Order in the Assembly

There is great benefit in knowing the reasons behind the things we do. Corporate worship practices are no exception.

Lately, I have set in meetings where people openly expressed doubt that some things are unacceptable in the corporate worship setting. Terms like "orderly," and "reverent" were used to describe what type of worship pleases God.

For example, the point was made that holding hands or clapping during the worship assembly is disorderly -- it interrupts the flow and ruins the moment. The verse most often cited as support for such reasoning is 1 Corinthians 14:40. Here is how two translations phrase this verse:

"Let all things be done decently and in order." (King James Version)
"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner." (New American Standard Version)

The rub seems to be in the word "orderly." What does it mean to do something in "an orderly manner?" Some congregations put together "orders of worship" so that the congregants have an idea of what will take place. However, the problem is that things like clapping, greeting one another and/or holding hands (which cannot be done at the same time as clapping) are usually spontaneous activities that do not appear as line items in the order of worship. This draws the bane of some people, who then insist that these activities are disorderly.

However, when Paul writes to the Corinthian Christians about worship he is addressing speaking in tongues and the female-male relationship in terms of the worship assembly.

Concerning speaking in tongues, Paul writes, "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop." (1 Corinthians 14:29-30). This leads to Paul's statement in verse 33: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace."

The disorder of which Paul writes deals with two very specific things: speaking in tongues, and the female-male relationship in the worship assembly.

Now granted, some people will argue that even though Paul is not specifically dealing with clapping or holding hands, he is giving us a principle that will help guide us in our worship assembly today. So what is the principle?

Here is my take on it: do everything in the corporate worship assembly so that people are "instructed and encouraged." This does not mean "do everything that some people like," or "purposely do things that some people do not like." What it means is that we can fall into the danger of doing things that will not serve to strengthen the church in this corporate gathering. However, my preferences are not an acceptable guideline to determining what is acceptable worship to God.

Some people in the assembly are encouraged by clapping. Some people are encouraged by holding hands. Some people are encouraged when "older" songs are sung. Some people are encouraged by the quiet moments interspersed in the taking of the Lord's Supper. But all of these activities can be instructional. Encouragement and instruction are not the same. One other thought: I can be encouraged by something that is not pleasing to God unless I have truly learned the hidden truth of the saying, "Love God, and do as you please." (Augustine)

I have my own views about the worship assembly and for now, I'll keep them to myself. But if we are going to better understand the purpose of the assembly and the acceptable practices that are involved, then we must spend time in Bible study.

Give me a few days, and I'll try to address the whole "reverence" thing.

The Reason for "Church" on Sunday

A few weeks ago, an older member at the congregation where I attend approached me with a question. She asked, "What is the reason we come together on Sunday?" Her question was followed by a statement of clarification: "I have always thought that the purpose was to participate in Communion (the Lord's Supper). What do you think?"

The question came from an honest searcher who possesses a big heart for God. What led to the question was a discussion in a Sunday morning Bible class about the reasons for the church to assemble in corporate gatherings. Lately, I have heard two distinct answers concerning this question:

1) we come together to worship God; and
2) we come together to encourage, edify, and uplift each other.

The scriptural argument for the Lord's Supper being the reason for gathering together is based on Acts 20:7 -- "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread ..."

In addition to a scriptural argument, there is also an historical basis for believing that the partaking of communion is the purpose for gathering. While there are aspects of the worship assembly that Christianity imported from Judaism, the Lord's Supper is not one of those -- it is distinctly Christian.

Most likely, Communion originally took place within the context of a larger fellowship meal, but due to the abuses at the church in Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34), the fellowship meal and Communion were separated.

Interestingly, the term most used by second century church leaders for Communion is the eucharist ("thanksgiving"). In this moment, the church proclaimed its heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifice of Jesus, by acknowledging through ritual the price of their salvation (bread = body of Christ; cup = blood of Christ).

The writings of Justin Martyr, (100-165 AD), have given us more insight into the place of Communion in the corporate worship setting. He also emphasizes the link between participation in the eucharist and fellowship with other believers. Dr. Ferguson (see previous post) makes this observation when he writes (concerning Justin's writings), "Partaking of the eucharist was the first act expressing
one's participaton in the fellowship of the church."

