Truth Magazine

By D.R. Ducan

When Should the Church Break the Bread?

The idea is now quite prevalent that there is the largest liberty in this respect; that a church can elect as well concerning this question as the time and place of the prayer meeting; that there was nothing indicated by the Savior when he says: “As often as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me till I come,” as to the time of frequency. Certainly we have no statement of the exact time of their meetings for that purpose, and yet we are not without a guide in the matter. In Acts 20:7 there is a statement that is indicative of the practice of the early church, which must have had not only the sanction but the instruction of the apostles.

Luke has some peculiarities as well as other writers, and in this verse is one of them: the use of the word when. He employs it to indicate an occurrence that was everywhere known, and therefore expected. The passage becomes significant with this explanation: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,” was supposed to be anticipated by every reader. He had just related the fact that they had been there for a whole week, and of course a first day would occur, and on that first day the disciples would be expected to meet together to break bread. He wishes to tell the reader about Paul’s discourse and the miracle that was wrought by him that night, but preceded the account by the announcement that every one would anticipate. Hence he says that this discourse was given “when we were gathered together to break bread.” You will see the use of the word in Acts 8:12; “when they believed.” See again Acts 16:15; “And when she was baptized.” He had just related that her heart was opened, that she attended to the things spoken by Paul, and every one would expect her baptism to follow, and he records it in that way, as a matter of course. But when the custom was not known he announced it as a matter that had not been understood beforehand. Acts 17:1, 2, 3; Luke 4:16, will show the difference in the style between writing things that were known to be the custom and recording something that had not been known before. In these last texts he notices customs that had not been announced and were not supposed to be matters of common knowledge. But in the other places the style is different.

It was not, then, an accident that they met together on a first day of the week at Troas for the purpose of attending to the communion, but a custom was announced, which announcement was anticipated by every one who knew the practices of the church. This is further seen in. the First Corinthian letter (11:17-34), which shows that when they met together it was for the purpose of breaking bread; and in 16:1, 2, we learn that it was their practice to meet together on every first day of the week. It was not simply the custom in the city of Corinth, but in Galatia. Now the recommendations that Paul would give to the churches in Galatia respecting their meetings would come from a knowledge of the time when they were held. Putting these two facts together, we have it that first they met together to break bread; this was the main purpose of their meetings; and second, that they met together on every first day of the week. From this it is the conviction of the most eminent men of the church to-day that it was the custom of the first church during the days of the apostles to be the same. Indeed, they claim such practice as the reason and authority for their custom.

In the Teaching of the Apostles, which is supposed to have been written about A.D. 120, in chapter 14 we find this: “But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with this fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.'”

In the First Apology of Justin, chapter 67, we have the custom described, that of assembling and having the Scriptures read, and remarks made on them, then engaging in prayer and breaking of bread. This they did on the day that was “called Sunday.” Of course, since Justin was writing to an emperor, he used the word Sunday for the first day of the week, instead of the Lord’s day that was nearly always used by the Fathers, he might be understood. In the writings of these men, two things are apparent: first, they are everywhere agreed as to the custom of meeting together on the first day, or Lord’s day, for the purpose of breaking bread; and second, they are agreed that this teaching was from the apostles.

An objection has just been raised against weekly communion on account of the frequency, which it is claimed will render it so common as to hinder the impression that it should make on those who attend upon it. This same objection is urged against prayer being offered daily, so it has been though that it should be only after such intervals as will render it more awe-inspiring. So the priests should have gone occasionally the incense. But, again, it is said that the time is not definitely fixed by a direct statement. As a command, this is true. We learn, however, what was regarded as proper in the days of the apostle’s, when the churches were under the direction of their inspiration, and follow the example, believing that they were right, and that what was right then is right now. If we do as the churches did when under the control of inspired men in the matters of public worship, we will be certainly be safe.

