By Cecil Hook
Taken from Free to Accept
Although the first day of the week became a special day for assemblies in the early centuries, it was not in response to a command or an explicit, binding example. Our inclination toward legalism has led us to try to bind it as a special day to be given to God. We have demanded certain activities on that day and limited their practice to it. This conviction is based upon supposed inferences.
In pre-Christian times in the Roman Empire, kuriakos (the lord’s) signified imperial or belonging to the lord, the emperor. As the empire became Christian, it is not surprising that they would modify belonging to the lord to relate to Christ as a part of their protest against Caesar-worship.
As time went by, many of the rules of the Sabbath were transferred to the first day of the week, but this was rejected in the Reformation by Luther and Calvin. Calvin even proposed to adopt Thursday in the place of Sunday. (See International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, V. 3, p. 1919- 1920).
May we rightly consider Thursday as the Lord’s day? Yes, Thursday is the Lord’s day!
At the end of the persecutions in 325 A.D., because the first day of the week was so special to the Christians, Constantine, the Emperor, made it a holiday (holy day) throughout the empire. That accommodation has greatly influenced the Western world and has been a blessing to the disciples through succeeding centuries. The wide acceptance of that holiday has given it a respected authenticity. As with other accepted practices, efforts to authenticate it by the Scriptures came after the fact through scholasticism. The term Lord’s day is used only once in the Scriptures (Rev. 1:10), and in that instance it was not referring to the first day of the week but to an epoch.
There are two questions that we must ask and answer. First, do the Scriptures demand that the first day of the week be a sanctified day for disciples? Second, was the first day referred to in the Scriptures as the Lord’s day?
The first day of the week is mentioned in inspired church history only two times. That point should arouse enough suspicion about its sanctity to cause us to reexamine the matter. When Paul made his way to Troas, the disciples had a gathering and meal with their honored guest (Acts 20). There is nothing to indicate that this was more than a special meeting or that it was, or became, a regular practice. It is recorded that they met to break bread. To break bread is translated from a Hebrew idiom which means to partake of food as in the eating of a meal. There is nothing that would indicate that this meal was the communion. An uncertain premise destroys the validity of any conclusion based upon it.
The other mention (1 Cor. 16:1f) does not relate either to a ritual or to an assembling of disciples on that day.
Since no law concerning a certain day is given in the New Testament Scriptures, it is only by specious logic that men try to make an ordinance of it. Such is an effort to define laws so that we may be justified by keeping them.
Not only were the apostles silent about obliging us to keep certain days, they actually warned us about observing days. “You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain” (Gal. 4:10). Read the entire context of “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Col. 2:16). Paul did not add, “Except for the Lord’s day which is the first day of the week.”
True apostolic teaching puts keeping of days and the eating of foods in the realm of indifference along with circumcision. Paul permits the weak brother to respect days but not to bind his scruple on others or condemn others who do not hold his conviction. He writes, “One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:5f). Paul does not permit either side of the day-keeping controversy to pass judgment on the other. It is the whole person, not certain days or hours, who is sanctified. Every day is raised to the highest plane making us no closer to God or more priestly at one time than another.
If the Lord’s day is a specific day, then we would have to say it is the Sabbath because of Jesus’ own claim, for he himself declared, “For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:8).
There are numerous instances in the Bible where the day of the Lord is used to denote, not a specific day of the week, but his coming in judgment, wrath, vengeance, or retribution to offenders or in deliverance for his people. This term is translated into the possessive form in only one place in apostolic writings, making it the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10) rather than the day of the Lord. Both terms mean the same thing.
In the Spirit, John the apostle was transported in vision into the future to see the things that would transpire in the epoch of the Lord’s day or day of the Lord. This was not a day of the week, but it was the manifestation of the Lord against the Jewish nation who had rejected him, and it was the time of his vindication of his saints. This judgment was about to transpire — ”what must soon take place” — indicating that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. John was seeing in vision what is referred to as “the Day drawing near” (Heb. 10:25).
If you are having difficulty in accepting this, let me ask you a few questions. Is Sunday holy? Is one day spiritual and another secular? Are some obligations bound on one day but loosed on the next? Are some actions holy if performed on a certain day but profane if done on another? Recently, Stephan Bilak gave me a wallet calendar from the Ukraine. They number their days downward instead of across and have the seventh day in red instead of the first day. In the Ukraine would disciples sin in keeping the seventh day instead of the first day?
Our real problem has related to binding the communion on each first day of the week and limiting it to that day. Is the communion sanctified or is it the day? Our limitation of the communion to Sunday only is without command, precedent, or inference. There is no clear example of the disciples’ communing through partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. At Troas they met to break bread, but there is no proof that it was the Lord’s Supper instead of a common meal. It was after midnight before the bread was broken. That was Monday morning. Paul intended to depart on the morrow after the first day. After daybreak he departed. This was the morrow after the first day of Roman time. If they were following the Jewish time, it still would have been the first day and not the morrow. Besides, Jesus initiated the communion on a weekday evening in an indisputable example. The premise is too weak to imply a lawfully bound conclusion as we have inferred from that text.
In a sense, all days (all time) are holy because our whole lives are dedicated to God. That sanctification is not segmented into days or time spans. In a more real sense, it is not time that is sanctified; it is the disciple who is holy when he or she can say, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). That disciple becomes a temple of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. A temple can be profaned.
Anything that is holy can be profaned. Being holy, the Jewish Sabbath could be profaned by labor on that day. Can Sunday be violated by labor, travel, or some recreational activity? Since we, rather than days, are holy, how can our sanctity be violated? That is accomplished by our sin which is a breach of our dedication, sanctification, separateness, holiness. But sin is not related to any time span. When we sin, we violate our own holiness rather than that of a day. If missing a Sunday assembly scheduled by men is a sin, it is a lacking of sanctification rather than the profaning of a holy day.
Please do not conclude that I am disparaging the need for assembling with disciples or am forbidding communion on Sunday. We all need the support that we gain from sharing with those of like faith. I am saying, however, that these meetings and activities are no more effective on one day than another.
Man was not made for the Sabbath; so Jesus did not bind the keeping of that day at all costs as a legal obligation. The Sabbath was made for man, for God set apart a day to fill the need of man, not to work against his best interest by its inflexibility. In similar manner, assemblies are designed to meet the needs of disciples, but the day and hour of such gatherings are not specified as a law.
Again, I say that the recognition of Sunday as a secular holiday in our society is a wonderful blessing. That has always made it more convenient for us to assemble and it has given social recognition to Christianity that the earliest disciples did not enjoy. To us who were brought up going to assemblies each Sunday, the day seems to have a special hallowed nature. I can appreciate the piety of those who have refused to call the first day Sunday, calling it The Lord’s Day instead. And I would favor our making better use of those free hours offered to us by the holiday. But Sunday is neither a holy day nor The Lord’s Day.
Looking back to Calvin’s proposal — is Thursday the Lord’s day? Yes! So is Friday, Saturday, and all other days. Thursday is the Lord’s day but not The Lord’s Day.
NOT FORSAKING THE ASSEMBLY
“We are commanded not to forsake the assembly on the first day of the week. When you miss a meeting, you sin.”
Does that sound familiar? Especially in the middle half of this century, Hebrews 10:25 was used and misused by well-meaning disciples to intimidate consciences in an effort to enforce attendance to all congregational gatherings. We came to measure a person’s faithfulness mostly by frequency of attendance and to judge the vitality of a congregation by its statistics.
In our sincere zeal we injected into this passage a number of misdirected concepts. Being legalists, it is not surprising that we looked upon attendance as fulfilling our duty even though the assembly attended might have edified little. Overlooking the emphasis on exhortation, we made the meetings into strictly regulated “worship services” in performing our perceived “five items of worship.” Being accustomed to modern ritualistic assemblies on Sundays, we read those elements into this passage. We made not forsaking to mean don’t miss a service. We demanded that, when the elders set a schedule of meetings, it was a sin to miss even one of them. “They have authority to set them,” we reasoned.
In my childhood the church met only on Sunday mornings. That seemed to have met the requirements. But during my teenage years, the congregation added classes, Sunday evening meetings, and midweek gatherings. Each of these assemblies then became obligatory, or at least our consciences were intimidated in that direction. If failure to attend these extra gatherings was forsaking the assembly, then the elders caused many to stumble by adding them!
By reading our ideas into it we made Hebrews 10:25 into a club with which to beat disciples into compliance with a standard of faithfulness set by fellow disciples.
Let us look again at that favorite proof-text to see what it means and does not mean.
Without being too tedious, let us scan the context of this passage. I trust that you are as familiar as I am with the Hebrews epistle. The Jewish disciples had three special problems with which to deal. First, there was the question as to the validity of their change from their national and cultural Judaism to Christ. Second, they were being persecuted because of their change. Third, there was the impending destruction of Jerusalem which would finalize God’s rejection of national Israel and confirm this new spiritual kingdom. The believers would need much encouragement because these matters would test their faith and tempt them to turn back from Christ.
In view of this we see exhortations dispersed throughout the epistle. They were urged to pay close attention to what they had heard to prevent their drifting from it (2:1). No evil heart of unbelief should cause them to fall away with hardened heart, but they should exhort one another (3:12f). None should fail to enter promised rest as their hardhearted forefathers had under Moses (4:1f). Having learned of the new covenant with its new mediator, high priest, and benefits, to turn back would be unforgivable, willful apostasy (6:16). They needed mutual encouragement to hold on to their confession because the day of God’s judgment against Jerusalem and national Israel was approaching (10:23f). That discipline of God should not become a cause of stumbling for them. By it God was to shake heaven and earth like he did at Sinai to remove the shaken nationalism of Israel and to confirm the spiritual kingdom which cannot be shaken (Ch. 12).
The day approaching was the Lord’s day, but not the first day of the week. It was the time of the coming of the Lord in vengeance upon the Jews for their rejection of Jesus. John was transported into that epoch in the Spirit by vision (Rev. 1:10) to see in panorama God’s visitation. God has no holy days now.
By this brief review we can see how the disciples would need the confirmation, support, and encouragement of each other. So the writer is urging them to have support gatherings. He is not commanding meetings for routine ceremonial worship. Whether those gatherings were to be formal or informal was of no concern. No format is offered. A specific day of the week, being inconsequential, is not mentioned. Frequency and length of such gatherings is left to their discretion. Whether those gatherings were to include all disciples in an area or only one’s closer neighbors and friends is given no hint. We have to inject into the passage our modern concepts in order to say that the writer had regular, organized, systematic, ritualistic assemblies on the first day of each week under consideration. There is no command, example, or inference for such a pattern. Rather than warning against forsaking ritualistic services, he is exhorting the believers not to forsake each other in their times of trial!
Rather than the body being made a mediator, its members were to be intercessors. The assemblies were not to become the route to heaven but way stations along the route.
Let us look at Hebrews 10:23-25 again: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (RSV).
This exhortation is not characterized by specifics of a law. It cannot be fulfilled by adopting our own specifics and then enslaving others to them. Lawful demands may be met without producing love, edification, and encouragement — a point amply demonstrated in our congregations. This is not the inauguration of a scorecard system of righteousness. These associations were not to prove faithfulness but to encourage faithfulness.
God knows that we all need others of like mind and he encourages us not to neglect interactive meetings. But my faithfulness is not altogether dependent upon the support gained in assemblies. Gatherings for mutual edification were much more needed in their day when individuals did not have Bibles, printed materials, mail, telephone, radio, television, tapes, and videos dealing with our needs. They had to depend mostly on person-to-person interaction.
Although I continue to be a part of ritualistic assemblies, the encouragement that I get from them is often minimal, for they tend to begin at 10:00 o’clock sharp and end at 11:00 o’clock dull! I gain more uplift from the “hello-ship” with others than from the routine. But the encouraging letters and calls that I receive from across the country and other countries sustain me more than the formal assemblies. The purpose is accomplished; the means by which it is satisfied is of less importance.
Do you think that I am overplaying our misdirection, or that we have outgrown it? A few weeks ago I read this in a church bulletin: “Sister Hayes was a faithful Christian here for many years until ill health prevented her from attending services.” How horrible! Yes, we all need association with other disciples; however, to miss does not mean to forsake! And in the case of this poor woman, any forsaking would be on the part of her fellow disciples who abandoned her when she needed their encouragement, the very attention which our text was intended to foster.
It is proper to review the New Testament writings and see how little attention is given to assemblies other than to correct abuses in them. There is no command for us to assemble. But in our penchant for law, we have tried to make this persuasive exhortation of our text into a law. We tend to revise the meanings of passages to accommodate centuries of tradition. The scriptures emphasize our personal relationship to God in Christ with his Spirit ruling in our hearts and working through us.
There is only one mention of the church meeting on the first day of the week, and there is no indication that it was a regular practice before or after Paul’s visit there (Acts 20:7). They met to break bread — an idiom meaning to eat a meal. Evidently, the fellowship meal was a common setting for their mutual edification in early times. There is no proof that this breaking of bread was participation in the Lord’s Supper. And besides, it was Monday morning when they broke it. We have built too big a case on an uncertain premise. Any conclusion based upon an unproved premise is invalid.
By this essay I am not denying the value in regular assemblies. I am exhorting us to give proper purpose, direction, and emphasis to them and to recognize the limited, legalistic concept that we developed about them. There is nothing that is done in formal assemblies, however, that cannot be done with others at home or where two or three are assembled in his name.
Accepting that our text with its context sets forth a principle to guide us today, we recognize our need to be involved for the common good. We will enjoy being with those of like faith and hope. We will thrive on mutual encouragement. We will leave those supportive sessions invigorated in faith and more fervent in love for each other. Those periods of nonjudgmental interaction will promote an awareness of equality and the common nature of all disciples. No one will have to beg us to return. It will not be a matter of assembling in order to exhort us to assemble the next time to fulfill a duty. What a sad thing when this happens!
But where do we find such a setting? Improvement is being seen in some congregations, but most of our assemblies are still structured, formalized, and ritualized into a spectator experience where the individual’s painful need at the time may not be addressed even remotely. I am convinced that if we will revise our whole design for assemblies so as to meet the individual needs, we will not have to intimidate disciples in order to assure their return. This would call for meeting customary “whole church come together” at one time concept and practice. It might even prove the professional pulpiteer to be both unnecessary, anachronistic, and burdensome.
Before you consign me irrevocably to the nether regions for trifling with our traditional proof- text and practices, please look at it and them with a renewed awareness and honesty. And you may profit by pondering this observation of Jeroslav Pelikan: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
ACTS 20:7 ONE MORE TIME
In my other books I have challenged some of our teachings based on interpretations of Acts 20:7. It may serve a good purpose for me to treat more fully this text which has been related to the Lord’s Supper at this time.
Why would this text deserve such attention? With our people in the Church of Christ, it has served as a proof-text for several suppositions. It has been used to substantiate claims that we are commanded to partake of the Lord’s Supper each and every Sunday and exclusively upon that first day of the week. This contention and practice has been one of our identifying marks. The related conviction has emboldened our people to reject and condemn those who vary from it.
As you will discern from this treatise, I am emphasizing the purpose and importance of the Communion rather than disparaging it. I want to encourage a richer meaning in participation than is felt in keeping a commanded law or ritual.
Neither Jesus nor any inspired writer prescribed the day or frequency for this memorial observance. In their effort to be correct in every ritualistic detail, sincere disciples have sought to define the required procedures with exactness through command, example, and inference. Let us reconsider the whole matter together now.
As Paul started back to Jerusalem, he determined to go through Macedonia. Seven of the brothers accompanying him went ahead and waited for him at Troas. After the days of Unleavened Bread, Paul came to Troas where he stayed for seven days, hastening to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
Now for our text: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered. And a young man named Eutychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, ‘Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.’ And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”
How could this passage come to have importance in relation to the Lord’s Supper? Without some coaching, the casual reader would see no connection since the communion is not mentioned. But as our people turned toward legalism, they looked to Acts 2:42 as a pattern for four of our “five acts of worship” for our Sunday assemblies. In this passage it is stated that the Jerusalem disciples “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers,” though neither the first day of the week nor formal assemblies are mentioned there. Our people interpreted this “breaking of bread” to be the Lord’s Supper in spite of the third sentence to follow stating, “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts” (Acts 2:46).
The first breaking of bread has been interpreted as being Communion and the second as eating food. To interpret the second mention as Communion would have made the Supper proper on any day of the week. That would have destroyed the pattern for Sunday assemblies. But Acts 2:42 does not mention a time for partaking. So those who would establish a pattern grasped Acts 20:7, which connects the breaking of bread and the first day of the week, to “prove” a certain time that neither Jesus nor any inspired writer legislated.
Looking For A Pattern
If we were under a legal code, then we could rightly look for patterns of technical correctness. If we varied from the patterns, then restoration would be demanded. The pioneers of our movement accepted the New Covenant scriptures as our guide but not as a legal code. In time those of the Stone-Campbell heritage became misdirected into being legalists, patternists, and restorationists. Such a course is divisive by nature, for people cannot agree on what the supposed law requires, when its pattern is violated, and when it is restored properly.
In Acts 20:7 we have found the only mentioned connection of the first day of the week and the breaking of bread. But does to break bread mean to participate in the Communion? There is no proof that it does. The round, flat loaf of bread of the Jews was not cut, but it was broken or torn apart. Breaking bread became an idiom or expression meaning to eat a meal or to eat food. Its use with that meaning is unquestioned (See: Matt. 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 6:41; 8:6,19; 14:22; Luke 9:16; 22:19; 24:30).
“Now as they were eating (the Passover meal: CH), Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body’” (Mt. 26:26. See similar references listed above). “The bread which we break” and “he broke it” (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) relate to the Lord’s Supper, but they are not used as idioms meaning to eat the Lord’s Supper.
There is no proof that the communion is meant by to break bread in Acts 20:7. It can only be an assumption. It does seem more reasonable to assume that they would delay the Communion rather than a fellowship meal until the wee hours of the morning. Any conclusion based upon an unproven premise is invalid. God did not bind on us regulations derived from inconclusive reasoning.
Now, after belaboring that point, we will grant for argument’s sake that Acts 20:7 does refer to the Lord’s Supper. We will see whether it fits the pattern and proves the contentions.
The text states that the disciples met on the first day of the week at Troas to break bread. It does not indicate that they had been doing that previously or that they continued the practice afterward. If Luke had indicated that he recorded that incident as an example for us to follow, of course, we would be eager to look for what was exemplified. Luke recorded a historical account. Incidental details of it are not examples unless a command or principle is involved. For instance, the jailer’s baptism is not a “binding example” of baptism. The authority for it is in Jesus’ command rather than the jailer’s immersion.
Some make an example of Paul’s travel schedule, asserting that he arranged it to permit his meeting with the group on the first day of the week. But they do not make an example of his staying in Macedonia until after the days of Unleavened Bread or his hastening to Jerusalem for the Passover.
A historical detail may reveal an acceptable way a thing may be done but not necessarily the only way. For instance, Paul traveled by land and sea, but no one would think that his example would exclude air travel today.
If we are inclined to conjecture as to why Luke recorded the Troas incident, it is more reasonable to conclude that it was in order to tell us of Paul’s greatest miracle, the restoring of life to Eutychus. But we have overlooked the more obvious purpose in our search for proof of an unwarranted contention.
Someone may be wishing to remind me that, just as “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” included every Sabbath, so the mention of the first day of the week meant every first day. I taught that also for many years, having inherited the illogical argument as the rest of us did. It is true that as each Sabbath came, it would be included in the command and should be kept holy. But “on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread” indicates only one specific occasion. Suppose that I should tell you, “On the Fourth of July when the family gathered at my parents’ home to have a reunion, Dad had a heart attack.” Would you conclude that identical events had occurred during each previous year or that they continued each year after that? Certainly not! The account of the gathering at Troas offers no indication that they had been doing it previous to the coming of this special guest. And there is no command or inference that such meetings were to be continued weekly thereafter.
Still granting that they met to commune, they did not do it at Troas on the first day of the week! Paul continued his speech until midnight when he was interrupted by Eutychus’ fall. Then in the early morning they broke bread. That puts the communion on Monday!
Contenders argue that they participated in the Lord’s Supper earlier in the evening and that the breaking of bread after midnight was a fellowship meal! That is an assumption in direct contradiction of what is written. It says they met to break bread and then tells when they broke it. Why reject the plain revelation in order to uphold a presupposition?
If they observed Jewish time in Troas, since the first day would begin on Saturday evening, it would still be the first day of the week after midnight. That would sanction their intention of participation on Saturday night. Would that be acceptable?
But they were following Roman (and our) time with the day beginning and ending at midnight. How do we know that? Our text says Paul was “intending to depart on the morrow.” That would be Monday. After the meal and the conversation until daybreak, Paul departed. So his departure “on the morrow” was on Monday. If the Jewish time was observed, it would still have been the first day of the week, not the morrow. So, granting that this breaking of bread was the Lord’s Supper, we have approval of participation on Monday! There is no escape from that conclusion, as though we should be seeking escapes.
In searching for a specified time for participation in the Communion, I find only five possibilities in the Scriptures.
- The first day of the week is supported by Acts 20:7, as we have just discussed.
- Jesus gave us an approved example of midweek evening participation by his inaugurating it on a Thursday evening.
- Jesus initiated the Supper during a Passover meal. As often as they observed the Passover, which was annually, they remembered the passing over of the Lord in sparing the firstborn and their escape from Egypt. In giving the cup, Jesus urged, “‘Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:25f). How would the apostles interpret as often? Relating it to the Passover that they were observing, they would likely understand it to be annually. Is that not obvious?
- In the first church they were breaking bread day by day in their homes along with taking of food with glad and generous hearts (Acts 2:46). The breaking of bread and partaking of food may mean the same thing, but again, they may not.
- The time and frequency of participation in the Lord’s Supper were not ordered or suggested by Jesus or inspired writers. One short sentence from one of them would have defined the matter forever. It was a matter of indifference to them. These decisions were left to the judgment of disciples in their different circumstances.
This fifth possibility is abhorrent to the legalist who feels that his right standing before God is attained by correctness of detailed procedures. But this answer is in true harmony with the aims and purposes of the Communion. The Supper is intended to keep the atonement by which we are saved ever fresh in our minds. It is a remembrance of his sacrifice and of his saving us in his one body. Those meanings are reinforced by taking tangible bread and wine representing the body and blood in a ritual ceremony with others. It is a participation, or sharing, in Christ with fellow disciples. It is a declaration that he is coming again.
What possible advantage could a certain time of day or day of the week offer in fulfilling those purposes? Disciples are free to decide whether the communion serves their purpose best weekly, daily, monthly, annually, or at chosen times on no set schedule. It is the purpose and benefit rather than a supposed law that should govern our participation.
Although our sincere people in the Church of Christ have loudly denounced others for their observance of special days, we have ignored the plain fact that we were demanding that the first day of the week be given special observance.
Taken from the chapter titled “Thursday Is The Lord’s Day Too!” and those immediately following.