Christmas - A Holy Holiday or A Secular Celebration by Kevin Pendergrass

3/1/2017 churchArchivesFORTHELOVEOFTHETRUTHbyKevinPendergrass
FOR THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH
Category Archives: church
CHRISTMAS, CHURCH, HOLIDAYS, OPINION, ORIGIN, PAGAN
CHRISTMAS: A HOLY HOLIDAY OR A SECULAR CELEBRATION?

DECEMBER 5, 2015
It has already begun. The banter that often times occurs every year. Should we say, Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays? Was Jesus born on
December 25th? Do I even want to celebrate Christmas at all? Is Christmas an authorized Christian holiday? Is Christmas a pagan holiday? Why do I
have to buy so many gifts? Yes, the questions can be quite endless.
http://www.kevinpendergrass.com/category/church/ 1/38
Historically speaking, it is generally agreed that the original origins of Christmas can ultimately be traced back to Saturnaliaa holiday in honor of
Saturn, the god of agriculture. Like many holidays, Christians took the idea of Saturnalia and made it their own. The rst recorded date of Christmas
being celebrated on December 25th was in 336 c.e., during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. A few years later, around 350 c.e., Pope
Julius I of cially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on December 25th. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in
an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival.
Fast forward to the 17th century when certain Puritans banned Christmas because they
thought that celebrating Christmas was too pagan and unbiblical. From 1659 to 1681, the
celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas
spirit was actually ned a penalty. In fact, Christmas wasnt declared a federal holiday in
America until June 26, 1870. While a lot more could be said in regards to the historicity of
Christmas, the above historical information should suf ce for the purpose of this article.
With that being said, how should Christians celebrate Christmas? The answer to this question
actually depends upon you. In addressing the church in Rome, Paul wrote, One person esteems
one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he
does not observe it. (Rom. 14:5-6a). We do not know when Jesus was born, but that doesnt
mean that there is anything wrong with taking a day out of the year to give special acknowledgment and celebration of such.
Last month we celebrated a day called Thanksgiving. While we should be thankful everyday of our lives (1 Thess. 5:18), there is nothing wrong with
taking one day out of the year to dedicate and meditate upon thankfulness even more so. Churches typically celebrate Fathers Day and Mothers
Day (and at some churches Mothers may even get a rose!). While we should honor our father and mother everyday of the year (Eph. 6:1-2), there is
certainly nothing wrong with taking a day out of the year to give special thought and appreciation to fathers and mothers.
So is Christmas a Christian holiday or a secular celebration? Well, it depends upon how you celebrate it. Personally, I enjoy the morally puresecular
celebration of Christmas with its traditions as well as thinking about and celebrating the birth of Christ and being especially appreciative this time of
year that Jesus was born. I dont know when Jesus was born. No one living today does know. However, I am thankful that we live in a country where
one day out of the year many people turn their attention to Jesus when they might otherwise not.
As stated before, there is no such thing as Fathers Day or

Mothers Day in the Bible. But I am told to honor my father and
my mother. Therefore, I am personally thankful that I live a
country that celebrates such honoring. The same is true with
Thanksgiving and Christmas. While we should respect each
others decisions and consciences, we must also be careful not
to judge each other in these matters (Rom. 14:4). So whether
you Bah Humbug, Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas,
make sure that you do it unto the Lord and for His glory (Rom. 14:6; 1 Cor. 10:31).
- Kevin Pendergrass
BELIEF, CHURCH OF CHRIST, CONVICTION, JESUS, OPINION, REASON, STANDARD, UNITY
ARE WE FOLLOWING CHRIST OR THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST?

AUGUST 6, 2015
(Note: I would like to once again introduce you to Brandon Johnson. Brandon is going to be writing articles from time to time on this blog. Below is an article
written by Brandon Johnson. Brandon is a faithful man of God who strives to pursue truth lovingly and objectively and I am pleased to have him join me in
writing articles for the blog. You may contact Brandon directly at: brandonjohnson1008@gmail.com).
I was raised in a very conservative Church of Christ. I also preached and worked in several conservative congregations. As I began to change some of
my beliefs (and ceased holding some of the traditions that my conservative brethren hold), some brethren became very upset. Many conversations
ensued. During these conversations it became apparent that many brethren hold their beliefs based upon a different standard. They would ask me
questions or make statements such as, Do you know of any sound brethren who believe what you believe? I also heard preachers say, No church
will accept you if you do not hold our tradition or Since you cant convince other brethren isnt that evidence you are wrong? Some have even said
that I am in danger of leaving or losing my faith if I dont hold to the exact beliefs of some of the conservative Churches of Christ. I recall one
discussion between two brethren. One brother had legitimate questions regarding the validity of one of our traditions. The other brother had no
answers but dismissed the questions by saying that if a particular deceased brother were still alive he would have the answers.
These things are troubling to me because they illustrate a misplaced allegiance. Rather than our allegiance being to Jesus it appears the allegiance of
some is to the Churches of Christ. There are three things Christians need to know or remember that would correct this problem.
First, a clear distinction needs to be made between Jesus and the church. It appears that in the minds of many there is little if any difference
between the two. Perhaps we have taken the body illustration too far. Jesus is the head of the body, the church (Colossians 1:18), but that does not
mean the church is Jesus or Jesus is the church. Perhaps it would help if we remember that Jesus is our king and the church is His kingdom. Jesus is
the Shepherd and the church is His sheep. We have too many sheep following the ock instead of the Shepherd.
Second, we need to remember what (who) the church is. I was taught as a small child (and I still believe it to be true) that the church is the disciples
of Jesus. In other words, Christians are the church. Who are Christians? They are people, human beings (1 Corinthians 12). People are imperfect,
awed and make errors in judgment and reasoning. Since the church is made up of people, then the church is also imperfect, awed and makes errors
in judgment and reasoning. Why then would I follow the church? Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying the church is unimportant or not
valuable. I am simply saying we need to put the church in its proper place and understand what it really is. It is a group of sinners that are trying to
follow Jesus. These sinners are not all knowing. They are not awless in their studies, reasoning and conclusions. We need to quit trying to restore
the rst century Church for they were full of problems just like we are today. Instead, we need to restore Jesus. The Churches of Christ is not the
standard by which we should determine truth and error; Gods Word must be the standard.
Third, Christians need to learn to trust their Savior instead of the Churches of Christ. Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean. I can
remember studying through Romans in preparation for a Bible class. As I would digest the words of Paul I would always feel hesitant to formulate my
conclusion unless I could nd a sound, big name brother who agreed with me. For some reason, I felt that if a well respected brother agreed with
me, that made my conclusion valid. It was if I felt that if I were the only one that held a conclusion then it was somehow invalid. You see, I had placed
my trust in the brethren. I dont believe it is wrong or unwise to read or listen to other brethren. In fact, the Bible teaches we should seek counsel
from many (Prov. 15:22). However, we need to realize that they are people like us and their agreement does not make something right and their
disagreement does not make something wrong. For every person who agrees with us, we can nd many who do not agree with us. We must develop
our own faith with Jesus. Where did we get the idea that it is safer to trust the Church than to trust Jesus? As disciples of Jesus we are to imitate and
trust Him (1 Corinthians 11:1, Ephesians 5:1-2). We are to be disciples (followers) of Jesus; we are not to be disciples of the Churches of Christ. Since
the church is made of people and people are awed, then if we put our trust in the church we will surely be disappointed.
The church is a wonderful blessing that God has given us. When we keep it in its proper place, it serves the purpose God intended. However, when
we begin placing our trust in the church and using it as the standard of truth and error, then it has become our god and idol. So lets love, appreciate,
work in and encourage the church, but lets follow and trust our Savior, Jesus Christ
Brandon Johnson
ACCAPELLA, CHURCH OF CHRIST, DR. MOORE, MUSIC
DR. KEVIN MOORE RESPONDS TO MY ARTICLE ON INSTRUMENTAL

