Where Shall We Worship?
by Stan Paregien, Sr.
magazine in August, 1972, pp. 32-37.
On February 29 [ 1972 ], I received a letter from a young woman whose father was a missionary for the Churches of Christ and was also on the board of one of our Christian colleges. She and her husband are now among the growing number of voices who are asking, “Where shall we worship?” [See Judy Romero’s article, “Where Shall We Worship?” in the June, 1972 issue of Integrity]
After visiting several other churches, she commented, “Where can we settle? Back in the church of Christ, where they seem to stick closet to the scriptures in doctrine, and yet have so little faith and love and peace? Or in one of these others who, in our opinion, stray a little more from the scriptures doctrinally and yet have so much more faith and love and peace, and give God the credit for answered prayers?”
Since I was also wrestling with the same dilemma, I felt that I had to resolve the matter in my own life before answering her letter. After several weeks of intensive study, I informed her that my family and I had decided to regularly worship with a different segment of the Restoration Movement. Our decision was based upon the following convictions which are openly held only by a small minority of those in the Church of Christ.
1. We should regard as a brother ever sincere, immersed believer in the Lord Jesus.
I still recall the joy which I experienced several years ago when I finally saw that the family of God is larger than either the Church of Christ or the Restoration Movement. It was quite a revelation for one who had grown up in a climate of strict “undenominational” sectarianism.
When I began preaching at the ripe old age of sixteen, my message was simple: “If we don’t obey God in every detail, we will go to hell. The denominations are wrong in most everything, therefore . . . .” Somehow I managed to overlook the fact that none of us is perfect and that God is probably more merciful than those preachers from who I got my sermons outlines.
“Not the only Christians, but Christians only” was one of the slogans which the pioneer preachers used with great success. And I believe it should be revived as one of the fundamental principles of the continuing restoration. If a man has been immersed out of a sincere desire to please God, that is enough reason to accept him as my brother.
I graduated from David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tenn. Lipscomb was the founder of the school, as well as the editor of the influential Gospel Advocate magazine. He wrote, “There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches who are baptized to obey God rather than to please the sections. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves ( from his book, Questions Answered, p. 582).
2. We must allow each person to interpret the Scriptures for himself and to follow the dictates of his heart.
The early Restoration leaders left no doubt as to their position on interpreting the Scriptures. Thomas Campbell argued that “although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians father than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so. For their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God.”
Elias Smith argued that “in all essentials the Scriptures are plain to be understood. Every Christian is free to examine the Scriptures for himself and to impartially judge of the sense and the meaning of the same. Every Christian has a right to publish and vindicate what he believes is contained in the Scriptures, and to serve God according to his own conscience.”
While we should always be happy to share our views with others, we cannot presume to make their decisions for them. It is the privilege and responsibility for each Christian to live as a free man in Christ (Galatians 5:1).
3. Nothing should be made a test of fellowship unless God has clearly made it a condition of salvation.
All Christians are in the same brotherhood, because they are all children of the same Father. They are not members of the heavenly family because they are perfect or because they agree on all the “issues,” but because they have all accepted Jesus as Lord.
Another powerful slogan which our 19th century preachers used was, “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things charity.” The impact of this thesis is mentioned by Moses Lard: “No position has been more distinctively enounced, or more firmly held among us than this: that matters of opinion shall never be made tests of fellowship” ( Lard’s Quaterly, April, 1885).
For example, notice the practice of one of the most respected scholars in the history of the Restoration Movement, J. W. McGarvey. His biographer, W.C. Morro, wrote in Brother McGarvey these words: “ McGarvey never made silence of the organ a condition of his participation in any service . . . . McGarvey would speak or worship in any church or assembly where a musical instrument was used, but if conditions made it possible, he preferred the singing be without the instrument.”
4. The doctrine of congregational autonomy suggests that differences of opinion and practice are to be expected and tolerated on the congregational level, just as on the individual level.
