We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 8 is entitled “Reexamine our position on instrumental music.” The chapter is written by Bob Shaw, a minister in a non-instrumental Church of Christ. His argument is not that we must be instrumental but that we must stop making instrumental music a salvation or fellowship issue.
I spent the first 25 years or so of my life fighting against instrumental music in worship, believing it to be a matter of faith. Since I saw it as a matter of doctrine, I had no qualms for feeling justified in condemning to hell all who used it. During the last 10 years I have become convinced that instrumental music is a matter of opinion. …
2. I came to question if I could really believe that millions of people will be condemned to hell for violating a law that is not even found in the books. Can you imagine being arrested, tried, and convicted for breaking a law that does not even exist? And we have to admit that there is no law prohibiting instruments in worship. Is not God a just God?
3. I was forced to conclude that if instrumental music is the sin that we have made it then surely God would have made it clear. It would have required just one more line in the Bible. Does not God make matters of salvation clear? …
6. I was made to see the fallacy of our position by one event in particular. In an open forum at Freed-Hardeman University one of our better known preachers, Guy N. Woods, was asked if it was all right to have an instrument brought into a church building for a wedding. His answer began with: “Since the Bible clearly teaches that instrumental music in worship is sinful . . .” He went on to advise against it since people might think we approved of it in worship. …
8. I came to realize that the basic problem in all this is distinguishing between matters of faith and matters of opinion. The same argument that condemns instrumental music condemns Sunday schools, vacation Bible schools, multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper, four-part harmony, and on and on. Until we realize that these are opinions over which we can agree to differ, we will continue to divide. …
Why can’t we practice what we’ve been preaching all these years? We’ve always said we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent, but do we practice it? Let’s be the generation that puts our derailed unity movement back on track. Let’s be more patient and forbearing. Let’s become a people that is known for the way we love one another, and let God be the judge of His own people. Finally, let us revive the old motto and live by it: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.”
(Emphasis added.)
The faith/opinion divide goes back to the slogan Shaw quotes, written by Alexander Campbell. In the last century, we’ve struggled mightily to distinguish “faith” from “opinion.” It’s not hard. You see, coming from Campbell’s pen — the pen of the man who taught us to “call Bible things by Bible names” — “faith” means faith as the word is used in the New Testament. It’s faith in Jesus.
We must be united on faith in Jesus. All else is liberty — and love.
(Gal 5:1 ESV) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
(Gal 5:5-6 ESV) 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(Gal 5:13-16 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Now, of course, the faith taught in the New Testament is not an academic faith but a faith that produces commitment —
(Rom 10:9 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
“Faith” includes commitment to Jesus as Lord. Thus, the “household of faith” consists of those who believe in Jesus and submit to him as Lord. That’s it.
I preached my last sermon against IM in the early 1980’s. As I was preaching, near the front to my left was a young man with his family whose own father had died in an auto accident the previous Friday evening. My sermon had absolutely nothing for him – and I began to realize that such preaching had nothing pertaining to the gospel for any one.
Even as a teen-ager I had wondered why God did not make it clear if it were so important. Now, I see it as a matter of indifference because the entire premise on which it is based has so many flawed assumptions and inaccurate “facts.”
Amen!
That is exactly what my bride of 49 years said to me last night on our way to get some chickens when I was telling her about the back and forth on many subjects on here.
She said if it is not clear and really doesn’t matter, why spend the time debating it?
I think a lot simply enjoy the debating and that’s fine.
Most if any don’t believe one way or the other that it matters eternally and affects your destination.
Sorta like our debates on hounds when we old timers get together and talk about our dogs from the past.
Alabama J. I haven’t been “coon hunting” since I was a boy in the north central hills of Arkansas. But maybe that is why I come here, I miss it. Like the “coon hunter” we don’t really want to catch the coon, we just like to hear the hounds bark, from a distance.
If we really wanted to catch the coon, we would set baited traps down by the creek, and leave them for awhile, like Jay does.:)
ALABAMA JOHN,
You are correct that some spend too much time debating things just for the sake of debating (or so it seems). A healthy debate / discussion can be beneficial because it is a way of learning and sharing ideas. That is a good thing. But, a debate to prove “the truth” (eg. that I’m right), out of anger or frustration, or because the debater(s) have a spirit of pride or other sin, is not productive.
The scripture gives a good guideline for when or when not to discuss something.
Titus 3:9-11 (NIV) 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
That is, if it is helpful it is good. If it just causes division and dissention, it isn’t. But, keep in mind that it may not be the topic or the debate that is the problem, but the heart of one or more debaters. Of course, we could end up in a debate over what issues are “foolish” and which ones are not…would that be foolish? (smiles)
All that said, discussing a subject such as IM that has itself been so divisive can be a good thing done correctly. It helps us learn what God did /did not say and may lead us to repentence of the divisiveness that the issue has historically caused. It also helps those who believe one thing but feel they aren’t supposed to believe that feel able to “come out of the closet” so to speak.
I wonder how many “instrumental closet preachers” we have?
James…I am with you on your point from Titus. I think it is amazing that we can be entirely right on an issue but stand condemned because of the way we handled it and treated others in the process.
We also need to be careful to not be guilty of what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in Luke 11:37-53.
So don’t be confident that all is well just because you think you are right on this issue or that. It is important we all check our attitudes and even read and re-read our comments before posting them to make sure they are written in love.
ALA JOHN, LAYMAN,
It is also good to see fellow (or former) coon hunters on here. Come to Louisiana and we can talk about dogs from the present too. I have 5 (too many).
A lot of my fellow coon hunters like to brag about their dogs, but when the tailgate drops….you see if there is anything to brag about.
So it is with religious discussions…regardless of what our opinion may be about our beliefs (dogs or theology), what matters is whether or not it is the truth. In theology, is it what the Bible teaches and/or God reveals? God is the authority in those matters.
In coondogs, it depends on how you define a good dog, and that varies from person to person.
But, in the end…if it ain’t under the meat most of the time, it ain’t no coondog!
In the end, what will really matter is did you produce the coon. Whether you ran it on three legs, had a bawl mouth, chop or squall, won’t matter.
No one, including God has no use for a backtracking, dominating, ill, lying mouth, dog.
But it sure is fun to listen to ’em run it, even if they don’t have the meat. But….that makes ’em barking (and lying) dogs, not coon dogs.
On a similar note, just as the result of a coondog having the coon defines who he is, to what extent does IM define who we are. To what extent should it?
There is no doubt that it does. It distinguishes us from the Christian church (or did). A church is forbidden to use IM in a worship service if they wish to be included in the cofC directory.
In a fairly recent sermon (my latest on IM, may not be the last), I gave BOTH sides of the issue and asked the members to study and decide for themselves. But, that regardless of the conclusion, we should at least arrive at the fact that a doctrine we have to “figure out” from what is NOT in the Bible should not be the doctrine or practice that defines who we are. Rather, we should be defined by who we are in Jesus. Do you agree? And along that lines, do you think it is productive to discuss and preach on the topic or should we just “leave it alone”?
James,
As I stated above, my own practice has been to leave it alone as much as possible. When I have been asked directly, I have refused to say anyone is condemned because of it. I have said that I believe there will be in hell because of their attitude about it – and that includes people on both sides of the issue.
Where I live, even to suggest we need to restudy the issue results in condemnation by at the very least a very vocal part of our fellowship. For the sake of peace, I have avoided that – except (and increasingly) in private.
James,
Many do not want to be included in the COC directory. That smacks of denominational ism.
We love to sing without IM in the church building. Great, then don’t do so.
Some do not want to sing hymns with an instrument at home or on the river bank. Fine, then don’t.
You were sure brave by walking on thin ice to present both sides.
Here, in all but a few congregations, if you presented but one side you would not be asked back.
The problem comes when we tell others they must do as we chose to do or burn in hell ( or more politely, be lost).
To preach on the subject in my opinion would be more of a lesson on what not to let it do to us, rather than this is the way it is, as has been our preaching of our recent past.
laymond,
Jay usually uses a leg hold trap which just holds until you get there.
But, occasionally he does use a box trap and catch the whole body. Hard not to go in with that attractive bait he uses!
A CONCERNED BROTHER: “even to suggest we need to restudy the issue results in condemnation by at the very least a very vocal part of our fellowship. For the sake of peace, I have avoided that – except (and increasingly) in private.”
My concern over that is that it is internalized thinking. I wonder if sometimes we exist for the sake of continuing to exist, rather than to be a part of the reason we exist. Of course that comment will open up a lot of cans of worms too I’m sure. But, it almost sounds as though our “condemnation” really is from our brethren rather from God. If we do NEED to proclaim truth (even about IM), and doing so bring “condemnation” from the brethren, then so be it. I think the real question is does GOD want us to talk about it. Where it defines who we are and takes the focus off of who He is…I would say definately.
ALABAMA JOHN
I agree…no big deal if we are included in the “official directory”. In fact, if IM makes us not a part of that “fellowship” then isn’t that denominationalism based on the doctrine of that “denomination”? I just find it sad that THAT is the issue that removes us from the “denomination”. One-cuppers, “non-cooperation”, no Sunday school, are all given designations. But, IM is given the boot! (BTW: “black” “hispanic” “Korean” are all given designations but not “white” – what might we make of that? – OK, maybe I shouldn’t have gone there!).
It is easier to teach what people aleady believe using the method they already know to prove it. But, God did not call us to only preach what is easy or accepted. If you aren’t “asked back” for encouraging people to study for themselves….what does that tell you?
And Jay, are you realy a coonhunter?
OK, one more thing and then I have to go do some other “work”.
My answer to my own question (should we talk about it) is yes….we need to learn the truth about it if we have a false belief about it (or anything) that affects what God is trying to do in and through us.
But that said, our focus should not be on the study of IM, or anything else for the sake of learning that issue. Instead, we are called to lead people to Jesus and THAT should be the center of our preaching. In fact, that was my point in my sermon on IM – study it for yourself, but be defined by JESUS not by OUR doctrine.
The more we can preach things that lead people closer to Him and to the love He teaches us, the better off we all will be.
I was a full-time preacher person for 10 years through the 80s and into the 90s. I never taught or preached a sermon on IM. In preaching school I found ways to show grace rather than take sides. In practice, our IM in my family were used at home, but not in larger gatherings elsewhere.
Since those preaching days I have attended mostly ICC assemblies. I have watched and even spent some time on discussion boards online debating the issue, discussing the issue, encouraging fresh eyes on the issue and generally regarding it as a disputable matter that speaks to personal preference and has little to do with faith. (How is it a matter of faith when it arises solely out of arguments from nothing having been written against it or definitively for it for the churches of God?)
I went to school with Bob Shaw nearly three decades ago. We occasionally joined with Brad Smith to sing three-part harmony in the stairwells between classes. It was a great time … until we were told to cease because it disturbed other classes still in session … (they enjoyed listening, rather than being bothered by our harmonies…if you wondered).
Two or three years ago I broke silence not by singing with an instrument (I have been doing that for many years), but by actually playing my guitar during an assembly to lead Silent Night. It was a late December Sunday morning and our closing song that week. Despite my lack of development as a player, it was beautiful – because it touched the hearts of all present and made it seem as though we were all praising God around a campfire.
I rarely play, for lack of confidence more than anything else. I lead singing nearly every week. We are most often accompanied by recorded music. Sometimes our youth outreach minister plays – and nearly every week he plays something during our LS and offering meditations. I could leave it or keep it. What I cannot leave is fellowship with believers to encourage, edify and study together to learn to express our faith more faithfully. I cannot leave the Spirit out of the assembly either. I am not talking about tongues and interpretations or healings, though I have no doubt God still can and occasionally does use those things where He sees fit. I am talking about being filled with God in ways that leave it beyond question that any other ways are irrelevant.
It is that last bit that is still an issue for me … an issue of mourning for those who rarely ever if ever encounter God’s Spirit in assembly with other believers. I am the least, so perhaps I need it more, but I long for my brothers and sisters to be so drawn to God that everything else seems irrelevant. Frankly, some hardly ever express such a feeling, so I have no idea if they have ever experienced the exultation such a mind-set and heart-set brings. I pray daily that God would fill all of my brothers and sisters in life-changing ways, and the same for myself.
I care little for the IM controversies. I care much for the cause of being and sharing a Spirit-filled way of living and relating. And I praise God for the grace to stay focused.
Blessings,
Glenn
Grizz, you touch on an important element concerning whether or not to discuss it – at least if we think behind your comments. I too think IM is not the “issue” and should not be the focus. That was somewhat the point I was making earlier.
However, I think the REASON we make such an issue of it SHOULD be discussed. That is why I take the approach of study for yourself but not let that define you. In other words, it is not the belief for or against IM or that it doesn’t matter either way that is the problem. Rather, it is how we think about such things that is the problem.
The idea that “we are the only ones” because we don’t use it is a problem. THAT is what needs to be addressed.
The attitude (as several have noted) with which we discuss the matter or hold the belief is a problem.
And then there is how we think about worship in general. I think what Grizz is saying is that we can often miss the spirit of worship and the connection we have to God when we worship because we are more concerning wth “doing it right” (by our definition), than connecting our spirits to God’s Spirit. When that happens, we need to learn not to let IM (or lack thereof), the order of songs, whether or not we clap, have powerpoint, dim the lights, stand up too much, sing during the Lord’s Supper, or any number of other such issues become the focus of worship. If they do, can we really worship God “in spirit and in truth” at all?
James, you got most of it.
And for-what-its-worth, I like your approach to the matter, because it frames the issue the way it should be framed … as something we each need to decide between ourselves and God with a lot of listening and praying and letting God answer in His time. If i was going to address it locally, that would be a great way to address it, in my humble opinion.
My point goes a bit further than just getting past ‘getting it right’ and closer to ‘in spirit and in truth.’ My point is that we need to get to ‘doing everything to bring glory to God.’
Paul spoke of believers using their gifts in ways that cause non-believers to see what and how they were doing things and also cause them to glorify God because of what they saw. Without obsessing over how to unpack our gifts, we need to so live that it causes folks to glorify God. It is a measurable thing.
Arguing over anything rarely causes anyone to say, “Well, praise God for all of this!” You know? But accepting one another in love and allowing one another to fully express their love for God openly and personally makes that objective reachable.
Some can demonstrate their love in acts of grace towards others, while others can verbalize their adoration well. Some can play an instrument in ways that moves the hearer to weep for joy, while others have a knack for knowing just when to give a hug or lend an understanding ear. Some sing in ways that we feel would cause an angel to take wing, while others seem to always know how to encourage the weary and heavily-burdened around them. Some live so sacrificially that they cause others around them to aspire to give themselves without reserve, beyond anything they had ever previously considered.
Arguing over a capella singing v. singing with IM – either playing or being accompanied – isn’t the kind of thing that inspires anyone. (Note that I said “inspires” and did NOT say ‘entertains.’)
So, yeah, you got a lot of what I was saying very right. There was just a bit more that I maybe did not express as well.
Grizz
James,
Thanks for bringing a fresh approach to a worn out subject. Who would of thought one of the most essential truths expressed in scripture could be illustrated through a coondog metaphor?
Well done
“I gave BOTH sides of the issue and asked the members to study and decide for themselves…”
James,
At the risk of being labeled a preachers “groupie”, I can’t help but commend you again on the confidence you have in both yourself and the members of your particular church group to search for answers under the principles of sola scriptura. I suspect that most “foolish controversies” would be avoided if more preachers/ministers were taught to lead and guide rather than dictate and debate. Of course it takes much courage, faith, and trust that God is in control to take that approach, so again, hats off to you.
I can go along with this sentence:
But I disagree with this one:
Reason: I understand “opinion” as a personal conviction that is limited to an individual perspective. “I have an opinion, but I may be wrong about it. You have different opinion, you may be right or not.”
But that’s plain laziness! There is a truth in this topic that needs to be discovered. There are only three possible answers to the IM-question. Only three!
a) Instruments are commanded
b) Instruments are forbidden
c) Instruments are a matter of indifference – each one may do as he pleases
Whatever is true, shall be followed.
Helping us to find the aswers beside the scriptures there are some historical facts (and I conform again that Danny Corbitt was mistaken about the Odes of Salomon) that tell us the following things:
a) unanimous opposition to IM among the early church
b) First Organ in Rome in the 7th century (Pope Vitalian)
c) IM being opposed within in the Catholic church until after Thomas of Aquinas (13th century)
d) Oppostition to IM from all reformers (except Martin Luther, who was the only significant representative of the “normative principle of worship”)
e) Orthodox churches remained a-cappella until now
Really: It is not a matter of opinion, but of seeking the truth. If anyone can – with a good conscience – say that he studied this subject and came to a different conclusion, that’ fine with me. But on a congregational level we can’t have both. Because even concerning opinions we should strive to be one:
But what absolutely bothers me is the way IM is being introduced in the churches of Christ by “downplaying” it as a matter of opinion; putting aside all evidence, giving liberty to personal preferences. This is not good. Even worse: Distorting facts and history for the sake of introducing IM, or even more worse: undermining good and necessary principles of reading and understanding the scriptures, introducing a new hermeneutic that is based on … opinions.
Alexander
We aren’t the only ones, James.
The church antil the middle ages was a-cappella.
The reformers (exceptt he Lutheran wing) restored a-cappella.
Many reformed churches are still a-cappella.
Many Anabaptist groups are still a-cappella.
The orthodox churches are largely still a-cappella.
Being a-cappella is nothing peculiar to conservative churches of Christ. Throughout history, the introduction of IM was ALWAYS viewed as a strange innovation, as introducing elements of Jewish OT-worship – and it ALWAYS caused debates.
Those who argue for IM should learn their lessons in church history first to understand on which side they stand: They are those who – by innovations – endanger the unity of the church of Christ. That, as a reaction, the conservatives overreact in damning the other party should not be excused. But it is a salvation issue when it comes to this verses (which apply to ALL divise matters):
Parting with “the old ways” is always risky. Some church traditions are wrong and unscriptural, we must part with them. But many have roots in scripture we are sometimes simply unaware of. We should be slow to dismiss traditions just because we don’t understand them (or don’t like them). Tertullian once said:
Watch out, we are all deeply influenced by the mindset that broke forth in 1968 and the following years. Questioning traditions, rebelling against the “establishment” became en vogue – and all ofthis crept into the churches of Christ. Please stop for a moment and meditate on Tertullian’s thoughts – I see a way for unity in them which is strinkingly different than the progressive approach.
Alexander
Acts 2:46(a) And day by day, attending the temple together”….
Don’t we have confirmation that in the first century, IM was used in Temple worship services?? Wouldn’t that be a clear example of Christians in the first century worshiping God by use of IM ??
Here we go again, Price 😉
Yes, there was instrumental music in the Temple that accompanied the OT worship. I do agree, and when Jewish Christians attended temple worship they did it for good reasons, but not in the sense of having a NT-worship service there, because this they had in the b)-Part of the same verse: and breaking bread in their homes, (Breaking bread = the Lord’s Supper)
But who played the instruments? Did Peter bring his psalterion along and did John acompany him with a flute? No way, because the use of instruments was strictly regulated by “the command of David”. Only the Levites were allowed to use only the instruments instituted by David:
No other Jew was allowed to pluck the harp in the temple; and most certainly no Jewish Christian – a Greek Christian wasn’t even allowed to enter the temple (beyond a specific border).
So, yes they participated in the Temple worship. Why? See for yourself in acts:
a) to pray according to the Jewish hours of daily prayer
b) to have meetings in Salomo’s portico for teaching
c) to evangelize
All of this was on “public ground” so to speak. But the Christian meetings in intimate fellowship, worhip of the Lamb, Breaking the Bread, Love-Feast and deeper instruction in God’s Word was in their private homes.
To infer that because Levites within the OT system used instruments in the Temple Christians used them in their homes would be a very far stretch, wouldn’t it. It is my conviction that the Instruments are as much part of the OT-Worship in types and shadows as were the animal sacrifices and the burning of incense. Since the whole (!) OT-worship was done away with by the coming of the New Covenant, I see no scriptural indication that the instruments should have been the only exception to this.
In fact the only times instruments are explicitly mentioned in the NT is in Revelation where Heaven is being described with the imagery of the tabernacle; therefore they appear alongside the altar, the tent, incense and the ark of the covenant. This confirms that instruments are inseparably tied to the types and shadows of the OT worship. And these types are most appropriate in the book of revelation to describe heavenly realities for which we lack the vocabulary (and the imagination).
Alexander
I think some of the IM issue, or perhaps the opposition to it, is based on the decades upon decades of filtering the living word through the strainer of strict legalism, and that being a backlash to the many “churches” who “twist and distort” the word to their own destruction. I’ve read so many arguments in “brotherhood” writings that examine the text of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 with an “electron microscope” of legalism that it leaves no room for discussion. But Jesus accused those similar in His day as straining the gnat but swallowing the camel. Or as some might put it, majoring in minors and minoring in majors.
The best way I know to address this issue is to quote (as best that I can recall it) something Rick Warren once said.
“God is love and He wants us to grow up to be like Him. The height of spiritual maturity is not how much doctrine you know, it’s how deeply you love.”
I would say that worshiping God through song is not based on how many definitions of psallo you can name, or how many ways you can strangle the text of Eph. 5:19 or Col. 3:16…it’s really about how much genuine love and joy is in your heart while you are singing. I firmly believe that singing a cappella does not guarantee acceptance from God….it’s what is in your heart that matters most to Him.
Don, this is precisely not what I argue from – and accusing sincere a-cappella convictions of such a kind of “legalism” is not at all helping in these discissions. By doing this, all that counter with such an argument (you are not alone in this respect) brush aside all evidence we bring forth. In the normal course of a debate such a behavior makes the opponents mad, corners them and tempts them to exaggerate their views in order to get through to deaf ears (including name calling and damning). Most of the exaggerations have there roots in such disbehavior, and cannot be excused – but we also need to understand the reasons.
Let’s put it plain and simple: A-cappella is the ancient and unanimous practice of the church of Christ. IM is an innovation that almost always created dissension and schism. Judged by the fruit, what do yoe see, Don?
Alexander
Alexander…I sure hope you can good a good night’s sleep tonight…You keep waking up on the wrong side of the bed…
Your protest is against things I did not say… I made no comment regarding whether the saints played an instrument…I made no reference to them eating anything…I just noticed that they were in the Temple and if there was a song being sung they were no doubt singing along like the devout and good Jewish people they had been all along, and if so, they were singing worship songs that were being accompanied by IM.. Your going on and on about all the “official” acts of worship and what they were doing in the court yard and where they ate the Lord’s supper is obviously a strong overreaction to the truth that they were in the Temple singing…
And Don made reference to “some” who twist the scripture into legalism… I think we all know men and women who do that.. But, since you name isn’t “some” I find it odd that you take such offense… You must be suffering from lack of sleep or illness..Hope you feel better soon.
Yes, mumbling along some Gregorian chant is the oldest known type of “singing” (at least that’s what the historical experts tell us)…. like who is doing that ?? Who would want to do that ?? But, praise God, he didn’t command us to do exactly as they did in regard to singing so I’m not bound by law or my conscience to worship as they did where I’m not commanded to… You can also choose your preference…and then you don’t have to throw rocks at all the others who don’t do as you do… We aren’t commanded to be like Alexander either…
No generation of any church starts with a clean slate. Each has traditions it inherited. New spiritual revival does not mean you give up everything that you can no longer make into a life or death issue.
Singing without the instrument is one of those traditions. Indeed, visitors not of the CoC who walk into a service may expect to see an instrument of some sort. But to assume that they will leave disappointed and empty is to forget the power and movement of God; if it is there.
I am one who can walk into an Episcopal church and be moved by the organ accompanying the church and choir in some of the most beautiful hymns ever written. And there I can see eyes and hearts raised to God. I can also walk into a Church of Christ, where the singing is actually what it supposed to be, PRAISE AND PRAYER, and know that I am where God is.
Besides the waste of spirit and time in preaching against the instrument, I think mechanics have been too much of a priority. I learned how direct time, 4/4, 3/4, etc, when I was six years old. I also learned how to use a pitch pipe before I was ten. I have, for years, believed that even that gets in the way of the prayer of the hymn. Not having an individual up front directing time, after he has found the right pitch with his little pipe, is not going to cause the congregation to stumble all over themselves. When everyone is seated and collected, a hymn, and please, not Stamps-Baxter, but a hymn that arouses the poetry of each soul and spirit present, that is started by a lone prayer voice, woman or man, then joined by others, will cause any visitor to walk out the door with the real awareness, “God is in this place”.
“There is a truth in this topic that needs to be discovered. There are only three possible answers to the IM-question. Only three!
a) Instruments are commanded
b) Instruments are forbidden
c) Instruments are a matter of indifference – each one may do as he pleases”
In my opinion, “c” is the truth.
If I’m wrong, then it is “d” which is “even if a or b are correct, c is still my opinion.”
Should we get our theology from historical evidence, some even from the denominational groups that now support IM. That evidence comes from sources that may be biased in order to prove a point just as you note you believe has been done from “the other side”? Not only might the information be skewed, but so may our interpretation of that evidence even further. There is historical evidence for and against unless we discredit all but that which supports our view. Two main concerns about it either way are: (1) historical evidence of how humans may or may not have practiced things are not authoritative for us today; (2) even if the evidence is all true that IM was not used in the first century until recently, that does not make it wrong. In fact, there are many “modern innovations” that have been added that are not condemned by those who condemn IM. Many are even practiced by them. So, what makes IM special?
I again proport that IM has become the doctrine that defines who we are, and often directly or indirectly has been viewed as a “salvation” issue. Even if we do not call it such, the fact that we find it necessary to debate so heavily and find it so difficult to consider other possibilities indicates the value that is placed on it. I again would agree, as many have noted, that we should stop talking so much about IM itself, and focus more on our attitudes about it and the importance of things that are “salvation issues.”
So, if the answer is indeed “c”, then let us not be defined by what we believe about IM. Instead, let us be known for leading people to Jesus – because that IS a “salvation issue.”
And then I would ask one more question for thought….
Assume for the sake of argument that IM is not a sin.
Then assume that many would come hear the truth if we used it while many would not if we didn’t (perhaps they don’t like accappella or think we are too weird to explore what we have, etc.).
Yet, many already in the cofC would resist the introduction of IM.
Would you advocate introducing it anyway to reach the lost, or not introducing it for the “sake of unity” of the brethren?
What do you think?
Are the lost reached by IM or by the Gospel acted out in love? Really, this is not the right question anyway, because the worship service is not meant to reach out to unbelievers anyway – it is the royal prioesthood assembled in God’s Temple to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. This is not an event to invite the uncircumcised in order to “reach out to them”, which – indeed – would mean to arrange everything in a way they they might be pleased.
You may see by this, that many questions are interwoven here. Things we mess up completely, because we never really went through the trouble to understand the church from its OT shadows. Rather we more and more becaome followers of shortlived trends and fashions (just look at the evangelical world around us!).
So, your question misses the point. May main argument is that the church of Christ was a capella until the 13th century – for over 1200 years! Think about it! Then the reformers (except Luther and the Anglicans) restored a-capella singing. The Eastern churches remained a-capella until today, and many Protestant denominatiuons as well. This is an overwhelming cloud of witnesses, that can’t be ignored. This aside from the silence on IM in the NT which is very remarkable in contrast to the laws and regulations concerning IM in the OT.
Alexander
Abasnar (Alexander):
I will accept your criticism of my comments if I have been too broad, or even overly negative toward anyone. If I have then I would ask forgiveness. But I was merely stating what I have observed over many years of looking at this issue.
Just so you know, I still sing a cappella at church, and if that is the way the congregation wants to worship that is fine by me. But I will always find it to be “suspect” when I hear people using the “jot and tittles” of God’s word, especially Eph. 5:19 and the word psallo, to explain their theological stance that THEY claim is a salvation issue.
If the gospel of our God and Father is such that everyone must know the exact meaning of one word found in the original tongue, then what about the rest of the gospel? Are we (everyone) to learn the original tongues and then research the usage of that language at the time of Christ before we can know whether we are going to Heaven or Hell? If so, the gospel has no universal appeal, none of us will ever get it right well enough to have salvation, and the gospel would be a failure. I refuse to accept that scenario.
James C. Guy:
“So, if the answer is indeed “c”, then let us not be defined by what we believe about IM. Instead, let us be known for leading people to Jesus – because that IS a “salvation issue.”
Amen!
James, lets just say some believe I M in worship is a sin, if we insist they go along with using it, aren’t we insisting they sin.
If you believe anything is a sin, and you do it anyway, it is a sin to you, and a deliberate sin at that.
If you believe it is not a sin to use I M, but you don’t use it, is that a sin, how?
Is there anyone here that believes it is a sin, not to use I M?
I seem to recollect Paul went through this.
Is it better to cause one brother to sin, than withhold the sound of the horn from many ears, without causing them to sin.
We would be at a point of division if, there were those among us who truly believed it was a sin, to not use I M in worship. So in my opinion the argument for their use, is no where close to the argument against. Ask Paul about sacrificed meat.
James,
What really matters is how we are worshiping God and the music we are making in our hearts while doing so, not what is happening outside the mind and heart.
How many times have people worshiped with backgrounds of every sound, music, gunfire, construction sounds, explosions, crying, screaming, and also dead silence.
I agree with your a.b,c, example and it made me think of all the choices we have to choose from.
There is a favorite bluegrass gospel song and the title is: “This life has many choices, but eternity has two”.
Sung and played by the Primitives.
Makes a lot of sense.
Laymond,
I have heard this argument that the case against is the default even if the case for allowing (not demanding) IM is upheld. You represent it here quite well.
This seems to be the ‘honor-the-weaker-brother’ argument. Is that fair?
The problem with this is that it fails to address what we actually practice in any way.
Do you know anyone who forces folks to play IM?
Do you know anyone who is caused to play IM merely by being in the presence of others doing so?
If you claim to believe that being in the presence with others playing IM is sin, can you also claim to have never heard an entire song of praise to God that was accompanied by IM? Consistency would demand that you found a way to avoid it as soon as you realized what was happening, lest you deliberately ‘sin’.
You say we should ask Paul about sacrificed meat. Why not just ask him about accepting one another in love, which is his final word on the weaker-stronger disputable matters subject??
Does Paul fail to instruct the weaker to bear with the stronger? Does Paul tell the weaker it is okay not to accept and love the stronger?
It is not a matter of weaker and stronger arguments. It is a matter of allowing one another to stand or fall before God, who is able to make any and every one of us to stand. To stand, in context, is to accept the other brother, whether weak or strong in faith. But will we?
Grizz
I anticipated such objections to the question, but the intent is to check ourselves rather than to consider whether or not IM or anything in worship is the what attracts others to the gospel. Though I would suggest it opens doors, but for the time being let’s’s assume that using IM would lead people to Jesus, and assume you believe it is not a sin to use. Would you/we use it despite objections from within?
@ Don
IM per se is NOT a salvation issue, just to confirm that – and no, no apologies needed 😉
Being divisive hoeweer is a salvation issue, and both parties have to be very careful about that.
Quite a lot of “jot and tittles” concerning the meaning of psallo comes from those arguing for IM as well, so I think both are sometimes quite nit-picking.
Alexander
Alexander – great Tertulllian quote. Only one problem – it is the same one with which they burned Huss and tried to burn Luther. We have been determined since 1517 to be governed byScripture and not by tradition. Remember my friend the standards we apply in one instance must logically apply across the board to create a working hermeneutic. If we foundationally respect tradition as a guide in one instance we must do so in all instances (where as Tertullian says – Scripture has not prescribed.) The reason Protestantism developed as it did was the freedom to discover “new” truths or depths of meaning to Scripture free from the forced obedience to past understandings.
Because of the nature of man- the constant need for revival – reliance on the text is the only safe guide. Tradition leads to rote, rote leads to complacency, complacency to formalism, formalism to faithlessness.
Only a strict reliance on the text and the Spirit animating the text leads us to true obedience to God’s will and true renewal of faith.
So for me, the best application is:
What God has obviously commanded – do.
What God has obviously forbidden – strictly avoid.
Where God has not done either – seek His guidance through the Spirit and respond in faith while displaying love for your brother.
Ultimately we also must confront the possibility that we only have these unity problems because we are seeking the safe formalistic path to please God rather than making the much more difficult and dangerous effort to teach every one of our members the meaning of a truly obedient relationship with the Spirit.
Of course, I think, we should admit that there is a difference between traditions around 200AD and around 1500 AD. Tertullian was pretty close to the origin compared to the Roman church ofthe late Middle Ages.
On the other hand, I think we must be self-critical enough to see that there is no church without tradition. So, “Sola Scriptura” de facto is a myth. The thing I like abut Tertullian’s quote (I did not include what he said about the rites around baptism, nor the headcoverings in the immediade context) is that he calls us to first accept and then – after having gone down to the origin of a tradition – become critical about it.
As for IM, we can trace it back through history. In fact, we KNOW what were the beliefs of the past right down to the generation after the apostles. THere is continuity, and the change to IM is discontinuing what the churches of Christ always held to. This is what bothers me about the whole issue.
I also see the validity of understanding types and shadows as what they are. The y have been doe away with since the substance arrived, Christ. Where is the temple built of stones? Gone/Fulfilled in Christ. Where is the altar and the bloody sacrifices? Gone/Fulfilled in Christ. Where is the incense? Gone/Fulfilled in Christ. Where is the Levitical Ptriesthoodf? Gone/Fulfilled in Christ.
So, why on earth – please could anyone explain it to me! – should the Levitical instruments be an exception to this rule?
Alexander
James said, “Though I would suggest it opens doors, but for the time being let’s’s assume that using IM would lead people to Jesus, and assume you believe it is not a sin to use. Would you/we use it despite objections from within?”
There is an awful lot of assuming going on here, let’s assume it only leads younger people to your building, (because there is no way to know it it leads them to Jesus) if it were to increase the attendance two to one , to those it caused to leave, would you still go there?
Jay writes:
“His (Bob Shaw’s) argument is not that we must be instrumental but that we must stop making instrumental music a salvation or fellowship issue.”
But, what exactly is he asking? Seriously? I mean, there are millions of brothers and sisters who are, after honest investigation, convinced that the practice of IM is against the will of God and therefore, sinful. To NOT MAKE it a “fellowship issue”, what are we asking of them? Are we asking them keep their convictions a secret and not ever say that they are convinced that IM in the assembly is sinful?
Does “not making it a fellowship issue” still allow them to teach their children that IM is (and why it is) sinful?
Or, does “not making it a fellowship issue” demand that they never address the subject?
Basically, if they are convinced that IM is sinful, should they or should they not attempt to urge/encourage others to not so sin?
Can they not make it a “fellowship issue” and still teach what they believe?
What do you think….
Jay… I think that one must first decide if there is a direct command from God to avoid IM in worship… I’ve never had anyone show me a direct command from scripture…. That leaves inference … Inference is based on MY understanding… We can agree to disagree on how we INDIVIDUALLY interpret what is not said by what one might infer…
Once I am convinced in my own mind, then I guess it depends on how I view the authority of my personal inference. If I believe I am infallible and have authority to speak for God where He chose not to, then perhaps I should try and impose my will on others… If I believe that I am not infallible then perhaps it would be better to express my opinions with the realization that others might disagree… and be OK with that…
Otherwise, we get into this Hatfield vs the McCoy’s type of evangelism which has obviously not worked and has resulted in division after division within the body…
It would be nice to see people OK with agreeing to disagree where a clear command has not been given……
Jay, et.al.:
I am confident I am one of the last voices some (many) in this weblog would like wading in here — and especially if I mention the parallelisms woven through Ephesians 4-5. Experience is teaching me that it is difficult for some (or much) of the Restoration Movement to distance itself from the emotional discussions focused on IM. Our emotions are powerful aspects of our humanity — and typically we do not like folks tampering with them (I wonder if Paul was feeling some of that when he was writing Ephesians 4:17ff.).
So, briefly, I will offer that as we read Ephesians 4-5, one characteristic that should catch our attention is just how different Paul sounds from the common worship practices and expectations of the region. And that should not surprise us. Ephesians 4:17ff. announces much about the threats that hound every aspect of our worship, be it prayer, preaching, or song.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander apparently recognizes that apostolic doctrine does not condemn use of musical instruments by Christians. But he decides, based on tradition, that it’s wrong for Christians today to use musical instruments “in worship.” How wise we are to speak where the Bible speaks and not depend on human traditions for our salvation.
Alexander also claims that ” (Breaking bread = the Lord’s Supper)” But in that supposition he is entirely wrong. The Supper is bread AND wine. Universally, world-wide, people speak of breaking bread and mean simply eating together. Eating together was what the early church did. That’s exactly what Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians. Eating together. A meal. Shared.
And everywhere in the apostolic writings that we read about the brethren “breaking bread” they were eating meals together. It was after the apostles were dead that some began having a ritualistic ceremony and calling it “the Lord’s Supper.” We do not do well to base our practice on tradition rather than apostolic teaching and practice.
No inspired word speaks against use of musical instruments in praising God. The law is of human origin. It is not apostolic. Alexander defends it by appealing to human tradition. That shouldn’t be good enough for ones who seek to be of apostolic faith.
Bruce has one of the better takes on IM that I have heard. I don’t want to put words in your mouth brother or maybe you have changed positions since we last spoke about this but I thought what you had to say was plausible. Do you mind reiterating that in more detail here or would you mind my doing so?
If you remember…I am talking about the impact of pagan worship practices on what Paul wrote in Ephesians and what Paul might have really been against being more of a heart issue about pagan desires and practices coming out in Christian worship assemblies rather than merely the acts themselves.
That is one of the problems with the IM debate…we spend all kinds of time debating what can and cannot be done but little is talked about in regard to the heart…crazy since Paul directly mentions the heart in Eph 5:19. It is entirely possible to sing without IM and be completely in error because your heart is rotten. Is it possible to worship IM with a God-centered heart and attitude?
It does take a lot of assuming, but we are not talking about numbers in attendance but souls going to heaven. IF (however big the if) it led them there and THEN they heard the gospel where they would not have would you allow it? Is your answer “no”?
This I did not say. i say it is not a salvation issue. Why? Because – as someone else rightfully said: Christ is the salvation issue. Understanding IM means to undestand apostolic doctrine, the difference between OT and NT and – I know I am going to be stoned – the Regulative Principle of Worship, I am just reading a fatntastic book by a Reformed Baptist whose congregation went from IM to a-capella due to his studies of the facts: Old Light on New Worship
We may err and be wrong on a lot of things without being instantly damned. But me MUST NOT split churches. And this is what those introducing IM contrary to the cloud of witnesses of church history (and the silence of the Scriptures in the NT) do. Splitting churches IS a salvation issue.
The prime question is: Are we allowed to add to the worship what we think is “nice” and “fitting”? Since no instruments are mentioned in the context of the church’s worship on earth in the NT, and the strict oppiostion to IM for over 1200 years therafter adds to this, I am convinced that the typological reasons brought forth by all these men of God of the past are very, VERY valid reasons we must not ignore.
Sadly I don’t see anyone on the progressive side who seems to understand types and antitypes. This is significant, because we seem to read and think very differently then. But since by typological understanding of the OT is the way the Apostles (and our Lord Jesus) read the OT I think we have no alternative but to learn this way of thinking. Once this is mastered, the IM-issue becomes obvious.
Yes, the “breaking of bread” is a synonym for the Lord’s Supper.
At least, this is what unanimously it is understood to mean in the following verses:
Both verses are among the foundations for having the Lord’s Supper regularly every 1st day of the week. This is NOT a peculiarity of the churches of Christ (Restoration Movement), but a consensus among almost all professing Christians. You may pick almost any commentary on these two verses.
But I do agree that this was only the beginning of the meal called Love Feast (or Agape) in the Early Church. What nowadays is called the “Lord’s Supper” – i.e. a tiny piece of bread and a wee sip of unfermented grape juice – would hardly be recognized by one of the Apostles as what it should be.
Alexander
James,
My experience is that people will come because people will invite them. We very, very rarely get someone who just shows up out of the blue. I am not really certain why IM would be the draw…in other words it is not like we would be the only gig in town with a band if we added one. I just don’t see how IM is a draw. In many instances I have had people tell me how refreshing it is to not have all the instruments playing and someone can really just sing. The reality is, if most of the churches of Christ added instruments it probably wouldn’t sound all that great to tell the truth. But as it is our singing is outstanding because we have had participatory worship for years…whereas other churches continue to foster the audience mentality where you sit back and listen to professional musicians worship God for you. I don’t mean to broadbrush here…just speaking in generalities.
So I just don’t see how IM gets people in the door, keeps people there, etc. I think people come and stay for other reasons. In other words, attendance doesn’t really hinge on this issue IMO.
Here are a couple of issues I don’t think have been addressed on the IM issue in this thread that I think have relevance:
1 – Participation. Any place I have ever visited or been around that had IM had terrible member participation in the worship. People sit or stand and listen. If you do sing you can’t even hear yourself because the music is so loud. Maybe others have other experiences but that is mine. I can’t tell you how consistent that experience has been in several different places, congregations, gatherings, workshops, etc
2 – The pagan issue. Bruce has alluded to this in his above comment. It is entirely possible that in Ephesians Paul is not condemning IM itself but is combatting the syncretizing of pagan religious practices into the Christian assembly. IM was a part of pagan worship and it is entirely possible that people in the first century who had come from a pagan background would have thought it natural to bring in the instruments into Christian worship. It is also possible that Paul is not saying instruments are sinful (which he never directly says) but is saying it is a terrible idea to paganize our Christian worship. The same can happen today when we develop worship assemblies that are all about us and our feelings and have little to do with praising God. I am not saying all IM does that but some does. It is entirely possible for that to happen in acapella worship too. Worship is theocentric not anthropocentric. That may be what Paul is really writing against.
3 – Issues of the heart. Paul says to sing and make music with our hearts to the Lord. We have gotten more concerned with the instrumental issue than we have with the heart issue. One is very clear and the other is less clear and yet we have spent more time on the more obscure issue in the text to the exclusion of the heart issue that Paul clearly addresses. Remember, it is entirely possible to worship acapella with a rotten heart. I think God cares about that.
4 – We have to remember that just because we worship acapella to “play it safe” doesn’t mean everything we do in that way is pleasing to God. Having the right form doesn’t guarantee that God will be pleased.
To answer this I ‘d like to substitue IM with something equally debated:
If it would lead some more people to Christ if we let women preach, would you allow it?
No. The end does not justify the means. If church growth happens by changing the ordinances ofthe church that Christ has given, we build Satan’s Synagogue rather than the church of Christ.
Now, before you put the conclusion in my mouth: “Those using IM are Satan’s Synagogue”, let me repeat what I said before: We may err without being condemned immediately. But: and this is a very strong but! We must not split the church of Christ. Those who allow women to preach do this, and those who introduce IM do it as well.
And so, again: NO. IM is not a means to reach out to the lost. If we argue this way, we DO make it a salvation issue, but from the other end, don’t we? “Unless we use IM, we won’t get them into our church! IM is essential for salvation!”
Think it through
Alexander
“It is entirely possible to sing without IM and be completely in error because your heart is rotten.”
Oh, for sure. The only thing worse than that would be singing with a rotten heart AND having IM. Lol
Seriously though, I really would like to know precisely what “not making IM a fellowship issue” entails.
Does it demand that those who are convinced that IM is sinful, refrain from urging and encouraging others to not so sin?
Can they NOT make it a “fellowship issue” and still teach what they believe? Namely, that it is sinful (according to their understanding).
I just don’t really understand how one group would, or even could, ask another group to not condemn a thing which they are honestly convinced is against the will of God and sinful.
Does that make sense?
q Matt
That’s my experience, too.
I liked Bruce Mortn’s book very much, too. For me the conclusion of this aspect is – at least – to avoid “Contemporary Christian Music” which comes from the Pagan Idoladtry of our time and culture. At least I have the impression that the demand for IM goes hand in hand with the desire for CCM. So in this case we debate two things that are blended together. So, even if I could live with a piano assisting/serving congregational singing (and I can live with that), I oppose strongly IM, because it is not about a serving piano but about a dominating worship-band.
Alexander
@ Hank
You are absolutely right. If the “progressives” are claiming their right for their “opinions/convictions” then the same right would apply to the “conservatives as well, and it cannot be denied to them.
This leads the whole debate into the dead-end road it was heading to all the time as soon awe talked about “opinions”. If we make opinions the standards to go by, we – in this specific instance at least – allow schisms to happen. Like the famous but utterly wrong statement: “Let’s agree to disagree.”
We may ask whether the strict shunning of IM that includes disfellowshipping of other congregations is scripturally correct. But I also ask (again and again) that the progressives see their share in this, because this position is a defensive reaction to their innovations and departures from “the old paths”; they caused them to build up the fences.
Of course, one might say, htat the conservatives could have reacted a little more relaxed, less nervous, less hostile. But I also say, the “progressives” who see all of this just as a matter of opinion could have died to themselves as Christ teaches us. After all, uit#s just an opinion, isn’t it? So why shall this opinion be forced on the brotherhood who does not see this as an opinion but an ordinance of God?
You see, it is not that we all view this as a matter of opinion and therefore freedom. That’s why the quoted statement of Alexander Campbell (based on a similar saying of Augustin) does not apply here. It only works when both parties of a disputed matter reagrd it as an opinion. This is not the case.
Therefore the whole approach of Letroy’s book is misleading. And although I am on fire for unity as being strived for by the Restoration Movement, so far nothing in his book has reminded me of Campbell’s vision.
Alexander
Alexander wrote:
Romans 14 was about instances where at least one party regarded things as a matter of conscience while the other regarded those things as a matter of liberty. Neither was to despise the other. Within most CofC congregations, that would mean that IM advocates should yield. I cannot see one congregation should ever cast another congregation out of the kingdom of God over this issue.
Alexander,
We must specify whether we are talking about God’s “old paths” or man’s. To balance the issue of the “weaker brother” we must also remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees concerning teaching doctrines of man as though they were from God. Is the doctrine of I’m being forbidden from God or man?
In either case we should probably return to the previous discussion concerning whether or not it should define us and does it take the focus off of the grace of Christ? If we miss the truth on I’m (whichever is the truth), will GodKs grace forgive us for trying with the right spirit?
Alexander, you forgot one of the assumptions….that I’m was not sinful. The question isn’t would we sin to save people. It is are we willing to do something that leads a lost soul to Jesus at the expense of making a saved soul unhappy with us.
Although it doesn’t directly speak to the IM issue it does seem to teach us that not everything is viewed in light of a legal command when it comes to how we express our deepest feelings toward our God and Savior.
Mark 14:3-9 (ESV)
3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.
4 There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that?
5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her.
6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.
7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.
8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.
9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
Here is a bible character that was being scolded for doing something that the others thought was incorrect. However, she wasn’t adding to or taking away from anything….she was simply acting out of adoration for the Lord. She was not acting on a command to apply the ointment, but she was acting on the love in her heart. And based on the text above Jesus was completely fine with her doing it. Some thought it was wasteful, but Jesus regarded it as a “beautiful thing.”
Please notice that her self initiated act did not earn her a speech about Nadab and Abihu offering something they were not asked to offer…instead it was a simple act of kindness that Jesus said was going to be a testimony for her wherever the gospel was told.
It seems difficult to understand how here a self initiated act of love and adoration can win the praise of Christ, but when that same thing is expressed by a gifted person with the use of song and a musical instrument there is suddenly a major concern that such is forbidden.
And the answer is Yes to James question.
Many times I have been invited to speak at a gathering of folks and I didn’t even consider if they sang with a guitar or not. What I concentrated on and thanked God for was the opportunity to do a little teaching and I sure wouldn’t start off my lesson with the sins of that guitar. I was after their souls, not that guitar. I think God would give points for souls we saved far more than how many guitars we destroyed.
WE have chosen different positions on so many acts and examples in the Bible and ignored so many others no wonder we split so much.
Who preaches to midnight, and so many more examples we ignore that we could name.
Ray is right,
breaking bread is then and still is now a meal to everyone but us. We still break bread with friends and other groups, sometimes it is a steak!
We used to have an “everyone bring something” meal outside on a long 40′ wooden table, carefully not attached to the church building by even a nail until folks of the Gospel Advocate watchdog group convinced us to be structurally correct and set the right example for those that passed by we should not do that any more.
The point is we are straining at Gnats. In our sincere efforts to be obedient we have become disobedient to the simpliest of commands. I read the Bible as a way to know God.
I am not from Galatia, Phillipi, or any city over there. Most likely you are not either. Only thing consistent is it is the same God here as was there and since there was no book written to the Alabamaians, I want to read what he wrote to them to learn more of what he likes and dislikes and most of all to really know more of God and His love for us to cause me to love Him more.
If we love Him as He loves us, a lot of errors we may make will be forgiven.
I will not worship with an instrument, but I’m not going to condemn someone who has been washed with the blood of Christ in baptism if he does worship with an instrument. And it’s not necessarily because I see it legalistically, rather I see it as respecting the holiness of God. To me God wanted the simplicity of our voices raised in unison to Him.
My problem with some of these churches that have a long tradition, yes tradition that hated word, suddenly adding instruments and as their reason to do so is that we can’t grow unless we add instruments to our worship. To me that says you do not believe God when he said he would provide the increase, instead we must make Christianity more palatable to the world. This is the same problem I have with watering down baptism to include any and everything to the point of why even baptize anymore, hence my question that was used as a post several posts back.
Good points, Anne
Anne,
Please allow me to re-write your opening paragraph for you:
“I will abide in Christian unity with those that use instruments — although I won’t judge them to hell — I’ll assume their baptism took and I’ll enjoy spending time in Heaven with them — but as far as Earth goes, I don’t want to be around them. Because they don’t respect the holiness of God.”
Is that a fair representation of your beliefs and emotions?
As to your second paragraph, you say: “To me that says you do not believe God when he said he would provide the increase…”
Is is necessary to question the faith of those with whom you disagree? And I might add that while God does give the increase, the onus is on us to plant and water. And the people of whom you speak have obviously concluded that they can not only plant and water better by offering a worship service that connects with more people, but that more people will actually come and be watered!
*Third line should read “I will NOT abide…”
Hank —
Not that you stated this outright, but I’m not particularly impressed with this book, either. Firstly, because there is no way something can be presented in a form like this and be effective. It seems to me Garrett has basically pulled a COC “180” (180 deg) and is demanding those more conservative than he come back and kiss the ring. It is like any other COC split, “We’ll be here waiting for you whenever you decide to come back to the truth.” Ineffective. In fact, I believe Jay has suggested that no COC split has ever been healed. Garrett won’t fare any better.
I’m speaking only of presentation. I probably agree with 95% of what he is suggesting…it’s just that it won’t do any good…any more than a CFTF lectureship will get “liberals” to come back to “the truth.”
This book will only serve to cement people deeper where they are standing.
Matt,
Your last post (a couple issues…) had some worthy food for thought and was well said.
I attend a church that has IM in worship. The musicians that support the music played are talented and clearly using the gifts God gave them. And it’s a ministry that has impact in many places, not just Sunday morning. The same groups of musicians play in prisons, nursing homes, etc…during the week and the music ministry brings the message of Jesus to many places it would likely not otherwise be. It’s all good stuff, but, some time ago it became clear to many, specifically our church leadership team, that the louder the praise team and instruments were, the less participation there was with church body. So, our music, on Sunday morning, has changed significantly. It is much more acoustic and is focused on being an accompaniment to singing vs. the other way around. We also have a mix of a cappella as well. My point being that I agree with your assessment. If a congregation’s IM “strategy” is not one of complementing voices, then you will likely lose member participation in worship. I’ll also note that many of the surrounding churches have taken the same approach.
Regarding your other thoughts… #2 sounds plausible, #3 and #4 are undoubtedly true.
I don’t see it as weaker/stronger brother issue, but as the question how we are to worship God. In this case one may have an opinion, the other one may have reasons based on scripture and/or church history. These are not on the same level, and that’s the point.
Some certainly believe this is the case. Based on the Regulative Principle of Worship that states, unless God has something specifically regulated for worship, we are not to introduce it. So the prohibition is the flip-side of an ordinance.
The RP has been criticized a lot in this Blog, but it is not only the way the church of Christ reads the Bible, but all reformers but Luther and some Anglicans read the Bible this way. And there are good ans strong reasons from scripture to understand it this way.
For instance, when our Lord explains to the Samaritan woman …
Let me ask you: Is it permissible to erect buildings or declare special places as being THE place of worship where God is exclusively present? I think we agree, that the answer is no. But the Lord did not really forbid it, did he. He just commanded to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. But this command includes a prohibition, even if this is not spelled out.
A very important teaching concerning worship builds directly on what Jesus said:
In introducing the New Covenant, all that was peculiar to the regulations (!) of OT worship became obsolete. Why? Because it was “earthly” and dealt with the “body” – but in the “time of the reformation” we are called to a different level of worship: In Spirit and Truth.
Again: Let me ask you, whether it is permissible to take over all or parts of the OT worship into the New Covenant:
. How about a special priesthood?
. How about a special holy place that no one may enter?
. How about an altar and bloody sacrifices?
. How about burning incense?
. How about the Levitical instruments that were part of the regulations of OT worship?
The prohibition of IM is included in the taking away of all OT regulations of worship. The same way as the whole Law has been taken away (Eph 2:15)
And here we come back to Romans 14. Is it forbidden for Christians to keep the Law? The answer is twofold: On an individual level, or when living among orthodox Jews, it is permissible to keep the Law. Out of conscience or for evangelism. But the letter most often quoted in this Blog (Galatians) makes it clear that it is forbidden to make a Christian church keep the Law of Moses. This would alter the gospel.
Now, who is the weaker brother? The one who out of a weaker conscience thinks he has to keep e.g. the Sabbath or keep the dietary laws. The truth of the matter is not a matter of opinion, but of Apostolic Teaching concerning the relationship of the two covenants. Therefore the church as a whole is not bound to keep the Sabbath. The same applies to IM: IM is part of the OT-regulations of worship that don’t apply to the New Covenant. If someone out of a weak conscience (!) wants to sing to IM, he must (first of all) find some Levites to accompany his singing …
See, we cannot take part of regulation. IM was regulated by the Word of God in the OT, as to which instruments and who was to play them and where they were to be used.
But since these regulation have been taken away, the church is not only not under the Law, but it is forbidden to bring the church under the OT regulations again.
So, yes IM is forbidden in the church, if anyone desires such a clear answer. But this does not mean we re immediately damned if we use them, because churches today are so misled by the spirit of this world that they are often quite blind to the word of God concerning worship. Christ did NOT disfellowship a congregation that even allowed a “prophetess” (Jezebel) to teach heresy (that’s already two strikes!), but he made it clear that this is absolutely NOT OK!
Not disfellowshipping or not being immediately damned is not allowance, however. And therefore, we must be diligent to seek the truth of such matters and not be lazy by making it a matter of opinion.
