Originally published 02/12/17

Our last couple of bulletins looked at issues where Biblical authority needs to be understood. When we know how to understand the scriptures, we can find Biblical answers to questions concerning instrumental music in worship, forsaking the assembly, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

However, many of the unscriptural practices carried out by “churches” today involve the use of church funds. The local church is to take up a collection to do the work Christ designed it to do (I Cor. 16:1-2; II Cor. 9:7; Eph. 4:12). Using these funds for nonscriptural purposes is an affront to Christ as He is the head of the church (Col. 1:18; I Tim. 5:16). A church cannot just do anything they consider a “good work” if it is unauthorized.

The misuse of church funds is a widespread problem, but it is not truly the main issue at hand – the root cause is Biblical authority once again. Without a standard in establishing authority, brethren will never be able to see eye to eye. Remember, no scripture is of any private interpretation (II Pet. 1:20). Either there are stipulations put upon the use of church funds or there are not. If there are, how do we determine them? That is what we need to find out. If there are not any stipulations, then the discussion is over.

We know for certain that churches used their funds for evangelizing (spreading the gospel). The apostle Paul received wages from different churches (Phil. 4:15; II Cor. 11:8). Churches also sent directly to other churches that needed food (II Cor. 8:4,19; II Cor. 9:3-4). Churches also were able to use funds to help edify the local church (Eph. 4:11-12; I Tim. 5:17-18).  

Let us now focus on some questions about church funds. We know that brethren gathered in a home (Rom. 16:3-5), in an upper room (Acts 20:8) and other facilities that would accommodate the brethren coming together in a certain place (I Cor. 11:17-18). Because these various meeting spaces were used for edification, could the church let the local Boy Scout troop use the facility when the church was not gathered? Could they run a daycare center out of that upper room if it belonged to the church? To answer these questions, we must understand the limitations placed upon the use of church funds.

Does the Bible contain any examples of restrictions being placed upon the collection of the saints? Yes! In I Timothy 5:16, Paul clearly said the church was prohibited from using its funds for certain purposes even if they were a “good work”. In that text, it shows that individuals can and should do things with their own funds, not the church’s (Acts 5:1-11).

Therefore, if a church owns or rents a building, they should do so for the purposes of evangelism and edification. This means their uses for the building should be limited to those purposes as well, not to support the Boy Scouts or to run a daycare. What about having a kitchen? There is nothing wrong with having a kitchen if it was found to be helpful (expedient) for making the unleavened bread and storing the fruit of the vine. Often though, it is more expedient to simply buy the unleavened bread or have members make it and bring it. 

In our last couple of bulletins, we have been pointing out the ways to establish authority: direct command, approved example and necessary inference. Biblical examples lead us toward this manner of reasoning. This is why churches send money directly to the preacher they want to support rather than an intermediate organization. This is why churches only send funds to other churches to support members during times of great need, not to other organizations. Everything that the church does is governed by Biblical authority (Col. 3:17). Let us simply allow God’s word to define “good works” so we can put our energy into accomplishing them.

                                                                                               Chuck

When trying to understand what the Bible says about a subject, understanding the difference between aids and additions is critical. For example, the Lord told His follower to take the unleaven bread and the fruit of the vine to remember His death (Matt. 26:26-28). If we added chocolate cake to this remembrance, would that be an aid or an addition? The two foods (unleaven bread and fruit of the vine) were specifically called out in the verse, so adding chocolate cake would be an addition. What if we placed the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine on a table during this process? The verses say nothing to include or exclude a table – it is merely helpful to accomplish what the verses focus on. The table is an aid. Do you see the difference?

Consider the command to use music in worship to God. Music can be vocal, instrumental or both. Which did God command? The inspired word of God states that we are to sing using our voices, so singing is clearly acceptable (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). What if instruments were also used during the worship though?

To answer this, let us revisit the example of the Lord’s Supper. What would be the harm if we added chocolate cake to the Supper and also kept the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine? Cake is still not authorized as only unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine were specifically called out. Chocolate cake is not required. Instruments are not required to fulfill the command to sing during worship, nor is there any authority to add them.

Like the table in the Lord’s Supper, song leaders and books are aids to singing. An instrument is not an aid because it is a different form of music. Other ways to create melodies, like whistling and humming, are also additions because they do not use “words” as commanded.

Keep in mind that as we look at musical notes in hymnals, we also look at the corresponding words of praise. However, playing an instrument involves no words. There is a difference between singing praises to God making melody in our hearts to the Lord (Col. 3:17), and using a mechanical instrument.

                                                                                              Chuck

There is no question that Christians need to remember the Lord’s death every first day of the week by taking the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:23-26). When gathered, should Christians use just one cup though? After all, Jesus did take “the” cup and give it to His followers (Matt. 26:27).

The need for consistency is clear. If Christians are to uniformly do exactly like Jesus did, then we had better be consistent across the board. Should one person pass the cup to seated recipients as Christ did? Should they follow Jesus’ pattern of picking up the cup first, praying, passing it, and then saying what it is for? (Matt. 26:27-29).

Let us not forget about the bread when dealing with this question of consistency. We read in the previous text that Jesus took the bread in His hand, gave thanks, broke it and then passed it around (I Cor. 11:23-24). There is no mention of a plate or even a table to set it on.

My point is that questions of consistency can be taken so far that people fail to see “the forest for the trees.” Essentially, we can lose focus on what Jesus was emphasizing. For example, Jesus breaking the bread logically left pieces in His right and left hands. He then said “take, eat.” Should we eat the piece in His left or the piece in His right? It does not matter – both represent His body.

Concerning “the” cup, should we just use one cup when serving the Lord’s Supper? If more than one cup is allowed, should the Lord have picked up two or three cups? If the number of cups was a specific instruction, Jesus would have said “These are the bloods of the new covenant…” or at least “These are the blood…” Obviously, He did not say either of these things.

Do we see that Jesus was focusing on the contents of the cup? Look at I Corinthians 11:27. “Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord…”  Notice “this” bread, even though Jesus broke the break in Matthew 26 into multiple pieces. Notice “this cup” even though they did not consume the cup itself, nor did they break off pieces of the cup as it was passed around. Again, the focus is clearly on the contents.

In Luke’s account, the fruit of the vine is “divided” up before it is consumed just as the Lord did with the bread. In Luke 22:17, Jesus said to take the cup and divide it among yourselves. He then takes the bread and gives thanks (verse 19). He finally takes a cup while all of them had their own in hand and gives thanks for it (verse 20).

Moreover, do we think that when Jesus said “this” cup that he meant a particular cup? If we used a single cup this Sunday, someone could correctly say, “Hey, that’s not the cup the Lord used!” Keep in mind that the brethren at Corinth were just one of many churches that gathered to take the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26; Rom. 16:16; Acts 20:7). Logically, Jesus must have authorized the use of many different cups to be used in the future.

These questions are not foolish – all Christians should seek to be as consistent and respectful as possible concerning the Lord’s Supper. Ultimately though, we have scripturally demonstrated that there is nothing wrong with having more than one vessel containing the fruit of the vine. We must discern the Lord’s body while partaking or else we will be sinning (I Cor. 11:27-30). There is no doubt that Jesus was focusing on the contents and not the container.

                                                                                               Chuck

Have you ever wondered how the early Christians knew when to gather together for worship on Sundays? Was it just a coincidence that all the brethren showed up at the same place and at the same time (Acts 20:7)? The Bible does not specifically state where or at what time to meet. It is reasonable to conclude that the church decided this ahead of time.

Knowing that a decision that needed to be made, did the early Christians have Biblical authority for making this decision? A skeptic might say no because there is no book, chapter and verse to tells them when and where. However, I Corinthians 11:17-29 contains a command by Paul that brethren were to gather to take the Lord’s Supper. You cannot fulfill that command without understanding necessary inferences – i.e. when and where to meet.

This is a skill we all use in our daily lives. For example, a mother tells her child to clean their room. Is that enough information for the child to get the job done? Absolutely! They will use their legs to walk into their room. They will use their eyes to look around. They will use their hands to pick up things and put them where they belong. They will use their judgment to make sure they give themselves enough time to get the job done that day. If the child does not clean the room because their mother did not provide all those details (inferences), will the mother accept this excuse? Not a chance.

Does this mean people can infer anything they want? No. There are boundaries. In the example of the mother and the child, it would not be acceptable for the child to get their younger sibling to clean the room for them. They violated the command “you clean your room.”  If the child opts to clean it another day, they violate the command. If the child opts to clean their parent’s room, they violate the command.

Abiding in the teaching of Christ (II John 9) consists of doing what we are told by making the necessary inferences. We will continue with this subject in next week’s bulletin by exploring “aids and additions” to understand authority.

                                                                                                                                                Chuck

What is “forsaking the assembly”?

Many of us are familiar with Hebrews 10:25: “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”  What exactly does this mean?

Some contend that a Christian can skip a Sunday here and there and not be accused of “forsaking the assembly” because they have not abandoned church services altogether. The word “forsaking” means to leave behind, leave to desert. Does this mean that a person is forsaking the assembly if they leave and do not return? Yes, but not always.

Consider when Jesus was hanging on the cross. There is no question that he felt all alone. He uttered the words, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34). This is the exact same word that the Hebrew writer used. This article is not a discussion of whether God forsook Jesus or if Jesus just felt that way. My point is this – was Jesus correct to use the word “forsaken” in that situation? Did Jesus not have to wait weeks or months to then use the term? No. One can forsake when a person is not where they ought to be.

If a child of God decides they are going to skip services on a Sunday – even if just for one week – the scriptures teach that they have forsaken the assembly. Simply put, they were supposed to be there (I Cor. 11:17-18; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1-2). It is not logical to say that it is okay to miss one Sunday or to miss on occasion when God’s word is clear about our regular attendance.

This thinking also indicates a double-standard. If a Christian misses one Sunday and says they will be back the next Sunday, they are clearly expecting that the church will be gathered then. This person expects the brethren to be gathered, but the brethren cannot expect the same in return.  That is not right, and we all know it.

Problems with “hit and miss” attendance are ultimately problems of the heart. The Lord demands to be worshipped (John 4:24). If our response is to do it when convenient or only when we feel like it, we should not expect the Lord to be pleased. We also need to be mindful of the example this sets for children and other members. Jesus said that we need to be lights in a world of darkness (Matt. 5:13-15). We cannot honestly say that we are seeking first the kingdom of God when we would rather be somewhere else (Matt. 6:33).

To further understand that a person can forsake the assembly by only missing one Sunday, think about a marriage. If a husband goes off with another woman for just one night, can you really say he forsook their wife? Yes!!! Even if the husband planned to go back to their mate the next day, he forsook the vow that he made. Saints are described as being married to the Lord (II Cor. 11:2). Therefore, when we choose not to gather with the saints to honor our Lord, we are not being faithful.

Let’s look at yet one more example. Mark 14:50 describes how Jesus was arrested and all his followers deserted (forsook) Him. Notice how the followers were described as forsaking Jesus even though very little time has passed. Yet again, a Christian can be guilty of forsaking the assembly by taking a single day off from worship.

This begs the question – what does it mean when someone skips a day of worship? They need to repent of their sin (Luke 13:3). Local churches often struggle to know if members are guilty of this as people can be creative in coming up with “reasons” why they could not attend. You might fool fellow Christians, but you cannot fool the Lord. We will ultimately answer to the Him, not man (II Cor. 5:1).

Chuck