I don’t want to talk about the instrumental music issue. I will discuss it a bit more on this blog, but I don’t want to. As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s worth all the fuss. And I’m deeply troubled by what I see in the way people act when discussing this issue. For many people, it’s not how you reach your conclusions, just what conclusion you reach.
Last week I had someone approach me and say very sternly, “I hope you come out on the conservative side of this issue.” Not “I’m interested in learning more.” “I’m anxious to look more at what the Bible says.” Not even, “I’m curious to see what you’ve got to share.” No, this almost felt like a threat (though I know this brother well enough to know that’s not how he meant it). It seemed to all be about the conclusion, not the means of getting there.
Arguments presented for and against the use of instruments are all over the place. They say that politics make for strange bedfellows, but it seems that this issue is even worse. People who normally vilify John Calvin love his anti-instrumental music quotes. They cite early Christian writings, even though they disagree with much of what those writers wrote on other subjects.
At some point, you have to ask yourself “Why?” Why the vehemence? Why the angst? Why the determination to take a minor issue and make it a major one? (And yes, this is a minor issue) What’s the deal?
We can talk about the regulatory principle of worship versus the normative principle. We can do Greek word studies, pro and con. We can quote Clement of Alexandria in favor of instruments and Clement against them. We can appeal to unity, the unity that comes from strict adherence to a single doctrine versus the unity that comes from diversity of beliefs. We can argue about whether vocal-only or vocal-accompanied singing is more pleasing to man and God.
I’m just not sure why. Why it’s such a big deal. I’m open to any and all insights. Why does this issue matter so much to so many?
For some folks, being right is everything. Doctrinally, that is. They can’t see this as a minor issue because there are no minor issues for them.
For some, sad to say, it’s personal. They’ve written books and articles and jave a product to sell.
For some, it is genuinely what they believe. And they will not abandon their faith, not one point of it, large or small. (There’s a part of me that admires that tenacity.)
For some, it is what they have been taught that to question the authority of those who taught them (or their facts or their logic) is wrong. They are afraid to question. They could lose the fellowship of others dear to them.
For some, it is a personal preference that they are not going to give up, and so it has become doctrine.
And, lest anyone think I’m being unfair with these opinions, they are doubtless true on BOTH sides of the issue.
Identity.
The boundary markers of a minority community that perceives itself as threatened are scary things to mess with. Jesus got crucified for messing with them.
You pretty much sum up my frustration with trying to discuss such issues, as it seems that both free and rational inquiry are tossed aside in order to prove what one already believes.
Some Christians, when they do here what I believe on this issue, want to counter with arguments…arguments which they forget that I’ve heard most of my life. Consequently, few seek to inquire about the very long and inductive process that led me to change my view.
I like JW McGarvey’s attitude on it. He basically said, “I don’t like it, don’t believe in it, won’t worship with it, but won’t divide over it.”
I’m convinced some believe CofC’s identity seemingly stands or falls on this one issue. If, and I really mean IF, the IM question isn’t a matter of salvation, then CofC have no basis for being dogmatic about a lot of other things. If CofC can’t be dogmatic about so many other things, then it’s forced to accept others as “brothers.” And… well… that is simply too much to ask!
Keith,
I was reading some of Jay Guin’s writings about the Landmark Baptists in the 19th century. If he’s right, our interactions with them explain a lot of what you mention.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Nicely stated, Nick.
Nick,
I’ve been thinking some of the same things. It goes back to why the Pharisees were so hung up about the Sabbath and about circumcision. Back when they were without a temple, those things had been the main markers of being a Jew. Suggesting that those things didn’t mean what they thought was very threatening to them.
I remember in high school being asked by someone in a store what church I attended. When I answered, the saleswoman said, “Oh, you’re the ones that don’t use music.” That was our marker, our identity. Still is, to some.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Rex,
I hadn’t thought about that regarding this issue, but I have talked with people about this idea in general. It seems that many people at church distrust anything that can’t be explained in an elevator speech. Consequently, they aren’t interested in hearing of your journey; they just want to talk about the outcome.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim,
When that becomes the status of a group of Christians, it becomes paralyzing and unsustainable for living out the mission of God. I say that because to live out the mission of God, there is always enough messiness that it requires more than simple elevator speech. But if Christians can’t handle that, the only option is to retreat and have one’s faith hijack by fear. Sad!
