Readers may recall that Thomas and Alexander Campbell were originally Presbyterians. Thomas Campbell was born in Scotland, and Alexander was educated there. In short, we share historical roots with the FCS. Although the Campbells came to reject the TULIP Calvinism of the Presbyterian Church (unlike the FCS), they were, I believe, culturally Presbyterian. They denied Calvinist salvation theology but were products of their time and place in history. Moreover, most of their “converts” were from the Baptist Church of the American frontier, and in those days, Baptists were strict Calvinists — indeed, not that much different from the modern FCS.
It’s critically important that we not mistake the Presbyterian Church of the early 19th Century with the modern American Presbyterian Church. They are very much different. 200 years ago, the Presbyterians were strict Calvinists and heavily influenced by the Puritans — who were also Calvinists. They insisted on simple buildings and a simple, low-church service. And the Regulative Principle.
This is from an article on the FCS website called “The Regulative Principle,” by David Robertson. You’d swear it was written by a member of the Churches of Christ, except the divisive issues triggerred by the Regulative Principle (silences in the scriptures are prohibitions) are different —
The problem is not with the Regulative Principle but rather with the practical out workings of it. There is no one who teaches that everything we do in worship has to be prescribed by Scripture. For example the fact that we use electric light, or the timing of services is not prescribed by Scripture and no one claims that it should be. The traditional understanding has thus been to make a distinction between the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. We are not at liberty to change, add to, or take away from the elements of worship, but the circumstances are variable. The trouble is how do we know which is which?
Just replace “elements” with “acts” and “circumstances of” with “aids to” and it becomes American Church of Christ. The author goes on to explain how the leaders of Calvinist churches had disagreed over the years over how to apply the Regulative Principle —
Calvin for example, kept Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, and Ascension. Knox got rid of them all. …
Amongst the puritans there was disagreement as well. Baxter was happy to use liturgy but Owen was strongly against. In 1662 he wrote his Discourse concerning liturgies and their imposition in which he argued against all set liturgies, including the Lord’s Prayer, thus going against the Westminster Directory for Public Worship. The later puritans also sought the removal of all ecclesiastical garb on the grounds that it was a violation of the regulative principle. Again it illustrates the somewhat selective and arbitrary nature of much of today’s discussion where there are those who argue that singing hymns is against the regulative principle, but wearing a dog collar is not.
“Dog collar” is, of course, the clerical collar worn my pastors in many denominations.
In terms of the current discussions in the Free Church it is relevant to note the Puritan position on singing. Calvin encouraged the singing of the 150 psalms, but also included the Apostles Creed and the Magnificate as suitable for singing. However by the time we get to the mid-17th century there were those who were opposed to any singing whatsoever, because it was seen as being against the regulative principle. Although psalms were well established by the middle of the 17th century (Marot’s psalms were published in 1562, the Anglo-Genevan psalter of 1556, Rous’ Psalter in 1641), some puritans were opposed to singing of any kind. There were those who were opposed to singing David’s psalms in metre because it involved an alteration of the words in the scriptures and was contrary to the regulative principle. Baptists and Congregationalists were often opposed to any singing. Even when it happened it was argued that the regulative principle would only allow one person to sing (as there was only one person praying or preaching). The General Baptist Assembly of 1689 for example declared of congregational psalm singing, “It was not deemed any way safe for the churches to admit such carnal formalities….the singing of one was the same as singing of the whole, as prayers of the one are the prayers of the whole congregation”. In some churches women were prohibited from singing because they were to be silent. In others unbelievers were told not to sing. All this demonstrates that the simple adoption of the regulative principle does not mean there will be unanimity or uniformity. It also proves that there never was a ‘golden age’ where all the Reformed were agreed that the regulative principle meant exclusive psalmody with no instrumental music.
(Italics in original; the author italicizes all quotations, contrary to the American convention).
The argument for exclusive psalmody was simply that all elements of worship were prescribed; song is an element of worship; scripture prescribes singing of psalms; it does not ‘prescribe’ any other songs in worship; therefore song in worship is limited to psalms. It should be noted that this did not prevent the 1707 Assembly allowing for paraphrases of other parts of Scripture. In fact it is the case that exclusive psalmody has never been the legislative position of the Scottish Presbyterian church – although the understanding and practice of many in the 20th century Free Church was that this was what the regulative principle demanded.
Later developments included the paraphrasing of the psalms by Isaac Watts and then during the Methodist revival the development of popular hymnody. …
As regards the use of instrumental music Calvin and the Puritans were at one in being opposed to the use of church organs. In later years the case against instrumental music was uttered most strongly in the 19th century by John L Girardeau in his work, Instrumental Music in Public Worship. The biggest problem with Girardeau’s argument is that it uses a dispensational argument which depends on the practice of the synagogue, but as Graham Keith points out in his paper, The argument for the practice of the synagogue, we do not know what the 1st century practice in the synagogue was, and furthermore it is surely against the regulative principle itself to allow anything other than the explicit commands of scripture to determine our practice.
Because the Regulative Principle is recognized in many denominations with Calvinist roots, even today, the author conducted a survey —
In the course of preparing this paper I contacted over forty Reformed church leaders throughout the world and asked them what their understanding of the regulative principle is, and what their practice is. These leaders were in different denominations and organizations. Not all responded but of those who did the answers were very consistent. The vast majority accepted the regulative principle as traditionally understood, but almost all did not accept that the regulative principle meant acapella singing of the psalms. Whilst there is agreement on what the regulative principle is, there is some disagreement on how it applies, although this is not as widespread as Gore and others would have us believe.
Thus, even those who still honor the teachings of John Calvin (not just the Regulative Principle) cannot agree on how to apply it! The author quotes one response in particular —
An example of this is the response from Ranald Macaulay, director of Christian Heritage in Cambridge, citing his father-in-law, Francis Schaeffer. “Clearly he intends us to live within an organised structure and our times together do need to be governed by a respect for doing things in a seemly manner etc. But if I take anything from Jesus teaching and practice in the NT it is his unwillingness to kowtow to formulas invented by man! So all Christian activities, whether in the home or in institutions like schools or choirs etc should demonstrate this aspect of humanness – of being willing to be flexible and not too rigid, of experimenting with new things almost as a principle to show that we KNOW that things aren’t set in concrete – especially when we take into account the huge diversity of the human race historically and geographically. And behind this principle in turn lies the even deeper sense of freedom with which God has blessed us, namely that we are made to be free – I mean as human beings (i.e. not animals or machines)
(italics in the original). Notice that the quotation refers to the teachings of Francis Schaeffer, one of the great theologians of the 20th Century (I’m a big fan!), who was part of the Calvinist tradition. The author also notes the response of John Frame —
John Frame is amongst many who charge those who advocate exclusive psalmody with inconsistency. If psalms are an element of worship then so are prayer and preaching, so why don’t we use only the written prayers of the bible (which are surely the inspired Word of God and better than any ‘merely human’ prayers) or the written sermons (which again are clearly the inspired Word of God in contrast to our ‘human’ sermons)?
The author then turns to the prohibition of a cappella music by the FCS —
Furthermore the early Church Fathers were against instrumental music in the church because they were against instrumental music per se, associating it with the pagan temple worship. The current ‘puritan’ position of banning it from church but using it elsewhere was completely unknown to them.
He quotes Derek Thomas —
Derek Thomas again questions the hermeneutic: “I find it an odd hermeneutic that OT use of instruments which cannot be denied in the Temple was part of the ceremonial law — what does that mean? Those in some way the musical instruments pointed to Jesus and in some way were fulfilled at the coming of Jesus. I just find that really weird hermeneutic. Rather than the obvious — that the reason why instruments were employed in worship was to accompany worship, to provide the base for leading a tune to the glory of God.”
The author then offers an alternative understanding of what the New Testament says about worship —
As Don Carson argues: “There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm for corporate worship.” Indeed there is explicit teaching that states that the detailed ‘regulations for worship’ have now gone. They were only ‘external regulations applying until the timeof the new order’ (See Hebrews 9:1-10). To attempt to apply an OT understanding of the regulative principle is self-contradictory, because it goes against the NT understanding. The NT does give us the elements, but only the elements. We must not turn circumstances, traditions or personal or cultural preferences into essential elements.
Amen! The author adds —
We need to know what are the essential elements? Most Reformed commentators are in agreement on the substance of this. Acts 2:42 gives us the four pillars built upon the rock that is Christ and the foundation of the apostles and prophets. These are the apostles’ doctrine, the fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread. To these, or included in these, are the reading of scripture, collection, and the sacraments. Nowhere in the New Testament is it even suggested that singing psalms only or the nonuse of instrumental music is an element. And there is no obvious logic or reason when we try to argue that church buildings, clerical dress or versions of the Bible are mere circumstances whereas using a piano is an element, or worse still, singing the name of Jesus is an element which should be banned.
The author then addresses a distressingly familiar issue — splitting over worship issues —
Finally we must deal with the threat of disunity. I have been in the ministry long enough to know that there are those in the church who continually use the threat of disunity to manipulate or bully (do this and I will leave). We have to be more mature than that, or we will not survive. There is absolutely no need to split the Church over this. In this respect the words of Dr Iain D Campbell are wise “There is also the fact that we get hung up on secondary issues. For the New Testament church, there was only one issue: ‘far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’. That was the primary, driving force behind the work of the New Testament church: how to lift up the cross and how to evangelise a lost world”. Dr Campbell went on to opine that the apostle Paul “would have found our worship wars entirely distressing and unnecessary”.
Again, amen!
The full text of the paper is well worth the read, because their instrumental/psalmody dispute is so very much like our own instrumental music controversy, with many of the same rationalizations and arguments being made.
[Thanks to James Glasscock for pointing out the Free Church of Scotland out to me.]
Jay,
A tangent about which i'm curious–did the Campbells reject TULIP before or after their split from the Presbyterian church?
–guy
Jay,
Jay,
Once again you have made the inaccurate claim that "the Campbells came to reject the TULIP Calvinism of the Presbyterian Church." In the past when you made this claim it has been pointed out that Thomas Campbell did NOT reject TULIP Calvinism and maintained his Calvinism as his "private property." Indeed, I believe he considered the Westminster Confession of Faith the highest and best non inspired theological treatise ever penned by man. There is nothing in Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address that refutes TULIP.
In the past you have acknowledged the error of claiming Thomas Campbell rejected TULIP and now here are you making the claim again. I am at a loss in coming to an understanding of why you would repeatedly make this same mistake.
Hesed,
Randall
It is also worth noting that TULIP Calvinism is alive and quite well in the more conservative Presbyterian churches, though the more liberal Presbyterian Church in the USA may have rejected the doctrines of sovereign grace.
Another historical tidbit – Thomas Campbell's father was born a Roman Catholic but converted to the Anglican Church. Thomas became a Presbyterian on his own – not due to being born one.
The family of Thomas Campbell's wife (her name was Jane Corneigle and she was the mother of Alexander Campbell) was a descendant of French Huguenots (Protestant Calvinists). Sometime after the St Batholomew's Day massacre (1572) her family fled France to avoid further persecution. They ended up in Scotland and it was there that Thomas met the young lady and they married.
Jay
Are you sure that's not church of Christ???
Randall….would be interested in seeing your support for your comments about the Campbell's and TULIP..That's interesting to me…Thx.
Jay,
As i understand it there are a couple other Calvinist denominations that are acappella. i'm guessing for the same reasons?
What's the Eastern Orthodox rationale for it? Surely they would be the largest non-IM body by far.
–guy
Randall,
I cannot speak for Jay, but if he has acknowledged Thomas’ Calvinism before, then its prob just a simple mistake. Contrary to the opinion of some on here, I make mistakes too…. (just not on IM – ha ha ha).
Jay,
Great post and worth the study! There have always been debates among users of the RPW on how to use it, like most hermeneutics. They have been dealing with the IM issue since at least the 1790s and it looks like it has come up again.
Two books that may be of interest to you (perhaps free online) that deal with the Church of Scotland and IM are:
(1) Porteous, William and William Richie, The Organ Question: Statements for and against the use of the organ in public worship London, England: Groombridge & Sons, 1807. BiblioBazar Reprint, 2007. (Church of Scotland, Presbyterian)
(2) Begg, James, Select Work of James Begg on Worship, Puritan Reprints, 2007
Two other points of interest: Guy pointed out (in question form), that not all a cappella advocates base their argumentation on the RPW. For example, the Orthodox do not; I do not. Regarding the Campbell’s and Calvinism, Alexander became semi-pelagian, but Thomas Campbell remained a Calvinist until the day he died.
Randall,
I cannot speak for Jay, but if he has acknowledged Thomas' Calvinism before, then its prob just a simple mistake. Contrary to the opinion of some on here, I make mistakes too…. (just not on IM – ha ha ha).
Guy,
From my study, all of the Orthodox family, except for the Ethiopian Orthodox, stand on a cappella based upon the spiritual nature (as defined by the Bible) of the new covenant in contradistinction to the old covenant. The Orthodox believe this is the consistent message of the church fathers (East and West), and one reason for discussing the IM at the Council of Laodicea (363-364 AD). One can disagree with their conclusions, but this is what they believed.
Allow me a quick note about the Ethiopian Orthodox. They have an interesting history which diverges from the standard Orthodox family. From about the 6th century (?) they have had different types of music, with different instruments, for different occasions, such as weddings, funerals, and liturgy. Before any IM advocates cling to them, I would suggest two cautions:
(1) The practice arose late in Christian history around the time frame that Papal authority for introducing instruments began [there was debate about instruments before the Pope added the first instrument in the late 7th century]
(2) Ethiopian Orthodox restrict what instruments can be used, when they can be use, and who can play them. Thus, there is a difference between the Ethiopian reasoning, and arguments for IM use by modern proponents who subscribe to Sola Scriptura.
Check with Leroy Garrett and his book The Stone Campbell Movement An Anecdotal History of Three Churches. Leroy is living in Denton, Texas. He quotes Thomas (not Alexander) late in life as saying he is a Calvinist and holds it as his private property and will be a Calvinist all his life. Alexander rejected much of Tulip Calvinism, but not Thomas. I've had enough conversations with Leroy there are times I am not sure which detail came from the book and which from Leroy. These comments from Thomas regarding his Calvinism either appeared in a dialogue in the Mill. Harbinger or in a letter written by Thomas Campbell. Also, in the Encyclopedia of the SC Movement (pages 110-111)Thomas is quoted as being a Calvinist in his defense of Aylett Raines. John Mark Hicks in his blog also stated "Thomas Campbell was still calling himself a “Calvinist” in the late 1820s."
Alex. gave up his Calvinism as did BW Stone, but not Thomas.
Hope this helps
Personally I cannot find good Biblical principle for music style. However like prior church history we can decide to immitate the world around us or do something (hipefully) better.
Max Lucado recent work mentions the audience entertainment issue of church services, and wishes for more participation. Acapella singing encourages participation whereas the larger or louder the stage band and/or organ, the more attending a concert we are. Personally I like class settings better than sermons for the same reason. What happened to Paul's formula where one brings a song, another a message, and we get together and share?
Randall,
I readily concede that Thomas Campbell has been quoted as saying he was still a "Calvinist" well into the Restoration Movement's history. However, I can't find much sign of TULIP in his writings.
Read the "Declaration and Address." It sound awfully Arminian, in the classic sense. It speaks of depravity but not election and not atonement. Words like "irresistible" and "unconditional" can't be found.
How could a TULIP Calvinist argue for the unity of all saved people and not once mention election?
My interpretation is that Campbell saw Calvinism as a much broader system of thought, rejected some elements and kept some. And the element he particularly rejected was ULI and likely P. I see no signs of any of these in his writings.
