Posted by David on January 7, 2001 under Bulletin Articles
Joyce and I married in 1961. I was a senior in David Lipscomb College. She earnestly sought a job, any job (which took three months to find). I preached for the Old Charlotte Road congregation for $25 a week. Rent was $50 a month. The other $50 actually bought our food and paid our bills.
In 1961 we bought our first life insurance policy. The amount: $10,000. We were assured (and convinced) that $10,000 could care for Joyce for life.
Has our world changed? Radically! In the 1960s people used goals to prepare for the future. Goals were calculated and strategies formed. While change was a part of the formula, it was an extremely small part. Change occurred very slowly.
Now a formula’s most important factor is change. At times change seems to be the entire equation! Age 61 rapidly approaches. This year Joyce and I celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary. The 1961 amount of $10,000 that could “care for a lifetime of needs” cannot buy a “mid-line” new car, or provide housing for two years, or buy groceries for a long period.
Today life travels in amazing transitions at breakneck speeds. The 1960s was a goal-oriented era. It was so simple: set the goal; form the plan; work hard; reap the results (choose a career, get the education, accept the job, reach a secure retirement).
Now it is so complex. That “goals era” is dead. Now it is “identify and address existing now needs.”
“Now” we must prepare well for the uncertain. Not the uncertainties of 2010–the uncertainties of 2001! How can we make “good preparation” for the uncertain? We prepare for 2001’s uncertainties by addressing “now’s” needs wisely. We use “now” wisely by doing three things. (1) Identify basic “now” needs. (2) Admit those “now” needs are real. (3) Honestly address “now” needs.
We prepare for 2010 by addressing the needs of 2001. It is impossible to live in the past. It is impossible to imagine the future. What is possible? Address “now” wisely.
Your staff does not preach sermons just to “say something,” or teach classes to do “our job,” or plan and pray because “preachers should.” We constantly study, think, pray, and plan as we ask God to use Jesus to address the very real needs of “now.” We refuse to work, plan, preach, or teach “haphazardly.” May everyone seriously approach God in serious times. Daily live in relationship with God. Worship to change your heart.
Jesus said, “Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness … Do not be anxious for tomorrow … Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:33,34).
Posted by John on January 1, 2001 under Articles
People ask us why we take communion every Sunday. Sometimes we even ask ourselves that question. What are the historical and biblical facts that make this practice more reasonable than any other proposal?
WHY STUDY THE MATTER?
Neither the writers of the New Testament nor those in the early church actually discussed this topic. It was a non-issue. That was then. As with baptism by immersion, the practice was in place and had not been changed. But now changes in the original practice exist. Since we have an obligation to be steadfast in the apostolic traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15), the “frequency” becomes an “issue” today by the very nature of the case.
A WORD ABOUT FACTS AND PROOF
Facts are statements that have a high degree of certainty attached to them. In the study of any matter, it is important to stick with the facts as a basis for our conclusions.
It should be noted that very few things are proven by just one fact. It is a set of facts that cooperate and reinforce each other that makes a case certain. The goal is not proof beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS ON THIS TOPIC?
#1 Historical facts outside the New Testament
The writings of early Christians outside the New Testament prove that taking the Lord’s Supper each Sunday was a consistent practice of the churches from the apostolic era onward for several centuries. It was an “identifying mark” of Christianity. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 , p. 1923; The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 4, p. 198; Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2 , p. 1049; Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, p. 97).
The fact that it was a unified and consistent practice clearly points back to a standardized teaching concerning its observance because if that were not the case, more diversity in practice would be observed.
In the writings of these early Christians, the apostles are looked to for authoritative teaching on Christian belief and practice (Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, p. 113-151). So, it is unlikely that anyone but the apostles would be giving authoritative instructions as to how and when the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. And apostolic instructions should carry considerable weight in the mind of Christians today, as it did then (John 16:13).
#2 New Testament Facts
The observance of the Lord’s Supper was an important matter to Jesus (Luke 22:19). He wanted the apostles to teach the new converts how to observe all that He had taught them (Matthew 28:20). This would include the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). And from the very outset the apostles taught the new church about the Lord’s Supper. (See Acts 2:42 as contrasted with just taking food in 2:46.) In Corinth, the church met regularly on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1,2). When they met it was to take the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20). The fact that the instructions to Corinth in 1 Corinthians 16:1 are also to the churches in Galatia, makes it evident that they followed the same practice. And when seen against the historical facts listed in #1 above, it is clear that they are all following the same practice! This also can be said for the gathering at Troas on the first day of the week. (Contrast Acts 20:7 to Paul just taking food for his journey in 20:11ff.)
#3 The practice keeps Gospel facts before the church on a regular basis
The death and resurrection of Jesus are matters of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) and Jesus made them a central part of His teaching (Matthew 16:21; Luke 24:26). Our very forgiveness is linked to both His death and resurrection (Romans 4:25, 1 Corinthians 15:17). These two items are tied together. So, taking the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (resurrection day, Luke 24:1-21; Revelation 1:10) ties together in memorial those things that are tied together in reality. The practice is designed to teach the core reason for the existence of the “called out” (1 Corinthians 10:14ff).
To have the Lord’s Supper on any other day would destroy the design of the practice by not reflecting the gospel events. (Even though Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on Thursday night it is interesting that this day was not chosen as the day of observance but “resurrection day” instead.)
Since the “death and resurrection” of Christ are matters of “first importance,” their meaning should be pondered by all assembled (1 Corinthians 14:27). They are not to be forgotten. Only weekly communion on Sunday can best effect this.
OVER-ALL CONCLUSION FROM THE FACTS
The weight of evidence clearly shows that weekly communion is of apostolic origin and has a practical design for the spiritual life of the church. No other arrangement can deliver what this practice can.
APPLICATION
- It is a mistake to classify the frequency of the Lord’s Supper with optional matters like the color of paint to use, style of songs to sing or how many containers to use in serving the fruit of the vine. Something more than “just personal choice” is evident from the facts above.
- The practice has been an “identifying mark” of faithful churches since the beginning. Is there any reason why it should not be so now?
- We need to focus more on what is “going on” when the Lord’s Supper is served. It is not “just a thing to do,” but it is designed to make us really ponder our position before God and offer up thanksgiving.
Posted by John on under Articles
A statement is proven by the presence of evidence and not the absence of evidence. In the popular CSI program the accurate catch phrase is “follow the evidence.” That is, something positive must be there that points one in a specific direction over other possibilities. This is called the “weight of evidence.” You can’t make a case for something without evidence for it!
As often is the case, some pieces of the puzzle are missing. Some details are not there. But this does not mean that one conclusion is just as good as another. Usually the bulk of facts point to one view over others as being the truth of the matter. For example, if one were to just go with the positive evidence given in the New Testament about the act of baptism, total immersion in a body of water would be the conclusion supported by that evidence. While every case of baptism is not listed and some details of the baptisms that are listed are not given, there are enough facts given to say that we are “being led by the Spirit” to see that total immersion in water was the original design.
It simply won’t do make a case without giving positive evidence to support it. Those who want to pour or sprinkle for baptism simply say that there is no evidence against these modes and there is an absence of any mandate to stay with the original design. These are not arguments from evidence but from the absence of evidence. The “it doesn’t say not to” idea proves nothing. (This could be applied to other “issues” as well.)
Because Churches of Christ believe that God has given us the New Testament to learn of the beliefs and practices of the church under Apostolic oversight, we go to it to give documentary evidence for what we teach and do. This is “following the evidence.” This is sound.
