The apostle Peter wrote, "if anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:11). The apostle John added to this, "Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9). The apostle Paul wrote, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). There was a time when these statements were well understood. The meaning was clearly expressed by some, "We must speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent, call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways."

It would appear that some believe this to be old fashioned or that we are not consistent, therefore the plea to "speak where the Bible speaks..." must be cast aside. Perhaps study and restudy is necessary to maintain consistency in practice, but the plea is right and must not be cast aside. The examples of the Old Testament, written for our learning (cf. Romans 15:4) verify that a plea to abide in the authority of God cannot be wrong. Cain sought to operate on the silence of God (Genesis 4:1-7). Since faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17) and Abel in Hebrews 11:4 was said to have offered his sacrifice by faith, we conclude that God had told him what to offer. He had also told Cain what to offer for "there is no partiality with God" (Romans 2:11). Able based his action on what God said, while Cain appealed to the silence of God. Nadab and Abihu presumptuously offered "profane fire", that is, fire which the Lord had "not commanded them" (Leviticus 10:1-2). They did not burn incense on their censers with the perpetual fire of the altar (Leviticus 6:13; 16:12), but from some other source. Their appeal to the silence of God was answered by His wrath.

As long as we speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent, we "speak the same thing," and are "in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10; cf 4:17, Philippians 3:16)

F. LaGard Smith, in his new book, Radical Restoration, states, "in this regard, perhaps the most universally-overlooked feature of the Lord's Supper as practiced in the primitive church is that-from all appearances- (emphasis mine, mg) it was observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal. That is, a normal, ordinary meal with the usual variety of food. However, unlike normal, ordinary meals, this combined table fellowship and memorial was shared among the disciples for the special purpose of strengthening, not just their physical bodies, but their common bond in the spiritual body of Christ. Hence, Jude's reference to their 'love feasts' ", (pg. 128-129).

Smith assumes "from all appearances" that the Lord's Supper includes a normal ordinary meal. The fact that the Lord instituted this supper in connection with the Passover feast is no proof that the Jewish meal was a part of what he authorized.

The text clearly states that Jesus "after supper" took "bread" and the "cup" and instituted His own memorial feast (Luke 22:20). When Paul repeats this to the Corinthians, after telling them to eat meals at home rather than in the assembly, the apostle specifically said that "after supper" the Lord took the "bread" and the "cup" to institute His meal of communion (1 Corinthians 11:25). It is strange indeed, that IF a full meal was intended by the Lord, that the apostle Paul would prohibit it and correct its abuse by telling brethren to eliminate it and eat at home. "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? ... But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home" (1 Corinthians 11:22,34).

The proposal, "The Scriptures teach that it is the work of the church to provide for common meals when said meal is designed for social and/or recreational purposes," cannot be defended. Can it now be that some will argue that the common meal is to be included as an act of worship as a part of proper observance of the Lord's Supper? Indeed, we are told that the church in Corinth was eating a common meal intending to use the elements of their common meal to observe the Lord's Supper. However, the context indicates they had corrupted the Lord's Supper into their own supper, a common meal. "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper: For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk" (1 Corinthians 11:20-21). In doing so the Corinthians had despised the church of God by distorting its divine nature and purpose. Their actions also shamed them that were poor. Paul's statement, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" indicates that the common meal was to be eaten at home as a function of the home, not a work of the church.

No man has the right to prostitute the energy, strength, zeal or resources of the church of our Lord to serve human aims or purposes. We must let the church be distinct as the church, so adorned as to glorify the head-even Christ. God gave His Son for it. The Lord of glory died for it. We must not bring its lofty mission down to serve the outward man, but rather we must keep it pure to serve the interest of heaven for which we must strive. Let us renew the plea to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent."

Brother Galloway has correctly pointed out the flaw of brother LaGard Smith in using such reasoning in his book Radical Restoration. (Reading the remainder of that book will show many more false conclusions are reached by the same type of flawed reasoning). Unfortunately, brother Smith uses the same type of reasoning in his book Who Is My Brother? Brother Smith is seeking to explain and clarify the subject of fellowship among brethren. Sadly, in his book, he invents "new types" of fellowship the Bible never speaks of! One of these he calls "common cause." He explains why he can appear on Pat Roberston's 700 Club, even though they disagree how one can be saved, because they have "common cause" about such things as homosexuality, abortion, and other such issues. How will his "fellowship" on these causes bring Mr. Roberston into a fellowship with God? Pardon me, but I thought the salvation of his soul is more important than any number of "issues" we might agree upon!

Brother Smith is among a growing number of so-called "modernist brethren" who are compromising truth in order to have fellowship with more folks. Sadly, I must conclude they have become ashamed of the truth and the stand God calls for us to make for the love of that truth. Fellowship is meaningless if one does not have true fellowship with the Father and the Son. My relationship with a brother is first determined by his relationship with God. Truth is the only way true unity can ever be achieved by brethren. Compromising it, watering it down, and ignoring it will not bring people into a proper relationship with God! (KMG)