As I’ve said before, people seem to take many different paths to arrive at an a-cappella-only stance. Personally, I can’t think of another doctrine that has people that reach the same conclusion based on so many different ways of reasoning. Can anyone else think of one?
What that suggests to me is that the case against instrumental music is not clear in the Bible. That is, the average person isn’t going to pick up the Bible and say, “Oh, look… God doesn’t want us to use instruments in worship.” Please note, that does NOT prove the instrumentalists case. God never promised that every doctrine would be simple to understand, nor that we could understand everything without some help.
But it does mean that those of us who oppose the instrument need to stop acting like other people are refusing to see something that’s obvious in the Bible. If it were obvious, the early Christian writers would have referred to New Testament texts when explaining why they didn’t use instruments. If it were obvious, everyone would be able to say basically the same thing when explaining their opposition to instrumental music in the public worship of the church.
It’s not simple. It’s not obvious. It’s not apparent to anyone and everyone who is honest and sincere. Until opponents of mechanical instruments can reach a consensus as to why they oppose such, they have no room for pointing fingers at those who disagree with them.
Or am I missing something?
Tim,
I was a member and minister of the COC from 1965 to 1971. I learned to like acapella music. When I left the COC in 1971, I no longer thought it was a salvation issue or that it mattered at all. Now my wife and I attend a Mennonite church from time to time, and I find I still love and appreciate acapella singing. I agree with you. The Bible, either in OT of NT, does not teach against instrumental music. I think it is perfectly ok in moderation. I have been to a few services at a 4Square Church where the amps blow you out of the chair. They even have the nerve to print in their bulletin not to complain about the loud music. It is like a metal rock concert, and no one can even hear the words. Ugh! I will take acapella over that monstrosity any day. But, give me some good bluegrass hymns with decent banjo music 24/7.
Blessings, Gary
Tim, maybe if we figure out what the following says, we will know what God wishes us to do in worship service.
Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
NIV And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
I have never seen an instrument played by spirit or truth.
I think the answer to this lies in how we approach the overall question of what items we consider to be part of our “corporate” worship. I know views on here probably run the gamut, from “our entire life is worship,” which basically says anything we want to offer as worship is fine, to “only what we can find revealed,” which is basically the Five Acts viewpoint. The logic I’ve seen being used tries to lump IM in with singing, as if it is one of the five acts, or a variation on “Act 5,” if you will. However, that’s not really so, as IM is used at other times besides singing. While visiting a Christian church, for example, the organist played during the Lord’s Supper, during prayers, etc. It was not just accompaniment for singing. That would make it a sixth act of worship, a person (or several people, but not the entire assembly) is offering instrumental music praise and worship. The question is, are we limited to those five acts and, if not, are there any limits. Not just IM, but anything else. Can someone get up and worship with dance while singing? Can we have a hula hoop praise team? Or juggling? Or can we have a special presentation by the South America Cat Juggling Team. Can we pretty much turn our worship into a version of America’s Got Talent? Of course, I’m being kind of silly with the examples, but you get the point. I think therein lies our answer.
Laymond, I think you just proved Tim’s point. Although, I agree that it is not safe to use instrumental music, I do not see how these scriptures could possibly prove it. First, all of them are out of context. Second, if you are indicating that instruments are wrong because hands must be used to operate them, we must use our hands to carry out almost every aspect of worship and service. The fact that God is not worshipped with men’s hands applies only in the very limited sense indicated in the verse and context. Finally, while truth of worship is the question under consideration, most of those who use instruments offer a good deal more spirit than those of us who only sing.
As I said in my last post, I do not approve of instrumental music and would not worship where it is used. I feel that it is at best a questionable practice. On the other hand, I would not use it to divide, because while there is no specific command against instruments, there is a specific command against division. Neither would I condemn those who use it, because while I may judge the practice for myself, I may not judge them. Many use Paul’s command to Timothy to reprove, rebuke, and exhort as license to judge and condemn, but all three stop short of judgment.
Wes
Tim, I think you raise a valid point, and not just with instrumental music, but with other issues as well. Baptism comes to mind, as we could spend limitless amount of time discussing why infant baptism is wrong, and probably come up with a couple dozen reasons why that is true. However, I don’t need to prove why infant baptism is wrong if I can legitimately prove why adult believers baptism is taught in Scripture. Now, I am not saying instrumental music is on a par with baptism – I am only saying that to prove a negation is virtually impossible. I will offer my opinions as to why I think instruments are outside of the texts under consideration (Greek linguistics, context, history, etc) but I still cannot prove a negative. What I want to do is show how pure vocal acapella singing is the highest, most pure form of worship we can offer individually to God. Ergo, instruments are just a cheap substitute.
Equally, I really do feel like those who are pro instrument have not come up with anything anywhere remotely resembling a theological response to why they want to use them. The most I have ever heard is “They are referenced in Psalms, and they are referenced in Revelation.” Well, excuse me, but so is the extermination of one’s enemies referenced in Psalms and Revelation, so that is not a real strong argument with me.
The validity of your question cuts both ways, and I would like to have both sides acknowledge that fact!
Laymond quoted:
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
My first full-time job, the pulpit minister argued that this verse proved it’s not okay to clap in accompaniment to singing.
=o)
–guy
Thanks Gary
Laymond,
But I have seen an instrument played in spirit and truth.
I’ve never heard a song sung by spirit or truth, so your point is?
Grace and peace,
Tim
Thanks Travis. I commend you on having spent time studying this and arriving at a personal conclusion. We need to not only know what we believe but why.
You’ve illustrated what this post is talking about. When we have a multiplicity of reasons being given as to why instruments are wrong, there’s no way we can claim that simple Bible study will lead you to that conclusion. It seems to me that we have to yield to each man the right to be convinced in his own mind.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Wes,
I appreciate your viewpoint. We need people to be convicted about what they believe, yet willing to let God show grace to others as He sees fit.
Grace and peace,
Tim
In regard to the John 4 passages, here is a valuable read: http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/worship-in-spirit-and-in-truth-john-424/
Paul
On FB, you promoted this article with the saying:
PLEASE don’t take this response as an attempt to equate IM and immersion… but there are many different reasons people use to argue for the normative role of baptism in conversion. A diversity of reasons can be just as much (if not MORE) persuasive evidence for the validity of an idea as it is for the invalidity.
Isn’t that why we question doctrines that are built on one verse alone?
Paul,
Valid points. Proving a negative is difficult. And singing needs to be elevated to a higher place than it often is.
Beyond “referenced in Psalms and Revelation,” I think you need to add that instrumental music was commanded by God to be used in worship in the Old Testament. That might help you see the difference between instruments and exterminating enemies.
The question does cut both ways. There has been the rare individual that has sought to teach that instruments are obligatory in worship, and that attitude is condemnable. Again, my interest is in men creating laws where God has not. I can definitely point you to passages to show that’s wrong! If anyone teaches that not using an instrument is sinful, they are guilty of what I’m talking about.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Yeah, i’m feeling Nick’s intuition here.
There have been historically a multiplicity of arguments for the existence of God. (In fact, Alvin Plantinga has a paper called “Two Dozen (Or So) Theistic Arguments.”) True, some of them may be very bad arguments, but do we want to claim that somehow the mere fact that there are a plethora of arguments taints or weakens the conclusion the arguments draw?
–guy
Guy,
Sad, isn’t it? Not the opposing of clapping, but the abuse of Scripture.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim,
Yes and no. In this case, he was not adamant, and he was genuinely puzzled why others at the monthly area preachers meetings didn’t take his proof text to be as obviously cogent as he took it to be. He even asked me privately, “i don’t get it, why do some of the guys laugh when i make the point? Isn’t it obvious?”
Not all bad arguments are the result of ‘abuse.’ Some of them certainly may result from systematic abuse (people who were taught bad hermeneutics by abusers but now themselves employ those methods quite sincerely and earnestly).
–guy
Nick,
I’ll recognize some similarity between the two issues. However, I find much more consistency in passages used and how they’re used on the baptism issue. But that may be because I want to see them! :-)
I also find some of the same arguments presented in early Christian writings. I find no early Christians presenting the majority of the anti-instrumental arguments.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, many things were commanded in the Old Testament, but were superceded (sp?) in the NT. I think intuitively the promoters of IM understand this, and they know that they open the door for objections such as the commands to sacrifice, the separation of those “unclean” and other commands that we are not bound to observe. Thus, in my experience, those who discuss the matter with me stress the voluntary nature of the use of instruments in the Psalms and in Revelation.
Thus, my admittedly imprecise use of the word “theological” as I seek to discuss the issue. In my opinion, we need to move past prooftexts and get to the overarching meaning of worship. I hope I am not obscuring the discussion with murky semantics.
As always, grateful for your opening of Pandora’s box! :)
“The case against instrumental music is not clear in the bible.” Seems that we begin with a pretty large assumption, that we are supposed to make a case for or against instrumental music. One might think the ambiguity was a prime giveaway that we were asking the wrong question.
I realize Churches of Christ have been arguing about it for so long that it is probably impossible to get anyone to stop and think should we even be having the argument from a legal basis.
“God never promised that every doctrine would be simple to understand, nor that we could understand everything without some help.” Again the assumption that there is a set doctrine.
It has always been ironic that John 4 is used to argue some legalistic worship pattern when Jesus actually rejects the very idea that worship patterns make anyone holy or right with God. He tells her that neither the Jewish or Samaritan ideas of appropriate worship will be correct.
I have met true worshipers of many stripes. I personally have no problem with instruments in worship if they are not worshiped but that for me is the problem. They are actually worshiped and used to create emotion and they have been used to create a very selfish church.
I think Clement had it right about instruments in worship as it relates to their current use in the American church. They have turned it into a big show and this doesn’t seem to be producing true worshipers but I also agree with him that there is no actual command not to use them.
Do I wish the universal church would stop and repent of what we have allowed instruments to become? Yes. Do I think we would be wise to cut them out of worship because of what they create? Yes. But I believe many people who worship without instruments are just as dry inside, which is why I think can we or can’t we use instruments is the wrong question.
Are we true worshippers which is evidenced in the fruit of our life? Maybe 1 John would say that one is better?
Tim,
Can you feel the heat from the fire yet?
I agree 110%.
Then again, the reason why opposing IM has become the larger than life issue for the CoC is because our identity is wrapped up a cappella worship/opposition to IM…and that is something I find very unscriptural.
We seem to use scripture pretty freely to disagree over things, and regard reasoning (too often) as equal in stature to it.
What bothers me is that we rarely refer to scripture to encourage each other to be united, of one mind, in one Body.
Or if we do, we say, “That means YOU have to agree with ME.”
And you have to agree with me about that. :)
I re-read Gary’s comment, is he saying that God is a hillbilly? :)
Well if God can be a Jew, I guess he can be a hillbilly :)– if we look back I guess the CoC did start in Kentucky, can’t get more hillbillyer than that.
It’s OK Nick, both my parents were raised in Kentucky. Edmonson and Grayson county.
Keith, I agree with you, as long as you agree with the scripture. :)
OK, just throwing this out there. What about the “Gopher Wood” argument? To summarize, God told Noah to build the ark of Gopher wood. Because he told him what TO do, he didn’t have to tell Noah what NOT to do (i.e. use oak or maple to build the ark). So when God reveals what TO do, he does not have to tell us what NOT to do. Seems that would apply to IM, as well as a lot of other subjects. If we’re looking for a “thou shalt not….” for IM, we won’t find it. However, we also won’t find Scripture that condemns beating our wives and children, burning down our neighbor’s house, etc. Instead, we get instructions on what we are to do. The “thou shalt not beat your wife” isn’t necessary since God told us how to treat our wives. You get the point. Thoughts?
Travis,
Hope you don’t mind me responding, you seem like a really good guy trying to do the right thing.
I would say you have to decide what the intent of the writer was first. Did he intend for you to take his words written in Ephesians and Colossians and do what you did with them? I would put forth that this is how they were already worshiping and so nothing new is being added, certainly not a command. I would also put forth that they did not look to these words to determine how they worshiped since they already were worshiping with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs because this was the same style used in synagogue worship.
Now if you decide that Paul did wrote those words with the intent you believe, to make a binding law where we should decide since he said one thing it rules out everything else, well unless your Church of Christ is very different than the ones I have experienced you have a bigger issue. Since psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are listed this would rule out any other type of songs. This would mean Stamps-Baxter are an addition. Camp songs? The same. Setting contemporary Christian to a capella? Without question. Then you have to deal with four part harmony? Since we know the early church chanted these very specific types of songs singing harmony is an addition.
Now, if that wasn’t Paul’s intent then certainly people could add newer songs that are not simply scripture and they could add harmony.
Darin – thanks, I try to be a good guy and do the right thing. Same as everyone else, I’m looking for (and offering) differing opinions, “testing all things,” so to speak. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Since I am writing this in Kauai Hawaii, I don’t have my bible to quote references so I will write from the heart. Hawaiian music is some of the most lovely music in the world. To share the sounds in this part of the world reaching to God in praise in paradise is so gripping no one would ever take issue about the praise shown to him thru musical instruments. It is so sad that men and women see this as being counterproductive in the worship of our heavenly father. Aloha!
Remember God is love and love shown thru music needs to be nurtured and appreciated…..