|DURING THE STORMS OF CHANGE:
“Hold Fast Our Confidence”!
Adult Bible Study Fall Quarter Fall 1997
Lesson Seven: Confidence In Our Worship
1. The cultural chaos of our modern society has invaded
then church. This is evident in various calls for changes in the
manner and practice of worship.
a. Many will not notice the subtle cultural
restructuring that is
2. ATTENDING ASSEMBLIES As Christians struggle
with the question
in process with the lessening moral values or the compromise
of the oneness of the Church. They may lament that "we are not as we once
were" but not much more attention will be paid. However when changes begin
to be made in the worship procedures then attention is seized.
1) Many appear more concerned about old
rituals being cast aside than with anything else.
2) Some are angered because changes are "sprung"
upon them without preparation.
3) Some shrug it off as another "fad" which our
young people are going through.
4) Some are happy that the old staid ways are
being replaced with new approaches.
b. Changes in the worship have potential for
greater division because they threaten emotional ties. See
Christian Chronicle editorial, January 1993, discussing this.
c. It should not be surprising to find that worship
being encouraged by those living in a culture opposed
to traditional values/beliefs. Those in favor of following culture try
to rally support for their changes under the banner of "more spiritual
worship." They seek to initiate changes in worship in these areas -- “Initiating
‘Change’ In Worship” Transparency 7/1
1) Assemblies where the whole Church is
gathered together are de-emphasized. Small groups are
d. The disregard for assembling with the whole Church
is not a novel idea. “The De-Valuation Of The Assembly!” Transpa-
2) Mechanical instruments in worship are being
tolerated. It is being suggested that the mechanical instrument
is no different than the number of Communion Cups, song
3) "Praise Worship" is being touted as the only
real avenue of
"spiritual worship" (i.e. holding up hands, swaying with
songs, hand-clapping, other emotional avenues so participants can "feel"
the worship). Note: We are once again hearing that "worship" is an attitude
not an act! “Those who believe in using instrumental music in the worship
as an aid, or on the same basis as songbooks begin with a definition like
this Worship is simply an attitude -- a condition of the heart. They
say you could not put instrumental music in the worship because you could
not swallow the instrument ... Worship is an action, not an attitude. It
is service rendered and the observation of rites. Worship then, is an action--not
an attitude” (G.K. Wallace, p. 60).
4) Preaching is de-emphasized and those who present
biblically based sermons are castigated as "legalistic" and
out of touch with "felt needs"!
5) "Special Music" presentations are urged as
a means to bring people into the building (i.e. solos,
singing groups, quar- tets, choirs, etc.).
6) Communion is being relegated to an unnecessary
status. Some contend it is not to be offered on Sunday
morning but only on Sunday night at an assembly where
only saints are present.
1) Years ago we had brethren urging us
to "meet God with
worship in the beauties of Nature." Calls were common
that urged brethren to leave the shallow, stuffy atmosphere of the church
building and get "closer to God." The emphasis was upon outdoor assemblies.
2) Worldliness has also taken its toll on the
sity of assembling at appointed times. Many are encumbered
with debt that forces them to work long hours. Others are driven by the
greed of success to "get ahead" or "climb the ladder," consequently many
"do not have time" to assemble.
3) The growing reluctance to honor the Elders'
authority for scheduling services has led many to stop
4) The penchant of modern cultural pluralism to
"tradition" has led to a frank denial of the need to
assemble. We are told that assemblies are the "product" of our own
religious heritage and are thus a matter of little consequence to God.
5) Current trends recognize the need for assembling
cultural advocates must restructure the assemblies. Thus
we are urged to eliminate the Sunday evening assembly at the building in
favor of meeting in homes. The Church as a whole is divided and consequently
the edification that results from the "whole Church" assemblies is not
possible. Even though this practice (parallel worship) sounds good &
has good intentions, it is sinful.
of whether they should, or should not attend ALL assemblies,
consideration of what the Scriptures teach will give struggling saints
confidence in answering this question.
a) 1 Co 11:18, 20; 14:23 -- the whole Church
was accustomed to assembling at the same place in New Testament
times (cf Ac 20:7; Hb 10:25).
3. MECHANICAL INSTRUMENTS in worship have long posed a fertile
b) Of special notice are the words in Hebrews 10:25.
“The ‘Whole’ Assembly” Transparency 7/3
1) "The assembling of ourselves" -- Refers
to religious assem-
blies of Christians. This is not limited to one service
on Sunday. Hb 10:25 refers to assemblies of the whole for exhortation.
2) "Together" -- Refers to the whole Church being
in the same meeting where all are to be exhorted.
3) "Forsake not" -- Stresses the importance &
respect of these gatherings.
4) "Any doctrine, position, or practice which
disrespect, or minimize these assemblies is a false doctrine,
an erroneous position, a sinful practice" (Roy Deaver, "Respecting The
Assembly," Gospel Advocate, Oct. 21, 1976, p. 674).
c) How does the current practice of "parallel
worship" (small groups; retreats; felt-needs groups; etc.)
violate the princi- ples/commands of the New Testament? Can Christians
express confidence in this issue? “Violating The Whole Assembly”
1) Such perverts the emphasis and purpose
for the “whole” Church assembling. Such groups prevent
the exhortation that is gained in the full congregational
3) Such is based upon immature study. Some who uphold
the "parallel worship" assemblies try to justify such
2) Such launches a practice that has absurd endings!
The "end" is not reckoned (Pr 22:3). Robert R. Taylor,
ed a series of bulletin articles on “The Divided Assembly”
beginning November 19, 1978. His analysis of how small group assemblies
destroys the local congregation is excellent. Below are a few of his comments
which illustrate the deadly “end” for congregations who allow culture to
minimize the “whole church” assemblies.
a) To what extent should we divide
the Church in order to meet "needs"? Which "needs" will be met and
which will go unmet? “What if certain groups within the congregation decide
that their particular interests can best be met by meeting in a variety
of places and under a system of varying circumstances? What if their desires
along these lines do not demand that they even meet in close proximity
to each other? After all, grant the premises of the divided assembly and
what ground is there to suggest that all assemblies have to meet upon the
same general premises? There are no grounds for such ... Numerous congregations
have begun to have parallel worship ...there is no stopping place when
this process is begun. There can be as many assemblies as there are special
needs. Reduce it to its lowest denominator and one can reason like this:
‘I have special needs that no one else has. Therefore I will stay at home
and worship in my own bedroom all by myself.’ If the premises for parallel
worship will not ultimately lead to this point, what logical blockade will
keep them from leading to this point? ... each group may feel that its
needs can best be met by meeting in a variety of locations such as the
golf course, the lake, the camp, the picnic spot, the swimming hole, etc.
Will such practices as these in the long run destroy the local church at
work? The answer is a definite and decisive ‘yes.’ I am confident that
many good brethren have been sold this bill of goods and they have not
thought through the matter” (Robert Taylor).
b) Shall we conform assemblies to golfers,
fishing enthus- iasts, campers? If so, where will it
c) What will be the "end" message received
by our child-
ren? “A long time friend wrote me in regard to these
articles. He assured me that his stand is right where these articles stand.
Then he said, ‘Having been born and reared a Roman Catholic; and having
lived according to the Catholic doctrine well up into my late teens, I
know about this particular subject. The Catholic Church had, and may still
have, special services which catered to children only. As an example: every
Sunday, when I was a member, the 9:00 a.m. Mass was for children. After
Mass, catechism classes were held, again for children only. Adults were
not altogether forbidden, but they were discouraged to attend services
at these specific hours. This segregated type of worship was not conducive
to family worship, to say the least. The astronauts were astonished and
awe struck at the beautiful and breathtaking views which they observed
from outer space. However, in my humble opinion, what they saw does not
compare with the beauty of seeing a whole family sitting together in the
same pew at all worship services.’ This is a remarkable and wise
statement from one, now a faithful gospel preacher, who witnessed this
practice long before our brethren began to practice this innovation. The
divided assembly makes impossible family worship togetherness at public
worship” (Robert Taylor).
ing to Bible Classes. “Is the current practice of having
parallel or divided assemblies at the same time the same as providing a
nursery for mothers, the same as our current Bible class arrangement or
having multiple services? None of these adds up to having several worship
assemblies in progress simultaneously. All the nursery arrangements with
which I am familiar have the facility prepared where what is going on in
the assembly is available to the mothers or attendants in the nursery by
a speaker system ... But what about our Bible Classes?... Our Bible classes
usually engage in but one or two items -- a prayer and Bible Study. The
Lord’s Supper and Contribution belong in the assembly. That is where the
Communion belongs on Sunday evening, not in a remote room with only a part
of the worship assembly present . . . If each Bible Class had its own assembly
with all five acts of worship engaged in and there was never a coming together
into one place of the entire congregation, then that would be tantamount
to the divided assembly and thus wrong” (Robert Taylor).