-The Old Faith Restated by J.W. Garrison, pp., 245-249.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 29-30
January 5, 1978

By Johnny Stringer

Elsewhere in this issue of Truth Magazine there appears an article by Brother K.E. Clayton, in which the author contends that Christians should not engage in even a non-religious celebration of Christmas or Easter. Having been requested by the editor to review Brother Clayton’s article, I am submitting for your consideration my thoughts regarding his arguments. Let it be understood that I respect Brother Clayton’s opinion in this matter and his right to abstain from any type of celebration on these holidays. I would not encourage anyone who feels as our brother does to celebrate Christmas in any fashion. In fact, as long as one holds this view, I would urge him not to celebrate and thereby violate his conscience (Rom. 14:23).

If I understand our brother’s view, he believes that it is possible to celebrate these holidays as national holidays, without attaching any religious significance to them. He places the matter in the realm of expediency, saying that “you must consider the expediency of participating in such activities, even though you are free to celebrate these days as holidays rather than holy days.” His contention is that by any kind of participation, we damage our influence. Let us now proceed to discuss, paragraph by paragraph, his efforts to support his view.

He begins his article with some comments regarding the necessity of modifying our behavior at times for the sake of our influence with the people among whom we live. This is absolutely true, and the passage cited by Brother Clayton (1 Cor. 9:19-23) supports the proposition. It should be noted that the question regarding a practice is not merely whether or not it is contrary to someone else’s convictions, but whether or not it would actually hinder our efforts to convert him. The salvation of souls is the ultimate aim, as is seen in such expressions as “that I might gain the more,” “that I might by all means save some,” and “for the gospel’s sake.” This is also clear from 1 Cor. 10:23-33, where Paul says that he would not eat meat when doing so would cause another to consider him an idolater and thus damage his reputation. He clearly shows that the reason for the forfeiting of such liberties as eating meat was that such action might be a stumbling block (offence) that would hinder the salvation of the other person (note especially verses 32-33). Having observed that there are times when we should conform to society’s customs, Brother Clayton correctly points out that there are times when conformity is wrong (Rom. 12:2).

In paragraph 2 Brother Clayton speaks of the paganistic beginnings of these holidays, but acknowledges that these paganistic connotations no longer remain, though the denominational world in general places religious significance on these days. I fully agree that it would be utterly sinful for the Christian to make such celebrations a matter of religion; I also agree that it is possible to observe these days as national holidays without attaching religious significance to them. This past December 25th, I did not consider myself to be engaging in a religious activity while I was gorging myself with turkey and dressing.

In paragraph 3 Brother Clayton expressed confusion over whether or not these are national holidays or national holy days. Of course, in current usage the word “holiday” does not refer merely to holy days, but to many days which are in no sense considered to be holy by anyone. Our government has no authority to declare any day to be a holy day, but it has declared Christmas to be a national holiday. One can observe Christmas because our government has declared it a holiday, or one can observe Christmas because his false religious beliefs declare it to be a holy day. It is true, as our brother points out, that many professed Christians consider it a holy day. But it is also true that many skeptics, atheists, agnostics, and infidels celebrate Christmas merely as a national holiday. Whether an individual celebrates it as a holy day or not is dependent upon that individual’s own thinking as he celebrates. Is he, in his own mind, visiting relatives, eating turkey, exchanging gifts, hunting deer, or doing whatever he does on December 25th, because he thinks it is Christ’s birthday and he considers these to be religious activities which honor the birth of Christ? As Brother Clayton admits, it is possible for an individual to observe Christmas as a holiday, and not a holy day.

In paragraph 4 Brother Clayton said, “In certain areas of the world, one’s influence can be seriously harmed by celebrating the holidays of Christmas and Easter.” I cannot deny this statement, for I have not lived in all areas of the world; hence, I cannot speak of the effect on one’s influence these practices would have in all areas. I can only say that if there are certain areas of the world where the celebration of Christmas would damage my influence, I have never been in those areas. If I ever am in such an area, I will not celebrate. Having lived in Texas, Florida, Indiana, and Arkansas, I am convinced that this is not true of those areas. I am convinced that my non-religious celebration of Christmas has never hindered the salvation of any soul. Otherwise, I would have quit. Brother Clayton proceeds in this paragraph to compare those of us who participate in non-religious celebration of Christmas, but oppose religious celebration of it, with a man who opposes $200 per plate fund-raising dinners, but attends one when given a free ticket. The man, it is pointed out, would be hypocritical and would be ineffective in his crusade against such dinners. There is a difference, however. The man attending the dinner is participating in something he opposes, hence is hypocritical. I am not opposed to putting up a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts, visiting relatives, or eating turkey, hence I am not hypocritical when I engage in these things. It is not necessary to refrain from things which we do not oppose in order to show people what we do oppose. They can be taught the distinction.

In paragraph 5 it is affirmed that when we celebrate Christmas in a non-religious way, we present a stumbling block to the new convert who is unable to do so. It is argued that the new convert may be unable to celebrate without thinking of it as religious activity in honor of Christ’s birth, so that when we influence him to celebrate Christmas, he may stumble back into idolatry. Surely we should not want to be a stumbling block to any new convert. However, this is no reason to make a blanket statement regarding the observance of Christmas. When one is in a specific situation where he fears his celebration would influence someone else to stumble, he should not celebrate. But I have never been in a situation where such was the case. I believe that new converts generally are able to see the distinction between religious and non-religious observance of Christmas, if such is carefully explained to them.

In paragraph 6, Romans 14 is discussed. Brother Clayton asserts that in a case when a brother celebrates Christmas, even though another brother has conscience problems with the practice, the one who celebrates is wrong to do so. It is affirmed that in such a case, one should refrain from celebrating, in deference to the weaker brother. This is not necessarily so. It would be so only if one’s celebrating would cause the other brother to stumble. Nowhere do the scriptures teach that we must refrain from every practice that would violate someone else’s conscience. I have known Christians who would violate their consciences by celebrating Christmas, but my celebrating in no way caused them to stumble. Continuing his discussion of Romans 14, our brother says that the celebration of Christmas is not parallel with the eating of meats which is dealt with in that passage, because of the fact that Christmas is considered by many to be a part of “Christian” doctrine, whereas the eating of meats was not. It should be noted, however, that circumcision was considered by some to be necessary for salvation in Christ; but the fact that some observed it as a religious act which was a part of Christianity, did not mean that Christians could not practice it for non-religious reasons. Moreover, some today consider resting on Saturday to be a part of Christianity. Does this mean that I should refrain from resting on Saturday? Certainly it is true that many rest on Saturday for non-religious reasons; but it is also true that many celebrate Christmas for nonreligious reasons (atheists, for instance).

In paragraphs 7 and 8 Brother Clayton argued that a refusal to celebrate Christmas will aid our efforts to teach others the gospel. He says that while he was in high school, if his friends who were Christians had not celebrated Christmas, he might have asked them why they did not, and thereby been converted earlier than he was. He says that his refusal to celebrate has led many to ask him his reasons, and that this has led to fruitful discussions. I can only say that his high school friends could have taught him the truth regardless of whether or not they celebrated Christmas. He says that they did not appear to be any different to him. This is a poor commentary on them. If refusing to celebrate Christmas was required before there was any discernible difference between them and others, then they were surely failing to let their lights shine! I agree that “non conformity (Rom. 12:2, 2 Cor. 6:14-18) brings forth its fruits;” but this does not mean we should abstain from things that are not sinful, just for the sake of being different. If we simply abstain from those things that are sinful, we will be plenty different; we do not have to abstain from things permissible. Refraining from a permissible practice in order to attract attention, arouse curiosity, and provoke questions, is hardly the only way to gain opportunities to teach the gospel. Actually, I fear that if I were to refrain from any celebration, I would give others the impression that I considered any kind of celebration to be sinful, hence would lead them to a false view of my convictions. We do not have to be more strict than truth in order to teach the truth.

In Brother Clayton’s concluding paragraph he quoted Paul’s warning to the Galatians about their observance of days. I do not understand why he quoted this passage, for he has already admitted the possibility of non-religious celebration . of the holidays under discussion in his article. Paul was obviously here speaking to the Galatians about their observance of days as a matter of service to God-a part of their religion. He was not speaking of non-religious observances.

In conclusion, let me say that I have never met Brother Clayton, but I believe he has written out of sincere conviction. I appreciate the spirit manifested in his article. Although I disagree with him, I respect him for his apparent dedication and the manner in which he stated his convictions. I hope the readers will not consider our articles to be a wrangle, but merely two brothers in Christ discussing their views on a controversial subject.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 27-29

January 5, 1978

By K E. Clayton

If one were to live in an area of the country where customs and social amenities were quite different from what one was accustomed, then one would have to modify his personal behavior to the socially accepted form. The old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” is never more necessary than in the life of the child of God. The Christian must be accepted in the society he is living in, if he is to be an effective worker for the Lord and win many souls for the cause of Jesus the Christ. The Christian’s behavior must be righteous unto God and acceptable to the public, simultaneously. This, at times, poses a dilemma. For instance, if I were to move to a community which was predominantly Mennonite, I certainly would not allow my wife to wear lipstick, knowing the convictions the Mennonites have against such cosmetics. In contrast to that, there are times that I would not practice a particular activity, even though most of the people I associate with practice that activity. One type of behavior that comes to mind is the attendance and participation of social drinking parties or visiting bars (even though no alcohol is consumed). I think most of us would agree that even if 90 per cent of the people we associate with frequent this type of place, it would be detrimental for the child of God, and his good influence, to be seen at such places. The apostle Paul spoke of the balance point between these two cases in 1 Cor. 9:19-23 and Romans 12:2. There are times when we can conform to the world and times when we cannot. The Christian’s task is to rightly decide which things are or are not expedient.

It is widely known and accepted that Christmas and Easter had extremely dubious beginnings that smacked of pagan worship (indeed, were pagan practices). Such things as orgies and beheadings were central to the earlier practices. Most know of the idolatrous practices adopted by the Catholic church as being part of “Christian” doctrine. It must also be recognized that none of the pagan connotations remain in this present day, but, what does remain is the religious significance that the vast majority of the denominations place on these “holy” days. For the Christian to participate in these celebrations, as a matter of religion, would certainly be spiritual fornication. God has not approved of such keeping of “holy” days in His inspired word, the Bible. It is possible for the Christian to celebrate Christmas and Easter as national holidays, without any religious significance; but, the question for consideration is, should he?

There is some confusion, in my mind, whether Christmas and Easter are national “holidays” or “national” holy days. I say that because if you were to read the newspapers, attend school functions, attend denominational ceremonies, or watch television near December 25th, you would see a deluge of information regarding Christmas as a “holy” day,” observed by all “Christians”! Professed “Christians” in most of the denominations portray Christmas as an integral part of the faith Christ authored. Certainly, the proliferations of this belief will vary with the strength of the Catholic church and various amenable denominations in a particular area. The point is, if you live in an area where this belief is prevalent (such as Vermont), then you must consider the expediency of participating in such activities, even though you are free to celebrate these days as holidays rather than holy days.

In certain areas of the world, one’s influence can be seriously harmed by celebrating the holidays of Christmas and Easter. One can always influence people to an amiable relationship by joining in whatever they are doing; however, we need to be discerning about what we are trying to influence people to do. We should be trying to influence people to leave their idolatrous error-filled past, yes, to win them for Christ. I doubt, seriously, if we are winning anyone by doing, what appears to them, exactly the same thing as they are doing. When we put up all the “trappings” of a denominational Christmas celebration, then we are not influencing them to leave their practices. An illustrative example could be a person who is opposed to $200 per plate fund-raising dinners. This person feels that such activities fly in the face of prudence. Then, someone gives this person a free ticket to attend such an event, and this person goes -though he has not purchased the tickets! He would seem to those seeing him at the meal as being very hypocritical; moreover, he certainly would not be a very effective crusader with other people purchasing tickets to go to those type dinners. In short, he has ruined his ethos.

What about the newly converted Christian who would have serious problems “taking Christ out of Christmas,” especially when he continues to celebrate Christmas with nearly the same trappings he had for the previous 25-30 years. I think we present a stumbling block to those souls when we glibly say that we should celebrate Christmas as a holiday! What if he cannot make the separation and stumbles back into idolatry as a result? No, I cannot advocate that the Christian should celebrate Christmas and Easter because of the foregoing prospective results of such action.

Many of my brethren have relegated the whole matter to be similar to the question regarding the eating of certain meats (Rom. 14:15). This similarity is both accurate and inaccurate, depending on the situation being examined. If you are drawing the parallel between two brothers, one who eats such meats and one who does not, and two brothers, one who celebrates Christmas and one who does not, then you might have an applicable parallel. The instance when the parallel would be valid is when the brother who celebrates Christmas does so, even though the other brother has conscience problems with the practice (such as the newly converted brother mentioned earlier). In this case, the celebration of Christmas should not be undertaken, in deference to the weaker brother (the brother with different sincere convictions). The inaccuracy of the comparison between the celebration of Christmas and the eating of meats stems from one basic difference. The fact is, Christmas celebrations have been carried on by people wearing the name of “Christian” (members of the denominations); what is more, the denominations have incorporated said celebrations as part of advertised “Christian” doctrine. Thus was not the case with the eating of meats sacrificed to idols.

When I was in high school I was in contact with some Christians who celebrate Christmas. It was not until many years later, after I was converted and met them at an assembly, that I found out that they did not believe in the religious observance of Christmas. Nothing struck me as being different enough about those people to investigate as to why they were Christians or what made them different. They did not appear any different to me-they did not appear to be on any different a road than I was (2 Cor. 6:14-18). How different might it have been if they had not celebrated Christmas? Maybe I would have asked, “How can a Christian not believe in Christmas?” Maybe I would have been converted earlier and maybe I would not have. The fact remains that I was done no favors by the Christians who celebrated Christmas; their lives did not lead me to a communication about Christmas, Christ, salvation, or anything else religious.

I, personally, do not observe any aspect of Christmas that could be construed by friends and relatives to be something. Many times I am asked why, and that, my brethren, leads to many fruitful discussions about truth and non-truth. The continuing discussions never remain on Christmas only. The same people I discuss Christmas with generally consult me about other religious doctrines. Difference from the world, non-conformity (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), brings forth its fruits.

I conclude with the admonitions given by our brother Paul in Galations 4:8-11. Paul was admonishing some of his brethren who had just come out of idolatry and error. He had this to say in verses 10-11, “You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that I have labored over you in vain.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 26-27
January 5, 1978

By Luther W. Martin

The Roman Catholic movement that fell away from the Greek or Eastern Church in the early medieval centuries, practices the observance of ‘Ash Wednesday.’ A number of other religious sects imitate the Roman Church in this observance. Since the Bible is silent as to such a day or observance, we must resort to the unspired writings of men in order to learn of its inception.

“The Wednesday after Quinquagesima Sunday, (That’s not in the Bible, either, LWM), which is the first day of the Lenten fast. (Also not in the Bible. LWM.) The name dies cineram (day of ashes) which it bears in the Roman Missal (Rather than the scripture. LWM.) is found in the earliest copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary and probably dates (Emphasis mine. They’re not even sure. LWM.) from at least the eighth century: On this day all the faithful according to ancient custom (But not faithful according to God’s word. LWM.) are exhorted to approach the altar before the beginning of Mass, and there the priest, dipping his thumb into ashes previously blessed, marks upon the forehead-or in the case of clerics upon the place of the tonsure-or each the sign of the cross, saying the words: “Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.” The ashes used in this ceremony are made by burning the remains of the palms blessed on the Palm Sunday of the previous year” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, page 775.)

It is thus quite obvious that such a celebration as ‘Ash Wednesday’ is of human origin, consequently, it cannot be classed in God’s sight as a `good work.’ “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (II Tim. 3:16-17.). “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. BUT THESE ARE WRITTEN, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and THAT BELIEVING, YOU MAY HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME.” (John 20:30-31., Emphasis mine, LWM.) “You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you.” (Galatians 4:10-11).

-The Gospel Guardian, Vol. 8, pg. 557.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, p. 25
January 5, 1978