Is There A Divinely Given Sequence For The Items Of Worship? -- (II.)
A former article on this subject had to do with an apparent revival of the position of F. W. Emmons, who in the years before and after 1836, advocated that the precise order or sequence of Acts 2:42 was binding in all worship services of the saints. He took the position that the worship service must follow this sequence, and if it did not follow this order of teaching first, fellowship second, etc., then it was unacceptable to the God of heaven because of disorderliness. Emmons' belief in "order as the first law of heaven" caused him to be very punctilious in his position on order. I wish in this article to deal with some of the answers and objections which are presented against this teaching. Some of this material is taken from the writings of Campbell and Richardson, and I am indebted to these brethren who have in times past answered completely this position.
It is necessary to stress the fact that there is no objection particularly to the order of Acts 2:42. Indeed, this order is as good as any other and therefore proper under some conditions. Objection arises only when if is argued that this order, and no other, is positively established by divine authority. As long as the acts of worship, which have been enjoined by God are observed in the assembly on the Lord's Day, there is perfect order! These observances do not have to come in a set sequence as first, second, third, etc., etc. True order has to do with those acts commanded of God which constitute our pattern for worship in spirit and truth. As brother Campbell put it, "there is a divinely instituted worship for the assemblies of the disciples."
The Position Answered
There is a difference between the things divinely prescribed in worship, and the sequence of those divinely prescribed observances. The acts of worship are to be distinguished from the order or sequence in which they are to be observed. The error of Emmons' position is the result of grouping together these two points; the conclusion of one already admitted in part and the other yet a subject for discussion. A distinction between the two must be kept before all who study this position.
It is said that there is an analogy between the acts of worship and the steps or principles in the plan of salvation, in sequence of first, second, etc. This is not the case for the exercises of worship do not stand in relation to each other as cause and effect. In the plan of salvation, or as some put it, "the scheme of things," the faith of the individual must be preceded by teaching. Faith precedes obedience, etc., (Matt. 28:19-20) How and in what way is "the breaking of bread" the effect of "fellowship," since the latter is said to be giving? I can conceive of brethren offering up prayers of thanksgiving over the joy of seeing brethren give liberally. 1 Corinthians 9:11-14 teaches that "thanksgivings" were the result of the "ministration." But because this is so under some conditions, are we to contend that giving of our means on the Lord's Day must precede prayers? Or that giving must always result in prayers of thanksgiving before our giving is acceptable? The items of worship are perfect and complete in themselves. They are equally significant in any order, and following the sequence of Acts 2:42 does not make them any more important or significant.
The statement of Luke (Acts 2:42) constitutes a practice of the early church with apostolic approval and guidance. It, l'ke Acts 20:7, is an apostolic approved example. As such it would authorize us to follow this sequence, but we are not limited to this precise order. Acts 20:7 authorizes us to meet in an "upper room." We are not restricted to upper rooms, however, for the passage does not limit us to this extent. The same is true of Acts 2:42. Before the sequence of this example can be bound, one must show that this is the order of all the items of worship and that as such it harmonizes with the context as well as with other passages. All the items of worship are not mentioned in the context! Singing is a divinely prescribed act of worship to be participated in by saints who worship God on the Lord's Day. Yet singing is left out of this which is said to be the pattern for the order of worship. Brethren who take Emmons' position feel the force of this point, and they labor to work singing in under the "apostles' doctrine." They overlook the act that even though singing is an act in which we teach, speak to and admonish one another, they shift their meaning of "apostles' doctrine" by working hymns into Acts 2:42 as a part of that "doctrine." When trying to bind the "order" of Acts 2:42, they want you to understand that "apostles' doctrine" means a discourse or sermon. When you press them regarding this verse leaving out singing, they want you to understand that the "apostles' doctrine" refers to a system of faith and as such it includes singing. They shift their meaning, depending upon how they use the term.
Let me cite you an example:
`What came first after the singing? 'In the first place, one or other of the apostles delivered a sermon or doctrinal discourse for the instruction, or edification of the people present? (The Truth, November, 1961, p, 168)
Notice also that singing came first and then a sermon "first" after singing! How does the author know that singing came first? It is not mentioned in the verse. It is impossible to say that singing has any relationship to the sequence of this verse for the simple fact that the verse is silent on the subject. I may choose to have singing after the order of the four items mentioned. I would do so on the same authority that my good brother puts singing before the sermon. Order indeed!
Conclusion
There is no evidence to support the position on the "order of Acts 2:42." Acts 20 cannot be used in support of this, for in this passage only "teaching" and "breaking bread" is mentioned. How will one contend that the disciples at Troas followed the sequence of Acts 2:42, when only two items are mentioned? Did "fellowship" follow the "doctrine"? All that can be said is that "breaking bread" followed Paul's preaching and other than this, the sequence of the other items of worship is unknown. If one argues that there was uniformity of sequence in the worship services of the brethren at Jerusalem and Troas, he does so on the silence of the scriptures! Just because two items came in the same sequence, one cannot argue that the others followed suit. Furthermore, in order to have a parallel between Acts 2:42 and Acts 20, "breaking bread" would have to follow "fellowship"! We do not know that this was the case It can only be assumed.
Emmons knew that the only passage he had for his position was Acts 2:42 and that when it is taken from him, he has none other! He said, "if Acts 2:42" does not "express the prominent exercises and the order of them, no other passage does express them in all the N. T." On this Campbell said:
"Has the divine authority for any arrangement of things ever before been gathered from such a source? I say, never; never from the mere arrangement of words in a sentence has the arrangement of any religious observance, or its divine authority, been instituted so far as I have read the Bible ....The simple order of words in a sentence proves neither the order of things in time, nature, or importance-(Millennial Harbinger, June, 1838.)
He cites a number of passages to illustrate his point and among them is 1 Timothy 2'1' "I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks, be made for all men." We do not concur with Campbell that Paul's statement in this verse is "more didactic and authoritative" than Luke's in Acts 2:42. Our point is this, if the mere arrangement of words in the verse under discussion argues for the set sequence of worship, then would not this arrangement necessitate that "supplications" always come before "prayers"? Paul says "first of all, supplication" then prayers.
Some who uphold the position of Emmons today, oftentimes appeal to historians and so-called "Church Fathers" to- further substantiate this position on Acts 2:42. This appeal carries little weight since there is little agreement among them on the subject. If one desires to quote Mosheim, who favors Emmons' position; then, we shall quote Eusebius to the contrary.
In each assembly of the saints, all the ordinances of God shall be attended to when this takes place, perfect order is preserved in worship. The time or hour of the assembly, the sequence of the items of worship, and the kind of house or auditorium they meet in, are matters that are left up to the brethren. The sequence of Acts 2:42 is as good as any, but to say that this sequence must be followed before there is order, is to argue for that which cannot be supported by the N. T. Let the children of God in every place strive to worship God in "spirit and truth." Let them do so with decency and order.
— 912 N.W. 19th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida