Holy Dancing?!

A Restoration church that I have been attending for a couple of years just announced that there would be Holy Dancing on Sunday (last Sunday). Having a good excuse to be elsewhere, I did not worship there this past Sunday, so the rest of what I say is not based on personal experience.

I presume that by "Holy Dancing" it was meant that certain people who have practiced a choreographed 'routine' would dance in front of the congregation (to music, I would guess).

Comments? Scripture?

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Answers

Brother Robin:

Has anyone bothered to ask these brethren what authority they have from our Lord Jesus Christ to introuduce such foolishness into the worship of God?

Have they offered any approved apostolic example of anyone having done such in the New Testament in worship to God?

Or have they even considered that it is quite likely that they are doing nothing more than entertaining themselves rather than worshipping God? Or, since you know these people, would they even CARE if they offended God by entertaining themselves rather than worshipping him in "Spirit and truth" (John 4:24)?

I read once in a NewsPaper of a Luthern Church that actually had a stripper dancing during their worship and I will reserve any mention of their arguments which they offered in favor of such nonsense to their own members who had the good sense to oppose it until we hear the arguments of those who would seek to justify this trifling with the divine worship of God almighty which you have mentioned.

You will not find "Holy Dancing" in the worship of any congregation in the New Testament. ANd it seems to me that this was not a "sudden dicision but something that they had been "coreographing" for some time.

In the New Testament dancing was left in the worship of the pagans and that is where it should remain. These brethren should be ashamed of themselves but I am almost certain that they will simply "wipe their mouths and say we have done nothing wrong".

I watch with interest to see just how any might go about preventing such innovations from becoming acceptable in the worship of God without pointing to the simple fact that they have not AUTHORITY from Christ to do such an evil thing. For such is completely void of any scriptual authority whatsoever. And it will be interesting indeed to see just how this will be taunted as an "expedient" and a "liberty" and I watch to see how anyone, without demanding scriptural authority or a "thus saith the Lord" for all that we do in our worship and approach to God would condemn and or prevent the innovation.ou can rest assured that these persons who wish to behave in this way were not reading along in their New Testament one day and found the words "Holy Dance" and followed any example of such being practiced or condoned by those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

ANd they are not really doing this in actual worship to God. Rather, they are "bored" and need something "new" and "different" to keep themselves entertained in the house of God. For they are simply bored in His presence!

Shame should fill the congregation that allowed such foolishness to be practiced in the worship of God contrary to the authority and Lordship of Christ. All of this just to keep themselves sufficently entertained! WHat a shame, indeed!

Your Brother in CHrist,

E. Lee Saffold

But y

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

E. Lee,

Thanks for your response. It was as expected from what I know of you by having read many of your writings on this forum. As I have told you in the past, I respect your Bible knowledge and enjoy reading your writings.

However, in this case, I am particularly interested in input from my instrument-using Brothers. In other words, I would like to discuss this without entering into the same, seemingly endless, argument that surrounds the use of instruments.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Brother Robin:

Thanks for your response. And I understand your desire to hear primarily from the Brethren who use instruments. And I will stay by and watch with interest to see what their response would be. I am sure that many of them will be justly and correctly opposed to this foolishness in the worship of God. And I will state that I support them fully in their opposition to it.

But, I will, stand on the sidelines and observe for I can understand that it would be wise to try and prevent this discussion from being diverted to a discussion of instrumental music and out of respect for your desires and your purpose and intent I fully support keeping this thread on the topic of this so-called "Holy Dancing" which it seems is just a symptom of the severe condition of materialistic carnality common within some churches among us today.

A return to the word of God and the development of genuine Christian Spiritual character as a "holy People" given to "reading, exhortation, and prayer would remdy this pathetic situation that you sadly inform us about in your intial post.

Let us seek to worship, serve, adore, praise and walk with Christ our Lord and we will not feel any need for such carnal entertainment at a time when we have come togeter for corporate worship of God where we admonish one another in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord. A time designed for us to make our pray as the body of Christ in one accord Acts 4:24)and with one voice to our Lord and King Jesus, the CHrist and through Him we approach the throne of Grace with boldness yet in AWE of Him with whom we have to do. A time when we worship God in spirit and TRUTH for God seeketh such to worship Him. (John 4;24). THe one who will judge the world in righteousness. (Act 17:30)

ANd I will pray for the congregation where you worship that the truth of God's word will prevail over the false doctrines of those who seek nothing more than to merely entertain and glorify themselves before men as if God were not present in the mist of the saints where two or more of them are gathered together.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Robin -- I would believe that this issue falls under the concept that each congregation chooses how to worship the Lord. By that I mean, some will use instruments, while others choose not to. Some will use more modern forms and styles of music, while others choose more traditional forms. Some use A/V input (movies, songs, etc.) while others choose not to. Some folks enjoy raising holy hands before the Lord, while others choose not to. And some incorporate dance and others choose not to.

Of course, the key word here is CHOOSE. And that is the freedom we have in the Lord to decide what is right and applicable for our own congregation.

No, the NT never commands us to use interpretive dance (that is the term I have heard before ... holy dancing is a new term to me) in our worship. But of course, there are any number of ways we choose to worship God that are not specifically mentioned in the Scriptures.

Of course, we should never choose to worship God in any way that is prohibited by the Scriptures.

It might be as simple as the "silence in the Scriptures" issue. Some believe silence prohibits, while others believe silence denotes a choice.

The NT never commands the use of buildings, music books, overheads, pitch-pipes, etc., etc., but congregations on both sides of the "instrument issue" choose to use any or all of the above ... and I believe rightly so. So it really goes much further than an issue over the instrument.

I have seen interpretive dance that I believe was a great addition to the time of worship ... and I have seen some that frankly could have been left out. Whatever we choose to do in our worship to the Lord, we should strive to do it to the best of our ability.

Just my thoughts on the matter. :)

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Dear Robin, We have a Hula Halau at our church here in Hawaii. This is a group of older and younger woman who regularly bless our Sunday Morning services with dance. I can hardly describe to you how beautiful and powerful this form of worship is here. It is especially profound to see the Hawaiians 'redeem their culture' and use this form of expression to worship and reveal God rather than to tell stories about pagan 'deities'.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

It is amazing how some can say that "holy dancing" is unscriptural and evil. Such things are definately not evil if it is an expression of one's love for Christ. David introduced Jewish worship to claping, dancing, leaping, shouting, singing, instruments- these are expressions. To say that dancing is out of order is truly unbiblical. Plus we cannot exclude worship to Col 3:16. There is much of worship for example in Revelation that blows Col 3:16 away. BTW Colosians 3:16 reference to hymns is the Psalms - OT worship. Jesus when He left the upper room during the passover sung the Psalms as a part of their celebration.

So is dancing before the Lord out of order- David did it in II Sam 6 and he was blessed by the Lord in II Sam 7. I love David's statement to his self righteous wife, who sounds like Lee, "I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eye" (II Sam 6:22). THis BTW is a song we sing in worship on Sundays. God blesses radical worship

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001

Robin,

Personally, I've seen some of it done..........I wasn't impressed. Of course, I am a "redneck" so maybe that is why I say that.

Scripturally, I see no mention of it in the New Testament at all - just like the use of organs isn't mentioned either.

If you buy the idea that a lack of NT information means a prohibition, then both dancing & instruments are out of the question. Personally, I don't like that type of logic - an argument made from a lack of info is too weak to be dogmatic about.

If you tie both instruments & dance together in this matter (which is probably a good way of dealing with them, since they both deal with cultural & interpretive preferences), there are at least Old Testament references to their use. The OT use of Instruments is well documented in the Psalms & in the accounts of David - as is the use of dance!

Remember I Sam 18:6-9? After David slew Goliath, the women came out the celebrated the victory & worshipped via dance. Of course, this caused a great division between Saul & David.........maybe a lesson learned there?

What about the crossing of the Red Sea? Exo 15:20-21 records Miriam (who is called a Prophetess) worshipping & rejoicing via dance & instrumental music. Can such be evil in God's eyes?

I do see this as a cultural matter in individual churches. Personally, again it doesn't work for me (even though I actually do have an Arts background) but it might for others.

Let me offer this idea as a guideline to using (allowing) dance in worship. In chapter 14 of I Cor, Paul basically tells those who are making such a big deal about speaking in tongues, that unless there is an interpreter for those tongues - their speaking is not fruitful for the congregation, as they learn nothing from it. SO I wonder, if no one (or just a few who know the person) have any idea about what is trying to be "spoken" by an interpretive dance - is its use fruitful to the congregation?

That's a judgment call that will have to be prayerfully & carefully made by each church's Elders.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001

David also danced before the Lord ... and David was a man after God's own heart! And his wife was cursed for mocking his way of worshipping God. Another lesson to be learned, perhaps?

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001

I agree, Mark, that its a judgment call that will have to be prayerfully & carefully made by each church's Elders. From having personal experience with this subject (there was a hula halau in the church I recently fled, as well) I have to say it is not something for a congregation that is spiritually weak.

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2001

Brethren:

Beware of the wicked. Read Job’s warnings concerning their fate.

“Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power? Their seed is established in their sight with them, and their offspring before their eyes. Their houses [are] safe from fear, neither [is] the rod of God upon them. Their bull gendereth, and faileth not; their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf. They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave. Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What [is] the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him? Lo, their good [is] not in their hand: the counsel of the wicked is far from me. How oft is the candle of the wicked put out! and [how oft] cometh their destruction upon them! [God] distributeth sorrows in his anger.” (Job 21:7-20)

And be aware that the only place where dancing is found, which is not more than 15 occasions in the scriptures, not one place is it being done in the acceptable and proscribed worship of God. Notice how angry Moses was when he found the Israelites dancing in worship to a golden calf.

“And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.” (Ex. 32:19). Now, while it is true that it was the worship of the calf, which angered Moses and not the Dancing. The Dancing had its association, even at that early time, with Paganism and not with the proscribed worship of God.

And now let us notice what Brother ADK says about that “self righteous” wife of David who “sounds like” E. Lee Saffold as follows:

“I love David's statement to his self righteous wife, who sounds like Lee, "I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eye" (II Sam 6:22).”

Now he could not prove, to save his life, that Michal, David’s wife, was in the least bit “self righteous” nor can he prove that E. Lee Saffold has ever been “self righteous”. But he expects all of you to believe it solely because he asserts it. We ask him for the evidence that David’s wife was being self-righteous when she criticized her husband for “uncovering” himself not only before the Lord but also before his handmaids. I cannot think of a wife anywhere that would have considered such to be self-righteous. Just think of it ladies. Suppose your husband were to go out before all the ladies of the congregation and uncover himself in the worship of the church. And you condemned them for their behavior and brother ADK came along and accused you of being “self righteous”! Ha! I would like to see how that one turned out.

Then he says:

“ THis BTW is a song we sing in worship on Sundays.”

I do not doubt that this is among songs sung by those who have no regard for what is right in the eyes of God. It fits them perfectly.

Then he asserts, but cannot prove the following:

“ God blesses radical worship”

There is not a single passage of scripture in the entire word of God that teaches that God “blesses RADICAL worship” and only the ignorant would make such an assertion. In fact, the only distinction between acceptable and unacceptable worship is whether it is according to truth and in the right spirit. “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23,24). This passage does not read, as BROTHER ADK would like for it to read. It does not say, “the hour cometh when true worshippers shall worship the father IN RADICAL WAYS.” It says instead that the TRUE WORSHIPPERS shall worship the father “IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH”. (John 3:23,24). And it does not say that God seeketh “radical worshippers” to worship him. But rather it says of those who “worship him in spirit and in truth” that “God SEEKETH such to worship him.

Now we can prove that God wants us to worship him in spirit and in truth from the above passage of scripture and many others. But where does the word of God say, “God will bless radical worship?” I will tell you that the word of God says NO SUCH THING and I defy anyone to fine one passage of scriptures, which teaches such hogwash!

In fact, if one reads about the radical change made by Nadab and Abihu in offering “strange fire” in the worship of God which God COMMANDED THEM NOT he will find that the punishment for such “radical worship” was that they were destroyed by fire from heaven. Read about how these men tampered with the worship of God and the consequences of their doing that which God “COMMANDED THEM NOT”. And ask yourself if God commanded us to Dance in worship or not. Think about it my Brethren.

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This [is it] that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.” (Lev. 10:1-3).

And the above lesson was repeated as we now repeat it to you as follows:

“And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father.” (Numbers 3:4).

“And Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before the LORD.” (Numbers 26:61). Yes, these men were “radical”. For the word “radical” means, as Brother ADK seems to be using it, to be extreme in changing something. The Miriam Webster Dictionary gives this as one of the definitions of the word “RADICAL as follows:

“Marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional: EXTREME b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change.”

Now that is what ADK would like to see. He wants “radical change” from that which is clearly written and commanded in the scriptures to that which God “COMMANDED US NOT”. And if one wants to see the same consequence in the judgement that Nadab and Abihu faced when they made a radical change in “offering strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not” then all he need do is follow ADK’s foolish and extremely unscriptural advice. Beware of such men brethren who seek that we participate in “RADICAL” worship. That is worship which is “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional” things which we received from the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to provide us with guidance in how we should worship and serve God in Christ. Paul said, “Mark those which cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have received and AVOID HIM” (Romans 16:17). This concept of “radical worship” is contrary to the traditions we have received from the apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore spoke for God.

But let us now continue our observations about David’s wife “Michal”. Now a woman named Michal was one of David’s wives and the scriptures tell us how this came to be as follows:

““And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose [is] the land? saying [also], Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand [shall be] with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee. And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul's daughter, when thou comest to see my face. And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver [me] my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver [me] my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return. And he returned.” (2 Sam. 3:12-15).

Now we see the setting of the stage concerning why Michal was disposed to despising David. He took her from her husband, who followed, weeping with her, as she was delivered to David. David was not favored in her sight from the beginning and David’s DANCING before the Lord had nothing whatsoever to do with this feeling.

We are told, “And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.” (2 Sam. 6:16).

But there is not the slightest indication that she despised him for his dancing at all. We are simply told that she despised him when she saw him leaping and dancing before the Lord. But no reason is ascribed for her despising him. And the account of this is given also in 1 Chronicles as follows:

“And it came to pass, [as] the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart.” (1 Chr. 15:29).

But again we are not given any reason for her despising David. The context in Samuel gives us plenty of explanation.

“Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” (2 Sam. 6:20).

Now we are given another reason beside the fact that she was taken against her will from her husband to be the wife of David. It was because her husband, David, shamelessly uncovered himself in the eyes of his handmaids like one of the “vain fellows”! Not because he was dancing as ADK has strongly IMPLIED and sought to deceive you into believing. It is ignorance of the word of God that causes people to point to David as an example of acceptable worship in the church of Christ. And the above example of deliberately twisting and ignoring the context of a passage shows how the word of God must be mistreated to justify these practices which God “Commanded us not”.

On this occasion, not only did David “dance” but he also “uncovered himself” shamelessly in the eyes of his handmaids. So, it seems to me that our Brethren who use David as a justification for Dancing in the worship just might not object to having a “stripper” dancing in their worship because David "uncovered himself" in the worship. For he did all of this while he was dancing and rejoicing “before the Lord”.

And notice also that it was not the “dancing” that caused Michal, his wife, to despise him, which is that which our Brother ADK would have you believe. She despised him for taking his cloths off in from of his handmaids who were not one of his wives. And I can tell you now that if any of you who think dancing is acceptable in the worship of God believe that it is acceptable just because David did it. Then you are going to find yourself justifying far more than you would like to justify. And if any of you try to do everything that David did on this day before the Lord in the worship of the Church. Then you will find that your wives may despise you for it and for the same reason that Michal despised David. And if they did they would be right in doing so just as Michal was right in what she did.

And ADK not only leaves the impression that Michal was punished for despising David for Dancing, when in truth it was for his “stripping” or “uncovering himself” before his handmaids that she despised him. But Brother ADK also leaves the impression that she was punished “by the Lord” when in fact she was punished by DAVID because he was angry at her for her JUST criticism of his behavior before the Lord. Hear how David threatened and carried out this punishment as follows:

“And David said unto Michal, [It was] before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.” (1 Sam 6:21) The punishment was from David not the Lord. David kept her from having Children until the day she died. Nothing says that God prevented it or that God punished her for her criticism of David. And Brother ADK has tried to make you believe such nonsense without allowing you to see the entire context and the complete picture of these events. And by this same deceptive means he has tried to deceive you into following a path that is not taught in the word of God. Beware of such men who care not enough about the word of God and have no conscience about mishandling God’s Holy Word and making it appear that God said that which he never said. Such men should be ashamed but they simply “wipe their mouth and say I have done nothing wrong”. But Brethren rest assured that it is “appointed unto man once to die and after this cometh the judgement. (Heb. 9:27) and those who rejected the words of Christ and mishandled the word of life will be judged by the very words that they mishandled. (John 12:48).

Now, notice that these brethren make their initial argument to justify Dancing in the worship of God in the Church of Christ by stating that they are not required to have any scriptural authority for such nonsense. And then they proceed to argue from the OLD TESTAMENT King David and others in a feeble and pathetic attempt to demonstrate that they have scriptural authority for that which they claim that they need no authority from Christ our Lord to do. They claim to be free to do anything that they want to do, whether they know that GOD likes it or not, and they therefore do not need to find one single passage of scripture to justify it. If it is not specifically forbidden they claim a right to do it. But yet they try to justify it from passages that have nothing whatsoever to do, in their context, with offering any authority or justification for such behavior in an attempt to do that which they claim they are not required to do.

The reason that they do this is because if they did not the absurdity of their claim of “liberty” to do as they please so long as God does not specifically forbid their behavior would be apparent. And everyone could then see that their entire position is based upon a naked rebellious spirit that says I will do what I want to do even though I cannot tell if God wants it, likes it, accepts it or will even allow it or not.

