Vol.
XLII May 4, 2010 No. 9
What We May Be Expected to Justify
by Tom
McLemore
Many of our neighbors have become
aware of the practices of the Lord's church and how they differ from the practices
of the denominations of which our neighbors are members. Inevitably, when the subject of religion
comes up, the member of the denomination will ask the member of the Lord's
church, “Why don't you people do thus and so (practice of the denominations)?” It is worthwhile for New Testament Christians
to have a firm grasp of the basic, fundamental principle that is involved in
responding and to “be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you
an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).
Typically, it seems to me, when
members of the Lord's church are asked such questions, they feel that the
inquirer's question is legitimate, and they to try to answer it. In truth, however, the inquirer is trying to
get the member of the Lord's church to prove why the denominational practice is
not right. We are not
obligated to do that. It is they,
on the other hand, who are obligated to prove that the denominational practice,
without a New Testament command or precedent, is right and should be
considered approved of God. It is our
obligation only to offer proof that our practice is right and is
approved of God. We can do that by
calling attention to New Testament commands and pre-cedents
for our practices. The only circumstance
under which we are obligated to offer a defense for what we do not do is
when the New Testament has prohibited or forbidden a practice explicitly. Naturally, just as we must obey the commands
and follow the precedents of the New Testament, we are obligated to obey all
its prohibitions.
Very often the issue about which such inquiries are
concerned is instrumental music,
so let us use it as an example. (What
may be observed regarding this issue equally applies to other matters). The New Testament commands Christians
to sing (e.g., James
When members of denominations that accompany their
singing with instrumental music ask why we do not use instrumental music in
worship, we may reply that we are under no obligation to explain our not
following their practice. We are
obligated only to demonstrate that we are obeying the command of God or the
precedent of the early Christians under the supervision of the apostles
(showing that the command for what they practiced obviously had been given but
was not recorded). We sing, and in the
New Testament Christians are commanded to sing, and early Christians sang. This will not (and cannot) be denied by
anyone, including any member of a denomination.
Nor is its propriety subject to question or liable to criticism. (After all, it is for this reason that denominations
themselves sing).
For members of a denomination to justify their practice of accompanying
singing with an instrument in worship, they must show a New Testament command
to play an instrument or provide evidence of a New Testament precedent for
playing an instrument. This cannot be done, and thus will not be
done. Because it cannot be done, the
only recourse for them is to say, “Well, the New Testament does not forbid
the use of instrumental accompaniment to the singing.” This statement is an implicit confession that
there is simply no New Testament authority for the practice. If there were, they could give it. They are accompanying their singing with
instruments on their own authority and not on the basis of New Testament
authority. Such is groping in the dark,
guesswork, and trying to get to a destination without any directions or
map. The New Testament never has, does
not now, and never will lead believers to accompany their singing in worship
with instrumental music!
Having established this, our counter
response might be to ask our neighbor, “Why does the church of which you are a
member practice that for which there is no New Testament authority, and on what
basis can you have confidence that it is pleasing to God?” It is hoped that this would lead our neighbor
to consider, “Are we following God and doing what we know he desires? Or are we doing what we desire, hoping
(without any evidence) that he will be pleased, and demanding that God prohibit
it before we will refrain from it?”
There are two basic groups. One group says, “We do not need New Testament authority for everything
we practice.” The other says, “We must
have New Testament authority for everything we practice.” Which course provides confidence that
religious practice is
pleasing God? Whom are
people trying to please?
Enjoying confidence that our practice as Christians is pleasing to God
means possessing New Testament authority for everything we practice and
practicing everything for which we possess New Testament authority. It is not necessary for us to justify not
doing that for which there is no New Testament authority. When innovators among us seek to introduce
secular or denominational ways into the practice of church, we may simply ask,
“Where is the New Testament authority for it?”
If none exists, there is no call to engage in it. If the innovators ask, “Why can't we do thus
and so?” we may remind them that we are committed to doing what God commands or
following the precedent established in the early church, and we are under no
obligation to justify our not doing anything else.
Folks, take this principle to heart.
Claiming to be the church of the New Testament means that we must be able to
offer a defense for what we do, and that in itself is all the defense needed for what we do not do.
Designed and maintained by Houston Park Church of Christ Copyright © 2000 by Houston Park Church of Christ 2 Crescent Hill Drive Selma, Alabama 36701 334-874-7941. All rights reserved. Revised: 24 Sep 2008.