The worship of the church of God as revealed and authorized by the Bible has been a point of
study and controversy for many years. For centuries, men of religious training have debated
the use of instrumental music, the use of specialized singers, the elements and actions in
partaking of the Lord's Supper (as well as the frequency), the content and style of preaching,
the manner of prayer, etc. Every item of worship has come under the scrutiny of men.


Zealousness in seeking out and adhering to God's plan of worship as revealed in his holy
word has been one of the characteristics that has separated those congregations of the
Restoration Movement, the churches of Christ, from the denominational world. Inherent within
their plea, so eloquently penned by Thomas Campbell: "We speak where the Bible speaks,
and remain silent where the Bible is silentj we do Bible things in Bible ways; and call Bible
things by Bible names;" is the idea that God is only to be worshipped with what he
commanded. Dirk Phillips put it quite explicitly in his work, Vindication, in the 1500's: "It is
evident that whatever God has not commanded and has not instituted by express commands
of Scripture, he does not want nor does he want to be served therewith, nor will he have his
Word set aside nor made to suit the pleasure of men." God's people, therefore, have always
sought to do what God has specified for worship; nothing more, nothing less.


This does not mean that there has been no controversy within the Restoration Movement
concerning worship. Jesus told his disciples that many false prophets would arise and
deceive many before the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:11). The apostle Paul told those
elders at Ephesus that "grievous wolves" would enter into the flock bringing false doctrine;
and, even from within the church there would arise false teachers (Acts 20:29-30). Even so
there arose in the Restoration Movement those who were labeled "progressive" by those who
praised them, and "innovators" and "introducers of false doctrine and strange practices" by
those who opposed them. They brought in instrumental music and specialized singers
(although the New Testament was silent about their use), they brought in alcoholic wine for
the Lord's Supper, they introduced the concept of women preachers in opposition to plain
Biblical teaching, they placed women in the position of leading in prayers, etc. Each of these
perversions of the worship of the church in the New Testament was not introduced, however,
without the opposition of sound brethren. In some instances, it became the cause of division
of the church at a particular locality.

The worship of God's people has always been peculiar; not because it was odd, but that it
was pure and simple.


Each of these controversies centered around the activity which took place in the assembly, the
worship service. Now, there is a new innovation. (We call it a new innovation, because it is
new to the church of our Lord in this century.) This innovation brings with it, its own
controversy. The controversy over Split Assemblies (Youth Worship, Junior Worship,
Children's Bible Hour, or whatever else you may want to call it) does not deal with the actions
that take place within the worship service; but, with the very nature of the assembly itself. The
controversy is: What is the assembly in the New Testament? The very essence, the very being
of the assembly is the controversy.

Split assemblies (or whatever other appellation you may wish to place upon it) is the removal
of all or part of the children (or any other group) from the worship service of the church to
another part of the building for a separate service for either the entire duration of the service,
or part of it.


I was first introduced to the concept of Split Assemblies when I was a senior in high school in
1972. The preacher for the congregation that I was attending in Ohio (he was also an elder)
wanted to start a bus ministry and a Youth Worship. As one of the teens, I was asked my
opinion. I did not believe that Youth Worship was unscriptural, but I thought it was unwise.

In talking to one of the other elders of that congregation, I learned that the Christian Church
had been practicing the concept for many years. This brother stated that every Christian
Church that he knew of who introduced the practice had experienced division, sooner or later,
as a result.


Brother Floyd Decker, in the book, Why I Left, spoke of the practice in the Christian Church:

"I am holding up before you an issue of the Christian Standard, date September 17,1932.
They must have been very proud of the story as they gave it the front page prominence one
would expect a highly recommended practice to have. This picture you see is a 'Little Folks
New Testament Church.' It is said to have its own elders, its little deacons, and a Mrs. Smith,
the local preacher's wife is its pastor! You know, from reading the Bible I somehow got the
idea that elders of the 'New Testament Church' should be old enough to shave! But this 'Little
Folks New Testament Church' — a thing unknown to the Bible — met in the basement of the
building at the same time the old folks met upstairs, observed the Lord's Supper and
everything. They may not be doing it now, as fads come and go; but they were then, in Ada,

"This reminds me of the story of the man and his cats. A man had a big cat and a little cat, and
in order for them to go in and out of the house at will, he cut a big hole in the door for the big
cat. Beside the big hole he cut a little hole so the little cat could go in and out, too. So, it
seems with the Junior Church idea; it requires two churches — a big one for the old folks and
a little one for the little folks — so that all might go to heaven.

