meant by Luke in Acts is that the breaking of bread represented the observance of the Lord’s Supper. And some writers understand at, the first this was observed every day instead of the first day of the week only, as later became the approved example.

We may expect to find that where God has written out, even if through the thought of the correction of some abuse, the record, or example, with whatever corrections may be pointed as needful, it is set up as a lav/ for us to follow. Indeed we learn more about the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper from the example of the Corinthian Church than from any other source. And may it be added that we could not understand the full import of the expression, “breaking bread” unless we had an example that would show us fully what is meant.

One could not take the statement of Acts 2:2 without cither passages of Scripture and come fully to understand what the worship in the New Testament is. Scr ipture must be used to throw light upon Scripture. Scripture must oe used to interpret Scripture. Nor could one learn what the doctrine of the apostles is except from the study of the New Testament history in Acts and the Epistles. It 's even necessary to go back to the Gospels to get an understanding of what Jesus gave to the apostles. There are in the personal ministry many things in germ that come to full light in the Acts and Epistles. Jesus gave the apostles authority in the Church. He said that he would place them upon twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of the kingdom of Israel. This simply means that through them he would exercise his rule upon Spiritual Israel. They should be kings under his vast and more powerful rule. They should be satellite kings. This they were in the administering of his doctrine, for his and their rule upon the people would be the rule of the heart, through divine law. The apostles never had a separate doctrine or law. Their doctrine was the doctrine of Christ. The apostles’ doctrine was what Christ gave to the world through them by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He said that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. And in that day of the direct guidance of the new and growing church, when the whole record was verbal only, and not any of it as yet committed to a permanent record, what the apostles said was final, for the whole church recognized that the apostles were under divine guidance and what they said was not open to dispute. The people even knew that these men had gained from the Lord first-hand information for the period of the personal ministery of the Lord, and now they were under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. They were the visible, physical leaders' of the army of the faithful. They set up the whole practice of the Church. Hence, Luke’s statement that the early Church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Just what did this mean? As before stated, it was known by the historian that the initiated, that is the members of the Church, would know. He alluded to some understood form of worship. The mere statement was sufficient to their minds to recall vividly some actual meetings of the Church in which they had participated and the varied program of the Church in worship. They could envisage afresh the worship of the Church. But God has given us light here and there through the rest of the New Testament so that even if we did not witness any of those scenes we can understand the main items of worship and practice them with absolute assurance. But how wise he has manifested himself in that he has prohibited from going into the record any such set routine as to make the plan for divine worship a set thing, and rot flexible to suit the needs and conditions of other folk and other ages! If he has set it up as a record from the actions of a divinely guided society, then such a routine would constitute an unalterable rule. And there could never be an abridgment, never a protraction. Disciples meeting together in great haste, and under dire persecution, would have been committed to a plan of worship so cumbersome and heavy that they should have been endlessly involved be-fore their persecutors. But God did not committ them to any such routine. The simplicity of divine worship is an amazing thing. Paul exhorted that the brethren be not moved away from the simplicity that was in Christ. For as a system tends to become elaborate it is very apt to lose the spirit. and the power that originally attended it. It becomes a ritual, and loses the very heart of worship. Is it any wonder that God did not want the New Testament Church to become involved in an elaborate system of worship when Christ and the apostles had seen the ritualism of the Jews? There the Apostle Paul could warn that the brethren be not moved away from the simplicity that was in Christ. The artless expression is often the most expressive. Stilted speech seldom gets over. People are exceedingly simple by nature. Their needs are just as simple. Man requires, John Stewart Mill said, only companionship, food and a place to sleep. He may greatly elaborate upon the pomp and circumstance of these but after all his needs do not vary. He may live in a palace, eat special viands, and drink the most fragrant and delectable of wines, and wear the most gorgeous of clothes, but after he has come to do such, he has not changed in number or nature his basic needs, but only altered the circumstance of them. And the humblest, having a sufficient amount of these plain things in his heart, can be as happy as the rich. Now this same simplicity of nature makes it most desirable that man in religion, as in life, be unspoiled. God wishes him to be simple, and sincere. And to correspond with his basic nature God has given a simple system of worship. As before stated in this lecture, no one can read in the Scriptures of a detailed, fully outlined system of worship. But God has had recorded in the Scriptures all the acts of worship that he desires his people to have. We read of them here and there. Anyway, the word of God is given that way—here a little and there a little. But when all is combined we have all that is necessary. We have mentioned in Scripture the singing of psalms. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16. Prayer. 1 Timothy 2:1-5. Giving of our means, or the contributions which we are required to make for the work of the Church. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. The Lord’s Supper. 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:20-30. Teaching or preaching. Matthew 28:19-20. These arei the only things that any one can read from the Scripture as being parts' of, or together, comprising the things of worship of the New Testament Church. There are simply no more items than these. And it matters not to the speaker whether one classifies some of these as worship and some as service. They are the things that were done by the Church in the days of the apostles when the whole Church was under the guidance of the inspired apostles. Anything more than these would simply be things of men’s authority and not things of God’s authority. God authorized no more. And not only did God not authorize more, but when it comes to the way in which they are to be done, and the order of them the Bible is as silent as the tomb, as unreplying as the “tongueless silence of the voiceless dust.” One can search the record in vain. Nothing more is to be gained than that what is done must be done decently in order. God allows every assembly of saints to meet when they feel they can the best, where they will, and to proceed as they see fit, with the carrying out of these pimple elements of worship. He has therefore given a flexible worship that can not be trammelled by local conditions and color. When a congregation of disciples comes together how shall it proceed with the worship? How many songs should be sung? Some one says, “Let us sing the scriptural number, three.” Yes, Brother, that is the custom. But where does the Bible say so? No where. Ah, and that is the trouble. We are trying to make our own custom divine law to regulate others. We do not know the difference between what is written in the Book and what we merely do as custom in certain sections of the land. Time was, many will remember, when those who communed drank from a common glass. And there are many who know of the great protest which went up when a more sanitary system of communion was introduced. Many, because they had been used to drinking from a common dipper, and from a common communion glass, felt that the religion of Christ was profaned. What was the matter? It was simply the growing pains of leaving behind the customs of a by-gone day. And time was when many who contributed simply walked up to the table and slipped a small coin under the table cloth so that the right hand would not know what the left hand did! And in many instances what a furore went up when a systematic plan of waiting upon the audience was instituted to meet the needs of a growing congregation! But the passing of the plate had to come, or the passing of the basket, kill any whom it would. Customs change, but the die-hards are ever with us, And they are often so blind that they confuse the custom which they have with the law of divine worship. But God has removed from the record any taint of custom, even of the ancient world, and no such die-hard can point to the Book and say that there it is, and the transgessors are going to perdition for breaking up the order of divine worship. God has prevented them from doing that by leaving such customs and plans of procedure out of the record. Oh, the items are there. But the order in which they are to be done cannot be found. So the order is left to the discretion of the worshippers.

Tradition is a powerful thing. It has a part in all life. And the religion of Christ is no exception. What folk have been doing traditionally they want to continue. And they in many instances resent change, even if it is reform back to a simpler plan. The encrustations of social and religious custom are thrown out by a growing society like a mollusk thrown out the shell with constant expansion that is to encase it. But disciples of the Lord must bear in mind that there is always a distinction to be made between the mere tradition which largely moves them and the divine worship which they are to preserve. They should remember that the Lord’s plan of worship is flexible, to suit the nature of the case, while the elements are always the same. And certainly while we must know that there is such a distinction to be made, we must appreciate each in its due proportion. We can not dispense with order, or decency and orderliness. We can not dispense with order, or decency and and worshipful way. On the subject of custom, congregations of the Church of Christ to day almost wholly engage in the singing of songs congregational, which in many cases is not congregational singing, but merely a badly disorganized choir. We do not believe in choirs. And I do not dissent from the main point of view. Choirs are dangerous, and are wholly without apostolic precedent. Therefore, they are unscriptural. But at the same time the New Testament has not said just exactly how the singing shall be done. It does say that we are to speak to one another, to teach in song. And we read in 1 Corinthians the 14th chapter where Paul mentions the fact that the Church at Corinth had solo singing. One sang a song. One prophesied. Now bear in mind that Paul did not condemn the practice, but merely ordered that not more than one person, at the most two, should seek to command the floor. It would not be unscriptural from this mention for a single person to sing a song for the teaching of the congregation through song. But in many cases if a brother should do such a thing there would be a great stir, and many would cry, “Heresy!” We are fearfully wedded to our customs. It would not be a bad thing for all of us to take stock of the teaching of the New Testament on the general subject of worship, and while we are doing so to lay aside, if indeed that were possible, our prejudices. Very many are wedded to their traditions and think them divine law. But this speech is to deal with the worship of the Church as it is conducted today. And that gives a privilege to tell of some customs that I have observed. Some years ago I was engaged for a meeting for one of the Detroit churches. While there I was impressed by the vast difference in custom, or proceedure between the churches of that section and those of the south. They have in that part of the world more of the English way of conducting worship. And that is the old synagogue system that has come down all through the years. The elders largely lead in the worship. One such person presides, certain songs are sung, after this presiding officer (elder) lines them and announces them. Afterward there is a reading of the Scripture, one portion from the Old Testament and the other from the New by two young men who have been selected for their work weeks in ad-vance. After such Scripture reading, there is then the prayer service, afterwards the Lord’s Supper and then the collection. And at the close there are the speeches of edification, or the sermon, in case there is a minister of the word present. The Hamilton Boulevard Church house is built with the view to the order and prominence of certain features of the services. The table for the Lord’s Supper is placed in the exact center of the rostrum. The speaker’s stand is placed over at the right side. The Lord’s Supper is featured. And the general plan of worship is that just mentioned, namely, the English, or better, the old Scotch method. In the South and Southwest the custom is to sing about three songs, then the minister of the word reads a portion of Scripture, prayer is conducted, or said, another song is sung, and then the announcements are generally made before the sermon. After the sermon, there is the communion and last of all the collection with fitting closing thoughts. There has been much discussion of this plan of proceedure all down the years because it has involved what has been called by some the so-called “Pastor’s system.” But Churches of Christ in the Southwest and South do not regard this way of conducting services a violation in the least the plan of worship which seems to them to be left open to their own discretion and wisdom. There is no restriction on the order. Paul left the order of proceedure in the hands of the Corinthian Church by merely saying that everything should be done decently and in order. There must be system. But how that shall be arranged is left to the individual congregation.

