Tag Archives: instrumental music

Agreeing on why as well as what

27 Replies

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?

Contentious Choral Conversations

40 Replies

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?

Clement helps me ask a question

9 Replies

Music is then to be handled for the sake of the embellishment and composure of manners. For instance, at a banquet we pledge each other while the music is playing; soothing by song the eagerness of our desires, and glorifying God for the copious gift of human enjoyments, for His perpetual supply of the food necessary for the growth of the body and of the soul. But we must reject superfluous music, which enervates men’s souls, and leads to variety, — now mournful, and then licentious and voluptuous, and then frenzied and frantic.

Stromata, Book 6, Clement of Alexandria

According to an article by David VanBrugge, Greeks saw music this way: the gods made musica mundana (the universe) and then, a little lower, musica humana (humans). Clement saw musica humana as the crown of all musica mundana, being created in the image of God.

In the quote above, according to VanBrugge, music represents musica instrumentalis, while musica humana is referred to as manners. So Clement is saying, instruments are to be used only as an embellishment of the human voice, not merely as “superfluous music.” If that’s right, Clement’s distinction would address some of what I commented on last week, the tendency in so many churches to move from accompaniment of singing to full-blown praise bands. It would seem that that trend is nothing new, or Clement wouldn’t have seen fit to address it. (Note: If I’m not mistaken, Clement is referring to the use of instruments in any setting, not just church.)

Can we make a distinction between instruments used to enhance singing and “superfluous music” used to “enervate men’s souls”? Is it possible for churches to have one without falling into the other? (I was trying to ask that last week… maybe Clement will help me ask it better.)

Singing through the worship wrangling

18 Replies

One of the silliest phrases that came into vogue the last few decades was the term “worship wars.” There have been people at times in history who have been killed for choosing to worship a certain way. Those are worship wars. Ours have been worship wrangling, at best.

In our fellowship, one of the key areas of struggle has been over instruments. That is, can we use them. A number of congregations have chosen to add instruments to their singing.

From my limited observation, I see a funny thing happening. What was brought in as a “tasteful accompaniment” tends to become the center of attention. The lightly strummed guitar and gentle flute give way to the full-out praise band that “rocks the sanctuary.” That’s interesting to me, because that’s been a major battleground in churches that were already using instruments. They’ve struggled over musical accompaniment of singing vs. vocal accompaniment of instruments playing. Best I can figure, those in our brotherhood that have chosen to go the instrument have sided themselves with the “progressives” in other churches.

There are churches that have used instruments for many years that haven’t moved past a piano accompanying the congregation. Why do you think our churches tend to jump from “no instruments” to “full instrumentation” so quickly? It’s hard for me to see how this can do anything but hurt congregational singing. Am I off base? Have you seen churches with loud “praise bands” that still had strong congregational singing?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Not worth the fight

17 Replies

I guess it’s no secret that the topic of music is a highly-charged one in our brotherhood. I don’t plan to get into that argument per se; you can look at the discussion going on over at Jay Guin’s blog if you don’t know what I’m talking about (I would send you directly to Wineskins.org, but there is a brother there who insists on completely dominating the discussion. If you can’t be coherent, be loud).

Something that concerns me about the historical view held within our brotherhood are the multiplicity of arguments used to support, many which actually contradict the others. I can’t help but wonder if, when pressed on the matter, if these brothers would insist that others hold exactly to their view or is belief in the same practice enough?

The typical assertion about baptism is that the act isn’t enough, that you need to hold to the proper understanding. Does the same hold true about music? If one believes that all use of instruments in the Bible was sinful while another holds that the Old Testament allowed instruments but the New Testament doesn’t, do they believe the same thing? If one believes that the Greek word “psallo” excludes the use of instruments while another believes it refers to instruments, but that our instrument is the heart, do they believe the same thing? I could go on and on.

My fear is that we are starting from a conclusion, then working backwards to support it. If not, why the wide variety of opinions to support our practice? Many of these beliefs, might I add, are virtually unique to the person holding them.

I’m an a cappella guy. My roots are in the a cappella church, and unless I can see something of real substance to be gained by bringing in instruments, I’m not interested. But I’ve read the arguments that try to make this a critical issue, from the bizarro world of Piney to well-reasoned arguments by men like Everett Ferguson and Jack Boyd. I’m just not convinced.

It’s not worth the fight. Not worth the fight to make people use instruments, not worth the fight to make them stop. God is quite capable of expressing himself clearly on important issues. And he chose not to on this issue. Because it’s not worth the fight.