Few principles have been lauded so highly and violated so often as that on congregational autonomy. In theory, each of our congregations is free – within the boundary of God’s Word – to carry on its work as the members think fitting. In practice, however, many congregations are intimidated by outsiders such as powerful preachers, editors, and college administrators.
The unity for which Jesus prayed does not depend upon absolute conformity. Paul and Barnabas had such differences that they felt justified in working separately (Acts 15). But they never renounced their state as brethren. Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone differed dramatically on the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians, but they worked together anyway.
5. We must admit that the issue of whether to use an instrument in worship has been distorted.
For one thing, the problem is not as simple as preachers often portray it before their partisan audiences. There are persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue, most of which are conjured up through a laborious process of mental gymnastics. I cannot see how the good Lord could possibly make such a complicated study a “matter of faith.” If it is really as important as some brethren assert, surely God would have stated his position a little more clearly.
The points listed below sum up my current understanding of this matter. They are lettered for easy reference.
A. In the Old Testament the word psallo conveyed the meaning of “to play or pluck,” probably upon a stringed musical instrument. By the time of the apostles, the meani9ng of psall had shifted to denote “sing” ( i.e., vocal music ).
B. The first century church worshiped in song, without use of any musical instruments. But this fact is not conclusive evidence that it is against God’s will to use the instrument.
C. The cultural context in the first century was a strong factor in their abstention from instrumental music. Although used in the Temple, it was not used in the Jewish synagogues. And it was the synagogue after which the Christian worship was patterned.
D. The point of such passages as Ephesians 5:19, I Corinthians 14:26, and Colossians 3:16 is that we are to worship God from the heart. We are not to reduce our worship to either cold ritual or sensual entertainment. Singing without the spirit, whether accompanied with an instrument or not, is unacceptable to God.
E. The purpose of singing, then, is to praise God and to teach one another. And the use of an instrument to accompany the singing does no violence to this basic principle, whether the context is that of the Old Testament period, the New Testament period, or the present day.
F. The pioneer Restoration preachers, like their Methodist counterparts (Adam Clarke, etc. ), rejected the use of instrumental music in worship. Still cherishing the religious freedoms won by the Reformation in Europe, these independent-minded pioneers wanted nothing in their worship which might unnecessarily remind them of Romanism.
G. By the 1850's and 1860's, an increasingly industrialized and affluent American society opened the way for the use of organs in congregation worship. Dr. L.L. Pinkerton ( a phsician-turned-preacher ) first introduced it into our congregations in 1859, at Midway, Kentucky. No doubt some Christians back then considered it a status symbol.
H. The outbreak of the Civil War in April, 1860 further strained “the tie that binds.” Lack of communication and interaction between brethren in the North and those in the South increased feelings of suspicion and hostility.
I. Then in the 1880's, intensified controversy over the organ and lack of love for each other led to division. Walter Scott, Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell, John “Racoon” Smith, and others had a spiritual maturity which stressed their common faith and de-emphasized their personal opinions. Unfortunately, by the 1880's each of them was dead. And none of their successors seems to have possessed the attributes necessary for preventing the fragmentation of the Restoration Movement.
J. In 1906 this estrangement of our brethren was further solidified by the editor of the Gospel Advocate, David Lipscomb. He wrote to the United States Census Bureau in that year and requested a separate listing of the non-instrumental congregations under the title, “Churches of Christ.” Previously the term “Christian Church” had been freely applied to our congregations. But no more.
K. Some instrumentalists today show little regard for the “weaker brother” concept Paul discusses in Romans 14. In his tract entitle, “What the Bible Teaches Concerning Instrumental Music in Worship,” R.C. Bell acknowledges that his fellow instrumentalists “have, in a large measure, disregarded this appeal. Herein lies their sin–not in the usage of the instrument–but in their callous disregard for the feeling of their weaker, misguided brethren.”
