Culture and Tradition or Scripture?

A friend of ours has cancer. Doctors have told him he may live until October. They have taken him off the experimental drugs that they hoped would extend his life. In an email recently he indicated that he is virtually paralyzed below his waist. He has a problem keeping food down. I wish I could do something to ease his health problems, even extend his life, but I feel helpless in those areas.

In my church, my friend would be described as “a sound, faithful, gospel preacher.” I’m not sure why “gospel preacher” isn’t sufficient, but he is worthy of all those descriptive terms.

Yet, in spite of his faithfulness, being sound in the faith, and a preacher of the good news, when my friend does pass on, some who would preach his funeral will be hesitant to say he went to heaven. I find that strange.

Recently one of our members, a great Christian lady, passed away after several years of sickness. Later I was talking to a member from another congregation of like faith. He mentioned this lady and praised her noble, Christian life. But, he ruined it all by saying, “We can hope that she went to heaven.” It occurred to me that a lot of folks in my church do not believe in the promises of God. They, like the brother just mentioned, may deny that, but their speech betrays them.

Why are some hesitant about believing a deceased saint went to heaven? I believe it stems from the view that God gave us the Bible and we are on our own. Although the Bible is our guide, no where are we told that we are on our own and to go into the presence of God, we must live a sinlessly perfect life. It doesn’t tell us that we must live an almost perfect life. It tells us that we must be obedient, but it never requires perfection in that obedience.

Somehow we have arrived at the conclusion that we must be our own savior. We believe we must somehow reach perfection before God will welcome us. We have left the impression from our pulpits that the slightest deviation from perfection will damn us to hell. Like the Pharisees, we have created unwritten, but well defined laws, on what soundness or faithfulness is. Our man made laws have pushed us away from any hope of entering heaven.

What person believes he has accomplished enough works to merit such an entrance? That’s our problem. We believe we must succeed in that accomplishment, but recognize we don’t. We have created our own dilemma. We have been so brainwashed on the subject of works or obedience, that we cannot accept passages on assurance because they do not harmonize with our indoctrination.

You see, we must be perfect in doctrine and practice or we will never enjoy eternal life. Since we realize we can’t or don’t reach that perfection, we have devised the idea that our only hope is to die while praying for forgiveness. A sudden heart attack, an explosion, a battle death, or any sudden demise where there is no possibility of a last prayer, sinks all hopes. This position has caused some to give up the faith because they felt they were going to hell anyway.

Paul dealt with this works salvation idea a long time ago. He told the Galatians,

“Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16).

When we pervert the law of Christ by turning it into a system of justification based upon keeping law perfectly, we create another gospel. Justification has never been by law keeping. It is by faith. A faith, based not upon my ability to accomplish perfect obedience, but a trust in what Jesus did for me upon the cross. My faith must be in what he did, not in how close I come to perfection. Regardless of how hard I try, I will never reach it. Any effort on my part that sets Christ aside as my Redeemer and substitutes my works as my savior, is doomed to failure.

I fear that is the reason that so many have no confidence nor assurance in their salvation. They have put their trust in themselves and experienced their failure. Why not go back to the “good news,” which teaches who the real Savior is, and put our trust in him? When we do, we will find a peace, confidence, and assurance that has eluded us in the past.

“When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.’ They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, ‘Surely not I, Lord?’ Jesus replied, ‘The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.’ Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, ‘Surely not I, Rabbi?’ Jesus answered, ‘Yes, it is you’” (Matthew 26:20-25 NIV).

“When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me.’ They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, ‘Surely not I?’ ‘It is one of the Twelve,’ he replied, ‘one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born’” (Mark 14:17-21 NIV).

“They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.’ After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, ‘Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.’ They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this” (Luke 22:13-23 NIV).

“The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God” (John 13:2-3 NIV).

“After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.’ His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, ‘Ask him which one he means.’ Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord, who is it?’ Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.’ Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. ‘What you are about to do, do quickly,’ Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him” (John 13:21-28 NIV).

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each give us a piece of the puzzle concerning Jesus’ statement about Judas Iscariot betraying him. Did Judas partake of the memorial which Jesus commanded them to do “in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19)?

Neither Matthew nor Mark answer that question for us. Although John discusses this betrayal, he does not mention the Lord’s supper, only the Passover feast which they had come together to eat. Yet, Matthew, Mark and John point out that Judas would not leave the Passover table until he first received the bread which Jesus would dip in the dish and give to him. Luke does not mention this detail.

Luke is recognized by most scholars as being chronological in his account, whereas the others are not as precise in that discipline. If that is the case, then Luke subtly answers the question for us.

According to Jewish tradition, four cups of wine were partaken during the Passover. From all accounts, Jesus introduces the third cup in Luke 22:17. In verse 19 he introduces the bread as a part of his memorial. In verse 20 he introduces the Passover’s fourth cup and uses it as a part of the Lord’s supper.

Now, notice the chronological order introduced by Luke.

“‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him’” (Luke 22:20-22 NIV).

Jesus now introduces his discussion of being betrayed by one of his apostles. This means he had not yet taken the bread and dipped it into the dish and given it to Judas. That being the case Judas was still at the table when Jesus introduced and gave his memorial supper to the apostles.

This would mean that after Jesus instituted his communion, they continued to “nibble” on what was left of the Passover meal. Perhaps this is why disciples continued to have a meal with the Lord’s supper once the church was established (Jude 1:12; 1 Corinthians 11:20ff).

It is also interesting that during the giving of the fruit of the vine, Jesus discussed his betrayal, followed by the apostles asking, “Is it I?” If God bases our salvation on “patternism,” one wonders why we do not include this discussion in the communion rather than omitting it? And what do we do about the bread being dipped in the bowl? Didn’t he use the same bread he had just employed in instituting his supper?

Perhaps a reader can help me with this question of whether Judas remained at the Passover table until after the Lord’s supper. Maybe I’ve missed something that you can supply.

• A pattern, a pattern, I see a pattern.
• Here a pattern, there a pattern, everywhere a pattern.
• Follow my pattern or spend eternity in hell.

Pattern theology has been our curse. Rather than unite, it has sorely divided us.

Some have seen a pattern related to how the church must collect and spend its money.

“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem” (1 Corinthians 16:1-3 KJV).

Most quote this passage to prove:

• It is a universal command for all churches for all time.
• It limits this contribution to evangelism, edification, and benevolence.

Yet, this “order” was not given until about A.D. 54-55 when Paul wrote it. That is 24 years after the church was established on Pentecost. No such command existed until 1 Corinthians 16:1-3!

Second, if one will carefully read the passage, the “order” is given to (1) the churches of Galatia and (2) Corinth. There is nothing in the passage that includes other congregations then or today.

Third, the Jerusalem church is not included in this giving, it is the recipient. Since they are not included in the “order,” it cannot be a universal command.

Fourth, nothing is said about this contribution being for evangelism or edification. It is for the sole purpose of relieving the saints in Jerusalem. It is a specific “order,” to specific congregations, for a specific purpose, for a specific locality, and in a specific time frame.

Fifth, this collection is not for the purpose of paying the preacher, buying property, building a church building, or paying the utility bill. It is a “collection for the saints” to be taken “unto Jerusalem.”

If one may add congregations to those already specified, the door is opened to add other things not specified.

If one may add evangelism and edification to the specifically stated purpose for the collection, the door is opened to add other things not specifically stated.

It seems that our man made patterns have caused us more harm than good. That being the case, maybe we are guilty of creating something from the Bible that God never intended. Perhaps we have simply missed the meaning of “the good news.”

“He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt” (Luke 18:9).

Some of Jesus’ parables were not understood. This one is different. It must have cut deep. Few people loved tax collectors. However, most recognized the Pharisees as the Religio-Nazis of their day, although most only whispered it. Jesus didn’t whisper. Neither did he pick an agreeable audience to tell it to.

“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get” (Luke 18:11-12).

Who could fault this man because he abstained from extortion, injustice, adultery, or robbing others in collecting taxes? Who would not admire him for his fasting or giving? The fly in the ointment was his heart. He was self-righteous. His trust was in himself, not in God. That self-trust blinded him to his sins and misdirected him in his contempt.

Isn’t Jesus speaking to me? Isn’t there something I can glean from his parable? Or, am I so much like that Pharisee that I am blind to my needs and can only focus on the failures of others?

My wife and I saw a good movie recently. In it was a character who had long hair and a shaggy beard. Although the character was a good person with compassion for others, I kept noticing his hair and beard. My thoughts during the movie were, “Why doesn’t he get a hair cut and trim his beard? Then, he would look decent.” Why was that so important? What standard was I using to judge him? Was that criteria rooted in Phariseeism?

If I came in contact with such a person today, would I have judged him to be unworthy of my attention and avoided him as though he were . . . . a tax collector? If so, who would be my mentor?

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner’” (Luke 18:13).

What is prayer? Is it a public dialogue thick with pious rhetoric or just talking with God? In most translations, the tax collector’s prayer is seven words. The Pharisee’s was thirty-four. God heard both. Yet Jesus said the tax collector received God’s stamp of approval.

Jesus said, “This man went down to his home justified rather than the other” (Luke 18:14).

So, how do I talk with God?

When the tax collector went home, did he know his prayer had been answered? Did he feel “justified“? If we, like the Pharisee, trust in ourselves, we may foolishly and arrogantly believe we are okay and others aren’t. On the other hand, if we put our trust in God to save us, whether we feel it or not, we are justified.

Let’s pray like that tax collector!

Not too long ago, my wife and I had an opportunity to visit with another congregation. During one song, in a specific place, individuals in the audience let out a “hoot.” Although this did not violate my “comfort zone,” it did cause some reflection on my part.

Was there anything wrong with the “hoot”? I am not one of those folks who is bent out of shape by something different done elsewhere that is not practiced where I worship. So, I did not take Paul’s statement out of context and attempt to see the “hoot” as being a contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

My reflection was more along the lines of the future. Humans have a tendency to make a practice into a custom, a custom into a tradition, and a tradition into the law of God. What may have started out with meaning, often ends up being something we do, not from the heart, but from “that’s the way we have always done it.” It loses its original purpose and significance and digresses into an action done “because that’s what our parents and grandparents did.” Then, when someone questions it, or heaven forbid, wants to eliminate or change it in any way, their actions are considered heresy.

When Moses lifted up the brass serpent on a pole, there was a divine reason for it. Those bitten by snakes lived rather than died because they looked upon that brass serpent (Numbers 21:8-9). However, by the time of King Hezekiah, the purpose had changed (2 Kings 18:4). It had become an object of worship and needed to be destroyed. Imagine the alarm generated in the hearts of those who heard Hezekiah’s order. Many of those folks looked upon that object as something commanded by God, built by Moses, and which made it possible for many in that generation to exist because their ancestors were healed by the sight of it. It was no longer a creation by Moses for a past purpose, but had taken on a name and worship. It was Nehushtan. Strangely enough, the word translated means, “a piece of brass.” Yet, they worshiped it!When we look at 2 Kings 18:4, it makes us wonder how Israel could come to worship something which they called “a piece of brass.” Yet, are our motives for making traditions into the law of God anymore questionable?

Look at the laws some have made over the Lord’s supper.

1. The fruit of the vine must be served in one container to the congregation. If the container is dropped or runs out prior to everyone being served, a larger one must be obtained and the serving started again from the beginning.
2. The fruit of the vine must be fermented.
3. The fruit of the vine must not be fermented.
4. The unleavened bread must be made from wheat.
5. Communion must be served prior to preaching.
6. The bread must be served before the fruit of the vine.
7. The bread must be broken by the one who presides prior to it being offered to the congregation.
8. The communion must be served in an upper room.
9. The Lord’s supper must be observed in the evening only – after 6 o’clock.
10. The communion may be served to a congregation only once. A night time serving is unscriptural.
11. When the Lord’s supper is being served, the congregation must observe silently as an act of reverence and/or respect.
12. During the communion, there may be no other acts of worship performed, such as singing, praying silently, or reading one’s Bible.
13. Those who serve on the table must wear suits and ties as a sign of respect or reverence.
14. The elements must be covered with a table cloth prior to the elements being served.
15. The table upon which the elements sit must be in front of the auditorium.
16. The Sunday night serving of the Lord’s supper must be in the auditorium/sanctuary. They may not be dismissed to partake in another location.
17. Only men may serve the congregation the Lord’s supper since this is a “male only” role. Allowing women to serve would be a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 and/or 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
18. An announcement must be made to the assembly when the Lord’s supper is finished, that the collection to follow is not a part of the communion.
19. In the prayer prior to the communion being served, the pattern or formula must be followed as given in Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.

Yes, these and many other customs have found their way into law. Families have been torn apart due to religious differences on these matters.

My parting reflection is: Are any of these things the “good news” of Jesus Christ?

When I first began preaching, my mentor, Harvey Pearson, told me, “When you hear someone quote a verse or passage, make sure you are getting the context. Read what is before and after that quotation. Some teach error because they have taken the citation out of context.”

