ARE DESIGNATED CHURCH-BUILDINGS NECESSARY?

10-8-2015

The majority of Christians today, sadly have no real concept of how first century saints worshipped or met for worship. And probably don’t care! Any time a “church” is mentioned in our scriptures, it is automatically assumed they met in buildings designated for that purpose only. Perhaps if I rephrase the question, it might become a little clearer by asking, “Do the ecclesia of God (those called out) need buildings built for worship only to meet in?” And you may be wondering why I would phrase the question that way.

The English word church is an imprecise and ambiguous translation of the Greek word “ecclesia” (or ekklesia) which only means “called out.” That is, those called out of a world of sin by the teaching of Christ. But in the past as well as in modern times the idea of church seems to have always been associated with a particular building! Did you ever wonder where that concept came from? Or another question that might baffle you is, “what does the Emperor Constantine, Martin Luther, the city of Constantinople and the Catholic denomination have in common with today’s practice of meeting in buildings (as well as most of our worship)?” We’ll touch on that later.

Actually it was not until the third century that buildings were erected for Christians for that purpose (during the reign of Emperor Constantine). Most who may have given this a little thought assume they didn’t meet in buildings because they were persecuted but that may not have included all Christians. And it never seems to enter their mind that meeting in “designated church-buildings” was not necessary in order to worship God.

And the idea of a “regular church-building” was as foreign to first century Christians then as no “church-buildings” are to us today! Let me state two things here: first, I’m not saying church-buildings are necessarily evil; and you will burn in hell forever if you worship in one. I’m just saying most Christians have become victims of an ancient tradition having nothing to do with early saints and are not the absolute necessity many think. We worshipped in one for years and would do so today should the situation call for it. What we have problems with is no one is allowed to deviate from all the structured religious rhetoric, pompous ceremony and demands made of its members; the unnecessary financial burden forced on them to maintain these buildings, its utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc…) sound systems, printing/bulletins and recording equipment as well as hired professional ministers. And if you disagree you are condemned as not being a faithful Christian! And no one (or very few) is willing to admit or recognize that God’s people have a choice as to where or how they will worship within the confines of God’s word. And we don’t need the “church” or those who claim to be its official representatives (elders, priests, presidents, prophets, seers, popes) making demands on God’s people he never did! This mistaken idea was put forth and promoted many centuries ago, mostly by those making their living off of the Lord’s people; that by banding together more “good works” could be done. More and more I see buildings built for 200-300 people with only 30-40 people and sometimes less, and I’ve spoken to some with only 2 or 3 present! So how did that work out? And most of the money generated by its members is spent on things mentioned above, and is a total waste of good money that should have gone to benevolent work or supporting others preaching the gospel; instead of trying to maintain this corporate style of church government elders want instead of spreading the gospel and doing the work God gave his people to do.

Evidently a majority of people are more concerned with what other people (members) say than with what God says!

Using first century Christians as our example we believe is closer to what apostolic practices were meant to be and try to follow their example if we can. The reality was, there were hundreds of the Lord’s congregations scattered all over the world often in remote areas whose membership consisted of no more than one or two people or just one family. No apostle or New Testament writer ever condemned them, and they managed to do the Lord’s work.

Christians today take great pride in stressing they follow first century teachings and practices. Yet a majority of modern day Christians finds it strange for anyone to worship in private homes as they did or even want to; And by the convoluted standards of most elders/bishops, even unscriptural! Claiming among other things: those that do have forsaken the assembling of themselves with others. To them, if you haven’t assembled in a designated building, at the appointed time, heard a sermon by an “ordained minister” participated in the “five acts of worship etc…or do not identify with some denomination as a member at that particular place, then you haven’t worshipped, and are surely hell bound!

This narrowly defined view is so ingrained in Christians today usually when a group of people begin meeting in homes, or rented buildings wanting to eventually form a “congregation,” apparently do not understand they are already a congregation of God’s people and nothing else is needed! yet, the first thing they do is appoint someone to be their official preacher, appoint elders if possible and start planning how and where to erect a “church-building.” And it apparently never occurs to them to just continue to worship as they are! But what if the congregation grows too large to continue to meet in private homes? Well, form another small congregation! That’s the way they did it in the first century!

If designated church-buildings were an absolute necessity as it is believed and advocated today, provisions and instructions would have been available from the apostles. For example, a place of worship (a Tabernacle, and later a Temple) was required for God’s people under the Law of Moses, therefore detailed instructions were given as to how it was to be build, of what kinds of materials, what items were to be placed in it and where. And it was commanded and expected they would be followed to the letter.

But we find no instructions or commands for New Testament Christians (or those that worshipped under the Patriarchal system) to build such meeting places. Because we (God’s ecclesia) are the building! The general wisdom is often cited, “They had buildings under the Law of Moses, and therefore, buildings are authorized for us today.” But keep in mind, the old law was given in order to bring us to a better way of worship!

The standard argument for buildings is: they are a convenience, and it is easier for all to come to one location to hear the gospel. Or, “if you really love the Lord, then you will want to honor God by building the biggest and best building you can afford etc…” Yet we have no hint the lack of a regular church-building was an inconvenience to early Christians. They did quite well worshiping God in small groups in their homes, going about their daily lives spreading the gospel as opportunities arose. Private homes cannot be considered a designated church-building, as it is obviously used for other purposes too. As a matter of fact it is more probable the gospel reached more people then and more were converted than now! Even in our age of electronic messaging systems. People tend to be more receptive and responsive to personal contact. Why was the idea of a designed church-building so popular? I grew up mostly in a rural farming area where there were numerous small church-buildings scattered all over the hills and hollows of Tennessee. This was done so being able to meet for worship folks would not have to travel too far.

Many either walked or rode in wagons. And being in a mostly farming area didn’t have time to spend on long trips. Folks didn’t have time or much opportunity to socialize as they do today. Therefore the church (building) became the center for social activities, getting the latest news, who got married, had children, how crops were doing, who died, or finding a husband or wife.

But as more modern means of transportation developed, the idea of continuing to meet in buildings stayed about the same. I recall quite vividly hearing the women commenting on some sister’s dress or hat, swapping recipes or inquiring how the kids were doing; and the men standing outside, chewing tobacco, smoking and talking about crops etc… If it wasn’t for the sign that read the “--- church,” you might not realize you were supposed to be there for worship! And I truly believe the church-building concept is perpetuated by the “entertainment factor” today. With all of the various non-related activities prevalent in 99.99% of modern day worship; i.e., the musical concerts, Xmas pageants, bingo games, dances for teens or seniors, so-called church-sponsored outings, dinners, fellowship halls, and sports teams to mention a few; I can understand why most are not willing to give up the church-building concept of worshipping!

THE MEGA/SUPER-CHURCH CONCEPT

By mega or super-church, generally I mean about 2,000- 3,000 members plus. One denomination in California boasted of 30,000 members! It was somewhat of a mystery to me why or where this concept of “bigger is better,” started when it comes to church buildings that exist today; until I begin doing a lot of research which has been going on for several decades. Remembering the saying, “follow the money” in conjunction with early church history (second century until the present), my personal findings are, it is the product of professional ministers, elders/bishops; dating back many centuries, and stemming from the Catholic denomination. Bigger buildings meant more people; more people meant more revenue; more revenue; meant more (personal) wealth. It’s just that simple! Success of any religion is often measured by how old, big and elaborate their buildings are, how awe inspiring its ceremonies, who has the best organist and how many are on the membership rolls; and yes, what kind of (activities) entertainment they have! A person told me once; they chose one denomination over another because it offered the best activities for children as well as them!

The Catholic denomination is purported to be the wealthiest religious group in the Christian world with ownership in numerous businesses around the globe; thousands of paintings, objects de art, and religious artifacts worth billions of dollars collected from its members and other sources over the centuries; hidden in secret storage areas somewhere in Vatican City. Religion is a big business today! And those that run these big businesses (elders and hired professionals) are usually appointed because of their business savvy and ability to attract large crowds (Similar to large corporations hiring a ceo). Has anyone in recent times ever heard of a mega-church (a single congregation) baptizing 3,000 people in one day? The only record we have of such was in the first century (acts 2:41). And this was the effort of just twelve ordinary working men who had no regular building to worship in, never attended a college, preaching school or had any degrees after their names or were part of a larger world-wide religion!

And those converted were just averaged people, pilgrims and travelers that happened to be in Jerusalem and heard Peter when he preached the very first gospel message (acts 2nd chapter). Did they immediately begin to build places in which to regularly meet? No, at some point they each went back to their respective homes in about fifteen different countries and nations. And basically continue to work and live their lives as usual with the exception that now they were follower of Christ (God’s ecclesia), assembled with other Christians whenever they could and carried the gospel message with them wherever they went. Their gospel message was how they lived their lives. Wow, what a simple concept!!

I once read a survey involving over thirty two thousand churches. And it was discovered the smaller ones, usually 30-40 members or less, baptized more than all larger congregations (an average of 132 baptisms a year). But also showed mega-churches only baptized an average of about 2 per year! Having the ability to attract and entertain is one thing, saving souls is quite another! As we said earlier, the bulk of what we do as Christians today may be traced to three distinct periods of church history. The first; in the latter part of the first century where we see faint signs of apostasy beginning. The second; around 324 A.D. The third: in 1517 A.D. There is no question undesirable elements were coming into our Lord’s assemblies which, as history bears out, would have devastating effects on its congregations in the centuries that followed. There was and is, nothing wrong with our Lord’s teachings (doctrines), it was and is, a failure to follow them that caused the problem and continues to be a self-perpetuating problem.

Before Constantine became Emperor of Rome in 313 A.D. Christians during the reign of Diocletian were undergoing perhaps the worst persecution since Emperors Nero and Claudius. But Constantine, (often called the first Christian Emperor), was a Roman and pagan idol worshipper that claimed to have been suddenly and miraculously converted to Christianity at seeing a cross in the sky with the words, “in hoc signo Vince” (in this sign you shall conquer). But we question what his idea of Christianity was.

After three hundred years of corruption was anyone really practicing first century Christianity (and we might ask that question today)? Yet, one could say, he actually revolutionized Christianity and much of what he established is practiced in one form or another today! There is no question he did many things to relieve their suffering. He ordered lands and property confiscated by the former government be returned. He made Sunday the official day of worship for Christians, Later he gave new robes and the equivalent of $12,000 to anyone that converted to Christianity. And in general he made Christians a protected class of people; although every kind of religious belief could be practiced without fear of reprisals from the government.

But having the mind-set of a pagan and evidently not that much knowledge of Christianity he would invariably mix the two religions together to some degree! In 323 A.D. he ordered a city be constructed (Istanbul/Constantinople) which would later be populated mainly by Christians, and had built for them the first known church-buildings; which were based on the same design as official government buildings of the day, instead of pagan temples.

Christians had to be impressed because they had never seen or heard of such a thing as worshipping in a designated building! Although for awhile, Christians sometimes worshipped in Jewish temples (allowed in the court of the Gentiles). But this could not be considered a building just for them. Any Gentile of any faith could use this area. At the same time he had buildings constructed for them in Rome, Jerusalem and other larger cities in the Roman Empire. But he also constructed pagan temples. These temples were always named after one of their gods, and he saw no reason not to give Christian building names also.

So it was he that began the practice of giving names to “Christian building” but naming them after apostles and other writers and people in our new testament such as: St Paul, Peter, Mary, James etc… (Doesn’t that sound familiar?). It is believed pagans stood during their worship and Christians did the same at first, but later added seats, we call them “pews” today. So another innovation was added! As one could imagine, people began attending in droves. But wasn’t that a good thing?

We don’t think it was an improvement over the original way Christians worshipped, because now error could more easily be taught to a greater number of people than ever before. And at this point Christianity was barely recognizable. This was only the foundation of many practices that were to be developed in the next 400 plus years, and would be in a continuous state of pagan refinement. While we may think we lessened its influence or stamped out ancient paganism, we didn’t. What we did was simply add most of their practices to our doctrines and it continues to some degree under the guise of Christianity.

We must keep in mind these converts came mostly from pagan religions and were not converted to real first century teachings. So the “Church” in order to accommodate and appeal to these masses obviously made many concessions which reflected (ex) pagan wishes and practices: such as: chanting, temple choirs (which were added to Christian worship), stained glass windows, religious icons (taking the place of idols or gods), mounted on walls or statues representing saints, the burning of candles, the ringing of bells, confessional booths, clothes (robes/collars/necklaces, headdress etc…) especially designed to set the clergy apart from the laity. Just to name a few. By the way, clergy (klero) simply means “an appointed lot or inheritance,” and was a term originally designated to identify pagan priests! How it became associated with church officials and leaders came about like other practices foreign to first century worship. The Catholic denomination early in its existence believed it had the authority to change whatever doctrine or practices it believed would farther enhance itself with the masses. Many pagan practices were adopted into its faith and became official doctrine, i.e., use of holy water, burning of incense, special clothing for priests etc… simply because it believed since it was included under the banner of “the church” that made it holy or sanctified! So what was formerly sinful suddenly became “righteous!” To me, that would be like a doctor telling a patient with a deadly form of cancer to, “take two aspirin and call me later in the week; you’ll be just fine!”

Another item I found interesting is the use of obelisks (pillars/steles) in Christianity. Studying ancient paganism we find the obelisk was a phallic symbol (symbolizing life and regeneration) used to honor the Egyptian sun god “Ra.” Erecting tall obelisks in order for the sun’s first rays to hit the top of it symbolized a re-birth. One of these ancient pillars stands in St. Peters square in Rome today!

What is significant about this? Read Deut 16:22, for a clue: “Neither shall you set thee up a pillar (obelisk), which Jehovah your God hates.” See also II kgs 10:25-26. This was a heathen practice God hated and forbid. But Christians (following the Roman denomination’s standards) simply placed a cross on top of these pillars and called them “church steeples!” I realize we live under new and not Old Testament law. And I suppose the argument could be made that it has nothing to do with us today. But my point is showing just how close to ancient paganism we remain even today in many areas.

Historically, tax money up until that time, was given mainly to pagan religions, now the lion’s share went to Christianity! This is where real corruption begins. Heathen priests as well as government officials soon realized the money that could be made in that position. So they too begin switching (not converting) over to Christianity! If you want a real eye opener, read history of the middle ages and how lands and property were confiscated by judicial torture from those often falsely accused of violating Roman civil law or their religious laws. And how church officials, often in league with them, increased their personal wealth as well as that of the Catholic denomination.

The other major event occurred in 1517 A.D. When Martin Luther, trying to reform the Catholic denomination inadvertently created “Protestantism.” This was a term used by Catholics to describe those who “protested” against the Catholic denomination! Lutheranism would eventually become the first protestant denomination. And his followers honored him by naming a “church” after him, something he asked them not to do! So now you know why you are called a protestant if you are not a member of the Catholic denomination!!

When you enter a “Church-building” today, remember this concept is based on pagan temple worship and was not the way Christ envisioned his people worshipping him. Many things cannot be duplicated today as far as first century Christianity is concerned but in principle, we can emulate all of what God requires of us today. And that may be achieved simply by meeting in our homes! Why not rid ourselves of the financial and time consuming burden of building and maintaining buildings along with all they symbolize and use our time and finances toward things God intended and simply worship Him as it is apparently obvious He wanted. (See article, “Are Full-time Ministers Needed?” under miscellaneous lessons)

J.D. Williams~

ARE FULL TIME MINISTERS NEEDED?

10-14-2015

There are many goals small or young congregations strive for they feel are absolute necessities i.e., to get a full-time preacher (hopefully, but rarely, someone willing to preach without pay) building a “church-building,” and appoint elders. But Full-time, usually means a hired professional that lives off the contributions of others by being employed by a congregation; i. e., those who won’t consider employment by any congregation, (large or small) that will not or cannot pay what they demand). Usually their first consideration is, “how much can you pay me and what are my benefits; is a house furnished? How much vacation time do I get or how many days off are allowed etc…!” I can’t place all men in this category but this seems to be the norm. But seriously, do you think these T.V. evangelists would do what they are doing if they were not paid and paid handsomely?

My experience had been from talking with and observing ministers over many decades in the Lord’s body, most fall into this category. Most members have been trained to expect that and don’t feel they are a fully developed Congregation until all of these goals are achieved. The fact is; none of these are needed to worship God! Members of the Lord’s body don’t need a regular building to meet in. What began as a “convenience” in the third century has morphed into a needless and superfluous necessity today. God’s people can spread the gospel, edify each other and do any benevolent work they are capable of without any of the above, including elders; because they usually get all the credit for the congregation’s efforts anyway!

But not having a minister poses a problem for many. There is no question in their minds a minister is a necessity, more so than elders! Because my experience has been most (99.9%) congregations function just fine without them, as elders usually don’t teach or preach anyway. But having the minister in charge is thought to be unscriptural by many Christians today; calling it the “pastoral system.”

I really don’t see the problem, as most operate under this system (usually without knowing it!) and are quite happy with it. There are some variations of this term, but basically it means the minister (in lieu of elders) oversees all the functions of the congregation or appoints others to assist. This and all of the congregation’s business are handled through what is often called “the business men’s arrangement.” To me this is just the pastoral system functioning under another name! Oddly enough, there is within the Lord’s body that very system…but it’s been disguised and called the elder-ship as elders are considered pastors! And if these pastors control the congregation, why shouldn’t that be considered a “pastoral system?” It’s sort of like ignoring the elephant in the room thing!

But according to elders, having a minister as a leader is evil, as elders believe they are the only ones that must make all the decisions for the congregation. However, if a minister happens to also be an elder, he still makes the same decisions, as any minister would, but tells the congregation, he is acting in the capacity of an elder! Oh! How we love to play word games!! But in the first century, in all probability, most congregations had no official leaders as it is understood today; at least in the beginning. Obviously someone had to fill the leadership role. Usually this was done by the brother(s) the congregation thought was the most faithful, mature in the faith and with the most knowledge. This, on close examination, is exactly how the Lord’s assemblies are supposed to be led! But like many other simple concepts, this one became corrupted and abused.

Having a minister is one thing, but having a “full-time” minister is another.

I think it is more of a “prestige” thing than a necessity. And if a congregation can hire a well known professional minister, that’s even better; because he can attract more members, which means more revenue in the congregation’s coffers! And if a minister is hired by a well know and large congregation, well that’s even more of a prestigious thing for him, as opposed to a small congregation no one ever heard of! Plus he will be able to pull down a bigger salary! I recall as a young minister reading about those “big name” preachers in brotherhood magazines or attending meetings they held and thinking someday I hoped to achieve that status. Just think of all the people I could influence for the good. Well it never happened because I never attended recognized colleges, brethren approved preaching schools or preached for large influential congregations held in high esteem by the brotherhood or had any articles published by their official magazines etc…therefore I was never privileged to associate with the upper-echelon of the church of Christ elite! I was what the brotherhood called a lowly “part-time” minister and never considered “full-time” because I always worked at public jobs and supported myself. Although never mentioned publically, part-time ministers are treated like second class citizens of the kingdom and have very little influence among the larger congregations and the brotherhood in general; the attitude being, they were not knowledgeable enough to land a full-time job! When I begin preaching, I accepted some support, mainly because I thought it was expected of me. Later I adopted the policy of never taking support.

A fellow minister told me years later he never did either because, “once they start paying you, you become just a hired hand, and they think you are to do whatever they want;” which I found to be true. And the threat of being fired can always be held over your head, especially by elders! Although part-time, the work I did was certainly full-time! The first congregation (about 40 members) where I was asked to serve as minister was a real eye-opener. I was about twenty three years old and had been added to the Lord’s body for less than a year. Needless to say several thought I was too young and inexperienced to hold such a position; (although it was located in a very rural farming area). And a few of the older members never let me forget it! Here is a list of some of my basic duties: I taught both adult classed, Sunday morning and Wednesday evening; delivered two sermons on Sundays. Quite often leading the congregation in songs, serving communion and many times leading the opening and closing prayer (they did however, have someone make announcements, Yea!). I visited the sick in their homes or hospital on Sundays (often serving communion and sometimes conducting short classes if they wished). During the week I often made calls on members on my way from work. Acted as marriage council, contacted members that were negligent in attendance, was called on to debate or confront any and all the elders felt were a threat to their congregation or the community (spiritually). As well as meeting privately with any disgruntled member they felt was causing division or in some way considered a problem. Was available to discuss or answer any questions any member might have had (often they were trivial (trick) questions designed more to see if I could answer what they considered the more complex ones, or ridicule me if I couldn’t; rather than seeking answers that would make them more knowledgeable and better informed Christians).

Almost every Sunday I had to listen patently as some ignorant brother or sister launched groundless, incoherent diatribes as to why they disagreed with some point in my sermon. Their level of ignorance was a constant source of amazement to me, especially from the elders! (This was really annoying to me, although I had been in the Lord’s body for less than a year; I had, through devoted, regular and consistent study become more knowledgeable than some that were members for over four decades). While talking to some members I discovered many were not sure how to tell someone how to obey the gospel! And I often thought what were they doing all these years? You would think they would at the very least know how to do that. I acted as negotiator between warring factions which held different ideas as to doctrine or how the congregation should be run. Usually this was between the older more influential members and quite often among the elders themselves! And I was constantly pressured to “take one side or the other,” which I refused to do. After about six months of that, I told them to get someone else to baby sit for them. And vowed never to seek another full-time position! And for the next few years devoted my efforts to speaking to small congregations that had no elders, regular minister or could not afford to pay one. There were numerous small congregations scattered over about six counties in middle and east Tennessee I spoke to on a regular and rotating basis.