This is confirmed by Alexander Campbell's notes on the Declaration and Address, where he wrote,
"These weekly addresses were well attended by all classes of the community. The majority of the citizens were either Baptists by profession or in sentiment. Unaccustomed as they were to religious addresses that had for their object to enlighten the understanding rather than move the passions, the Baptists found in the lectures of Father Campbell but little to cherish their notions of heart-religion, of getting religion by some immediate, indefinable operation upon the feelings, which left the understanding intact. Their honest conviction [127] doubtless was, that the Bible taught the idea that men are irresistibly drawn by the Father to the Son, through the direct impart of the Spirit on the heart, by which they are made to feel the saving power of the Son nolens volens; predicating this notion of conversion upon an isolated view of an utterance of the Savior when he said to the Jews, "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him,"–a view which obviously perverts the meaning given to the passage by Christ himself; for he defines the drawing to be the teaching of the Divine word: "And they shall all be taught of God."
"This view of conversion Father Campbell regarded to be the great barrier in the way of a rational and Scriptural understanding of the Gospel; and that instead of regarding the Gospel as the power of God for salvation, this view of conversion made it a dead letter. Without inveighing directly against this popular error, so pernicious in its tendencies, Father Campbell endeavored to show, in his lectures, that the Gospel was a most rational and gracious scheme, setting forth the Divine philanthropy, whose object was to persuade fallen, ruined man to give up his rebellion and be reconciled to God through his Son, the gift of the Father's love for the salvation of a perishing world; that we must learn to read and study the Bible as a revelation from Heaven if we would know anything truly of the character of God or of man, to whom he has made this revelation of himself, and that with a special view that fallen, rebellious man, the object of God's compassionate love, might perceive his Divine compassion and be persuaded thereby to give up his hostility to the Divine [128] government, and accept of the offered terms of reconciliation; and that if he close not in with the offered mercy, it is because his rebellion is as willful as it is sinful. We have thus presented to the reader a very brief and imperfect sketch of Father Campbell's manner of attacking the great error of those times, not only among the Baptists, but indeed among all the orthodox denominations."
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/me…
Jay,
Perhaps you have it right and the Stone Campbell historians have it wrong. Although I am confused as to why you have acknowledged that Thomas was a Calvinist in the past and back off of it now. Surely you don't mean he was only a Calvinist in the sense of the regulative principle and penal substitution atonement – and all mainline Christians accepted the Trinity, though Stone did not.
The Declaration and Address was a call to unity and may well have specifically avoided alignment with a Calvinist, Arminian or semi-Pelagian world view and I think that is clear to all who read it.
Take for example proposition 6: That although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God–therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession.
Do you see that at the time Thomas wrote these words (1809) he was a minister in the Presbyterian church and only had a problem with the sectarian aspect of their practice in allowing the supper only to other Presbyterians of the same sect. He had no quarrel with the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith which clearly presents TULIP Calvinism. He did have a problem with using it as a test of fellowship as it would bind upon the conscience (of some) theology that was beyond the ability of some to see the truth thereof – and some of that theology was based on inference and deduction. That didn't mean it wasn't true (inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word:) – it simply meant one should not require another person to acknowledge it.
In your reference to the Declaration and Address you seem to imply that as early as 1809 Thomas already had his doubts (or had rejected) TULIP theology and that is why he doesn't press it in the document. Perhaps that is a bit of a stretch. I am still stuck trusting the scholarship of men like Leroy Garrett and other scholars of the early years of the movement who maintain that Thomas held to orthodox (Calvinistic) soteriology all of his life.
Grace and peace,
Randall
Was in the auditorium at Quail Springs for a short saturday work project, the band was practicing while we did our thing.
The band was loud. Are there recommendations about decibel levels when churches change.
I guess a praise team could have the same problem if the speakers are set too high.
1) Christian friend, music major, pianist told me there was a conflict between vocal and instrumental musicians in the wider, secular world (I liken it to that between geologists and engineers).
2) Another Christian friend, pianist sat with me in church back in the 70s, after the service he let me know how awful my singing was.
3) Wedding with at least one member of a Chuch of Christ held at Westminister Presbyterian had one song that didn't involve their church organist; the look on her face when the audience sang the song with the seven fold amen(?) without her. (Sorry a weak moment by my competive side).
4) Having visited a Russian Orthodox Church several times, I can't imagine that they would be troubled at the need to explain why they used no instruments.
5) Quail Springs used Old Testament examples about the Temple to justify instrumental music. This may excuse Ken Sublett's many Old Testament verses.
6) The Temple examples surprised me. The Synagogue was appropriate model to compare it had always seemed to me. Can't predict someone else's logic flow.
7) From a google search the first Synagogue with instruments was Berlins in the early 1800s.
8) Humorous quote at Spengler at First Things; Jewish lady in the comments said her unbelieving husband was appalled that a reformed rabbi would play the guitar on the shabbat.
Jay I went to the web site you included at the end of your comment and copied proposition 9 from the Declaration and Address:
9. That all that are enabled, thro' grace, to make such a profes-
40 sion, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct,
should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should
love each other as brethren, children of the same family and father,
temples of the same spirit, members of the same body, subjects
of the same grace, objects of the same divine love, bought with
45 the same price, and joint heirs of the same inheritance. Whom
God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov...
You will note that the proposition speaks of those enabled thro' GRACE [emphasis mine] to make a profession … ought to regard each other as members of the same family.
The enabled through grace part is quite Calvinistic and places the emphasis on God's grace in enabling us to come to faith rather than through our own free will. I am at a loss to understand how you could suggest that Thomas Campbell was Arminian when he penned the Declaration and Address or that the document sounds Arminian. I would challenge you to find a scholar or two of the SC movement that would support this claim of yours.
I wonder when Alexander Campbell penned the words you quoted regarding his father. I presume it was years, perhaps decades after the Dec. and Add was published – perhaps when Thomas was an old man or possibly even after Thomas had died. I am sure Thomas was capable of speaking for himself when he was still active so why not quote him?
I am reminded of how Alexander's critics quoted Alexander against himself in their arguments with him later in his life. Alexander wrote so much it is easy enough to find him saying many things if one searches diligently.
For example, in the reply to the lady from Lunenburg, Va. he makes his point clear enough. Then when all the attacks came his replies muddy the water enough that one can find him both affirming his original statement and backing off of it.
Hesed,
Randall
Guy,
I'm not sure I can answer that. In fairness to Alexander Campbell, his views evolved over time. His original split with the Presbyterians was over creedalism — their refusal to serve communion unless you swore agreement with their creed.
When he came to America, his father showed him the Declaration and Address, and they discovered that they had been led to the same conclusions regarding unity and grace. This took them further out of Calvinism, as they disassociated election from agreement with doctrinal positions other than faith in Christ.
It was much later that they decided to be baptized, but even then, it was in obedience to the command to be immersed, but not for remission of sins (still a Reformed understanding). Much later, Alexander concluded that baptism is "in order to" remission of sins. Thomas likely never came to that conclusion.
Alexander clearly takes several non-TULIP positions in his early writings, insisting that salvation comes from a rational faith, where the one hearing the word chooses to believe. Of course, there are Calvinists who'd agree, only saying that the choice comes from the action of the Spirit, but A. Campbell strongly argued that the Spirit was received at baptism and did not touch the heart before — at least not in a way that overrode free will.
And so A. Campbell seems very non-TULIP, but just when he reached all those conclusions, I can't answer, but it seems likely that A. Campbell left the Presbyterian Church before fully rejecting TULIP.
“There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm(do’s and dont’s) for [individual] and corporate worship.” Indeed there is explicit teaching that states that the detailed ‘regulations for worship’ have now gone. They were only ‘[temporal] regulations applying until the time of the new order’ (See Hebrews 9:1-10). To attempt to apply an OT understanding of the regulative principle is self-contradictory, because it goes against the NT understanding. The NT does give us the elements, but only the elements. We must not turn circumstances, traditions or personal or cultural preferences into essential elements[emphasis mine].