"The young people will be no special problem unless we make one out of them. Teach them
the soul-saving gospel of Christ, and encourage them to believe it and obey it, and you will not
have any church except the one redeemed by the blood of our Lord. The young people will be
a part of it."


Brother J. T. Marlin submitted an article to the Gospel Advocate that was published in the
November 6, 1980, issue. This article talked about Junior Worship as practiced in the United
Methodist Church. The article was entitled, "Children Belong in Worship":

"'"The family that prays together, stays together," claimed a familiar religious, public service
announcement in the early 1960's.

"'Adding a different twist to that theme recently, experts in children's ministries told a gathering
of United Methodists in Nashville, Tennessee, that the congregation which worships together
grows together. Or, in the words of Stan Stewart, a specialist in children's ministry from
Australia: "The common denominator in sick and dying churches (is) that children are
consistently segregated (during worship) and sent off to another place." (See TM/UMR, Aug.

'"The "other place" he was talking about could be "junior church" — a place some
congregations send their children to have their "own service" while adults worship together —
or it could be church school classes for children which are held simultaneously with the
worship; service. Either way, Mr. Stewart contends, such practices deny church community
and denies the congregation the contribution of children to the community of faith.

"'We believe Mr. Stewart is accurate in his assessment. And while we do not know the validity
of his further claims that such segregation is partially responsible for "the decline of mainline
churches," we are sure that worshipping congregations which do not include their children
with open arms are being unfair to themselves as well as to their children.

'"Children undoubtedly can be a disruptive factor at times in any congregation, and then
individually need to be controlled by their parents and taught to respect the worship hour as
something sacred. And there probably also will always be parents who sidestep their
responsibility to control misbehavior during worship.

"'Still, alternatives considered, children need to be a part of the worship experience and adults
need the children to be a whole and inclusive community of faith.

'"We need to express the same openness to the children of our congregations as Jesus
showed when he said: "Let the children come to me, and do not stop them, because the
kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."...' (The United Methodist Reporter)

"The above article appeared in the United Methodist Reporter, August 17,1979. It appears that
some learned more than a year ago what others have not yet learned. Are the children of the
world wiser than the children of light?

'"We have come a long way" since the beginning of the Restoration Movement. Our future
depends upon our relationship to God and his Word. In recent years there is evidence that our
program has been hindered by gimmicks, gadgets, and gook. The possibility of apostasy is
very real. A watered-down religion is a step backward and not forward. The future of the
church in our time depends upon our faithfulness and our loyalty to the Word of God.
Preachers must preach the word. We need to take all sectarian practices back where we
borrowed them. We need to be aware of and informed of infectious trends that are sweeping
across this great brotherhood today."

The fact that in the United Methodist Church, "the common denominator in sick and dying
churches (is) that children are consistently segregated (during worship) and sent off to
another place," ought to give us serious thought as to the wisdom of doing the same in the
church of Christ. I do not know of a congregation of the churches of Christ, personally, that
practices Junior Church as described by brother Decker (although I have been told that there
are). However, the principle of segregation of the youth, which resulted in their problems, is
the same in Youth Worship of any kind.


The wisdom of using split assemblies is not the subject of this inquiry; the Scripturality of it is.
Something may be in your opinion or mine unwise to engage in; yet, this does not make it
unscriptural. Therefore, the remainder of our time and space will be taken up in an
examination of the Scripturality of split assemblies.


There is one difference between the church of our Lord and the denominations. The church of
our Lord asks, "Is it right?"; the denominations ask, "Is it wrong?" The church of God asks,
"Did God say to do it?"; the sectarians ask, "Did God say not to do it?" The church of Christ
asks, "Does Christ authorize it?"; the followers of men ask, "Does Christ condemn it?"
Basically, the difference is: the faithful ask, "Why?"; the unfaithful ask, "Why not?"


Do we still ask the right questions? Brother Roy H. Lanier, Jr., in the May 1980, Rocky
Mountain Christian, wrote an editorial entitled, "Does Anyone Dare to Ask Any Longer?". In the
editorial, brother Lanier stated:

"I have asked for authority to have 'day schools, kindergartens' and other forms of secular
schools sponsored by and run by the Lord's church. I have asked for authority to build and
use recreational halls (gymnasium's if you please; 'multi-purpose halls' if you do not please!).
I have asked for authority to have teaching periods. I have asked for authority to have church-
sponsored ski trips. I have asked for authority for special days when leaders in the community
are honored by the church. (These among other things.)

"To all of these, all across the country, I have been met with puzzled looks and even hostile
looks. It is as if I am insulting them. I am looked upon and labeled too old fashioned, too
negative. Why would I ask such a thing for they have never been asked that before? Or, why do
I want to know about authority anyway?

"However, I still dunk it to be a good question, and, about most anything we do and teach. We
used to be proud of our actions expressed in a slogan, 'We speak where the Bible speaks
and are silent where the Bible is silent.' do we practice this still?"

I have heard the wrong question asked by too many of my brethren. Let us find out what is
right, what God has said to do, what Christ has authorized, and do that. Let us go to the Bible
to find what God would have us to do; not to see whether we can justify what we want to do.


When the question of the assembly and its necessity is brought up, the first passage that
comes to mind is Hebrews 10:23-25: "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without
wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another, to provoke unto
love, and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner
of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

The apostle Paul in his Hebrew treatise shows the central position of the assembly to the
Christian life. It is not to be forsaken; there is not to be a choice made not to attend, to forsake
the assembly is to forsake the church, which is to forsake Christ.

This passage contains a direct command: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together." It is right; God has said it; and, Christ authorized the assembling of ourselves
together. But, what does it mean to "assemble ourselves together"?


Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines the verb "assemble": "1: to collect into
one place or group: CONVOKE 2: to fit together the parts of - vi: to meet together: CONVENE"
[emphasis mine—rlr]. The same dictionary defines "together": "la: in or into one place, mass,
collection, or group b: in a body: as a group... 5a: MUTUALLY, RECIPROCALLY — used
pleonastically and as an intensive after certain verbs (join —) (add —) ..." [emphasis mine—

To boil it all down, what the English means is this: Every Christian is to meet in one place as
a part of the whole, as a part of the congregation. The word "assemble" carries the implication
of coming into one place or group; and, the word "together" acts as a reinforcement of that

This command refers to every assembly; not merely Sunday morning assembly. Just as the
example of the disciples coming together upon the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) does not
mention every first day of the week; yet, it is implied; so, this command mentioning the
assembling of ourselves together does not mention every assembly, yet it is implied. There is
nothing in the context that would limit its application to the morning assembly upon the first
day of the week.


The New Testament was not originally written in English; it was written in Greek. Is, therefore,
"assembling...together" a correct and accurate translation of the original language? Does the
Greek carry the same implications?

"Assembling... together" is from one Greek word, episunagoge. Young's Analytical
Concordance states that the word occurs in the New Testament but twice. It is translated
once "assembling...together" (Hebrews 10:25), and once "gathering together" (2
Thessalonians 2:1).

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it: "a. a gathering together in
one place..." An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under "ASSEMBLE" says: "3.
SUNERCHOMAI... Notes:... (3) Episunagoge, akin to No. 1, Note, as assembling together, is
used in 2 Thess. 2:1, of the Rapture of the saints into the air to meet the Lord, 'our gathering
together;' in Heb. 10:25, of the gathering of believes on earth during the present period."

The Greek by the very definition of episunagoge carries within it the same implications as the
English, that of coming into one place or group. No one argues the fact that "our gathering
together" unto Christ is the bringing together of the saints into one group and to one place.
Can it be consistently argued then, that episunagoge does not have the same force in its only
other occurrence in the New Testament? The root verb of episunagoge, episunago, whether it
be used in secular literature, the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, or the New Testament carries
inherent within the word the idea of to gather together in one place. "Assembling...together" is,
therefore, a correct and accurate translation of the original language, Greek, including its

The direct command of the Scriptures is for each congregation to assemble together in one
place. In as much as is possible, we should seek to fulfill this Scriptural directive.


Not only do we have the direct command of assembling together, but we have examples
illustrating the command. The most common word used in describing the assembly of the
saints is sunerchomai. This word, according to Young's Analytical Concordance, is used thirty-
four times in the New Testament.

An Expository Dictionary under "ASSEMBLE" says; "SUNERCHOMAI..., to come together (sun,
together, erchomai, to come), is once rendered 'assemble,' Mark 14:53, A.V. It is frequently
used of 'coming together,' especially of the gathering of a local church, 1 Cor, 11:17, 18, 20,
33, 34; 14:23, 26." Thayer's lexicon defines sunerchomai: "I. to come together, i.e. a. to
assemble... b. Like the Lat. convenio i.q. coeo: of conjugal cohabitation, Mt. i.18..."

It is interesting to note that the same word translated "come together" in reference to the local
church assembling is the same word translated "come together" of conjugal cohabitation, of
a husband and wife coming together in marriage. It is not possible for a husband and wife to
"come together" if they are not both in the same place at the same time. The uses and
definitions of sunerchomai should be sufficient to establish the fact that in accordance with
the command to assemble together, the early church assembled itself together in one place
as one group. We have a direct command for the local church to assemble itself together in
one place as one group, and an approved apostolic example illustrating compliance with the
command of the local congregation assembling itself together in one place as one group.

James, in the second chapter and the second verse of his epistle, makes reference to the
"assembly" of Christians. The word translated "assembly" here is sunagoge. According to
Young, the word occurs fifty-seven times in the New Testament: once it is translated
"assembly" (James 2:2); once it is translated "congregation" (Acts 13:43); and, fifty-five times it
is translated "synagogue".

Thayer defines sunagoge: "...In Grk. writ, a bringing together, gathering (as of fruits), a
contracting; an assembling together of men."

The assembly of which James spoke was the meeting of the church. It was the "gathering
together" of the members of the local congregation. The saints united in their worship to God
by assembling together in one place as one group, and offering their adoration and
thanksgiving in unison. There can be no other conclusion drawn from the very definition of the
word James used.


The basic concept (or principle) of our worship to God is revealed in the Testament. The five
avenues of worship are specified in their basic nature. We are to teach the Word (Acts 20:7; 2
Timothy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 11:1-5; 14:34). We are to sing (vocally as a congregation) spiritual
songs, hymns, and psalms; making melody in our hearts (Meaning the words) (Colossians3:
16; Ephesians 5:19). We are to pray in the name of Jesus sincerely; not to be heard of men
(Acts 2:42; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 14:15). We are to partake of the Lord's
Supper upon the first day of the week, remembering the body and the blood of Christ in the
unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:19-29). We are to give
cheerfully as we have been prospered upon the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2
Corinthians 9:5-7). It would be strange indeed, if every avenue of worship contained in the
assembly was specified, and yet the very nature of the assembly itself was not. However,
even as every avenue of worship is specified, so is the assembly itself. The assembly of the
saints was, and is, the coming together of the members of the local congregation into one
place as one group in order to provoke one another unto love and good works, offering praise
and thanksgiving unto God.


The question before us is: Are split assemblies unscriptural? To be unscriptural, they would
have to add to the command and/or example, or subtract from those commands and/or
examples, or it would have to violate a negative command. Split assemblies shall be simply
stated here as the separation of some of those in attendance of a congregation for the
assembly, and placing them in a separate worship group, meeting, or assembly, for all or
part of the time of the main assembly.


First, does the Bible directly command split assemblies? The answer is NO. Does the Bible,
by means of a specific negative command, prohibit split assemblies? The answer, again, is


Secondly, does the Bible contain an explicit approved example of split assemblies? Again,
the answer is NEGATIVE.


Thirdly, does the Bible by expedient implication allow for split assemblies? The answer to this
question is more complicated. The command of the assembly is to assemble together
(Hebrews 10:25). The example of assembling is to assemble in one place (1 Corinthians 11:
20). The separation of some of the individuals is a disassembling, not an assembling
together. The removal of some of the individuals into a separate worship group, meeting, or
assembly violates the example of assembling in one place by dividing it in two. Thus, Split
Assemblies are not an acceptable expedient; but, an addition to the command by making two
assemblies out of one, and a subtraction from the command by removing some of the
individuals from the assembly.

In James 2:1-6, James rebukes the saints for showing partiality in the assembly by
separating the rich and poor. If such separation of rich and poor was condemned, can
separation between young and old, or any other groups be pleasing in the sight of God? "Are
ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?" (James 2:4).

Therefore, opposition to Split Assemblies such as Youth Worship is not based upon matters
of judgment, opinion, custom, or tradition; but, because they violate the nature of the
assembly as revealed in the New Testament. They do not fall into the category of an
acceptable expedient. They are unscriptural!


Since Youth Worship is the most prominent form of Split Assemblies practiced today, let us
look at some of the reasons given for its existence.

Those who advocate the use of Youth Worship (Children's Bible Hour, etc.) attempt to justify
its existence by saying it is used to teach the children how to behave in worship. It is true that
many children need to be taught how to act in worship (and also many adults), especially
those who have not attended services regularly, or at all. That it is wished to train children to
have the proper spirit of worship is commendable! Can not this same effect, however, be
accomplished in Bible class? Where better to teach them the proper spirit and demeanor
than in the assembly where they can observe mature Christians worshipping their Creator?
Can not adults "adopt" children in the services and train them as they would their own? The
desired end can be accomplished without adopting an unscriptural practice.

Another justification for Youth Worship offered is that the children can and will learn more on
their own level than in with the adults. Worship is more than a time of learning; it is a time of
pouring out the heart and soul in adoration and thanksgiving unto God. But, a sermon that
cannot be understood, in the main, by a child will not be understood by the average adult. The
simplicity of the gospel needs to be remembered. If the sermons are too. hard to understand
for a child, maybe another look should be taken at the sermons. It has been said that a
sermon that is above the fourth grade level is too difficult for the average adult to understand.

There is no justification for putting aside God's command and having Youth Worship or any
other split assembly.


Some may object by saying that the command of assembling together and the example of
assembling in one place are fulfilled by both the assemblies being under the same roof. Can
two groups which are separated, be together in one place? To say they are, because they are
under one roof is the same as saying all the families and people living under an apartment
building roof are living together; yet, no one would contend that. The fact that there is a Split
Assembly is but to acknowledge the separation.

Some may object that the command to assemble together does not include being in one
place, and the example of assembling in one place is not binding. First, how can you be
together if you are separated into two places and two groups? It is a logical impossibility! The
dictionaries and lexicons are going to have to be rewritten to do away with the command
saying to come together in one place. Secondly, 1 Corinthians ll:20ff is used by all as an
example for the authority of coming together for the purpose of eating the Lord's Supper. If it is
admissible as authority for the Lord's Supper, then the one place must also be authority as to
the assembly. It illustrates the command of assembling together. It stands strong as authority!

Some say that there is a Biblical example of a divided assembly on the day of Pentecost in
Acts 2. Fifteen different languages are listed in verses 9,10 and 11. They contend, therefore,
that there were fifteen simultaneous assemblies. However, in verse 14 Peter stands up with
the eleven. Now, how could there have been fifteen different assemblies and but twelve
speakers? Are such brethren contending that the Holy Spirit fell on more than the twelve
apostles on Pentecost? How could Peter stand up with the eleven and speak to all that they
spoke to if they were in fifteen different groups, or even twelve? The answer is found in verse
6: "the multitude came together." They came together; they were in one group. But, more
appropriately, was this an assembly of the saints? No more than the defense of the apostles
before the courts. A teaching situation, yes. An assembly of the saints? By what reasoning?

It has been argued that a Biblical example of a divided assembly is found in the 14th chapter
of 1 Corinthians. It is claimed that verse 23 contains it. The verse reads: "If therefore the whole
church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those
that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" Where is the reference
to a divided assembly? The "if therefore" in this verse carries with it the implication of when.
Paul is saying that when the Corinthians come together in one place (when they assemble for
worship) and every one speaks in tongues a visitor who was neither a believer nor conversant
in the language which they spoke would think they are crazy. There is no reference to a
divided assembly.

The most frequent argument put forth is that there is the same authority for Split Assemblies
as for Bible classes, if one is wrong, they are both wrong. Bible classes are not, and never
have been, the assembly; they are an expedient to carry out the command to teach (Matthew
28:18-20). There is a difference between a private teaching situation and the assembly of the
saints; or, is the advocate of this theory willing to qualify every teaching situation as an

Any time set apart for the purpose of publicly engaging in the acts of worship prescribed by
God, one or all of them, is a worship service.

Worship is an act that is directed toward God to express the adoration of the heart. Bible
classes and cottage meetings are not directed toward God. The action engaged in is directed
toward man. Teaching is not directed toward God, but man. The purpose of the Bible class
and cottage meeting is to teach man. The purpose is not to publicly engage in an act of
worship. It is true that preaching (teaching) is one of the acts recorded as belonging in the
worship assembly, but the direction of the action determines whether it is worship or not.
Therefore, Bible classes and cottage meetings are not worship services, but teaching

Some may point out the presence of prayer in many Bible classes, since the definition of a
worship service says one or all the acts of worship, wouldn't that qualify Bible classes as
worship services? The answer is NO. The presence of an acts of worship does not make it a
worship service, but setting the time apart for the purpose of publicly engaging in the act(s) of
worship. Bible classes are a time set apart for another purpose. If the presence of an act of
worship made the situation into a worship service, consider the following: Would a session of
congress begun with a prayer become a worship service? Would a prayer of thanks at the
dinner table turn the meal into a worship service? Does the performance of a hymn turn a
country and western music show into a worship service? Purpose as well as direction is
necessary for a worship service. If the time is set apart for the purpose of engaging in an act
(s) of worship (such as singings, prayer meetings, etc.), it becomes a worship service.

There is a need to carefully consider what is a worship service and what is not. Let us not
make into a worship service that which is not; and, neither let us make what is a worship
service into that which is not.

Some say that there is no difference between the Sunday evening worship's Lord's Supper
and Split Assemblies. The whole church assembles together and a few partake of the Lord's
Supper, not because they belong to a peculiar class of individuals, but because they were not
able to be present in the morning. Sunday evening's Lord's Supper has members gathering
together. Split Assemblies dictates a segregation of the congregation.

Some say there is no difference between hospital, nursing home, and shut-in services and
Split Assemblies. The services for those who cannot make the assembly takes the assembly
to the individuals, not take individuals from the assembly. Hospital, nursing home, and shut-
in services take the assembly to those hindered. Split Assemblies hinder individuals from the

Some say there is no difference between the utilization of foyers, nurseries, etc., and Split
Assemblies. Those who need to take infants to be changed, toddlers to be corrected, or who
have to otherwise avail themselves of the facilities see to immediate needs; they do not
forsake the assembly. Most foyers, nurseries, etc., which are used for these purposes with
any regularity have speakers or some other means of allowing those who are thus occupied
to continue their participation in the services. The utilization of foyers, nurseries, etc., as play
rooms and permanent residences for babies, toddlers, or others, however, is as wrong as
Youth Worship. Something is wrong when babies and children are not wanted in the
auditorium. Foyers, nurseries, etc., still allow participation in the assembly. Split Assemblies
remove a class of individuals from participation in worship.


God has always demanded that man obey him and follow his pattern.  The pattern for us
today is revealed in the New Testament.  The authority is given by: (1) direct command, (2)
explicit approved apostolic example, and (3) expedient implication.  Split assemblies are not
directly commanded, are not shown by explicit approved apostolic example, and are not an
acceptable expedient.  Split assemblies, therefore, are a digression from the worship of the
church of Christ in the New Testament; and, as instrumental music, split assemblies are a
sinful practice that should be repented of if practiced, and ceased; and, it should never find its
way into the congregation that is committed to obedience to the authority of Jesus Christ.

Book, chapter and verse hs been given to show split assemblies to be contrary to the word of
God.  Now it behooves the advocates of split assemblies to show biblical authority for their
practice.  If they cannot, then it should be ceased.
Split Assemblies &
Junior Worship