Two weeks ago, I reviewed the book Deceiving Winds. After the review came out, author Bruce Morton contacted me, expressing his view that I had seriously misunderstood his book. I extended to him the invitation to present his case. Here’s what Bruce wrote:
I appreciate Tim taking time with Deceiving Winds. We have had a positive and enjoyable chat since this review was published, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate Tim for allowing me to comment regarding his review.
First, I hope Tim reconsiders the statement he initially makes in the review: “He has taken some issues that he feels deeply about and made them the primary concerns of these letters.” And that is the “loosing his way” exegetically that Tim suggests I am guilty of and that mars the book.
I am not sure that Tim’s suggestion gets at all that Deceiving Winds is about. Indeed, he is referencing the content of six of the seventeen chapters and appendices of the book when he says I primarily focus on “feminism and instrumental music.” I hope he will take a further look and note that most of the book has nothing to do with “feminism and instrumental music.” Other subjects that are given attention are the resurrection of Jesus, Christian hope, adoption by God, materialism, characteristics of Christian identity, living as children of light, raising children, elders, the reality of spiritual darkness and a focus on reading and speaking the Word of God in a time when the Word is getting lost. So, I am not convinced that I suggest that “feminism and instrumental music” represent the primary concerns of Paul’s letters to Roman Asia and its capital city. However, the subjects of song and gender roles do get Paul’s attention in the first century – just as they get ours 1950 years later.
Tim also suggests that I stumble by taking an “occasional” teaching and applying it in our day. The subject of application is particularly thorny – since the topics of music and gender roles carry with them much emotion. I hope Tim and others who choose to read the book will look closely at the parallelisms in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. Paul’s parallelisms “bring together” the background and the application for our day. All that Paul writes about music (Ephesians 5:18-21) parallels his statement in Ephesians 5:11. Paul is guiding the Ephesians to “expose darkness” by their unified song. Further, I continue to believe quotes of others within the section are justified – since their focus is on song (cf. Stephen Guthrie). While Guthrie should have gone further, what he does say is excellent. He calls Christians to the importance of song in a time when much of a younger generation is more comfortable with listening to music than singing. That “concert mentality” is hindering the growth of faith.
Finally, I will note that Deceiving Winds is not suggesting that “Progressive” thought within churches of Christ is inseparable with the “emerging church movement.” Indeed, I can think of numerous topics where the two paths diverge. However, at points they do intersect. I will leave readers of the book to take a look at specifics here.
Thank you for considering the comments.
Tim, thanks for letting Bruce have a chance to rebut your review. That is a very commendable demonstration of how two or more Christians can thoughtfully and civilly engage in dialogue where there is disagreement…perhaps, much disagreement.
Let me add a few thoughts to what Bruce wrote:
(1) I do admit that Bruce touched on other topics, however the topic of feminism came up in almost every section (if not every one). It’s misleading to talk about what the stated topic of each chapter was. And two complete chapters were spent on one verse; it’s undeniable that a disproportional amount of time was spent on instrumental music.
(2) The existence of parallelisms doesn’t free the text from its immediate context. If Paul is writing to address the excesses of certain cults in Ephesus, then the exact same teaching of those cults would have to exist today for the particulars of Paul’s teachings to be directly applicable.
One thing that I should have added in the review: Bruce has been sending copies to people based on their participation in discussions on instrumental music. I’ll have to admit that receiving the book under those terms did affect the way I read the book. If the book as going to be offered as a corrective to the acceptance of instruments, it’s going to be read as being against instrumental music. Maybe beyond what the original intent was.
Tim:
I am surprised that you wrote, “I do admit that Bruce touched on other topics, however the topic of feminism came up in almost every section (if not every one).”
I decided to take a look back and retest if an author should be conceding a point. Multiple chapters of the book give no attention to feminism, but will leave to you and others what “almost every section” means. As the heading of the book describes, some of the book focuses on mysticism in our time. That is one of the key themes of Deceiving Winds as well. We parallel the ancient world far more than we realize at that point. And yes, I certainly agree that feminism is part of the focus of the book.
Finally, I will ask that people who read the book take time with the example from the Fiji islands. It is a powerful one and one that the West needs to hear. I agree with the people in churches of all names in the Fiji islands that congregational song — no instruments — is a powerful means to build unity. That is why Guthrie’s article is important; he does an excellent job of “getting at” all that is in Ephesians 4:17-5:21 — and how Paul weaves all together, culminating in Ephesians 5:18-21 and subject of song. No, Guthrie does not go far enough, but he highlights well how Paul is urging song together as a means toward unity.
And yes, Tim, to be clear re where I “stand,” I am convinced that congregations need to move from instrument-accompanied assemblies to a cappella ones. But it is more than just about “form.” It is about what song together uniquely accomplishes and it is about singing the Scriptures.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
These two sentences seem to be related in your mind, Bruce, but they actually are discussing two different points – the very matter that is being discussed here in Tim’s Kitchen right now.
Only from a very narrow point of view does “song together” necessitate the elimination of “instrument-accompanied” worship. I’m certain that the innumerable heavenly chorus singing accompanied praise to the Lamb doesn’t share your point of view on this matter.
Nick:
I see the discussion; part of it saddens me. Please note that my statement is part of a section that begins with a very un-Western example of the Fiji islands. I am well aware that is very difficult for many/most to soak up the example from the Fiji islands.
I am looking forward to heaven too. But at present we live in a world full of “pulls” that keep us from seeing what “just” singing the Scriptures accomplishes. Yes, I have probably said more here than many folks want me to say. So, bowing out.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Even Paul did not limit the early Christians to ” ‘just’ singing the Scriptures.” So I continue to be dubious that that is the message the Spirit is trying to convey to the churches.
Nick, what do you make of the fact that Paul does not quote all of the LXX texts that he cites and why his focus on song? What do you think Paul’s teaching has to do with his day and our day?
I gather you think I am making too much of Paul’s focus on unity tied to song. Correct? I am interested to know if you are okay with not all singing when the congregation gathers.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Bruce,
It’s a common practice in the N.T. (and apparently in 1st century Judaism) to quote part of a text, expecting the readers to understand the full context. Sort of like Jesus saying “This is the covenant in my blood” and expecting his disciples to remember that those words from Exodus 24 preceded a special meal in the presence of God.
I don’t think we should make too much out of Paul partially quoting O.T. texts.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Bruce,
Let’s talk about the Fiji Islands example. I’ve spent some time studying and teaching anthropology, so it’s an interesting example. Let me make a few comments;
(1) Unless I’ve misunderstood, what you like about the decision made by the Fijans is the decision itself, not necessarily the methodology used, the theology behind their decision, etc. That is, had they gone through all the same steps and not decided on a cappella music, I don’t think you would be holding them up as an example. Is that fair to say?
(2) We don’t know (or, at least, I don’t know) what went into their decision. Do they see instruments as inextricably linked with ungodly practices? Do they see the costs of instruments as prohibitive? (which was one of the earliest arguments in the Restoration Movement, if memory serves) Was it a “stronger brother, weaker brother” decision”? We just don’t know.
(3) What we do know, is that for the Fijan situation, this seemed to be the best course for promoting unity. I can unequivocally say that the same is not true in the United States. The best path for promoting unity in the U.S. would be to stop making instruments a test of fellowship. There are other reasons why people choose not to use instruments, just as there were probably other factors to the decision made in Fiji. But if we’re going to boil it down to that one issue, they made the best choice for their situation, but their situation is not ours.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Bruce, I think you’re avoiding the clear thrust of my question. You continue to insist that the only acceptable worship is “singing the Scriptures” even though no NT writer establishes such a law. The very verses you so revere as a law do not so stipulate, so I’m terribly confused as to where you find biblical support for this limitation – that unity will come only when the church limits itself to a cappella singing of the Scriptures.
What do I make of Paul’s truncated quotations? I believe Tim handled that answer adequately – I would only add that we’re very spoiled in the age of cheap paper and electronic communication. We can cut and paste quotations as long as our heart desires – and often we need to because our audience lacks the Scriptural knowledge that Paul’s audience would have possessed. In a world of scarce paper, natural memorization, and a tradition of quoting one verse to draw the audience’s attention back to the entire passage, I think the burden of proof is upon the person who would strive to assert that a particular truncation has a particular meaning.
For example, look at Matt 11 and Luke 7, where in response to the query sent by John the Baptist, Jesus quotes a series of Isaianic prophecies, culminating in a statement from Isa 61:1. However, Jesus clearly omits, “freedom for the captives” from his quoting of the text. In this case, I believe the omission can be shown to be intentional and clearly meaningful to the intended audience – a prisoner whom Jesus is not going to set free. I certainly don’t think the situation is as clear in the Ephesian letter, and the more credible explanation there is that Paul doesn’t quote the whole text because he doesn’t need to – not because including the omitted portion would negate his argument.
Bruce, I don’t think you’re making too much of this idea of unity tied to song, and I’m not okay with people who consistently choose not to sing. But I’m also not okay with the conversion of an example of how to be filled with the Spirit into a closed set – a “this is the only acceptable way to fulfill the will of God” when establishing a law is clearly not the apostle’s intent when the passage was written.
Jesus ties unity to love. I think Paul would argue that communal singing is one way that we demonstrate love to one another. But there are a myriad of other ways, and no one is expected to walk in them all.
Tim:
Re the Fiji island example: Their theology and actions are simple; they express it in the article. They chose singing as a simple means of building unity. The islands are filled with instrumental music, but all churches of all names have chosen the simple act of spiritual song as a means to build oneness and welcome others in. No, the article includes nothing regarding paganism, ungodly practices etc. Yes, I think worth reading because it illustrates so well part of the direction of Paul’s teaching about song.
As to the LXX quotes, I have concluded that Paul is urging the simplest of spiritual expressions by our humanity. That seems to be what the text is about; that is why the “with the heart.” He is helping the Ephesians to avoid the trappings of sensational worship in a dark world by directing them to a means that distances from the sensational: singing the Word of God.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Nick:
I am not trying to ignore or avoid the point you are making. I do understand that you are thinking that people can sing together WITH a guitar/etc. Correct? And yes, I understand it is part of how the West generally views these things. Similarly, we have little sensitivity to a discussion of music as either good or evil — which is part of Paul’s focus as well.
Here is why I have been passionate about this subject. I believe we are a society drenched in darkness. No, a guitar-accompaniment is not necessarily “dark.” However, Paul is guiding people who had let their worship degenerate because of dark influences and a desire for the sensational as the foundation for thinking faith was growing. Okay? That is part of what Ephesians 4:17-5:21 is about. Light versus darkness. And so Paul is guiding their assemblies to the simplest of expressions: spiritual song, the human expression of faith.
I do understand that I am probably frustrating you/others especially in a country that likes its instrumental music (I like some of it too). So, I think I will leave the above for consideration and say no more for awhile.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Bruce,
Not to be argumentative (or maybe I am, but it’s not my intent), doesn’t it seem that besides advocating a cappella music, you should also be advocating a return to plainsong or chants? Certainly the music of today, even the best church music, is completely unlike what Paul would have had in mind. Doesn’t the chant better emphasize the “speaking to one another” than does four-part harmony and modern melody?
As a musician, I can tell you that part/counterpart and intricate melodies have done much more to move us away from what Paul had in mind than has the use of instruments.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim:
Paul says nothing about chants, etc. in the text. He simply focuses on song. I certainly agree that sometimes our songs are too complex. And yes I am aware of the Eighth Century Polyphonic Controversy in Catholicism where instruments began to be used to “fill in” the holes in polyphony when a congregation did not have all of the parts. And yes it illustrates how we can let four-part harmony spiritually distract as well.
Also, as Deceiving Winds highlights, choosing a cappella does not get at all that Paul is saying. I believe many congregations have largely missed the importance of singing Scripture together even when they are singing a cappella.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
What I’m saying is that when Paul says “sing,” it’s what we would call a chant.
Tim:
I do not think we can state “chant” with certainty. For example, ancient hymns included at least two “parts.” We know that from papyrus evidence (one example of such is documented in Deceiving Winds). So, hard for us to know for certain that Paul was urging only plain-song in his teaching.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas