|
 Dear
bro. Turner:
Is
it unscriptural and sinful to have instrumental music in a
wedding ceremony which is held in a “church of Christ”
building, when the only songs played are secular?
R.C.
Reply:
A
building in which the church meets for worship remains just that
— a building. It is not “sacred” in the sense of “holy
ground.” It is not the “House of God,” nor “sanctuary.”
It is a shelter from the elements, an expedient, subordinate to
the command to assemble. To the extent the church controls a
building, its “use” is dictated by two considerations: (1)
the purpose by which it is justified, and for which it is
obtained; (2) the influence its use will have upon the
public who, right or wrong, will judge us by such matters.
A
wedding ceremony of any kind is a social-civil affair. I believe
the building may be used, incidentally, for weddings and
funerals, but there is no scriptural justification for church
financing of such — and certainly none for constructing a “chapel”
specifically for such.
In
my opinion, the use of mechanical music of any kind, in a
building clearly identified in the public mind as controlled by
the church for the worship and work of the Lord, would be
inexpedient. Persisted in, to the disregard of conscience, a
false “light” to the world, or a compromising position
before weak brethren, it would be sinful. (Rom. 14:14-f; 15:
1-2; 1 Cor. 6:12; 8: 8-12; 10:31) Little children —cease this
excuse-seeking!
Bro.
Turner:
|
|
Do
the scriptures teach that women must wear hats to services?
D.C.
Reply:
1
Cor. 11:3-f. teaches that man is head over woman, and that this
distinction must be maintained in their appearance and conduct.
Apparently
some women in Corinth were openly challenging this divine
distinction; abusing their new-found “freedom in Christ” and
using their right to “pray and prophesy” as the door to
personal ends. They violated that which was “fitting” (Vs.
13. something subject to rational judgement among the many) and
“natural” (Vs. 14, something which could he determined
without benefit of revelation; see Rom. 2:14) in their rebellion
against man as their “head.”
Paul
states the divine law on the matter (i.e., settles, by
revelation, the issue) when he says, “But I would have you
know —” Vs. 3. He then deals with the particulars (hair
styles and veils) by appealing to their own ingrained sense of
shame judgement and propriety (Vs. 4-f); reverting to the basic
issue only to reinforce the divine principle previously stated.
Then,
lest any think that the particulars of the Corinthian situation
(hair lengths and veils) become ends within themselves; lest any
try to make the veil or hair length a universally distinctive
mark of saints; (and “chapel veils” become our badge) he
says, “We have no such custom (established practice, see Jn.
18:39)) neither the churches of God.”
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