L. A Great many preachers who oppose the instrument get a lot of verbal mileage out of statements like this: “If they would just get ride of the instrument, we could have unity.” This sword cuts both ways, however. For it is the same argument which one faction uses against women teachers, another against cooperative efforts such as the Herald of Truth TV program, and another to oppose multiple cups. If those who use this argument are really serious, they had better get ready to be reduced to the lowest common denominator among us!
M. Since the New Testament makes no clear-cut, declarative statement regarding the use of the instrument, it is apparent that our opinions are based upon our subjective interpretations of non-New Testament evidence ( i.e., secular history, church history, etc. ).
6. It is more important to have the right attitude in serving God than it is to be doctrinally perfect.
To begin with, if we mean by “doctrine” the teachings of the New Testament, how can anyone be absolutely correct? I don’t know any person who has a perfect understanding or practice of all the Scriptures. Therefore, we had better make sure we’re trying to obey God because we love him.
For example, let’s suppose that a father asks his ten-year-old son to wash the car. Thirty minutes later the father finds that the son washed the car, but he let the soapy water dry and streak the car. Will he disciple his son for failing to do a perfect job? Maybe. But it all depends on the son’s attitude. No father would punish a son who was cheerfully doing his best.
Well, with such convictions, I found myself increasingly uncomfortable in the Church of Christ. The mountain-top experiences had been scarce during the last few years. Instead, in congregations where I visited or worked ( from California to Kentucky ) I found the same pattern of isolationism and legalism.
So, a few months ago I began worshiping with a congregation of the Christian Church ( Independent). There I found what I am convinced is a sincere effort to worship and serve the Lord, both in spirit and truth. Like the folks in the Church of Christ, they are not perfect. But they seem more willing to recognize that while they are Christians only, they are not the only Christians in town.
I feel that my new base of operations will provide a better climate for my own spiritual growth. I certainly have no less love for my brethren who label their congregations “Church of Christ.” No do I wish to sever my relationship with them. I just want to freely circulate among all Christians, to participate in God’s work whenever and wherever I can, regardless of the label on the church building.
End.
Hoy Ledbetter, editor of Integrity magazine, wrote these words, about my article, in the Sept., 1972 issue:
A few weeks ago I received a letter from Stan Paregien in which he included a report concerning his change of profession and fellowship. The reasons behind Stan’s change were stated in his article in last month’s issue. We chose to print it without comment, but now I want to comment.
After reading a few lines of Stan’s letter, I decided to share it without my wife. But I couldn’t read it. I got all choked up and had to quit after a few sentences.
Until recently our brother ministered to what is reported to be the largest Church of Christ in Oklahoma. I do not personally know that congregation, but I am sure that it is composed of good, sincere Christians who want to serve the Lord. But they are a part of a larger communion which has in recent years grown increasingly intolerant of doctrinal deviations. These deviations hafve nothing to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They are rather related to questions which are not even asked in the New Testament. But one’s future in the fellowship often depends upon giving the right answers to them – and sometimes upon asking the right questions!
Many of our thoughtful ( and not always young ) preachers are asking the wrong questions. They soon find that, even if they are tolerated, they are not trusted. They are under terrific pressure to become hypocrites and keep their convictions to themselves. Doors begin to close, and fellowship shrinks. They begin to hunger to be themselves in Christ. Finally, if they are not kicked out, they voluntarily move to a more congenial climate.
I do not weep for these men. Invariably they ar happier as a result of their pilgrimage. But I do weep for a brotherhood that spurns so many capable, dedicated servants who cannot be sectarians. I weep for the churches who are so fearful of digression that they will not employ ministers with the best training simply because they equate graduate degrees with doctrinal degeneration. I weep for Christians who cannot be free enough to let their brothers be free and God be God, and who can’t quite be content to “no pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes,” even though it is hard for them to “kick against the goads.”
Sometimes reading the mail can be a real emotional experience.