Acts of Worship

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 161]

     There is a great difference between truth and custom. Truth is found when it is honestly sought, but custom, whether true or false, is received, not by judgment but by prejudice, at haphazard, on the opinion of those who have lived before; and it is not easy to cast aside the ancestral garment, although it be proven to be utterly absurd. --Clement of Alexandria in "Exhortations to the Heathen."

     Let us preface our remarks by reminding our readers that nothing which we do when we assemble on the Lord's Day is ever referred to as "worship" in the new covenant scriptures. The expression "the worship" is not in the Christian scriptures. It is true that, in our day, a ritual has been devised which is designated "the five acts of worship," but neither the language nor the idea signified by it, is found in God's revelation. It has been created and fabricated by the dubious method of searching out isolated passages and from them weaving a pattern of action which is then deemed to be the revealed mode of acceptable worship of the Father.

     In the language of Jesus and in the practice of the primitive saints every thought, word and deed, engaged in by those in Christ, out of a sense of reverence for God, was an expression of worship. There was no distinction between the spiritual and the secular. There was no specific ritual unvaryingly observed tor the simple reason that the whole body was offered as a living sacrifice and whatever was done in the body was worship. One did not go in and out of Christ, and everything performed was offered to him as a part of the life of the fellowship.

     The first disciples were Jews and they did not cease to be Jews when they acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah. They continued to observe the sabbath as well as the passover and other feasts. Those in Jerusalem daily went to the temple at the hours of prayer. All circumcised their male children. In outlying provinces, the Nazarenes, as they were called, continued in the synagogues which they had been accustomed to attend. When Saul breathed out threats and murder against the disciples he went to the high priest "and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that it he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:2). Later he said of the saints, "I punished them often in all of the synagogues" (Acts 26:11). The thousands who believed in Jerusalem were all zealous for the law.

     There was one feature of the gathering of the disciples which was distinctive--the breaking of the bread. At first this

[Page 162]

was done daily and in conjunction with the regular meal shared by those who gathered in private homes. It was not regarded as a sacred service as opposed to other meals, for every occasion of eating together was sacred to the Jews. Jesus had introduced the practice of eating and drinking in memory of his death at the passover, which was always a family feast and always observed in the homes. He had simply taken the bread and cup used in that feast and blessed them for his purpose, and the disciples at first continued the practice of observing it in conjunction with their daily meals.

     As the predominant consciousness of the enjoyment of redemption brought under its influence and sanctified the whole of earthly life, nothing earthly could remain untransformed by this relation to a higher state. The daily meal of which believers partook as members of one family was sanctified by it. They commemorated the last Supper of the disciples with Christ, and their brotherly union with one another. At the close of the meal the president distributed bread and wine to the persons present, as a memorial of Christ's similar distribution to the disciples. Thus every meal was consecrated to the Lord, and, at the game time, was a meal of brotherly love.--Augustus Neander in "The History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church."
     The Lord's Supper...was not kept distinct at this period from an ordinary meal; it was the conclusion of ordinary meals, as it had been the conclusion of the Passover feast. The commemoration of redemption took place every time that Christians gathered around the family table. St. Luke says positively that it was observed from house to house...From all these observations, it appears that the distinction between the ordinary and the religious life had no existence for the primitive Church, because its ordinary life was raised to a height truly sublime. --E. De Pressense in "The Early Years of Christianity."
     The love-feast, in which were combined the ordinary meal and the religious service of the primitive Christians, was originally celebrated in Jerusalem every day. At its conclusion the broken bread and the consecrated cup was passed around to every one at the table. In the Jewish congregations the Jewish sabbath and festivals were observed. Paul denied that any one was bound by positive law to show a preference of one sacred day above another.--Dr. Charles Hase in "A History of the Christian Church."

     As time went on, the agape, or love feast, came to be shared as an overt demonstration of classless fellowship. The wealthier members brought hampers of food and the table was spread so that all, including those who were slaves, might eat together. The Lord's Supper was observed in connection with the meal, and it came to be reserved for the resurrection day, the first day of the week. From the simple act of eating together one change after another took place until a special ritual supplanted the simplicity.

     Gradually the repast was parted from the religious act. The repast became more and more secular, the religious act more and more sacred. From century to century the breach widened. The two remained for a time together, but distinct, the meal immediately preceding or succeeding the Sacrament.-- Dean Stanley in "Christian Institutes."

     This last word (sacrament) calls for mention of the fact that the Lord's Supper is not so-called in the sacred writings. The word "sacrament," used to denote the soldier's oath of allegiance to the Emperor, was first applied to the breaking of the bread by Tertullian. Of equal importance is the observation that the Supper is not called "the communion" as so many, some of whom should know better, thoughtlessly refer to it in our day. "Communion" is a translation of koinonia, the word for fellowship or joint participation. All that we do as members of the one body or as joint partakers of the one Spirit, is part of our fellowship or communion. Singing, prayer, sharing of funds to relieve the needy, are all part of the communion. In fact the very word koinonia is used to designate the latter. The Lord's Supper is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, but this

[Page 163]

is only one phase of our communion.

     We believe the unbiased student must conclude that the early disciples had no procedural form for their meetings in which they broke bread from house to house. Their expressions of inner adoration by outward demonstration were no doubt spontaneous, and when they sang or prayed, it was not to conform to a ritual but in response to an inward motivation produced by the occasion. It is interesting to note that in a previous generation brethren actually regarded Acts 2:42 as "an order of worship" and debates were held and congregations divided over whether God would accept "worship services" in which the various items did not occur in the sequence mentioned. We are grateful that an increasing maturity is making both such ideas and the debates over them belong to the past and our brethren are outgrowing them.

     With no intention of shocking our readers we suggest that if a community of saints fully grasped the significance of the Supper they might gather in solemnity and bless the cup and break the bread, and having remembered the Lord, retire to their own homes, or remain to eat together at a common table in mutual love for one another, and be wholly pleasing unto God. This in no sense argues that it would be wrong to sing, pray, exhort or teach, but it does point out that to make of all of these combined a ritual is without scriptural foundation. The tracts which declare that the Church of Christ is scriptural in "worship" because it has "the five acts of worship"--singing, praying, giving, preaching and the Lord's Supper, are ridiculous when one takes off his party glasses and looks at the Word of God objectively.

     The stress laid upon congregational singing, for example, shows how easy it is to read a practice into the text which you cannot find in it. And the passages cited to sustain it are twisted to confirm a point to which they were not even remotely related. In Ephesians 5:19 the recommendation to "address one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," is clearly set in a context of daily living. The apostle contrasts the conduct of the saints with that of the devotees of paganism who became drunken at their feasts and engaged in lewd and suggestive songs. The saints are urged not to get drunk with wine wherein is debauchery but to address one another in songs which will strengthen and elevate, "always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father." The apostle was telling brethren how to behave instead of getting drunk. He was not regulating their "public worship."

     The fact is that no one can take the new covenant scriptures and prove that the saints had congregational singing when they assembled in one place. It can be shown, I think, that they had solos when someone was moved to break forth in a chant which conveyed a message to the assembly. It is a commentary on our absurdity that in many places if a man has a good reading voice and stands up at the Lord's table and reads the twenty-third psalm he is commended; but if he has a good singing voice and sings the same psalm in moving fashion he is reprimanded. In the community of saints at Corinth Paul says, "When you come together each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation." The modern congregation which follows "the original pattern" would not tolerate any of these. It is apparent that the pattern we seek to impose upon the scriptures originated with our fathers, and not with our grandfathers, the apostles.

     The very best that could be done with Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 would be to establish responsive singing or antiphonal chants if it could be shown (which it cannot) that these passages relate to public and corporate expression of praise. We do not teach and admonish one another while all singing the same thing at once. If we already know what we are singing we cannot be taught it. If we do not know we cannot be teaching others. Our tour-part harmony would not

[Page 164]

make it possible to address one another, or to instruct and admonish one another, in any event. We like to sing if we can, and to try if we can't but we should admit candidly that the way we do so is pretty much our own traditional devising. There is nothing wrong about it and no doubt the Father is as glad to hear us sing as we are to hear our children do so. He is not happy when we fall out over means and seek to clout each other over the head with either our traditions or hymnbooks.

     This brings us to the place where we can inject the thought that all of us may worship the same God and yet that worship may be expressed in different ways. It is doubtful that worship can ever be divorced from our own personal temperament and it is probably not desirable that it should be. In the final analysis all worship is individual by its very nature, and all of us are not only products of our own genes and chromosomes, but of our environment, training and association. As members of the one body we engage in certain communal expressions, but one community differs from another, as "one star differeth from another star in glory." The true worshiper worships in spirit and in truth, but this worship does not always take the same outward form in every place.

     A congregation near a large college campus whose singing director is professor of music at the university may be so trained in music appreciation and technique that their reverence could only be expressed in selections such as "The Hallelujah Chorus" by Handel, or "0 Sacred Head" from Bach's "Passion According to Matthew." At the same time a rural congregation down in the hills, such as the one from which I came, would be bored if forced to even listen to such stately strains and would use after-beat songs or such mundane numbers as "I've Got a Mansion" or "On the Jericho Road." Let not the Hallelujah choristers despise the after-beaters, and let not the after-beaters judge the Hallelujah choristers, for God has welcomed them. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind.

     By the same token, if Christ is taken to the people in Africa who express themselves by clapping their hands and swaying to a chant, they should not be compelled to conform to our culture as the only proper way to worship God. There is a difference between Lubbock and Lusambo, or Greenville and Gondokoro. An American restoration movement in Southern Rhodesia makes about as much sense as a Southern Baptist Church of Outer Mongolia. Congregations should never seek to plant others "according to their own image and after their own likeness." There are enough imperfect ones already.

     God's house is made of living stones but it must be composed of stones in the area. Not all stones are alike and a house built with hewn limestone in one territory will not look like one of field stone or cobblestones in another. So it is with God's house. It is not the conformity externally but the indwelling Spirit which is vital to the divine-human relationship. The building of God in Corinth did not look like the one at Jerusalem but both were a habitation of God through the Spirit. It is righteousness, not ritual, which joins us to the Lord.

     Closely allied to the misunderstanding of worship and ritual is a controversy now creating tension and division among non-instrument Churches of Christ. It has to do with installation of kitchen and eating facilities in the meetinghouses. Strange as it will seem to the majority

[Page 165]

of our readers, congregations have actually been divided over such matters. I have been to places to speak where arrangements were made for the sisters to serve coffee and cookies after the lecture, and brethren have informed me that they would not attend and by their presence sanction "eating in the church house." I respect their scruples of course, but I regret they have not yet learned there is no such thing as "a church house" and there cannot be. There is a church and there are houses, but what is "a church house"? All of us use the term and I suspect that all of us thereby demonstrate our ignorance.

     The problem is complicated because those who provide the facilities often refer to the room containing them as "the fellowship hall." Frequently the brethren in attendance are invited to remain for "the fellowship" following "the service." This is the language of Ashdod. The peculiar thing is that one group limits worship to a few ritualistic acts performed in "the service"; while the other limits fellowship to a few physical acts done afterwards. Is not singing a part of fellowship? Is not prayer? Is not mutual study of the word? Then why announce that after dismissal the brethren are invited to stay and enjoy a period of fellowship? Do we have to retire to a special room for fellowship? It is apparent that if the brethren are not in the fellowship before the coffee is poured they will not drink or nibble their way into it.

     Everything we do in relationship to Christ is done in the fellowship and is a part of it. We do not go in and out of the fellowship by going in or out of buildings and halls. By the same token, all that we do in word or deed, whether assembled or alone, when done to revere God, is worship. We belong to Christ as a whole and we must glorify him in both body and spirit which are his (1 Cor. 6:20). We worship the Father when we eat together in mutual love as certainly as we do when we eat the bread and drink the cup. Whether the early saints congregated in the temple to give a corporate expression of worship or ate dinner together in a private home, they were praising God. "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (Acts 2:40).

     All of God's children are being turned into schizophrenics by an attempt to legislate differences between secular and sacred areas. No such distinctions exist in God's word. All we have comes from God. We have nothing that has not been given us. Every good gift is from above. Every exercise of life done with an eye singled to his glory is a manifestation of worship. In this day of urbanization with its lonely crowd, we need to share our time and our lives with each other more often than ever. The early Christians in a cruel pagan world banded together, visited together and ate together, strengthening each other to combat the forces of evil about them. What difference does it make where the food is prepared or served? God has no sacred buildings. He has no shrines or sacerdotal cloisters. There is a difference between eating because of the love of a feast, and partaking because it is a feast of love.

     It is true that brethren can abuse the act of eating together. But this is no argument against doing so when the abuse is absent, and the abuse comes from motivation and not from the act. Perhaps the greatest abuse of all comes from separating and segregating the various facets of life until worship is relegated to a certain day, a certain place and a certain ritual, to the utter exclusion of the daily life. We are the victims of traditions which have been equated with the will of God, and which force us once again into the throes of the Judaistic spirit.

     Editor's Note. This is one of a series of studies running through 1966. These will be gathered into a book called "Deep Roots" which will be ready for mailing on March 1, 1967. You can reserve copies now at the special price of $2.49 each, payable on delivery by writing Mission Messenger, 139 Signal Hill Dr., St. Louis, Missouri 63121.