1. The cultural chaos of our modern society has invaded then  church. This is evident in various calls for changes in the manner  and practice of worship.

 a. Many will not notice the subtle cultural restructuring that is
in process with the lessening moral values or the compromise of the oneness of the Church. They may lament that "we are not as we once were" but not much more attention will be paid. However when changes begin to be made in the worship procedures then attention is seized.

  1) Many appear more concerned about old rituals being cast aside than with anything else.
  2) Some are angered because changes are "sprung" upon    them without preparation.
  3) Some shrug it off as another "fad" which our young people    are going through.
  4) Some are happy that the old staid ways are being replaced    with new approaches.

 b. Changes in the worship have potential for greater division   because they threaten emotional ties. See Christian Chronicle   editorial, January 1993, discussing this.

 c. It should not be surprising to find that worship changes are
being encouraged by those living in a culture opposed to traditional values/beliefs. Those in favor of following culture try to rally support for their changes under the banner of "more spiritual worship." They seek to initiate changes in worship in these areas -- “Initiating ‘Change’ In Worship” Transparency 7/1

  1) Assemblies where the whole Church is gathered together    are de-emphasized. Small groups are being advocated.
  2) Mechanical instruments in worship are being tolerated. It   is being suggested that the mechanical instrument is no    different than the number of Communion Cups, song    books, etc.
  3) "Praise Worship" is being touted as the only real avenue of
"spiritual worship" (i.e. holding up hands, swaying with songs, hand-clapping, other emotional avenues so participants can "feel" the worship). Note: We are once again hearing that "worship" is an attitude not an act! “Those who believe in using instrumental music in the worship as an aid, or on the same basis as songbooks begin with a definition like this Worship is simply an attitude -- a condition of the heart.  They say you could not put instrumental music in the worship because you could not swallow the instrument ... Worship is an action, not an attitude. It is service rendered and the observation of rites. Worship then, is an action--not an attitude” (G.K. Wallace, p. 60).
  4) Preaching is de-emphasized and those who present    biblically based sermons are castigated as "legalistic" and    out of touch with "felt needs"!
  5) "Special Music" presentations are urged as a means to bring    people into the building (i.e. solos, singing groups, quar-   tets, choirs, etc.).
  6) Communion is being relegated to an unnecessary status.    Some contend it is not to be offered on Sunday morning    but only on Sunday night at an assembly where only saints    are present.

 d. The disregard for assembling with the whole Church is not a   novel idea. “The De-Valuation Of The Assembly!” Transpa-  rency 7/2

  1) Years ago we had brethren urging us to "meet God with
worship in the beauties of Nature." Calls were common that urged brethren to leave the shallow, stuffy atmosphere of the church building and get "closer to God." The emphasis was upon outdoor assemblies.
  2) Worldliness has also taken its toll on the understood neces-
sity of assembling at appointed times. Many are encumbered with debt that forces them to work long hours. Others are driven by the greed of success to "get ahead" or "climb the ladder," consequently many "do not have time" to assemble.
  3) The growing reluctance to honor the Elders' authority for    scheduling services has led many to stop assembling.
  4) The penchant of modern cultural pluralism to despise any
"tradition" has led to a frank denial of the need to assemble.  We are told that assemblies are the "product" of our own religious heritage and are thus a matter of little consequence to God.
  5) Current trends recognize the need for assembling but the
cultural advocates must restructure the assemblies. Thus we are urged to eliminate the Sunday evening assembly at the building in favor of meeting in homes. The Church as a whole is divided and consequently the edification that results from the "whole Church" assemblies is not possible. Even though this practice (parallel worship) sounds good & has good intentions, it is sinful. 

 a) 1 Co 11:18, 20; 14:23 -- the whole Church was accustomed to   assembling at the same place in New Testament times (cf Ac   20:7; Hb 10:25).
 b) Of special notice are the words in Hebrews 10:25. “The ‘Whole’   Assembly” Transparency 7/3

  1) "The assembling of ourselves" -- Refers to religious assem-
blies of Christians. This is not limited to one service on Sunday. Hb 10:25 refers to assemblies of the whole for exhortation.
  2) "Together" -- Refers to the whole Church being in the same    meeting where all are to be exhorted.
  3) "Forsake not" -- Stresses the importance & respect of these    gatherings.
  4) "Any doctrine, position, or practice which would disregard,
disrespect, or minimize these assemblies is a false doctrine, an erroneous position, a sinful practice" (Roy Deaver, "Respecting The Assembly," Gospel Advocate, Oct. 21, 1976, p. 674).

 c) How does the current practice of "parallel worship" (small   groups; retreats; felt-needs groups; etc.) violate the princi-  ples/commands of the New Testament? Can Christians express   confidence in this issue? “Violating The Whole Assembly”   Transparency 7/4

  1) Such perverts the emphasis and purpose for the “whole”    Church assembling. Such groups prevent the exhortation    that is gained in the full congregational assembling.
  2) Such launches a practice that has absurd endings! The    "end" is not reckoned (Pr 22:3). Robert R. Taylor, Jr. publish-
ed a series of bulletin articles on “The Divided Assembly” beginning November 19, 1978. His analysis of how small group assemblies destroys the local congregation is excellent. Below are a few of his comments which illustrate the deadly “end” for congregations who allow culture to minimize the “whole church” assemblies.

   a) To what extent should we divide the Church in order to meet "needs"?  Which "needs" will be met and which will go unmet? “What if certain groups within the congregation decide that their particular interests can best be met by meeting in a variety of places and under a system of varying circumstances? What if their desires along these lines do not demand that they even meet in close proximity to each other? After all, grant the premises of the divided assembly and what ground is there to suggest that all assemblies have to meet upon the same general premises? There are no grounds for such ... Numerous congregations have begun to have parallel worship ...there is no stopping place when this process is begun. There can be as many assemblies as there are special needs. Reduce it to its lowest denominator and one can reason like this: ‘I have special needs that no one else has. Therefore I will stay at home and worship in my own bedroom all by myself.’ If the premises for parallel worship will not ultimately lead to this point, what logical blockade will keep them from leading to this point? ... each group may feel that its needs can best be met by meeting in a variety of locations such as the golf course, the lake, the camp, the picnic spot, the swimming hole, etc. Will such practices as these in the long run destroy the local church at work? The answer is a definite and decisive ‘yes.’ I am confident that many good brethren have been sold this bill of goods and they have not thought through the matter” (Robert Taylor). 
   b) Shall we conform assemblies to golfers, fishing enthus-    iasts, campers? If so, where will it end?
   c) What will be the "end" message received by our child-
ren? “A long time friend wrote me in regard to these articles. He assured me that his stand is right where these articles stand. Then he said, ‘Having been born and reared a Roman Catholic; and having lived according to the Catholic doctrine well up into my late teens, I know about this particular subject. The Catholic Church had, and may still have, special services which catered to children only. As an example: every Sunday, when I was a member, the 9:00 a.m. Mass was for children. After Mass, catechism classes were held, again for children only. Adults were not altogether forbidden, but they were discouraged to attend services at these specific hours. This segregated type of worship was not conducive to family worship, to say the least. The astronauts were astonished and awe struck at the beautiful and breathtaking views which they observed from outer space. However, in my humble opinion, what they saw does not compare with the beauty of seeing a whole family sitting together in the same pew at all worship services.’  This is a remarkable and wise statement from one, now a faithful gospel preacher, who witnessed this practice long before our brethren began to practice this innovation. The divided assembly makes impossible family worship togetherness at public worship” (Robert Taylor). 

  3) Such is based upon immature study. Some who uphold the    "parallel worship" assemblies try to justify such by appeal-
ing to Bible Classes. “Is the current practice of having parallel or divided assemblies at the same time the same as providing a nursery for mothers, the same as our current Bible class arrangement or having multiple services? None of these adds up to having several worship assemblies in progress simultaneously. All the nursery arrangements with which I am familiar have the facility prepared where what is going on in the assembly is available to the mothers or attendants in the nursery by a speaker system ... But what about our Bible Classes?... Our Bible classes usually engage in but one or two items -- a prayer and Bible Study. The Lord’s Supper and Contribution belong in the assembly. That is where the Communion belongs on Sunday evening, not in a remote room with only a part of the worship assembly present . . . If each Bible Class had its own assembly with all five acts of worship engaged in and there was never a coming together into one place of the entire congregation, then that would be tantamount to the divided assembly and thus wrong” (Robert Taylor).

  4) Such has within it seeds for the destruction of the local    Church. “The divided assembly or parallel worship has built    within it the very seeds for destroying the local church ...    Grant the overall premises for the divided assembly or    parallel worship and you grant at the same time the premi-
ses for each group or every individual to have either their or his worship period whenever will best meet special needs. This does away entirely with the need to have the local church congregate into one place for worship. If there is no need for the local church and its worship assembly, then there is no need for an eldership over it. Have elders who are traveling this dangerous and perilous route thought about this? If there is no need for the local church and its assembly of worship, then there is no need for deacons. Have deacons thought about this when they have clamored for this new innovation ... If there is no need for the local church and its worship assembly, then there is no need for preachers to do local work ... If there is no need for the local church and its worship assembly, then what justifies the common church treasury? Just let each group or individual take care of his/her own needs. Elders who begin to travel this route may one day awaken to find themselves meeting in a large, vacant meetinghouse with no way to meet its monthly payments. I am not saying that every church that begins this practice will go this far but just where will the brakes be applied when a congregation begins to travel this downhill course? And it is downhill all the way? At the end of the steep hill on some pathetic tomorrow one will find the debris of local congregations, destroyed by a practice they thought would build them up. Then it will be too late” (Robert Taylor).

  5) Such will hinder the communication of values and spiritual    Truth from the older to the younger generations. Most Cul-
tural Advocates argue that the small groups should be "age oriented." “When the assembly is divided and parallel worship assemblies are begun there is no end, except on the basis of needs, to just how many any one congregation may have. Those who think it will just mean two -- one for the oldsters and one for the youngsters -- and only two are entirely too naive relative to this point. There can be all kinds of subdivisions both among the adults and among the younger people” (Robert Taylor).

  6) Such is impractical -- If we divide the church into different    groups, so each can get his/her needs filled, which will we    choose to attend? We may have 5-6 different groups that    offer to satisfy a “need” we have.

  7) This cultural aspect has subtly crept into the Lord's Church.    Today many fail to see just how much, and how tragic, the    damage is that has  been done to congregational loyalties.    Beside the lessening of loyalty to the support and to work for the progress of the local congregation, this practice is    wrong because ... “Why Must Some Changes Be Opposed?”    Transparency 7/5

   a) It DISTORTS the biblical command of Hb 10:25. 
   b) It COMPROMISES the absoluteness of God's commands     and the New Testament pattern of the "whole Church"     coming together.
   c) It WEAKENS believers to the point they become     irregular in attendance.
   d) It RESULTS in disastrous consequences.
   e) It LESSENS the uniqueness of God's designs.
   f) It VIOLATES the holiness of God's designs.

  8) Although this "change" sounds good and is presented with    good goals and pious points, it is a subtle design to destroy    the local Church. Devotion, loyalty, fellowship, and commitment will all be sacrificed so that cultural dictates can gain    their desired results. Such must be rejected!

 a. This area has embittered and divided brethren. It is an issue   which has wrought division and hard words in denominations   when first introduced.

 b. This topic is seldom studied. Most do not know why we do   not use mechanical instruments in singing. This ignorance   leaves the susceptible to accepting error.

 c. Some common remarks about not using mechanical instru-  mental music in worship.
 

  1) "It is just our heritage in the American Restoration Move-   ment."
  2) It is because those who began our branch of the ARM were    too poor to purchase the instrument."
  3) "It is an archaic belief that should be changed." 
  4) “I really don't know why we don't use it.”
  5) "Our practice is rooted in an arrogance and is more sinful    than actually using it."
  6) "It is a dinosaur from the past traditions that should be    changed."

 d. How do you view mechanical instrumental music in the wor-
ship assembly? Is it wrong but not sinful? Is it merely opinion? Is it a sin that will cause one to go to Hell? Does it invalidate worship?

 e. Our study cannot consider this topic as thoroughly as some
desire. Numerous books are available offering exceptional study on the topic. Our purpose in this point is to consider five of the arguments FOR the tolerance of the mechanical instrument in worship. Some today are urging us to "tolerate" the mechanical instrument even if we cannot "accept" it. Such urges us to accept that which God condemned. “Five Arguments FOR Use Of Mechanical Instruments With Songs Of Worship” Transparency 7/6

 
  1) "Instrumental music is a 'non-issue' today!" 

   a) Such addresses the issue with apathy and urges all to view it as a neutral matter. It is admitted that instruments have caused problems but so have other things (i.e. multiple cups in Communion; Bible Classes; Orphan's Homes; etc.). With a shrug the whole practice is passed off as inconsequential!
   b) However the issue is very important. It is eternally important! The current attempt fails to admit the following facts about the issue ...

    1) It numbs one's sensitivity to God's Word and the      divine will (cf Mt 15:7-9; 2 Ths 2:9-12). To God this is an      issue!
    2) It fails to recognize that mechanical instrumental      music is another KIND of music. It is different from      vocal music (See Bales, p. 278).
    3) It mis-classifies mechanical instrumental music with
Communion cups, etc. The number of containers used in Communion does not add another element! (Bales, p. 261).
    4) It fails to see the connection of mechanical instrumen-
tal music with religious authority. If it is just "opinion neutral" then so is all else in religious practice! (Bales, p. 274,283).

  2) "Instrumental music is only an AID to singing. It is not an addition."
   a) Such often presents mechanical instrumental music as     occupying the same category as a meeting-house, lights,     sound systems, etc., as it helps the worshipers sing     better.
   b) However, it IS NOT an aid! (Bales, p. 259ff). 
    1) It causes singing to become artistic performances for      man and man forgets God.
    2) It discourages instead of encourages singing. 
    3) It adds another kind of music which God has not      authorized (thus leaving the realm of an "aid").
    4) If it aids by making the services more attractive, what      else can we change to bring more in? Such an "aid" is      really a detriment (See Bales, p. 269 for the inconsis-     tency of this argument).
    5) If the unauthorized "aid" of the mechanical instru-     ment is acceptable, then any other "aid" will be legal!      (See Bales, p. 270-272).
    6) It fails to recognize that some "aids" are departures      from God's revealed will (Bales, p. 272b),
    7) It fails to admit that mechanical instrumental music in      the Old Testament was considered more than an "aid"      - it was an addition to it! (Bales, p. 280).
    8) “The aid argument is an old one, and it has not im-
proved with age. However, it has sanctioned more and more additions to the worship. ... This argument supposes that we may accommodate the worship of God to our own taste and feelings, and model it in such a way as to enliven our affections, and give us pleasure” (Bales, p. 274-275a).

  3) "Instrumental music is okay because it is not a part of wor-   ship."
   a) There are several variations of this argument:
    1) "The instrument aids only the worshiper and has no      part in worship."
    2) "The true believer worships in spirit (attitude) and      since you cannot put the instrument into his/her      heart (attitude) you cannot have it in worship."
    3) "All of life is worship (Ro 12:1,2). We listen to music in      daily life hence we are using instruments in worship.      What's the difference in Monday - Saturday and on      Sunday?"
   b) Each of these positions is easily answered. It is sad that     many today are ignorant of these matters.
    1) The notion that the mechanical instrument has no
part in the worship is absurd. Mechanical instrumental music is a kind of music (Bales, 278). To add mechanical instrumental music is to add another kind of music to the services. To think that mechanical instrumental music has no part in worship when it is used in worship is to be ignorant of Scripture (cf 2 Chron 5:13; Ps 150:3-5 -- "with"; See Bales 279-280).
    2) The contention that "worship" is only an attitude and
 not an act is an old liberal dodge that does not work.  "Worship" is grossly misunderstood and abused in our  day. Worship is an "action" that demonstrates  devotion to God. The error of believing that worship  is only attitude and not action is evident in texts  speaking of "coming to" and "going from" worship (cf  2 Sa 12:20; Zech 14:16; Mt 2:2; Ac 24:11; etc.). When we  "worship" we are "drawing near" to God (an action).  We "draw near" by speaking (Hb 13:15); singing (2  Chron 29:25-30); praying (2 Chron 7:3); giving (2 Chron  29:27,28); and Communion (1 Co 10:16). We must have  the right attitude (heart/spirit) but we must also have  the right action! Imbalance in either leads to vain  worship. Mechanical instrumental music takes the  action of worship and changes it from that which  God commanded (i.e. it contaminates its "holiness").
    3) The distorted concept that "worship" is everything we
 do in daily life has become a common notion.  Ro  12:1,2 is used to suggest the everything a Christian  does is "worship" (even the mundane tasks of each  day). This distorts and confuses the whole concept of  "worship" and leads sincere hearts to absurd conclu- sions.  The context of Ro 12 shows that Paul was dis- cussing devoted living instead of devoted worship.  To equate "worship" assemblies with "services" in  every day living is to ignore the fact that there are  certain "worship acts" that must be preformed in a  spiritual setting and these are far different from the  normal duties of daily living!
   c) Mechanical instrumental music is definitely a part of wor-
 ship. Just because some are defining "worship" in a way  that permits the use of mechanical instruments, does  not erase the fact that it is worship which God has not  commanded!

  4) "Instrumental music is not the problem. Those who oppose    it are the troublerers and they are causing the division -    not those who are sincere in its use!"
   a) This is another age-old ploy of "charge and     counter-charge follow each other in quick succession,     and general confusion is the result." (Cf 1 Ki 18:17,18).
   b) History is clear -- the division has come by those who     have pushed the use of the mechanical instrument!
   c) This argument strives to remove any commendable
qualities from the divisions. Inspiration does not condemn Christians for causing division unless those divisions harm the Lord's Church (1 Co 1:10). Some divisions are right and thus are commended (Ro 16:17).
   d) The truth of the division over mechanical instruments
in the worship assemblies is summarized by Kurfrees. “One side introduces a practice admitting that the Lord does not require it, and knowing, in advance, that division in the body of Christ will be the inevitable result; the other side refuses to engage in the practice believing that the Lord requires them to stand aloof from it. Hence, here is an instance of division in the body of Christ mutually caused by both sides in a case of two opposing parties, but with this radical difference, viz., it is caused by one side when there is not only no necessity for it, but the most solemn of all reasons against it; while it is caused by the other side when there is not only a stern necessity for it, but when it is the last resort in order to maintain a pure conscience toward God and toward man. In the latter case, innocence can be maintained in no other way; in the former, only guilt is incurred” (p. 264-265).

  5) "Instrumental music should be allowed because it allows    certain members to use talents for the Lord."
   a) This is fast becoming a main argument for justifying the     use of instruments in worship. Those who wish to intro-    duce "special music" presentation also rest heavily upon     this.
   b) Bales, p. 331, treats this fully. There are a number of     problems with this --
    1) It makes man's "talents" the standard for worship in-     stead of God's Book.
    2) To base one's practices of worship upon "talents" is to      replace "faith" with "sight" (2 Co 5:7).
    3) To argue for "talent" directed worship is to practice      "will worship" (Col 2:18-23; Mt 15:9).
    4) This allows man to "direct" his own worship (Jere      10:23).
    5) This argument will allow the introduction of anything that is discovered as a "talent" (cooking; dancing;  acrobatics; etc.). Interesting query - What happens  when one has a "talent" to play a "one man band" but  in doing so is unable to "sing"? Does his "talent"  override Inspiration's command to "sing"?
    6) Note: In the arguments being made to allow chorus,
 solos, etc., into worship, this "talent" argument is  foremost (i.e. "God has given me a special talent to  sing and I want to praise Him with it."). The same  flaws appear in this justification of solos as in the  playing of mechanical instruments.

 f. Mechanical instruments of music should not be used in the
worship assemblies. Even though Cultural Advocates castigate this position as "traditional heritage" it is biblically sound! The use of mechanical instruments of music is wrong (sinful) because . . .  Transparency 7/5 “Why Must Some Changes Be Opposed?”
  a) It DISTORTS the biblical commands. 
  b) It COMPROMISES the absoluteness of God's commands and    the New Testament pattern of vocal music only in worship    assemblies.
  c) It WEAKENS believers so they are willing to allow other in-   novations that will carry the Church further into apostasy.
  d) It RESULTS in disastrous consequences. The "end" it has his-   torically led to is utter ruin.
  e) It VIOLATES the principle of holiness which is to govern    God's people.
 

 a. Cultural voices charge that present worship assemblies are
"dull, boring, sullen, and unspiritual." It is suggested that such must be changed and the Cultural Advocates claim they have discovered the way to true "spiritual" worship -- it is via "Praise Worship!" In addition it is charged that we have become guilty of ceremonialism in our assemblies -- "Two songs, a prayer, and a song" is the rut; we do not use contemporary music; we have an unwritten worship program of when to stand; prayers are made with traditional phrases that are seldom understood and are actually "vain repetitions; etc. To counter this "stale atmosphere" we are being urged to accept the "shock treatment" of "change"!

 b. It must be admitted that many congregations are guilty as
charged! Many have allowed themselves to become ritualized in worship and ceremony and stale in worship spirit! We must present the right attitudes in worship. The Psalms present the attitude which our worship must portray (Ps 100; 9:11; 67:3; cf Ac 2:47; Hb 13:15). Apathy and nonchalance in worship is repulsive to God! (Mal 1:10ff).

 c. There are some problems with the "Change Advocates" solu-  tion -- Praise  Worship. Here is another example of how their   "good intentions" have gone awry. Transparency 7/7   “‘PRAISE’ Gone Awry!”
 

  1) Inconsistency  They recoil at "traditions" in worship yet advocate their own set of "traditions." They ask us to trade our traditions for their traditions! They are quick to condemn others for "somber sullenness" yet they do not present an outward "joy." When asked about this they assert that they are rejoicing "inside" -- why will they not allow such an option to those they consider "sullen"? They claim our worship is traditional and cultural. They want to "raise hands," kneel, and other practices in worship. Yet these are culturally rooted in Jewish life as revealed in Scripture. Why castigate us for being "culturally bound" while they are pleading for us to submit  to another culture's restriction? This inconsistency should cause some to suspect the "changes" being urged! (cf Ro 14:22b).

  2) Emotionalism The current fad is to make worship more of an up-lifting entertainment period rather than a period of devotion to God. People today are focusing upon "feelings" in worship more than upon participation in it. Worship is not a spectator sport! Current efforts by which emotionalism is given top priority: efforts to make the Lord's Supper more "meaningful" by someone carrying a cross down the center aisle or having a trio sing. The problem is that emotional changes must increase if they are to continue to stimulate. New boundaries must be crossed if the emotional stimulation is to remain "high." Ultimately "anything" that promises to add  "meaning" will be tolerated (This opens the door to all kinds of error!). Tom Holland, "The current demand for change in worship ... is basically a challenge from the world to dictate to the church the kind of worship that will be appealing and worthy of applause." “A pentecostal aura hangs over the thought process; i.e., an emotional barometer determines whether a program, or action, is approved. The higher the emotional appeal, the more excitement is generated in implementing the practice. Emotionalism then becomes the motivation for religious activity ... The natural result of such a priority is that the believer is led to attend worship to ‘get something out of the service’ rather than giving his worship to God ... Church leaders begin to listen to the pleas of the people to provide for them their ‘felt needs.’ ‘Things’ took the place of teaching” (Eddie Whitten, What Does God Authorize In Worship?, p. 293).

  3) Selfishness  The "ME Generation" has matured and is now influencing the Church. This is the generation directed solely by self-centered pursuits. If something is not "fulfilling" it is discarded. This tragic attitude has invaded families, marriages, jobs, and the Church. Its motto in the Church is based upon "felt needs." As Elders are pommeled with cries for "felt needs" to be fulfilled, the desired "changes" are soon enacted. Consequently "things" take the place of teaching as people try to "get something out of the worship." The problem is that people come to worship to GET something rather than to GIVE God devotion. This subtle shift has had a damning effect upon worship. We hear calls to make worship more "meaningful to me" rather than to make worship conform to God's decrees! Scriptural worship becomes secondary to personal appeal; faithfulness and devotion become secondary to meeting "needs."

  4) Subjectiveness  Once the decision is made to "meet felt needs" one launches upon a subjective journey. "Needs" become the control of decision- making. Of course this leads to division because its only guide is emotions. Some claim that worship is made meaningful  only when you sway as you sing songs; clap hands in rhythm; or lifting up your hands when you pray. While these may enhance the worship's "spirituality" for some, it ruins it for others. How does subjectivism determine which group has "ruined" worship? The biblical injunction for Corinth certainly applies here! (1 Co 14:40).

  5) Note: These problems are too great to ignore! Those who do ignore them will find themselves facing appalling compromises. What they intended will be far surpassed. They will struggle with grief because their changed worship is still not as "spiritual" as they had thought. Such emptiness always characterizes those duped by false teaching! (2 Pt 2:1-19).