This is often done on the subject of the communion. The Lord’s supper is found within the context to the Passover meal. Jesus instituted his fellowship meal toward the last part of that Jewish feast.

“When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, ‘I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me’” (Matthew 26:20-21).

One will notice that they did not sit quietly and eat. Discussion was a part of that meal, telling what it was about and why they were there. Matthew, Mark, and Luke also point out other discussions that took place during that time. Although John does not specifically mention the communion, he points out a lot of the dialogue and action that took place in the upper room (John 13:1,4,12,21,28,31 to 18:1). Matthew and Mark introduce us to one discussion, mentioned by all four writers, where Jesus talks about his betrayal.

As one continues reading in Matthew, the apostle reveals,

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body’” (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22).

Please notice that Matthew and Mark state, “While they were eating.” Eating what? The Passover meal which included unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and lamb (Exodus 12:8). They were still in the process of eating this meal when Jesus introduced the bread as his body. Keep in mind that Jesus explains what he is doing and why. Before that introduction, a conversation about his betrayal had been in progress (Matthew 26:21; Mark 14:18).

According to Luke, when Jesus introduced the cup for the second time (Cf. Luke 22:17), he stated,

“In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him’” (Luke 22:20-22).

Included within that introduction of the cup, Jesus also talked about his betrayal. Notice what happened when he did. Keep in mind this is at the introduction of the cup representing his blood.

“They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this” (Luke 22:23).

This led to another discussion about which one of them was the greatest (Luke 22:24). This caused Jesus to correct them, not to teach a lesson on silence.

I’m not sure when the idea originated that silence must be a part of the communion service. It would seem that dialogue, as found in the Passover meal, was more consistent with what Jesus did than was silence. To believe that silence is more respectful or a sign of reverence is adding something to the context that never was there (Deuteronomy 12:32).

It would be good if we went back to the scriptures and read what is said rather than reading our tradition into it and making it into the word of God.

“Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone’” (Matthew 4:5-6).

Did Satan know Jesus was the Son of God? My answer is, “Yes, he knew.” This was simply a test. Jesus would either pass it or fail.

Second, Satan knew scripture. Have you ever noticed that an atheist may quote scripture just as well or better than some Christians? Even the father of lies has that ability. Truth may come from the strangest sources, but that doesn’t negate that truth. Even the quote by Satan was truth and you and I must accept it as such. However, Satan’s motive for using that truth is in question.

Do you remember what Paul said about those who wanted to hurt him through their preaching?

“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice” (Philip. 1:15-18).

Some are bent out of shape if someone prints an article by one who is considered a “false” teacher. Yet, the article may be truth. There is no error contained within it. The lesson is needed. Those same brethren will read and quote Satan’s message to Jesus in their class lessons and from the pulpit without a second thought. Are they aligning themselves with Satan’s lies because they broadcast the truth spoken by the devil? When a preacher quotes something from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, does that mean they agree with the author on everything he has written?

Third, Satan had faith! Yes he did. First, he believed Jesus was the Son of God or he would not have tempted him. Second, he believed the passage he quoted. He believed the angels would protect Jesus if he threw himself off the temple. However, his motive for that request was wrong and Jesus knew it.

Satan’s sin sometimes becomes ours. How?

• A preacher is hurt by a member, so he uses the pulpit and scripture to strike back.
• He becomes jealous over another minister’s success, so he finds fault with that brother’s actions and justifies his own with book, chapter and verse.
• A brother has little or no assurance of his salvation, so he condemns those who have it to feel better about his insecurity.
• A brother feels superior over another because he can quote fifty passages in a sermon as compared to another who only refers to two or three verses in his.

When we preach or teach with the wrong motive, we may speak truth, but our hearts are in fellowship with Satan. We can all learn a lesson from Paul. In spite of the “trouble” that some stirred up against him by preaching “Christ out of selfish ambitions, not sincerely,” he rejoiced that they were preaching Christ.

Ouch! That can be a hard lesson to swallow, even for this writer.

Since the very beginning, brothers and sisters in Christ have focused their attention, not on Jesus nor his good news, but in making mountains out of mole hills. Trivialities have become our obsession, pettiness our gospel. Culture rather than Bible has become our standard. Brick and mortar have become our gods. We choose our comfort zone to rule us rather than love. Minutia has become more important than a relationship with God.