MUSIC
JUNE 4, 2015
I was recently informed by a reader of my blog that Dr. Kevin Moore publicly responded to my article on instrumental music. You can read Dr.
Moores article by clicking here. I dont know Dr. Moore on a personal basis, but from my understanding, Dr. Moore serves as a professor at Freed
Hardeman University and has also written several books. I am thankful for his time in reading
and responding to my article. Even though Dr. Moore and I disagree on this topic, it is my
conviction that this shouldnt be a matter of fellowship. If you havent already, I encourage you to
rst read the prior articles before going further. You can click here to read my original article on
instrumental music and then you can click here to read his response. I do have several comments
to make regarding his response. There are more than a few times in his article where my views,
reasoning and arguments are misrepresented. I do not mind if someone disagrees with me on
this topic, but I want to make sure that they disagree with the actual reasoning I use and not a
misrepresentation of it. So with that being said, here is my response.
WHAT LAW IS BEING VIOLATED?
In his article, Dr. Moore says, It is unnecessary to nd explicit condemnation in scripture of every conceivable practice devised by man (infant sprinkling,
polygamy, pianos in Christian worship, etc.). I agree that there doesnt have to be an explicit condemnation of a practice in order for it to be wrong.
Unfortunately, Dr. Moore leaves the impression that I believe that as long as God doesnt explicitly condemn a practice, then that practice must be
approved by God. I do not believe that nor have I ever claimed to believe that. In fact, this can be seen in my rst article when I stated the following:
It is agreed upon by all Bible students that God never gave a direct law against the use of instruments in New Testament worship. Even the most conservative
members of the Churches of Christ will concede this point. However, God does not have to directly condemn something in order for there to be a law against
it. Certainly that is one way to show that a practice is wrong, but there is also another way. When God is speci c about what He wants, He doesnt have to give
an exhaustive list of what He doesnt want. Sometimes this is called the law of speci city or the law of exclusion.
Jesus has all authority (Mt. 28:18), this means that neither you nor I have the authority to make laws
is bitcoin legal
that God never made. Dr. Moore says, Gods revealed will is ascertained simply by reading the Bible and
therein learning what is divinely sanctioned (Deut. 29:29; Rom. 10:17; Eph. 3:1-5; 5:17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17). I agree. But what does Dr. Moore mean by his
statement? The one cup brethren believe that multiple cups for the Lords Supper are not sanctioned. Brethren who oppose kitchens in the Church
buildings believe that kitchens are not sanctioned. Brethren who oppose whatever doctrine you can think of oppose it on the grounds that they
believe it is not sanctioned by God. I oppose what I oppose because I believe it isnt sanctioned by God.
I showed in my article that if there is no law against a practice, then that practice is sanctioned. In order for a practice to be sinful, that practice
must be a violation of the law (Rom. 4:15; 1 Jn. 3:4). If there is no law, then there can be no sin (Rom. 4:15). Dr. Moore disagrees with my reasoning on
this point but he gave no proof against it. To further my point, my reasoning is the very same reasoning that Paul used in Acts 15:24. When God has
given no such commandment, then we do not have the right to enforce/bind a belief. If mechanical instruments in worship are sinful, where is the
explicit or implicit law that is being violated? If no law is being violated, then that inherently makes the practice lawful. I believe that God has given
no such commandment forbidding instruments and therefore, I wont either (Acts 15:24).
REGULATION OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
It appears that Dr. Moore concedes the point that instrumental praise was a part of Old Testament worship in the Tabernacle and Temple. However,
Dr. Moore seems to deny (or at least highly question) whether or not Miriams praise in Exodus 15:20-21 was
accepted by God. Dr. Moore says, First of all, the biblical text alluded to here simply describes what Miriam and other
women were doing without saying anything about the Lords alleged acceptance of it. Whether or not God actually approved
the timbrels and dancing, the author has merely submitted his subjective opinion as though it were a proven fact.
Dr. Moores statement is almost unbelievable. The implications of his statement are astronomical. Dr. Moore says
that we cannot know for sure if Miriams instrumental worship was right because the text doesnt say that the
Lord accepted it? Does Dr. Moore really believe that the text has to explicitly say that the Lord accepted a practice in order for it to be an
acceptable example? Most of the Bible would have to be dismissed if this reasoning was applied consistently. Since Dr. Moore is opposed to
instrumental music, he must read texts like Exodus 15:20-21 and question whether or not God accepted Miriams instrumental praise. I do not have
any further comment on this statement from Dr. Moore. I believe it speaks for itself.
NO LAW AGAINST INSTRUMENTS IN NEW TESTAMENT WORSHIP?
This information is repetitive and is already addressed in the above section under, What Law is Being Violated?
SING VS SING ONLY?
Dr. Moore readily admits that sing doesnt mean sing only. Dr. Moore says, While it is true that
the word sing doesnt intrinsically exclude instruments, nothing in the immediate or remote contexts of
these passages or elsewhere in the NT adds or sanctions any other type of music. Dr. Moore argues that
on the one hand, it is a sin to use instrumental music because God has told us to sing. And, since
God told us to sing, Dr. Moore believes this somehow prohibits instrumental music. Yet, on the
other hand, Dr. Moore admits that the word sing doesnt prohibit instrumental music. Dr. Moore
is saying that we cant use instrumental music because we are told to sing. Yet, being told to sing
doesnt intrinsically exclude instrumental music according to Dr. Moore. This is a self-defeating
position.
In regards to the word psallo, Dr. Moore makes the faulty assumption that In order for the word to convey the striking or twanging of the strings of an
instrument, an object (e.g. harp or lyre) must be supplied. This is false. In fact, Psalm 33:3 is a clear example where psallo in the LXX is translated by all
mainstream translations as play skillfully even though no instrument is supplied.
Dr. Moore continues and says, Because the word psall apparently didnt exclude instruments, we are asked to believe that the term itself somehow
includes them?? Dr. Moore goes onto say that he cant see the logic behind this puzzling conclusion. With all due respect, I dont believe that I am the
one left with the puzzling conclusion. In fact, I am certain I am not. My argument states that if the words for sing have never excluded instrumental
music before, then we cannot argue against instrumental music on the basis of the command to sing since sing doesnt exclude or forbid
instrumental music. Since sing doesnt exclude instrumental music, then the puzzling question would be,
Why are we asked to believe that the word(s) for sing somehow prohibit the use of instrumental music
when there is no evidence whatsoever that the word(s) for sing ever prohibited instrumental music?
WHAT ABOUT MUSIC IN YOUR HEART
Dr. Moore doesnt say much about this section. Many vocal only advocates will claim that since we are to
sing/make melody in the heart, this somehow excludes the use of instrumental music. I refuted this
assertion in my original article and Dr. Moore never addresses the below quotation from my article. Here is
the quotation from my rst article. I said, The heart was an essential
component with singing under the Old Law (Psa. 9:1; 57:7), which obviously
didnt exclude mechanical instruments (Psa. 57:7; Psa. 138:1; etc.). If they could
use an instrument while singing in their heart, then that means that singing in your heart doesnt exclude an instrument.
Singing in the heart has never excluded mechanical instruments. The Bible teaches that it is possible to sing in your heart with
the accompaniment of a mechanical instrument. Singing in your heart does not nor has it ever excluded a mechanical
instrument.
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT: MISREPRESENTING HISTORY?
Dr. Moore spends most of his time responding to the extra-biblical, historical information in my article. I nd this interesting because at the end of
this section Dr. Moore concedes the fact that the early church did not speak negatively against instrumental music. I was taught growing up that the
early church opposed instrumental music for the rst several centuries and came to later realize this was false. It appears that Dr. Moore
understands that the early church didnt speak against instrumental music. Perhaps this myth is beginning to die down in the Churches of Christ.
That being said, Dr. Moore does say some things that are just not true in regards to some of the historical quotations and I wish to address those.
Justin Martyr (c.a. 139)- Dr. Moore did not even address the rst alleged quote of Justin Martyr that I showed in my article to be false that has been
circulated in Churches of Christ where Justin Martyr supposedly condemns instruments. I showed that this was inaccurate and Dr. Moore said
nothing about it. The second quote from Justin Martyr is the quote that Dr. Moore takes issue with. Dr. Moore says, The problem with this quotation is
that its an English translation by Walter L. Straub, and Dr. Straub has incorrectly interpreted and rendered the word psallontes as play the harp. Dr. Moore
goes onto say, As noted above, the verbal psall requires an object in order for it to signify to play. First, Dr. Moore is incorrect.
Psalm 33:3 teaches us that linguistic scholarship understands that psallo can be translated play without a speci c
instrument supplied. The translators could have easily translated Psa. 33:3 as, Sing with a shout of joy, but they didnt.
They translated it play skillfully with a shout of joy. Dr. Straub and other translators of Justins writing could just as easily
accuse Dr. Moore of translating this phrase inaccurately. However, this misses the whole point. Dr. Moore does not deny
that Justin Martyr used the word psallo to reference instrumental praise since in other writings of Justin Martyr, Justin
Martyr understood that the Greek word psallo did not exclude playing. The phrase David sung () them in his
Dialogue is the identical Greek phrase from the Septuagint in 1 Samuel 16:23 and 19:9 where David played an instrument
before the Lord. (Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, 29; 1 Samuel 16:23; 19:9). Not only is there no evidence that Justin Martyr
condemned instruments in worship, there is evidence to prove that Justin Martyr understood that psallo didnt exclude playing.
Clement of Alexandria (c.a. 190)- Dr. Moore argues that Clement is speaking only about feasts to the exclusion of worship.
Dr. Moores conclusion is absolutely false. Clement makes a direct reference to Colossians 3:16 and songs of praise when he
says And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 249). Right
after saying that, Clement says, Thou shalt imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God. Furthermore, in the
same section, Clement speaks of praise in the church when he says, But let amatory songs be banished far away, and let our songs
be hymns to God. Let them praise, it is said, His name in the dance, and let them play to Him on the timbrel and psaltery. And what
is the choir which plays? The Spirit will show thee: Let His praise be in the congregation (church) of the saints; let them be joyful in their
King. And again he adds, The LORD will take pleasure in His people. To read the chapter in full, you can click here and read under
chapter 4. While Clement had his own personal feelings about instruments as Dr. Moore pointed out, Clements conclusion is
that there is no blame for those who do choose to use instrumental music in worship.
Tertullian (c.a. 200) - Dr. Moore did not even address the rst alleged quote of Tertullian that I showed in my article that has been misrepresented
and circulated in Churches of Christ where Tertullian supposedly condemns instruments. I showed that this was inaccurate and Dr. Moore said
nothing about it. After showing that Tertullian never condemned instruments in worship, I alluded to the fact that Tertullian believed instruments
could be included in psalms and hymns. Dr. Moore claimed that I gave no source when in fact I did. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 468, Tertullian said:
Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, a precept which is suggested by the passage (of the prophet), where the seducers of the consecrated (Nazarites) to
drunkenness are rebuked: Ye gave wine to my holy ones to drink. This prohibition from drink was given also to the high priest Aaron and his sons, when they
went into the holy place. The command, to sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns, comes suitably from him who knew that those who drank wine with drums
and psalteries were blamed by God. Tertullian did not condemn the use of instrumental music, only those who drank
wine with drums and psalteries. It is obvious from the context here that Tertullian associated singing to the Lord with
psalms and hymns with the playing of musical instruments. In Dr. Moores endnotes he says that he couldnt nd this
quote on p. 468. This could be due to the fact that Dr. Moore is looking in a different edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Here is a link online to this quote from Tertullian. This link will take you to the book.
Ephraim Syrus (c.a. 306-373) said, Let us praise that Voice whose glory is hymned with our lute, and His
Ephraim
virtue with our harp. The Gentiles have assembled and have come to hear His strains (Post Nicene Fathers, vol.
Syrus
13, p. 227). In relation to Ephraim, Dr. Moore concludes that, The hymn is saturated with imagery from
both the Old and New Testaments, and one must determine whether the lute and harp symbolize voices of praise or literally
depict instrumental accompaniment. A de nitive case for the latter has not been made. In other words, since Dr. Moore
believes that instruments are sinful, he argues that this quote could be gurative. I will let the quote speak for itself.
Jerome (c.a. 347- 420) speaks about music girls who were lute players for Jesus. In response, Dr. Moore says, It
is not a theological treatise or ecclesiastical history or liturgical creed af rming church doctrine and convention. Now
Dr. Moore is demanding further criteria before we should consider historical evidence? Since this isnt a
theological treatise or creed then should we just dismiss it? The fact of the matter is Jerome spoke about girls
who played instruments for Jesus. Dr. Moore went onto say, It is merely a poetic re ection on a Miriam-like woman
in late-4th century Rome and is hardly indicative of the conventional practice of the churches. On what basis does Dr.
Moore argue such? There is no reason to believe that this is not literal when Jerome says, She teaches her
companions to be music girls but music girls for Christ, to be luteplayers but luteplayers for the Saviour.
At the end of the day, this section really doesnt matter because the Bible must be our authority. The only reason
I originally included it in my article is to show that Churches of Christ have been mistaken by claiming that the
early church opposed instrumental music. This couldnt be further from the truth and it appears that Dr. Moore
concedes this point which really and truly makes this a moot point. Here is what we can know from extra-biblical
history. The early church did not oppose instrumental music and the early writings we do have about
instrumental music speak about its use being authorized.
COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE?
Dr. Moore claims that I ridicule the idea of command, example and necessary inference. I do not ridicule the idea in my rst article; I simply show
the inconsistency of the belief. I stated in my rst article that, The problem is that this position assumes itself. In logic and debate, this is called
begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that is committed when a proposition,
which requires proof, is assumed without proof. I dont believe that I should assume a xed way on
how to read and study the Bible before I even read and study it. The Bible never states that the
exclusive way to study the Bible is by command, example and necessary inference. This method
presupposes itself. Consider this for a moment: There is no command, example or necessary
inference in the Bible for this method of studying the Bible; therefore, by its own admission, this
method would be unauthorized. Dr. Moore asks, Okay, so how is the Bible to be read and studied? In
context.
In fact, I want to take a moment to explain even further how inconsistent this belief really is. In Dr.
Moores endnotes he says, Suffice it to say that worship is intentional (Acts 24:11), and something that is
often done as worship in a worship setting might be done in another setting where it does not necessarily
constitute worship (Luke 11:1-4; Acts 27:35-36) or at least not congregational worship (Acts 16:25; James
5:13b). In a worship setting, i.e. an assembly of Christians who have gathered for the express purpose of worshiping, all should be participating in worship as a
collective activity in accordance with biblical guidelines (1 Cor. 11:17-29; 14:12-19; 16:1-2; etc.). This has been one of the biggest inconsistencies that
brethren are nally beginning to see in the Churches of Christ. Dr. Moore appears to be of the belief that you can use an instrument in a worship
song as long as it is not in corporate worship. But where does Dr. Moore get this belief from? Where does the Bible make this distinction? Some
will condemn their neighbor on Sunday morning for using mechanical instruments in worship to glorify God, yet they themselves have no problem
listening, singing and playing along to worship songs with instruments on Sunday afternoon after the closing prayer to glorify God and/or entertain
themselves. Can we not see a big problem here folks?
There are some brethren who condemn worship choirs only to turn around and have a choir sing worship songs at a funeral or have a Church of
Christ college choir sing at their church. I think that this belief stems from a lack of proper understanding of the context of Ephesians 5:19 and
Colossians 3:16. In fact, when Dr. Moore is attempting to prove why he believes that instrumental
bible-page
music is wrong, he says, Every passage in the NT that relates to music in Christian worship speci es vocal
and verbal praise (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; 13:15; Jas. 5:13). First of all, the majority
of these passages do not even have anything to do with the assembly, but every day living. Secondly, according to Dr. Moores belief , if every
single passage in the NT that relates to music in Christian worship speci es vocal and verbal praise, then what passage does Dr. Moore go to in
order to authorize instruments in worship songs outside of the assembly? According to Dr. Moores logic, where does the Bible authorize us to
use Christian worship songs for our entertainment? Where is the command, example or necessary inference for that belief? When your
reasoning leads you to believe that we cant be certain if God approves of practices in clear passages like Exodus 15:20-21, then that is a problem.
When your reasoning leads you to believe that we cant play because we are commanded to sing while also admitting that sing doesnt
exclude play, then that is a problem. When your reasoning leads you to believe that we can use a worship song for our own entertainment and
glori cation but we are in sin the second we sing the same words to glorify God, then that is a problem.
In conclusion, I want to be as clear as I can to make it known that I do not believe that this should be a fellowship issue. Lets discuss this issue, study
this issue and pray about this issue; but lets not divide over this issue. I believe we need to respect one another in this matter. If it violates Dr.
Moores conscience to engage in instrumental praise, then he doesnt need to. If it violates your conscience, then you dont need to. However, lets
not draw lines where God never did and remember that in all things, Let all that you do be done with love (1 Cor. 16:14).
- Kevin Pendergrass
Addendum: Dr. Moore added an addendum to his original response to my article. I appreciate Dr. Moores kind tone in writing. Dr. Moore said that it
is not his intention to engage in a never-ending tit-for-tat response to responses. I understand and agree in large part with Dr. Moore on this.
However, just to note, he was the one who publicly addressed my article. There are a few things in his addendum that I would like to address.
Dr. Moore said, Any faulty hermeneutical principle that condemns multiple communion cups and kitchens does not discount sound hermeneutical principles.
The point I attempted to make was that Dr. Moore must realize that it is by this exact same (faulty) hermeneutical principle that he condemns
instrumental music.
I wasnt attempting to be condescending regarding his comments about Exodus 15:20-21 and I apologize if it came across that way; I was simply
showing that the logic he attempts to apply to Exodus 15:20-21 is not the same logic he applies for other passages of Scripture. Dr. Moore argues
that since the Bible nowhere says that God accepted the praise in Exodus 15:20-21, then we cant know if God really did. This argument is
nonsensical. Does Dr. Moore really believe that the text has to explicitly say that the Lord accepted a practice in order for it to be an acceptable
example? Most of the Bible would have to be dismissed if this reasoning was applied consistently.
Dr. Moore said that in order for psallo to ever mean play, then there has to be an instrument to modify psallo. This is simply false. I showed that in
Psalm 33:3, every single mainstream translation translates the word psallo as play skillfully even though there is no mechanical instrument to
modify psallo. Dr. Moore then changes his argument and says that there are two instruments mentioned in context. However, those instruments are
mentioned in the previous verse (Psa. 33:2) and do not modify psallo in verse 33. Psallo stands without a mechanical instrument in Psalm 33:3 and
is still translated as play skillfully. In fact, if anything, one could argue that shout of joy modi es psallo in Psalm 33:3. Yet, psallo is still translated
as mechanical praise, not vocal praise even though it is modi ed by vocal praise. However, this misses my whole argument anyway. My argument
isnt that psallo should be translated play in Ephesians 5:19. My argument is that psallo never excluded instrumental music. Even when it was
translated sing, it never meant sing only or sing to the exclusion of playing.
Dr. Moore concedes that sing doesnt mean sing only and he also concedes that singing in your heart doesnt exclude instrumental praise. Yet, he
continues to press on with his argument by saying, Okay, so does it inherently include a mechanical instrument? No. I agree with Dr. Moore. Of course
psallo doesnt inherently include a mechanical instrument. If such were the case, then we would all need to be playing a mechanical instrument.
Something doesnt have to inherently be included in a word in order to authorize a practice so long as that word doesnt exclude the practice. The
command in Matthew 28:19 says to go into all the world to evangelize. Does the word go inherently include going in a car or plane? Well no, it
doesnt. However, does the command to go exclude a car or plane? No, it doesnt. We are not talking about what one must do, but what one may
do. Thus, we can conclude that as long as we are going, then a car or plane would be an authorized means. Unless go excludes going in a car or
plan, then going in a car or plane to evangelize is authorized, although not mandatory. Unless sing excludes play, then playing is authorized,
although not mandatory.
Surprisingly, Dr. Moore continues to consistently concede the point that the early church did not condemn instrumental music and acts as if
everyone else already understands this. However, such is not the case. Dr. Moore is certainly in the minority in the Churches of Christ by openly
admitting that the early church did not condemn instruments in worship since the common (misconception) in the conservative Churches of Christ is
that they did. He then said, Im sorry he feels that he was deceived with misinformation as he was growing up, but he shouldnt tar everyone with the same
brush. A simple Google search of early Church history and music, church of Christ will suf ce to show that most conservative Churches of Christ
do indeed falsely claim that the early church condemned instrumental music when in fact they didnt, as even Dr. Moore agrees.
I concluded that it appeared that Dr. Moore believes that one could use an instrument in a worship song as long as it is not in corporate worship. Dr.
Moore denied my assumption and said, All the argumentation against this alleged inconsistency is therefore not applicable (at least not to me) and requires
(no) further discussion and clari cation. I wonder then what is to be made of his earlier statement when he said, Suf ce it to say that worship is
intentional (Acts 24:11), and something that is often done as worship in a worship setting might be done in another setting where it does not necessarily
constitute worship (Luke 11:1-4; Acts 27:35-36) or at least not congregational worship (Acts 16:25; James 5:13b). In a worship setting, i.e. an assembly of
Christians who have gathered for the express purpose of worshiping, all should be participating in worship as a collective activity in accordance with biblical
guidelines (1 Cor. 11:17-29; 14:12-19; 16:1-2; etc.). Respectfully, I nd his response to his own comment a bit back peddling. Dr. Moore clearly
believes in a distinction between what one can do in a corporate setting with an act of worship versus what one may do outside of a corporate
worship setting with the same act of worship. According to his own belief, where is his command, example and necessary inference for such a
conclusion? I read all of the verses he cited in the above statement (and I challenge you to do the same), and none of them prove the conclusion he
attempts to draw.
Finally, Dr. Moore said, But we are already divided, and this issue has been causing division for centuries. For those of us who have very strong convictions
about it, we cant just blindly pretend that it doesnt really matter. Once again, respectfully, I must ask: Who is causing the division? Disagreement
doesnt necessitate division (Rom. 14). I do not believe this should be an issue to divide over nor do I know of ANY pro instrumental brethren who
believe we should divide fellowship over this issue. Is there a disagreement? Yes. But who is drawing the line in the sand? I certainly am not. I accept
Dr. Moore as a brother in Christ and believe us to be in full fellowship. I accept and welcome his fellowship. Does he accept and welcome mine?
BUILDINGS, CHURCH, FAITH, OLD PATHS, TRADITION
WHY WE NEED TO SEEK THE OLD PATHS

MARCH 16, 2015
We read in Jeremiah 6 of Gods people forsaking the old paths. Instead of following after the Word of God, they were following after their own
desires (Jer. 6:10-16). One popular desire that mankind is faced withis tradition. As humans, it can be easy to do what we have always done because
we have always done it that way. While tradition in and of itself isnt always a bad thing, it can have a way of blinding us if we are not careful.
Many Jews refused to follow Jesus because they believed more in their own traditions than they did truth (Mt. 15:2-6; Mk. 7:1-13). Instead of
seeking the old paths, many Jews had confused their own traditions with being the paths of old. In fact, they twisted the Scripture to their own
destruction. Notice the words of Jesus: You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of
Me (Jn. 5:39). We can get so caught up in being right that we begin to worship the Scriptures instead of the Author of the Scriptures. Do we at
times forget our purpose and our mission as Christians? Do we at times forget the greatest commandments (Mt. 22:36-38)? Instead of being
cheated through the tradition of men (Col. 2:8), we must seek the old paths.
So, what are the old paths? Well, Jesus was pretty clear in Matthew 22:36-38, loving God and loving one another. Pure and unde led religion is to
visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (Ja. 1:27). As Christians, our old paths must be the same
paths and steps that Jesus traveled (1 Pet. 2:21). He certainly traveled some pretty dif cult steps. From the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 to
the woman caught in adultery in John 8, from His parable about the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37) to
His visit to Zacchaeus house (Lk. 19:1-10), Jesus was showing us the true old paths. You see, He was
getting ready for His Kingdom and He was setting forth an example of how His citizens would walk
and talkor at least should walk and talk.
But through the ages something has happened. Some have replaced the old paths with their
traditions. Instead of seeking the old paths, some have become too preoccupied with biased study in
searching the Scriptures only trying to prove everyone else wrong while in the meantime they have
been missing Jesus.An elder in Floridasent mea video thatI believe eloquently demonstrates how
we can begin walking in the old paths once more. Please take around 4 minutes and click on the video below to watch.
Church For
So yeswe should be pointing people to Jesus! All people, not just some
people. The Church was meant to be a family for the broken (Mt. 11:28-30), not some Hall of Fame for the perfect. As Jesus said, I did not come to
call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance (Mk. 2:17). Until we are known as friends of sinners just as Jesus was (Lk. 7:31-34; Mt. 11:16-19), we
can never claim those paths of old. It is past time that we begin seeking the old paths.
- Kevin Pendergrass
ACCAPELLA, CHURCH, CHURCH OF CHRIST, INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC, MUSIC
MUSIC IN THE CHURCH: WHY I CHANGED MY MIND

FEBRUARY 4, 2015
Not too long ago, I posted a study explaining why I no longer believe that Christians should bind a frequency
when it comes to taking the Lords Supper. This study can be viewed by clicking here. Similar to my change on
that topic, I no longer believe that Christians should bind vocal music in worship as being the only kind of music
acceptable to God in worship. In 2012, I had a public debate on the subject of music in Christian worship. In the
debate, I af rmed that vocal music was the only type of music authorized in New Testament worship. I have
since changed my position. I believe that it is only fair for me to explain why I changed my position. I have
changed because of my study in the Word of God and I am thankful to be able to share those studies with you.
OBJECTIVE STUDY AND THE PROBLEM WITH RHETORIC
In order to enter this study, I ask that you leave rhetoric and proxy thinking at the door. Rhetoric is language designed to have a persuasive or
impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in meaningful content. For example, I have heard preachers say comments such as
Every argument that has ever been presented in favor of instrumental music in worship has already been defeated and nothing new has been brought to the
table for 150 years. That may sound really impressive, but what does it prove? Sadly, I havebeen guilty of usingstatements very similar. I even used
one similar in my own debate. And, lo and behold, I later realized that I had missed some things along the way! The problem with rhetoric is that
either side can use itand at the end of the day, it proves nothing. For example, someone else could just as easily say Every argument that has ever
been presented against instrumental music in worship has already been defeated and nothing new has been brought to the table for 150 years. This type of
reasoning does nothing to advance the cause of truth. Therefore, please be careful of this style of argumentation because it proves nothing.
I have read dozens of books, articles and debates on the topic of instruments in worship. I even had a debate on this topic myself when I opposed
instruments. Some were actually converted to the belief of vocal music only because of my debate. However, I have now changed mymind because
of my own study on this topic. I realized I didnt know as much as I thought I did and I was very biased
in my previous way of studying. Please do not allow
anyone to do your thinking, including myself (Phil.
2:12). I do not want you to accept what I am saying just
because I am saying it. I also do not want you to reject
what I am saying just because I am saying it. I ask that
you please do your own thinking. The idea of proxy thinking is when you allow someone to do your
thinking for you. The Church of Christ is often times accused of this and sadly, I have been guilty of
this as well. However, I realized that if I was going to study objectively, I must allow the Bible to dictate
truth, no matter where it leads. I ask that you do the same.
A PLEA FOR UNITY
One central point that I emphasize in my study on the frequency of the Lords Supper is that I do not believe it should be made an issue of fellowship
either way. In other words (regardless if you agree with my conclusion or not), this shouldnt affect our fellowship with one another (Rom. 14:10-13).
I believe that we can disagree on this issue without causing division or strife. Vocal music is biblical and one can go to heaven without ever using an
instrument. I also believe that one can go to heaven if they do use a mechanical instrument in worship as I will demonstrate in this study. While
striving to be sensitive to the conscience of other Christians, we must also strive to remain honest to the text. We cannot allow emotions or the
traditions of men to reign supreme. At the end of the day, the Bible must be our standard in ascertaining truth (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).
INCONSISTENCIES REGARDING WORSHIP MUSIC
There are some in the Churches of Christ who have no problem using instruments in worship songs as long as they are not used in corporate
worship. Some will condemn their neighbor on Sunday morning for using mechanical instruments in worship, yet they themselves have no problem
listening to worship songs with instruments on Sunday afternoon. There are some brethren who condemn worship choirs only to turn around and
have a choir sing worship songs at a funeral or have a Church of Christ college choir sing at their church. I think that this belief stems from a lack of
proper understanding of the context of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages are by no means limited to the assembly or even in
direct reference to the assembly (although I do believe they can have application to the assembly). God did not give different regulations and
restrictions for worship songs when sung inside the assembly versus outside the assembly (see: Acts 16:25; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15; Ja.
5:13; etc.). I say all of that to say that perhaps we have been blinded by our own plank (Mt. 7:1-5;
Rom. 2:1-5).
While I believe that pointing out the inconsistencies above is important, I want to make it clear
that I am not making this an argument to justify instruments in New Testament worship. This
study is not about how inconsistent the Churches of Christ are and have been on the issue of
music in worship. The attention and focus in this study will be on one crucial question: Does the
Bible sanction the use of mechanical instruments in New Testament worship?
WHAT LAW IS BEING VIOLATED?
In order to know if God sanctions a practice, we need to rst see if there is a law against it. Paul writes in Romans 4:15: Where there is no law, there is
no sin. Paul is stating a universal principle. 1 John 3:4 speci cally teaches that sin is violation of law. Sin was brought into this world through a
violation of law (Gen. 3:1-7). If Adam and Eve never broke Gods law, sin would have not entered into the world
(At least not at that time). The Bible repeatedly teaches that there has to be a law violated in order for sin to
occur. Since the Bible teaches that authority or approval for a practice is intrinsically granted in the absence
of a law, those who believe that it is a sin to use instruments in worship are obligated to provide the New
Testament law that they feel is being violated.
Since Jesus has all authority (Mt. 28:18), this means that neither I nor you have the authority to make laws that
God never made. We need to be careful that we do not bind our own beliefs and make laws where God gave no
such commandment (Acts 15:24). If mechanical instruments in worship are sinful, it is because either God
directly gave a law against their use (Explicit condemnation)or because God gave a law which would exclude
the use of mechanical instruments (Implicit condemnation). In this study, I will explain why I believe there is no
law (thus no sin) regarding the use of instruments in New Testament worship.
REGULATION OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
John Price wrote a book entitled Old Light on New Worship. Price argues that God has always regulated the type of music He wants in worship. Price
writes about music in the Tabernacle and the Temple. His basic conclusion is that God did regulate instruments under the Old Testament to be used
in worship and that only the Levites were authorized to play instruments. He reasons that if God wanted instruments in New Testament worship,
then He would have said so, just as He did in the Old Testament.
While it is certainly not in the scope of this short study to address everything Price wrote, I do believe his fundamental conclusion has no basis. First,
Christians live under and are amenable to the New Covenant (Heb. 7-10; Eph. 2:14-18; etc.).Regardless
if instruments were condoned, commanded or condemned in the Old Testament, I must turn to the New
Testament to nd my instruction as a Christian. The Old Testament is not our authority, the New
Testament is. Second, David is recorded all throughout the Psalms as praising and worshipping God with
an instrument multiple times. David was not a Levite. He was from Judah (2 Sam. 2:4). To argue that only
Levites worshipped God with instruments is inaccurate. Third, the example of Miriam shows us that
instruments were an acceptable way to praise God before Tabernacle or Temple worship (Ex. 15:20).
Instrumental praise pre-dated the Law of Moses and was acceptable to the Lord. Miriam was not in sin
for worshiping with instruments because God had given Miriam no law on the matter.
I do, however, agree with Price that God accepted instruments of worship in the Old Testament. Before
the Law of Moses, instrumental praise was used and accepted by God. During the Law of Moses,
instrumental praise was used and accepted by God. But as I stated before, we are concerned (or at least
should be concerned) with what our instructions are as Christians. Did God ever give regulations and
restrictions to singing and instruments in the New Testament? Or, similar to the example of Miriam, has
He given no law?
GOD HAS GIVEN NO DIRECT LAW AGAINST THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN NEW TESTAMENT WORSHIP
One can read their New Testament as many times as they would like and they will never nd any type of proclamation against instruments in
worship. In fact, there is not even a hint of any kind of negative connotation to instruments in worship. Johns vision symbolically presents
instrumental worship to God in a positive light (Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). Realizing that this is symbolic, I do not want to overstate this pointnor do I use
the passages of Revelation to authorize mechanical instrumental music in worship. However, I do nd it interesting that the times that instrumental
praise is seen in the New Testament in connection with worship,it isspoken of positively and never negatively.
It is agreed upon by all Bible students that God never gave a direct law against the use of instruments in New Testament worship. Even the most
conservative members of the Churches of Christ will concede this point. However, God does not have to directly condemn something in order for
there to be a law against it. Certainly that is one way to show that a practice is wrong, but there is also another way. When God is speci c about
what He wants, He doesnt have to give an exhaustive list of what He doesnt want. Sometimes this is called the law of speci city or the law of
exclusion.
To demonstrate this point, I always used an example that I called the Subway example.Here is howthe illustration goes. IfI went to Subway for
lunch and ordered a sandwich and speci ed the kind of meat, cheese and vegetables I wanted, I wouldnt have to tell the worker every kind of meat,
cheese and vegetable that I didnt want. We would call this common sense. It would be foolish
to expect God to explicitly state everything He didnt want. The Bible would be an endless
book if God operated this way. When God speci es what we need to do in a way that
excludes other practices, we need to do it without adding to or taking away. I have always
agreed with this principle and still agree with it. So, why have I changed my mind about
binding vocal music? As I will demonstrate below, I have changed because I do not believe that
God ever speci ed vocal music to the exclusion of instrumental music as I once did.
SING VS. SING ONLY
How many sermons have you heard that teach we are saved by faith, but not faith only? This
makes a very valid point (Ja. 2:24-26). Faith doesnt mean faith only. But, have we added to the
word of God by teaching that sing means sing only? There is no language where the word sing intrinsically means sing only or singto the
exclusion of instruments. If the word sing automatically excludes instruments, then why must it always be quali ed with the word only? The
reason is because the wordsing doesnt intrinsically exclude mechanical instruments. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Greek
words used for sing in the New Testament (psallo, ado and humneo) ever excluded instruments. None of the words used in the New Testament
for sing ever meant sing only or sing to the exclusion of instruments. These are not speci c words that exclude instruments. Those believing that
these words exclude instruments would be obligated to provide the evidence.
In fact, the Greek word psallo used in the New Testament is a word that permits instruments. There are ve occurrences of the Greek word psallo
in the New Testament (Eph, 5:19; 1 Cor. 14:15 twice; Ja. 5:13; Rom. 15:9). In the Greek Old
Testament, the word psallo is a word which can include instruments (1 Sam. 16:16; 1 Sam. 16:17; 1
Sam. 16:18; 1 Sam. 16:23; 1 Sam. 18:10; 1 Sam. 19:9; 2 Kings 3:15; Psa. 33:3; etc.). It is important to
note that while the word psallo can include instruments, it doesnt necessitate them. This can be
seen by the way it is translated in the Greek Old Testament (Judges 5:3; 1 Sam. 16:16; 1 Sam. 16:17;
1 Sam. 16:18; 1 Sam. 16:23; 1 Sam. 18:10; 1 Sam. 19:9; 2 Sam. 22:50; 2 Kings 3:15; Psa. 7:17; Psa.
9:2; Psa. 9:11; Psa. 18:49; Psa. 21:13; Psa. 27:6; Psa. 30:4; Psa. 30:12; Psa. 33:2; Psa. 33:3; Psa. 47:6;
Psa. 47:6; Psa. 47:7; Psa. 57:7; Psa. 57:9; Psa. 59:17; Psa. 61:8; Psa. 66:2; Psa. 66:4; Psa. 68:25; Psa.
68:32; Psa. 69:12; Psa. 71:22; Psa. 71:23; Psa. 75:9; Psa. 92:1; Psa. 98:4; Psa. 98:5; Psa. 104:33; Psa. 105:2; Psa. 108:1; Psa. 108:3; Psa. 135:3; Psa.
138:1; Psa. 144:9; Psa. 146:2; Psa. 147:7; Psa. 149:3).
I studied every occurrence of the word psallo in the Greek Old Testament and above you will nd an exhaustive list of every time the word psallo
occurs. It is important to note that the word psallo itself never excluded instruments. Furthermore, examples of those living close to the time of
Jesus such as Josephus and other Hellenistic Jews can be cited to show that they used the word psallo in such a way as to be able to include
instruments (Corbitt, Danny. Missing More Than Music, p. 28).
If Paul wanted to exclude and forbid instruments from worship, why would He have used a word that didnt exclude its use and was in fact a
wordinclusive to instruments? Neither the Greeks nor the Hellenistic Jews would have understood the word psallo to exclude instruments. The
Greek word psallo didnt exclude instruments in the Greek Old Testament and the Greek word psallo didnt exclude instruments in the rst
century. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for anyone to objectively argue that the word psallo (which never excluded instruments) somehow
excludes instruments the ve times it is used in the New Testament. God certainly knows how to make something clear when He is being speci c and
exclusive. Since none of the words used for sing in the New Testament means sing only, God could have still excluded instruments with these
words by adding the word only to sing if He wanted to. The word translated only is used some 47 times in the New Testament
(http://biblehub.com/greek/3441.htm). If God wanted to make sing mean sing only, He certainly could have. Yet, He never did.
Interestingly enough, this poses an important question. Who is actually adding to the Word of God? Is it those who believe instruments are
authorized or is it those who believe that we are only authorized to sing only? If God never gave a law condemning instruments in worship and if
God never excluded their use by the law of exclusionin the New Testament , then who has gone beyond
that which is written, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men (1 Cor. 4:6; Mk. 7:7-9)?
DOES THIS MEAN THAT ALL CHRISTIANS MUST PLAY A MECHANICAL INSTRUMENT?