One of the valuable lessons I learnt from that was congregations don’t really need elders or regular preachers to survive or prosper spiritually! They just need a knowledgeable and sound teacher. I spoke to one small congregation that had no elders and not had a preacher in over two years! And they were as faithful and knowledgeable as those with regular ministers. And whenever possible I encouraged the men of the congregation to speak as well as teach. This works quite well and I believe closer to how first century Christians functioned. Plus money paid to a preacher can best be used elsewhere i.e., for benevolent work and spreading the gospel. Now days, it appears to me, full-time professional ministers (especially paid ministers) are a scam and a waste of saints’ money! I’ve heard ministers in larger congregation say how busy they are, I think that is because they have hired him to worship for them; and he is paid to do what they should be doing. Is someone sick, let the minister go visit, having spiritual problems, send the preacher, any community functions, let the preacher represent us etc…sort of worshipping by proxy!

But someone has to be in charge people believe. Not if we all returned to first century practices and do what we are supposed to do. We really created our own dilemma when we drifted away from first century standards and into this ritualistic, corporate style of worship. Had we remained true to first century practices, none of this would be necessary. And we would be known more as a godly people living a daily life as God intended rather than being identified by a sign outside the building; which nowadays many people are asking, “I wonder what kind of church of Christ is that!” See article, "Are Church-Buildings necessary?”

J.D. Williams~

GOD’S DENOMINATION

(A DISCLAIMER)

9-30-2016

The church of Christ (coc) has for many decades maintained they are “non-denominational and/or in some cases non-institutional. A few years back someone published a list they believe affirms this. We want to give a brief analysis of that list and show why it is a useless, ludicrous and futile effort to distance themselves from what is obvious to all other denominations.

The coc is Not a Denomination …because 1) It does not have a denominational head…

They claim all denominations have headquarters located in certain cities (or countries) with governing bodies that legislate or approve their particular doctrines. Although many of the larger, more affluent and influential congregations among them as well as leading “brotherhood magazines” function in much the same way, i.e., stating what doctrine (policy) is acceptable and which is not. However they are missing the point. Where the headquarters are located has nothing to do with whether a group is denominational or not! The fact they have called themselves by a name (or any name) is what makes them a denomination, not what it teaches! Obviously they have no understanding of the definition of the word denominate! There is nothing sinister or unscriptural about that! To insist they are not a denomination is equal to saying, “we have no name!!”

2)

It does not have a denominational organization…

Granted they do not have conferences, synods, councils or some form of hierarchy like most; but they do have elders or sometimes the business men’s meetings (which hands down decisions as to what will be taught and functions as a hierarchy and council), they also have deacons, ministers, teachers and various programs to accommodate or expedite their goals. All of which must conform to local elders standards and the coc brotherhood in general. And the coc (like all religious groups) functions as an institution with the elders acting as a corporate board of directors making every decision as to the running of the congregation.

If that is not considered to be an organization…what would? Plus the official “five acts of worship” (more organization) which they insist must be followed in every assembly (to be scriptural they claim). That looks highly organized to me. I think common sense would suggest any group must be organized to function. And much of what other have is the same as the coc; they just call it by another name.

3)

It is not denominational in its work…

They claim denominations work through organizations or societies, and the coc does its work only through the local congregation. That’s not true! Many congregations employ what is called the “sponsoring church” program where one congregation oversees the work of several congregation, as does most denominations and often uses or partners with many of the same organizations as other denominations such as: civil, governmental or private institutions to achieve the work they wish to do, i.e., orphan homes, preaching schools, financial support to colleges, the selling of “church bonds” and having interest bearing accounts such as banking and lending institutions etc…They, like all denominations, engage in various financial schemes in order to increase their revenue and fill their coffers.

4)

It is not denominational in its worship…

Really? It is believed because they engage in what is known as the “official five acts of worship;” that sets them apart from all other denominations! Oddly enough, there is no such list to be found anywhere in our bible that states a congregation must engage in all of these things when assembled. This is doctrine (?) advocated by over-zealous elders which major denominations were practicing many centuries before the restoration movement in America (ca 1850). But now is considered normal and scriptural; and those not following this tradition are usually not fellowshipped!

But what denomination doesn’t conduct singing services, preaching, teaching, prayer, take up a collection and observe communion (although many do only occasionally)? So how does that set them apart from other denominations? While these may be done a little differently, makes little difference, the point being both engage in the same form of worship. I have attended many of the “other denomination’s” services; and one would be hard pressed to tell the difference! Many of the same pre-approved hymns are sung, most of the sermons are so weak and watered down they couldn’t teach anyone how to become a child of God. And the same goes for much of the bible classes. And they beg for money (which is squandered on unnecessary/non-essential expenditures) and try to make you feel guilty for not “giving enough” the same as all others; claiming to use it for the “Lord’s work.” which evidently 99% of elders haven’t a clue as to what constitutes…the Lord’s work! Mainly the “work” is whatever the elders have decided it is!

5)

That denominations are divisive by nature…

The reality is the coc is just as divided as any other denomination. And many (I have personally witnessed) are seriously divided over certain issues even in the same congregation! They have for decades made an effort to present to the public a united front claiming to be “non-denominational and/or non-institutional; but how do they explain those calling themselves: the united church of Christ, the independent churches of christ, the charismatic coc, The “musical” coc, the “anti-bible class” coc, The “one cup” coc, (those opposed to more than one serving container at the Lord’s supper); and others teaching basically the same doctrine; known as the disciples of Christ, the Christian church or the institutional coc? I have even heard of a “Baptist coc!” Not sure where that fits in!

Proper study of the first century ecclesia reveals there is only one authorized or spiritual denomination; Christ’s!

Those of us worshipping in our homes fortunately do not become involved with all the distractions, church politics and financial nonsense these corporate style institutional congregations are burdened with. And really don’t care what others call us. We are simply “God’s ecclesia” (those called out of a world of sin); striving daily to worship him, obey his commandments and doing what he expects of his children.

For more articles on similar subjects we encourage you to read: “What is a scriptural denomination,” and “The Lord’s church, a denomination?” under “miscellaneous articles.”

J.D. Williams~

IS THE CHURCH TREASURY AUTHORIZED?

2-25-2016

There has been for many decades now an ongoing controversy as to how scriptural is the so-called church treasury; and is a continual weekly contribution by members authorized; and if so, for what purposes? Actually the question should be: “Do God’s people (the ecclesia of God) need any kind of treasury to carry out any benevolent work commanded?” Those believing our scriptures do not authorize a treasury as it is understood today maintain God’s people may and can do all the body of Christ is commanded to do without one! As with all issues of religion, there are two, sometimes three or more views. And we will briefly consider the traditional arguments most often put forth in favor of treasuries.

The commonly held position is:

“The church has always had and maintained a treasury.”

And numerous scripture is cited which is believed to support that view. Actually, this cannot be clearly or definitely proven. And it is believed there is as much proof against as for it. Following are some of the verses usually relied on to prove authorization of the treasury.

The general proof texts cited is that “Jews had a treasury.” This treasury was used to construct and maintain the temple; to support the Levite priests, singers and porters. And you can read about that in I Chron 2:8, Ezra 2:69, Neh 7:70-71, 13:5. First, we should point out that Jehovah commanded this, giving them no choice and in doing so gave them detailed instructions as to how they were to go about it. He also told them what was to go into the temple and where each item was to be placed. And the Israelite’s contributions were not limited to hard currency, but included precious stones, first-fruits (from flocks, vineyards and crops), frankincense, wine, and grains as well as tithes and free-will offerings. And all of this was stored in a room or “great chamber” in the temple (tabernacle) complex. Something not done in today’s treasuries! And we have to wonder why those that insist on using these verses as authorization don’t also advocate for all it teaches? Why are today’s weekly contributions limited to cash or checks (and some congregations are now making provisions for debit cards!)? And why isn’t each congregation required to keep its contributions on premises as did the Jews, instead of placing it into interest bearing bank accounts, sending it to some regional headquters or investing in CD’s? And can it be considered scriptural to allow someone (the banking/lending institution) to profit from money given for benevolence to saints be used by “non-members??” As with other traditional teachings, it seems they keep only those things that are convenient for them; irregardless of what other verses teach! And related to this is: by what authority makes the selling of “church bonds” and interest bearing accounts scriptural? Not to mention bingo games, bazaars, car washes, etc… My understanding is God’s people are to supply (financially) all that is needed to do the work He commanded from them; and not rely on various money making schemes or non-members to support their work!

The second thing we should consider is: All references to the Mosaic Law to establish New Testament authority are meaningless! We must keep in mind which law we are under! But, it is said, “It shows a pattern of what God’s people did.” Yes it does. No student of the bible ever claimed it didn’t. Or that they had a treasury. But that doesn’t authorize Christians to practice what the Jews did. The Jews also offered sacrifices, tithed, kept the Sabbath etc…And we certainly understand we are not authorized to do the same today. Therefore, citing what the Jews did under the Law of Moses have nothing to do with Christians (or anyone) living after it was fulfilled and abolished!

Let’s look at the New Testament then. References such as, Mark 12th chapter and Matt 27:6 do nothing but reiterate the Jews had a treasury and in my opinion to quote them are nothing but pure subterfuge! But what about John 13:27-29 that shows Jesus and his disciples had what might be considered a treasury. Jesus had not established his new law for the ecclesia yet (the gospel), and his disciples obviously functioned under completely different circumstances. What they did cannot be used as a means to justify a treasury either. The fact they were in almost constant travel would necessitate them carrying their finances with them. Are Christians required to carry their finances with them today? Because that’s what these verses imply. We fail to see how that would be a proper example. Well what about acts 2:42-45? “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.” I find it odd someone would quote these verses: but some have (after a strained and desperate attempt to justify their position) seen a church treasury in the word “fellowship” (koinonia); and maintain contributions had to be collected, put into a treasury and then re-distributed to the needy. Personally we think this is really grasping at straws. While fellowship may at times involve aiding other saints financially it does not necessarily infer or authorize a treasury; or that funds were placed in one and then distributed to others. Fellowship of this nature does not require a treasury and may involve more than giving money to those in need.

When our congregation (meeting in private homes) became aware of a saint in need, we either took up a collection for them immediately and one of the members gave it to them, or one or several individuals would go to them directly and provide them with what was most needed at the time, whether medicine, money, food or clothing. We never considered putting it in a church treasury (bank) and then writing a check to be given to them. Should any member choose not to participate (although it never happened) we never questioned their reasons, as all were free to make their own decisions in these matters. We also supported missionaries or needy Christian families (from our personal account, never a “church treasury”) by sending them aid directly. We have never understood how dropping a few bucks in the collection plate and letting someone else deal with it relieves one of their duty to his fellow saint.

Other verses quoted such as II Cor 9:13 and Rom 15:26 prove nothing but contributions were given and do not absolutely mean they were taken from a treasury. Again, too much has been read into these verses in an attempt to justify something that is not necessary. Acts 4:34-37 and 6:1-6 are cited believing it proves a “pre-existing” treasury and the apostles were in charge of it. And funds were given in order to replenishing it. But if one reads the text carefully, you will see it says nothing about a pre-existing treasury at Jerusalem or anywhere else and certainly not the replenishing of it! As a matter of fact, a treasury is nowhere mentioned or even hinted at in the entire chapter. Evidently those interpreting these verses are using “new hermeneutics” where the thing that must be proven is just assumed! It was only after an emergency occurred did they begin collecting aid from saints.

The apostles were overseeing any aid received from other saints and portioned out as their need called for. It doesn’t appear these things were stored up or placed into a treasury for some time and then distributed to others; but on an immediate basis. It is believed the Judean churches had treasuries; and acts 11:29-30 is offered as proof. But all these verses say is they determined to send relief to others and did, sending it by Barnabas and Saul. And while they admit this does not imply these gifts were placed into a treasury, they, at the same time, conclude (or assume) they were! Again, this is faulty reasoning based of new hermeneutics! Who can say with any certainty these benevolent gifts were not distributed the very day they were received and not stored somewhere at all? After all, there was an air of emergency concerning these gifts. Why not sent them as quickly as possible? Perhaps the most quoted verse on authorized treasuries is from I Cor 16:1-2. And it is believed Paul commanded this be done every week. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. 2 upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.” A majority of Christians believe Paul is commanding weekly contributions be taken every week for as long as this earth stands. Here Paul orders, but not commands contributions be given and there is a difference. Most believe they are the same thing. Not necessarily. Paul certainly had authority to order certain things be done, but he had no authority to command it! Although his order was complied with, they were really under no obligation to do so! Now what were Christians to do after the need was met? It would seem reasonable to assume they did what they did before the need arose…nothing! Contrary to popular belief, the Lord’s congregations do not and never did collect money just to be collecting money as many do today!! They were told to give for a specific reason and they did. How does that equate to an on-going weekly contribution forever to fund a myriad of things unrelated to spreading the gospel?

Those in charge of the treasury often come up with lots of creative ways to “make money for the Lord.” One congregation, (I don’t recall where now) was considering giving low interest loans to its members as a way to add to their coffers. Many denominations sell “church bonds” as a way to make money. So far I haven’t heard of any of the Lord’s congregations holding “bingo games” or bazaars…yet. But I have heard of some holding “car washes” taking donations. Their slogan was, “get clean for Jesus.” But my personal favorite is; a large northeastern congregation has cigarette, drink and snack machines in their vestibule they say brings in much need revenue. Although the donuts and hot coffee on Sunday mornings were free! The elders ruled it was okay because they were not located inside where they worshipped! Another congregation I am aware of put large sums of the member’s weekly contributions into long term CD’s. Their bank account at that time was approaching $100,000! Yet, they refused to sponsor any programs that would reach the community with the gospel, no gospel meetings, or radio programs. They even cut the minister’s salary several hundred dollars, claiming they were paying him too much. And then begin searching for someone who would “work cheaper.” I did ask them why they didn’t spend more on spreading the gospel, I was told, “well, we might need a new roof sometime in the future!” I know of others that have squirreled away thousand and thousand of dollars claiming it is for a new building, or just in case it might be needed some time. Now is a treasury sinful? Well, is the money put into them and then placed into a bank account and allowed to be used by banks to make money for them sinful? Do we have apostolic example of civil institutions using the “Lord’s money?” Do we have examples of funds received from sources other than saints to do the work God intended? If not, how can any of this be justified?

And there is always the potential for abuse. Elders at one large southern congregation refused to open the books for members to review, and for good reason, as it turned out. And it took a court order to make them do so. What they were hiding was the large salaries they were paying themselves. With one elder drawing over $200,000 yearly. Plus many of the investments made had not paid very well and the congregation was really deeply in debt! Their defense was, as elders they had the right to handle the money anyway they chose! Perhaps the most common ruse used by elders and preachers is… “The guilt trip.” Anyone that doesn’t give ‘til it hurts has no faith, is a selfish worldly minded Christian, and God is gonna get you; because he hates people that don’t give, give, give!

I have never known of any small group of Christians meeting in private homes to have such problems with finances or elders! (See article “Home church vs Church in the Home” in miscellaneous lessons).

Now as mentioned earlier, did Paul really command weekly contributions? Well he did order it be done. But does that carry the same authority as a command from God? We don’t thinks so. He did many things with God’s approval that were not direct commands from him. To order simply means to appoint. This carries with it the connotation that it was to be done on a voluntary basis, and not mandatory. And God did give him authority to do certain things. And therefore he was within his right to appoint or create a way to collect funds for needy saints. And this was done in order to alleviate a particular need; and says nothing about keeping on giving every week, just in case a need might arise in the future. The authority I see is Paul telling them (and us) it’s okay to collect money or other items as may be needed when a legitimate need arises! But that’s all! I hate to keep repeating myself, but again, too much has been read into these verses. We don’t consider the building and maintenance of designated buildings, salaries of professional ministers, elders, sometimes deacons, bible teachers and even song leaders as legitimate items. Not to mention buses, their up keep, insurance, sound and recording systems etc… (See article, “Do God’s People Need Full-time Ministers?” under miscellaneous lessons).

These things were needlessly created by a corporate worship system not found in the first century. Basically, large portions of contributions are used in order for members to support themselves and not benevolent work or to spread the gospel. All of this could be easily be done away with by returning to first century practices. But the most ludicrous argument I hear today is, “We couldn’t function without a treasury!” This begs the question, “how then did first century Christians survive without one?” Evidently they did quite well. If we still followed their practices we wouldn’t need all of the things we think we can’t get along without, and there wouldn’t be any need for them. It reminds me of the man on trial for killing his parents, and then begged mercy from the court because he was an orphan! We created this mess for ourselves by not staying with the original plan God gave us. Life for the Christian would be a lot simpler and millions of dollars could be used to spread the gospel and aid needy saints if we would have the courage to give up this corporate style of worship and return to first century style of worship.

J.D. Williams~

IS YOUR RELIGION KEEPING YOU FROM WORSHIPPING GOD? ©

12-19-2006

After Jesus was immersed by John (the Immerser) in the Jordan River he immediately was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. Matt 4th chapter. As Satan was completing his tempting of Jesus he gave it one final effort by taking him upon an exceedingly high mountain and showing him all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to Jesus, “All of these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” Jesus responded by saying, “Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Deut 6:13).

Later in John the 4th chapter he has a conversation with a Samaritan women concerning where it was proper for them to worship. The Samaritans also looked for a messiah but not in the sense the Jews did. They had their own priesthood and had built a temple on Mt Gerizim where they worshipped. Jesus told her in the 22-24 verses:

“Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: For such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. 24 God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The Samaritan’s religion was not only, unauthorized, but vastly inferior to the religion of the Jews, or the Law of Moses; since they were trying to worship God through a system he had not authorized. Thus he tells her she not only doesn’t know where to worship God but doesn’t know how to worship him!

In Matt the 15th chap; Jesus told the Pharisees, “in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.” From these few verses we learn man is to worship and serve God only; and we are to do so in spirit and in truth. We also learn God seeks true worshippers and there is such a thing as “vain” worship. And there are those who worship that which they know not. By implication then, we may learn man often worships things other than God, and there are those who try to worship God without spirit or truth; and thus he seeks those who will worship him as he commands; because man often tries to worship God through ignorance causing their worship to be in vain or useless.

The word “worship” occurs about eight dozen times in our scriptures and carries with it the basic meaning “to show reverence for, or to honor.” Therefore proper worship consists of approved acts of obedience and devotion to God.

And with that in mind we ask, “Is your religion keeping you from worshipping God?

Now that may sound like a very weird and contradictory question. Because you would think anyone who claimed to be a Christian would be a worshipper of God. But the world’s perception of what the ecclesia is (those called out) and what our scriptures teach it is, are two entirely different practices. There are vast differences between God’s called out and the world’s idea of “a church;” which in general is anything you want to believe or practice is alright. And it seems most view their religion (or denomination) as a club; each having slightly different rules for joining and becoming members. Because there are no hard fast rules as far as they are concerned. oh sure, we have a bible, they say, but there are quite a number of those calling themselves Christians that question how reliable or accurate it may not be.

I was almost shocked (I say almost shocked because very little surprises me anymore!) at a survey taken several years ago among ministers, elders and what was described as other “church leaders or officials.” A large portion of them did not believe the flood mentioned in Genesis really happened. They didn’t believe God (through Moses) parted the waters when the Jews left their captivity in Egypt. Most of the people mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Job, Esther or Noah they felt were just made up in order to teach some kind of moral truth and never really existed! Many questioned the days of creation, and feel they were not ordinary days consisting of 24 hrs, but “geological periods” numbering into the hundreds of thousands of years.

Others believe our bible may or may not be the inspired word of God, depending on which religion or denomination you are talking with at the time. It’s just sort of a loose guide they feel and most of that is outdated and can’t be applied to us today. Therefore each person really has to decide for themselves which road they will travel; sort of making up your own rules as you go along. So when a religious person speaks of “the church”, chances are it’s not the Lord’s body or ecclesia (those called out of a world of sin) but their particular denomination or brand of religion.

I’ve heard many times as I’m sure you may have, people voicing concerns that Satan is trying to destroy the church. And I would agree up to a point. Because there is no question he wants to destroy the Lord’s congregations. But when it comes to these unauthorized denominations, nothing could be farther from the truth! When we look at what is passing as the “church” today among the majority of people it is nothing but a body of people believing, teaching and practicing multiple errors of every imaginable sort. Satan doesn’t want to get rid of that kind of church! And why would he; because he knows it is too weak and too ignorant of God’s word to be a real threat to him. I often picture Satan laughing at how so completely he has the majority of the world fooled into thinking they are worshipping and serving God with this absurd nonsense they call religion! If anything, he would encourage and protect these bogus entities and why; because it is doing his work which is to keep these poor deceived souls in partial or total spiritual darkness, ignorance and from worshipping God by cleverly directing, or should I say, misdirecting them away from God’s true word to something that only appears to be his word. Sadly, many former congregations of the Lord’s body fall into this category.

Satan knows the average member can no longer make proper moral and religious decisions. Because their judgment has been clouded by decades (in some cases centuries) of following erroneously taught doctrine, traditions or man-made creeds. And the world in general has already accepted as normal what our scriptures constantly warn against.

The Apostle Paul wrote in II Tim.3:1-5 giving an apt description of what was to come to many of those who would claim to be religious saying, “But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, 4 traitors, head-strong, puffed up, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God; 5 “holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof…” And amazingly, he told the Ephesian congregation it would begin with elders! Eph 20: 29-30.