A young man is taught the gospel. He obeys it one weekday evening. The following Sunday he enters the assembly for the first time with excitement and sits on the front pew. He is wearing the best that he has. He is dressed in a flannel shirt and blue jeans. After services, two well meaning but concerned sisters approach him. He is told that if he is going to dress in jeans, he needs to sit at the back, but never at the front of the assembly. Their interest is more in their god of appearances rather than in his spiritual welfare. He never returns.

I listen to folks who are upset about a song leader who does not tuck his shirt into his pants. These are the same saints who proudly boast that “we never follow man made traditions, but we pattern ourselves only after what the Bible teaches.” Strange, I don’t find anything about what a person did or did not wear while standing before the assembly. Yet, those who make such claims act as if their cultural mores are God’s law!

Some brethren prefer “reverence” as their religion. What is reverence? Some believe it is in what men or boys wear when waiting on the table. Some demand, yes, demand that they wear suits. Others demand that they wear dress slacks, dress shirts, and ties. Yet, where is the book, chapter and verse that demands what these pious brethren define as “reverence”? How can some be so dogmatic and claim that we follow “only the Bible” when they emphasize only their opinions?

A lot of our church policy has been borrowed from Catholic and Protestant traditions. Too many are guilty of following man made customs rather than the Bible. Pigheadedness refuses to recognize it. Arrogance blinds one to the truth.

Our church buildings have caused us to create unwritten but well defined laws that are viewed as holy ordinances. Reverence is defined as men wearing suits to serve the Lord’s supper. Yet, where does the Bible say anything about men serving the communion much less define what they must wear to satisfy our idea of “reverence”? The Bible is hardly our standard for such requirements. Our man made standards smack of heresy rather than veneration.

Some counter by saying a person wouldn’t go to work on Monday dressed as they do on Sunday. If one’s job requires that he wear a suit on Monday through Friday, is that requirement from God or man? If from God, then any man, not just those who wait on the table, who does not wear a suit to the assembly fails to show reverence to God and is hell bound. If from man, then one is not bound to wearing a suit in the assemblies regardless of the comfort zone, opinion, judgment, tradition or views of others. Brethren, what is OUR standard? With some, who call themselves conservative, holding to the old paths, and sound in the faith, it certainly isn’t the Bible!!!

Scripture never speaks of men serving communion to the assembly. It never speaks of a table which must be placed in front of the assembly. It never says “silence” is reverence while serving communion. It never demands that the bread be broken by the one who presides. It never demands that the bread be crackers rather than small squares of unleavened bread.

Many get upset when there is no invitation offered in the assembly at the end of a lesson. Yet, what biblical citation contains that information? Which apostle or prophet offered one? What book in the New Testament speaks of an invitation song prior to such an invitation? Where is the “formula” that must be offered in such an invitation? It is something we have invented, not the Lord. Our traditions have taken on the form of scripture. We have bowed at the feet of such forms for so long that we are willing to divide the church in order to keep our traditions. Unity has become a dirty word with some.

Some are tired of following traditions. Yet, when they question those man invented creations, or suggest a change, they are vilified and branded as trouble makers, change agents, or liberals. Strange indeed. Those “troublemakers” are only following the example of Jesus as he dealt with the traditionalists of his day.

I fear that we have become the very thing we have preached against all these years. We are bound by our traditions and care more for them than we do the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are annoyed when someone questions those traditions, but not upset, that by our traditions we neglect to follow the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 15:9).

In May of this year I will celebrate 51 years of ministry among churches of Christ. In the first forty years of my ministry, when someone asked me if I taught “Church of Christ doctrine,” my stock reply was, “I do not teach ‘Church of Christ doctrine.’ I teach only the Bible.” I was convinced that my statement and practice was true.

However, as the years passed, I realized that there was a “Church of Christ doctrine” and it was not Bible! There was the doctrine taught by some that if you had a preacher working with an established congregation, doing all of the preaching each Sunday, that you were in fatal error. There was the doctrine taught by others that if you used more than one cup in serving the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper, you were hell bound. There was the doctrine preached and debated by others that if you had Sunday school you were practicing the devil’s doctrine. I could go on, but this is sufficient to prove my point that there is “Church of Christ doctrine” and it isn’t anymore biblical than the doctrines taught by others which denominate one person from another.

During those first forty or so years I justified myself by believing those brethren were preaching non-biblical doctrines, but I was preaching nothing but the Bible. Since I was preaching nothing but the Bible, I was not guilty of following man made teachings nor guilty of following traditions. One can blind himself by his own error.

In the late sixties I was working with the Ellendale congregation on Highway 70 in what is now Bartlett, TN. We had a highway sign that could contain a four line message on both sides. Above that area was the name of our congregation, “Ellendale Church of Christ.” One day I put up the sign, “We are also the church of God.” That sign didn’t last long. Someone removed it that night and neatly stacked the letters in front of the sign on both sides. I never did know who. However, it would not surprise me if some well meaning brother was not the culprit.

You see, one “Church of Christ doctrine” is that the only name we can be identified by in our advertisements, highway signs, VBS signs, and etc., is “Church of Christ.” In fact, if one will go back and look at some of the propositions in our debates with others, they will see that brethren defended the name “Church of Christ” as being “scriptural in name.” Notice it is singular!

Yet, the name “Church of Christ” is never used in the Bible to describe a single congregation. Yes, Paul did refer to all congregations as the “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16, but he nor any other inspired writer ever used the singular expression. Yes, I know the argument which states, “If there were ‘churches of Christ’ in the plural, then a single congregation would have been ‘the church of Christ.’” However, since the Bible is silent in referring to a single congregation as “the church of Christ,” why would that silence not eliminate that designation from being used as the primary designation today? Our signs are actually our “Church of Christ doctrine” rather than specific Bible teaching!

Any teaching which is more important than the unity of the body of Jesus and which promotes division, is nothing less than a “Church of Christ doctrine” rather than the good news of Jesus Christ. It is a tradition of man that is loved and preferred more than a loving relationship with one another. Too often what we have become comfortable with becomes our doctrine rather than “a thus saith the Lord.”

Question: When our comfort zones become our standard of what must be, what makes us any different from those who are comfortable with their traditions which we condemn? Comfort zones are seldom a “thus saith the Lord” much less “good news.”

Allow me to give just one example of comfort zone religion. In some black churches of Christ, when a person, male or female responds to the invitation, that person is given the opportunity to express why they responded. In most white churches, the person is obligated to whisper their purpose in a preacher or elder’s ear. He then announces why the person came. Where is that procedure demanded in the Bible? We will allow that same person, when they respond to be immersed, to audibly announce that they believe Jesus is the Son of God. What is the difference between a woman announcing that she believes Jesus is the Son of God and one asking the congregation for prayers due to her sin of gossip? In both she is speaking. If she doesn’t sin by doing one, she doesn’t sin by doing the other. This is just another one of our inconsistencies built on our tradition and based solely upon our comfort zones as our authority.

So much of what we do is based upon Protestant or Catholic tradition brought into the Restoration movement by early pioneer preachers. We blind ourselves to this fact by continuing to dogmatically proclaim that we do not preach “Church of Christ doctrine, we only preach the Bible.”

Not too long ago a few brethren recommended to their congregations that they make a change in the wording of their street sign. Rather than have “church of Christ,” they suggested changing it to “church of God” or “church of the firstborn.” Was the suggestion accepted and implemented? Absolutely not. That which was proposed caused a firestorm.

Some asked, “How will travelers find us if we have another name on our sign?” Others charged that the “change agents” wanted to “eliminate the name of Christ from the church.” Some claimed that the name “church of Christ” is “THE name given to the church by Jesus, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit.” Others used the word “blasphemy” and charged that such an action would be “unscriptural.”

Since there is no scriptural evidence that first century churches removed the smallest coin from their treasury to either purchase property or build a building, it certainly follows that there were no street signs to announce their presence. Yet, even Saul of Tarsus knew where to find Christian families (Acts 8:3). This causes me to ask several questions about this “controversy.”

1. Does a sign with “church of Christ” on it guarantee that those within the building are Christians?
2. Does a sign with “church of Christ” on it guarantee that God’s truth is being preached and practiced by those who assemble there?
3. Does a sign with “church of Christ” on it guarantee that those who meet within that building are going to heaven?
4. Does a sign with “church of Christ” on it guarantee that the folks meeting inside have “the mind of Christ”?

If the folks inside that building are vicious, unloving, arrogant, condescending, hateful, or condemning, wouldn’t such a sign be a lie?

It seems to me that anyone who puts up a sign that says “church of Christ,” “church of God,” “assembly of God,” or “the Lord’s church” has the privilege and burden of proving it, not with words, debate, argumentation, or challenges, but through the lives lived by those assembled there. Otherwise, such signs are meaningless and only prove that those who meet there are hypocritical.

Such individuals bring shame to the Lord, not glory.