4) Such has within it seeds for the destruction
of the local Church. “The divided assembly or parallel
worship has built within it the very seeds for destroying
the local church ... Grant the overall premises for the
divided assembly or parallel worship and you grant at
the same time the premi-
ses for each group or every individual to have either
their or his worship period whenever will best meet special needs. This
does away entirely with the need to have the local church congregate into
one place for worship. If there is no need for the local church and its
worship assembly, then there is no need for an eldership over it. Have
elders who are traveling this dangerous and perilous route thought about
this? If there is no need for the local church and its assembly of worship,
then there is no need for deacons. Have deacons thought about this when
they have clamored for this new innovation ... If there is no need for
the local church and its worship assembly, then there is no need for preachers
to do local work ... If there is no need for the local church and its worship
assembly, then what justifies the common church treasury? Just let each
group or individual take care of his/her own needs. Elders who begin to
travel this route may one day awaken to find themselves meeting in a large,
vacant meetinghouse with no way to meet its monthly payments. I am not
saying that every church that begins this practice will go this far but
just where will the brakes be applied when a congregation begins to travel
this downhill course? And it is downhill all the way? At the end of the
steep hill on some pathetic tomorrow one will find the debris of local
congregations, destroyed by a practice they thought would build them up.
Then it will be too late” (Robert Taylor).
5) Such will hinder the communication of values
and spiritual Truth from the older to the younger generations.
tural Advocates argue that the small groups should be
"age oriented." “When the assembly is divided and parallel worship assemblies
are begun there is no end, except on the basis of needs, to just how many
any one congregation may have. Those who think it will just mean two --
one for the oldsters and one for the youngsters -- and only two are entirely
too naive relative to this point. There can be all kinds of subdivisions
both among the adults and among the younger people” (Robert Taylor).
6) Such is impractical -- If we divide the church
into different groups, so each can get his/her needs
filled, which will we choose to attend? We may have 5-6
different groups that offer to satisfy a “need” we have.
7) This cultural aspect has subtly crept into the
Lord's Church. Today many fail to see just how much,
and how tragic, the damage is that has been done
to congregational loyalties. Beside the lessening of
loyalty to the support and to work for the progress of the local congregation,
this practice is wrong because ... “Why Must Some Changes
Be Opposed?” Transparency 7/5
a) It DISTORTS the biblical command
of Hb 10:25.
8) Although this "change" sounds good and is presented
with good goals and pious points, it is a subtle design
to destroy the local Church. Devotion, loyalty, fellowship,
and commitment will all be sacrificed so that cultural dictates can gain
their desired results. Such must be rejected!
b) It COMPROMISES the absoluteness of God's
commands and the New Testament pattern of the "whole
Church" coming together.
c) It WEAKENS believers to the point they
become irregular in attendance.
d) It RESULTS in disastrous consequences.
e) It LESSENS the uniqueness of God's designs.
f) It VIOLATES the holiness of God's designs.
area where "culture" has sought to modify God’s commands
for worship music. Today’s culture has attempted to confuse Believers about
this issue. Consider the Scriptures and observe how they can provide us
with boldness and confidence in our belief.
a. This area has embittered and divided
brethren. It is an issue which has wrought division and hard
words in denominations when first introduced.
4. "PRAISE WORSHIP" is a term of recent use but it is being
used in speeches, articles, and conversations as a descriptive term
of the "true spirit" with which our modern culture defines gen- uine
b. This topic is seldom studied. Most do not know
why we do not use mechanical instruments in singing. This ignorance
leaves the susceptible to accepting error.
c. Some common remarks about not using mechanical
instru- mental music in worship.
1) "It is just our heritage in the American
Restoration Move- ment."
2) It is because those who began our branch of
the ARM were too poor to purchase the instrument."
3) "It is an archaic belief that should be changed."
4) “I really don't know why we don't use it.”
5) "Our practice is rooted in an arrogance and
is more sinful than actually using it."