Every one of those things Paul mentions may be found in some form in every denomination. All of this causes their worship to “only appear to be worship.” It takes on a form that looks like real religion when viewed from a distance.

But when examined closely and in light of God’s word it will be exposed for the putrid thing it is; a vile, stiff-necked, corrupt group of people passing themselves off as God’s people. Worshipping that which they know not, vain and ungodly worship; worship God would never recognize. Oddly enough, you have to admit, most religions seem to be worshipping God, at least on the surface. Paul also warned, “That the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” II Tim. 4:3. In over fifty five years as one of God’s called out, I have found this true!

The word “endure” comes from a Greek word which means, as we would say today, “Won’t be put up with or stand for!” God’s word won’t be tolerated by a majority. “Sound doctrine” comes from a medical term meaning to be of good health. And he says one day there will be those that will not believe, teach or practice healthy doctrine and will refuse to have it preached! I firmly believe that time occurred centuries ago. In case someone has a problem understanding how a person can be religious and at the same time not be worshipping God, let me give you a few brief examples.

One may memorialize our Lord’s death, but not weekly as did first century disciples (acts 20:7). Or follow the teachings of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or Intinction; none of which are taught in our scriptures. Thus, it counts for nothing. If it is not as our Lord commanded it is not acceptable, therefore not approved or authorized acts of worship. Your religion or denomination may claim to be following the scriptures but rely on creeds and confessions which conflict with God’s word in many points of its teaching.

A person may be taught what God wants them to do in order to be saved (obey the gospel), yet, fail to be baptized by immersion as the scriptures teach. Mk 1:16, acts 2:28, Matt 28:18-20. These are blatant violations of God’s word and will not be accepted by him. Again, not worship. We worship only when we follow God’s word. Because God only approves what he commanded, nothing else! It seems the same problem existed in Christ’s day, for he asked, “Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things, which I say?” Lk.6:46. The literal and paradoxical meaning is: “You freely admit that I am your Lord and savior, and my authority comes from God the Father, yet, you totally ignore what I teach and do only what you want.”

If that doesn’t describe 99.9% of all religions as they exist today, I don’t know what would! They interpret the scriptures the way it best suites them so they may worship God as they please. God’s wishes (or commandments) are never considered.

I grew up in what I consider an unauthorized denomination, and many times heard older people say, “well, I know the bible says thus and so, but we just do it this way, and have for years.” Or, “Why, you know the “church” (?) Wouldn’t teach anything that was wrong!” I was a teenager at the time, and didn’t know any better; and relied on whatever others taught me to be correct. I was taught it was rude to question or disagree with older folks; and one never under any circumstances questioned the preacher or elders/bishops! As I looked back I wonder if it ever crossed their minds maybe they should have questioned some of the teachings and practices being taught.

And maybe their denomination would and did teach something wrong. When someone teaches baptism is not necessary for salvation, and you can read time after time that it is necessary, why didn’t someone speak up and question why something was being taught contrary to what the scriptures taught? Did any of these people ever realize God knows how he wants to be worshipped and his commandments are not optional or that his written word (our bible) was given for a reason? Didn’t he give it to keep mankind from doing the very things most are doing right today?

For example the commands, to sing and make melody in your heart, how much plainer can that get? How then did they justify the piano or other mechanical instruments of music used along with the singing, when it is a matter of historical record early Christians worshipped without it for nearly six hundred years before the Catholic denomination changed it? Or that a “foot-washing” service was observed once a year by some denominations?

And where did the practice of crossing one self, kneeling before a cross or dipping your hand in water when entering the building etc… come from. Where in our scriptures is that authorized as part of worship? The truth was and is… it wasn’t! It’s just silly little made-up asinine rules created to make people feel better about themselves and designed to give the illusion one is worshiping; when none of them have been commanded by God and are no part of one’s salvation!

Yet, as all are aware the majority of religions adds not only mechanical instruments to their song service; but observes and practices all of these other so-called “church doctrines. Once again, not as God commanded, not authorized, not acceptable, and certainly not worship! How can anyone possibly entertain the idea they may do as they please in worshipping God when every writer in the New Testament warns over and over in one way or another, these unauthorized practices will not be acceptable?

James, in the 3rd chap of his book dealing with the improper use of the tongue, but will serve as a good example of what we are talking about in this lesson; by saying with the tongue we may bless or curse and he says it must be placed and kept under control; and he likens it to putting a bit in a horse’s mouth or to a ship which is controlled by a small rudder. He called it a “restless evil, a fire, and full of deadly poison.” And says with the tongue we bless the Father and we curse men. And in vss 10-12 says, “My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11 Does the fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren yield olives, or vine figs? Neither can salt water yield sweet.”

There is an unalterable, God given law in nature that things only produce after their own kind. And what James is saying here is the things he has just described cannot possible happen because they are all against the laws of nature.

A spring that produces salty water cannot produce at the same time sweet or drinkable water. Fig trees cannot produce olives or grow on grapevines. And this law of nature has its counterpart in the realm of religion; things that are opposed to the spirit cannot produce spiritual things! You cannot take something that is not spiritual and make it produce something that is spiritual! But you can make it appear to do so!!

Therefore no one can worship God contrary to his commandments and make it acceptable to him. And that is exactly what all of these unauthorized denominations and phony religions of the world are doing!

And we ask those who feel they are not in error by practicing these things, “can a person be religiously wrong and right at the same time?” Sadly, one day they will have to try to explain to God where they got the authority to change or ignore his word “If you are as sincere in your belief as you believe you are, go back and re-examine these issues with an open mind and heart but using God’s word only!

Preachers and elders have been wrong before. Entire religions have been wrong! And we would implore them to consider they may be following these teachings without really studying for themselves. Trust me, it is better to catch the mistake here than at the judgment! Common sense should tell anyone if they believe and are practicing what they perceive to be worship instead of actual worship, then it is not worship. Therefore, I firmly believe a person’s religion can keep them from worshipping God See “Gospel Plan of Salvation.”

J.D. Williams~

JUST KEEPING HOUSE FOR THE LORD!

9-1-2015

“Just keeping house” is an expression used in days past you don’t hear anymore. And I suspect because it has become so common place! Basically it means a group of Christians that are just going through the motions of worship, with very little zeal or enthusiasm. And I have actually heard elders say this while standing before a congregation! They routinely come together Sundays, sing a few draggy songs, sit in a bible class listening to things they have heard for a quarter or sometimes half a century. Then listen to the obligatory but tired sermon given with no real expectation of anyone actually responding to it. Then observe communion, drop a few dollars in the collection plate, listen to a prayer that sounds rehearsed from being repeated so many times over the years. Then it’s out the door; maybe to visit a little with fellow Christians no one usually talks with during the week or probably cares to. And they just wait until the “next appointed time” when they do it all over again! However, a majority of times, these congregations had done a great work in the past and were very instrumental in spreading the gospel in their community. But over time, several members left, reducing their membership, income and ability to continue the work they were doing. Those that stayed grew older, suffered illnesses, grew tired and worn out from being in the trenches for decades and being nothing but former shells of what they used to be, just lost their will to continue the work they did in the past. Others, along with many of these conditions begin to feel they had done their part and it was up to the younger generation to carry on the fight!

You might think your congregation is not guilty of this nor could be. But sadly, this scenario is being played out all over the country only some are a little more upbeat. But the effect is about the same, there is very little of the Lord’s work being done. A lot of zeal and enthusiasm is present, but it rarely gets outside of the building! Copious amounts of money are collected, but most of it is squandered on their upkeep as a congregation or diverted to things other than the Lord’s work. It is often staggering at the enormous salaries many professional ministers demand today. Some congregations are so heavily in debt because of poor management or trying to pay for or maintain buildings that should have never been built. Or in some cases, money is being squirreled away with the belief it will be needed for a bigger or better building.

I am aware of one small congregation several years ago that bragged they had nearly $100,000 dollars in their account. Most of which were in CDs and interest bearing accounts. But they refused to sponsor any programs that would reach the community around them or support any missionary work. They also refused to honor a commitment to their minister, cutting his salary, after “going over the books” decided; he was making too much money! When I asked them why they didn’t take a more active role in spreading the gospel, I was told they had to keep as much money in the bank as possible because, “we might need a new roof some day!” Potentially, many souls could be lost, but their main concern was for them to stay dry! Do you think this is what our Lord had in mind when he established his congregations or did first century Christians worry about their “building funds?” When a congregation’s priorities change or they focus on the wrong things, the above will be inevitable!

J.D. Williams~

PRAYER IN PUBLIC PLACES

1-22-2016

Prayer is a special privilege granted only to the ecclesia (God’s called out). It is communicating with God. It may be engaged in either verbally or silently. It may be engaged in at any time, place or circumstance. There are no time limits as one may engage in it for hours or as long as they feel necessary. Prayer is sometimes accompanied with fasting. It may be in the form of praise or thanksgiving but usually a request; either for one’s self or others. Every day should begin and end with prayer. But this wonderful privilege I believe is sometimes unnecessarily engaged in at inappropriate times. And it would appear more for the benefit of others rather than for sincere purposes. The particular place I have in mind is public restaurants!

Many times I have witnessed those making a big show of offering thanks for meals in such a way (standing and/or usually very loud) as to be disturbing to others trying to enjoy their meal. My first impressions are; it sends the message to others they are not as thankful as themselves or not Christians because they have not offered a public prayer of thanksgiving. Secondly, many could find the wording of their prayers offensive as they may be of a different belief. Thirdly, most just don’t care to be subjected to any kind of religious “outburst” as they may not be that religious. Fourthly; the general consensus is, it does more harm to them than good an most feel they are just a bunch of sanctimonious, holier than thou, do-gooders putting on a show more for others than God! I will grant they may be sincere, but that doesn’t change the general view others have of them! If one feels grace must be given, why not do it silently? God will still hear you! But this to me suggests another and perhaps deeper problem of consistency if not down-right hypocrisy! And I’ll explain that. I think any child of God is grateful and thankful for all blessings God’s providence provides on a daily basis (or should be). And I think all would agree daily prayers of thanksgiving should be offered. But how often do we offer prayers of thanksgiving for individual blessings? By that I mean do we go to God in prayer for the expressed purpose of thanking Him for one or two particular things? For example; when getting dressed in the morning do you thank him for the clothes? Or when leaving our homes or getting into our automobiles, do we stop and thank him for each of those? Or how about when we look at the night sky and see those beautiful stars and moon, do we stop to give him praise or prayer of thanks? If you are average you don’t! Probably the thinking is, “well I just don’t have time to give thanks for each blessing God gives me.” And I can understand that. If we did, we wouldn’t get anything else done! But, as the apostle Paul asked the Corinthians (I Cor 4:7b), “…What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Which I think may be amply applied to every blessing (spiritual or material) which continuously flows from the hand of a loving, merciful and gracious Father. I also suspect more time is spent in “Lord, give-me this” prayers than those of thanksgiving! I’ll give you a personal example: many decades back I asked God for a certain thing for over a year. When it was finally granted, I thanked him. And almost another year passed before the thought came to me: “If I felt it was necessary to asked for something every day for over a year, why did I feel only one prayer of thanks was sufficient?” To be honest with you, I felt like a spoiled little brat that had bugged his parents for something and after receving it didn’t bother to really express my thanks. And so, for the next year and beyond, I made a point of including thanks for that particular gift. And I still do on occasion, some fifty years or so later! And when asking God to provide my daily needs, I then adopted the practice of giving thanks for every blessing from the past day as well. And when I reflect on every blessing God has so abundantly given me I am over-whelmed! And really can’t find the words I feel are adequate to express my inner most appreciation. I suppose the bottom line is, if one approaches the Christian life with a prayerful and thankful attitude, public prayer for a meal is not necessary or called for!

