“We speak where the Bible speaks. We’re silent where the Bible is silent.” I used to think that was actually in the Bible. It’s a common saying in churches of Christ, though I don’t know that the quote is original with us.
There’s a lot good about that saying, but it’s not as simple and straightforward as it looks. One of the big problems comes with the second part of that affirmation. How do we remain silent where the Bible is silent? (The first part is almost as problematic, but we can talk about that another time.)
Last week I pointed to the normative principle and the regulative principle, two attempts to deal with the silence of the Bible. One says that silence permits. One says that silence allows.
Another view is that silence is silence. It means nothing on its own. It is given meaning by its environment, its surroundings. Silence becomes meaningful when speech is expected. When the sheriff asks, “Who wants to join the posse?”, the silence of the townspeople speaks volume. When the son asks his mom, “Can I go to the party?”, silence can mean a number of things: she didn’t hear him, she’s thinking about the answer, she’s annoyed that he’s even asking the question…
I personally hold to this view. I think it’s a mistake to assign meaning to silence in general. On the one hand, we run the risks of making laws that God Himself did not make. On the other hand, we run the risk of rendering the Bible almost irrelevant, insisting that it speak to matters that were not within its intended scope (that is, applying its silence to things that were not of concern then, like the use of pharmaceuticals).
I do think, however, that it’s important that we focus on the things that the Bible DOES speak about. We can learn much by considering what things were of importance within the teaching of biblical authors… and what weren’t. But it’s a mistake to try to make silence “speak” in any way.
I mention this almost every time someone brings up “silence” (so you’ve probably heard it before), but when I was at Harding one of my professors explained to us “permissive” and “prohibitive” silence. As though that didn’t leave vast amounts of room for interpretation….
Discussion is pretty complex. The most influential factor to me is that the Restoration Movement grew up within Scottish Presbyterianism. That group, and much of our RM forefathers, ascribed to the popular philosophy of Scottish Common Sense that was all the rage at the University of Glasgow during the 1700s. It’s an extension of Moderism, whose development spanned the Reformation through modern times. It gave us the modern education system and the scientific method.
One of the defining features of Common Sense and Modernism is that it ascribes no value to things unseen or unknown. Only what can be measured and weighed has value. The exception is when what is known can be used to determine what is unknown, like basic algebra.
I think this is why the RM forefathers chose to lean onto the prohibitive silence of scripture. I don’t perceive it to be a theologically inspired choice. It’s the same reason that they believed the work of the Spirit was limited to the already inspired text of the Bible. The unseen or unknown has no value, and Common Sense and Modernism requires a measurement, so we measure the Spirit to be limited to the printing of the text.
The arguments in support of prohibitive silence are also non-theological and are usually limited to Nadab and Abihu, the one time the RM descendants will ascribe authority to an Old Testament command (basic RM theology draws a hard line between Acts and anything previous in scripture, especially excluding the OT).
I don’t believe the Spirit is limited to inspiration of scripture and I hold the Old Testament to have the same value as the New Testament. I believe the RM approach to silence is along those same lines: a product of a predominant philosophy that was in its heyday when the RM was born.
Now, for all you CEIe people, I present John 7:26. The example and implication of the cultural context within which the book of John was written expected the silence of the leaders to mean they gave their approval.
Enjoy!
I tried to post an empty comment but wordpress wouldn’t allow it. So much for giving you the silent treatment.
For me, I don’t understand the leap to make anything we gather from silence binding as if scripture had a “thus saith the Lord” on the matter. We all have to fill in the gaps in our decision making when it comes to life, worship, etc when making decisions that aren’t addressed. I think we do that prayerfully and as best we can and God is big enough to deal with it.
I’ll agree that this is a hard one. As you said, we can’t even all agree on what the Word DOES say (see the recent discussion on women teachers…). I’m kind of a simple guy, so this answer may be too simplistic for some. My take on the Silence of the Scriptures is when we speak on behalf of God, as far as authorizing anything, we should be very careful. After all, that WAS the question the Jews asked of Christ (by whose authority…), and was the final answer given by Christ before his ascension (ALL authority on Heaven and earth is given to me….). So when we say “God wants you to do this” or “God is OK with such and such” we better make sure we are “speaking as the oracles of God.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says God has revealed everything we need to be perfect or complete. We have warnings in both the OT and NT about adding to the word of God, as well as taking anything from it. For example: baptism. Scriptures show its necessity for salvation. Some deny this necessity (taking away from the Word). Others add to the necessity by saying it must be running water (going beyond what is written — which is violating the Silence of the Scriptures). When someone says it is OK to do something, I look for a Scripture to support it (whether a specific command or general guideline). When someone tells me it’s wrong to be doing something, I look for a Scripture to support that, too. If our ONLY argument is the silence of the scriptures, we need to be humble enough to trust and rely on what IS spoken.
Brad,
i’m not sure i’d say John 7:26 applies. Couldn’t a silence-is-prohibitive advocate simply say that cases of social interaction between peoples and leaders is not analogous to the way a religious texts authorizes or prohibits (now perhaps some advocates do happen to think they are analogous, i’m not claiming they don’t, just suggesting a possible rebuttal)? In other words, an objector could say to you, “yes, that is the sort of situation where we would rightfully expect that silence amounts to approval or permission; however, the NT as an ecclesiastical authority over a church is not the same kind of situation, but is the kind of situation where we can rightfully expect the opposite to be true.” It seems what would be analogous would be a body of law implemented by leaders in a general way.
But i do think the view is false for several other reasons.
i thought it was interesting that you mentioned modernism and the scientific method. i take it that the silence-is-prohibitive view is more analogous to scientific method. Suppose i conducted a study of the features of some rare species of bird. If i were studying a mere sample set, i could say, “No specimen among the sample set has a beak over 2 inches long; inasmuch as the sample set is representative of the entire population, it is the case that no specimen among this species will have a beak exceeding two inches.” But of course, the vulnerable assumption there is that my sample set is, in fact, representative. All anyone needs to do is produce one specimen not included in my sample set that does have a long beak.
In the case of silence-is-prohibitive, it seems that advocates do assume that (say) the 27 books of the NT are analogous to a sample set and make the same vulnerable assumption, and based on that act as though they can authoritatively say, “no proper specimen [say, a church which should serve as a model or tenets of an apostle’s teaching or whatever] bears feature x [fill in the blank as you like: uses instruments, takes communion a non-Sunday, etc.].”
Now i think in the case of the silence-is-prohibitive view, the claims here are actually more vulnerable than in the bird-study case. First, the sample set itself (the 27) mentions specimens other than those in the sample set (epistles of Paul lost to us, for example). Theoretically, any book we don’t have could very well be the one that falsifies all the claims made based on a silence-is-prohibitive view–the metaphorical long-beaked bird from earlier. Secondly, the “sample set” itself (the 27) does bear many features that should lead us to conclude that it was never designed nor intended and thus should not be treated as analogous to a sample set.
–guy
I am in agreement with many comments above. I would also like to point out that this is not simply a religious question, nor is it limited to the American Restoration Movement. For example, why do we have 9 Supreme Court Justices? Because the Constitution does not verbally address every conceivable situation that arises in the legal realm. So, the justices have to “divine” what the “silence” or if present, the “approved example or precedent” is within the established legal code.
My issue with “silence is permissive” is that given enough time and a first year knowledge of Greek, anyone can find enough wiggle room in Scripture to declare that what they want to do falls under the “silence of Scripture” rubric. Just one example: although Jesus says that the ideal for marriage is one man, one woman, he never specifically condemns having more than one wife. Many heros of the faith in the OT had more than one wife, ergo, because the NT is silent on the specific condemnation of polygamy, it would be permisable, although not the ideal, for a man to have as many wives as he could comfortably support.
For those who do not see it, this is simply the “the NT nowhere specifically condemns instrumental music, it only affirms singing” argument in a different dress.
The silence of Scripture is certainly a “sticky wicket.” But I fear that many people claim the Scriptures are silent when they are unwilling to listen to the sound of Scripture when it speaks.
Just my 2 cents worth this am.
No, Paul, I don’t think those arguments are anywhere near the same. Monogamy and polygamy cannot exist in the same situation. They are mutually exclusive. You are monogamous or you are polygamous.
A cappella singing and singing with instruments are mutually exclusive. But singing and playing are not, as seen in the Old Testament.
That being said, I share your concerns about “silence is permissive.” I’m curious, though… are you in favor of “silence forbids”? I see that as equally dangerous, if not more so. Not to mention impractical. It forces us to create all sorts of categories of “expedients,” etc., to get around the impossibility of strictly applying that rule.