6) "It is a dinosaur from the past traditions
that should be changed."
d. How do you view mechanical instrumental music
in the wor-
ship assembly? Is it wrong but not sinful? Is it merely
opinion? Is it a sin that will cause one to go to Hell? Does it invalidate
e. Our study cannot consider this topic as thoroughly
desire. Numerous books are available offering exceptional
study on the topic. Our purpose in this point is to consider five of the
arguments FOR the tolerance of the mechanical instrument in worship. Some
today are urging us to "tolerate" the mechanical instrument even if we
cannot "accept" it. Such urges us to accept that which God condemned. “Five
Arguments FOR Use Of Mechanical Instruments With Songs Of Worship” Transparency
1) "Instrumental music is a 'non-issue' today!"
a) Such addresses the issue with
apathy and urges all to view it as a neutral matter. It is admitted that
instruments have caused problems but so have other things (i.e. multiple
cups in Communion; Bible Classes; Orphan's Homes; etc.). With a shrug the
whole practice is passed off as inconsequential!
2) "Instrumental music is only an AID to singing.
It is not an addition."
b) However the issue is very important.
It is eternally important! The current attempt fails to admit the following
facts about the issue ...
1) It numbs one's sensitivity
to God's Word and the divine will (cf Mt
15:7-9; 2 Ths 2:9-12). To God this is an
2) It fails to recognize that mechanical
instrumental music is another KIND of music.
It is different from vocal music (See Bales,
3) It mis-classifies mechanical instrumental
Communion cups, etc. The number of containers used in
Communion does not add another element! (Bales, p. 261).
4) It fails to see the connection
of mechanical instrumen-
tal music with religious authority. If it is just "opinion
neutral" then so is all else in religious practice! (Bales, p. 274,283).
a) Such often presents mechanical instrumental
music as occupying the same category as a meeting-house,
lights, sound systems, etc., as it helps the worshipers
b) However, it IS NOT an aid! (Bales, p.
1) It causes singing to become artistic
performances for man and man forgets God.
2) It discourages instead of encourages
3) It adds another kind of music which
God has not authorized (thus leaving the
realm of an "aid").
4) If it aids by making the services
more attractive, what else can we change
to bring more in? Such an "aid" is really
a detriment (See Bales, p. 269 for the inconsis-
tency of this argument).
5) If the unauthorized "aid" of the
mechanical instru- ment is acceptable, then any
other "aid" will be legal! (See Bales, p.
6) It fails to recognize that some
"aids" are departures from God's revealed
will (Bales, p. 272b),
7) It fails to admit that mechanical
instrumental music in the Old Testament was
considered more than an "aid" - it was an
addition to it! (Bales, p. 280).
8) “The aid argument is an old one,
and it has not im-
proved with age. However, it has sanctioned more and
more additions to the worship. ... This argument supposes that we may accommodate
the worship of God to our own taste and feelings, and model it in such
a way as to enliven our affections, and give us pleasure” (Bales, p. 274-275a).
3) "Instrumental music is okay because it is not
a part of wor- ship."
a) There are several variations of this
1) "The instrument aids only the worshiper
and has no part in worship."
2) "The true believer worships in
spirit (attitude) and since you cannot put
the instrument into his/her heart (attitude)
you cannot have it in worship."
3) "All of life is worship (Ro 12:1,2).
We listen to music in daily life hence we
are using instruments in worship. What's
the difference in Monday - Saturday and on
b) Each of these positions is easily answered.
It is sad that many today are ignorant of these
1) The notion that the mechanical
instrument has no
part in the worship is absurd. Mechanical instrumental
music is a kind of music (Bales, 278). To add mechanical instrumental music
is to add another kind of music to the services. To think that mechanical
instrumental music has no part in worship when it is used in worship is
to be ignorant of Scripture (cf 2 Chron 5:13; Ps 150:3-5 -- "with"; See
2) The contention that "worship" is
only an attitude and
not an act is an old liberal dodge that does not
work. "Worship" is grossly misunderstood and abused in our
day. Worship is an "action" that demonstrates devotion to God. The
error of believing that worship is only attitude and not action is
evident in texts speaking of "coming to" and "going from" worship
(cf 2 Sa 12:20; Zech 14:16; Mt 2:2; Ac 24:11; etc.). When we
"worship" we are "drawing near" to God (an action). We "draw near"
by speaking (Hb 13:15); singing (2 Chron 29:25-30); praying (2 Chron
7:3); giving (2 Chron 29:27,28); and Communion (1 Co 10:16). We must
have the right attitude (heart/spirit) but we must also have
the right action! Imbalance in either leads to vain worship. Mechanical
instrumental music takes the action of worship and changes it from
that which God commanded (i.e. it contaminates its "holiness").