Since Christians are supposed to psallo and the word psallo never excluded instruments, does that
mean that Christians are commanded to play a mechanical instrument? I used to use this argument when
I believed that instruments were unauthorized in worship. In other words, I used to argue that if the word
psallo didnt exclude instruments, then that means that all Christians have to use instruments since all
Christians are to psallo. However, this argument assumes that the word psallo is a word that demands
a mechanical instrument and that is just not the case as can be seen by multiple passages when the
wordpsallo is used in the LXX(Psa. 7:17; Psa. 9:2; Psa. 9:11; Psa. 47:6; Psa. 47:6; Psa. 47:6; Psa. 47:6; Psa. 47:7; Psa. 57:7; Psa. 57:9; Psa. 59:17; Psa.
61:8; Psa. 66:2; Psa. 66:4; Psa. 66:4; Psa. 68:4; etc.).
In other words, my argument is not that psallo means to play an instrument; my argument is that the word psallo doesnt exclude them. According
to the Bible, you can psallo acceptably with or without a mechanical instrument. If God would have commanded Christians to play an
instrument, we would expect to see words that necessitate playing (such as kitharizo, auleo or kreko). However, that is not what we nd.
Instead, we nd that the word psallo is a generic praise word that authorizes instruments but doesnt necessitate them.
Furthermore, the Greek word combination that Paul uses in Ephesians 5:19 is ado and psallo. These two words are paired together multiple times
in the Greek Old Testament and they never exclude instruments nor do they necessitate instruments. If God wanted to allow mechanical
instruments without commanding them, then the word psallo would have been the perfect word, and that is the exact word that is used. The paring
of ado and psallo can be praise without an instrument (Judges 5:3; Psa. 27:6; Psa. 68:4; etc.) or it can be praise with an instrument (Psa. 33:2-3;
etc.). Therefore, one could acceptably ado and psallo to God with or without a mechanical instrument.
WHAT ABOUT MUSIC IN YOUR HEART?
In Ephesians 5:19, the Bible says that Christians are to sing and make melody in their heart (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Some argue that if the melody is to
be made in the heart, then that would somehow exclude melody being made on a piano, a guitar or any other instrument. Some claim that the
instrument that we are to pluck or playis the instrument of our heart strings, thus, excluding any mechanical instruments.
This alleged argument holds no weight and should be dismissed for the following reasons:
The phrase in your heart in Ephesians 5:19 is an adverbial prepositional phrase which describes the manner of the
action, not the method (Gen. 17:17; Josh. 14:7; Psa. 15:2; Prov. 3:5; Psa. 119:2; Lk. 2:19; Mt. 5:28; etc.). Things done from
the heart i.e. cordially or sincerely, truly (Thayer, Joseph. Greek-English Lexicon, p. 325). Paul is teaching Christians that they
need to worship and praise God sincerely. What makes any action dead or in vain (whether it be an instrument or vocal music) is the heart from
which it proceeds (Mk. 7:7-9). Whether with instrument or with voice or with both it is all for naught if the adoration is not in the heart (Robertson, A.T.
Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 405). The idea is that the praise needs to come from the heart in order to be acceptable (Mk. 12:30; Mt.
22:37-38).
The heart was an essential component with singing under the Old Law (Psa. 9:1; 57:7), which obviously didnt exclude mechanical instruments
(Psa. 57:7; Psa. 138:1; etc.). If they could use an instrument while singing in their heart, then that means that singing in your heart doesnt exclude an
instrument. Singing in the heart has never excluded mechanical instruments. The Bible teaches that it is possible to sing in your heart with the
accompaniment of a mechanical instrument. Singing in your heart does not nor has it ever excluded a mechanical instrument.
It needs to also be noted that Ephesians 5:19 says that both the singing and the melody are to be done in the heart (see
also: Colossians 3:16). If the phrase in your heart means inward and silent, then one is forced to conclude that the
singing must also be inward and silent since it is to be done in the heart. Whatever in the heart means with one action
in Ephesians 5:19, it must also mean with the other. Therefore, if this reasoning were to be taken to its logical conclusion,
it would exclude vocal praise since the singing is to be done in the heart. Therefore, according to this type of reasoning,
the only authorized kind of singing would be mental singing.
Furthermore, I believe we have to be careful to make sure we are consistent with any argument that we claim is an
argument of exclusion. For example, James 5:13 says, Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. Is this
a law of exclusion? Is God being speci c? Does this mean that if I am suffering, I cant pray and go to the doctor? Does this mean that I can only sing a
psalm when I am cheerful? What if I am not cheerful? What if I am sad? Am I authorized to sing a psalm then? These questions could be endless. We
need to be careful that we do not overstate a point when speaking about statements of exclusion.
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT: MISREPRESENTING HISTORY
In my years of growing up in the Churches of Christ, it has been proclaimed that the early church didnt use mechanical instruments because they
were unauthorized. Claims have been made that instruments were not brought into Christian worship until the 5th or 6th century. This is a heavy,
heavy claim that is absolutely false. Now, before we consider theearly church history, let me remind you that early church history is not our
authority. But since it has been one of the leading arguments among members of the Churches of Christ as to the rejection of instruments in worship,
I want to address the fact that many Churches of Christ have (unintentionally) misrepresented early church history on this matter.
I want to begin with one of the most famous quotes that some Churches of Christ have used. It is allegedly claimed by some that the following quote
comes from Justin Martyr:
The use of [instrumental] music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jews, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song. . . .
Simply singing is not agreeable to children [the aforementioned Jews], but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account
the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing
(Justin Martyr? c.a. 139).
You will notice that there is no reference for this quote. The reason for this is because this quote is found nowhere in
Justins writings. It has been long accepted by scholars and textual critics that this was not a quote from Justin Martyr. This
was a pseudo-Justinian quote that came hundreds of years after Justin (McKinnon, James. Music in Early Christian
Literature, p. 107; Ferguson, Everett. The Instrumental Music Issue, p. 95).
So, if this quote was not from Justin, then what did Justin Martyr have to say?
Writings of Justin Martyr show that he understood that the Greek word psallo did not exclude playing because the phrase
David sung () them in his Dialogue is the identical Greek phrase from the Septuagint in 1 Samuel 16:23 and 19:9
where David played an instrument before the Lord. (Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, 29; 1 Samuel 16:23; 19:9). Justin Martyr (c.a. 139) didnt condemn
instruments in worship.
Now let us move on to Clement of Alexandria (c.a. 190). He was also an early church writer. What did he have to say about instruments in the church?
For the apostle adds again, Teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing
with grace in your heart to God. And again, Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to
God and His Father. This is our thankful revelry. And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame. (Ante-
Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 249)
Clearly Clement saw no problem with using instruments in worship to God. Another individual used in the Churches of Christ
whose information is often misapplied is Tertullian (c.a. 200). Tertullian writes:
That immodesty of gesture and attire which so specially and peculiarly characterizes the stage are consecrated to themthe one deity
wanton by her sex, the other by his drapery ; while its services of voice, and song, and lute, and pipe, belong to Apollos, and Muses, and Minervas, and
Mercuries. You will hate, O Christian, the things whose authors must be the objects of your utter detestation (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 84).
This quote is sometimes used to allegedly prove that Tertullian was against instruments in worship. However, this is not
the context of Tertullians statement. Tertullian is not speaking about worship to God, he is talking about the theatre or
the Show. He was speaking against going to shows that he believed were ungodly. Also, the lute and pipe was not the
only thing that Tertullian mentioned. He also mentioned the voice and song.If this quote condemns instruments in
worship then it also condemns the voice and song! This quote has nothing do to with worship, much less instruments
being sinful in worship. In fact, we have writings of Tertullian where he associates and includes instruments in psalms
and hymns (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 468). Tertullian never condemned the use of instrumental music. He only
condemned the abuse of such of those who drank wine with drums and psalteries. Tertullian believed that instruments
could be included with singing to the Lord.
Ephraim Syrus (c.a. 306-373) said Let us praise that Voice whose glory is hymned with our lute, and His virtue with our harp.
The Gentiles have assembled and have come to hear His strains (Post Nicene Fathers, vol. 13, p. 227).
Jerome speaks of a sister who praises God with instruments (c.a. 347- 420):
Oh! that you could see your sister and that it might be yours to hear the eloquence of her holy lips and to behold the mighty spirit which animates her
diminutive frame. You might hear the whole contents of the old and new testaments come bubbling up out of her heart. Fasting is her sport, and prayer she
makes her pastime. Like Miriam after the drowning Pharaoh she takes up her timbrel and sings to the virgin choir, Let us
sing to the Lord for He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. She teaches her
companions to be music girls but music girls for Christ, to be luteplayers but luteplayers for the Saviour (Schaff & Wace,
Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, 1893, vol. 6, p. 107).
To my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence of anyone, from the time of the early church through the
rst few centuries, that actually condemned instruments in worship. But, what about all of the quotes your
preacher has used to show how the early church opposed mechanical instruments? Well, as we have noted, some
of those quotes are not accurate or accurately applied (see also:
http://theweatherlyreport.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html) . Even early quotes that are sometimes used
to discourage instruments in worship do not prove that the early church condemned them. Furthermore, the
quotes of writers who do actually condemn instruments in worship are much later quotes and do not begin until
almost the 5th century and they also condemn even Davids use of instruments (Corbitt, Danny. Missing More than
Music, p. 26).
Unfortunately, I was never given this information in the congregations I attended, the Bible classes I went to or the preaching school from which I
graduated. On the contrary, I was led to believe the exact opposite. Biased study seldom produces unbiased conclusions. That is why it is so
important to be honest with the evidence. Please do not misunderstand me. I certainly believe that vocal singing (chanting to be exact) was the music
of the time and culturally of the early church, even though early Christians never condemned instruments in worship (and based upon the writings,
some actually used and encouraged them). The reason for vocal chanting wasnt an authority issue, but a cultural one. Danny Corbitt in his book
Missing More Than Music explains this in-depth, citing multiple historical and cultural reasons and explanations for the churches music choice, and it
has nothing to do with authority or sin (pp. 24-41).
A FEW THOUGHTS ON COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE
If you are a member of the Churches of Christ, then you have probably heard the phrase command, example and necessary inference, or something
very similar to it. Let me be the rst to admit that I believed this for many years and even taught others to believe it. However, there are blatant and
obvious problems with this idea. The problem is that this position assumes itself. In logic and debate, this is called begging the question. Begging the
question is a logical fallacy that is committed when a proposition, which requires proof, is assumed without proof. I dont believe that I should assume
a xed way on how to read and study the Bible before I even read and study it. I should conform my thinking to the Bible, not the Bible to my thinking.
I should allow the context to dictate the meaning of the text.
The Bible never states or teaches that the exclusive way to study the Bible is by command, example
and necessary inference. This method presupposes itself. Consider this for a moment: There is no
command, example or necessary inference in the Bible for this method of studying the Bible;
therefore, by its own admission, this method would be unauthorized. Some Churches of Christ are
guilty of creating a doctrine outside of the Bible that they claim must be accepted in order to
understand what is inside the Bible.
Furthermore, this method quickly becomes a subjective way to study the Bible. For example, which
examples do we bind? Which examples must we follow and which examples may we follow? And,
what is the objective way to gauge the difference? I have already covered this fallacy in my study on
the frequency of the Lords Supper. Also, when it comes to necessary inferences, I must honestly ask the question Necessary to whom or what?
Once again, this becomes subjective. In reality, this type of Bible study could be called Command, Subjective Examples, and Necessary (when you
want them to be) Inferences. I do not say this to be rude, but to be realistic. When I was honest with myself, I could no longer accept a position that I
realized was created by men and not God.
CONCLUSION
This has by no means been an exhaustive study of this issue, but should serve as suf cient information to get you started on the issue. There are
many more arguments that could be produced. However, from Miriam and her tambourine, to Davids instrumental worship, to Pauls use of
psallo and psalms and to Johns heavenly vision (Rev. 5:8; 15:2), instrumental praise to God in and of itself has never been intrinsically sinful or
unauthorized.
I pray that we can learn to live with each others differences, respect each others decisions and have unity and cease division onbeliefs in whichGod
never makes an issue. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ. For it is written: As I love, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account of
himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or
a cause to fall in our brothers way (Rom. 14:10-13).
- Kevin Pendergrass
INSTRUMENTS WORSHIP
BELIEF, CHURCH, DOCTRINE, FELLOWSHIP, RELATIONSHIP, SOLUTIONS, UNITY
UNATTAINABLE UNITY (PART 2): BIBLICAL SOLUTIONS