WE do not take such liberties for God has not granted them to anyone. And if you ask these men for the scriptural authorization for such liberty they will claim that they do not need to provide it. They cannot show a single passage of scripture that grants them the liberty to do anything that God has not specifically forbidden. They simply assume that if God has not specifically forbidden something that he has thereby automatically ALLOWED IT.

But, if they were to do only that which God has authorized they would at the very least know that God has spoken concerning the matter and therefore they are doing that which they know beyond any doubt whatsoever that God wants done. Any other path leads to hopeless confusion. And God is not the author of this confusion.

If one reads the full context and circumstances surrounding much of David’s behavior he will not be reasonably impressed with the idea that he could do all that David did in the service and worship of Christ our Lord. So, my admonition to all is to read all of what David did and real all of the New Testament and you will easily see that one cannot use David as an example to follow in the worship and service of Christ. For David violated many of the teachings of Christ. And his dancing before the Lord meant that he was dancing in the presence of the Arc of the covenant when it was returned. It was more of a celebration than worship as dictated by God in the Law. The offering of sacrifices and the worship of God in the tabernacle excluded the things that David did. It would take a long time to go into all of these details but we encourage everyone to read the Book of Leviticus and see what God required in the Old Testament in worship to Him. And then compare it to the spiritual nature of worship described in the New Testament. When you do this all of the nonsense stated in this thread to support dancing in the worship of the New Testament worship fade like the dew in the heat of the noonday sun.

In fact, more study of the scriptures and less speculation and seeking of RADICAL worship instead of worship in spirit and in truth would do much to put an end to the nonsense of “holy dancing” (A term foreign to the word of God). For such was never see in the worship of the church of Christ while she was under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles. Such behavior is indeed “radical” and it is wrong for that very reason alone. For when we do that which is “Marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional” which we have in the word of God then we are we are doing that which is contrary to that which the Holy Spirit has delivered to us. (Jude 3). Departing from the traditions of men is good. But departing from the traditions received of God is evil. Dancing in the worship of the church of Christ is not taught by command, approved example or even a necessary inference in the word of God. And therefore it is indeed a radical departure from the traditions received of the apostles and therefore condemned. (Romans 16:17) Remember Brethren we are commanded to, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”(2 Thess. 2:15). And dancing in the worship was not received or taught by either “word or any epistle” of any of the inspired apostles of Christ our Lord. And it is therefore a practice, which we have no right or liberty to do.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Wow!

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

"And be aware that the only place where dancing is found, which is not more than 15 occasions in the scriptures, not one place is it being done in the acceptable and proscribed worship of God. Notice how angry Moses was when he found the Israelites dancing in worship to a golden calf." Yada, yada, yada.

The Jehovah's Witnesses use this same sort of lame reasoning when they say that it is unchristian to celebrate birthdays, because the only two birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible (in Daniel and Herod's birthday) were by pagans and ended up in beheadings.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

"But there is not the slightest indication that she despised him for his dancing at all. We are simply told that she despised him when she saw him leaping and dancing before the Lord." It kind of follows from the sentence structure. At least it does to me. But more importantly, there is not ONE WORD of God finding David's dancing in worship inappropriate, or punishing him for it in any way whatsoever. And David danced before the Lord "with all his heart."

Which I think brings us to the main Christian principle, which seems to be lost here: "Whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God." At the wedding at Cana, although it is not explicitly mentioned, I'm sure there was dancing, as well as drinking and revelry, for it was a time of rejoicing. And I don't see that God is going to hurl lightning bolts at us from on high if we burst into dancing or song out of sheer joy for so great a salvation He has given to us. We are under God's grace, not under the law.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

Brother John:

You have correctly quoted my words as follows:

“"And be aware that the only place where dancing is found, which is not more than 15 occasions in the scriptures, not one place is it being done in the acceptable and proscribed worship of God. Notice how angry Moses was when he found the Israelites dancing in worship to a golden calf."

Then you said:

“Yada, yada, yada.”

All of which means nothing.

Then you say:

“The Jehovah's Witnesses use this same sort of lame reasoning when they say that it is unchristian to celebrate birthdays, because the only two birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible (in Daniel and Herod's birthday) were by pagans and ended up in beheadings.”

Now, is that the best you can do, Brother John? Is all you can do is ignore the arguments that have been made and then merely make a pathetically false comparison between the things we have said and what some false teachers like the Jehovah’s witnesses make.

It does indeed seem that since you cannot answer the argument directly. Then the only thing you hope to be able to do is to persuade our readers that E. Lee Saffold’s arguments, since they cannot be answered by you, must be ignored because they are the “same sort of lame reasoning” as that used by the Jehovah’s witnesses?

Why do you not just take up the arguments and prove that the reasoning is “lame” as you put it. And prove that it is the same as the argument made by Jehovah’s witness. Simply claiming that it is the same reasoning is not sufficient. And, even if the reasoning were the same, which you have failed miserably to establish, it is applied to a different subject altogether. And what might be lame reasoning in one place may be just right in another. So, you have failed to 1.) Prove that the reasoning is lame, 2.) Prove that it is the same, 3.) Prove that it is fallacious concerning this subject (Dancing in worship to God) which we are discussing which is not the same discussing the “celebrations of birthdays” with Jehovah’s witnesses. And 4.) You have not shown wherein the argument is in any place wrong and out of harmony with the truth.

The key thrust of our argument was not how many times dancing is found in the Scriptures. The main thrust of it in the words that you quoted were the simple fact that not in “one place is it being done in the acceptable and proscribed worship of God.” None can show that God proscribed this type of worship or even that it was altogether acceptable to God.

Merely making some false comparison with a group that you know none of us want to be identified with is very weak Brother John. And our readers are more than intelligent enough to see it. You should be ashamed because I know that you are capable of much better reasoning that this “lame” example which you have laid before us.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2001

I understand this is not a thread on the instrument/non-instrument issue. But it doesn't take long to see that this IS an issue re: silence of the Scriptures, and how one accepts silence. The NT is silent on instruments: some say that prohibits, some say that allows for choice. The NT is silent on the use of buildings for worship: some say that prohibits (there are two congregations in our general area, one non-instrumental C of C, and one un-denom that has no affiliation with any body -- both refuse to purchase a building to be used for worship) while others say the silence allows for choice. The NT is silent on the number of cups to be used for the Lord's Supper. There is a non-instrumental C of C on the outskirts of town that is a "one-cup" communion congregation. They will not fellowship with the other non-instrumental C of C congregations in the area because they are multi-cup users. ad nausem, ad nausem, ad nausem.

We must face the fact that some of us on this bulletin board hold one pov re: silence of Scriptures (silence prohibits, especially in regards to worship)on certain matters, and others hold another view (silence allows choice in matters not specifically prohibitted by God). I certainly don't have any problem calling a "silence prohibits" person a brother or sister in Christ. MOST "silence prohibits" persons would consider me a brother in Christ ... though there are some in this area who would not. IMHO, that is their loss, not mine.

Continued discussions along this vein will continue to side one way or the other. It becomes a bit boring (maybe not the correct word to use) as did the countless threads that ended up moving from one subject to immersion.

What's the answer to all this? I honestly don't know. Maybe the "powers that be" behind this bulletin board can set up a guidline re: the silence issue as they did for some of the others issues that bogged us down so much.

Just an idea.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2001

I just wanted to thank everyone for writing.... I have been gone a couple of days and have not had time as of yet to read through everything and respond....

Thanks again!

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2001

Brethren:

Brother John has correctly quoted my words as follows:

"But there is not the slightest indication that she despised him for his dancing at all. We are simply told that she despised him when she saw him leaping and dancing before the Lord."

Then he says:

“It kind of follows from the sentence structure. At least it does to me.”

There is absolutely nothing in the “structure” of a sentence that can express a thought not found in the words of the sentence. Brother John cannot show one single thing about the structure or syntax of this sentence that would cause one to draw the conclusion that Michal despised David simply and solely because he was “dancing”. And especially is this true when one is aware of the fact that she stated her reasons. And we pointed out that the reasons, which she stated to David are contrary to the one’s imagined by Brother John. For the scripture says, “Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” (2 Sam. 6:20). She criticized him for “uncovering himself today in the eyes of his handmaids of his servants as one of the vain fellows uncovereth himself”. Now that is Michal's stated reason for despising David. But Brother John does not believe Michal. He would rather believe his own imagination which suits better his attempts to justify in the worship of Christ ALL that David did before the Lord on that day, including the fact that David “uncovered himself shamelessly”. The next thing you know John would say that we could uncover ourselves in the worship because it is not specifically forbidden and after all David did it in worship therefore so can we. All of this about David cannot be shown to be anything more that a celebration of the fact that the arch of the covenant had returned to Israel and it cannot be shown to have even been worship at all much less acceptable worship. God’s attitude about what happened here is not even mentioned. And to assume that it was all acceptable to him as a form of worship is impossible to prove. WE grant that he says nothing in condemnation of David’s behavior but that is no justification to assume that God either approved or disapproved of his actions. Even though there are things that he did which we know that God would disapprove of, such as taking his cloths off in front of the handmaids in public view. If we were to ask Brother John to tell us just where God prohibits anyone from stripping his or her cloths off in the worship of God what passage would he use to condemn it? Or would he simply say that we are at liberty to do that also because it is not specifically forbidden and David did it in what Brother John, but not the word of God, imagines is an example of acceptable worship.

Then he says:

“ But more importantly, there is not ONE WORD of God finding David's dancing in worship inappropriate, or punishing him for it in any way whatsoever. And David danced before the Lord "with all his heart."”

Nor is there a single word of God that says that David was “worshipping” either. Nor is there a single word of God that condemns David for “uncovering himself in public” while “playing” before the Lord. For this is what David says he was doing. He says he was “playing” he does not say he was “worshipping”. Nor Does God say he was worshipping. Can we therefore “shamelessly uncover ourselves in the worship because we imagine that David was worshipping God and he did such in the worship? If not, why not?

Then he says:

“Which I think brings us to the main Christian principle, which seems to be lost here: "Whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God."”

Now, Brother John could not prove from the word of God that this is “THE MAIN CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE” if his life depended upon it. It is indeed a “Christian principle” but not the MAIN Christian principle. And it is a Christian principle that Brother John seems to terribly misconstrue and misunderstand. Surely he would not contend that everything that a person does is acceptable to God if he or she will but only do it to the “glory of God”! Did David “glorify God” by shamelessly uncovering himself in front of the handmaids of his servants? If so, what would be Brother John’s objection to a local “stripper” dancing before the Lord in the worship of the church and uncovering herself before the congregation so long as she could claim that “whatsoever she did was done to “the glory of God”?

Then just as Brother John tried to make David’s rejoicing before the Lord into worship in order to bring in to Christian worship he attempts to turn a “wedding feast” into Christian worship as follows:

“At the wedding at Cana, although it is not explicitly mentioned, I'm sure there was dancing, as well as drinking and revelry, for it was a time of rejoicing.”

But it was not “worshipping God” and Brother John cannot prove that it was in anyway an occasion of either Christian or Jewish worship if his life depended upon it. And it is pathetic reasoning that would contend that anything found in examples of various biblical “celebrations” could be done in Christian worship. For if this were true then we could literally “kill the fatted calf” every time a brother returns to the Lord in our worship. WE could justify doing this because father in the account of the prodigal son “killed the fatted calf” and celebrated when his son returned from a far country and his son that was lost was found. Certainly we are to rejoice when a wayward brother returns but this would not justify our sacrificing animals in our WORSHIP toward God because of such. By Brother John’s reasoning almost ANYTHING not specifically forbidden could be brought into Christian worship. And we do mean ANYTHING. And we ask Brother John to tell us just what he thinks is specifically forbidden in the worship of God and what scriptures he can cite specifically forbid them? The answer to that question should be interesting. But he most likely will simply ignore it. But it is there, brethren, for you to think about. What are some things that you know cannot be practiced or brought into acceptable worship.

Then he says:

“And I don't see that God is going to hurl lightning bolts at us from on high if we burst into dancing or song out of sheer joy for so great a salvation He has given to us.”

Now there we go. That is a strong argument, isn’t it brethren. Why there is the real reason Brother John wants us to believe what he says. He does not want us to believe what he says is true because he can PROVE it from the word of God but rather because he just cannot “see it”. He cannot imagine it. And none of us have said that God was going to “hurl lightning bolts” at us. He indeed sent fire to consume Nadab and Abihu for doing things that he had not commanded in the worship. And it might just be that what saved David was the simple fact that he had not entered into “worship” but was only celebrating and rejoicing that the Ark of the Covenant had been recovered. But, God does demonstrate that he will punish those who do that “which he commanded them not” but he does not even remotely Imply that the punishment will take the same form. Indeed “lightning bolts” are not what we fear. Read Hebrews 9:27 and Acts 17:30. There is a great day coming when we all must give an account and some will go to eternal life and others to eternal condemnation. And this is what we warn all to think about. WE are not talking about losing your physical life by being struck by any lightning. WE are concerned for your souls being lost because of presumptuous sin and disobedience to God by following the imaginations of men instead of the word of God.

Then he says:

“We are under God's grace, not under the law.”

Now Brother John appears here to be trying to make us believe that we are not under ANY LAW. When the truth is that we are under the “law of Christ” instead of the Law of Moses. And it was Brother John’s arguments concerning David that took us back to a time when men were under the Law of Moses in a feeble attempt to find justification under the law for things that are not authorized under the law of Christ. Now, if he is taking the position that we are not under ANY LAW whatsoever we will severely take issue with that nonsense. If Brother John does not want to be justified by the law then why does he run back under the law to find justification for that which he cannot find under the New Covenant? Seems to me that he is willing to be “under the Law” when it seems to help his case but when he finds that such did not help him much after all, then he appears to want to escape from LAW altogether.

Beware of such foolishness, Brethren.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2001

A FEW EXAMPLES OF PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF WORSHIP

KNEELING (Psalm 95:6) Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker;

KNEELING & LYING PROSTRATE (1 Chronicles 29:20) Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

RAISING HANDS (1 Timothy 2:8) I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

DANCING AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS (Psalm 149:3) Let them praise his name with dancing and make music to him with tambourine and harp.

(Psalm 150) Praise the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens. {2} Praise him for his acts of power; praise him for his surpassing greatness. {3} Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, {4} praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, {5} praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals. {6} Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. Praise the LORD.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2001

Barry -- when discussing "items of worship" whith those who hold a "silence in the NT prohibits" pov, then it becomes difficult to use OT passages. Most of the "silence prohibits" say that the silence of the NT is what prohibits us from expanding worship to include anything that is not specifically "okayed" in the NT.

Next, many will point to Nadab and Abihu, and their use of "unlawful fire" and how God did strike them down for their sin.

Funny, though, how those who will not allow OT passages that discuss items of worship (dance, instruments, etc. etc) will then point to an OT passage to show how those items should not be used.

Anyway, it comes down to whay your hemenutic of silence is.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2001

Darrell,

Yes, I know what you mean. The problem is that they equate the OT Law to anything they disagree with whether it was connected to the Law or not.

For example, the passages that I cited are not intrinsically connected to the OT Law at all. They have nothing to do with the sacrificial system or law-keeping in general. Instead they state general principles of God-honoring worship that would be applicable to both covenants.

The non-instrumental anti groups would like us to believe that God's tastes have changed with the changing of covenants! "God liked instruments at one time, but He no longer authorizes them." What utter nonsense!

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

In the third message in this thread, in response to E. Lee, I wrote, "...I am particularly interested in input from my instrument-using Brothers. In other words, I would like to discuss this without entering into the same, seemingly endless, argument that surrounds the use of instruments. " and E. Lee responded that he would refrain. HOWEVER, since others have chosen to 'attack' the non-use of instruments... I would like to be fair and publicly release E. Lee from his promise to refrain.... Go to it.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

Ummm....Robin....

At what point did E. Lee refrain? You can see his latest post just a few up from here. I'd love for E. Lee to tackle the instrument issue. Of course, I'm sure that he can't as there is no biblical argument for it, just a lot of nonsensical legalistic mumbo jumbo.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

Not an attack on the non-instrument issue ... just discussion on the "silence from Scripture" issue. The instrument is just one item of discussion, as is dancing, drama, audio/visual, etc. None of them are directly mentioned in the NT as being a part of worship, so the "non" brothers tend to leave them out, saying they are not allowed, while those of us who view the silence issues as leaving room for individual decision may or may not decide to use any of the above in worship.

One other thought along this whole line: Can we "block" a certain time/date/service and call it worship, and the rest of our time NOT be worship to God ... or does all we do as His children come under the banner of worship to Him?

I add this to the discussion ... one preacher friend of mine here in Indiana, PA who is of the acapella variety believes it would be wrong to listen to any instrument-accompianied music that is Godly, or directly mentions God, Jesus, and other "Christian things." He believe we are worshipping God all the time, and therefore can't use instrumental Christian music even when not involved directly in a "worship service."

On the other hand, at least one acapella Christian College has a time of singing with instruments (guitars, drums, keyboard, etc.) prior to their chapel service. When the "time for worship" comes, the instruments are removed from the platform, and they begin their worship without instruments. I guess they believe there is "worship time" and other time.

How do ya'll feel about that?

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

Barry,

E. Lee was discussing Dancing in that post... not the use/non-use of instruments.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have said:

“In the third message in this thread, in response to E. Lee, I wrote, "...I am particularly interested in input from my instrument- using Brothers. In other words, I would like to discuss this without entering into the same, seemingly endless, argument that surrounds the use of instruments. " and E. Lee responded that he would refrain. HOWEVER, since others have chosen to 'attack' the non-use of instruments... I would like to be fair and publicly release E. Lee from his promise to refrain.... Go to it.”

We greatly appreciate your fairness, Brother Robin. It is clearly something that some of our brethren who use instruments in their worship know little about and we are happy to notice that you are not to be counted among them. We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment that we have kept our promise and accept the fact that you have released us from it.

There is another promise that we made months ago concerning the instrumental music issue. We offered to discuss it and promised that we would only discuss it in the context of a formal debate with moderators and agreed upon rules and guidelines for the discussion. And we intend to keep that promise as well. And therefore if any of our brethren, who use instruments is sincerely interested in discussing that issue with me. Then all they need to do is accept the challenge of a formal debate and get with me through our chosen moderators and arrange to agree upon the propositions to be discussed and the rules under which the discussion will proceed and we will as you say “go to it”. But until we can get anyone to agree to a proposition and the rules under which the discussion will proceed there will be no discussion of this subject in this forum with us.

I hope that you can understand our reasons for insisting upon a formal discussion of this issue. It is important when discussing this issue that we take up various propositions and follow then to completion in an organized fashion. One that requires the two positions to be discussed in such a way that no one is allowed to “dodge any questions” by deliberately ignoring them and refusing to make some attempt to answer them. And because there more than one line of argument used to justify instrumental music in the worship one person cannot respond to those diametrically opposite arguments simultaneously. Therefore it is necessary to take them up one at a time in the forum of propositions. For example, there are some that argue that instruments are acceptable on the grounds of “expediency” and others argue that they are COMMANDED and therefore MUST BE USED or we disobey God. And still others argue that we worship God in every thing that we do in life and therefore they are acceptable on the grounds that all that we do as Christians is in worship to God. Now the first two of these arguments are diametrically opposite of one another. If instruments are commanded then they cannot be an “expedient” in the sense that we are at liberty to use them or not as we please. And if they are merely an expedient and nothing more then we would be at liberty to use them or not as we see fit. WE therefore prefer to take these various lines of argument up in the order in which the proponents of them desires to make them in a formal proposition. And discuss them for a predetermined limit of time and then take up the next proposition and so forth until the entire ground is covered and our readers can judge them on their own merits and come to some resolution in their own minds about the matter. For discussing this issue in any other way would result in nothing more than confusion. An organized and formal debate of this issue in this forum would net far better results than any discussion that was not organized. For much can be seen when an issue is discussed in a formal way with guidelines requiring order, fairness and demands for responses to arguments made and a refusal to allow either disputant to just deliberately ignore responding to questions put directly to them.

Therefore, to those of you who have been so eager to enter into a discussion of this issue. You now have my often-repeated challenge for you to engage in a formal debate of the issue in this forum. If you are not willing to enter into such a discussion then we will just let our readers continue to ask us in private emails to discuss it individually with them as some have been doing.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

Brother Davis:

You have said:

“Ummm....Robin.... “At what point did E. Lee refrain?”

It is obvious that Brother Lee refrained from the moment that Brother Robin asked him to.

Then you say:

“ You can see his latest post just a few up from here.”

Yes and there is not a word about instruments of music in the post to which you refer either is there?

Then you say:

“ I'd love for E. Lee to tackle the instrument issue.”

Well, Brother Davis, our challenge for a formal debate on this subject has stood for some time now and as you can see from our post to Brother Robin the offer to discuss this issue in a formal debate still stands. If you sincerely wish to see us “tackle the instrument issue” all you have to do is contact me and formally accept our offer to engage in a formal written debate of the subject in this forum and you will see E. Lee Saffold “tackle the instrument issue”. If you wish to contact me you can do it via email or you can call me on the phone. My home phone number is 770-381-0398. My Cell phone number is: 678-772-9618 and my office number is 404-532-6386. If you agree to discuss this issue in a formal debate we will arrange for propositions that both sides will either affirm or deny and we will agree upon the guidelines and rules that we will follow. Every word will be established via email sent to each other and copied to our chosen moderators. So that “every word can be established” and we will agree within two weeks upon the time for the debate to take place in this forum and we will announce it in the forum and encourage everyone to listen in. And we will not wait any longer than two weeks for us to agree upon a time for this debate to take place. We will not allow for any delay in at least agreeing upon the propositions, guidelines and set a date for this discussion to take place. If you sincerely wish to discuss this issue you should be able to look at your calendar and decide when you can do it. And it should not take us long to agree. So, I have already agreed to “tackle the instrument issue” if you are willing to bring it onto the “field” so to speak and try to “run with it”.

Then you say:

“ Of course, I'm sure that he can't as there is no biblical argument for it, just a lot of nonsensical legalistic mumbo jumbo.”

Well, that is a find assertion if you would like to take it up in a formal debate and see just how well it stands when you are required to offer proof that it is true we would be more than happy to “tackle it” as you put it.

You sound very boastful and confident, Brother Davis, and we understand that you probably believe that you have good reasons to be so boastful. But we remind you “let not him that putteth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off”.

WE wait for you to contact us to make arrangements for a formal debate of this issue in this forum. This is what you will have to do if you are so anxious to see us “tackle the instrument issue”. So you now have a way to “make it happen”. It is now up to you. We will “tackle” this issue any time you are ready and willing to engage in a formal debate of the matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2001

E. Lee,

I'm not going to waste my time "debating" something that has been debated over and over and over and over again. Do you have something new to bring to the table? I doubt it. There is nothing to debate. It's on the same level of debating whether Paul was Jewish or not. It is so obvious that there is no legitimate argument that could be made to the contrary.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

Brethren:

Notice that Brother Davis said:

“E. Lee, I'm not going to waste my time "debating" something that has been debated over and over and over and over again.”

Now, he does not want to waste his time “debating” something that he was more than willing to “debate” in his last post. For was it not Brother Davis who “wasted his time” saying the following words:

“I'd love for E. Lee to tackle the instrument issue.”

He wants “E. Lee” to “tackle this issue” so long as he is not the one “carrying the ball” when E. Lee Tackles it! He was all ready and willing to come into a thread which was discussing “Dancing” and not “instrumental music” and “waste our time” diverting the discussion from the subject at hand to a discussion of instrumental music. And NOW that we have accepted his “challenge” that we “tackle the instrument issue”. And now that he has been challenged to debate the issue that was so important to him that he found it necessary to divert our discussion from “dancing” to consider it. He SUDDENLY is not willing to “waste his time debating” it. We are certain, brethren, that our readers can “read between the lines” on this one!

Then he says:

“ Do you have something new to bring to the table?”

Brethren, we have been trying for a long time to even “get to the table” in the form of a formal debate on this issue. So, everything that we bring to the table will be presented by us for the first time. Now, whether the arguments are “new” or not remains to be seen. They may not be “new” to myself or even Brother Davis but they could be “new” to many of our readers who have expressed to me that they have never heard both sides of this issue fairly presented. But, let us not forget Brethren that it does not matter if an argument is “new” or “old”. What is important is whether is “true” or “false”. And Brother Davis has challenged us to “tackle the instrument issue” and we have accepted his challenge and are prepared to present our arguments for his examination. But he is now unwilling to “waste his time” on what he was more than willing to “waste our time” on in his last post, isn’t he?

We have debated the subject of baptism with sectarians for years and they often say that they are not hearing anything “new” and we tell them that if they were told the truth in the first debate that they should not expect to hear anything “new” in the second debate. For truth does not change. It does not improve or get better. It does not beg for a “new” expression. It must be stated and defended “OVER AND OVER AND OVER” again. WE are prepared to do this on any subject that we are convinced is in harmony with the truth of the doctrine of Christ whether it be the subject of baptism which we have repeated truthful arguments defending its necessity for years or the subject of instrumental music. And Brother Davis has not yet answered our arguments on the subject of baptism that we have put to him. And we have yet to put our arguments concerning instrumental music to him at all. The arguments may not be “new” but if he bothers to even “attempt” to answer them we will see something “new” as far as Brother Davis is concerned. So, we have invited Brother Davis “to the table” to examine what we will present but he refuses now to even “approach the table” and his excuse is that he already knows that we will present nothing “new”. But we will present something “true” and if he wants to convince us that what we will present is not true then let him come to the table and do the best that he can.

It is clear from all of this, Brethren that Brother Davis does not want to be placed in a position where he must respond to the arguments made and questions asked of him, isn’t it? It was not a waste of his time to strive to instigate a discussion of instrumental music, which frankly we did not seek. But it is a waste of his time to follow his instigation through to a full, objective and fair discussion of the issue! What pathetic nonsense it is for one to challenge us to “tackle this issue” and then not put the issue out on the “field of play” to risk being “tackled”!

Then he says:

“ I doubt it. There is nothing to debate.”

He doubts that we will bring anything “new” to the table. But he is not sure and is unwilling to run the risk of coming “to the table to find out”, isn’t he? For he is convinced that there is “nothing to debate”. Well, now isn’t this a pathetic situation for Brother Davis? First he tells us that he would like to see us “tackle the instrument issue” then he tells us that there is no “issue” to tackle after all! But we can all see that we were willing to tackle this issue if he would “carry the ball” and we notice how quickly he has “dropped the ball” haven’t we? For he does not mind watching as a spectator as we “tackle” the issue of instrumental music while he with a limp wrist throws “popcorn” at us from the stands so long as HE does not have to be the one carrying the ball when we “tackle” the issue! HA! The legs of the lame are indeed unequal, aren’t they?

Then he says:

“ It's on the same level of debating whether Paul was Jewish or not.”

If this is true and someone contended that Paul was not Jewish Brother Davis would not be willing to debate him on the matter, now would he? The initial difference is clear. We know of no one that has ever contended that “Paul was not Jewish” but many have contended that instrumental music is acceptable in the worship of God and many have contended otherwise. In fact, so many have taken opposing positions on this issue that there has been a serious division among us because of it. Yet, Brother Davis thinks it is a non-existent issue unworthy of serious discussion except for when he wants to bring it up! A person could not be more absurd and senseless, now could he?

Then he says:

“ It is so obvious that there is no legitimate argument that could be made to the contrary.”

No, it is not “so obvious” at all. What is quite obvious is the simple fact that Brother Davis is not willing to face the arguments that we have offered to make and defend to the contrary of his position on this issue, now is he? He claims that there are “no legitimate arguments that could be made”. Well, let him prove it by entering into a formal debate of the issue and we will make arguments and he can do his best at showing that our arguments are not legitimate. It is very easy to sit there, as Brother Davis does, with his head in the sand and pretend that there are no legitimate arguments that can be made. But it is much more difficult to face those arguments and PROVE that they are not legitimate in a formal debate with someone that is at least willing and may be very able to defend their legitimacy.

So, our readers can now see that Brother Davis is willing to assert but unwilling to stand in a debate and make attempts to prove that his assertions are true. And he is also unwilling to allow his arguments to come under the intense scrutiny such a formal debate would surely provide.

Now, Brethren, I do want to say this. I am aware that Brother Davis does not really represent the position of the majority in this forum on several issues, including the instrumental issue. And I would not want to leave the impression that overcoming Brother Davis’ position in a formal debate would not sufficiently put the issue to rest because his reasons for accepting instrumental music are quite different from my other brethren who accept it in this forum. But, they have not challenged us to “tackle the instrument issue” either now have they?

Now, Brethren, brother Davis has proven himself to be a false teacher by his teaching contrary to the doctrine of Christ in Acts 2:38 that one can be “saved without specifically being baptized for the remission of sins” in another thread. And he has done also demonstrated that he partakes in the evils of other false teachers (2 John 9-11) with his glowing support of that most famous false teacher of our times, Billy Graham, who teaches the perverted gospel of “Salvation by faith only”. And for those reasons we do not consider that he is a true, authorized and acceptable representative of our brethren in this forum who hold to the truth of the doctrine of Christ yet whom we are convinced are erring in their use of instrumental music in the worship. But, he has sought to draw us into this discussion and now he suddenly does not want to “waste time” with it. This shows not only that we are willing and prepared defend what we are convinced is the truth and that Brother Davis is not willing to defend his position. But I would not want our readers to conclude from this that our brethren who use instruments in the worship in this forum are in any way like Brother Davis. For they are willing and able to enter into such a discussion and there are plenty out there that would engage us in such a discussion in a fair, equitable, reasonable and able manner. But brother Davis has made it abundantly clear that he is not among them, now hasn’t he?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

I believe that I was naive when I started this thread.... I thought that 'dancing as worship' merited discussion beyond the 'authorization' issue, however, I believe that Darrell is right in that it does come down to 'authorization' at the core. This scares me... it opens the door to 'worship enhancement activities' that I am not comfortable with.

This brings up a question: Who determines what 'enhances' worship and what detracts from it?

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

John,

You have said, "From having personal experience with this subject (there was a hula halau in the church I recently fled, as well) I have to say it is not something for a congregation that is spiritually weak. "

Can you expand on that? Why isn't it something for a congregation that is spiritually weak?

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

Robin -- interesting that you would say that it would open doors that you are not comfortable with. That, my friend, is the point! Right or wrong, we tend to "enhance worship" or worship with things that we are comfortable with.

Some congregations allow women to serve the communion emblems, or take up offering ... others are not comfortable with that. They can't point to book/chapter/verse that disallows women to serve in such a matter (certainly this would not be a position of leadership), but they feel uncomfortable with the idea, for any number of reasons. So they don't do it. Others do.

CanOn the other hand: Can we say that some of what we do during the "worship service" is worship, while other parts only enhance the worship? I'm not real sure of that. Maybe the use of sound equipment (while not "authorized" by Scripture) enhances the worship. Maybe the use of an overhead or powerpoint presentation enhances the worship. Maybe the use of air conditioning on a hot summer day enhances the worship, or our ability to worship. But when it comes to specifics such as singing, dancing, et. al., this IS worship, or an act of worship.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

Lee;

Earlier you wrote,

Then he says:

“We are under God's grace, not under the law.”

Now Brother John appears here to be trying to make us believe that we are not under ANY LAW. When the truth is that we are under the “law of Christ” instead of the Law of Moses.

I was not trying to make anyone believe anything of the sort. I am so glad that you can somehow see inside my heart and see what I am trying to make people believe. You are correct, the truth is that we are under the “law of Christ” instead of the Law of Moses. And the law of Christ is LOVE. There is no rule either for or against dancing in that law, is there? I cannot see that loving God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving my neighbor as myself, loving my brothers and sisters in Christ have anything whatsoever to do with dancing. Or playing musical instruments for that matter. In fact, I see just the opposite. I want to love God with all my mind and all my soul and all my heart and all my strength, and if dancing does that for me, then I must do it! If playing an instrument and pouring my heart out to God through it in blessed rapture does that for me, then I must do it! I must love God with every fiber of my being, and with every talent He has graciously gifted me with. And if those include dancing or playing instruments, I think it would be a sin to even think of holding back!

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2001

Brother John:

You have accurately quoted my words as follows:

“Lee; Earlier you wrote, Then he says: “We are under God's grace, not under the law.” Now Brother John appears here to be trying to make us believe that we are not under ANY LAW. When the truth is that we are under the “law of Christ” instead of the Law of Moses.”

To which you reply:

“I was not trying to make anyone believe anything of the sort.”

I am very happy to learn that you were not trying to make us believe that we are not under ANY LAW. For it surely did, as we stated, APPEAR, that such was what you were saying when you said the following words:

““We are under God's grace, not under the law.”

For you seemed to imply from these words that the Law has nothing to do with what we do in our worship to God. Never the less we are happy that you do believe that by God grace we are under the law of Christ and that therefore must follow the teaching of Christ in all that we do. And to this the scriptures agree. For we are told, “and whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the father.” (Col. 3:17). Thus, when we do something in word or deed we must do it by the authority of Christ our Lord and not merely by our own imaginations. We are not to do in worship that which is pleasing to us and which is according to our own will. But rather we are to do things that are in harmony with the will of Christ. We have not right to establish our own religion and following our own ways as we see fit. But rather we are to follow Christ and do as he commands us to do. (Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23). Therefore what we do must originate from what HE SAYS and not from what we imagine that he would or might say.

Then you say:

“ I am so glad that you can somehow see inside my heart and see what I am trying to make people believe.”

We were not looking at your heart Brother John. We were looking at your words. For Christ said out of the abu8ndance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Your words left us with the impression that you were trying to say that we are not under any law and for that reason we said that you APPEARED to be saying such. SO, the old nonsensical response that someone is deliberately judging your heart when in fact they are judging your WORDS that proceeded out of your mouth is a useless response, isn’t it? It is nothing more than a way to avoid dealing with the response and diverting everyone’s attention away from the issue toward the emotion of anger toward some one who is “judging” the heart of another when in truth the words were under scrutiny and not the heart directly.

Then you say:

“ You are correct, the truth is that we are under the “law of Christ” instead of the Law of Moses.”

And we are very glad to see that you agree with us about this important matter. And we ask therefore why would you respond to our discussion of what the Law of Christ has to say about this issue with “we are under grace and not under the law”? For you know that we believe in the grace of God as much as anyone writing in this forum. And our discussing whether or not dancing is authorized in the worship by the law of Christ does not have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that we are under God’s grace. For we are, in fact, by God’s grace under the law of Christ. And we are not without law and our discussion of whether something is authorized by our Lord Jesus Christ does not mean that we are being pure “legalist” who reject the idea of grace. And you know it, don’t you? WE are under God’s grace but we are not authorized to offer animal sacrifices in our worship to God, now are we? WE are under God’s grace but we are not allowed to substitute RC Cola and Moon pies for the fruit of the vine and the unleavened bread of in the lord’s supper, now are we? Just because we are seeking to follow the law of Christ does not mean that we are not under His marvelous grace, now does it?

Then you say:

“ And the law of Christ is LOVE.”

Well, Brother John we have no doubt that Love is a command found in the Law of Christ. And that Love is the prime motivator of those who would obey the Law of Christ but there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that says, “the Law of Christ is love”. This is simply not the truth and you could not prove that it was if your life depended upon it. In fact, your very soul might depend upon it. Love is a part of the Law of Christ and is found in the law of Christ but it is not THE law of Christ.

Then you say:

“ There is no rule either for or against dancing in that law, is there?”

Indeed there is not any “authorization” for it whatsoever is there? You do admit and agree with us, then, that there is not authority for Dancing in the worship in the law of Christ? And it seems then that your position is that you have no need for any authority from Christ for anything that you do in the worship of God. And that is clearly where we differ, so it seems. But we aren’t sure for we have not asked you if there is anything whatsoever that you believe cannot be brought into the worship of Christ whether he authorizes it our not. And we wonder why you ignored our question that was put to you about David’s uncovering himself in front of the handmaids of his servants. For he did this while “dancing before the Lord". WE asked you if we could uncover ourselves or become naked in the worship of God as we “dance before the Lord” like David did? And you did not answer us, now did you?

You see, as Brother Darrel points out correctly, the issue is whether or not we are allowed to do ANTHING WE WANT to do whether God authorizes it or not. Another way to put it is “are we allowed to do anything we want in the worship of God whether God likes it our not”? Please do not ignore these questions as you have thus far, brother John. And we are convinced that we must have authorization from Christ to do anything in HIS name. (Col. 3:17).

Then you say:

“ I cannot see that loving God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and loving my neighbor as myself, loving my brothers and sisters in Christ have anything whatsoever to do with dancing.”

Brother John, we are not interested in what you can or “cannot see”. Instead we are interested in WHAT GOD SAYS and whether we are at liberty to do anything we want to do in the worship whether God authorizes it or not. And we have not said anything whatsoever against “loving God”. Those who believe in Dancing in the worship certainly have no corner on loving God. But Christ said, “if ye love me keep my commandments.” Those who love God obey him. And they do not “presume” to do anything in worship that he has not clearly authorized them to do for they know that “God will be sanctified among those who love Him”. And we agree that loving God and our Brothers and sisters in Christ has nothing to do with dancing and therefore those who are seeking to love God will have nothing to do with anything not related to loving him. For one does not show love for God by “dancing in the worship” because he is doing it even though he has no word from God which would cause him to even believe that God would accept such as a sacrifice in worship to him under the Law of Christ. But those who wish to dance do not care whether God authorizes it or not. They will do it anyway without knowing anything about whether God wants such in the worship or not. And the dangerous part is that they do not CARE whether he wants it or not. Because they are not concerned about that for THEY want it and THEY will have it and whether God authorizes it or not. This is not the attitude of those who “love God” Brother John.

Then you say:

“ Or playing musical instruments for that matter.”

This is not the subject of this thread and we have stated our position clearly and offered to debate the issue and if you wish to discuss that issue with us you know what to do. But we do agree that it is not authorized in the New Testament either and we are happy to see that you also admit that it is not authorized in the Law of Christ just as dancing is not authorized. The difference between us on this matter is that you claim that we do not need any authority form our Lord to dance or use instruments or do anything else that we want to do in the worship of God. But we believe that we must “do all in the name of Christ” (Col. 3:17) or BY HIS AUTHORITY. And because, as even you admit, both dancing and instrumental music are not authorized anywhere in the New Testament we do not presume that God is please with those who bring them in by their OWN authority with little or no concern for the Lordship of Christ and His authority. This issue is far deeper than mere differences between various likes and dislikes of individual taste, Brother John.

Then you say:

“ In fact, I see just the opposite.”

Again, Brother John, we are not interested in what you “SEE” but rather what GOD SAYS. And God has nowhere told us in the law of Christ to worship him in DANCE. SO, what you need is to show us where GOD SAYS the opposite, and not where you “SEE JUST THE OPPOSITE”. And you cannot do that, now can you?

Then you say:

“I want to love God with all my mind and all my soul and all my heart and all my strength, and if dancing does that for me, then I must do it!”

We are glad that you want to “love God” for this is exactly what any Christian would want other Christians to do, isn’t it? But if you love God you do so by “keeping his commandments”. And since he has not commanded you to dance then it will not work for you to try to love God by dancing. And love is something that you do for others. And you have said, “if dancing DOES IT FOR ME”. Now, that is the root of the problem. WE are “DOING IT FOR ME”. WE cannot be doing it for God for God has not indicated that dancing is something that he wants from Christians in their worship. Worship is directed to God it is not a time or place to entertain ourselves and pretend that in doing so we are “loving God”. This is pathetic hypocrisy. But, in order to do something for YOURSELF, Brother John you MUST DO IT whether God authorizes it or not. No, God’s will has nothing to do with it, now does it Brother John?

Then you say:

“ If playing an instrument and pouring my heart out to God through it in blessed rapture does that for me, then I must do it!”

WE have no doubt whatsoever that doing these things is very pleasing to you and therefore it “does it for you” but you cannot prove to save your life that it does anything for God, now can you. If you are doing these things for yourself, Brother John then your worship is misdirected, isn’t it? You are worshipping yourself and not God. our life that it does anything for God, now can you. If you are doing these things for yourself, Brother John then your worship is misdirected, isn’t it? You are worshipping yourself and not God. Or, are doing your own will and not his. This is in fact the very nature of “will worship” which is clearly forbidden and condemned in the New Testament”. It is the Lord’s will that we must DO in the worship and service of Christ and not our own. (Matt. 6:10;7:21;Mark 3:5;Luke 22:42; John 1:13;4:34;Acts 21:14; Romans 12:22;Eph. 5:17;).

Then you say:

“ I must love God with every fiber of my being, and with every talent He has graciously gifted me with.”

Now this is nothing more than a statement of the old sectarian argument that whatever talents we have justify us in using them in the worship of God. But notice here again the prominence of the word “ME”. It is all “ME ME" with these Brethren who seek to do things that God has not commanded them to do. It is not enough for them to do what God has authorized and commanded. They must “go beyond” God’s stated will to do what PLEASES THEM. They must do not only God’s will but their own as well. But Christ said, “Not my will but thine be done”. We are taught to pray that God’s will be done but Brother John “loves God so much” that he just MUST come into the worship and do John’s will and God’s will. But we are told by Christ to sacrifice our will and do God’s will.

Then Brother John says:

“ And if those include dancing or playing instruments, I think it would be a sin to even think of holding back!”

Brother John, we are not interested in what “you think”. Again we must stress that we are interested in what GOD SAYS. And we can tell you that God does not say that if those talents include dancing or playing instruments that it would be a “sin to hold back”, now does He? But John THINKS so. WE are not taught in the doctrine of Christ to do anything that “JOHN THINKS” but rather to do the “WILL OF GOD”. Now, can Brother John prove from the New Testament Law of Christ that it is God’s Will that we dance in the worship? He has already admitted that he cannot. SO, he admits that dancing in the worship does not form any part of the WILL OF GOD. Therefore it must be the WILL OF MAN AND NOT GOD. And we reject it because it is man’s will and not God’s. And doing our own will in the worship instead of the will of God is indeed sinful, whether we use our God given talents to do it or not. In fact, it seems that it is a special insult to God when we use our God given talents to disobey him in the “will – worship” that is worshipping according to our own will and not HIS. And Brother John is not “holding back” on doing his own will, now is he? But he does appear to be less than satisfied with what we know to be God’s will in our worship. Those things that we know that God has commanded us to do in our worship are just not enough for Brother John, now are they? They must be “enhanced by the dance”! And he does not want to be restricted by the will of God so he takes it upon himself to go BEYOND God’s Will in order to do his own and is convinced that it would be sinful to “hold back” by doing nothing more than the will of God. For Brother John does not even believe that it is necessary that we ensure that all that we do is the will of God. He thinks we are at liberty to do our own will whether it is God’s will or not. For you see, if Brother John could show from the doctrine of Christ that it was Good’s will that we dance in our worship to him he would have simply show that such was the case, now wouldn’t he. But he instead admits that God’s will does not include dancing but he can do it any way because dancing “does it for me”. That is his criteria. It is not whether it is God’s will or not but rather what is does for Brother John. Well, we do not doubt that dancing might do something for YOU but we have no reason to believe that it does ANYTHING for God. In fact, efforts to do our own will instead of His will without doubt anger God.

So, Brethren, the issue is whether you want to do what “does it for you” or do you want to do the will of God. That is your choice. If it is your own will that you are interested in doing; then, you will seek and find many “worship enhancement activities”. For you see, it is not that those who would “enhance the worship” are trying to improve the effect it has upon God by striving harder to do HIS will. But rather they seek to “enhance” the effect it has upon themselves when they worship God and how pleasing it is to the satisfaction of THEIR will regardless of what God’s will in the matter might be. You cannot “enhance” the worship for God by any means other than obeying His every word. You can only enhance it for men. So, the very idea of “enhancing the worship” is sinful because it is an action that is taken in WILL WORSHIP and not in worship according to God’s will. Show me any place where the early Christians ever sought to “enhance” their worship with any innovations whatsoever. They were satisfied with the will of God and the way in which he commanded and taught us to worship him. And faithful Christians today are still satisfied with God’s Will. They seek not their own as those who would “enhance the worship” to please themselves regardless of the stated will of God.

So, Brethren, It is a good question to ask when you are doing something in the worship and service of God, “is what I am about to do God’s will or is it my OWN STUBBORN WILL”? If you can know that it is God’s will then you are assured of being right in doing it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Mr. Saffold,

I have just recently came onto this forum and read this thread and another named Christian Liberties. I am guessing that the liberties thread was started in reply to this thread. I believe that it asks a good question for you (you may disagree). What Christian liberties, if any, do you believe that followers of Christ have. You might answer this ? in concept, but please state specifics. I am interested in your response.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Lee, you wrote,

"... there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that says, “the Law of Christ is love”. This is simply not the truth and you could not prove that it was if your life depended upon it."

I beg to differ with you, Lee. For it is written, "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). This is the same as Christ's command to the disciples in the upper room: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). It doesn't get any simpler than this. Paul says THE Law of Christ is carrying each other's burdens, i.e. loving one another before yourself. It simply IS the truth.

The "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" and the cringing before an angry God were a part of the old Law. Through it God proved that you could not be justified by keeping laws, for no man was perfect enough to keep every one, and if one failed in just one law, one was guilty of the whole and doomed. Galatians 5:4 reads, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Those are scary words! I am not made just in the eyes of God because of any keeping of any law (or lack thereof) that I do; it is solely on the merit of Jesus' death on the cross that I have any standing before God at all. Paul says if we are trying to do it on our own by keeping laws, we are actually separated from God!

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

John,

Perhaps you missed my question above, so I'll repeat it here:

You have said, "From having personal experience with this subject (there was a hula halau in the church I recently fled, as well) I have to say it is not something for a congregation that is spiritually weak. "

Can you expand on that? Why isn't it something for a congregation that is spiritually weak?

To go on... If "it is not something for a congregation that is spiritually weak" as you say, would you agree that it also "is not something for a spiritually weak" Christian??

Should we be doing things in worship that can cause the spriritually weak to stumble and fall?

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Darrell,

Earlier I asked, "Who determines what 'enhances' worship and what detracts from it? " I believe you would say the congregation or the elders, right?

Let's say that several in the congregation feel that a little Hula during worship enhances their worship... and that several in the congregation feel that this display definitely detracts and inhibits their ability to worship. What is to be done? Is this a 'majority' decision issue?

Notice the emphasis on FEEL... for if we don't have the Word to go by then we must rely on FEELINGS, right?

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

If there is no thus says the Lord, then we might use feelings, common sense, example of other congregations, etc.

In the case you mention, should it be majority rule? One of the problems we have in the church today is too much voting on things. I think it would come down to the elders making the decision, amybe to try something different and see how it is received. If those who are against it are mature in Christ, they shouldn't mind that. Of course, that might be a problem right there.

And I say it should be the elders, but of course, they should know their congregation well enough to hae some sort of understanding of how things might go over. And, we are assuming that the elders really are the spiritual leaders of said congregation. In too many cases, that just isn't the case, and that opens another jar of worms, doesn't it.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

Brother John:

You have correctly quoted my words as follows:

“Lee, you wrote, "... there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that says, “the Law of Christ is love”. This is simply not the truth and you could not prove that it was if your life depended upon it." To which you replied:

“I beg to differ with you, Lee.”

Brother John, we are brothers in Christ and therefore there is no need for you to “beg” in order to differ with me. I am happy anytime someone will make a sincere attempt to correct me when they are convinced that I am wrong in what I say.

Then you say:

“ For it is written, "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2).” This is true. But this verse does not say what you said. You said, “The law of Christ is love”. This passage says “carry each others burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Which by no means is teaching that the entire law of Christ and every command in it is fulfilled when we “bear on another’s burdens. For when a person repents of their sins they are obeying the law of Christ but when we bear on another’s burdens we are not repenting of our sins. The idea of this passage is that when we bear one another’s burdens we will be obeying the law of Christ. But even if it were teaching that bearing one another’s burdens was all that one had to do to completely follow the law of Christ it still would not be saying that “love is the law of Christ”. The passage does not even mention the subject of love, now does it? So, this passage does not prove that the law of Christ is nothing more than LOVE. So, if you wish to prove your assertion you will have to find a passage that at the very least says what you said. And this passage is just not it.

Then you say:

“ This is the same as Christ's command to the disciples in the upper room: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34).”

No it is not. The passage in Galatians does not say the same as what Christ said to the disciples in the upper room. The command to love one another is one of the commands in the law of Christ but it is not THE LAW OF CHRIST IN ITS ENTIRETY. There are other commands in the law of Christ besides loving one another. WE stated clearly to you that we believe firmly that love is a command in the law of Christ but that the law of Christ is not LOVE and nothing more. And even what Jesus said in the upper room is not the same as what you said in your last post. You said “the law of Christ IS LOVE. And again you have failed miserably to find a passage of scripture that even remotely implies such nonsense.

Then you say:

“ It doesn't get any simpler than this.”

Indeed your error here is quite simple and one that is easily seen. Show us where the scripture says, “the law of Christ is love”? We are waiting for you to find something like that in the word of God and you have failed so far to find it, now haven’t you.

Then you say:

“ Paul says THE Law of Christ is carrying each other's burdens, i.e. loving one another before yourself.”

Paul did not even say, “THE Law of Christ was carrying one another’s burdens”. What Paul said was carry each other’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ”. If we bear one another’s burdens we will be obeying the commands of Christ found in his law. But Paul does not say that bearing one another’s burdens “IS the law of Christ” as if that were all there is to the law of Christ. And while we might bear one anthers burdens out of love for either Christ or each other or both the bearing of each others burdens is not love itself. So, if we took this passage as you take it and it proved anything it would prove that bearing one another’s burdens was the law of Christ but it would not ever prove that love is the law of Christ. And when you say that bearing one another’s burdens is the same as “loving one another before yourself” you are stating that which is not true. One might do such because they love others but they could do it even if they did not love one another. They could do it simply because they were commanded by Christ to do it. And that would be showing love for Christ. No one doubts that Love is a part of the law of Christ, brother John but the scriptures do not teach that the LAW OF CHRIST IS LOVE. The law of Christ is far more than "LOVE". It includes the WILL OF GOD and what he wants us to do. And love may be the motivator, which causes us to obey the law of Christ, but it is not the law of Christ itself.

Then you say:

“It simply IS the truth.”

It simply is NOT the truth and you have yet to show one single passage that says, “the law of Christ is LOVE” for there is not a single passage in the entire word of God that teaches such nonsense.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2001

When I was young, one of my favorite songs to listen to was "Godpleaser" by the Christian rock band Petra (oh, I can hear it coming from Lee already!). The lyrics being, "I wanna be a God pleaser." I think thats something that a lot of people miss about Christianity, something that makes for a lot of hypocrites and legalists. We are not God's enemies! We don't have to "do this" and "don't do that" like craven slaves to appease an angry God. God has made peace with us! I know that I am not God's enemy - Satan is! God loved me so much he got down off his throne - in the middle of a war! - and went into enemy territory to free those of us who were kept captive! Then made me an adopted son and a joint heir!

I struggle daily, as did Paul, with the "sin that so easily besets" me. I don't do the things I want to do, and the things I hate to do, I do. But God is not sitting up there waiting to put the kabosh on us if and when we step out of line, if we miss something we didn't know was there, or if we fail to read between the lines. You're not going to be consigned to hell for doing a two-step for joy before the Lord like David did. Living that way is living under the law, and the end thereof is death. We "do this" and "don't do that" because of joy from what He has done, because we desire to please him, because of LOVE, not because it's "the law." As long as I have my faith in Him - for it is only my faith that saves me! - and earnestly desire to please Him in all that I do, I am still under His grace! Thats why I said - and I believe Paul meant - that the law of Christ was Love. From his statement to the scribe that the sum of the law was tied up in loving God and loving your neighbor, to the upper room where he gave the commandment to love each other, the law of Christ is love under grace.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

John -- what a hoot! The very first song I ever sang for a congregation was "Godpleaser!" That was during the summer of 1984, just before I left Boca Raton, FL to head to Florida Christian College for my freshman year.

What goes around, comes around. Just a month or so ago I sang the song at a local coffeehouse. While some of the "older" folks there knew the song and the group, a number of youth came up and wanted to know about the "new song" that they hadn't heard before! :)

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

Well, old secular rock & roll (oldies) have their nostalgia periods ... maybe we'll have a christian rock nostalgia thing going on soon.

Personally, I like 70's Petra best ... I didnt like them much after Greg X. Volz left the group. I think he was their creative edge.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

No doubt! Greg is (or was) THE voice of Christian Rock for so many years! Great voice, and what a stage presence. I remember seeing them at Disney's Night of Joy, at the castle ... blew me away!

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2001

My thread has degenerated to a couple of Petra Groupies having a TalkFest.... :-)

Seriously, John, are you going to answer the question I have put to you twice... or did it in some way not deserve an answer?

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001

Sorry Robin! :-) Wasnt meaning to ignore you, just got caught up in the moment. Plus I haven't had a lot of time since I just started a new job. You asked,

If "it is not something for a congregation that is spiritually weak" as you say, would you agree that it also "is not something for a spiritually weak" Christian?

Short answer: I would agree with that. Longer answer forthcoming. :)

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2001