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I think there’s also a need to be absolutely right that is inherent to monotheism. If there really is only one true god, then it is natural to feel like you have to really be right about stuff concerning that god.
Hey Tim… I really appreciate this article. The main reason, in my opinion, is just what has been stated before. People “in-group” and “out-group” based upon criteria… and the issues that distinguish who’s “in” and who’s “out” get blown all out of proportion. Beneath the exterior of our psyche I believe it scares us that we are so much like some groups of people for who we have great animosity. There is a second reason, I believe, however, though not as big as the first. We tend to buy into a “salvation by system.” The idea being that we are saved by fulfilling the demands of the system… all of them. If we are wrong, or fail in any area, our application is going to be rejected. We are scared to trust in the grace of the Lord who came to save us.
I still wonder, why is it the Restoration Movement could have so much differences over the instrument… and still be unified; until the Civil War comes along. Soon as the nation splits, the brethren start to pull away from each other.
Thanks Tim.
I agree Paula. That’s a great attitude.
Interesting thought, Doug. I guess that could be said for a lot of doctrines. Actually, it reminds me about what we studied about dogmatism when I was in school. When a dogmatic changes his views, he tends to jump to the other extreme. We’ve certainly seen that in our brotherhood.
Danny,
“Salvation by system”… kind of like steps to salvation, acts of worship, etc. Sounds familiar.
On the history part, I was reading some of Jay Guin’s stuff on the Landmark Baptists. If you haven’t read it, it’s interesting:
http://oneinjesus.info/2009/08/backgrounds-of-the-restoration-movement-landmarkism/
Helps me see how we shifted from the fairly open views of Campbell and Stone to the more restrictive views of later generations.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim,
You are right, it could be said about a number of doctrines, but this is one our fellowship has really hung it’s hat on. From time to time, we use the frequency of the LS or something else as a “defining mark of the NT Church,” but really… Is there another issue that is more associated with us than our advocacy for Acappella singing?
I’m convinced people of other fellowships only argue with us because of our dogmatism about it. I’ve never met a Baptist who chose to remain in that fellowship because they insisted on IM in their worship! It’s just not that big of a deal for them. It only becomes a big deal when they get into a discussion about it with a CofCer. Just like I’ve never met a Methodist who chose to remain Methodist because they believed it was imperative to take communion only once a quarter. It’s not that big a deal to them. It’s a big deal for us, though. So the argumentation endures. That is, until someone decides to break the cycle…
Tim,
Because it is a litmus test for heresy in conservative CoC circles, no?
Consider if someone you really respected, admired, and whose work you followed closely started writing/lecturing about whether Jesus’ bodily resurrection was a truly historical event. Suppose she wrote/spoke as if she were at least open to the idea that the resurrection never happened (at least not bodily or historically). Wouldn’t it matter to you what conclusion she came to? Wouldn’t a part of you be willing to say, ‘i don’t care how you get there, i just really hope you come round to affirming the bodily, historical resurrection of Christ.’??
Now, the obvious response is, ‘Yeah, but instrumental music is just not even close to the same level as the resurrection.’ Yeah, for you maybe. And for me. But that claim is not obvious or ‘a given’ to everyone. In fact, i get the impression that for some (at least inasmuch as we observe their behavior and emphasis), matters relating to Sunday morning worship practice are actually *more* important than the resurrection, or trinitarianism, or other Christological issues. *If* you and i shared that weight distribution across the theological issues, wouldn’t we likely respond similarly?
So i think the problem isn’t with acapella singing or an opposition to instruments. The Orthodox on the whole don’t use instruments, but i just visited a parish two weeks ago that had an organ. i haven’t encountered much fuss in Orthodox literature over parishes that use an organ. But saying anything funny about the nature of Christ or the trinity would be fightin’ words for them. So i think the CoC’s problem is much more systemic than instruments.
–guy
I mostly think you’re right, Guy – although I would mention that emphasis doesn’t necessarily correlate directly to level of perceived importance. Another major reason for emphasis is because of difference. We don’t emphasize what we have in common with other groups, but rather where we differ.
Doug,
The other doctrine that comes to mind is baptism. Not sure any of the others get argued with such vehemence.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Nick,
Hmmm, i see part of what you’re saying. Part of that though can be the nature of the historical dialectic in which a group develops, right? CoC’s have historically been in a perpetual back-and-forth with Baptists over baptism and IM, the Orthodox haven’t. The Orthodox do however spend time talking about more baseline Protestant issues–the five solas or views about Mary.
However, i’m not totally sure about your claim about the disconnect between emphasis and importance. If you want to say that importance is not causally prior to emphasis, that seems very plausible (is that what you meant by the qualifier “directly”?). But don’t you think it’s plausible to say that emphasis can and most of the time is causally prior to importance? In other words, there may be circumstances which compel or force me to emphasize something. If i (or better, a group of people) do it long enough, that emphasis can produce the importance attached to that issue.
But deeper than that, i think what we consider heresy will always set the stage for this, won’t it? All the formulations of Christology in the early ecumenical councils arose at least partly in response to heretics saying something different, no? Would Paul have had to write a great portion of many of his letters if there had never been any Judaizing teachers? There may not even be a formalized Canon of Scripture had there been no Marcionites. What do progressive CoC’s emphasize and why? i take it as likely that they might not have the emphases they do if they felt no need to ‘correct’ for bad historical emphases of the conservative CoC’s.
So i’m not sure that a group’s emphasis being (at least partly) reactionary in nature and origin is necessarily a bad thing (not saying you claimed this, just thinking out loud). But considering every difference a matter of heresy (or as Tim puts its, worth fighting over) certainly does seem like a bad thing.
–guy
Guy,
I used to hear the example given of Robert Shank. He was a hero in churches of Christ when he wrote Life in the Son and Elect in the Son. We loved his conclusions.
Then he wrote Until the Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom, laying out arguments in favor of historic premillennialism. And the applause stopped. No more lectureship invitations, no more honorary doctorates. He had reached the wrong conclusion.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I think it has something to do with the fact that you have 21, now 22 responses to your question.
Brethren,
Although I still find myself in debate and contention mode occasionally. I can understand why Paul warned us against debate and contention. I try to remain in study, learn, and teach mode instead.
My outlook on many doctrines has changed as I have become more acquainted with the scriptures. On music, I tend to agree with brother McGarvey’s attitude, and that is basically the attitude that I always try to take. In my Bible lessons and sermon’s my advice is always, “Don’t take my word for it, get your Bible and study it for yourself. If you reach a different conclusion, let me know why and I will restudy the issue.”
Insisting that we are always right is a spiritual trap!
Wes
Got to say that there’s been an awful lot of finger pointing as to why “they” (and it’s always “they” or “them”) think this way. “They” are the ones causing the trouble, because they obviously aren’t as enlightened as some who have seen the light about this being absolute nonsense. I just want to point out that it’s not all about defending turf, to paraphrase Nick’s argument. It’s not about “winning” a war of words. Perhaps some people have come to the conclusion that how we worship IS important, not just in spirit but in form, as there is no way to divide the two. The conclusion is based on what God decided should be left in the records of the Old Testament concerning worship. Cain’s wasn’t acceptable, for whatever reason (wasn’t by faith, and faith is by hearing, so obviously he didn’t listen and just did his own thing, correct?). Nadab and Abihu’s wasn’t acceptable because they offered “strange fire.” Whatever it was, it wasn’t what God expected, so it was wrong, and they paid the ultimate price. Saul lost his kingdom because he didn’t fully obey God (1 Sam. 15:22 – God would rather us obey His instructions than adapt our offering based on our own logic of what He will accept, to paraphrase). That’s why some think this is a rather important subject. God’s people were punished time and again in the Old Testament for turning away from God. That included changing the way they worshipped. It’s not always about a small-minded group’s response to a challenge of their beliefs. It’s not about defending a system of grace or salvation. Sometimes, it’s just about faith that what God revealed is kind of important.
Travis,
i thought Keith said as much when he said,
“For some, it is genuinely what they believe. And they will not abandon their faith, not one point of it, large or small. (There’s a part of me that admires that tenacity.)”
–guy
I’ll throw in my two cents worth here, and if I am repeating someone above I apologise. But one answer to Tim’s question is simply this – because at some very deep core level worship *matters* very much to us. We can, and do, hold a wide variety of opinions on a great number of issues because those disagreements can be, and routinely are, held quietly and do not affect the public worship. However, when we begin to make decisions that directly affect worship things move from the “phraseological to the real” as Bonhoeffer would put it. So, while I can worship alongside someone who holds a different view on eschatology without my even knowing it, I cannot worship alongside someone banging on an electric guitar at ear splitting decibels without it somehow affecting me. Some things just cannot be hidden if they are to be used.
I have admired and somewhat puzzled over F. LaGard Smith’s wry comment concerning his worshipping with an instrumental group in England. He said that they worshipped with the instrument, he worshipped without it.
I find it interesting that in these discussions (not necessarily in this thread) those who hold to acapella singing are branded as “reactionary, hard core, ‘CofCers’, and narrow-minded.” Kind of reminds me of the observation that the one attribute liberals cherish more than any other is that of toleration, until they meet someone with whom they disagree.
If, for what ever reason(s) I hold that acapella singing is one of the purest forms of human worship, and if I believe that an instrument detracts and diminishes that worship, why am I ostrascized because I hold firm to that conviction? While I do not hold that using an instrument is sinful in and of itself, I can find NO legitimate reason for its use OTHER than human enjoyment. Demanding that said instrument be used to the point of dividing a congregation is sinful, and that is where I draw the line regarding worship.
If worship didn’t matter to me I would gladly accept the use of at least a limited use of instruments in a public assembly. But the worship experience matters very, very much to me, and speaking only for myself, THAT is why this issue draws my interest. It matters because on a deep and basically unexplainable level, worship changes me, and I do not want to have that experience diminished.
Travis,
It’s sad to me that our brotherhood has been so enamored of Nadab and Abihu and rarely speaks of Eleazar and Ithamar. (If you happen to say “Who?”, well that proves the point) That record is also in the Old Testament. In fact, they appear more often than their two brothers! And their story is in that same chapter to remind us that Nadab and Abihu’s problem wasn’t improper worship technique. It was a heart problem.
There are differing ways to approach God’s revelation. It’s not about whether or not His revelation is “kind of important.” It’s how we deal with that revelation.
Sometime, seemingly around the time of the Reformation, men invented a system of approaching Scripture called the Regulative Principle of Worship. This principle, used by Calvin and Zwingli, states that anything not “authorized” in Scripture is forbidden. Many times when people claim to be standing up for what Scripture says, they’re actually standing up for this principle.
The argument isn’t about what Scripture says. It’s about what to do about what Scripture doesn’t say. About the silence. About how to fill in the blanks.
The problem isn’t that some want to respect Scripture and some don’t. It’s that some feel that a principle invented a few hundred years ago is the ONLY way to interpret Scripture. Let’s at least be honest about where the conflict lies.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Thanks Paul. Your answer makes me think of something else. Singing is one thing that how you do it affects the way I do it. That is, to some degree, we have to be in agreement as to how to sing. When the preacher doesn’t preach the way I want, I can perceive that as external to me. The singing affects something I’m directly involved in.
I’ve sung with congregations that thought the melody was unimportant. Volume was what mattered. It would drive me crazy to sing like that.
I’ve sung with congregations that thought musical precision was everything. Where the song leader would actually stop and correct the congregation when something was wrong. (The time I was there, he was the one that was wrong… but that’s beside the point) That would drive me crazy as well.
Per your comment, I can think of other reasons for using an instrument. I may get into some. But surely their appearance in Scripture (temple worship, Revelation) shows us that it’s not JUST human enjoyment.
If it helps any, I’ve been in discussion where the reactionary ones were the ones pushing for the instrument. For whatever reason, that’s been the exception. In my experience (please note the qualifier), the aggressors have typically been the conservatives, saying, “You don’t respect Scripture. You are ignoring what’s plainly said. You don’t care what God wants.” I haven’t seen a lot of vilification nor condemnation from the other side, but maybe that’s just where I’ve been.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim – ditto the experience of the song leader lecturing the congregation :) .
Regarding the comments I’ve read about the instrument/acapella question – maybe its because I ignore the hyper reactionary types and tend to read blogs that focus on a more constructive viewpoint. Believe me, I am all too well aware of the hate that comes from some who hold the same conclusion that I do, but for very different and I believe very uncharitable reasons. I may disagree with many instrumentalists, but I am frequently embarassed by many acapella only defenders.
Re: the defense of instruments. I am aware of the OT/Revelation defense, but these tend to be given almost in passing, as those who push hard for instruments are really not concerned with the command/example/necessary inference hermeneutic. I don’t mean that to be judgmental, only descriptive. They hold a different hermeneutic, therefore the “book, chapter and verse” is just not important to them. This, I believe, is another reason for the impasse between the two camps. There are not only differing opinions about worship being discussed, but there is the subterranean problem of two differing hermeneutics. I fear we are not going to achieve much about the visible issue without at least attempting to deal with the hidden one. Am I misdiagnosing the situation?
Paul,
I was merely referencing the Old Testament and Revelation to say that it doesn’t seem fair to imply that instruments are only for human enjoyment.
Much can be said about Regulative Principle vs. Normative Principle (as well as the middle ground some seek). I’m honestly open to the future direction of this conversation. I’m often accused of having an agenda when beginning a discussion, but that’s not true. I have some ideas, but there are always new thoughts to be considered, new rabbits to chase, new tangents to follow. That’s why I call this a kitchen and not a bakery. :-)
Still, my concern is that many/some/a few seem to have a conclusion in mind and not be too concerned about how we get there. That’s definitely on both sides of the issue. That’s part of why I was trying to gain some insight as to why the debate heats up so quickly.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I grew up in an ‘Exclusive Brethren’ fellowship and we did not have instruments when it came to music, we just sang and enjoyed it very much without thought or debate over the matter. It was wonderful listening to the fellowship sing with such harmony and the ladies voices breaking in like beautiful flutes rising up above it all. With instruments, I don’t know if it would’ve taken away from it or what, but again it’s nothing that was given much thought because the focus was on worship. Now I’m attending a Calvary Chapel and we have a worship band that puts in some hard practice to make it all come together on Sunday. I’ve found this to be very enjoyable as well and wouldn’t have it any other way. The room is so energetic and people are enjoying singing praise to the Lord which after all, should be the focus. I think if we were to debate it over and over, it would take away from important purpose of worship and fellowship. I think what’s important is that people come together in any fashion, in fellowship and heart felt worship which doesn’t need to be a drag routine.
Paul, I may be an exception, but as one who feels that silence does not forbid instruments of music in worship, my hermeneutic cares about book, chapter and verse very much. Some Old Testament practices are specifically perpetuated in New Testament worship. Some are specifically deprecated (sacrifice, separate tribal priesthood, etc.) My thought is that what God desired in the Old Testament but no longer desires is pretty clear; He explains why in The New. If there is no change specified or explained, why do we assume one? To me, this part of worship falls under the auspices of Romans 14. I love a cappella worship and work at a church home that would want nothing else. But I don’t feel that I have the right to legislate my preference or my hermeneutic on anyone else because of Romans 14 — nor do I have the right to berate or condemn others for seeing things differently. That’s where this conversation has gone so wrong in the past.
When we approach a study with a pre-determined conclusion that must be reached, haven’t we already established a creed? If we reject a hermeneutic because it does not yield our desired conclusions, have we made an idol of “our conclusions” and “our hermeneutic”? If we reach the point that we do not believe anyone can understand the Bible unless “we teach him how to read it,” have we lost trust in the power of the Word of God?
Those are questions that keep bothering me – and which this discussion brings to the surface of my mind.
Keith, I am at a loss to really define “my” hermeneutic. I would say it is basically a “hermeneutic of biblical theology” but that is kind of like nailing Jello to the wall. It could mean anything to anybody. I do not wish to make a judgment about whether God ultimately accepts or rejects the worship of Christians who use an instrument. I am not God and will steadfastly refuse to play that game. From my “theological” understanding of the Bible (OT and NT) I have come to the conclusion that the addition of instruments diminishes the concept of “spiritual worship.” It adds a layer of performance that only a few can attain, and so creates a division within the assembly, and is therefore something less than what we can offer to God.
However, I refuse to attach the label of “sin” to the simple practice of playing an instrument. If there is no division or hurt feelings or objections – that is for God to decide. There is certainly no scripture that condemns the use of a piano or guitar in worship. I cannot worship where such instruments are being played, because as Rom. 14 points out, if there is an issue of conscience to violate that issue would be sin. Therefore, I choose not to put myself in a position where that would be a hindrance to my worship. I am more than happy to engage in conversations concerning the issue and to defend my position, but I would also hope that my position would not be viewed as reactionary or Pharisaical.
Paul,
That’s a mature view of the issue, in my opinion.
I still have the concern, though, that people in our fellowship take so many roads to arrive at the same conclusion. For some, it’s “It says ‘sing’ and never says ‘play.'” For some, it’s more about history. Others point to unity. Others look at cultural studies. For some, it’s a view that instruments are inherently evil. For some, it’s the fact that the word “psallo” doesn’t include instruments. For others, it’s the fact that “psallo” includes instruments, and the instrument is the heart. And I could go on and on.
I don’t know of another issue where so many different explanations are given for the same belief. And that concerns me. It could be a sign that, some people at least, are starting with the conclusion and working backwards. Obviously not true for all, but doesn’t it seem a bit strange?
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, thanks for the followup. While we may disagree about the significance of Nadab and Abihu (and by extension Eleazar and Ithamar), that actually wasn’t the point of my post. It was the tone, tenor and attitude with which we paint “the other side.” I love this part of Paul’s post, as he summarized my thoughts much better than I did:
“I find it interesting that in these discussions (not necessarily in this thread) those who hold to acapella singing are branded as “reactionary, hard core, ‘CofCers’, and narrow-minded.” Kind of reminds me of the observation that the one attribute liberals cherish more than any other is that of toleration, until they meet someone with whom they disagree.”
About two years ago I escaped from a very anti COC and recall the multiple lessons in which someone would “explain” why others (denominations, lib’ruls, etc.) held different beliefs. It was never “well, it’s an honest belief, rooted in their understanding of certain passages.” No, it was always intentional, deliberate, rejecting God’s Word, selfishly clinging to their own desires or positions, or just because “they” weren’t as smart or enlightened as “we” are. I detect a bit of that same attitude here from time to time, from the “other” side. I left that mindset behind and now tend to have a pretty big knee-jerk reaction when I detect anything remotely resembling intellectual elitism, whether in discussing politics, religion, or the Great Pumpkin. It’s one thing to strongly hold a certain belief, it is something else entirely to hold a condescending view of others who disagree. I am re-evaluating all doctrines, dogmas and beliefs at this time, testing arguments, analyzing responses. So thanks to all for your input in these ongoing discussions.
Travis,
I think if you look at most of the comments, they’re not about why others believe what they do. It’s about why they feel the need to argue as they do. It’s one thing to believe that footwashing is taught by command and example and should be practiced by all. It’s another to not only refuse to fellowship those who choose not to footwash, but to question their commitment to biblical teaching. I guess the “intellectual elitism” often gets countered with “spiritual elitism.”
What you’re seeing, though, is what often happens in online discussions. Unless the differing views have fairly equal representation in the discussion group, the minority view often feels “piled on” and becomes defensive. I’ve been there.
Factor in the emotion that Paul has talked about being connected to this issue, and things really get complicated. People on both sides have been attacked in the past and bring that baggage with them. They sometimes lash out more at those that have attacked them in an unChristian way than actually discussing the issue at hand. We often do battle with “ghosts of arguments past” more than the “spirit of argument present.”
Grace and peace,
Tim
Where regulations for worship are concerned, I can still remember the day I was thunderstruck because I somehow happened to read through some chapters in Hebrews without noticing the chapter breaks – particularly the break between chapters 8 and 9 (surely on the top ten list of worst-placed chapter breaks in the New Testament!).
In chapter 8, the author is applying the prophecy that came through Jeremiah to the current day. “‘The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel… it will not be like the old covenant I made with their forefathers…”
Not like the old covenant… well… how? Once the author wraps up his long quotation from Jeremiah, I think that question gets answered in a two-sentence passage that gets shattered by the chapter break.
“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.” (Heb 8:31-9:1, emphasis mine)
The writer then goes on to show how Christ has fulfilled and made obsolete the practices and purposes of the earthly sanctuary – is it too far-fetched to think that the author intended for us to grasp that what was true for the earthly sanctuary was also true for the regulations for worship? That, because of what Christ has done, for all the same reasons that one earthly sanctuary no longer suffices, no one set of “regulations for worship” will suffice to guide the worship of Christians from all cultures and eras?
Interesting observation, Nick. I definitely need to study that one more.
Tim,
You could add to you list of how people arrive at their rejection of IM the thought that the instruments, as part of the physical worship in the OT, were a type and shadow of the spiritual instrument of the heart in the New. That was my position for a time.
Regarding Nick’s post above about regulations, check a post that I put here about two years ago.