This Issue...
THE LORD'S SUPPER AND A COMMON MEAL
In the June 2002 issue of Seek The Old Paths,
we published an article by Jack Simons reviewing the practice of a
special Sunday communion service held at the Skyway Hills Church of
Christ in Pearl, Mississippi. The church there observed a special
communion service in which they partook the Lord's supper in the
setting of a common meal. Printed below is a letter from the elders
of Skyway Hills in which they defend their practice. Their letter
is printed in its entirety. Please be sure you read brother Jack
Simons' response to this letter beginning on the next page.
To the Editor,
August 14, 2002
Recently Jack Simons charged, and you published,
allegations that Skyway Hills church of Christ “profaned the
Lord's supper by making a common meal of it” and it was further
stated that in doing so we “ate and drank damnation to
(our)selves.” Serious charges to be sure. Charges that should
not be considered lightly ... nor, we might add, thrown around
hastily. While we write this response, with the brother in mind who
made these charges, we really address all interested Christians who
have either read or heard of the event, and the ensuing turmoil,
and wondered how a church might commit so serious an offense — if
indeed one has been committed. The brother who brought these
charges quoted I Corinthians 11:17-34 as the basis for these
accusations, so we think it only fitting that we examine this
passage both in light of what occurred at Corinth, what actually
occurred at Skyway Hills and exactly what the apostle Paul was
condemning.
Upon examination of these verses we find Paul
condemning the Corinthian church, and telling them “it is not
the Lord's Supper you are having,” for the following reasons:
-
When they came together there were divisions
among them
- They were not waiting for others before they
began to eat
- Some were left with little or no food
- Some were getting drunk
- Because of their selfishness and gluttony they were
humiliating the poor among them
Because of these offenses Paul says that they
were partaking in an unworthy manner. Beyond these charges we can
find no others, although some will claim a prohibition against
eating in church buildings. Additionally, the brother that brought
charges against Skyway Hills added his own prohibitions against
partaking of the Lord's Supper twice on a Sunday — which is
nowhere mentioned or prohibited in scripture. This brother surely
knows this for he didn't even mention scripture when making this
accusation. His strongest argument was: To repeat an event on
Sunday somehow made the first occurrence inadequate. That being the
case, might he next have us believe that Sunday evening services
somehow speak to the inadequacy of the morning assembly?
Additionally, he states that having the Lord's Supper in
conjunction with a fellowship meal is prohibited in scripture, and
condemned by Paul, but biblical scholars point out that this may
have been the very practice in the early church. It was certainly
the practice in Corinth and may very well have been what Jude
referred to as a “love feast.”
After looking at the activity that Skyway Hills church
of Christ engaged in, we find none that violated scripture. All
members and visitors alike were invited to participate. No one ran
ahead of anyone else for the purpose of eating the finest foods or
with any intent of selfishness. No one was left with little or no
food. Alcohol has never been a part of this or any activity
associated with Skyway Hills church of Christ. And we certainly
never humiliated the less fortunate of our assembly. In fact, it
was our very concern for others that prompted us to have communion
first in the custom to which we, in the Churches of Christ are
familiar, so as not to alienate, exclude or offend anyone who would
not choose to participate in the communion service to follow the
morning assembly.
Upon careful and unbiased examination of the passage
in I Corinthians one can clearly see it was the manner in which
some of the Corinthians conducted themselves that Paul is
addressing, not the setting of the Lord's supper. If, as this
brother claims, it is a setting issue, then one must conclude that
Paul is prohibiting “eating in the building” for he clearly
states that “if anyone is hungry, he should eat at
home.” Further, if that is the case then one must
conclude that Paul is teaching that division, gluttony and total
disregard for our brothers and sisters welfare are acceptable as
long as we display such behavior in the privacy of our own
“homes” and carefully put on our “church faces”
before communing with those we profess to love. Does anyone reading
this really believe that we could come together for the purpose of
taking the Lord's Supper (in the manner in which every traditional
Church of Christ has for the past 100 years) having an auditorium
half full of rich gluttons, with the other half comprised of the
starving poor, and this would somehow qualify as communing in
“a worthy manner” because we didn't eat in front of each
other, or the fellowship meal was separated from communion thereby
hiding this selfishness?