To me, the most telling thing about silence is that it indicates to me that the thing Scripture is silent about wasn’t important enough to merit mention.
Brad,
I tend to agree with Guy. It’s one thing to talk about the silence of Scripture, another thing to talk about the silence of humans.
Ken Cukrowski uses the example of Galatians 5:23 in one of the chapters of God’s Holy Fire. “Against such things there is no law,” he argues, implies that the absence of a law disallowing something would imply that “something” is approved.
Matt,
I think that’s one of the important aspects, the binding of silence. It’s like the traditions of the Pharisees… most of the traditions weren’t bad in and of themselves (like their rules about fasting, or even their Sabbath practices). It was the binding of those traditions on others that was sinful.
Tim,
You wrote:
“To me, the most telling thing about silence is that it indicates to me that the thing Scripture is silent about wasn’t important enough to merit mention.”
i think this is true, but misleading. ‘Not being important enough to merit mention’ could have several meanings. For instance, have you seen the KONY 2012 video? Certainly there is a sense in which the LRA’s abuse of Ugandan people has not been “important enough to merit mention”–namely, it concerned no immediate U.S. national interests, and there are other matters that do, thus the latter are given news coverage over the former. But that is not the same as saying that the LRA’s crimes against humanity lack importance in a general or moral sense.
The fact that Paul or Luke or John or Peter don’t talk about x may mean that it wasn’t “important enough to merit mention” in the sense that the author’s were unaware of the issue or that there were more pressing issues they had to deal with first or that it wasn’t terribly important given other circumstances, but i don’t think we can conclude from that that x should be afforded no important at all in any circumstances or time.
Also, “mention” here is ambiguous. i take it in your statement that “mention” has to mean “explicitly written in one of the 27 books of the NT.” But for all we know, much might have been said orally about a topic that never made it into any of the text of the 27. Such a topic clearly is important enough to merit mention in the sense that the apostles did deal with it and teach about it, but it was not important enough to merit mention in the sense of a particular epistle or portion of an epistle being devoted to it for a host of possible reasons.
–guy
Tim, I was not affirming the legitimacy of the argument, I was simply pointing out that such an argument can be made, and has been made by polygamists. As with a famous talk show host who shall go unnamed, sometimes you have to illustrate the absurd with the absurd. Herein lies the problem with either “silence is always permissive” or “silence is always prohibitive.” It is the “always” that gets us in trouble and opens the door for all kinds of sophistry, no matter how legitimate or illegitimate.
My point is that in many situations the writers of Scripture HAVE spoken, we simply refuse to hear. Or, we obfuscate the situation to the point where we lose track of the core issue.
If I tell my daughter I do not want her to have a cookie before supper I am not thereby giving her permission to have a piece of chocolate cake simply because I did not enumerate every possible foodstuff that I do not want her to eat. But if I tell her that we cannot go swimming, that does not mean that we cannot go to the movie instead. Sometimes a little common sense has to be applied.
My favorite quote on the subject of silence:
“It is not mere silence alone that prohibits, but silence plus an inference of some kind.” – John Mark Hicks (http://johnmarkhicks.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/stone-campbell-hermeneutics-vi-appreciation-and-critique/)
Guy,
I’ll admit that Tom Olbricht had a strong influence on my view of Scripture. I believe that Scripture presents certain topics as being emphasized merely by repeating those topics in different contexts. If nothing else, those topics deserve special attention. In the same way, something that could have been mentioned and wasn’t would seem to not be seen as important. In our discussion of worship, the lack of description of worship mechanics in the New Testament leads me to believe those mechanics are not of great importance.
Some have pointed out that Scripture nowhere says that it’s wrong to go to church in the nude. They go on to say that the authors assumed that everyone could see the indecency of that. (like the Jews refusing to participate in the Roman sports because of that very issue) That’s a valid point, that should be included when discussing what is and isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Paul,
I’m just pointing out that your comment about the instrumental argument being similar is unfair. The arguments are not similar.
I very much agree with the rest of what you say in your second comment.
We adopted another position in our home fellowship, where the Bible is silent we allow the ante-Nicene Christians to speak.
Truth be told, speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent may have originated in the Churches of Christ but the congregations have drifted even from this. I hate to use this example again but it is relevent. The scriptures are silent on muscial instrumentation in the NT, however, the closest thing which can be found in the Parable of the Prodigal Son and it is, on at least some level an endorsement for music (the sound of “music” and dancing could be heard). Yet the practice of not allowing musical instrumentation is defended with veracity.
However, on the other hand, the Bible speaks.very loudly actually…against military service for Christians. Yet how fevently is this taught? Remarriage after divorce is spoken against, forbidding of the taking of oaths is spoken against. These were originally spoken against by the first Churches of Christ but sadly, they have been lost over the years.
Bryan,
On soldiers, how about Luke 3:14 when a soldier came to John the Baptist with his question,
“14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
Why not tell him to drop his sword and leave his post?
Tim,
i agree–given that authors spent a great deal of time on a topic or had to give repeated attention to a topic does seem to indicate the likely importance of that topic. But i don’t think it follows from that that silence on other topics indicates likely lack of importance (wouldn’t that be assigning meaning to silence in just the way your article says we shouldn’t?).
First, suppose the NT authors all lived 100 years longer than they did. In the latter works, isn’t it likely that we’d have significantly more material about, say, Gnosticism, Marcionism, or Arianism? i take it those things likely would’ve become more important to these hypothetically-very-old-authors, and thus a good amount of attention would’ve been given to them. Thus, i think it’s important to acknowledge that while the first century represents a kind of ideal, that doesn’t mean it’s a static snapshot of everything that ever would be important or deserve attention. i take it the Jew/Gentile problem got so much attention because it was a pressing and widespread issue in the first century, not because it had some general, for-all-time-and-circumstance kind of importance.
Second, i guess this is just reiteration maybe, but saying that lack of mention of the mechanics of worship in the NT indicates something about their importance does presuppose that we are right to expect a written NT document to be the means by which those things would be mentioned. i don’t see why we should operate on that assumption.
(Now i’ve never chased down these references, but i always heard that in the first century Roman culture there were parks where people could abandon unwanted infants and leave them to die of exposure. If that were the case, doesn’t it seem strange that no explicit mention is made of this practice in scripture and there’s no great amount of NT material examining/condemning this practice? Yet, i don’t think we would want to conclude that this means such an issue would’ve been altogether unimportant to first century Christians, would we? i know, in this case, we could treat it like the case of nudity-in-church you mention. But then anyone could try and throw anything into that exception bucket and claim that the 1st century readers could’ve easily seen that x was obviously wrong or inappropriate even if we can’t now.)
–guy
–guy
My guess is that (Old Testament) scripture was silent about believers in Christ celebrating holidays or eating food of uncertain origin … so Romans 14 becomes Paul’s instruction. Is it silent about things besides those issues? Other disputable matters?
I would have to say, “Not entirely.” There are normative principles there which make it possible to apply “Don’t judge; don’t bind” (v.13) and “Don’t tempt” (v.20) to disputable matters other than the two mentioned:
“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?”
“For none of us lives for ourselves alone …”
“Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification.”
“Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.”
So we will be judged by our application — or failure to apply — this key instruction where scripture is silent.
Matt,
Good point. I’m communicating the position of the first Christians as they understood the scriptures. I don’t know exactly why they had the strong view of non-resistance that they did so I can only suppose. My guess is that the old covenant was still in effect. As such Israel was still an earthly nation and as such war was condoned, even commanded by God from time to time.
Jesus established a new kingdom with a new set of laws (the Sermon on the Mount). Under the new covenant killing our enemies is forbidden. You make a good point but to use the argument of “Why didn’t…?” to neutralize the plethora of clear teachings against violence doesn’t hold water.
Additionally, these Roman soldiers were not Jews and salvation was for the Jew first. I wonder if, after the resurrection, Jesus would have given them additional instruction.
Besides, the original position in the Churches of Christ was one of non-violence and loving enemies. Why/when did that position change? Likely it was an incremental abandoment, one of the things Hebrews tells us to “pay more close attention to so that we do not drift away.”
Tim, you mentioned the Romans leaving their children to die and absence of passages in the Bible to address that issue. Many people believed that The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations) was inspired, may have been written as early as 70AD (I think I even heard as early as 50AD). There is a good argument that Paul and Barnabas may have written it as the “Teaching they handed down in all the Churches”. The Didache does address abortion and the killing of children as things indicative of what people of the “way of death” do.
My, my…I missed all the fun.
Any ways, let me just briefly say, the phrase “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent” is an oxymoron. How can anyone or group of Christians adhere to remaining silent where the scriptures are silent by coining a phrase that is not even in the Bible. The mere mention of the phrase is a violation of the principle the phrase is trying to establish. How ironic!
But wait…there is more.
The scriptures have spoken very clearly about such legalism as claiming that scripture silence forbids what is not expressly permitted. The scripture speaks very plainly in Colossians 2.16-23, for those who have the eyes and ears to see and hear, about submitting to such rules.
Bryan,
Off topic, but i always understood that Foy E. Wallace was largely (though not wholly) responsible for three things: Ridding CoC’s of premillenialism, ridding the CoC’s of pacifism, and convincing CoC’s to support and maintain racial segregation. But i bet someone who’s a better Restoration history buff than i might know better.
–guy
Another 2 cents – when the statement was coined (or purloined) it had a very noble goal. Remember that those who were working in the early to mid 1800s were working in a religious world that was ruled by a myriad and plethora of creeds, confessions of faith, etc. Their goal was to step back into the text of Scripture and let the text alone speak. Where it did not speak we (disciples) had no right to legislate. As a matter of history, the phrase itself became a weapon to use against one’s enemies: for I am simply speaking where the Bible speaks, you, however, are clearly adding to!
Invariably the argument degenerates into a “my verse vs. your verse” broadside. I hear in Rex’s statement above that he would advocate the position that the Scriptures always permit what is not expressly forbidden. (Perhaps I misread- if so I apologize.) I find no passage of Scripture that *expressly* forbids me to sacrifice a year old lamb, burn incense and make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year. But, did the author of the book of Hebrews not *indirectly* teach that all of these practices are transcended in the new covenant, made obsolete by the death of Jesus? If I then perpetuate theses practice that are not expressly forbidden, am I not holding the sacrifice of Jesus up to ridicule?
On the other hand Bryan hears “very loud” instructions against a Christian serving in the military. I guess that verse (or verses) was eliminated in all of my Bibles, because Peter teaches Cornelius a great many things, but I don’t recall him telling Cornelius to cease to be a Roman soldier. Maybe he did, but the text is utterly silent about the subject. In addition to Matt’s point above, I think this pretty much answers the “Christians are always forbidden to serve” argument.
Exactly how “express” does something have to be before it is “express” and no longer silence? Conversely, what is the definition of “silence?” Never mentioned? Mentioned, but only obliquely? Related by marriage three times twice removed?
I return to my analogy of the Supreme Court. Sometimes the silence of Scripture is just that…it is silence. However, sometimes the Holy Spirit has spoken indirectly in regard to a subject and even though the text may be silent about a specific detail (either express permission or express denial), the message of related texts is clear. Ultimately, we have to work with the text we have, not the one we would like to have.
(My apologies for the longer than 2 cent rant – Tim put the rest on my tab! :) )
A certain Scottish preacher of no little current popularity once flipped this statement, saying that “Where Scripture speaks, we are silent. Where Scripture is silent, we may speak.” In other words, when Scripture establishes a doctrine, we must honor that truth by neither adding to nor taking away from it with our own words – but where Scripture is silent, our leaders are free to make rules and establish practices for our assemblies, so long as those rules both honor Scripture’s clear teachings and are not bound as terms of fellowship.
I’m still torn by the idea, but I like it better than the original.
Paul,
No I don’t believe that the “Scriptures always permit what is not expressly forbidden.” But neither do I believe in treating the scriptures as constitution that turns Christianity into religious legalism, which is what that self-contradicting phrase has done.
I actually believe the question of determining the what, when, where, and how of Christian practice is a little more complex than our fellowship has portrayed. But I am one who believe faithful Christian practice is not accomplished by reduplicating the first-century church. Rather, I believe faithful practice occurs when church embody the life of Jesus Christ so that they proclaim and live by the same beliefs and values that Jesus, who call us to follow him (not 1st century church), proclaimed and lived by. That change the way we read scripture somewhat, in the sense that scripture becomes a means for learning how to follow Jesus rather than the object (a la, a constitution) we follow.
Any ways, now I am venturing way off topic, I hope that explains a bit more.
Rex, I don’t think you were off topic at all. I think your explanation was perfect – you say what I have been trying to articulate on my blog for some time. (A little shameless advertisement here, but give my last couple of entries a look-see and see if I do a better job over there than I did answering Tim’s question.) I think the “Constitutional” language that we inherited from our forefathers is double-edged. One, it spoke to the people of the early 19th century in a way that was very effective, but two, it left us with a legacy of some bad derivations.
I can see how my “Supreme Court” analogy fit into this “bad derivation” quite unintentionally. My bad. I was not wanting to suggest that the NT is a constitution. I was trying to make the point that sometimes we have to look for more than just a proof text for whatever we believe. I believe Jesus’ approach to the old law in the Sermon on the Mount illustrates this perfectly. The law was to point to the One who gave it – but slowly it became “the god” and laws are always tyrants and despots, never creators and redeemers.
Anyway, I appreciate your response. I did misread you and I’m sorry. After reading your response I believe we share the same ultimate goal – to be better disciples of Christ.
What do we do with thinks that are hinted about in Scripture but not codified until centuries later? While the Bible hints at the Trinity (Baptism of Jesus, the Great Commission), but the formula of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one-God-in-Trinity is developed much later. Things like the dual nature of Christ as opposed to monophysite as opposed to miaphysite are certainly not addressed in Scripture. Of course, we really don’t need to go any further than the reckoning of the date of Easter.
Of course, these are really big controversies, but the biggest controversies I’ve seen in churches is whether the renovated sanctuary should have padded pews (padded pew view lost) or whether white wine is acceptable for communion. Being sacramental, color is not symbolic, so white wine was acceptable.
The whole debate of whether silence is permissive or prohibitive usually winds up being a game of Twister. As human beings, words mean exactly what we say they mean…nothing less and nothing more. The same goes with silence.
My take is that we should keep the focus on Christ and his Good News. We rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us into the church that best equips us to carry forth the message of God’s reconciliation.
Jesus said that a tree is known by the fruit it bears. The entire CENI and Law of Silence has born the fruit of much division and splintering of the body of Christ, as we have determined the bounds of our fellowship more by the “issues” of the day than by one’s relationship to the Lord. Our focus has become more church centered that Christ centered.
We find varying sects within the church (even using the term “church” here to refer only to the Church of Christ) using identical arguments. For example, one opposed to congregational cooperation uses the same argument to oppose “institutionalism” as one who opposes singing in worship with accompaniment uses to oppose instrumental music. Each applies the same principle – but to different things. And the one opposing the use of the instrument cannot see that his argument, applied to “institutions,” cuts there as well. What I am saying is that the hermeneutic is used to justify whatever position we want to take on whatever matter we want to decide. It is inherently subjective and inconsistent – while appearing to be “scientific.” – But that is a mark of modernity, isn’t it?
I just found your blog today and have been reading a lot of your posts. Thank you for your writings. I especially agree with your take on silence and have come to do so much more just this week in reading a lot. I’ve long wondered how condemning something was not also breaking the silence principle. Saying something is a sin when the Bible has not said so is just as wrong (maybe more so?) than saying something is not a sin.
Like so many of the questions the religious leaders asked Jesus in His day, I think his answers for us would be equally as evasive and insightful as to what is really important.
It is strange that we have actually two Laws of man in play in regards to IM.
1. the Law of Silence
2. The Law of Edification/ Expediency
both Laws are never seen in the Old Testament and not even the New Testament and are man derived.
In regards to 1. there was no law until God voiced it to be one, all examples used by “silencers” have a command involved from Noah to Nadab and Abihu.
In regards to 2. Paul says, “all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient”, not “not all things are lawful and whether they are is based upon their expediency”.
The second is what is used to change what many say to be a sin “the drinking of wine” to not sinful, because it is helpful for Timothy.
Sin was sin and nothing could change that, not even it being helpful, otherwise it is not really sin.
In regards to singing, we argue that IM don’t edify, but singing does.
What is often missed is that within Eph. and Col. while it is argued that “sing” is specific and excludes instruments, then “sing one to another” should be exclusive of singing alone, after all every example show at least two people involved in singing.
And then in James we have “if anyone is joyful, sing” which should exclude sad songs or songs sung when sad.
We seem to have a limited Law of Silence that only applies to one select thing singing and IM.