3) The distorted concept that "worship"
is everything we
do in daily life has become a common notion.
Ro 12:1,2 is used to suggest the everything a Christian does
is "worship" (even the mundane tasks of each day). This distorts
and confuses the whole concept of "worship" and leads sincere hearts
to absurd conclu- sions. The context of Ro 12 shows that Paul was
dis- cussing devoted living instead of devoted worship. To equate
"worship" assemblies with "services" in every day living is to ignore
the fact that there are certain "worship acts" that must be preformed
in a spiritual setting and these are far different from the
normal duties of daily living!
c) Mechanical instrumental music is definitely
a part of wor-
ship. Just because some are defining "worship"
in a way that permits the use of mechanical instruments, does
not erase the fact that it is worship which God has not commanded!
4) "Instrumental music is not the problem. Those
who oppose it are the troublerers and they are causing
the division - not those who are sincere in its use!"
a) This is another age-old ploy of "charge
and counter-charge follow each other in quick succession,
and general confusion is the result." (Cf 1 Ki 18:17,18).
b) History is clear -- the division has
come by those who have pushed the use of the mechanical
c) This argument strives to remove any commendable
qualities from the divisions. Inspiration does not condemn
Christians for causing division unless those divisions harm the Lord's
Church (1 Co 1:10). Some divisions are right and thus are commended (Ro
d) The truth of the division over mechanical
in the worship assemblies is summarized by Kurfrees.
“One side introduces a practice admitting that the Lord does not require
it, and knowing, in advance, that division in the body of Christ will be
the inevitable result; the other side refuses to engage in the practice
believing that the Lord requires them to stand aloof from it. Hence, here
is an instance of division in the body of Christ mutually caused by both
sides in a case of two opposing parties, but with this radical difference,
viz., it is caused by one side when there is not only no necessity for
it, but the most solemn of all reasons against it; while it is caused by
the other side when there is not only a stern necessity for it, but when
it is the last resort in order to maintain a pure conscience toward God
and toward man. In the latter case, innocence can be maintained in no other
way; in the former, only guilt is incurred” (p. 264-265).
5) "Instrumental music should be allowed because
it allows certain members to use talents for the Lord."
a) This is fast becoming a main argument
for justifying the use of instruments in worship.
Those who wish to intro- duce "special music" presentation
also rest heavily upon this.
b) Bales, p. 331, treats this fully. There
are a number of problems with this --
1) It makes man's "talents" the standard
for worship in- stead of God's Book.
2) To base one's practices of worship
upon "talents" is to replace "faith" with
"sight" (2 Co 5:7).
3) To argue for "talent" directed
worship is to practice "will worship" (Col
2:18-23; Mt 15:9).
4) This allows man to "direct" his
own worship (Jere 10:23).
5) This argument will allow the introduction
of anything that is discovered as a "talent" (cooking; dancing; acrobatics;
etc.). Interesting query - What happens when one has a "talent" to
play a "one man band" but in doing so is unable to "sing"? Does his
"talent" override Inspiration's command to "sing"?
6) Note: In the arguments being made
to allow chorus,
solos, etc., into worship, this "talent" argument
is foremost (i.e. "God has given me a special talent to sing
and I want to praise Him with it."). The same flaws appear in this
justification of solos as in the playing of mechanical instruments.
f. Mechanical instruments of music should not be
used in the
worship assemblies. Even though Cultural Advocates castigate
this position as "traditional heritage" it is biblically sound! The use
of mechanical instruments of music is wrong (sinful) because . . .
Transparency 7/5 “Why Must Some Changes Be Opposed?”
a) It DISTORTS the biblical commands.
b) It COMPROMISES the absoluteness of God's commands
and the New Testament pattern of vocal music only in
c) It WEAKENS believers so they are willing to
allow other in- novations that will carry the Church further
d) It RESULTS in disastrous consequences. The
"end" it has his- torically led to is utter ruin.
e) It VIOLATES the principle of holiness which
is to govern God's people.
a. Cultural voices charge that present
worship assemblies are
"dull, boring, sullen, and unspiritual." It is suggested
that such must be changed and the Cultural Advocates claim they have discovered
the way to true "spiritual" worship -- it is via "Praise Worship!" In addition
it is charged that we have become guilty of ceremonialism in our assemblies
-- "Two songs, a prayer, and a song" is the rut; we do not use contemporary
music; we have an unwritten worship program of when to stand; prayers are
made with traditional phrases that are seldom understood and are actually
"vain repetitions; etc. To counter this "stale atmosphere" we are being
urged to accept the "shock treatment" of "change"!
b. It must be admitted that many congregations are
charged! Many have allowed themselves to become ritualized
in worship and ceremony and stale in worship spirit! We must present the
right attitudes in worship. The Psalms present the attitude which our worship
must portray (Ps 100; 9:11; 67:3; cf Ac 2:47; Hb 13:15). Apathy and nonchalance
in worship is repulsive to God! (Mal 1:10ff).
c. There are some problems with the "Change Advocates"
solu- tion -- Praise Worship. Here is another example of how
their "good intentions" have gone awry. Transparency 7/7
“‘PRAISE’ Gone Awry!”
1) Inconsistency They recoil at
"traditions" in worship yet advocate their own set of "traditions." They
ask us to trade our traditions for their traditions! They are quick to
condemn others for "somber sullenness" yet they do not present an outward
"joy." When asked about this they assert that they are rejoicing "inside"
-- why will they not allow such an option to those they consider "sullen"?
They claim our worship is traditional and cultural. They want to "raise
hands," kneel, and other practices in worship. Yet these are culturally
rooted in Jewish life as revealed in Scripture. Why castigate us for being
"culturally bound" while they are pleading for us to submit to another
culture's restriction? This inconsistency should cause some to suspect
the "changes" being urged! (cf Ro 14:22b).
2) Emotionalism The current fad is to make worship
more of an up-lifting entertainment period rather than a period of devotion
to God. People today are focusing upon "feelings" in worship more than
upon participation in it. Worship is not a spectator sport! Current efforts
by which emotionalism is given top priority: efforts to make the Lord's
Supper more "meaningful" by someone carrying a cross down the center aisle
or having a trio sing. The problem is that emotional changes must increase
if they are to continue to stimulate. New boundaries must be crossed if
the emotional stimulation is to remain "high." Ultimately "anything" that
promises to add "meaning" will be tolerated (This opens the door
to all kinds of error!). Tom Holland, "The current demand for change in
worship ... is basically a challenge from the world to dictate to the church
the kind of worship that will be appealing and worthy of applause." “A
pentecostal aura hangs over the thought process; i.e., an emotional barometer
determines whether a program, or action, is approved. The higher the emotional
appeal, the more excitement is generated in implementing the practice.
Emotionalism then becomes the motivation for religious activity ... The
natural result of such a priority is that the believer is led to attend
worship to ‘get something out of the service’ rather than giving his worship
to God ... Church leaders begin to listen to the pleas of the people to
provide for them their ‘felt needs.’ ‘Things’ took the place of teaching”
(Eddie Whitten, What Does God Authorize In Worship?, p. 293).
3) Selfishness The "ME Generation" has matured
and is now influencing the Church. This is the generation directed solely
by self-centered pursuits. If something is not "fulfilling" it is discarded.
This tragic attitude has invaded families, marriages, jobs, and the Church.
Its motto in the Church is based upon "felt needs." As Elders are pommeled
with cries for "felt needs" to be fulfilled, the desired "changes" are
soon enacted. Consequently "things" take the place of teaching as people
try to "get something out of the worship." The problem is that people come
to worship to GET something rather than to GIVE God devotion. This subtle
shift has had a damning effect upon worship. We hear calls to make worship
more "meaningful to me" rather than to make worship conform to God's decrees!
Scriptural worship becomes secondary to personal appeal; faithfulness and
devotion become secondary to meeting "needs."
4) Subjectiveness Once the decision is made
to "meet felt needs" one launches upon a subjective journey. "Needs" become
the control of decision- making. Of course this leads to division because
its only guide is emotions. Some claim that worship is made meaningful
only when you sway as you sing songs; clap hands in rhythm; or lifting
up your hands when you pray. While these may enhance the worship's "spirituality"
for some, it ruins it for others. How does subjectivism determine which
group has "ruined" worship? The biblical injunction for Corinth certainly
applies here! (1 Co 14:40).
5) Note: These problems are too great to ignore!
Those who do ignore them will find themselves facing appalling compromises.
What they intended will be far surpassed. They will struggle with grief
because their changed worship is still not as "spiritual" as they had thought.
Such emptiness always characterizes those duped by false teaching! (2 Pt
Copyright 1999 by John
L. Kachelman Jr. may be reproducted for non-commercial purposes at no cost