Alexander
Matt…Cycling Dude…what are you guys doing ?? You can’t be on here working things out with one another as if you are brothers…Pick up a rock man !! We don’t give each other the time and freedom to work through things and make up our individual minds…!! It’s rules and our individual camps …remember… jk
Alexander… I must say that if there is anybody who can find a command in a sentence…… clearly stated, implied, inferred or snatched completely out of thin air…it is you.. You da man !! Your approach to scripture is certainly one that any individual might employ…It just doesn’t seem to be working over here…It causes more division that anything…and in the end it is the Fruit that defines the Tree…
Matt..CD….you’re approach of considering one another’s complaints and admitting mistakes and short comings…then trying to find a balance with a true heart for worshiping God rather than our preferences is refreshing…keep it up..
@ Price
This is not my own theology, but go and read the reformer’s writings, or even Roman catholics before the 13th century. I so often pointed to the unanimous testimony of these men – I did not make this up! Wake up! Who departed from a centuries old consensus?
Alexander
@ Alexander…. consensus of ordinary men does not make a divine command… I’m glad that we have the ability to interpret some things for ourselves…I’m sure God left some things for us to decide for ourselves on purpose rather than He forgot to put in a command… The difference is that some wish to impose their inference, interpretation, consensus, etc., on others…Some, prefer to allow people to think through it themselves and make their own decisions…
I think I have a tendency now at my age to have a preference for the unity of the believers versus insisting on everybody agreeing with me and my group of like minded people… I don’t think God is waiting with anticipation for people to sin so that He can cast them into hell…perhaps He’s looking to see what you do with the freedom He’s given you ??
All I know for sure is that the legalistic approach to unity has had a dramatic negative impact on the unity of the church… That is without question… And, as a result many in the CoC and other bodies of believers are trying to search for a deeper truth that may have been discarded in favor of tradition or church history… The truth does not suffer from searching for it…
Having instrumental music might not cause someone to visit a church, but it sure can encourage them to stay and come back if it’s done well. Just like good acappella. I wish churches would implement them both in a single service. I think both sides are missing out when they don’t get to experience the beauty of the other.
Isn’t that what makes a good concert sometimes? The band and artist and then times when the band stops and the artist lets the crowd sing their song which many times makes for the best part of the concert? (And we are kidding ourselves if we don’t think a good church service of any kind doesn’t encourage us like a good concert does. Just for more holy purposes).
Let’s be a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks. This speaks to our culture and overrides any religious person’s objection to them thinking it’s sin because they’ve fallen into the same trap of religion and tradition that Jesus preached against.
The Wineskins articles do a great job of showing how this is tradition and not a sin issue (unless we are using it to keep people out of the kingdom of God). Paul says zeal without knowledge is not good. Those who have failed to look honestly at this issue have a responsibility, in my opinion, to check these resources out that are so easily accessible. But isn’t that the problem with the church today in all branches? We’re many times not humble enough to do that because of tradition or lack of diligent study?
Cycling Dude, et.al.
I will mention that one aspect of Paul teaching about song in context in Ephesians 4:17-5:21 is his focus on unity. Stephen Guthrie, for one, writes an excellent article in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that carefully surfaces this aspect of Paul’s teaching. Guthrie makes clear that part of the apostle’s focus on congregational song has to do with building unity in Ephesus.
One sociology study recently done of religion in the Fiji Island has illustrated this aspect of worship well. Among the islanders churches of all names worship with vocal music (no instruments). One reason they do so is to build a close unity among all members in attendance — adults, youth, children. And their songs are designed to teach. Children are actively encouraged to sing, learn and grow.
In the individualistic U.S. it is clear from the complexion of our nation (and illustrated well by some of the posts here) that we struggle to hear part of Paul’s message about the importance of congregational song. Let’s give it our attention.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
@ JMF
Yeah, if you remember, this book attempting to save the conservative Churches of Christ started out telling them that they’ve been bamboozled by their parents and that they all need to repent of standing up for and defending the things they believe to be the will of God. Basically, to be saved, Leroy and his supporters believe that all of the conservatives must become practically as progressive as they consider themselves!
And they make claims without explaining whatever it is they mean.
For example, they say that “we must not make I’M a fellowship issue” but they never explain what that means. Which is why I keep asking:
“I really would like to know precisely what “not making IM a fellowship issue” entails. Does it demand that those who are convinced that IM is sinful, refrain from urging and encouraging others to not so sin?
Can they NOT make it a “fellowship issue” and still teach what they believe? Namely, that it is sinful (according to their understanding).”
I just don’t really understand how one group would, or even could, ask another group to not condemn a thing which they are honestly convinced is against the will of God and sinful. I mean, name one thing that a “progressive” like Leroy or Jay believes is against the will of God and sinful, that they are fine with not speaking out against. Even if there is such an example, they would be wrong to just accept it – all the while believing it is sinful to God.
And yeah, I doubt the book will change the beliefs of any more people than the CFTF “lectures” blasting the liberals changed. Both are pretty lame and innefective.
IMO
Grizz, on September 10th, 2011 at 9:36 am Said:
Laymond,
I have heard this argument that the case against is the default even if the case for allowing (not demanding) IM is upheld. You represent it here quite well.
“This seems to be the ‘honor-the-weaker-brother’ argument. Is that fair?”
Actually Grizz it is the “my or the highway” argument.
You asked.
“Do you know anyone who forces folks to play IM?”
No I don’t, but if the leadership of a non- I M church decides
to go with the instrument, then some people have to decide whether they want to go against their conscience, and sin willingly, or just move along.” My way or the highway”
“Do you know anyone who is caused to play IM merely by being in the presence of others doing so?”
No, but they are caused to worship in an environment , which is sinful to them. So naturally they will look somewhere else. no matter how you slice it the interloper is at fault for the breakup/split. all because they enjoy one type of music over the other, they don’t even argue that the subject of worship prefers one over the other. It is not a sin , so we are going to do it, no matter who it offends.
I don’t believe the playing of music during worship, in itself is a sin, but the reason it is played can be.
I wonder when we will have a split over what music God likes best, Blue grass, or Country- Ricky Skags or Alan Jackson’ they both sing religious songs, just differently. I have no doubt it is coming.
When there is consensus among leaders in Christ’s Church who were striving to discern God’s Will by His Spirit should be viewed as an indicator of God’s will – esp.when the same men disagreed on other issues of faith and doctrine. Here I speak of one and the same conviction throughout almost all denominations in history.
Brushing aside this testimony leaves you alone with youtr Bible, Price. You and your Bible most definitely will get it right – you don’t need the insights of others, do you? Because the are all just mere men …
Alexander
Alexander…I guess that’s why I get to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling and you get to work out yours… There are many things that I agree with the ECF’s concerning and then there are opinions that they held that I don’t agree with…Who gets to decide on what applies to me ? I do … So within the body of Christ we will have disagreement on what is inferred or discerned where clear command is not given. I prefer not to throw rocks at those that have differing opinions although I may still hold firmly to mine… I don’t have to call you names or categorize you into some group… You are my Brother with whom I disagree… Others…they throw rocks..
@Hank 8:33am:
These are fair questions, I’ll answer them in a way that makes sense to me.
Perhaps this analogy works:
–Mrs. Hank wants new furniture.
–Hank thinks it is a stupid idea.
–Mrs. Hank makes her case that the old furniture is in disrepair, new furniture will make you more comfortable, you’ll sleep better, ergo perform better at your job, kids will do better in school, etc.
–Hank rejects. “Quite simply, we don’t have the money for this. We’d have to put it on credit cards. Mrs. Hank, do you not believe the bible when it says to be a good steward of your money? It would be sinful for us to buy this new furniture!!!”
So there is the dilemma. You’ve made your case that there is a right and wrong answer, in fact, the wrong answer is sinful.
Now, you have some choices: 1) You could go buy the furniture without putting up any fight in order to stay united with your wife. 2) You could DEMAND that she stop her sinful ways and submit to the “truth.” 3) You sit down and figure out a win/win situation between your polarities. 4) You could divorce Mrs. Hank and go write vile comments about her on the walls of the bathrooms at truck stops.
#4 has been our traditional COC response. We disfellowship, we write ’em up.
#1 is what you seem to suggest Garrett is proposing.
#2 is basically the same as #4 without the ugliness.
#3 is the correct response, IMO.
And if you are married, I’ll certain you know it is the only way to function.
So Hank, I think you (speaking of your position) need to decide which sin is more grievous: supporting IM, or breaking unity. To me — based on the preponderance of Scripture — there is far more said about being united than about the sins of IM.
If you aren’t swayed by arguments that are pro-IM, then your next decision must be regarding unity. I think you need to decide which sin is does more Kingdom damage (since you see IM as sinful).
Finally, you asked (paraphrase): Which sins are Garrett and Jay willing to go along with for the sake of unity?
I carry neither the clout nor the brain cells of either of these guys, but I’ll give you my real-life example:
At my church, I’d guess that 75% of the elders and 50% of the congregants would support roles of women that would equal that of men. Meaning, except for being elders, we would be fine with women doing anything else.
In fact, I think it is tragic and sinful to keep some of our amazingly-capable women from doing what they are so obviously blessed to do. I occasionally go to some classes that some of our women teach, and besides one or two of our men, these women are faaar superior teachers. And to hear a woman teach gives an entirely different texture to Scripture!
…Yet I stick it out. …Yet these women stick it out. Why? Because they love the people that would have a problem with them having elevated roles. Because they’d rather not do something they are gifted to do than to fracture our church. And that is pretty much the definition of unity and servant-hood.
JMF,
With all due respect, the analogy of the wife, new furniture, credit cards, and truck-stop bathrooms was kinda weird and confusing. For sure, it does not answer the question of what “not making IM a fellowship issue” entails. Does it demand that those who are convinced that IM is sinful, refrain from urging and encouraging others to not so sin?
Can they NOT make it a “fellowship issue” and still teach what they believe? Namely, that it is sinful (according to their understanding).”
And I still I just don’t really understand how one group would, or even could, ask another group of Christians to NOT condemn and oppose a thing which they are honestly convinced is against the will of God and sinful.
Also, I find it very interesting that when considering “Which sins are Garrett and Jay willing to go along with for the sake of unity?”, you write:
“I carry neither the clout nor the brain cells of either of these guys, but I’ll give you my real-life example: At my church…except for being elders, we would be fine with women doing anything else.”
You add:
“I occasionally go to some classes that some of our women teach, and besides one or two of our men, these women are far superior teachers. And to hear a woman teach gives an entirely different texture to Scripture!”
Question –
Is this example of the women of your church doing everything but being elders an example of sins your church “is willing to go along with”? Is that what you meant by your “real life example”? If not, why tell us about it under the question of sins people are “willing to go along with for the sake of unity”? The whole question is absurd. Such would be “unity in wickedness”.
What I want to know is why can’t they be elders at your church?
I am really surprised you made such a confession. And I wonder how many of the others here attend similar churches?
In any case, it does explain how the issue of whether or not IM is acceptable to God would be WAY down on the list of things to really care about.
Well, Hank, progressivism unmasks itself, doesn’t it?
They might ask you: Where in the scripture is it forbidden that women teach Bible classes? And even if you point them to 1Ti 2:12 they would find a dozen or more ways to explain it away. And then they are offended when we say: “Sorry, we can’t go along with you.”
And then – and that’s really the must puzzling statement – they accuse US of being divisive! IM is only the tip of the ice-berg, Hank. As soon as they convinced us that this is just a matter of opinion, everything else becomes a matter of opinion as well.
The more I read along and participate in such discussions, the more I lose hope that the schism can ever be healed.
Alexander
Price,
Thanks for calling me out on my weak, wavering response to Matt. I keep falling captive to the current post-modernistic, liberal, progressive mode of thinking and find myself in the trap of keeping an open mind and thinking too much. Occasionally, that results in a momentary loss of sanity and I end up supporting the conclusion(s) of someone who may practice their faith slightly different than me. It also results in the frightening revelation that I might be mistaken about some of the beliefs I currently hold to be true…but I’m working to fight that off.
Anyway, chalk my response up to a weak moment. I need to remember to reply with sarcasm, a much better tool for masking my insecurities, rather than an attempt at open, honest dialogue.
BTW… “…in the end it is the Fruit that defines the Tree”… priceless, that line just went into my personal repertoire of responses.
@Hank 12:56pm:
I am sorry my illustration went over your head and confused you. 🙂
I imagine it confuses you because it challenges you. The simple question is, if your wife wants to spend money on something that you consider wasteful, you have a scriptural basis to conclude that she isn’t being a good steward of her/your money. SIN. Now, do you force her to submit to your view, negotiate a win/win deal, or divorce her? I mean, after all, she is trying to get you to sin by going along with her overspending…at least that would be your view of it.
Until you can wrap your head around my illustration, I won’t be able to give my perspective on your other questions.
Next, you greatly misrepresent me by quoting me as saying, ” At my church…except for being elders, we would be fine with women doing anything else.”
That is not at all what I said. I said, “At my church, I’d guess that 75% of the elders and 50% of the congregants would support roles of women that would equal that of men. Meaning, except for being elders, we would be fine with women doing anything else.
Perfectly happy to discuss this like an adult, but don’t be obnoxious by misquoting. Aside from it being, you know, slanderous and all, it simply makes all of this a waste of time. Halftime is only 20minutes long and I don’t like having my time wasted.
As to your question, the part I believe to be sinful is not allowing women to use their gifts. As to your question, Which sins am I willing to go along with for the sake of unity?, well, for one, I am willing to accept slander and remain united. I am willing to accept your (anyone’s) issues with anger and pornography and remain united…because I believe your heart to be penitent and growing daily.
So what we end up finding is that we’ll accept moral sins, we just won’t accept our perceived Sunday-morning sins.
Lastly, you asked: Why can’t women be elders at your church? Answer: Because the elders don’t believe women should be elders, therefore they can’t be elders.
Questions for you:
1) If I go to a church that is acappella — yet I believe it is fine to have IM — would you disfellowship me? If not, why not? So can you fellowship those who disagree with your stance on IM…so long as they don’t actually do it?
2) Assuming you are reasonable enough to agree that gluttony, anger, and lust are far more obvious (and damaging) sins than IM usage, why do you remain in fellowship with all of the fat women at your church?
JMF, no that is not a fair representation of my beliefs. I find it interesting that “progressives” challenge, but “conservatives” judge. This is another problem that I have with progressive thinking, that it is fine to castigate and reprimand those in the churches of Christ as such narrow-minded and judgmental people, but when we point out some problems that we have progressive thinking we are questioning their faith. It’s like the old questioning my patriotism line. You can have faith and still be wrong.
I narrowed my comment to churches that have always been non-instrumental, but suddenly they cannot grow unless they add a band. Yes, I see that as not having enough faith in God that if we do as Paul and preach nothing, but the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, that God will provide the increase. Now that doesn’t mean we have to try our best and make it as boring as possible. But people are people and I dare say some of those who are brought in the door by the great music will probably leave when they get bored with the great music. It’s funny that the preaching the word of God was good enough for people for 2,000 years, but suddenly this generation cannot hear the gospel unless it is accompanied by a band. I figure people will respond to the love of God not whether they experienced a wonderful instrumental service.
I find it interesting that I have already seen some rumblings in evangelical churches of getting rid of the bands and singing acapella. I wonder if that becomes the trend if those churches that previously had been acapella then went IM will return to acapella and what will be the reasoning?
Thanks Abasnar and Hank for your comments you both can put into words some of the same thoughts I have had, but do a much better job of it! And Laymond once again I like the way you think!
Alexander —
Respectfully, I think you post some good stuff, and some days you post things that teeter on insanity in my opinion. For instance, you thoughts on “in the world, not of the world” require one of the poorest hermeneutics I’ve ever witnessed to substantiate. From what I gather, dressing like it is 1890 and listening to music written in 1890 makes one “not of the world.” That is fine and all, unless it is 1890, and then that person is “of the world.”
Until I can get my mind around that aspect of your theology, much of what you write will remain suspect to me. And it’s not that I mind disagreeing with you, it is that you can’t become aware of your shadow-self enough to see the flaws in your arguments.
Likewise, your “us versus them” positioning on matters bothers me. “Progessivism”, “They”, “Us”, “Them”, etc. (all terms from your post) all serve to do nothing but create dividing lines. I know, I know, it is human nature to polarize and establish sides and then fight. That happens in everything: church vs. church; kids vs. parents; workers vs. boss; etc. We see it all around us. But we shouldn’t see it in church. Because, as you know, we are not to be of this world.
Anne—
I’ll respond more in a bit, but your post yesterday said:
“My problem with some of these churches that have a long tradition, yes tradition that hated word, suddenly adding instruments and as their reason to do so is that we can’t grow unless we add instruments to our worship. To me that says you do not believe God when he said he would provide the increase…” END ANNE
You wrote, “…that says you do not believe God…”
Is that not questions someone’s faith? Please explain.
Anne–
The thing I wrote (that you said was not a fair representation of your beliefs) was:
“I will not abide in Christian unity with those that use instruments — although I won’t judge them to hell — I’ll assume their baptism took and I’ll enjoy spending time in Heaven with them — but as far as Earth goes, I don’t want to be around them. Because they don’t respect the holiness of God.”
I simply re-wrote your own paragraph. Please explain the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote on Sept. 10 at 7:37pm.
I’m not sure that some of those that wave the banner of non-IM realy understand that their position is primarily a product of man’s thinking. First, they don’t realize that they worship according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, a man made concept. Secondly, they don’t realize that in the United States, at least, their heritage is more the result of congregational financial history than biblical instruction. When musical instuments became widely available, it was the industrial city congregations that had sufficent money to purchase instuments for their places of worship. The agriculural congregations didn’t have money for insturments so they sang acappella. What followed was man creating a reason for his behavior. Is it a sin to sing in worship with instrujments? I think not but even if it is, I feel better about standing before Jesus with that sin to my account than standing before Him with the sin of creating division in His church on my record. I feel equally comfortable worship with or without IM. I won’t demand that a non-IM church change to IM worship before I worship with them. Why should they demand the opposite? But, they do and that’s why this discussion leads no where at this momnet. But, the IM church where I worship doesn’t teach or preach the non-IM gospel and sooner than later, the children will grow into adulthoold and they won’t have the biases drilled into their head like their parents and things will change, I predict.
JMF Wrote:
“I am sorry my illustration went over your head and confused you.”
Really, it was just weird. There’s no need to take discussion into truck stop bathroom stalls. Seriously bro (assuming you are a guy. Not sure by “JMF”).
At any rate, I have a feeling you are about to get some penalty box time based on the rules Jay enforces around here. Easy….
Sorry, that last sentence should say:
“But, the non-IM church where I worship doesn’t teach or preach the non-IM gospel….”
Doug
Well…
Some of you all will see my humor, if not, just disregard my post.
I sure am glad those theologically deviant patristic folks (as a group) are being rejected. After all, it is only when we disconnect ourselves from them that we can fully embrace the Canon of Scripture, proper Christology, the Trinity, consensus about liturgical elements before the Great Schism, and a host of other doctrines deemed ‘correct’ and preserved in ‘the correct version’ of Christianity. The Lord knows Scripture explicitly reveals these issues in such a way that there was no need for councils of the 1st-4th century to appeal to early ‘apostolic tradition’ to resolve the disputes over scriptural interpretation of them.
Further, instead of knowing and practicing the definition of Sola Scriptura from those who coined it in the 1500’s, let’s make our personal interpretation the standard of authority as we argue over interpretation of scripture. Perhaps the Calvin/Luther theory is best: Although they appealed to church history, there is no real need of it because the Holy Spirit tells us what the Canon of Scripture is as well as how to properly interpret scripture… may the Spirit not only guide us all into a proper understanding and interpretation of scripture, but let us understand that when we arrive at different conclusions, the Spirit is simply testifying to the truth of pragmatism.
Seriously, Jay, thank you for posting the original story. I think it brilliantly captures the problem, even in the mind of an AC advocate like me (you know I will criticize bad arguments wherever they are found). When one man explains a 2000 year old practice, using a single 250 year old hermeneutic, while seemingly unaware of his biases, misunderstandings, and straw-men positions, are we really to be shocked by the conversations full of straw-men that proceed thereafter (here and elsewhere)? I am not.
For those who know the significance of what I posted in the 1st two paragraphs, I hope it will promote deep reflection about assumptions and methods used to test scriptural interpretations as well as beliefs/lessons from Christian history.
History Guy !! Glad to see you back to usual form !! Blessings my friend.
Doug,
Your list is representative of many here, so my comments are not directed towards you, per se.
In response to (1) – Actually, AC was a practice long before IM and even the RPW came into Christianity. AC is not equal to, nor contingent upon the RPW. (2) – Actually, speaking solely of the Restoration Movement, wealthy congregations of the city churches (Christian church – churches of Christ) were dividing over IM before the civil war and before the agricultural congregations divided. While IM/AC division in worship did not start in the American Restoration Movement until the 1850’s (DS Burnet used IM at the 6th Street COC in 1855), IM/AC was an issue in Christianity some 600 years prior in the time of Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, and the Reformation.
Finally, many are surprised to know that IM/AC division actually became an issue in the Restoration Movement because neighboring Protestants (both Christian groups knew each other rather well) had been dividing over IM/AC for some 60 years.
The Restoration Movement borrowed all of its arguments both for and against IM/AC, from Protestants, except the ‘prophecy argument,’ which is the product of an amillennial Restorationist.
Price,
Hello my friend! My wife smacked me twice and said I cannot post on IM too much, but I got two in (ha ha ha). Thank you for the welcome. I don’t plan on saying too much on the topic, but I could not resist with such an active thread 🙂 Have a great night.
HistoryGuy, I’ll sure not argue history with a person who calls themselves HistoryGuy. I’ve read your posts here and realize that your name is well deserved. I have read early church history though and realize that the IM/AC arguement far pre-dates the Restoration Movement. I remember reading that maybe 500-600 yrs ago one Church leader (was it Calvin?) ordered the organs stripped out of the Churches he controlled (so tragic). So I understand that the IM/AC question was in the winds before the U.S. Industrial/agricultural divide but I have also read that the Industrial/agricultural divide was a major factor in the IM/AC split.
As far as the RPW goes, I just wish everyone in the CofC understood that part of their belief system doesn’t start a few hundred years ago.. it’s not original with the CofC. But, our problems are linked to that teaching. To borrow from President Clinton, “It’s the Silence Stupid”. Note: I did not just call ANYONE stupid. The silence arguement is however, IMO stupid. I think we can come up with a reasonable facsmile of proper worship without damning people to hell based on the silence of scripture.
Like I said, I think the only solution is time.
It’s foolish talk to speak of sin unless apostolic doctrine defines wrong-doing. Use of instrumental music is no sin. It never has been. It never will be. For men to make “worship laws” is presumption. For us to let them do so is not wise. If the apostles said we should meet for worship, then we should obey. They never did any such thing. Every worship law is anti-scriptural. Every worship law should be ignored by all who seek to serve Jesus as Lord.
Doug,
The name “HistoryGuy” shows my passion, not my intellect; I will spend the rest of my life learning, I pray. 🙂
FYI: I don’t argue from silence, nor did the early church, and that should teach us [all – even me] something. I agree with John Mark Hicks who says, “Silence does not necessarily imply prohibition… Mere silence is not enough. Rather, silence must be combined with some theological rationale or some genre expectation that gives weight to the silence…” Thank you for your thoughts and the pleasant discussion. Have a great night.
Laymond, I accept your terminology. Using a euphemism is a whole lot easier, isn’t it?
To the rest I offer this apology: I did not intend to participate in any drawing of lines. Please forgive me.
One more note … in my last published post (I mistakenly emailed a few that do not appear here) I failed to include with acceptance of one another the key term, “in love.” Please forgive the omission.
I love you all, whether you love me or not. I know we do not all agree, but with love I can accept that.
Blessings of grace and peace – for we all need more of both,
Grizz
Bruce,
Thanks for your response (7:50am). You make some interesting observations and I have no doubt that you have a much deeper academic knowledge of the pros and cons of IM in worship then I have (based on your post and Matt’s comments). It would be easy to assume from my comments that I advocate IM. I undoubtedly fall under the label of “progressive”, although I really dislike any labeling. I do appreciate the approach used in your response. It was logical, interesting, and normally my curiosity would have driven me to take a deeper dive into what you had to say. I may still do that someday, but you might find it surprising, knowing that I am a member of a church that uses IM, that I’m not much of an IM advocate. So it’s likely that you would be “preaching to the choir”.
Hank,
I think I understand your frustration. But, I can tell you from firsthand experience that it is possible to be a member of a church that uses IM and not agree that it should be used. It comes down to a matter of personal priorities regarding the characteristics of the church you want to attend (assuming you have a choice). I belong to an IM church and do not advocate IM. I’d dump it in a minute if they made me emperor for a day. But, I tolerate it because there are characteristics that define that particular church that cause my IM concern to pale in comparison. Not to mention the love I have for the people.
Grizz…you sound like a big teddy bear…:) with claws…LOL
Ray…your comment caught me off guard… I totally agree with it… Now tell me…Is your view on IM progressive or conservative..?? I see it as the most conservative but yet it usually gets thrown in to the progressive pool… thoughts ?
Price,
I am, but I have been trying to keep the claws trimmed back, sometimes without much success.
Thanks for your kind review.
Blessings to you, brother,
Grizz
Wizards and muggles.
IM is part of the process whereby the c of X transforms itself into an organization that is friendlier to Wizards (those with gifts) and less so to muggles (those of without).
From my perspective as a member at Quail Springs, the 2006 praise team format of singing was fine.
It did fill a need by gifted singers (Wizards) to have a special way to use their talents.
Gifted instrumentalists (Wizards too) needed/desired an outlet to showcase/give their talents expression.
This is a guaranteed outcome given the natural conflict between vocal musicians and instrumental musicians.
Insert joke about tenors with single digit IQs.
This led to, in my mind, a system that put forth the gifted (Wizards) and puts down the non-gifted (muggles).
As the church becomes like other Christian groups, the clergy (the special, the gifted, the Wizards) will grow stronger, and the muggles will diminish.
On a personal note, long ago but not faraway, a friend, a roommate, a Wizard (piano variety) truthfully critiqued my singing in church as awful.
While troubled that my singing offended a Wizard, this muggle is not prepared to be silenced from singing to my Lord.
My wife thinks we are all special (Wizards, my term not hers). Special snow flakes are we all.
I wish it were so, but I think not: I’m a muggle, the Lord’s muggle though.
Kent,
There’s gifts, and then there’s talent, and then there’s hard work and effort. I once had a tenor in my choir who was undoubtly the worst tenor anywhere…even in alternate universes. I could have worked to lessen his truly awful voice but there was a big problem…he loved Jesus and he loved singing in the choir and I loved him. So we sang. Sometimes it was pretty bad but I and everyone in the Church knew what the story was and we were good with it.
If I have a gift, it is a gift of being able to harmonize. I don’t know where I got it but I’ve always “heard” harmony and many times when learning a new song, I find it easier to sing a harmony part than the melody. I get few chances in the CofC to use this gift because we don’t allow solo’s, ensembles, or praise singers (of course I use it in the pew). I don’t really understand why a paid song leader is okay but the other things I mentioned are not. I accept this as the cost of worshipping in a biblically sound enviornment but I wonder about who made up these rules and how long they will last.
Keep on singing until Jesus returns!
Doug
Kent,
Clever invocation of the Potterisms, but hardly true. Modesty is fine, but denying giftedness is is a false modesty. The mouth gets all the attention sometimes (to use another metaphor, one that Paul used a bit) with all the tooth whiteners and toothpastes and lipsticks and moustaches and beards trimmed just so or left to grow untamed and balms and breath mints and even tongue depressors, but without the hidden vocal chords, the ones who every so often suggest a better way of putting something so it connects, the mouth doesn’t count for much beyond appearances. Knees are more useful in ministry, really. But even moustaches are gifted parts of the body. Don’t ask me for what, since I have never met a ‘moustache’, but the Spirit gifts different ones plenty…as the Spirit decides.
And Doug, I got that harmonizing thing, too. I am a song leader in an IM church so people here are fairly foreign to 2 or more parts being sung at once. We could do solos and small choruses, but I am not a really gifted or talented group leader of that sort, oddly. So I develop my high end as much as possible and lead in singing from the heart instead of from the recording studio quality of my voice (which is nearly nonexistent). I do have a question for you, though …
If a congregation is squelching the gifts of some as tending towards the unacceptable (squeezing out the harmonizers instead of providing a forum to use their gift), how ‘sound’ is that? As a Dad to five young adults aged 22-33, I am eager to see their gifts put to good use and see them flourish as they discover new possibilities that arise from using their gifts, I have to wonder if God isn’t the one who teaches me to be like this. He isn’t conceived to be like me in this; rather, this is a way that I am expressing the transformation into being like Him. And I would hate to see my kids being held back. Is it a stretch to think that God might be showing me how He feels when we hold someone back?
Just a few thoughts…
Grizz
Cycling Dude, Anne:
Glad to provide a study that includes a look at instrumental music as part of a study of Ephesians. If an interest you can message me at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
And why am I doing? I am convinced that congregational song is a crucial means of our growing in the Lord and growing close — and that is at the heart of Paul’s teaching. We live in a nation that is largely ignoring the teaching. So, I continue to wade into this form at that point and others to raise a countering voice, as needed.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Is playing in instrument a natural talent or a spiritual gift? I see no hint in scripture forthe latter, but I know that I could play my mandolin before my baptism.
Is church then a place to display and exercise natural talents or rather spiritual gifts? Before we quickly and intuitivley answer “both and”, let’s also consider our carnbal nature first … and the ask ourselves why along with CCM (which always goes along with IM) increasing worldliness in many churches can be observed.
Alexander
Bruce,
You finally had a comment I can disagree with. I was afraid this exchange was becoming too cordial, so I’m elated to find something I can pounce on. Okay, not really…but I do disagree with you on one point, but want to applaud you on another. First, I think I disagree with your statement “We live in a nation that is largely ignoring the teaching”. Since you’re using a broad generalization I’m not sure what groups your targeting with that statement. If you literally mean the nation as a whole, then I would agree. (And add that the nation as a whole always has). If you mean church bodies that are comprised of committed followers of Jesus, practice faith based on their particular interpretation of scripture, and hold to the major tenets of Christian faith then I would disagree. Of course I can’t characterize every church, but I can say that in my community there are many churches that continue their quest for a “better way” through a great deal of Bible study. And they likely never have or never will ignore sound teaching. They may, of course, disagree, but certainly not out of self will. But, I’m reading way too much into your statement…Anyway, one of the major drivers of change I’ve observed is the desire to drive deeper levels of relationship and community among believers and its possible your study might be of interest, assuming they haven’t already reached that conclusion. Finally, I would point out that your approach to “raising a countering voice” is, in my opinion, the correct and only effective way to promote change. If we believe others have taken a position or practice their faith contrary to what our study of scripture has revealed to us, then we build relationships based upon love, respect, and the common bond of those things we do agree on. And if our assumptions are correct, we trust that God will provide an opportunity to teach and present a “better way”. I’ve always been confused how anyone thinks they can affect change screaming “Sinful Practices!!!” Love demands a different way, and your approach seems right on track. Looks like I wrote an essay…sorry about that. I’ll send you an email and forward on your study to those that are interested.
Abasnar,
Why does it matter to you whether music (either singing or playing an instrument) is a gift or a talent/skill ?
Is your mandolin playing something to be held back from God? How is it not a part of whatever you do in word or in deed (Col. 3:17) ?
Perhaps I am just dense and blind to your point. Can you explain it to me?
I cannot help but think there must be more to this than an aversion to CCM. After all, the mandolin is often associated with bluegrass music, a musical genre of which there is much southern gospel music written. Is SGM okay and CCM anathema? Shall we use the musical talents/skills we have only for carnal pursuits or lay them down since we have forsaken the carnal for the spiritual?
I do not get your point. Can you help me out?
Sincerely,
Grizz
JMF, you didn’t just re-write my statement you added to it and you added a inflection and tone that is not there.
I see it as treating God with holiness, for me personally, you and others will have to figure out for yourselves how you respect God. And because it would go against my conscience I cannot worship God with an instrument.
@ Grizz
Let me try to explain it to you. If I had the skill of blacksmithing, would I be encouraged to use my skill in our worship services? Imagine me bringing in an anvil and a hammer, starting banging between the prayers or after the sermon (of course not inbetween), simply because God has given me the gift of blacksmithing – as a natural talent, something I grew up with.
Got my point? Not all we can do is approptiate for worship.
I am a talented musician, singer and songwriter. This year, at our men’s retreat of the churches of Christ one of my songs will be sung – 4-part harmonby/a-capella. I produced one tape of songs and two CDs and I did a number of evangelistic evenings singing and sharing Christ to people in Austria. And I’d do this any time again.
I see this as the place for my natural talent, and my spiritual gift concerning performance-music. But Christ’s church is not my stage. Here I blend in with the other voices of God’s people, I join the heavenly choir and the angels. Each and every mechanical instrument would be a distraction and dissonant.
Funny, isn’t it, that I a s a musician speak for a-cappella 😉
Alexander
P.S. for Grizz
Just as a sample of my work: My last CD was on Anabaptist Hymns – it is an evangelistic CD, quite like an audio-documentary on Anabaptist history in Southern Germany and Austria. This Hymy by Felix Mantz I arranged for tin-whistles (which I played), guitar and Viola da Gamba. This is performance music or “easy listening music”.
But for congregational worship all these “trimmings” would be very, very distracting …
Alexander