What is the purpose of preaching?

 

There are many great sermons recorded in the New Testament, such as the Sermon of the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Stephen's history of the Jewish nation (Acts 7), Paul's address on Mars' Hill (Acts 17), and Peter's first sermon under the new covenant (Acts 2). Men today have very little respect for preaching — maybe it's because they don't know the purpose of preaching. What is the purpose of preaching?

 

Then classify the following:

 

Telling the listeners how many of them he knows and for how long.

 

Talking about how many times a week he speaks.

 

Talking about his real job and how respected he is by his peers,

 

Talking about how many people want to kill him because of his work,

 

Talking about how godly his mother was and how honest his father was and how many loans he was able to take out because of his parents’ reputation.

 

 

 

Are We Sure

 

We use Hebrews 1:11 as our definition of faith: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” We choose to believe and to be assured but that belief is not verifiable,

 

The author of Hebrews says that it is impossible to please God unless we believe that he exists and without that belief we cannot draw near to God. A key point which we must believe is that he rewards those who seek him.  Isn't that obvious? Do we need someone inspired by God to tell us that? Who would want to please God or to draw near to him if they did not believe he exists?

 

Does it seem a bit curious that the “Christian” age is the first “age” that God does not deal directly with his people? Are we sure we have it right? Are we sure Christianity is focused on the clergy-laity relationship?

 

Religion Requires Mind Control

Religion teaches people to believe in things without evidence and despite the evidence. There are penalties for pointing out truths that do not agree with the teachings. Education requires critical thinking and people who believe in magic do not think critically. History clearly shows the more devoted to religion a group is the bigger the problem and as populations move away from religion the problem lessens.

 

Believing people denied an education are easier to control many countries forbid education for some. Religion comes down to: control, keeping the laity dependent upon the clergy the underclass dependent upon the upperclass.

How Do We Compare?

Two thousand years later, how much do we look like the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2)? Probably about like the fellow who claimed he owned an axe dating back to the days of George Washington.  When someone questioned him “Your axe doesn’t look that old,” he replied, “Oh, it’s that old all right. It’s just had three new blades and five new handles. But, other than that, it’s the same old axe.” That’s about how much of what we plea for today resembles the original New Testament church.

 

Somewhere we fell into the trap of believing we’ve restored the church of the New Testament. Let’s not forget that restoration is an on going project. It’s never finished. It has to be resold and reduplicated in every succeeding generation. This present generation, being the most educated generation in our history, has realized that much of what had been sold as scripture in the past is actually nothing more than the traditions of men. These educated Christians are presently challenging some of our most sacred doctrines. And the baton passers have dug their heals in and taken a defensive position. They aren’t aware their traditions have crystallized into law. They still resist “new words” or “no words” said during a baptism. They continue to label hand raising as rank Pentecostalism, yet ignore plain passages of scripture authorizing it (1 Timothy 2:8). They would faint if someone asked them to send off a missionary by the laying on of hands. Divorce and remarriage, the Holy Spirit, and instrumental music continue to produce judgmental attitudes and division in their assemblies.   

 

These things have taken their toll on our numbers and our witness to a lost world. Will we ever learn to disagree without drawing lines in the sand? If the 1^st-century church, that we’re trying to restore, had followed this path they would never have been “of one heart and one mind” (Acts 4:32). No one, other than the Lord Himself, has the qualification or authority to judge.

 

Maybe we should go back to what the early believers did, and just preach the Word. Let’s begin by emulating what the Restoration Movement was founded upon. The freedom to approach the Scriptures individually, without the fear hat repudiation will be the consequences or our conclusions.

 

 

Law of Exclusion?

The Collection for the Lord’s People

 

1Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.

 

For years I remember the church treasurer changed the weekly figures on the record board in the church auditorium. It was natural. Giving to the church budget was a measurement of one’s faithfulness to the church and to God. At the time, it seemed reasonable to believe that this was one of the five weekly “items of worship” and an essential part of God’s plan. But a closer look at Paul’s instructions to the church in Corinth leads me to believe this is not the case.

 

It is clear that Paul was saying to “set aside a sum of money,” for a special collection and to pool the funds for the 1^st-century church in a Jewish world. Have we taken specific instructions intended for a historical emergency and made it a universal law for all Christians of all times and all places?

 

While there are many unanswered questions there are some things we know with certainty:

 

• Paul’s instructions are addressed to individuals in the congregation at Corinth.
• These funds are to be put aside weekly.
• These funds were not used to fund overhead cost or salaries arising, from other ministries.
• These Sunday collections were only to help meet a special, temporary need related to congregations in the Jewish world.
• Collections were to be completed prior to Paul’s arrival. Once he was there, there no longer a need for funds to be collected.

 

Concerning 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 Albert Barnes said “It does not mean that Paul had assumed the authority to tax them, or that he had commanded them to make a collection. But that he left directions as to the best manner and time in which it should be done. The collection was voluntary and cheerful in all churches.”

 

I am unable to find a command where the Holy Spirit instructs the church to systematically contribute money to a weekly “church treasury.” This is a modern day extension of 1 Corinthians 16. It may be the most expedient way for the church to operate, but it not in the text.

 

For those who advocate the “law of exclusion” if you believe the silence of the scriptures demands that there be no deviations, additions, or subtractions, why not apply the rule here? It is clear Paul instructed these Christians to set aside on every first day of the week. Keep in mind that this collection was earmarked for the poor Christians in Jerusalem. What is the basis for using the weekly collection for anything other than benevolence? And on what grounds can it be said it is a sin to take up money on any other day except Sunday, when the weekly collection is not being used in the exclusive manner that Paul instructed the early church? It also seems somewhat hypocritical to accuse a congregation that gives to a Christian college of deviating from a supposed New Testament blueprint when the accusers are going beyond the only stated purpose for Bible giving? The supporters of the silence argument have twisted and bent the words to fit whatever they want to get into it, while their “law of exclusion” has been freely used to exempt whatever they want to exempt. It all seems more than a bit inconsistent.

 

 

 

Law Code vs Gospel

Many church of Christ members believe the New Testament is a legal document. They search for rules that, they believe, will led them into a correct understanding of all Bible issues. The problem is the New Testament is not a codified legal document.

 

Most will agree that the Old Testament was a legal document where commands were spelled out with absolute clarity and directions were made clear.  The New Covenant is not a legal system with camouflaged directions requiring legal specialists with special tools to unlock and make known what God expects of us. If the New Testament was a legal document, why did God suddenly stop spelling out in meticulous detail what is necessary and binding? Why would God replace a clearly spelled out legal system with a not-so-clearly spelled out legal system couched in veiled commands, numerous examples which may or may not be applicable, and inferences which may or may not be necessary (depending on who is making the application) and then call it a “better” covenant?

 

When Martin Luther translated the bible he prefaced his translation with this statement:”…what to expect in this volume, lest he search it for commands and laws, when he should be looking for gospel and promises.” He then warned his readers “Beware lest you turn Christ into Moses, and he gospel into a book of law.”

 

Patternism has lead to an endless list of church splits and divisions over such trivialities as one communion cup versus multiple cups. The list is endless. The gospel approach will remember the Lord no matter how many cups are used. The law code seeks to justify the individual because right acts are done in right ways. The gospel approach will justify because faith in Christ and His promises being salvation into a heart, which then acts in loving ways toward his fellow man. 

The Church Coming Together

We are told we must “Go to church on Sunday, every Sunday, pray, sing, preach, take the Lord’s Supper, return for evening service and then meet again during the week.” We are told me must “follow the pattern.”

 

God never gave such instructions.  There is no trace in the bible that God, an apostle, or any inspired writer ever instructed the church to come together to “perform a worship service.”

 

There are a number of instances recorded in the bible where the early Christians came together, but never for the express purpose of engaging in “items” of worship. “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another,”

 

Why don’t we follow the 1^st century example and meet to discuss and take care of problems? Maybe more would be active if communicated and worked out our problems instead of ignoring them. Some 1^st century examples are the man who married his father’s wife, and the misinformed Christians who were taking each other to court. These problems were discussed and resolved, Often we see the disciples hammering out difficult issues and questions i.e. Acts 15. Certainly there are examples in the bible of coming together but never to perform public, corporate acts that we call worship.

 

Christians are to worship but worship is not building centered. Worship is constant. It’s every day, all day, in every activity, and every place. It is reverence and submission to the will of God. It is visiting orphans and widows in distress. It is doing for others what you want them to do for you. It is caring about the burdens of our brothers and sisters. It is realizing that God resides in us and that whatever we do to a brother or sister we do to Jesus. It is being devoted to Jesus and to one another.

 

Christ-centered worship has more to do with loving and voluntarily surrendering to him and to one another than it has to do with ritual.   

Divine Service

It has often been observed and complained of, that the morning and evening services, as practiced are so long, and filled with so many repetitions, that the continue attention suitable to so serious a duty becomes impracticable, the mind wanders, and the fervency of devotion is slackened.”

 

Many pious and devout persons, whose age or infirmities will not suffer them to remain for hours are obliged to forgo the comfort and edification they would receive by their attendance at divine service.

 

Young people would probably more frequently, as well as cheerfully, attend divine service if they were not detained so long an any one time.

 

Saying grace over meat while it was still in the barrel would be a great time saver as compared with saying grace over a portion at a time in a long succession of meals.