In a collection of writing known as the Didache, we find these words, "Having earlier confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure, come together each Lord's day of the Lord, break bread, and give thanks."

Side-note: One of the unfounded accusations that early opponents used against the Christians involved charges of cannibalism. Not grasping the significant terminology used in the eucharist, these opponents only heard talk about "eating the body" and "drinking the blood," and so charged the Christians with cannibalism.

Clearly, the eucharist was part of the Christian assembly, but was it the sole reason that the Christians gathered?

Other reasons for the Christian assembly are mentioned in the pages of Scripture and throughout historical records. Consider these comments from Ignatius (35-107), "Let no one be deceived: Unless one is within the place of sacrifice he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two has such great strength, how much more the prayer of the bishop with the whole church? Therefore, he who does not come to the assembly is already puffed up and has passed judgment on himself. Give diligence therefore to come together more frequently for thanksgiving and glory to God, for when you are frequently together in one place, the powers of Satan are destroyed and his destructiveness is nullified by the concord of your faith."

Ignatius mentions two reasons for coming together: 1) thanksgiving (witnessed through participation in the eucharist), and 2) giving glory to God. The result of these reasons is: "the powers of Satan are destroyed."

The apostle Paul through his written instructions to the Corinthian church about the worship assembly, makes the point that an important purpose should be kept in mind when doing anything in the Christian assembly. He writes, "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Corinthians 14:26).

At first glance, it appears that there are several reasons for the Christian assembly, and they are not exclusive of each other. But that persistent question still nags at us, "what is the purpose for coming together on Sunday?"

Maybe we are not phrasing the question correctly.

More later ...

The Meaning of Church

Quote: "The best part of ministry is people, and the worst part of ministry is people."

Church is "God-centered, people-business."

Remove the people and there is no church. Thankfully, throughout history there have always been people who have chosen to "be the church." Interestingly, in attempting to "be the church" we raise a lot of questions, the first one being "what is the church?"

Ecclesiology is the study of the church. It comes from the Greek word used for church throughout the New Testament, ekklesia. Ecclesiology is important because through such study we gain a greater understanding of the nature and identity of the church. What does it really mean to be the church?

The significance of the church is seen in the statements made by great church leaders and theologians throughout history. The "Father of Latin Theology," Tertullian once said, "There is no salvation outside the church." He even argued (long before Thomas Campbell and with a different focus than Campbell) "that there is only one holy apostolic, catholic, and episcopal church."

Yet before the church, there was a person and a proclamation. Reknowned church historian, Dr. Everett Ferguson puts it this way, "God gave a person, then a proclamation, and then a people. This is the historical and theological order."

Of course, the person is Jesus. He is the head of the church and the Scriptures refer to the church as being the "body of Christ."

The proclamation is also Jesus. As the apostle Paul once wrote, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2).

This proclamation is the bedrock of the church. Remember the proclamation the apostle Peter made, and Jesus' response to it? "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). "Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:17-18).

The confession that is the bedrock of the church is that Jesus is the Christ. This was the essence of the early church's proclamation and it should be the essence of the proclamation made by the church today. Fortunately, we have the Bible which contains this life-altering proclamation.

Then there are the people. And this is where the church comes into focus. Ferguson draws an important distinction between the proclamation and the church. He writes, "...we must remember that it is not itself [the church] part of the proclamation, but is the result of the proclamation."

One lesson that ecclesiology quickly teaches is that we can no more "go to church" than we can "go to self." Baptized believers are the church. It is a people, not a place. And yet ecclesiology also teaches us that we have a sacred obligation to each other as the church. Becoming a Christ-follower makes us accountable to other followers of Christ. Becoming a part of the church means no longer living for self. Most Christ-followers gather together on at least a weekly basis. These gatherings are important not just because we engage in corporate worship, but because in meeting together we fulfill an important obligation to each other.

The danger is that the self-focused theology that teaches that church is optional, unncessary, and absurdly promotes that being the church means you don't actually have to be in the gathering of the church -- will continue to assault the purpose for which Christ established the church.

To quote Ferguson once more, "Forsaking the assembly is not a sin against an institution, but against the brothers and sisters to whom we owe mutual edification and fellowship. ...The assembly allows the church to emerge in its true nature: a redeemed community."

Extreme Theology

History repeats itself.

As a result, to paraphrase someone else, if we are not aware of our history we will fall prey to the same mistakes made by our ancestors.

Church history repeats itself as well.

Across the country, churches find themselves in a state of flux. It is not just the matter of adapting to cultural modes of communication. It is also the problem of how to reconcile two diametrically-opposed theological positions.

Granted, this is simply my perception, but what I see happening in churches of every stripe are internal struggles arising from personally-crafted theologies.

The first extreme theological position is marked by those typically referred to as "ultra-conservative," "traditonal," or even "narrow-minded legalists." These are people who most likely have spent their entire lives in a church setting. Their motto is "stay safe." Safety for them, is not just adherence to biblical injunctions, but adherence to forms and methods they have witnessed since their youth. This group tends to get ruffled when changes are made like: the introduction of "new" songs, the use of various forms of multimedia in the Sunday morning worship assembly, different styles of worship, alterations to worship attender's clothing, and a sincere belief that if the church does not look like the church did when they were younger, then the church is no longer the church.

Notice that most of their issues center around worship. This group believes that at some point we got it right, and any changes means we have gotten it wrong. Try explaining to someone who grew up hearing there is one correct way to do something, that there are actually other ways.

The second extreme theological position is seen in those who are termed "liberal," "progressive," or even "anything-goes-promoters." These people reject traditional modes of worship and opt for more creativity. They are quick to speak out against what they see as legalism and to denounce those who assert such things as the importance of church attendance. Remember the time when people taught that missing church service would doom you to hell? These people recoil at such an assertion and proclaim themselves messengers of God's grace.

Again, most of this group's issues center around worship. They want to be cutting-edge, and grace-centered. In their quest to do these things they make enemies of the first group. They see the first group as being the bane of healthy Christianity, while the first group sees the second group as being the epitome of apostasy.

These attitudes are most clearly seen in the debate over worship styles and the nature of the church.

For example, the first group insists on regular church attendance. Now, they may not realize why it is so important or be able to point to a passage in the Bible (although they are there), but they strongly advocate consistent church attendance. And they mean it -- they are the ones who started removing people from the church roll if they missed three Sundays in a row!

One reason they take such a position is because of fear. Unfortunately, the second group does little to ease their fear.

The second group sees church attendance as optional. They will go if is convenient, but if there are scheduling conflicts, then church will get scratched for the week. This group knows that attending church three times a week does not earn someone salvation, but what has happened is a correct view has led to an extreme theological position -- if it is not necessary, then the thought goes -- it is unimportant.

This is where the first group begins to gnash their teeth. They see the second group as trampling on God's grace by turning it into a license to do what they want, when they want. The second group fires back by saying that the first group is just being legalistic. And so shots keep firing back and forth.

History has repeated itself.

Jesus and then later, the apostle Paul dealt with such attitudes. Neither attitude is completely correct. The first group has not understood grace and is clinging to their performance to make certain their salvation. The second group, though, has misapplied grace, and is banking on the hope that their lack of performance will not somehow negate their salvation.

The same groups were present in the first century of the church's existence.

History repeats itself.

Both groups fear each other. Both groups see faults in each other. But that is as far as the groups get. Try having a discussion with representatives from both groups -- be sure to bring plenty of Tylenol.

Even though both groups believe they are doing the right thing and have a complete understanding of what God wants, they both miss what God truly desires -- the unity of His people.

Until that happens, neither group is pleasing to God. In fact, both groups are wrong.

Maybe someday history will not repeat itself.

Maybe that is wishful thinking or maybe it is a belief that what is impossible for people is not impossible for God.

When Death Strikes

Ministry changes your perception of phone calls.

Stay in ministry for a few years and you realize that each time the phone rings, crisis could be waiting on the other end.

This is especially true about calls late at night. The last time someone called me at 3:00 a.m. in the morning it was not to report good news. It was far worse -- "so and so has been rushed to the ER and it does not look good." Sitting with parents who have just lost a child is one of the hardest things I have ever done. And now I have done it three times since 2002.

This past week, the son of a couple who attends Airline, passed away. His mother found him in his room and could not revive him. Granted, he was 39 years old, but he was still their son ... their only son.