The objections that were raised concerning Skyway
Hills had to do with mechanics while the apostle Paul dealt with
the Corinthians on attitudes of the heart. Could we have done the
mechanics better at Skyway Hills on that Sunday? Possibly. But to
focus on and be condemned because of those mechanics completely
misses the point that Paul was making to the Corinthian church.
Paul wanted their hearts made right with each other and with God.
Paul wasn't condemning a meal in conjunction with the Lord's
supper. What he was teaching them is to love one another.
Paul doesn't contradict Christ. His writings complement
the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was very clear when he said,
“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” (Mt. 9:13) Have we
taken the time to “go and learn what this means?”
Do we understand that Jesus is teaching religious ritual
means less to God than love? “Therefore, if you are
offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front
of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come
and offer your gift.” (Mt. 5:23,24) Do we quickly pass
over the significance of the highest praise our Lord ever gave a
man? One man in scripture was commended by Jesus himself as
“not (being) far from the kingdom of God.” (Mk.
12:28-34) Do you know what that man said that earned him such high
praise from our Savior? Here, I let you read it for yourself,
“To love (God) with all your heart, with all your understanding
and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself
is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
Love — attitude — is more important than ceremony —
ritual. That is what Christ taught and it is that same lesson Paul
was teaching to the Corinthians. And it is the same lesson that we
are striving to learn at Skyway Hills church of Christ because to
us the teachings of Christ are everything!
We are the elders of Skyway Hills church of Christ.
These are the things we believe. These are the lessons that our
Lord came to teach.
From: Steve Lavin, Lonnie Livingston, Glynn McMillen
Skyway Hills Church of Christ
3800 Hwy. 80 East, PO Box 5600
Pearl, Mississippi 39288
Table of Contents
Guest Editorial...
ATTITUDE, NOT MECHANICS?
A REPLY TO THE ELDERS OF THE SKYWAY HILLS
CHURCH OF CHRIST, PEARL, MISSISSIPPI
Jack Simons
It is blasphemy to relegate the worship of God to
common practice or to mingle it with such! That is how the church
became the apostate Roman church — through taking holy things and
mingling them with pagan rites and common practices! And this came
about through church leaders, especially elders if you will,
fulfilling Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:28-31 — men who Paul
described as being, “grievous wolves,” who “speak
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
I am grateful to the elders of the Skyway Hills church of
Christ — brothers, Steve Lavin, Lonnnie Livingston and Glynn
McMillen, for their response (personal letter to me dated 8-14-02
and their letter published in this issue dated 8-12-02) to the
charges made against them in the article I wrote concerning their
observing the Lord's supper in conjunction with a common meal
published in S.T.O.P. Vol. 13, No. 6 — “SPECIAL SUNDAY
COMMUNION,” pgs. 41,43-44. The charge still stands and is
reinforced by the sad words of their reply. They only further
establish the truthfulness and validity of those charges. They
admit they did what they did and make a pitiful and vain attempt to
justify it. We rejoice that they examined 1 Cor. 11:17-34 which was
quoted as the basis for the charges laid against them, and we
suggest they need to REexamine it in view of their attempt to use
it to justify their actions.
They are correct in their
assessment that in this passage Paul rebuked the Corinthians because: 1)
When they came together there were divisions among them. 2) And that they
were selfish, gluttonous and were humiliating the poor among them by their
erroneous actions. However, they are incorrect to say, “They were not
waiting for others before they began to eat.” We may assume they deduce
this from the words of v.21, especially from the NIV, “For as you eat,
each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains
hungry, another gets drunk.” Faulty versions lead to faulty conclusions. A
careful study of this passage, especially in light of the Greek, will help
us better understand it. The Greek word for “goes ahead,”
(NIV) or “taketh before,” (KJV) is
prolambanei, which, according to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich
means, “To do something before the usual time, particularly in
anticipation of something else.” Thayer says it means, “To
take beforehand.” Both Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich and Vine
associate it with forestalling or hindering others. Vine especially
renders it, “Forestalling the less favored at a social
meal.” The taking “before other,” (The word
“other” is not in the original Greek) was not an impatient
eating before others were ready, it was callous, thoughtless eating
in the presence of others with no concern for those who had little,
especially in view of the spiritual meal THAT WOULD FOLLOW
AFTERWARDS in observing the Lord's supper!
L. W. Shepherd makes this comment in the Gospel
Advocate commentary on this passage: “The eating of a feast
with its attendant gluttony and drinking led many to attend. Each
family brought its own portion and each partook of his own, the
rich eating and drinking to satiety of their abundance. The poor
were shamed by the scantiness of their food and went hungry. This
was all wrong. It is thought by some that this feasting PRECEDED
THE LORD'S SUPPER, (emphasis mine, JS) so that some were filled to
satiety, while others were hungry when they partook of the emblems
of the Lord's body and blood” (Vol. II, First Corinthians,
p.171). This is in line with the meaning of the Greek — to take
before time in anticipation of observing the Lord's supper, and to
take in such a way as to hinder or shame the poor as it was done!
We agree that because of these offenses, Paul charged
them with partaking in an unworthy manner, but what was it they did
to be guilty of such a serious charge? They ate and drank
unworthily, “not discerning the Lord's body!” It was both
an attitude and an action (they did something — ate and drank)
that incurred apostolic rebuke and the warning of damnation here!
As to my query on taking the Lord's supper TWICE on one
Sunday, I stated it thus: “It would seem the first was somehow
inadequate!! If not why have it again?!” (STOP, Vol. 13, No. 6
— “SPECIAL SUNDAY COMMUNION” p.1) This was not so much a
rebuke for doing so, as it was a question on why
do so! Now please tell us, why take it twice? Was it because
the first was somehow inadequate? If the first was accepted with
God, why do it again in the same day? As they pointed out here,
such a practice, “Is nowhere mentioned or prohibited in
Scripture.” That, by the way, is why I gave no Scripture
reference concerning it in my query! But let me give one now. If
there is no example or authorization for such in Scripture, then
there is a violation of Rev. 22:18 in “adding” it to our
worship practice! It need not be specifically prohibited if it is
no where taught! That in itself prohibits it (again Rev. 22:18-19).
And, may I point out, this was NOT my “strongest argument”
against them as they allege. My strongest argument was the force of
1 Cor. 11:17-22 — Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, writing by
divine inspiration, condemning the exact practice they did —
having a common meal in a way that it mingled with or at the very
least hindered their worship assembly, especially in observing the
Lord's supper! This is what motivated Paul to charge the
Corinthians, and them, inasmuch as they did the exact same thing,
with: division, heresy and blasphemy in profaning the Lord's
supper!
Let us again address the issue of observing the Lord's
supper in conjunction with a common meal! The “BIBLICAL
SCHOLARS,” they ambiguously referred to, that point out that
the early church “MAY HAVE” acceptably observed the Lord's
supper in conjunction with a common meal, have no sound Scriptural
ground for their assumption! They certainly cannot use 1 Cor. 11 as
an example, because that is the very thing Paul condemned! The
Corinthians did not properly assemble to worship when they used
that assembly in conjunction with the common meal (v.17)! Carefully
note v.20, “When ye come together therefore into one place,
this is not to eat the Lord's supper.” Paul pointed out here
that they were assembling for the wrong reason when they mingled
common practice with worship, especially in observing the Lord's
supper (see also vs.20-22). He told them to keep their common meals
separate from the act of worship involving observing the Lord's
supper — eat your common meal at home and observe the Lord's
supper in your worship assembly!
As to their
reference to the “love feast” of Jude 12, hear the explanation of this
passage by Guy N. Woods in the Gospel Advocate Commentary on Jude, pages
395,396: “The 'Love feasts' were meals common to the apostolic age at
which the saints met from social, charitable, and humanitarian reasons.
They appear to have had their origin in the practice of wealthier members
of the congregation providing food for the poorer ones, and eating with
them, in token of their brotherliness. These feasts are not to be
identified in any way with the Lord's supper
(emphasis
mine, JS), indeed, when this supper was corrupted into such a meal,
it occasioned a sharp rebuke from Paul (1 Cor. 11:17-34). But that
saints were accustomed to meet together for common meals follows
from this reference to such by Jude, from a similar reference in 2
Pet. 2:13, and from numerous statements from ecclesiastical writers
in the early centuries of the Christian era. They were suspended by
the fourth century because men of the type of whom Jude wrote
turned them into ungodly revels!!”
NOTE. That makes two (2) highly respected Bible
Scholars in our brotherhood we have cited that declare the common
meal preceded observing the Lord's supper — L. W. Shepherd and Guy
N. Woods!
It is blasphemy to relegate the worship of God to
common practice or to mingle it with such! That is how the church
became the apostate Roman church — through taking holy things and
mingling them with pagan rites and common practices! And this came
about through church leaders, especially elders if you will,
fulfilling Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:28-31 — men who Paul
described as being, “grievous wolves,” who “speak
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Their
similar actions condemn them of being guilty of this charge! I weep
as I pen these words!! I weep for these men who as elders advocate
such error, for the church there, and for the blasphemy and heresy
they spawn. God help us if men like these continue to shepherd His
flock!
How can they
write and say, “After looking at the activity that Skyway Hill church of
Christ engaged in, we find none that violated scripture.” They say they
did this out of concern for others, (there was certainly no concern for
Christ and His Word) “so as not to alienate
(emphasis mine, JS), exclude or
offend anyone who would chose not to participate in the communion
service to follow the morning assembly.” Their very explanation
condemns them for promoting a divided membership! It acknowledges
the possibility of alienating some, and therefore offering them an
“out” while others go ahead and partake. This is exactly
the division Paul condemned which is spawned by the very practice
they initiated! They offered TWO ways of observing the Lord's
supper — one for those of a more liberal nature who are less
structured with what they would call the traditional custom
normally used in our conservative assemblies, and another for those
more rigid in what they would call their traditional practices.
Yes, they did promote division, and knew they would possibly
“alienate” others by their actions, so they made it
convenient for them not to participate! That is division! It
suggests some are made stronger for embracing their erroneous
practice while others are weaker for not embracing it! Let them
deny it if they can!?
They seemed to have neglected addressing the surcharge of $5.00 for the
catered Bar-B-Q meal held in conjunction with observing the Lord's supper
in their afternoon activity that was requested of those planning to
participate in it! What of those who may not have had the $5.00 per
person? Is it possible they may have felt shamed by not being able to pay
the fee and therefore be left out of the activity? I quote again their
bulletin announcement, “We are thinking the meal will cost around $5.00
per person.” With a family of four, that would amount to $20! I have six
children. That would cost me $5 x 8 (my wife and I included) which equals
$40.00 to partake of this meal! Most of my children are now grown and have
children of their own (I have 9 grandchildren), but I have seen many a
time when my children were small that I didn't have that to spend for a
catered meal, or anything else that was optional for that matter! If my
whole family — me, my wife, our six children and their mates and their
children had attended, that would have cost our entire family 19 x $5 =
$95!
They indeed could have humiliated the less fortunate of their
congregation with this fee for this activity! Let them deny that if
they can! 40 bucks, if nothing else, would have alienated me if I
still had my six children at home. It is beyond me that they would
charge for an activity that supposedly involves worship in the
first place. How can they say, “All members and visitors alike
were invited to participate.” If they had the money for the
meal they could have!
They claim that, “Upon careful and unbiased
examination of the passage in I Corinthians one can clearly see it
was the manner in which some of the Corinthians conducted
themselves that Paul is addressing, not the setting of the Lord's
supper.” They further charge that my claim that if it involved,
“A setting issue, then one must conclude that Paul is
prohibiting 'eating in the building' for he clearly states that
'if anyone is hungry, he should eat at home'.” They continue that if such be true, then,
“Paul is teaching that division, gluttony and total disregard for our
brothers and sisters welfare are acceptable as long as we display such
behavior in the privacy of our own 'homes' and carefully put on our
'church faces' before communing with those we profess to love. Does anyone
reading this really believe that we could come together for the purpose of
taking the Lord's supper (in the manner in which every traditional
church of Christ has for the past 100 years
) (emphasis mine, JS)
having an auditorium full of rich gluttons, with the other half
comprised of the starving poor, and this would somehow qualify as
communing in 'a worthy manner' because we didn't eat in front of
each other, or the fellowship meal was separated from communion
thereby hiding this selfishness?”
It is
obvious from these words that they didn't use as much care as they should
have and used a lot more bias than they are willing to admit in examining
1 Cor. 11. Did Paul instruct the Corinthians to eat their common meals in
their own homes and observe the Lord's supper in their worship assemblies
rather than combine them together — lest they partake unworthily? He
certainly did in 1 Cor. 11:20-22! However, he was not condemning eating in
the “church building” or “auditorium.” For the most part, they didn't
have
“church buildings” or
“auditoriums.” In fact, many conducted worship IN THEIR
HOMES (See Col 4:15). What Paul was condemning was combining a
common practice with an act of worship. It had noting to do with
“church buildings” or “auditoriums,” it had to do
with the worship assembly verses a common setting — whether it was
done in the same building or not, or in a brush arbor for that
matter. It was a “setting issue,” and an erroneous act that
Paul condemned as well as improper manner and attitudes.
Note further their bias as they attempt to denounce
what they refer to as our 100 years of tradition, as hypocritical
— professed with “church faces,” displayed only in our
worship assemblies and shed off in our fellowship activities apart
from them. How loving and superior they deem themselves, and how
unloving and uncaring they charge us of being — because they claim
to have a love that transcends a concern for Scriptural and
doctrinal precept which we manifest in what we practice with a more
important concern and care for appeasing the cultural whims and
personal felt-needs of men that they display!
They relegate “Taking the Lord's Supper (in the
manner in which every traditional Church of Christ has for the past
100 years),” to an opinionated tradition. We wonder where they
get justification for their numerical statistic!? We also observe
that they spelled “Church,” with a capital “C”
here. We assume they wished to indict what they call, “the
traditional Church,” as being denominational because of its
traditional practices! (No bias?!) They say what Skyway Hills did,
“Had to do with mechanics, while the apostle Paul dealt with
the Corinthians attitudes of the heart. Could we have done the
mechanics better at Skyway Hills on that Sunday? Possibly.”
(More than possibly, JS) “But to focus on and be
condemned because of those mechanics completely misses the point
that Paul was making to the Corinthian church. Paul wanted their
hearts made right with each other and with God. Paul wasn't
condemning a meal in conjunction with the Lord's supper. What he
was teaching them is to love one another.” Balderdash! I did
not miss the point, I hit the nail on the head! Let us carefully
note that if one's attitude is wrong, it will lead to wrong
mechanics and vice-versa. Yes, Paul condemned them for wrong
attitudes (v.28), but he also condemned them for wrong mechanics —
erroneous practice (vs.17-22). What they did was wrong because
their hearts were not right, and their hearts were not right
because what they did was wrong! Paul condemned both.
Let us address their reference to Matt. 9:13, Matt.
5:23-24 and Matt. 22:37-40, and our Lord's teaching on mercy,
forgiveness and love. When our Lord said in Matt. 9:12-13,
“they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and
not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners
to repentance,” He was not teaching that God's mercy does not
demand or necessitate careful adherence to His Will. Nor was He
advocating that we can do as we please religiously in lieu of God's
mercy condoning every whim or ignoring any departure from His
declared inspired Word! What Jesus was doing here was condemning
the hypocritical self righteousness of the Pharisees who rebuked
and rejected Him for having association with sinners. He in turn
rejected them citing to them Hosea 6:6 pointing out that without
God's mercy, sinners have no hope! He was not condemning obedience!
Much the contrary, He was reenforcing the need for obedience (See
1 Sam. 15:22). In the text of Matt. 9:13, Jesus made it clear He
was come to call “sinners to repentance.” This demanded
careful and absolute adherence to God's law! Sacrifice without
mercy is vain. The reason this is so is because, when the Jews
offered their sacrifices and burnt offerings, God rejected them and
extended them no mercy because they had polluted His law and
profaned His commands on worship (See the context of Hosea 6). Now,
let the elders as Skyway Hills go and learn what that means!
When our Lord taught us in Matt. 5:23-24 to reconcile
ourselves with a brother who has something against us before we
leave our gift at the altar, He was teaching us that our worship
can be hindered if we are fussing and fighting with each other. The
problem was personal issues between brothers, not doctrinal issues
that concern Scriptural worship. This is applicable to the error of
1 Cor. 11 however, because it further condemns the crass treatment
of the affluent towards the poor and the hard feelings such might
gender in the poor toward the affluent! However, it nowhere
advocates love over mechanics or method as it seems they are
attempting to imply!
When our Lord commended the scribe for His sincere
astuteness in agreeing with Him concerning His teaching on the two
great commandments, He was not giving the highest praise He ever
gave to man (see Matt. 8:10; 11:11), but He was commending him for
ascertaining the truth! What did Jesus teach here? He taught that
the first and greatest of all the commandments is, “Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” How do we
manifest this love for God? By Keeping His commandments (John
14:15; 1 John 5:2-3). Jesus then declared the second is like unto
it, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” How do we
do this? “Treat him right, forgive him when he offends us,
teach him the Gospel, set a good example before him, lead him to
repentance if he strays, etc. Nowhere can we find emphasis on
“love” over “obedience” or “attitude” over
“mechanics” or “method!” In fact, we find
reenforcement of the need of love manifested in obedience coupled
with reverence for God's commands manifested in adhering to sound
doctrine and method! Consider Heb. 12:28-29, “Wherefore we
receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace,
whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
For our God is a consuming fire.” Now please note: We are to
“SERVE GOD,” (not man) “ACCEPTABLY,” according to
His will, with “REVERENCE AND GODLY FEAR,” manifesting a
respect for His commandments and obeying them lest we incur His
wrath.
They say, “Love — attitude — is more important
than ceremony — ritual,” and right they are, but love is not
more important than keeping God's commandments which has nothing to
do with ceremony or ritual! Ceremony and ritual are after the
traditions of man (Matt. 15:9). Adherence to Scriptural soundness
in how we worship is according to God's will (John 4:23-24). The
fact is, our attitude is wrong and there is no love for God when
His commandments are not kept or are altered in any way. Paul
condemned WHAT the Corinthians did, and charged them of having an
improper attitude when doing it.
They claim that to them, “The teachings of Christ
are everything.” Hear Jesus in John 14:15, “If ye love
me, keep my commandments.” John 15:14,
“Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
Matt. 15:8-9, “This people draweth nigh unto me
with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart
is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men.” Matt. 7:21,
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 28:20,
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world. Amen.” Where in any of these words of Jesus
do we find justification for claiming “love” is more
important than “mechanics?” We are to do all that we do or
say in exact compliance with the will of God (Col. 3:17). Which of
these or any of our Lord's commandments can we ignore for any
reason and still say we love Him or one another?
The letter they sent personally to me was almost the
same as the one they sent S.T.O.P. except for the last paragraph.
It read as follows: “If you are looking for an imperfect
congregation to pick on...well, you found one. And without
condemning your congregation we suspect the same could be said of
yours. If however, you are interested in spiritual growth and
unity...if you can acknowledge that while we may have moved beyond
your comfort zone the possibility exists that we remained within
the Lord's...if you understand that we might not agree with each
other on every issue but that disagreement doesn't necessitate that
we attack each other or that either of us be eternally condemned
then we would welcome your comments. If not, we gratefully
acknowledge the autonomy that God granted each of His
churches.”
This is not a personal matter addressed by a nit
picking fault finder, it is a doctrinal issue that affects the
Lord's church everywhere! I was not looking for, am not looking
for, and never shall look for an imperfect congregation “TO
PICK ON,” nor was I picking on them. I challenged them because
of the error they were practicing there and the evil effects it can
have on other congregations. As to the congregation of which I'm a
member being perfect, when we consider the human element of the
Lord's church, no congregation on earth is perfect, that is why we
need God's grace, mercy and His Word to guide us and help us
correct our imperfections! However, we dare not attempt to justify
our imperfections! Rather, we should admit and confess them and try
to correct them! (see I John 1:7-10)
It was not my “COMFORT ZONE” they threatened,
it was sound doctrine they undermined! A “comfort zone” is
an area of opinion, custom or tradition one feels comfortable with
that is not mandated upon all by direct command from God's Word.
There is room for this in the kingdom of God! Whether or not we
have the Lord's supper before or after the preaching falls into
this category. I have seen it done both ways and it matters not one
whit to me which way is practiced. However, whether or not we
observe the Lord's supper in conjunction with a common meal does
not fall in this category, it is a violation of Biblical precept —
as already discussed in view of 1 Cor. 11! Accepting this
definition of a comfort zone, how in this world can these men, who
claim to be elders in our Lord's church, suggest that our Lord
Jesus Christ has “comfort zones”?! They said: “While we
may have moved beyond your comfort zone the possibility exists that
we remained within the Lords.” They clearly implied that the
Lord has “comfort zones!” We deny it. Our Lord never had an
opinion in His life! Every word He spoke was the Gospel, the Word
of God, the Words of life, Cannon, etc. (see esp. John 12:44-50).
He was, is and ever shall be, “The Word” (John 1:1-4). The
words He spoke are “spirit and life” to us (John 6:63).
Everything He said is THE WORD OF GOD, and you will find no
“comfort zones” in them. They are absolute and are not to
be trifled with (John 17:17; Rev. 22:18-19). How dare they suggest
Jesus has “comfort zones!” It only reveals more
emphatically their despite and disrespect for the Holy Bible —
God's divinely inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and nullifies their
claim that the teachings of Christ are everything to them.
We do understand we might not agree with each other on
some issues and still not be eternally condemned, but we also
understand there are certain issues we must agree on or we
certainly shall be eternally condemned! We also believe in the
autonomy of every congregation and am grateful for the wisdom of
God in structuring His church that way. We shudder to think what
would happen if men like these had control over the entire church
of God! Roman Catholicism stands in testimony of the apostasy and
devastation such can bring. However, autonomy is not a shield for
error, protecting a congregation from being challenged, or even
condemned if warranted, nor is it a license for any congregation to
do as they please, ignore God's will on any issue and promote and
practice error! Every congregation is autonomous, and therefore
free to obey or reject God's will if they choose. But, they are not
free from the consequences of choosing error, being admonished to
repent, challenged to do what is right, and exposed if they refuse
to do this, not to mention facing the wrath of God for rejecting
His will. They did it and they continue to defend it, so they
shouldn't “cry baby” when they are admonished, rebuked and
exposed for doing and defending it. Their attempt to try to hide
under the cloak of autonomy won't work, because God did not intend
for autonomy to be so used. He intended it to be used to keep the
church pure from wicked leaven such as they are espousing.
Again, I am grateful they chose to reply to the charges
leveled against them. I write this reply to: “contend for
the faith” (Jude 3), “be set for a defense of
the gospel” (Phil. 1:7,17) and “reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).
I do not do so to pick on or antagonize them or anybody. I do it to
lead them and any who are of like mind with them to repentance and
to expose their error so it will not infect other congregations! I
weep for them. I beg them to repent.
“For Jesus' sake,” 2 Cor. 4:11
Jack Simons
804 Tower Dr., Laurel, MS 39440
Table of Contents
“We appreciate so much you sending us STOP”
...Sue Cannon, Fayette, AL. “Please remove me from your
mailing list” ...Thomas McCuiston, Hillsdale, MI.
“Thank you and your staff for the good work you do for the
Seek the Old Paths paper. I look forward to receiving it each
month and immediately read it from front to back! God bless you for
your stand for the truth! I purchased the videos for last year's
lectureships. They are wonderful!” ...Bea Stelmach, St.
Clairsville, OH. “I have received STOP for
several years now and truly enjoy every page. With so many within
the church falling away from the TRUTH it is very uplifting to read
a sound and scriptural paper. God bless always” ...Barbara
J. Johnson, Apopka, FL. “Please mail me three copies of
the June Seek the Old Paths. I receive this, but passed
my copy on to a friend. God bless you for making this available.
Thank you” ...Bobbi Williams, Westland, MI. “I
enjoy reading. Thank you” ...Don Stingle, Clearwater, FL.
“A brother has died. Everett E. Wittig passed from this
life early on June 10. He was a lover of Truth and a recent
correspondent to your publication expressing his appreciation of
your work. Please accept this contribution in his memory. Use it as
best fits your needs. Keep up the great work. I, too, appreciate
your great publication” ...Claud G. Estep, Carlsbad, NM.
“Your publication of Seek the Old Paths is very
informative and sound in the gospel. We thank you very much for
those men who still stand for the truth, they get fewer each
day” ...Harold Nichols, church of Christ, Drumright, OK.
“I appreciate the STOP publications. They are
very informative and truthful. They make one aware of what is going
on in the brotherhood, which we wouldn't know if we didn't get the
STOP. Keep up the good work” ...John J. Glover,
Jr., Cincinnati, OH. “Keep up the good work. We want to
come to the lectureship in July and hope health matters will allow
it” ...Jim & Frankie Bailey, Middleton, TN. “May
God bless you for upholding the truth of God's word”
...Church of Christ, Crossville, TN. “We appreciate your
stand for the truth. You are an encouragement to us” ...Tom
& Marilyn Cope, Sierra Vista, AZ. “Let's give thanks to
God for giving us chance to work in his vineyard. By his grace I'm
doing well, hope you are doing well, too. Thank you for adding my
name into Seek the Old Paths. I'm very happy about them
and hope you will continue to send them to me. I want to appeal to
you if you can help me to get Eternal Kingdom which talks about
church history. It will help me to become fiery preacher and
continue to seek the old path. Hope my request will be granted in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hope to hear from you. My
greetings to all the Seek the Old Paths team. May God
bless you” ...Noah Eduam, Ghana, West Africa.
“Please remove our name from your list. Thank you”
...Charles McCoy, Tyler, TX. “Brother Robinson, Thank you
and the elders at the East Corinth church of Christ for your love
of God's Word and the devotion you have shown in keeping it pure.
May God continue to bless you in your work” ...Richard
Sample, Tulsa, OK. “We appreciate and look forward to each
issue of STOP. It is always timely and biblically sound. May God
bless you as you walk in the light. In Christ” ...Barry N.
Clay. “I have been receiving STOP and it has been great.
Thank you” ...Nathan Irwin, Searcy, AR. “I like
what is on the internet and am glad you folks are doing His work!
Thank you and may God continue to bless you and your ministry”
...Stephen Merritt, Nashville, TN.
(www.seektheoldpaths.com) “I have been receiving your
publication for two months now. Thank God there are still people
that stand for the truth. Please keep up the good work and pray for
the turn around of our churches that have gone wrong”
...Jennie Burgess, Hamlin, WV. “I have found your articles
insightful and full of wisdom. May God continue blessing you and
your ministries” ...M. Caggins, Phenix City, AL.
“Thank you for your excellent publication” ...Joel
Harris, Newbern, TN. “I enjoy receiving & reading STOP
each month. This work is to be commended. The congregation that I
am preaching at would like to receive a bundle each month so we may
distribute sound material to each family” ...Brian McCrery,
Smyrna, TN. “Dear Brother, Thank you for adding us to your
mailing list. We're in a unique situation. The church here has for
years had a reputation of being more liberal, and even though I've
only been with the church a short time, I, too have been more
liberal in the past. However, we're growing and changing together.
We all still prefer many of the newer worship songs and probably
will continue to use them and to project them onto an overhead with
Power Point, as long as their words are scriptural. However, we're
seeking to better follow the old paths doctrinally and we know that
God will bless this kind of change. May God bless your work. In His
Service” ...Name withheld. “I enjoy STOP very
much, thanks for the work that you do to help the cause of
Christ” ...Danny. “I have been receiving and
enjoying STOP for a while and have shared it with a very close
friend and brother in Christ who would like to receive the 'letter'
also. Keep up the wonderful work” ...Robert Batchelder,
Houston, TX. “I thoroughly enjoy your publication. I read
it each month and make copies and mail to all my children and quite
a few friends that are not members of the Lord's church. I
appreciate the good work you are doing for the Lord. Keep it
up” ...Ken Gray, Cotton Valley, LA. “Thank you and
may God bless you” ...Mike Sullivan. “We love
STOP. Please keep it coming. We appreciate so much the work you are
doing for the cause of our Lord, may he continue to bless you in
your good work” ...Bennie Vickers, Green Cove Spring, FL.
“I enjoy Seek The Old Paths so very much. Thank
you for all your good work” ...Marvine Rogers, Fulton, MO.
“Thanks for you paper, it is a great teaching tool, keep
up the good work” ...Wesley Snyder, Mexico, MO.
“Please send me Seek the Old Paths. It's so good to
find out I'm not going crazy. I found myself thinking maybe I'm
really not a Christian because of the way I believe and the way I
was brought up to believe — as my mother would say “the Old
Church of Christ” and it's hard to find them now. I've gone to
several and then started going to other religions and THEY ARE ALL
THE SAME. I THINK I have found one in Northern Kentucky and will go
back to it. I was really starting to get depressed and really
questioning and then I 'accidentally' found your web site!
Thanks!” ...Name withheld. “I want to first say
thank you for your publication. I enjoy getting them and sharing
them. Please keep up the excellent work. I would like to continue
to receive your publication” ...Mark Johnson, Whitesboro,
TX. “Please subscribe my wife and I to your excellent
publication. Thank you very much and may the Lord bless your
work!” ...Rich & Kim Rogers, Worthington, IN.
“Thank you for providing good, sound wisdom in your paper”
...Rachel Doolittle, Longmont, CO.
The
2001 Bound Volume can be ordered from:
Old Paths Publishing
67 County Road 107
Corinth, MS 38834
$5 postage paid
Home | Table of Contents |Seek The Old Paths | East
Corinth Church of Christ |
Lectureship Books |