It must be admitted with these scriptures that custom in different sections of the world will naturally alter the way of doing things. The predominant custom is that of the American Churches of Christ which feature the worship as detailed in the last instances. Possibly the services are not more dignified, but certainly the growth is phenominal as compared with the old Scotch of Jewish synagogue method. Since Jesus has not prescribed the how, but merely has indicated the things to be done, then the way that produces the best results certainly should receive the most favorable consideration. And the results of the plan followed in the most of the United States, that is to say, the direction of the services by a skilled man who makes it his life business, certainly justify a serious consideration. But still other brethren in other parts of the world may meet when they please, where they please, and follow the order they may select, and there is no one that has a right to tell them to do otherwise.

Since the Bible is the guide in all matters of faith and of practice, Churches of Christ refuse to do more or less than can be found in the word of the Lord. The singing is never accompanied with a mechanical instrument of music, such as the organ. Churches of Christ object because there is no mention or such in the Scriptures. God has issued an injunction against the introduction of any thing into the services more than what he has said. He said: “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 2 John 1:9-11. This statement is aimed at doctrinal purity. No man is allowed to add anything to the word of the Lord, or the doctrine of worship as found in the Scriptures. Unless therefore, the proponent of instrumental music in the worship can produce a “Thus saith the Lord” this Scripture forbids him the privilege of adding anything to the worship. The burden is placed upon the one who uses such an instrument to furnish proof from the word of the Lord for his practice. Frequently one hears it urged that the objector to such practices find where the Bible says not to do it. Well; this scripture is ample proof. It not only forbids such a practice, but demands that the doctrine of Christ be kept pure, free of additions and subtractions. It adds that the teacher of something different has departed from God. One cannot force God to go with him into the adoption of tenents of men. One cannot have God unless he stays with God, or unless he adheres to the doctrine which the Scripture established as from God. Therefore, the burden of proof does not rest with the man who does not go beyond, but with the man who does something else. Each man must bring proof from the Bible that what he does is Scriptural. Therefore, let the one who uses instrumental music find the scripture for it. And since the Old Testament Scriptures are not now the standard of worship and do not set forth the worship of the apostles, but of Moses and the prophets, then it cannot be taken as proof. It (the Old Testament) gives the history of worship among the Jews. The New Testament sets up worship for Christians. Therefore, in the New Testament the user of instrumental music in the worship will nave to find the proof of the practice or else abandon it. Otherwise he has not God—in such practice, and maybe not in anything. John simply says that he has not God.

Paul said to the Corinthians that one must not permit himself to be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ A simple worship, containing the items mentioned in the New Testament, is dignified enough. And since the Lord is the one who ordained the worship, with its flexibility and simplicity, it is enough for the spiritual unfolding of the members of the body of Christ. The range of the minds of men is in the main not very wide or large. To accommodate a worship to all sorts of people required the wisdom of Jehovah. He has given that wise worship that embraces but a few items that can be practiced the world around. And he has forbidden any to add to it or take from it. Truly, God has not embarrassed any by giving a vast system which they could not follow. No set of men on the face of the earth can evolve a worship that can be universal in application. And when men have invented systems of worship they have created denominationalism in that. God has given a universal plan, and that is what Churches of Christ practice. No wonder they are destined to fill the earth, and no wonder at their truly phenominal growth! A wise Providence has ordered it. It is written for consummation as surely as that the Kingdom of God is to grow.