J.D. Williams~

THE HOME CHURCH VS THE CHURCH IN THE HOME

6-4-2015

The main characteristic of proponents of the home/community church concept is their insistence they are trying to worship as did early Christians. While the idea is noble and has nothing inherently wrong with it, It is rarely practiced as it was by them and carries with it many opportunities for error and unscriptural practices. Mainly because there are few, if any approved apostolic standards with which to gage the correctness of what is believed and practiced. There seems to be the idea when they come together to worship, one is free to do whatever they personally think is correct, especially in areas that seems ambiguous.

For all practical purposes then, each person sets their own standard. And there is almost always, varying differences of opinion and beliefs which contradict each other as well as first century teaching. To cite several examples: nearly every one of these groups (to my knowledge) observes the Lord’s Supper as a normal meal or in conjunction with it; which is a major departure from what Jesus commanded (Lk 22:19) and the apostles taught (I Cor 11:23-26) and practiced (Acts 20:7).

The apostle Paul condemned the Corinthians for mixing the Lord’s Supper with a regular meal, I Cor 11:20-23. Many call this, the “love-feast” and believe it is a valid practice, because it is mentioned in Jude 12a. While it appears some early Christians did practice such, (and we don’t find anywhere it is condemned or violates scripture); we have no apostolic command or examples of such feasts in connection with the Lord’s Supper. And I suppose this could come under the heading of “fellowship or pot luck dinners” prevalent among Christians today. Whatever one chooses to call them, one thing we may be assured of is the Lord’s Supper was not part of it! And that can be determined simply by Paul’s condemnation of it just mentioned.

Most of these groups are usually a mish-mash of offshoots from other denominations, often holding a mixture of Pentecostal or Calvinistic views of inherited sin, Holy Spirit baptism, tongue speaking etc…basically having very little or no real understanding of what our scriptures actually teach. They normally don’t question anyone’s beliefs whether scriptural or not; perhaps because they have no idea what is scriptural! So whatever is believed is accepted without question. This is done mainly to create an informal harmonious atmosphere. Should any in the group have differing views on the same subject, they are never challenged to provide the appropriate scripture for that belief or told they are wrong by anyone; they just hold different opinions and no one is offended, you believe what you want and I will do the same. This is often called the “unity in diversity” doctrine! And I can see how that would work; after all: if everything said or done is alright with all others, there shouldn’t be any disharmony! And in this regard, we find very little difference between them and those lesser known and often obscure groups still trying to worship under the “corporate style” of worship followed by the majority today; often describing themselves by various names such as: “non-denominational, a community church, apostolic church or preaching the four-square gospel.” But how could anyone hold definite convictions about anything, especially in religion, irregardless of the correctness of that belief and not violate their conscience, take issue with, or be offended by any teaching or doctrine that is diametrically opposed to what one believes? For example; I could never, in all good conscience take communion with anyone that believed in transubstantiation, consubstantiation or practices Intinction, [dipping the communion bread in the wine] as I find that taught nowhere in our scriptures. Seriously, what is the point of that and where is it authorized? Obviously one must either lower their standards or have none at all! Trying to worship with anyone under those conditions, to me, is inconceivable!

These groups are looked upon mostly as rebellious outcasts; who are tired of what they call “structured or formal” religion. They don’t like all the rules most Christian religions impose so like all denominations they set their own. That their rules don’t always comply with first century teaching doesn’t seem to be an issue for them. In all fairness, we believe there are those who no doubt believe themselves to have found a better way to worship God. And are as sincere in that belief as any religious person. But many sins and acts of evil have been and are being committed by sincere, howbeit, ignorant people. Sincerity alone is not a proper gage to obeying God’s will. Yes, we must be sincere in what we believe, practice and teach others. But we must also have a good understanding of what God’s word actually teaches. And that seems to be the source of the problem… most are not sure what it teaches! Unfortunately, those who choose to worship in their homes are often viewed much the same way and considered apostates or heretics. But there is a vast difference between the home/community church movement (which is not founded on sound apostolic principles) and those who simply wish to worship in their homes. And I am aware of more and more members of the Lord’s body wanting to break away from such structured, elder and preacher dominated worship and get back to simple first century worship. The problem I see is most are fearful of doing so because they will certainly be labeled by elders/bishops, ministers and the majority of members as unfaithful, unsound or heretics mainly because they have been told by their leaders it is wrong; which to me speaks volumes about their own ignorance of the first century ecclesia.

When or wherever first century teaching is truly and scripturally followed, I fail to see that it matters where services are held! It appears the majority of Christians have grown so accustomed to worshipping in the comfort of a designated (church) building, many feel it can’t be done properly unless worship services are held in one with a well structured and planned service, i.e., announcements concerning the congregation or community, an official song leader, a set number of pre-approved songs (usually from a pre-approved hymnal), and someone to officially lead the opening and closing prayers, a professional minister/priest to bring a pre-approved sermon (one that conforms to their traditions or denomination’s teachings) at a scheduled time; and ushers to take up contributions, serve communion or help seat late comers etc...And I had an elder tell me this is the only time one can worship! Therefore, those who don’t follow such structured worship are usually condemned without first investigating the simplicity of what worshipping in our homes entails as did first century saints. This is not necessarily a condemnation should one chose to participate in such structured conditions if they can do so without violating their consciences. But we fail to see how any knowledgeable person could! We merely point out what elders/church-officials and most members feel must be done in order to worship correctly; which is another way of condemning those who don’t agree with them! But to demand everyone blindly follow their particular denomination’s practices which must be adhered to without question or you will be condemned to hell is what makes it wrong, in my estimation. And for those who feel compelled to defend this corporate style of worshipping I often hear by asking, “Are you saying we are wrong in our worship as it is practiced today?” We would respond by saying, “all we are advocating is all of God’s ecclesia simply return to the original style of first century worship (doctrine and practice).” And here is the reason we no longer wish to be part of what has become “traditional, corporate” worship.”

Historical documents from the first century indicate very little structure was observed in worship. And we find no indication of an official or formal plan of worship that cannot be deviated from or is to be followed in the New Testament then or now; (aka, the official 5 acts of worship: communion, prayer, giving, singing, teaching/ preaching). Although elements of all of these are to be found scattered throughout the New Testament it is not stated anywhere all of them were observed at every meeting; it is only assumed by church leaders they were! Others, however, primarily because of the over zealousness and ignorance of these leaders, will not consider for one moment home worship under any circumstances because of ignorance of God’s word on their part and; fear of reprisals from church officials. Although some, so thoroughly disappointed with the present system now attend no denomination or worship anywhere. Many I have talked with tell me they are not happy with their present congregation and even question much of what it teaches. Some even dread coming, because they know it will be the same old tired rhetoric, same old slow, draggy songs, same old meaningless sermons etc… But stay mainly because they have been convinced…perhaps brainwashed would be a better word, they cannot worship God without some sort of official affiliation with a particular denomination or are fearful of retribution from elders/bishops or other church officials that may threaten disciplinary action against them for not following their rules or what other members might say. Or sadly, cannot find a congregation any better than the one they are in now! But these men don’t always speak for God as they would have you believe; but are only men just like all others and are like Satan in this regard because they only have the power over you, you give them! The good news is God does not require you to answer to anyone but him!

Another reason home/church worship is usually frowned on is because the so-called elder-ship in general doesn’t approve; and have told their flock it is wrong; often claiming, among other things: they are not supporting their local church (congregation, usually financially), have forsaken the assembly (because they are not worshipping with them or another “approved” congregation) or are not scriptural because elders/bishops are not in charge of everything. It is usually assumed but cannot be proven all congregations had elders and deacons in the first century. Most first and second century historical evidence suggests very few did. In reality, common sense should tell anyone all congregations had to worship without elders at first! Obviously elders were not appointed first then a congregation formed! But a majority (especially elders), in order to counter the belief all congregations did not have elders; liberal minded progressives have advocated the teaching any congregation without elders is not “fully developed or matured” yet! Which is just another way of saying a congregation is not scriptural without elders. Let me hasten to add here, those congregations in the first century that did have elders, bear no resemblance to those of today! See my treaties on “the elders.”

The bottom line is: at one time, all first century congregations worshipped in as acceptable manner without them!

But such thinking comes from a failure to know what the scriptures actually teach, what Christian liberties we have in this area or to grasp the concept of just what constitutes a New Testament assembly. The English word “church” (a mistranslation), was substituted for the Greek word “ecclesia” which simply means “those called out” and nothing more! A person is called out of a world of sin by obedience to God’s word. It should more accurately be translated, “body (of Christ) congregation or assembly. Therefore you are a “called out person” or when assembled, a congregation of the Lord’s people no matter where you are or where you meet! And under what circumstances one may scripturally worship is determined by following God’s word, not man’s or his innovations! Which any member should know, especially elders! Members are often made to feel guilty when they shouldn’t. It appears elders feel the membership is better controlled if they remain ignorant of their Christian liberties. Home worship, being one of them!

Numerous historical records show first century Christians never owned a building for the purpose of assembling (see my article “are church buildings necessary” under Miscellaneous lessons). Mainly because of economical reasons; and some indications are it was well into the third century before such ownership was possible or assembling in a designated building was done regularity. This does not preclude the possibility buildings may have been rented or made available for them from time to time. Meeting in private homes however was the norm. Philemon 2 supports this as does Rom 16:5, I Cor 16:19 and acts 8:3, “But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison.”

Records gleaned from private and official letters tell us early Christians often met in homes, schools, caves, by the river side some times in prison, acts 16:25 or any place convenient or available. Also, we must remember Christianity was against the law at one time and those found following it were hunted, thrown in jail or killed. Meeting in a designated location, to me, would have been disastrous.

Often people confuse the building where one meets with the “church” itself. Making it appear the church is a “thing!” The building is just a building, only for convenience sake; it, or the ground it sits on, is not sacred or holy! The only place God considers holy is the believer’s heart (acts 17:24-25, Heb 3:6). Therefore the believer(s) may conduct their own worship whenever and wherever they choose, without any designated building, time or official church leaders. Remember, God is omnipresent and may be worshipped any where!

So the idea of restricting one to a specific place or building in order to worship is ludicrous. Wherever members of the Lord’s body choose to meet, is not the issue, it’s how that worship is conducted. Does it conform to first century doctrine as taught by our Lord’s apostles, without all of the add-ons, if so, then what’s the problem? I think we are all aware there are many practices and teachings going on in many “church buildings” that are highly questionable to say the least. Meeting where elders/bishops say we must, does not insure soundness of doctrine or teaching. Where one meets to worship should not be made a test of fellowship.

There is no record in our scriptures of exactly how or in what order first century Christians conducted their worship services. For example, we find no list in our New Testament that states: “This is what you must do, and in this exact order.” But a compilation of verses and passages given by the apostles to the saints do give us examples of what they did or were authorized to do, if they chose and these serve as our apostolic examples today. If God approved what they did, and we do the same thing today, how can it not be acceptable? What exactly did the first century saints do? Mainly they came together (on the first day of the week) to observed the Lord’s Supper. At other times we find they sang hymns and songs of praise. But it does not state it was always on the first day of the week. While prayers were offered, we find no apostolic example of anyone “leading others in a prayer while assembled and certainly no command for it This like many other practices evidently started by tradition, is now considered as official doctrine!” Teaching apparently was a secondary observance, and we find no such person as a “preacher” that delivered a sermon, this was the Greek style of oratory or lecture speaking and was not fully practiced until much later. Giving of one’s means was observed only when necessary; and was observed in the home. But due to a failure to properly interpret the command to give, it has morphed into a command to give on a weekly or continuous basis. Although the order is nowhere specified, we feel acts 7:20 indicates the supper should be observed first, as that seems to be the very (perhaps the only) purpose for which they assembled. Paul apparently took the opportunity to teach his brethren as he probably would never see them again. And it cannot be inferred from that a sermon must always follow!

How many songs, and prayers engaged in (if any) or when the teaching (or sermon) is given is left to the individual congregation; as we have no record of the order. Elders (and their adherences) are the ones pushing for the so-called official five acts of worship, not God, his apostles or saints. Whether one gives or how much one gives, is left to the individual. While we are not condemning those who wish to follow this order of worship, we believe being commanded by elders to do so should be. When we worship as an assembly, each member is still directly responsible to God (not others) for his actions and forgiveness of sins. Where he does it is immaterial!

Now let’s ask ourselves another question. What is done in so-called “regular church buildings” that cannot be done in a private home? The short answer is; nothing! If meeting and worshipping in private homes as God directed through his Son and his apostles is wrong, then those in the first century were also wrong! And if worshiping our homes is in compliance with first century teaching, why shouldn’t ours be considered just another congregation of God’s people worshipping in another place? Knowing what to do is usually not difficult. Doing it often is!

J.D. Williams~

THE LORD’S CHURCH, ANOTHER DENOMINATION, SO WHAT?

8-18-2015

Those in the Church of Christ often wonder why others do not accept what they teach, especially in the “Christian world.” One of the main reasons I see is the Christian world views them as just another denomination! Most main stream, hardcore CoC, don’t believe they are. They laugh, or shake their heads and are at a total loss as to why others would even think that. But at the same time I suspect the others are laughing at them for believing or should I say deceiving themselves into thinking they are not a denomination. And are held up to ridicule for denying, what to the rest of the world is obvious!

Where does such confusion come from, they wonder? What they believe and teach, is very plain to them! However have they ever considered from their perspective, what other denominations believe or why they believe it? If they are to reach others with the truth, they must first understand what those believed to be in error believe and why! Is it little wonder most religious people are looked on as a bunch of narrow-minded, self-righteous legalists that condemns everybody to hell!

This is by no means a defense of denominationalism per se, because I don’t feel it has to be defended, just explained. What follows is perhaps at least an explanation of why our Lord’s teachings are rejected more than accepted. When someone asks me, “what church I belong to, I simply tell them I don’t belong to any church; but simply one of God’s called out.” It is identified in the scriptures as the “ecclesia” And often referred to as a disciple or follower of Christ, a congregation or Assembly of God’s people. And I suppose to many, that would constitute a denomination! Therefore, I want to do a comparison between those considered denominations and ourselves, but from their view point.

First, let’s define the word denomination/denominationalism, as it will be use quite often in this article.

Denominationalism, is derived from the word, “to denominate; to name or have a Specific name, to classify. It is the division of religious beliefs, sects, or cults into different systems of worship. In the religious world, it has become the standard for identifying these different kinds of faiths, or systems of worship, usually designating or calling themselves “a particular faith, belief, religion or church.”

Therefore when a group of people call themselves “The Church of Christ,” what have they really done? Have they not designated themselves as a denomination? Oh no, they say, “Because we are not a denomination.” But the denominational world doesn’t see it that way. Why? Because, you have chosen to identify yourselves by a certain name, as we have! “How does that differ from what we have done?”

We also chose a name by which we wish to be identified; that is, Baptist, Methodist, etc…But the coc insists “this is done that they might distinguish themselves from other denominations,” So what, they counter, “That is precisely the reason we did!” Whether they like to admit it or not, they have met the main requirement for being a denomination because they have given themselves a “specific name!” So being labeled a denomination is not necessarily a bad thing simply because they have chosen a certain name. However, I have heard many times that names are not that important, and you can call yourself anything you want. I disagree with that philosophy.

If names are not that important, would you consider being baptized in the name of SATAN”? Or try calling a Presbyterian, a Jehovah’s Witness and see how quick they will correct you! The problem with belonging to a denomination that uses a man’s name is they usually reflect that person’s philosophies and beliefs which often are not in harmony with what the scriptures teach! Yes, names are important! And the English word translated name (onoma, Greek) means authority or by the authority. Therefore whatever name you chose to use reflects that authority. The question is: does your denomination’s name reflect God’s authority or man’s! Secondly, we often refer to certain churches as “a sect or cult.” And believe a denomination may contain both. Well, let’s define that term.

A Sect: “A number of persons who, following a teacher or leader, are united by a common attachment to a particular religious or philosophical doctrine.” (Webster’s improved dictionary).

How does that apply to the ecclesia (called out) of Christ? Here is how: Have we not chosen to follow Jesus, a leader or teacher? And do we not claim to be united in a particular religious doctrine, which is his teaching? If this does not constitute a Sect, what would? Consider this: Paul was accused by the Pharisees of being a “ringleader” of the sect of Nazarenes, in acts 24:5 when they brought charges against him saying: “For we have found this man a pestilent fellow and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes…” (ASV).

But Paul does not deny he is a member of a particular sect and even affirms it in vs 14, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the prophets;”

And then challenges them to prove he had done anything wrong, civilly or religiously, which they couldn’t! Although the Pharisees and Sadducees, who also were sects, used the term in a negative way, it didn’t make it so in his case. And we should point out that being a sect was neither against Roman law nor God’s!

Actually it was not the fact the Nazarenes were a sect that was objected to by the Pharisees, it was what they were teaching that upset them because it was contrary to Jewish traditions. Paul defines what this sect believed when he called it “the Way” and that he served God through it. The Way of course would indicate the teachings of Christ. (I am the way, the truth and the life, Jn 14:6). Had there been anything inherently wrong with being a Sect he would have surely pointed it out. These verses affirm at least two things: 1) that this particular first century Sects’ teachings (called Nazarene by the Pharisees) came from Christ; 2) that a person may worship and serve God while a member. Let me point out here, those called Nazarenes Paul speaks of here (in the first century) are not the same sect as those of today.

So how is being a “SECT” a bad thing? The truth is, it isn’t!

Well, others may see it a little differently. By limiting ourselves to a particular doctrine (the teachings of Christ and his apostles), they say we have, in effect, become narrow-minded, and bigoted against all other beliefs; which is true; because we will not fellowship them under any circumstances! Because we believe it is only Christ’s teachings (ecclesia of Christ) that will save you. Therefore, by being a sect, we have actually met the second requirement of being a denomination!

A Cult: “A group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist or false; as an elite group, a people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.”

Here is the third qualification for being a denomination.

Those in the body of Christ share a particular religious belief, no one denies that. And it is certainly regarded as opposed to what others teach. Again we not only agree, but are proud of it! So that, by definition, places us in a cult as well! However we maintain we are different because Cults often seek to completely control every aspect of its member’s lives. And yes we would agree there are some pretty weird beliefs among what is often characterized as Cults. But I have been associated with congregations of the Lord’s where preachers and elders often act like cult leaders. With no scriptural authority they pry into members’ private lives, often trying to hold them to standards God never set which they say, falls under the heading of “divine right” because they have convinced others they are the only ones that can “watch for your souls!” But the denominations claim the same thing! And they as well as most of the world also views us as being misguided, teaching extreme and unorthodox doctrines; because it differs so radically from theirs. And they certainly believe we consider ourselves an elite group, because we hold narrowly defined doctrines; meaning one must belong to the Lord’s body and remain faithful to his teachings or be lost! We have never denied that! Because we are all denominations!

That is not the problem. The problem is there is only one scriptural denomination. And the only way one may determine the difference is by very close and careful study of God’s word without any preconceived ideas. Please see my similar article; “what is a scriptural denomination.”

One may start by realizing our Lord sacrificed himself for all, but in particular for his people (those called out). Matt 16:17.

His congregations began 34 A.D. not centuries later by a person such as: Luther, Calvin, Smith or splintered off from the Catholic or another denomination or group etc…And he gave it certain commandments to follow, not traditions begin and developed over years of practice or man-made creeds, books of discipline, Catechisms, confessions or book of Mormon etc…Matt 28:19. So to answer my question, “The Lord’s church (ecclesia) another denomination, so what?” It really doesn’t matter that someone thinks you are a denomination or that you are a denomination; embrace it and move on. What does matter is: are you following and practicing the doctrines first century Christians did? That’s the bottom line! Evidently a majority of people do not realize they can still become members of the Lord’s body simply by doing what they did in the first century!

In order to become a member of a scriptural denomination, one must follow the steps taught by our Lord’s apostles in the first century. There is no other way possible. And then to remain a member their teaching must be followed. Doing otherwise will result in membership of an unauthorized and unscriptural denomination. Therefore there are only two choices: either become obedient to the commandments of the Lord’s denomination or to a man-made one!

Here are the correct (and very simple) steps for becoming a member of the Body of Christ:

Hear and believe God’s word~>, Rom 10:17, “Belief comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”; and repent ~> of your sin, II Cor 7:9-10, “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” Confess~> his name (Jesus), Matt 10:32, “He that confesseth me before men, him also will I confess before my Father who is in heaven.” And be buried (immersed, not sprinkled) in the waters of baptism~> acts 2:38, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” And live a faithful life, ~> as Rev 2:10 tells us; then you will have a home in heaven for all eternity.

J.D. Williams~

“What is a scriptural denomination?”

8-28-2015

I know that question will set most members of the churches of Christ teeth on edge! Because most don’t believe there is such a thing. But we would really appreciate it if you would put down your feathers and stop heating up the tar until you have finished reading this article! And here is another thing that’s going to really upset you; after reading this article, you are going to have to agree with me!! (I think I smell tar!). Or ignore or reject known and verifiable facts!

I’ve heard it said many times from the pulpit, there were no denominations in the first century! That is not entirely correct; because there were; although they are not called or recognized as such by most. What constituted a denomination then does so today! There was, of course the ecclesia our Lord established (the called out); but there were also the Samaritans, Gnostics, the Jews and their sects: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. There were those which mixed Christianity with parts of the Old Moses Law known as the Judaizing teachers, and a smaller more obscure Jewish group known as the Essenes. Plus all kinds of different pagan and idol worshipping groups around; each of them constituted a denomination! Denying a fact doesn’t make it go away! Another fact we need to recognize is, there was only one of these denominations our Lord approved; …His! Matt 16:18.

So we need to wake up and start living in the real world. Because there is only one scriptural denomination; all others are unscriptural! And here is another fact we need to accept and learn to deal with:

“Being a denomination is not a bad thing.” As it is only a means of identifying a particular religious group. And neither is being a member of a sect or cult; because the Lord’s ecclesia falls into all of these categories. And every dictionary I have consulted defines it that way! (Yes, I definitely smell tar!) For your convenience, here are the definitions we will be using in this article.

Denominationalism is derived from the word, “to denominate; to name or have a Specific name, to classify. It is the division of religious beliefs, sects, or cults into different systems of worship. In the religious world, it has become the standard for identifying these different kinds of faiths, or systems of worship, usually designating or calling themselves “a particular faith, belief, religion or church.”

A Sect: “A number of persons who, following a teacher or leader, are united by a common attachment to a particular religious or philosophical doctrine.” (Webster’s improved dictionary).

A Cult: “A group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist or false; as an elite group, a people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.”

Be honest now, do you see anything wrong or unscriptural in any of these definitions; or can you give any valid reason why they cannot be used to describe the Lord’s people?

Actually, had the doctrine given first century Christians by the apostles been followed from the beginning until now, there would be only one denomination! Keeping in mind the term simply means: “TO GIVE A NAME TO!” And the Lord’s body of believers in the first century had to be called something in order to be identified! There really is nothing sinister about being designated a denomination. For a fuller explanation of their use, please see my article, “The Lord’s Church, another Denomination, so what?” But we would ask you finish this article first!

So why do those in the coc hate, loath and despise all other denominations? Well, there are two main reasons: first, they vehemently deny they are like any other religious group because their denomination has a different organization and internal construction; which is authorized by apostolic teaching. That means, they maintain, have no earthly head, but Christ; or any central headquarters that legislate policy or doctrine to its members; such as: conferences, synods or conventions.

Each congregation is autonomous, having its own leadership; does not work through societies or other civil or man-made organizations to spread the gospel or do its benevolent work; relies on its members, working together or sometimes as individuals. There are no elaborate ceremonies such as: the burning of candles, the use of censers, altar boys, bell ringing, Choirs, special clothing for ministers, instrumental music, the reciting of prescribed prayers and innovations. Observance of the Lord’s Supper every week is to memorialize his death as we have been commanded; “This do in remembrance of me…” Lk 22:20, acts 20:7. And further maintain, certainly don’t believe it becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ!

Secondly: Like so many other questionable traditions that evolved over the centuries within the Lord’s congregations; the correct meaning of this term, “denomination” has been completely ignored and has, among members of the Lord’s people, morphed into a strictly negative term used to describe or identify all those deemed in error as to their doctrine, teaching and practices. I have been unable to determine exactly who or where it was first decided the church of Christ would call everyone else a denomination but not themselves. Maybe some overzealous elder got the idea by ignoring the correct meaning of the word it would distinguish them from other denominations! Whether they like or will admit it, they are as much a denomination as any religious group in existence!

Why then, is it insisted they are not a denomination, and why do they condemn others, labeling them denominations, when they also call themselves by a particular name? I would think the answer would be fairly obvious: While I know of no denomination that doesn’t consider themselves to be “the Lord’s church,” it should be self-evident there are denominations that are not and cannot be because; what makes any denominations unscriptural is their failure to completely follow God’s word. The majority in the Christian world seem to ignore the fact every denomination has a slightly different and sometimes radical belief and teaching on the same doctrine; this is what divides the Christian world, not the fact they are a denomination! The apostle John confirms this when he wrote, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.” II Jn 9.

You would think it very obvious one cannot go beyond what Jesus authorized to be taught in his kingdom and still be recognized as his. Our Lord only established one denomination… his! He gave that one denomination only one set of doctrines…his! Therefore, he only authorized one denomination to carry his gospel to the entire world…his! As we have already stated; this group of “called out people” (the ecclesia) had to be given a (scriptural) name in order to be identified. And when it did, according to the definition of the name, it became a denomination!! Any argument to the contrary is pure subterfuge!

The real issue should be, by what scriptural authority do other denominations exist?

J.D. Williams~

WHAT IS DUAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP?

10-6-2015

What is dual church membership and is it scriptural? Or to ask it another way, “How many memberships am I required to hold in the Lord’s ecclesia to be considered a faithful member?” If such a thing is required, where may the qualifications be found in our scriptures? Who authorized this and why is it necessary? I have been unable to locate such a practice or even a mention of it among the first century saints! What do the scriptures actually say about membership(s), and how does one become a member of the Lord’s body?

There are numerous scripture stating there is only one body of Christ. To me, that would indicate there would be only one membership in it. Here are several verses should you wish to read them: Rom 12:4-5, I Cor 10:17, I Cor 12:12-13, I Cor 12:20, I Cor 12:25, Eph 4:4, Col 3:15. But I’ll tell you now, not one of these mentions a dual membership! When I obeyed the gospel (hearing, believing, repenting, confessing Jesus as the Son of God, and baptized by immersion), I became a member of his body; nothing else was required of me. I am one of God’s called out people (ecclesia).

Now what exactly do I mean by a “dual membership? This is the practice of one being required to place membership with one particular congregation or as it is sometimes termed, “to identify” with or make a particular congregation your home or regular congregation. To most this is a way to distinguish a visitor from a regular member of that congregation. And there is nothing inherently wrong with attending any congregation regularity. But to insist one become a member of that congregation exclusively is just a way of getting around the non-scriptural dual membership requirement. And here is the problem with that; although I have visited various congregation stating I was a member of the Lord’s body, (sometimes several times); I was never called on to participate in the worship service in any way. Such as leading in singing, prayer, serving at the Lord’s Table or teaching a class; before I had officially placed membership with them and it was announced from the pulpit or in their bulletin. It seems coc people are very suspicious and absolutely paranoid when it comes to allowing strangers participate in their worship! And I can’t recall any place that didn’t require one to be recognized by them that you have pledged to work with them, to observe any traditions peculiar to that group and support them in all of their undertakings, especially financially. And that you will not attend other congregations or place membership with them; sort of like joining your favorite sports team and pledging loyalty to them alone! This has always appeared to me as being in competition with other congregations. I saw an advertisement once that read, “Help us become the biggest church in the area, come join with us” (or words to that affect)!

Demanding one place membership also means that particular congregation either has or will check you out to make sure you are who you say you are! And they are highly suspicious of any newcomers. Why the Lord’s people are so paranoid about this is really puzzling to me! When someone tells me they are a brother or sister in Christ, I accept that and treat them accordingly unless they prove otherwise. And I find it disheartening to say the least that the same courtesy has never been extended to me! Most other denominations I’ve visited in the past, welcomed me with open arms usually only asking my name or where I was from! I’ve often thought it strange they will accept the word of others that may be from another state they have never met or know anything about that you are a sound member, although you are telling them the same thing (seriously, why would I give them names of people I didn’t think would give me a good reference?)! They left me with the impression I am was lying or trying to hide something from them! The usual practice is to have you provide at least two references stating you are an “honest-to-god, 100%, real Christian and a wonderful person.” I have experienced two congregations that required “letters of recommendation” from your former congregation stating you left in good standing! And should you want to be considered for a “preaching position” well, that’s a different story. Some go so far as to do a criminal background check on you!!

It will be expected that you have gone to a (Christian) college/preaching-school and to provide places of past secular employment as well as with other congregations, how successful you were, how many times you have been married, how many children you have, is your wife a faithful member too, how deeply you may be in debt etc… If this information comes from an elder, that’s even better as their recommendation is far superior to just an ordinary member. If the congregation has elders, you will be required to believe exactly as they do, or chances are you won’t be hired. An elder told me once they were considering a man as their minister and he was very sound on all but one thing (he believed the days of Genesis were geological ages, not regular days), so he said, “we couldn’t use him because he didn’t believe like us!” And if you are just an ordinary person “placing membership,” and don’t meet their requirement, membership may be denied, as you will be considered “unsound” and elders don’t want anyone under their rule they can’t control! And should they find nothing out of the ordinary, you may rest assured, you will still be under suspicion and closely watched and everything you say will be scrutinized sometimes for month or years.

I was with one congregation for over four years before they gave me a key to the building! The general rule is: only the privileged few are to be trusted with keys…ha!

I have never been associated with any congregation either as a member or as a minister that these things were not asked of me! We love visiting other congregations and worshipping with them. Once I was accused of “church hopping” because we would occasionally visit other congregations (church-hopping, in case you may not be familiar with it, is an old term used of those that go from one denomination to another, not from one congregation to another; and only showed their ignorance on the subject). I was told I needed to make up my mind as to which “church”… as they put it, I was going to support and stay there! Again the use of the word “church” is so vague, I wondered did they mean one denomination to another or what? When I told them I was simply a member of our Lord’s body and should be free to assemble wherever I wished, they seemed puzzled. And besides, I said, “the apostle Paul had no regular congregation, did that make him guilty of “church-hopping?” They never answered. At one congregation I was told they wanted me to place membership with them, so they could count on my financial support. This helped them set their budget for the coming year, they said! They also left several “pledge envelopes” with me! I was left with the impression they wanted my money, not save my soul (still haven’t found the scripture for that one!)! This is the results of corporate style worship in today’s religious world. Those of us meeting in our homes, have no such problems!

And while I may attend a congregation on a regular basis, I like to believe I am free to visit other congregations when and as often as I choose. And that I shouldn’t have to answer or explain myself to elders or anyone.

J.D. Williams~