I received the call on my way to work one day this past week. So on that day, I turned the car around and drove to the home of a family who had just lost their son. The coroner had not yet moved the body out of the house when I arrived. What words do you use in that moment? I simply said, "I am so sorry," as I hugged his father.

At such moments, tears and hugs provide much more comfort than words.

Unfortunately, that instance was not the only time I had to deal with the suffering left by the appearance of death. Several days later (this past Saturday), the phone rang again with news of another death. One of my elders called to tell me his wife (who had just been diagnosed with leukemia four weeks ago) had passed away. The funeral was yesterday and it was one of the largest funerals that has ever taken place at the church building.

Again, upon receiving the news, what do you say? Spending a lot of time with the elder the past several days has affirmed that simply sharing tears and hugs is much better than nice-sounding words that really do not help much.

Death exposes one of my biggest problems with Jesus. When I read about Jesus in the Bible, I find that every funeral he ever attended, he interrupted. He confronted death and exposed its false claim of power by bringing the person back to life. I have no such power. I am unable to heal the sick or raise the dead. Instead, I am left to attempt to provide comfort to the grieving, while I wrestle with my own questions.

And it appears that this will not change. I know that death does not have the final word. I believe that death is not the end. But what I struggle with is the hurt that death inflicts on people.

This is one of my greatest faith struggles.

And that struggle is not necessarily a bad thing.

So each time the phone rings, I brace myself, and pray for the strength to act in the best and right way, just in case, death has struck again.

And so the struggle continues.

Blogs and Dads

Having a blog is a therapeutic experience. Typing thoughts on a webpage which anyone can access is a mixed bag of blessings.

When I started my blog, I started it as an outlet. It provides me an opportunity to write whatever is on my mind. Throughout life we all wear different hats, but writing a blog enables me to be myself ... and that is refreshing.

Many of you who read this blog on a regular basis seldom (if ever) post comments. Instead, you send me emails which are very encouraging to me. There have been several times that someone will mention to me reading my blog, and I had no idea that s/he read it.

It is nice to know that people are interested in my thoughts, and it makes me feel good when all of you stop by to read. However, the number of blog readers does not influence what I write or say. If you continue to stop by, then expect to get more of ... well ... I guess ... me?

One such person who reads my blog on a regular basis is my Dad. He lives in Ohio with my Mom and since tomorrow is Father's Day, I wanted to tell him "thank you."

My Dad is a good man who loves God. In fact, he is a good man BECAUSE he loves God. He loves my Mom. He loves me. He loves my sister. And he loves all his grandchildren.

His love is not just the verbal variety, instead it is actually visible. My Dad made a decision a long time ago. He decided that he had more responsibility than just helping to make a baby. He decided to be my Dad. His decision meant freely giving of his time, love, and even his financial resources.

Dad, you taught me how to follow Jesus, to stand up for my beliefs, and to remember that when bad times come all heaven draws near.

Thanks, Dad. Happy Father's Day! I love you!

Thirsty?

With the advent of summer comes thoughts of the past year. In particular, the thoughts usually center around the school year. My daughter just completed the fourth grade and my son will be entering the third grade in the fall.

In reflecting on the past year, it quickly become obvious how much change takes place in one year. Our children change -- physically, emotionally, mentally, and most importantly -- spiritually. We change as well -- physically (watch those calories!), emotionally, mentally, and spiritually (hopefully for the better).

I can recall preachers asking the critical question: "are you closer to God than you were one year ago?" The question is so pertinent because becoming more like Christ ... getting closer to God ... is one of the goals in the Christian walk. Am I closer to God than I was one year ago?

My answer is "yes." During this past year, I have witnessed the activity of God firsthand. I am a recipient of his blessings. I am a gracious receiver of his mercy and grace. I am a witness to his power. And I am a participant in the work of his Spirit.

That being said, the road I am on is not at an end. My journey is still not complete. Much growth is still needed. Much effort is demanded. Becoming like Jesus can sound like an extremely daunting task, but the hope is seen in the progress. Stagnation should not be synonymous with the Christian life. The operative word here is "sanctification." It is the process of becoming holy. It is the step-by-step journey of becoming spiritually mature.