NOVEMBER 11, 2014
As I pointed out in my last article, UnattainableUnity (Part 1): The Problem),the evidence is both clear and abundant that many are guilty of
approaching unity in an erroneous way. For those who believe that unity can only be achieved when there is 100% agreement, I offera sincere
challenge.Write downall of your beliefs inwhich you believe encompassChristianity. Have others in your church do the same. How many lists do
you believe would be identical? Below I have outlined some biblical solutions to the problem of division caused by the erroneous belief that unity can
only be achieved when everybody sees everything the exact same way.
We must ask the right question(s). The very fact that no two Christian individuals are able to provide the exact same essential doctrines
listprovides enough proof to show that we have been asking the wrong questions.
We must respect church autonomy. Each congregation of the Lords church is self-governing with Christ as the head (Eph. 1:20-23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3;
Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; etc.). While we should look out for the interest of others (Phil. 2:4), we oftentimes forget to mind our own business (1 Thess.
4:11). As one who has been guilty of this in the past, I can tell you that far too often we claim concern for our brethren when in reality we are only
interested in getting involved in the next controversial issue when we have no business getting involved. We must be careful that do we not
disguise busybodies and gossips as those who are just contending for the faith (Jude 3).
We must understand that anything can be an issue of salvation. I far too often nd myself like the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17-22 wanting a
checklist of dos and donts. When you read the context, you will nd that the rich young ruler had followed the checklist. However, the one issue
that kept him from having fellowship with Jesus was the one issue that was not on the list. To the rich young ruler, it was his riches thatconstituted
a salvation issue.
We must be Christ oriented, not issue oriented. Every time the Jews wanted to make following Jesus about an issue or a checklist, Jesus corrected
them by putting the focus back on a relationship with Him (Mt. 22:34-40). It will be those who never knew Jesus that will be lost (Mt. 7:23).A couple
ofanalogies found in Scripture describing how our relationship with Jesus should be are that of a husband/wife and father/child (Eph. 5:22-33; Gal.
4:1-7). If we are going to be successful with our spouses and children, we must be relationship oriented, not issue oriented. If we are going to be
successful in Christianity, we must put down the checklist and pick up our crosses (Lk. 9:23).
We must work out our own salvation. At the end of the day, I am responsible for my own actions and beliefs, not the actions of others (Phil. 2:12). I
will stand before God being judged for what I did (2 Cor. 5:10). We need to be careful when trying to mow our neighbors backyard while our own
front yard is a jungle (Mt. 7:1-5).
Here are some observations from the conclusions that I have drawn. I strongly believe that one of the reasons why some in the church have an
apathetic attitude is because they believe, just like the rich young ruler, that they have kept the checklist. In other words,some believe that as long
asthey are doing those things essential to salvation, then they have no needofdoinganything else. In doing this,they are doing Christianity a
disservice. Let me explain what I mean.
Why do a good portion of Christians not come back to services on Sunday night or Wednesday night study? Well, they do not feel that they have to
do so. It is not an issue of salvation in many peoples minds. Therefore, they have checked off and checked out for the week. Why do some folks
come every time the doors are open but do little for the cause of Christ in their daily lives? Because they feel that they are following Jesus as long as
they come to church and participate in (what they feel) are essential doctrines while forsaking day to day Christianity.
I will readily admit, there are still so many questions in my mind that I am searching to answer and I am not going to pretend that I can answer every
question. I am far from it.What I do know is that when we reduce Christianity to nothing more than a list of essentials, we are taking away the very
message that Jesus came to bring, which is to deny self and follow Him fully and completely (Lk. 9:23).
The fact is: (1) Christians will continue to grow (2 Pet. 3:18); (2) Some Christians will be on milk while others will be on meat (Heb. 5:12-14); and (3) A
particular issue may cost one person their salvation while not costing someone else their salvation. I do not believe there is a universal list of
essential doctrines on which Christians must be united. If I did believe that, then I should be able to provide that list. Since I cannot, then I would be a
hypocrite if I said that a list exists while not being able to produce it. If you believe that there is a universal list, then you too would be obligated to
provide the list. I believe that these lists are going to vary from Christian to Christian depending upon their situation and where they are in their
walk with Jesus. In conclusion, I believe that anything that takes us away from following Jesus fully and completely is a salvation issue.
- Kevin Pendergrass
BELIEF, CHURCH, DOCTRINE, FELLOWSHIP, RELATIONSHIP, UNITY

