Authorized

For centuries denominations fought over which acts of worship are authorized by the New Testament. This wasn't from the Church of Christ although many teachers within the church adopted this way of thinking. It was a spillover from Catholic and Protestant debates.  Authorized worship was a topic among just about all branches of Christianity. Many used it to pull practitioners back into biblical worship. Other denominations separated from scripture.

The problem is the word "authorized" isn't in scripture, not in old or new testaments. So you can't really bring people to scripture by using words not in scripture. There are better ways to teach we must follow the word of God.

Another problem with the word authorized is it can mean liberty to do without being commanded. People would look in scripture for one reference to an act and then make it acceptable without considering who, what, when, where, why, etc. They would teach we have the right to do the same. Like the harps in Revelation in theory being used as precedent for any musical instrument. The theory being harps are instruments, so we are in general authorized to use any instruments. These could be symbols and not actual harps. Symbols of the heart. Through a brief mention they became precedent for rock bands in worship, without looking at time and place and persons. Since all had harps, it wouldn't be precedent for all instruments, orchestras, or bands. Only for harps, only for elders, only in heaven, and if symbols only for the symbolism they portray.

Nadab and Abihu are often used as witnesses against unauthorized worship, but the story in Leviticus 8-10 never mentions the word authorized. It says, "commanded not", in general sense incense could be used and was biblical, commanded by Moses for some sacrifices, but in Leviticus 8 there were specific instructions for a 7 day sanctification period and with these sacrifices God did not command incense to be burned. Some thought it was the wrong type of incense, but it seems more to do with sanctification. According to Lev. 8:35 death would come upon the unsanctified. This typically meant following all the instructions leading up to the sacrifices and offering what God commanded. Since they failed to be sanctified and offered strange fire, they died.

So, even though incense was generally authorized and even commanded, those looking for a precedent to do it could find one, it was not commanded in this instance, and they died. They acted by previously authorized precedent, but were incorrect in their assumptions. They died. Previously authorized doesn't equate to currently authorized or commanded. Old Testament commands don't always correlate to New Testament commands.

The word authorized when using command, example, and necessary inference can lead to the same mistakes. Our usage of precedents must be contextual and more exact than authorized would mean. Like a separated priesthood in the Old Law wouldn't necessarily be precedent for the New covenant. Women prophesying privately wouldn't be precedent for public church gatherings. A harp in Revelation wouldn't be precedent for pianos and organs and rock bands. There are specific commands and precedents. 

Lev. 8-10 shows that when God gives commands he means for us to follow only what he has commanded, without introducing our own choices from other cases. We can't make precedents from other offerings or holidays, etc. Catholics introduced easter from John saying he would keep the Passover in a letter. Jews could still keep Passover as Jews, but Passover wasn't Easter. Passover was Friday, easter Sunday, they shouldn't be confused together. Passover isn't precedent for Easter. Yet, Catholics introduced Easter that way. Christmas was introduced as a replacement of the feast of dedication of the Jewish temple. Christ's body being the true temple, but scripture gives no reference to changing old holidays into new Christian holidays. Catholics can just argue Christmas was authorized through the feast of dedication, but that is pretty sketchy, pretty ingenious but wrong. The connection was made up. 

We should be more careful. When God gives commands, we should do what he says without using our own inventions to make it more appealing. Do what he says and you will be blessed, invent your own and you can get sick or even die.

1 Corinthians 11:2

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 

We are to keep ordinances as delivered to us, without inserting our own methods or standards. This was speaking of ordinances already delivered, not future inventions. The word "authorized" creates an unbiblical standard that avoids context. It allows people to introduce anything they can find in scripture without a view to time, place, people, specific commands, or silence from God, etc.

The misuse of precedents has led to splits in churches, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church etc. Some introduce worship with the wording, "I become all things to all people", but this was not speaking of making Christian worship from personal preference, since we keep the ordinances as delivered. It was the context of personal choices outside of our ordinances. We appeal to each man's conscience as much as possible without changing ordinances. 

Can't we just get along and let others use whatever they desire. People come up with some pretty cool stuff. Aren't we all brethren is a christian sense. Well, Lot called the men of Sodom and Gamorrah brethren before being told by God to depart from them. Then God destroyed the cities.

Genesis 19:7

I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly...

Being brethren in some sense does not mean we should go along with wicked plans of disobedience. Rape and sodomy are terrible acts and i'm not saying that changing worship is equal or as harsh, but change from disobedience does infiltrate our hearts over time. Changing or dropping holy worship does leave a void in man that eventually leads to such acts as murder, rape, and such like.