The journey, though, is not always a pleasant one. Along the way we encounter obstacles that test our faith. We undergo trials that sometimes get the best of us. We reach moments when we decide whether or not to carry on. Not everyone abandons their faith at bad times. Most often, we just settle. Maybe it is a subconscious decision. We begin to doubt that God really works today or that he is really attentive or capable of being persuaded by our prayers. While we wrestle with such doubts, Satan seizes the moment by putting situations and/or people in front of us that seem to confirm God's detachment from our world.

Even though the Bible teaches us that faith should permeate every single area of our lives, we settle for occasional breakthroughs. We develop a mindset that says we go to church because we are supposed to. We trim our budgets by cutting our giving to church. We leave the Bible on the nightstand untouched. We rationalize our almost non-existent prayer lives. With each such decision we detach ourselves from God. We move farther away from ever experiencing what the great saints throughout history have experienced.

We grow bored or dissatisfied with church life because we do not see God working in our own lives. And that observation is disheartening at best, faith-destroying at worst. The joy of the Lord becomes a phrase we hear on Sundays, but with which we cannot relate.

And so we miss the experience.

In turn, we miss life.

When you are really thirsty, what does the best job of quenching your thirst? Some people try peanut butter. But that does not work very well. What about downing a box of sugar? Tastes sweet, but the thirst still remains. Baking soda? Nope. Sports drinks? To a limited extent. Salt water? No way. What really quenches your thirst is water. After all, the majority of your bodily composition is water. At the end of running a 5K race, I find myself in a line for water. Some people drink pop, others opt for a low-calorie beer, and some people try the latest sports drink on display. But the longest line is always in front of the water coolers.

In creating us, God created thirst. Yet, God also created the answer to our thirst.

When it comes to life you get thirsty -- for meaning, for purpose, for joy, for fulfillment ... for God. The new car might feel good for awhile, but when the "newness" wears off, you are left thirsty. The new house provides much excitement, but when you begin to spot things you want to change, you realize your thirst never went away. Possessions, sports, music, education, hobbies, and entertainment all mask our thirst, but never quench it because what we are really thirsty for is God.

What God offers is not just an occasional drink, but a continuing flow of water to quench what it is we thirst for the most. So Jesus makes us this offer: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (John 7:37)

Until we drink, we'll look okay and seem fine, but we will always thirst for more.

So look for God. Try talking to one of his spiritually-challenged followers. But when you do, please take this advice: come thirsty.

Thanks, Patrick

This past week in an ongoing discussion on his blog (www.patrickmead.net/tentpegs) Patrick Mead referenced the book I wrote last year on the first major division that took place within the American Restoration Movement.

I enjoy reading Patrick's blog and am usually challenged by what he writes. He is a wonderful speaker, and a godly man. Below, I have included his mention of the book and have also pasted his comments that followed.

Enjoy.

And thanks again, Patrick. Your encouragement means a great deal to me.


Rivers and Rubicons, Pt. 3
Patrick Mead

There have been very few psychological/sociological/historical studies done on the split between the Disciples of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Churches of Christ. A lot of purely historical works are out there as well as many polemical broadsides, but, for the average reader, not much is there to explain how people came up with their stands for or against — in this case — the instrument in worship or associations to deal with issues larger than one congregation (such as missionary societies). A good man, and a good friend, named Ben Brewster, the minister for the Airline Drive Church of Christ in Bossier City, LA, wrote a little book in 2006 entitled "Torn Asunder: The Civil War and the 1906 Division of the Disciples" that is well worth reading. College Press printed it and it is still available.

That said — don’t assume Ben agrees with me. I’d hate to get a good man in trouble!

Giving a quick and easy view of history is always tough, but here goes: Most churches of any stripe didn’t use instruments in their worship during the first century of the Republic because they were expensive, hard to get, and hard to maintain. Those that had them, prized them, but most did without. One of the hallmarks of the Restoration Movement (the religious movement that gave birth to our tribe…and a few other tribes) was that we should only bring into our corporate religious life those things upon which all right thinking individuals could agree. Spot the problem already? At that time, society was much more homogeneous than it is today. Or, at least, it was perceived to be so. The prevailing system of thought was Scottish Rationalism and that, along with English Common Law and a smattering of the Napoleonic Code shaped discourse and determined what was right and reasonable. Read a hundred pages or so, at random of The Federalist Papers for example.

The churches that united from all streams of the Restoration were diverse. An incomplete, but interesting and readable, survey of their differences can be found in "Distant Voices" by Leonard Allen. Some churches had women who were vocal leaders and others did not. Some used the instrument but the majority didn’t. Some believed that Jesus was co-equal with God while others believed he was a created being — first among all creation, but created, nonetheless. Some believed that the Holy Spirit dwelt only in the pages of Scripture. Others believed that the Holy Spirit could fall on them and cause manifestations such as tongues, fainting, etc.

And yet…they stayed united. Until the war. Some Disciples were then, as some are now, pacifists. That would include Alexander Campbell (though he was not entirely consistent throughout his life in that). Others believed that they had to defend their homeland (State) against intrusion by the Federal government. Others believed that slavery was a great evil that had to be destroyed — by force of arms if necessary. Even that did not divide the early churches of Christ/Disciples.

And then the Northern churches — not all, by any stretch, but some of the largest and most influential — gathered together to issue a statement that any who fought for the Southern side were sinners; they and their churches had fallen from the faith. The southern brethren were, understandably, aghast at this. Our churches had never been prone to gathering and making such broad statements, much less sawing away a huge section of the brotherhood, setting them adrift and considering them no longer brethren. That attitude had shown up before in spots, but it would soon become epidemic in our tribe. Some sections of our tribe — to this day –spend all their time hunting new brothers to mark and disfellowship.

The Northern churches were educated and wealthy. They had located preachers, schooled in seminaries, and the money to have instruments, nice buildings, songbooks, and a bit of style in their dress and worship. Southern churches were almost entirely poor, rural, full of dedicated — but uneducated — members, led by preachers who made the rounds and preached in a rabble rousing, emotional, lengthy style. They had no money for pretty buildings, so theirs were plain and unadorned, as were their clothes and lifestyles. They viewed their Northern brethren with suspicion, considering them worldly since they dressed up so fine, had university schooled ministers, and adopted ways that looked suspiciously like mainline European churches.

Even during this terrible time, most churches considered those on the other side their brethren, but the tensions continued to grow. Firebrand preachers in the north and south railed against those on the other side. Soon, it wasn’t war or slavery that was the issue, but personalities and styles. Northern preachers made fun of the poor, plain, and ignorant Southerners. Southern preachers made fun of the prissy, sissy, full of frippery Northerners.

Enter scholasticism. Both sides began to read the Bible to find ways to prove that God liked them best. It took 40 years of this before the division became open and official. David Lipscomb announced to the Census Bureau that his side wasn’t to be lumped in with the northern side in their equations. In 1906, the die was cast and the line was drawn. In many places, that wasn’t accepted. In the lifetime of some who might read this blog, there were noninstrumental Disciples of Christ churches, and Churches of Christ that didn’t mind using them. Names on the door didn’t become standardized until the 1960’s (and in some sections of the Midwest, what is usually known as the Christian Church is still signposted as Church of Christ). All during the 1920s-1950’s the arguments were honed, hearts hardened, and the "other side" attacked. Divisions were created, widened, and hardened by strong personalities wielding "brotherhood" papers. Today, some of their descendants use websites for the same purpose — to divide the brethren while gaining a bit of power, a bit of ground, for themselves.


Note that the instrument did not cause the division. There were some cases in which a congregation was split when someone brought in an instrument over the objections of some or most of the members. Those are usually cited as the reasons for the split, but those reasons were far more political and based on personality than they were based on scripture. Some have said, "If bringing in an instrument causes some to walk out, then it is divisive and shouldn’t be brought in." That argument sounds good for about ten seconds, but think about it. What makes those who leave less divisive than those who stayed? If scripture does not plainly indicate that God changed His mind about instruments suddenly after the cross, even though He retains them in heaven and Jesus will have them when he returns, how can those leaving be said to be less divisive?

Besides, in every congregation, there are always those ready to leave as soon as anything changes. They will, often, find a way to read their doctrine back into the Scripture, form arguments, and consider themselves righteous. When Campbell, Stone, Johnson, and Scott wrote and published the first songbook in our tribe (I have a copy. It is a tiny book), quite a few people thought they had left the faith. It is no different today when people attack praise teams, PowerPoint, or praise songs. "If I’m uncomfortable, God’s uncomfortable" is an attitude that is all too pervasive; but not surprising. You see, we have always tended to worship the false god in the mirror and claim he is Jehovah.

Rochester Church, in case you are wondering, has decided to continue worshiping acapella on Sunday morning. We love our tradition and we believe that we honor God and build up each other as we sing. We see no compelling reason to change. However, we are not opposed to those who sing another way. We will not spend our time and energy attacking them as if they were enemies of Christ.

Proverb

When you begin a journey of revenge,
start by digging two graves:
one for your enemy, and one for yourself.

-- Chinese proverb

Road Trip

Whew!

Last night, my son and I returned from a brief trip to Oklahoma City. The reason for the trip was to take Drew to basketball camp at Oklahoma Christian University. This was the camp I attended while growing up, and it is the camp that taught me how to play the game I love.

Watching Drew go through the drills brought back a lot of memories. Of course, being on the campus of my alma mater brought me memories as well. New construction continues to change the face of the campus, but some things stay the same.

I enjoyed watching Drew have fun and actually open up with his coaches and teammates. Drew is very shy, but on this trip he came out of his shell. It was a blessing to watch him interact with others while learning the basic skills involved in playing basketball.

We also had the chance to stay with a friend who I've known since 6th grade. The visit was good, and watching Drew interact with Tony's youngest son, Dylan, made it even better. There are instances when we stop and realize the moment which we are witnessing. Watching Drew and Dylan have a great time together took me back in time to when a couple of 6th grade boys formed a friendship that has survived time and distance.

Tony and I played sports together, and even though we attended different churches, we were involved with alot of the same church activities. We went to the Tulsa Workshop together. The list goes on and on. Then the day came when his family moved to Brazil (his parents are missionaries). But the friendship still carried on via shortwave radio.

I babysat his oldest son (who is now 15!), and was there when his marriage ended in divorce. He has helped me immensely as well. It is interesting how you can be away from someone for a year and get back together like you were never apart. Such friendship is a blessing. It has survived because it was rooted in Christ.

An even greater blessing is the relationship I have with my son, Drew. In addition to the basketball camp, we went to the Zoo together, hung out at Frontier City (small amusement park), had GREAT conversations (remember, "this is the life," Drew?) and basically just had a great time.

I can't wait until we go back next year!

Thank you, God, for blessing me with such a wonderful son!

Grandmother's Prayer

While shifting through boxes recently (we moved), I found a note that my Grandmother Brewster had written to me in 1983. Her timeless words are laced with meaning and wisdom, and they still speak at a tremendous volume today.

At the top of the paper is written, "From a grandmother who is concerned and loves you dearly."

Here is the rest of what she wrote:

"May your heart overflow with thanksgiving
Through the Lord be grateful, patient and confident
Do good works always

Sit at the table each time with thanks
Through Christ control your tongue
Utter not an untrue word, whether to gain advantage or save yourself from trouble

When hurt by those you love and feel they care not
Look for friendship and love that is true and faithful

Always meet the Lord and His family at all appointed times
He is your true friend, giving you all that you are and all you have

Prepare for eternity, it will be forever

Do all in Jesus' name."

Wearing Thin

The other day while talking with a group of people the question was asked, "what album have you listened to more than any other album?" As people shared their answers, I interjected with mine: "Hold Your Fire," by Rush.

Every morning (no exaggeration) on the way to school during my sophomore year in high school, this album (in tape format) played in the car. No song was skipped. Each one came with a plethora of meanings. Each song delivered a message.

Needless to say, that tape wore out. The songs never got old, but the tape just wore out from the constant playing. So now I listen to the cd. In fact, it is in my car today. And soon it will be downloaded to my I-Pod.

"Hold Your Fire," with its symbolic meaning, is still one of my all-time (and most listened to) recordings (despite not having my favorite Rush song on the album).

Think about what your favorite albums are and reflect on how music has guided you, and spoken to you in moments of joy, sorrow, pain, loss, and even love.

Rock on.