UNATTAINABLE UNITY (PART 1): THE PROBLEM

NOVEMBER 7, 2014
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psa. 133:1). Jesus prayed
for unity (Jn. 17:21). He died so that all could be uni ed in Him and for His cause (Eph. 2:14-18). Many
do not know how good and pleasant religious unity is because they have never experienced it, at least
not inthe fullest sense. The results of Christendomshow forth division and confusion. Can we have
unity and how can we have unity? It is by agreeing on every single belief? Some tend to think so.Some
believe that unity can only be attained when everyone sees every biblical issue the exact same way.
This is a problem, for this standard of unity is unattainable. This is not only unbiblical, but impossible.
Let me explain by giving you four problems with using this standard when trying to achieve unity.
This standard of trying to achieve unity is never taught in the Bible. The Bible never teaches that
unity is achieved on the basis of 100 %agreement on every single issue. However, somehave found a
way to skirt around that by saying that we only have to be united on issues relating to salvation.
These same individuals would argue that there is a difference between a matter of option and a
matter of doctrine.However, thisdoesnt x the problem, it only shifts the problem since everyone de nes salvation issues differently. This leads us
to the next problem.
This standard of trying to achieve unity has no objective way to gauge every issue. When someone claims that something is an issue we must divide
over, I rst ask them where they can go to Scripture to prove that. Yes, there are points where division must take place, but we often times nd
ourselves overstepping the bounds by binding much more than God ever did. Furthermore, wemust face the reality that there is no objective way to
gauge every issue. If there is, where is it and what is it? Furthermore, why cant even two brethren agree on how to gauge the difference?
This standard of trying to achieve unity cannot be applied consistently. How can we claim we have all of the answers when we dont even have all of
the questions? Some brethren will divide and mark from brethren because they pray directly to Jesus while other brethren have no problem with it.
Some brethren use mechanical instruments of music in worship while others draw the line. One preacher will condemn social drinking only to go
home and smoke while the preacher next door condemns smoking only to go home and social drink.
Think of all of the division that occurs in order to achieve unity. A short list of topics that have caused divisionI personally have experienced among
the Churches of Christ include issues such as:cluster groups, handclapping, mechanical instruments, elder reaf rmation, praying to Jesus, women
waiting on the Lords Supper, movies with profanity, tobacco, alcohol, kitchens in church buildings, fundraisers, multiple containers for the Lords
Supper, praise teams, issues relating to the Holy Spirit, issues relating to marriage and divorce, childrens church, tattoos, holidays, prom, versions of
the Bible, head coverings, theistic evolution, skits and dramas, gambling, views pertaining to the coming of Christ, views pertaining to hell,
quali cation of elders, etc. This is just a very short list. This list has no limits.
This standard of trying to achieve unity is not a cure for division, it is a prescription for it. What this approach has bred in the brotherhood is
confusion, hatred, division, apathy and dishonesty. I was talking to a brother in Christ last week who has been a preacher for several years now. He
told me that he was through with the dishonesty. He said that most dont know why they believe what they do and that we have forced our own
beliefs into the text instead of forcing the text into our beliefs. And, if that isnt good enough, we will heap up commentaries written by our own
brethren to make us feel justi ed. Far too many feel that truth doesnt have to make sense tothem as long as it makes sense to other educated
brethren.
They say that in order to x a problem, you must rst admit you have one. Instead of ignoring this problem, I believe it is well past time that we begin
to explore it.
- Kevin Pendergrass
BELIEF, CHURCH, CONVICTION, FACT, REASON
WHY I LEFT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST PROGRAM

