The issue is not new songs. All songs were once new. Every generation of Christians have learned new songs. Many Christian have written hymns that have were introduced to our people.  Some proved acceptable and appealing and found a permanent place in our hymnals.  Others did not. The choice of songs belongs to the elders and the congregation who use them in worship;. certainly not to university professors.  It becomes an issue when a few seek to impose their choice of hymns on the whole church and are willing to press their preference to the point of division. Faction and division are sinful (Tit. 3:10).

The issue  is not short songs with few words or songs not printed in our hymnals.  All hymns, save the Psalms, are the products of uninspired men. Two hundred years ago no hymnals had musical notations and harmony lines. 

The issue is not songs that originated among other faiths. Most of the great hymns we sing were written by poets of other churches.  The issue is the content of the songs.  Do they convey Biblical truth? If they express true worship and do not promote error they are acceptable.

That lyrics of songs are projected on a screen is not the issue. Remember, song books for each member are a fairly modern convenience. I have worshipped with churches in Africa where only the song leader had a hymnal. They were a luxury the rest could not afford.

Having a group skilled singers sitting together or having microphones is not the issue, not so long as the singing is congregational. Back in the 50s some congregations, in order to improve their singing, encouraged their skilled singers to sit together near the front of the auditorium.  But when the group becomes a choir performing as others listen that is an issue to be met.

Having more than one song leader stand before the congregation at the same time is not the issue.  The Bible says nothing about song leaders, one or more, standing before the congregation and leading the singing. I have seen two and even three song leaders standing before a church in mission fields where there were no trained and accomplished song directors.  They needed the help and reassurance the others could lend them.  If they sang different songs at the same time that would cause confusion.  If they were there to perform for the entertainment of the audience, whether a solo, duet or trio, that would be an issue.  Worship is not entertainment.

The issue is not casual dress worn at church.  God does not prescribe a fashion standard for his worshipers. We have a cultural and even religious tradition of “Sunday dress” for worship. Such is neither scriptural nor unscriptural. I prefer to dress up for church. But not every one shares that preference. In the ancient times, when many slaves were brought into the church, I suspect they did not have the option of dressing up for worship.  So long as our dress is modest (I Tim. 2:9), and appropriate for Christians assembled before Jehovah, customs and conventions of the age and place will having a bearing on the degree of formality. The real issue is having a casual attitude toward the church, the Word of God and his worship. God rebuked the prophet-preachers of Israel who were “light” and treacherous (Zeph. 3:4). Proclaiming the gospel and worshiping Jehovah is serious business, and should be approached with proper solemnity. Preachers should leave the comedy routine to the comedians.

The issue is not rasing the hands in prayer. Ancient Christians sometimes lifted up holy hands when praying (I Tim. 2:8). A similar reference is found in  Ps. 134:2.  But if someone thinks by such outward actions we can generate a superior spirituality, they deceive themselves. Lifting up of hands is an outward posture in prayer just as kneeling, standing or falling on ones face.  It has no special spiritual value.  An  issue occurs when a preacher or praise leader calls on the congregation lift up their voices in  simultaneous prayer, (such as I recently witnessed) With many  praying aloud there was confusion. That is an issue since God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). He wants all things to “be done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40).

The issue is not whether or not to have Sunday evening or mid-week services. Those are wonderful practices; edifying, educating and exhorting those who attend.  But God does not command three services per week. He ordained that we assemble on the first day to break the bread (Acts 20:7).  Other classes and services are options that elders may use or not use. Many churches, operating in less favorable circumstances, such as mission areas, do not have them.  Many of our churches in days past, when transportation was more difficult, did not have them.  The issue is what do the leaders do or not do when their people assemble. Do they honor God by obeying His will to the very best of their knowledge and ability?

The real issue is not which translation a preacher, teacher or congregation uses.  A false teacher can promote his error from the King James Version as well as from the New International Version. All translations are the products of uninspired men.  All have strengths and weaknesses.  All stand in need of wise teachers to explain their meaning; even the tried and true KJV.  It is the doctrine they teach that is the issue.  Is it true to God’s revealed will or contrary to it?  That is the issue.

The issue is not were some of our earlier preachers limited in their education or unpolished in their methods. Of course some of them were. They were human, men of their generation.  Some of them had few talents and opportunities to improve them, but the used them in a remarkable successful way.  But others had advanced education, were true Bible scholars and were polished orators.  The real question is do today’s change agents have the love and respect for God’s Word, and his church that those pioneers had?

The issue is not have we have too much division and strife within the church.  The answer is yes.  But such problems are not unique to Churches of Christ.  All other religious bodies have their problems as well. Even one division is too much, especially if I am the one responsible for it. The question is who has been responsible for the divisions of the past?  It is unfair to blame the wife whose abusive husband beats her for not maintaining peace in her home. Likewise it is unreasonable to blame the Lord’s church because ambitious, misguided, carnal, contentious brethren fomented strife and division. They bear the blame, not the church which suffered from their abuse.

The issue is not shall we adjust to face our changing society and culture. We have always adjusted in areas where Christ left us free to do so.  We don’t dress like our 19th century forebearers did. We have modern buildings.  We have adjusted our methods for evangelism. We don’t have 2-3 hour sermons.  We have all the modern conveniences such as electricity, air-conditioning and indoor plumbing.  The issue is the kind of changes the change agents wish to impose upon our churches.  They wish to touch those things sacred and holy; such things as worship, how we are saved, the role of women in church leadership, the unique and separate nature of Christ’s church.  That God does not allow, nor can we stand idle while they profane that which is holy.

The issue is not are their some radical, vituperative, ultra-conservatives among us. Yes there are. There have always been such folks. The church in general does not endorse, approve or support their methods or narrow views.  The real issue is are the change agents any better than those on the far right? In dishonest fashion, they hold these radials up as typical of all who oppose then. God’s truth always lies between the extremes of legalism and liberalism, between radical conservatives and liberal change agents (Prov. 4:26-27).

The issue is not change. Faithful brethren have and will always welcome changes from bad to good; from the mistaken to the correct; from unscriptural to scriptural; from poor methods to better ones; from ineffective means to effective ones that advance the Cause of Christ according to his will.  The real issue is the kind of changes the “change agents” would have us make: changes from the Biblical way to non-biblical ways; changes from Christ’s authority to that of the multitude; changes from the sacred to the worldly; from the apostolic pattern to that of our secular culture; changes from the teaching of men appointed by Christ (the Apostles) to men appointed by themselves to remake his church.