OCTOBER 30, 2014
In 2008, I began working with an international TV/radio program known as The Gospel of Christ. I served as co-host for the TV and radio programs. I
resigned last month from the program and people have been asking why. I gured it would be expedient to dedicate a blog post in order to answer
this question.
There were multiple reasons why I decided to resign. To go ahead and get the inevitable question out of the way, no, I wasnt red orasked to resign.
This decision was my own and one that had been in the making for quite some time. Traveling was the biggest part of my job when working with
TGOC. I averaged speaking at around 40-50 different churches a year. Around 10-15 of those were multiple-day meetings and workshops. While my
wife and I did enjoy traveling and meeting good brethren, it also had its downfalls. I was looking for something where we wouldnt have to be on the
road so much.
Of course, there is always an underlining reason for everything. I no longer wanted my livelihood to be dictatedby what I did or didnt believe.
Church politics are dirty. They are too dirty for me to even try and explain here. It was an arenain which I no longer wanted to involve myself. I feel
that too many preachers forget who their real boss is. Who do we really work for? Instead of working with the church and working for God, I feel that
too many preachers work for the church. At times, I experienced preachers compromising intellectual integrity for the sake of a paycheck. I had
conversations with preachers who told me what they really believed about a doctrinal matter. Yet, they would then explain to me how they could
never express how they really felt because of fear of what the congregation would say or do, and because of fear of losing their job.
I saw how church was all too often a game for many preachers and Christians. Just observe some of the Facebook conversations where Christians
disagree.Sadly, I was caught up in this game for a period of time. Iwas guilty as charged. I was a defender of the faith going along seeing how many
false teachers I could knock off. All of the while, I didnt realize the true damage I was doing. We in the brotherhood have not created an
environment of openness and honesty. Instead, we have created an environment of dont ask, dont tell. Christians refuse to express their views to
their preachers and elders out of fear of what may happen while preachers and elders refuse to express their views to congregatesoutof fear of
what may happen. So what happens? We keep our mouths shut, put on a showand play church while quickly drawing lines and marking those who
challenge us or do not immediately agree with everything we believe. As one preacher told me You cant question in our brotherhood you know? If you
do, someone (who also has the same questions) will jump on it and try to put a notch in their holster as the one who brought you down. The young people are
the rst to see these inconsistences and hypocrisies, and they want no part of it.Sadly, I look back in remorse readily admitting that I have been part
of the problem.
In my studies, I have had questions about some things. I have looked at some of my own doctrinal positions and realized the lack of biblical
argumentation. I have noted my arrogance and falseperception ofmy infallibility and I am doing everything I can to change that. I saw some
inconsistencies in my own belief on certain issues and had questions that I couldnt answer. Lord willing, I hope to post many of my questions in the
future on my blog. I would like to share what I nd to be inconsistencies and hope to challenge your thinking as you challenge mine. I have changed
my mind on many subjects and I plan on writing about it. I will explain where I was and show how I came to be where I am at now. I no longer have to
worry about paychecks, tattletales, church politics, making a certain group happy or appeasing a certain individual. I dont have to worry about
making sure my doctrinal positions align with those it is supposed to align with. I want to do one thing, follow Jesus. The only one I am concerned
withpleasing is God. I just want to go where the biblical evidence leads. For many years I worked for the brotherhood. I am thankful that I can now
work for God. While I sincerely regret my former ways, I pray that in the future I can make a positive impact for open and honest dialogue.
-Kevin Pendergrass
BELIEF, BUILDINGS, CHURCH, IDOLS, RELATIONSHIP
A POPULAR IDOL AMONG CHURCHES

OCTOBER 28, 2014
I was born in Alabama and lived close to the Tennessee state line. Growing up, it was fascinating to see how many church buildings we would pass by
on our way to, well, just about anywhere. There would be some church buildings within only a few miles of each other, all having the same sign and
nameout on the front. These churches were in fellowship with one another and would cooperate during meetings and revivals. I always wondered
why these churches, that had no problem with each other, would not just join forces. I then came to realize why. Many times, it had to do with the
church building. You see, each church didnt mind joining with the other. It was just that each church wanted the other to come to where they were.
Perhaps someones grandfather had built the building and they didnt want to leave and go elsewhere. Or, one of the older members of the
congregation had been going to the same church building all of their life and they didnt want to give that up.
As I grew up, I saw things I couldnt believe. Benevolent help to the needymight beturned down just so a fresh coat of paint could be added to the
building. Churches would split because they didnt like the lighting in the building or the color of the carpet. I even heard of one preacher saying that
xing up the building uni es us. One small struggling congregation I knew,of around 20 members, invested over $30,000 into a new bell on top of
their building. I worked with a missionary work for many years and you wouldnt believe some of the reasons that I would receive as to why churches
could not support the work. In just about every case it had to do with their money already being invested into their building. When the building
becomes the end and not the means, many problems will exist. I have outlined just a few of those problems below.
More time and effort will be put into the building instead of the people. We should have much more care for the people than the building (1 Cor.
12:12-27). Jesus didnt say that people will know that we are His disciples because we have really nice buildings, He said All will know that you are
My disciples if you have love for one another (Jn. 13:35). If more resources, time and moneyarebeingspent on the building than the people, the
building has probably become an idol.
It will breed a misplaced emphasis on the church and worship. It was always stressed to me at a young age that the church consisted of the
people and not the building (Gal. 1:1-2; Eph. 1:22-23). The word church comes from the Greek word which means an assembly or the called
out ones (http://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm). The church is the body of believers, not the location where they meet (Rom. 16:5). Worship can
happen anytime and in any place (Acts 16:25). It matters not the geographical location of worship (Jn. 4:23-24). The building should only serve as
an expedient to where we can all come together. The church is not the building and the building is not the only place one can worship. If you
believe that the church is a holy building and that worship can only occur at church, then the building has probably become an idol.
A false sense of accomplishment will exist. It seems to me that in todays church, the litmus test of faithfulness centers on attendance. If you just
show up to the assembly then the perception is that you must be a faithful Christian. This has reduced Christianity to nothing more than a hobby
we may participate in a few times a week. We feel accomplished as Christians as long as we are coming to church (i.e., showing up at the
building). Instead of showing up to serve and worship God, we think showing up is serving God. This only helps aid the apathetic attitudes already
prevalent in todays church. Furthermore, we believe that we are evangelizing if we are making our buildings better. If our buildings are better,
then we must be better, right? Wrong. Jesus said If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me (Lk.
9:23). If you believe that just coming to the assembly is your Christianity, then the building has probably become an idol.
Since I can already hear people claiming that I am advocating for dumpy buildings, let me qualify all ofmy statements. I want to make it clear that I
have no problem withchurches having a place to assemble, whichmost of the time will include a building.The church should come together often
(Acts 2:46; Heb. 3:13; 1 Cor. 11:18). This necessitates having a place big enough where this can be accomplished. I also want to make it clear that I
have no problem with money being spent and investments being made into buildings where the church meets. However, I am advocating for a
change in the way we view our buildings. Church buildings are not the root of all evil among churches, but the love of church buildings certainly can
be if we are not careful (Compare the same concept to 1 Tim. 6:10). Here is my point: lets make sure that we care more about the people meeting in
the building than we do the building itself.
-Kevin Pendergrass

Christmas - A Holy Holiday or A Secular Celebration by Kevin Pendergrass

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Christmas - A Holy Holiday or A Secular Celebration by Kevin Pendergrass

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3/1/2017 churchArchivesFORTHELOVEOFTHETRUTHbyKevinPendergrass

FOR THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH

Category Archives: church

CHRISTMAS, CHURCH, HOLIDAYS, OPINION, ORIGIN, PAGAN

CHRISTMAS: A HOLY HOLIDAY OR A SECULAR CELEBRATION?

As stated before, there is no such thing as Fathers Day or

BELIEF, CHURCH OF CHRIST, CONVICTION, JESUS, OPINION, REASON, STANDARD, UNITY

ARE WE FOLLOWING CHRIST OR THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST?

ACCAPELLA, CHURCH OF CHRIST, DR. MOORE, MUSIC

DR. KEVIN MOORE RESPONDS TO MY ARTICLE ON INSTRUMENTAL

WHAT LAW IS BEING VIOLATED?

REGULATION OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

NO LAW AGAINST INSTRUMENTS IN NEW TESTAMENT WORSHIP?

SING VS SING ONLY?

WHAT ABOUT MUSIC IN YOUR HEART

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT: MISREPRESENTING HISTORY?

COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE?

BUILDINGS, CHURCH, FAITH, OLD PATHS, TRADITION

WHY WE NEED TO SEEK THE OLD PATHS

ACCAPELLA, CHURCH, CHURCH OF CHRIST, INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC, MUSIC

MUSIC IN THE CHURCH: WHY I CHANGED MY MIND

OBJECTIVE STUDY AND THE PROBLEM WITH RHETORIC

A PLEA FOR UNITY

INCONSISTENCIES REGARDING WORSHIP MUSIC

WHAT LAW IS BEING VIOLATED?

REGULATION OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

SING VS. SING ONLY

WHAT ABOUT MUSIC IN YOUR HEART?

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT: MISREPRESENTING HISTORY

A FEW THOUGHTS ON COMMAND, EXAMPLE AND NECESSARY INFERENCE

BELIEF, CHURCH, DOCTRINE, FELLOWSHIP, RELATIONSHIP, SOLUTIONS, UNITY

UNATTAINABLE UNITY (PART 2): BIBLICAL SOLUTIONS

BELIEF, CHURCH, DOCTRINE, FELLOWSHIP, RELATIONSHIP, UNITY

UNATTAINABLE UNITY (PART 1): THE PROBLEM

BELIEF, CHURCH, CONVICTION, FACT, REASON

WHY I LEFT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST PROGRAM

BELIEF, BUILDINGS, CHURCH, IDOLS, RELATIONSHIP

A POPULAR IDOL AMONG CHURCHES

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen