Alexander wrote,
I would never call it sinful to use instruments in worship.
But I call it inconsistent with the idea of Restoration.If we strive for unity through going back to the “Ancient Order of Things”, a-capella worship (to be sure) is one of the “minors”. But it always becomes an issue, when people want to depart from “the old paths”.
I would most likely disagree with the standard reasoning or the attitude among many conservative churches – because they make this bigger than it is, even a salvation issue (if they are quoted correctly in this Blog).
But I also disagree with the progressive approach, because it does not fit the idea of restoration, but is – concerning instrumental worship – indeed based on wishful thinking. The church of christ in their oldest records we have unanimously rejected instruments in worship. You cannot deny this fact, nor easily argue, that a-capella worship was an innovation in the 2nd century. This is they way it was from the beginning, and it did not change until the middle ages.
Why? Pray, why do progressives always start a fight on this issus? Why don’t they comply with the tradition and focus on the spiritual quality of faith and church life? Changing such externals as instrumental versus a-capella might stir up a few more emotions in worship – but that’s not to be confused with spirituality. On the other hand it does cause division among the churches of Christ, and it causes many to fall into the sins of resentment and ugly talk about others. And this indeed can become a salvation issue!
Is what you gain worth the price, Jay (et al.)?
I’m going to spend two posts on these questions. And I want to make clear at the beginning that I find Alexander an engaging, thoughtful, spiritual conversationalist. I’m not picking on him.
However, the questions he asks are critically important to the contemporary Churches of Christ. You see, in most of Christendom, the decision to be a cappella or instrumental would be thought of as being on the order of what color to paint the foyer — a matter of taste and expedience. But in the Churches of Christ, it’s beyond that. Even for those (like Alexander) who don’t see the question as a salvation matter, it’s often seen as an identity question. Unspoken but often very real is the question: “If we aren’t the churches that sing a cappella, who are we?” Closely tied to that is: “This will cause some much division and consternation, is it really worth the price?”
Both questions are subtly tied to the 20th Century Churches of Christ way of thinking, that is, to the false teaching that we are the only people going to heaven. If we are the only saved people, then, yes, a movement toward the instrument may be seen as a division. But if we are but a part of the church-universal, then a move toward the instrument is step toward greater unity with the larger Christian community and away from seeking an identity in a subset of the church-universal.
Just so, when we worry about whether we are still a part of the “Church of Christ” or Restoration Movement if we use instruments, we are worrying about whether we remain part of a faction — unless we believe the Churches of Christ is the same thing as the church-universal.
So I ask the readers to first think in terms of the Churches of Christ as a subset of the church-universal, a subset with a lot to offer the larger community of believers, but a subset, saved by grace and not works, holy by the virtue of the saving work of Jesus, not our own perfection.
Does teaching the permissibility of instrumental music cause division among the Churches of Christ? Is it sin because of the divisive attitudes of others?
We need to start with some basics. First, if someone is filled with “resentment and ugly talk about others,” who is the sinner? The one who is being talked ugly about? Or the one doing the ugly talking?
Obviously, it’s possible that both are sinners, but the one being resented or talked ugly about may or may not be a sinner. The one doing the resenting and ugly talk is always a sinner.
(Mar 7:21-23 ESV) 21 “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
(2Co 12:20 ESV) 20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish–that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.
(Eph 4:31 ESV) 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
(Col 3:8 ESV) 8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
(1Pe 2:1 ESV) So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
These behaviors are simply not permitted to Christians. Period. And I can’t conceive of an ethic that says, “You can’t do that, because it’ll make me slander you!” That’d be unthinkably wrong. The sinners don’t set the agenda. The sinners don’t get to use their sinfulness to control others.
Rather, we need to call on the immature among us to be true to our calling.
(Gal 5:22-24 ESV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
(Tit 2:11-15 ESV) 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. 15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
(2Pe 1:5-8 ESV) 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The fact that we are slandered and resented is cause for celebration!
(Mat 5:11-12 ESV) 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
(Luk 6:22-23 ESV) 22 “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.”
(1Pe 4:14-16 ESV) 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.
Should we prefer to be among those suffering ugly talk and resentment, or those guilty of ugly talk and resentment?
Of course, we could capitulate to the persecutors and submit to their version of Christianity, but this would be as wrong as could be.
(1Co 7:22-23 ESV) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
(Gal 5:1 ESV) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
(1Pe 2:15-16 ESV) 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
The last thing a Christian should do is give control over those who pervert the gospel into a legal system, seeking justfication by works. Yes, while you do not consider instrumental music a sin, you urge me to allow those who do consider it a sin — even as a salvation issue — to control of the doctrinal agenda of the church — so they won’t become guilty of sin. But if they would slander someone for disagreeing over such a question, they are already guilty of sin, because their hearts haven’t yet submitted to the Spirit of Christ. People whose hearts are filled with “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” may well disagree with me, but they will not be hateful.
Yes, there are those who behave abominably in response to disagreement, and in doing so, they show themselves to be Spirit-less, weak, untransformed Christians. The cure is for them to honor God’s word, and the last thing we should do is kowtow to them and give them de facto control of God’s church. These are not the people who should be in authority among us.
Now, the problem is even deeper than untransformed hearts. It’s a false gospel. I’ve covered this at length elsewhere, but the notion that a cappella singing is a salvation issue is an example of the Galatian heresy, because it’s an effort to be justified by works. That false gospel has led to countless divisions in the 20th Century Churches of Christ and unspeakable heartache and misery. This is not a question best solved by silence. Ignoring the problem won’t make it get better.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke.
So, no, teaching against division does not cause division. It may well expose those who truly are dividers when they disagree and demand division! Teaching freedom does not destroy freedom. It may well expose those who oppose freedom as enslavers of God’s people when they disagree and demand that we return to slavery! Suffering persecution is not grounds to stop. It’s cause to persevere.
There is only one path to true unity, and it’s not compromise and silence about God’s will. It’s the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God. All else is false religion. There are many ways that people might be united, but I wish to be united in Jesus and faith in him.
I may have misread Alexander's comments, but I thought he was concerned about "the sins of resentment and ugly talk about others" coming from both sides of the argument over music.
Jay,
Good write-up.
While teaching against division is not the cause of division, the voices that do not want one to teach in order to correct our perceptions will speak in "high volume" and they will require things to be their way. I have witnessed it too many times.
At this point, I am using a Romans 14 approach and would rather bow out and let them play in their own sandbox than argue about "truth". It's tiresome, especially when the church leadership is not unified. I'm now a minister looking for a progressive home.
Terry,
If he did, it is wrong on both sides, but what Jay states here is true anyway.
In my view, if we want to be completely honest, there are lots of unsaved people in the mix with whom unity is impossible until they submit to Christ. Another added problem with our struggle to get along and have unity is that we set a low bar for who is actually a Christian. We generally consider anyone who has been baptized (especially by a church of Christ brother for the remission of sins) a brother. A person can deny many of the essential truths of the Christian faith and spew slander and hatred about Christians and we still call them brothers. How odd is that?
There is a segment of our movement with whom unity is not possible by any biblical measure because they are lost. They are preaching another gospel and like those ancient heretics Paul addressed in his Galatian letter, they are severed from Christ and fully deserve to be accursed.
Royce
I see a dogged determination by some to identify themselves as Church of Christ or as a product of the Restoration Movement…Is that the identity one should seek?
Price,
Personally, while I find the history of the Restoration Movement useful and interesting … as I do my only genealogical history … it is irrelevant to my identity or my salvation.
Rpyce, would we not call "babes" in Christ Brothers? And, why must we be so ready to issue condemnation and accurse those that disagree with our positions? Is it so wrong to simply come to a reasonable disagreement without all the name calling and labeling? It seems one doesn't have to go back all that far in our church history to see points of contention like whether women should vote, wear pants to church, black/white divisions, etc., that we have grown through with differing positions than from those which we entered. What I see in scripture are churches from various regions willing to help those in other areas..No name calling. No segregation. Jews willing to accept Gentiles with all their "baggage"…Paul becoming all things to all people in order to save a few…Should we not try to restore those unifying principals as well ?? David, I agree with your last post.
"…Spirit-less, ..untransformed Christians." IHuh?? Is there such a person? Didn't Jesus himself tells us that you either are or you aren't. There is no in between.
1Cr 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1Cr 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Unless you can prove ,by scripture, that singing a cappella is sinful and displeasing to God, why start trouble? I have never understood why a person would join a congregation with the intention of changing it,
changing the way they worship. did you agree with them when you joined, or did you join something you disagree with? (not specifically singling out Jay)
Just who is the offender here?
Laymond, wow !! Since when does Freedom in Christ cause trouble? Should it ?
I do not recall the idea of "restoration" in scripture apart from the work of Jesus. The restoration he was concerned about was to a right relationship with God. Jesus' emphasis was not on how to conduct a worship "service," nor getting back to following a list of rules and operating procedures. His teaching was in how to walk with God and how to conduct ourselves toward others so they can see and come into the kingdom.
Brethren, I believe we are at war, but not with each other. In the kingdom, warfare is much different. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. The weapons are the same as Jesus used and has equipped us with: forgiveness, mercy, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, etc, etc. This is not only the way I engage the enemy, but it's how I do my part in the "restoration." If we can fight to help restore the church to this, we'll be in line with the heart of God.
I think on both sides there are people who act very unchristlike.
That’s at least not my perspective. Our identity is Christ and not the way we worship Him. But if our identity is in Him, then Unity is tied very closely to this identity. And I have seen no better approach to unity so far then going back to the “Ancient Order of Things” (= Restoration)
Why? I think, if we go back to the times where the church of Christ was still united (2nd century) we will find the most authentic understanding of the Christian Faith. I have posted my essay <a href=” /2010/09/colossians-the-ins… “<Mind the Gap with a strong purpose: Don’t answer: We go by the Bible alone! This does not work, brother! It only produced schism after schism and enmity since the slogan “Sola Scriptura” was coined by Martin Luther – who was unable to come to unity with a different Reformer (Zwingli) who also held to “Sola Scriptura” – and both became persecuters of a third group, the Anabaptists. “Sola Scriptura” NEVER worked.
So what’s the alternative? Go back to the Scriptures, but “Mind the Gap” – we do have valuable testimonies of how the faith was understood a generation or two after the Apostles, and how the church of Christ worshipped, when it was still unified.
Got my point?
Now: A-Capella worship is a minor issue in all of these, and I would not disfellowship churches, who don’t understand this yet. But forsaking what is truly ancient is inconsistent with the ideal of the Restoration Movement. It is not sin, per se, don’t get me wrong here. It is inconsistent. They seem to not have thought it through to the end.
And I bemoan the results! If a progressive church offers two different services, she is already splitting the church (even though they meet in the same building) in order to please men. This is shocking, and I don’t understand how so many fail to see this. It’s not really difficult to understand.
Or put it this way:
a) It might be wrong to make a law of a-capella worship (I think it is wrong), because this condemns Christians who wholeheartedly love my Lord.
b) It might be wrong to worship with instruments in an objective and historic sense (this was the ancient practice as far as the records go that are available to us from the 2nd century till the middle ages – in the Eastern Orthodox churches until now – so I am not convinced that only a minority worships a-capella)
c) It might be OK to worship with instruments, but you cannot make a case that this would be in any way near a command, nor the historic practice.
So where does this leave us? If we vote for IM, we dismiss the testimony of the ancient church of Christ. On what grounds: “They were fallible and uninspired” – but we? Mind the Gap, Jay! Yes, the others argue in a very insufficient way, too. The Regulative Principle is a man made hermeneutical tool that answers some questions but not all. It was meant to make “Sola Scriptura” work – but “Sola Scriptura” never worked; it does not mind the gap.
Do you get the idea? – OK, and when we depart from a-cappella worship, this brings irritation to the “traditionalists”. Because they either believe a) or b) or “Sola Scripture”+Reg.Princ. – Either way (for them) you are objectively wrong and it is hard to find a common language any longer.
Please understand me right: It might be OK to use instruments, but it is not at all certain. The only thing which is guaranteed is schism and enmity, which is not Christ-like at all. Though this makes it seem that a-capella worship is our identity, it is not. Christ is our identity – and this identity calls for unity – and this unity is broken by a hermeneutical approach that does not mind the gap and dismisses the ideal of Restoration by going back to the “Ancient Order of Things” (which by definition is a historical and even archaeological quest! Not a hermeneutical task only – so “Sola Scriptura” cannot achieve it.)
I am writing a bit complicated, I know, but this is really important to me. I don’t defend the Regulative Principle, I am not saying that using Instruments is a sin that damns you to hell. But I am saying there is objective truth to be found, and the way to discover it is not “Sola Scriptura” – which never worked from the beginning (Luther vs. Zwingli … and some 20.000 Protestant denominations down the road, I think we should slowly but surely realize that).
Absolutely correct! That’s why I ended my comment with: “it causes many to fall into the sins of resentment and ugly talk about others. And this indeed can become a salvation issue!“ This is really a very important aspect of the whole matter (far more important than whether we use instruments or not).
The first sentence reminds me of: “Let’s agree to disagree.” I don’t like this, because this is an easy way out of working and shaping each other towards Christ. But I like the summary of (or hints to) unifying principles. Segregation shall never be an option.
This is true, too. But there is a different aspect of Restoration, where we maybe don’t find the word, but a few verses can give you the idea:
This was a call to restoration in the Old Covenant, which – in many ways – was repeated by almost all prophets.
This definitely has to do with the restoration of worship.
Here it is about restoring marriage and softening our hearts. This is restoration – back to how it was at the beginning-
This is about the first love, and the first love is tied to the first works – repentance included doing what was done at the beginning. Therefore, the way the church believe and acted and worshipped is important in order to restore the first love.
Not in a mechanical way. Not as a formula or a list of rules, but as an attitude of our hearts toward Christ, the one who builds His church according to His will and word for His glory.
Alexander
Price,
You asked: "would we not call "babes" in Christ Brothers?
Yes, of course we consider babes in Christ brothers. No person is born into the kingdom fully mature.
"And, why must we be so ready to issue condemnation and accurse those that disagree with our positions?"
It is not "my positions", it is the gospel. The strongest words Paul ever used was addressed to those who preached "another gospel" insisting that faith in Jesus was not enough and that people must be circumsized. When anyone teaches that God saves upon the basis of what Jesus has accomplished plus anything else it is not the gospel but a perversion.
" Is it so wrong to simply come to a reasonable disagreement without all the name calling and labeling? It seems one doesn't have to go back all that far in our church history to see points of contention like whether women should vote, wear pants to church, black/white divisions, etc., that we have grown through with differing positions than from those which we entered. What I see in scripture are churches from various regions willing to help those in other areas..No name calling. No segregation. Jews willing to accept Gentiles with all their "baggage"..
I haven't called anyone a name that I recall. None of the things you mention are remotely related to what I wrote. If you will read again my comment I think you will see that.
Royce
Royce. Romans 14:1 calls us to not pass judgement on those who have a different opinion than us on matters that aren't clear and certain. Musical instruments in the church is in my opinion a topic that good Christian people can have differening view points regarding. I may have misread your comments so I apologize for any unwarranted comment. Just seems that this issue has been made a fellowship if not a salvation issue by many in the church of Christ tradition.
Alexander….if seems to me that agreeing to disagree, for a time at least, is much better than agreeing immediately to divide….Working out our own salvation seems to imply that we might disagree on some matters perhaps even strongly but in matters such as instrumental music where things are not nearly as clear as some would suggest…or like…we might be better off allowing for freedom in Christ rather than creating bridges to fellowship that one must cross that Christ never said to build.
Again, Danny Corbitt's scholarly work on this topic and the early church is well worth the short read. (Link posted previously by another) It brings to light some issues with which I was not familiar that impact the idea of returning to the days of the early church. Perhaps there is reason that one might not necessarily want to do that if they understood the reasons the early church decided to do or not to do a particular thing. I understand from communicating with Danny that he has been invited by Abilene Christian to present his material in a couple of weeks. At a minimum that suggests that his work has been reviewed and considered to be worthy of consideration even if the conclusions are debatable…
Guys, haven't we missed an issue here? True, the early church did not use instruments in worship..we learn that from early church writers…but, the question is "why didn't they?". As far as I can ascertain, those writers (who were considered faithful to their doctrines) never wrote that such worship was against God's will or even "sinful". What I read is that it was considered "unchristian" because it was used in pagan worship and they did not want to be confused with such worship. However, can we say that of instrumental worship today? Hardly.
If we say that Paul wrote "psallo" and that at the time it meant "vocal only"…that too appears to be incorrect. I believe Paul allowed us to see that he understood "psallo" to be "with or without instruments" in his writing in Romans 15:9 where he wrote that the Gentiles would psallo when they came into the "church"….you see, he was quoting an O.T. word (z'mar) which meant to praise God with instruments, with or without the voice. If Paul used the word "psallo" in the place of "z'mar", it could hardly be misunderstood that he meant with or without instruments. Let's get to educating our people out of this "prejudical darkness" and get on with the business at hand of leading the lost to Christ. Enough of this fighting and let's stop trying to convert the saved!!!
I have no interest in the "Ancient Order of Things" – the ancient order that included slavery, polygamy, female subservience, and Jew-Gentile division and hatred. It seems an arbitrary standard to aim for the late 1st-century / early 2nd century church as the definition of the "Ancient Order of Things." Why would we not aim a few decades more ancient – if Restoration is a true a worthy goal for the church, surely we would want to restore the most ancient church?
Rather, I seek the Future Order of Things – "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." The early church was not perfect – the 2nd century church was not perfect – the church of the ECF (along with the several other historic expressions of Christianity that Philip Jenkins describes in The Lost History of Christianity) was not perfect – the medieval church wasn't perfect – the Reformation church wasn't perfect – the Restoration church wasn't perfect – the church wasn't perfect in the 19th and 20th century – and the church isn't perfect now.
The will of God is perfect – and we're called to enact more and more of His will as we look forward to the day when His will is done on earth as it is in heaven.
I have yet to be won over by the claim that the early church did not worship with instruments – which everyone else seems to accept undocumented.
Some early church fathers whose writings survive (and I'm talking about second century as the earliest mention) did have concerns about and even prejudices against instrumental worship, and are sparingly derisive about it … but do those concerns go all the way back to century one? Or were they the cultural result of persecution and a desire to be so separate from pagan worship that – since Jewish worship at the temple (with instruments) was obsolete – anything that even hinted at pagan practice was to be eschewed?
Did Jesus and his disciples and later, their converts in Jerusalem, worship at the temple where instruments were in evidence? Or did they stand in the courts, arms folded, lips pursed in disapproval and castigate everyone who worshiped God in this way? Did every church with both Jewish and Gentile converts which met in homes sweep all instruments from the premises before a cappella worship could proceed? Any conclusion seems absurd to presume, for lack of any evidence.
Suppose there was instrumental praise in the church described in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles. Suppose that the writings of a handful of second-century fathers were geographically typical of all churches.
Which of these two churches, then, would a Restoration Movement be required to restore? If you hold to apostolic authority as a determining factor, which holds more weight – the earlier, or the later? Canon or Tradition? Is it even reasonable to make any assumption, given the absence of supporting facts, one way or another?
Or is it more logical to assume that the total lack of mention of instruments in scripture canon betrays God's complete lack of interest in the subject?
Yes, I should have said "New Testament scripture canon" in that last sentence with reference to the church; there's ample evidence for His approval of it in the Old regarding the gathering of God's people for worship.
Help me out here. It seems it was okay for David to worship God with a harp. And in Rev 15:2, God give harps to men for worship, but for some reason, these harps have become an abomination to God. Why is this?
Because some assert that we must have a specific (enough for them) command, approved (according to their standards) example, or necessary (according to their definition) inference from Scripture authorizing every act that occurs in Christian worship (some say) or Christian life (fewer, but still some, say).
Abasnar's comments on the weakness of relying on "Sola Scriptura" need to be addressed. Some of the points are strong. It leads to the following question . . .
What would be wrong with an approach that says:
1. We honor scriptures when the scriptures are clear.
2. We rely on the testimony of ECF through 200/220 AD, before apostasy, or however you want to word it . . . when the scriptures are not clear but these ECF have provided witness.
3. We are free in all other matters.
What would we end up with? Is IM the only thing that would be settled with this approach? Would it change anything else?
Brent,
It would likely change a lot of people's views on the millenium (among other things).
Abasnar's comments assume that anyone here is asserting the form of Sola Scriptura that he is assuming in order to make his counter-argument.
I would assert that no one is, in fact, suggesting that we only listen to Scripture. Rather, we are saying that Scripture gets the first deciding vote, and if Scripture is unclear, the needs of the mission of God in our local culture get the next vote.
We listen to the ECF, we listen to archaeology, we listen to science, but Scripture – the most trustworthy guide for spiritual formation – gets the first vote.
I ask the above question because . . . if the position that states we should not rely on the ECF only weighs in on the IM question . . . it weakens the position. It would make it look like the position was chosen to decide the IM question only.
His comments also assume – and this is a big deal for me – that the church was born perfect and whole like Athena from the head of Zeus. It was not.
The church had to work out Jew-Gentile relations.
The church had to work out what writings were authoritative.
The church had to work out the prickly issues of polygamy and slavery.
The church is still working out the prickly issues of womens' roles and the church-state relationship.
None of these problems are solved by retreating to the infant church. We're commanded over and over to grow up – to mature in Christ. Maturity rarely, if ever, entails climbing back into the cocoon.
Do we not even have to make a leap to say that the reason the early church was united was because it was uniform in practice? What if the strength and unity came because Jews were allowed to continue Jewish practices while Gentiles began to develop their own?
Paul teaches against circumcision and then turns around and has Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). In Acts 21 Paul takes the purification rights even though he need not. Someone might say see what he did to keep the peace and I would agree, but they should keep in mind that when people used these as a test of fellowship he rebuked them (Peter recorded in Galatians 2:11 and Colossians to name a few). I just don't see how he would side with those dividing from the universal body. That for me is worth duplicating.
In the end the Council at Jerusalem seems to say we need to be careful about creating rules that might keep people from Christ. The irony would be those short list of requirements are not even at the heart of the debate but ones that came much later.
I realize some may see Paul's attempts at unity to be with their call to give something up and yet when a custom is used to divide Gentile from Jew he does not defend the custom. It is as if we are saying that Paul should have allowed Peter to separate because he didn't want Peter to upset other Jewish believers.
Just my thoughts.
Maybe you could answer this for yourself, when you ask yourself, why we don#t burn incense in our assemblies (both used in the temple and in Revelation)
I think this approach is at least more reliable than „Sola Scriptura“.
What would we end up with?
You know, what convinced me of joining the churches of Christ was reading from the ECF what baptism really is. Or to see that the ECF did not preach an easy grace gospel of unconditional eternal security. These brothers changed my whole Protestant mindset dramatically. If you ask a typical Evangelical what he would end up with (or of you just tell him these two examples) he would be utterly shocked.
But I think there is more to discover:
The ECF had a balanced view on the gifts of the Spirit. The cast out demons (a reality that’s been explained away even by some CoC scholars). They believed in a spiritual presence of the Lord in the Eucharist – please note: Zwingli’s reductionist view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial-meal was unheard of the 1500 years before he developed this explanation. And that was the issue where Luther and he (despite “Sola Scriptura”) could not agree.
Oh, and we would get back to old CoC convictions of non-resistance, non-participation in politics and non-swearing of oaths (that were all abandoned in the 20th century). And women would cover their heads again. We’d all stick to a simple lifestyle, would reject costly an immodest dress, we’d focus on doing good things, giving alms, helping the poor and needy.
We would meet in houses, eat and drink together in our assemblies. We would really feel at home there in an atmosphere of hospitality and love. We would meet maybe even daily to be refreshed by one another …
Am I a dreamer? All these examples are nothing but a list of what the church of Christ has lost, and we see all of this in the ECF. And once we’ve seen them there, we realize this has been in the scriptures all the time, but we failed to see it, because … through iour own traditions we were blinded.
And, to be sure – singing a-capella would be the least of all the discoveries (nothing I would put a high priority on, it just comes with the package and is perfectly all right).
Not at all. But it was through the ECF that I begun tio understand a-capella worship. And their reasons are really good, if you take time to consider them without wanting to argue with them. I used to play in a worship team before that.
It's the other way round. Because the church was still united they held to same same apostolic teaching and practice (remeber 1Co 1:1-2 – this letter that contains the most detailed description of the assembly was written to ALL Christians; and all letters of Paul circulated amiong All churches of Christ at the end of his life time 2Pe 3:15-16).
But most of these were settled within the life time of the Apostles. But most of their answers were rejected or forgotten by the church in the course of her history.
Alexander
Jay,
You blow my mind. Perhaps we have been looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. We focus and dispute so much about being united within ourselves and seldom think too much about what is needful to be more united with the Church at large. Every time we choose an issue that is necessary to fulfill our vision of restoration we move further from greater unity with the Body.
Must think about this some more.
hmmm…. incense in worship? candle lighting at weddings and graduations? should flowers on the podium be allowed to smell good? air freshener between services? pictures of incense from the temple? frankincense and myrrh given to Jesus? sweet smelling ointment for His feet? We are told to wash one another's feet……… I will forever remember worshiping in my mother's small hometown country church during the hot summer months with no air conditioning, honeysuckle vine growing up the wall outside the auditorium ….ladies' perfumes, old spice after shave, scented powders on glistening female noses to dull the shine, the smell of a twist of tobacco in my Uncle Tim's coat pocket, the old wood smell of floors and pews…..good smells……….good people…….. the smell of worship……. if incense could help us duplicate that, I would not be against it.
I took a tour of a local Greek Orthodox Church a number of years ago. During the tour, someone asked, "Why do you burn incense?" The priest told us that in the early years of Christianity, the church needed to meet in the catacombs because of persecution. Because the stench was so bad in the catacombs, the early Christians burned incense to cover up the horrible oder.
During the rest of the tour, I kept thinking, "What if Lysol had been invented in the first century? Would churches today have kept it as a tradition to spray Lysol during worship assemblies? Would they have given it some spiritual meaning?"
Terry,
That's a great insight, I hope it's true — and I have no reason to doubt it.
Now I don't feel so bad. We've been offering up incense in our worship for years. I'm certain God is pleased with the aroma. However, we don't call it incense – we call it prayer.
David,
I always assumed that the priest was telling us a true story. He didn't act like he was joking.
The reason I'm skeptical of the veracity of this apocryphal tale is because it is self-defeating. While Lysol is indeed transparent, incense smoke is thick and choking – and on top of the smoky light sources they'd already be using, the incense would blind everyone.
Through the Prophet Ezekiel, God spoke of a day to come that He would put a new Heart in us…not a new rule book… I like the concept of Freedom in Christ. If I'm condemned by my brothers for following after God with a sincere and pure heart, not violating some specific command, well, I just need to find a place more conducive to freedom. After all, it is Him that I seek to worship, not a specific tradition…
People say "Wouldn't it be great if there were no diversity as it was in the time of the early Christians?" No, because it wasn't like that in the time of the early Christians. The early Christians had a hard time to discuss with each other and fight with each other.
Paul's mission carried Christianity all the way over Asia Minor, present Turkey into Macedonia, into Greece, within 20 years. And at the end of that period, Paul already knew that there's a Christian community in Rome which he has not founded. And we can see from Scripture that churches, even after sitting under the apostles teachings, still had problems.
There was a lot of variety in 2nd and 3rd century Christianity. There were very different views of Jesus in the various types of Christianity. Early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions, which influenced early Christianity tremendously.
Christianity was extremely diverse in the second and third centuries, the Christianity of Rome was different than Christianity in North Africa in certain ways, and that was different than in Egypt, and that different than in Syria. There were different brands of Christianity living often side by side, even in the same city…a great deal of diversity.
Now, this runs very contrary to the view, which some Christians have wanted to convey, that is, that at the beginning, everything was unity, everything was clear, everything was understandable and only gradually, under outside influences, heresies arose and conflict resulted, so that we must get back somehow to that Golden Age, when everything was okay. People try to arrive at that first place in Christianity when everything was clear and all agreed and got along. There never was such a time. The interesting thing about the church is that there has been diversity from the beginning.
Many of the diverse groups feel so keenly about their way of seeing things they want everybody else to agree with them, and yet, they are different on all kinds of things. And the group wants to say they manifest the truth so strongly that if they cannot convince the others that their way is right, it seems to them the only thing they can do is separate.
Churches for so long have wanted to put on this mask that they don’t have any problems, they don’t make mistakes, that they forget the essence of who the church is…we are all people who need a Savior!
Jesus accepts people warts and all….the church should act more like Jesus.
Maybe i was misunderstood a little. I am NOT for burning incense, because that is part of the OT worship in the Temple and symbolizes prayer (offered through Christ) => Christ is the body of the shadow of incense. That's why incense along with myrrh and gold were the gifts of the wise men at Christ's birth.
In this way Rev 5:8 and Rev 8:3-4 are a reflection ofthe OT-worship, using the same types and figurative speech that points to the spiritual realities but are not to be confused with them.
The guide in the Eastern Orthodox church presented a (maybe) historic correct view of why the church burns incense today (which was rejected unanimously by all ECF as well as Instruments), but the official position of the Orthodox church is very different:
You see, they arguo from Rev 8:3-4 that burning incens in the church is Biblical. The Orthodox Liturgy is basically an attempt to make visible what is in heaven by acting out literally what is described in Revelation – the Icons representing the multitude of the perfected saints – the elaborate liturgies citing Biblical doxologies …
I disagree with them because they misunderstand the nature of OT-speech in Revelation in order to describe the Heavenlies.
And that's the reason why pointing to the harps in Revelation as an argument for using instruments does not fit. If you take the harps literally, you have to burn incense as well. If you see the burning incense as typological language, you have to understand the harps in the very same way.
And that's, my friends, PRECISELY how the ECF treated the understanding of the instruments: As types that are fulfilled in the New Covenant; as shadows we don't need any longer since the body came. As part of the OT-worship in the Temple with its sacrifices, priesthood and incense. The did not use the Argument of "Silence" or the "Regulative Principle" – they simply understood the difference between shadow and body, type and Christ, and applied that accordingly and consitently to the use of instruments in worship. That's it.
That's why I said: If you want an answer concerning the harps, answer for yourserf why we don't burn incense.
I am very surprized, that seemingly no one did get that …
Alexander
And I am equally surprised that you didn't grasp that we (many of us, anyway) did get it, but we believe that freedom in Christ – including the freedom from ordinances of worship – means that one of your foundational premises is invalid.
I've heard this argument many times, and I cannot -not for the life of me- understand the point of it. What has to be done, the worship of God that must be done was done on Calvary. What we – we who are God's beloved children and who adore our Father in heaven and our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that dwells among and within us- do now is done out of love and gratitude because we're convinced our Abba enjoys it. We are justified by faith, not by works of the law. We worship because our Father loves it and because He says it is good for us. What kind of worship is good for us? "Spirit and truth" worship – worship through the Christ who is the Truth and by those who share His Spirit.
If all types and shadows are anathema in the New Covenant, what are we to do with the Lord's Table, which is a type and shadow of the eschatological Feast of the Lamb? I know several Christian groups who do not practice the Lord's Supper, precisely because they believe its materiality makes it unfit for Christian worship.
If all physical worship is replaced by "spiritual," shouldn't we sing only with the "heartstrings" and leave the vocal cords -that actually make the sounds, as the air only carries it- out of it because they're only types and shadows of true spiritual worship?
If all physical worship is replaced by "spiritual," oughtn't we to leave our filthy lucre in our pockets and only give pure, spiritual offerings to the church treasury, because coinage is just a type and shadow of love, which is the only money in the kingdom of God?
Nick,
I'll admit that you are probably right. The priest may have been mistaken.
Alexander….your argument regarding the symbolic language relative to harps in Revelation just doesn't add up to me. Why would God use symbolic language that unquestionably approves of a musical instrument in the celebration of His Son if indeed those very instruments were objects of His wrath. Same argument relative to the incense. Apparently, neither are actually or symbolically offensive to God. Neither are prohibited in worship or daily use. Both were mandanted in worship by God Himself in the O.T…But somehow, even though they were ordered by God in one era and are used symbolically (or perhaps literally) in Heaven before his very Presence, some find a way, without any BCV, and only through the interpreted comments of a few early perhaps uninspired leaders in the church to "speak for God." There are obvious comments on a wide variety of doctrinal issues made by the ECF that I know you don't hold to today… I just can't imagine that God would leave a key element to worship so ambiguious if He'd of wanted to eliminate it from worship… Again, Danny's excellent historical and scripturally supported work on this topic is well worth the read… Have you read it yet ?
Nick/Terry….not advocating for the Priest but perhaps the people of that time were more skillful at using incense than to have to create a bonfire and smoke out the place… Besides, not sure which I'd have rather put up with…the stench of rotting corpses or burning incense… I think I'm gonna try and find some of these foiks in heaven and give them a great big hug…talk about putting things in proper perspective. Compare worship in this environment with that of having to listen to a piano or solo…
i wasn't aware that Alexander said that instruments were "the objects of God's wrath." But his words make perfect sense to me. i don't know why i'd think there are literal instruments in heaven anymore than i'd think there are literal seven headed beasts or dragons or seals and bowls.
i'm not sure "physical worship" vs. "spiritual worship" is a proper framing of the view. The point is the OT is full of ritual and ornament which is comparitively scarce if even extant in the NT. Some people are quick to point out the difference between the testaments when it comes to specific regulations concerning worship ("Therefore, we have more freedom to worship how we want in the NT" or some similar conclusion is typically made). But if such contrasts are worth noting and using as evidence, i don't see why it's inappropriate to point out that the OT also contrasts with the NT in this matter of ornament and ritual. (And that thus, instruments seem more characteristic of the former than the latter.)
But what i really wanted to say was this: Instruments (emphasis on music period actually whether instrumental or not) seem to perpetuate the notion that Sunday-morning-worship-serive is the point and crux of Christianity. Surely, it's not, is it?
–guy
Excellent point, Guy.
Just to emphasize it, we often quote the passage, where Jesus says "whenever two or three are gathered together, I am with them."
But then we quickly seem to say that's different from Sunday morning worship — the reality is that it is not any different.
My view of Jesus' statements to the "woman at the well" is that worship takes place in the heart, at any time and at any place and in any form.
Sunday morning remains a tradition. Nothing more. Nothing wrong with Sunday morning worship. But let's not elevate it to a place it does not deserve or warrant.
Guy, didn't mean to indicate that Alexander had said "objects of God's wrath"…I was just adding emphasis..My bad… Regarding Heaven…since God said that it hasn't even entered into the heart of man what heaven will be like I suppose we probably all should be rather careful in what we say will or will not be there and what is symbolic and what is not…we are told we don't know by God Himself…
The instruments and incense, as just an example, seem prominent in both the O.T. and in Heavenly worship.. Odd don't you think that without any inspired instruction that they suddenly became items no longer appropriate for worship.
I would agree that worship, any time, any place with a sincere and true heart for God is appropriate…the "crux" of Christianity to me has nothing at all to do with what I can do for God or how I worship but has everything to do with what He did for me…undeserved and unearned.
David,
i certainly didn't want in my comment to demean Christians assembling with each other. That i think is something special and worth emphasizing and was a pillar of early church life and practice.
What i meant to spotlight is that we have a certain conception of one assembly in particular and we place the emphasis of our religion on it–a "Sunday morning worship service." i mean with that term to refer to a cultural trend, not to an ideal.
Previous generations of people thought and taught or at least suggested that if we get anything wrong about corporate worship, we'll be doomed. –meaning that if we do anything unauthorized, we could be eternally condemned. Later and current generations have come along criticizing that notion. But it seems to me that they end up saying the very same thing. "If we get anything wrong about corporate worship, we'll be doomed." But this time they mean if we do anything culturally unhip or un-trendy or fail to be seeker sensitive etc. etc., then we'll be doomed not to grow, not to reach people, not to be accomplishing anything for the kingdom.
i think the real problem is that both groups think the mission of Christ's kingdom stands or falls based on the liturgical and productional elements of an hour long, weekly meeting. Surely *that* is the base-line assumption that really ought to be challenged in all this.
(Now my point about instruments was that adding instrumental music (well, many of the typical reasons for wanting to add IM anyway) just seems to agree with and fortify that assumption rather than challenge it.)
–guy
Price,
i don't think it's a matter of what will or won't be in heaven, but whether a particular text literally or figuratively portrays such, and what purpose that serves in relation to our structuring literal worship here and now.
It's only odd if you accept that Revelation literally depicts heavenly worship. i'm not sure that it does. Even if it does, i'm not sure it's a book that is meant to instruct me how to conduct worship here. Jesus says that at the resurrection no one will marry nor be given in marriage. Apparently that's what heaven will be like. But i don't take that as an indicator of what life should be like in the here and now–that Christians should all choose to be single just because that's how heaven will be.
–guy
The portions of Revelation in question seem to be depicting, not what will happen in the future, but what is occurring right now on the other side of the veil.
Further, Paul seemed to take "no one will marry nor be given in marriage" as a solid corollary to "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" when he encourages the Corinthians to remain in the marital status in which they were converted, and not to seek to get married unless sexual sin will burn them up.
but I think you're right – I'm certain that Revelation wasn't written as a worship manual – but then, I'm pretty convinced that the New Testament was not written as a worship manual (at least, not in the sense of authorizing or anathemizing certain morally neutral practices).
Guy,
I didn't take your comment as demeaning Christian assembly, and I agree with what you said.
I can see where you might get that impression, but I hardly think that is the case in this forum. Rather, Jay doesn't seem to be interested at all in adding instrumental music, but in freeing people from the shackles of legalism so that they might serve Christ without fear.
Guy, I agree with you that Revelation isn't a worship manual but it sure does say what kind of worship is approved in front of God Himself…One can only assume that nothing unclean or evil will be in his presense so musical instruments at the very least, whether figuratively or literally must be assumed to be pleasing to God.
I also agree with Nick that the N.T. really doesn't define corporate worship either except for what is written in I Cor 14…And most of that has been thrust aside with less than convincing dogma. The Eph and Col passages most often quoted have zero to do with corporate worship. In fact, really, the whole idea that MI aren't pleasing to God and shouldn't be done in today's worship is pretty indefensable by scripture. But, so would requiring MI in worship…The argument for exclusion or requirement just isn't there…I assume God didn't forget to include that part of the instruction manual so it must be a freedom of choice thing…Has to be…Otherwise He would have somewhere specifically spoken to what was already approved and required by Him in worship…
Don't get me wrong…I actually LOVE a cappella music..but I also love skillfully played accompaniment and a choir…They are all a part of worship to me.
One of the reasons we are even having discussions about singing with or without IM is the false belief that Christians only worship when they are singing. Worship is not confined to singing period. It is far more.
Royce
In a land filled with instrumental worship (Roman Asia), Paul focused on song and the Word. Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 have much to say to our time as well as the first century.
In a time when it appears people are reading the Word of the Lord less than in previous periods (see the NEA studies of literary reading), congregations need to sing the Word to one another and to visitors who join them. That expression of congregational teaching and unity in song was part of Paul's purpose as well in Ephesians 4:17-5:21.
We give up crucial apostolic counsel when we choose to add instrumental music to congregational worship. We loose the very unity Paul is urging. Let's sing the Word together!
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, I've been to a few concerts in my lifetime, and none of them were a cappella. Yet, somehow, singing and unity were not lost.
No one I've ever met recommends replacing singing with instruments. Why do you argue as if they do?
Bruce, according the Bible I'm reading, the Ephesians and Col passages you mentioned have nothing to do with corporate worship but rather one's daily walk outside of some worship service….I Cor 14 speaks to what should be done and how it should be done in worship…but I don't believe most CoC churches abide by that instruction….there is no apostolic council on worshp conduct in Eph and Col as you indicated…
Nick:
As I look at Ephesians 4:17-5:21, what surfaces in Paul's teaching is a focus on teaching with song and the unity of all singing together. It is clear that he was urging worship very different from what was common in Roman Asia. Why was he doing that?
Similarly, some research has been done of late regarding Fiji worship — by many different churches. None of them use instrumental music. ALL just sing — only. Has represented a fascinating study for sociologists. Glad to document the reference if you/et.al. have an interest in reading, but will have to do so later (tonight).
And the conclusion? Fiji islanders use song together as a strong means to build community. I will suggest that we could learn a thing or two from them in our nation of highly individualistic faith, worship and thought.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yes, but what I asked was, "No one I’ve ever met recommends replacing singing with instruments. Why do you argue as if they do?"
Alexander….Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience….
.If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. I Cor 10:25,27
Sounds like Freedom to me….
And in similar manner as to the example you mentioned, IM is commanded in the O.T., not excluded or prohibited in the N.T., and is spoken about favorably in the presence of God in Heaven….and yet some would condemn its use as "progressive" and a reproach to the conservative movement of the church….
At what point does the church stop creating a N.T. Talmud ??
Don't take this personally but…Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Gal 3:2-3
Some are concerned solely on whether WHAT they do is pleasing to God…I just assume that I AM PLEASING to Him and that He is intent of helping me to be all that I can be…warts and all….so that in my WEAKNESS His strength is made perfect. His Grace (unmerited favor)is sufficient for me.
Price:
I know we "Westerners" think in those terms, but Paul is addressing a people who thought much differently than we on the subject of congregational worship. They "assembled" everywhere to worship — as part of trade guilds, etc.
Let me point you to an important, recent study on just this topic (and Roman Asia): Philip Harland, Associations, Synagogues and Congregations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Harland's study is eye-opening and draws conclusions based on an extensive look at the inscriptions of Roman Asia. Fascinating, and it illustrates with clarity how we impose our Western views on history.
Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 are indeed talking about assemblies.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce. Thanks for the lead….will take a look…However, it's pretty clear that Paul didn't use the term assembly in his remarks as he did elsewhere. Lot's of intense study by men much more learned than me suggests that the topical discussion in these passages was referring to one's daily walk. Some have even argued that playing or singing a PSALMS (which by definition includes instruments) was OK outside of the congregational assembly based on these passages…I understand that some might have a different opinion but the overwhelming majority conclusion is that these passages reflect one's daily walk and not a congregational assembly…But since I wasn't there I pretty much still go on IM's commanded use and approval…and the consideration for the immoral use of instruments in the first century which they wanted to disassociate themselves from…Danny Corbitt's work on this topic is being presented at the ACU Summit…very scholarly work..highly recommend its reading…Blessings.
Nick:
I am not arguing that they do. That is not what my post was about. I start with Ephesians 4:17-5:21 when I approach this subject. And part of the teaching has to do with unity; Paul is urging them to sing together. Not a difficult thought, but we do struggle with it in the West.
The Fiji islanders see it; frequently, the West does not. And in a land where "just singing" is growing increasingly rare, I do understand that the cultural pressure to "conform" to the rest-of-the-West grows. We need to listen to what Paul is saying; we may just grow closer by such!
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
It has been mentioned in other blog posts that many of our strongly held positions, especially in more conservative churches, are first passed down from generation to generation, and then people are taught some proof texts to support them.
I seriously doubt that any person who is unfamiliar with the IM debate would read the books of Colossians and Ephesians and come away convinced that instruments are condemned when Christians sing together.
We as followers of Jesus are to go to the Scriptures to find truth. The Scriptures are not to be used to support supposed truths we learned apart from them.
Much of the extra-biblical support for issues that some teach are salvation issues can only be supported apart from the Word of God. Sad but true.
I just wonder. Would we (me included) be willing to just come before God with an open heart and an open Bible and learn it's truth even if it contradicts some things we believe? I think I know the answer.
Royce
Royce:
I do not believe Girardeau, for one, was familiar with the IM debate we have had of late. His late nineteenth century (Presbyterian) work is still read by some.
That is not where I start when I think about all of this, but I did decide to suggest that this is not "provincial" subject of the Restoration Movement. Additionally, the Medieval Polyphonic Controversy in Catholicism signals the same discussion.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Price:
Jay has mentioned to me that he desires I not talk about a recently published work that challenges some of Corbitt's conclusions, so I will not here. Feel free to send me an email @ [email protected] and I will be glad to share with you. Otherwise, I will leave to him to share (if he wants to do so).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
All of your arguments equate "singing together" to "just singing."
I am asserting that "singing together" doesn't have to mean "just singing."
On what rationale do you equate the two?
Royce, the answer to your question might be conditioned on what one's preference is in forming their spiritual identity. Membership in a Group ?? Tradition?? Restoration Movement ?? It's really amazing the influence exerted on our indvidual thought.
I would add another question for those who bind acappella music on their brethren as God's law and/or insist it is required to promote unity among God's people: Where is biblical authority for the song leader? If the fear of employing musical instruments is that it's adding to God's word, then should we not also fear that we're adding to God's word by inventing such a leadership position in the church?
I've personally never been to a coc that didn't have a man designated to this leadership role, but do not see this in any way even remotely inferred in the NT. These song leaders stand in front of the congregation, having their voice amplified above everyone elses, waving their hands, keeping time (sometimes blowing into a pitch pipe I might add). In function, I do not see this any different than one playing an instrument, serving the same purpose.
Tom,
i don't personal ascribe to the traditional IM argumentation, but i know that conservatives have had an answer to that sort of question since very early on the in the debate. "Expediency" is the magic word. "Expediency" is an apparatus that marks differences between such things as are authorized and are not. You might think it's bad or that it doesn't succeed, but that doesn't mean they don't have an answer.
–guy
Thanks Guy. One thing I've learned on this blog is that there is an answer for everything. But you're right, I don't see it as expedient.
There is none (1Co 14:26). Period. Anyone can suggest (or bring) a song to the assembly, and either starts off the song himself or ask someone who is more gifted in starting off a song. It does work among the Plymouth Brethren, it can and does work among us, too.
Alexander
P.S. If we call for song-leaders out of expedience, I'd add they are only expedient to support a man-made tradition. And if we then add the typical coment: "In vain do they worship me", because of this man made tradition, we'll make these traditional men mad 😉 But is worth while to demand consistency …
If you read the locally written histories of some early RM congregations (and I have a few of these in my library), you will find stories of congregations where there was a man standing up front, but a woman sitting on the front row, who was really starting all the songs.
So I think the reason we have men song leaders is to avoid women taking authority over men !!!
I repent of lobbing hand grenades into the discussion.
The oddity of discussions like these is that those who hold strongly to IM being wrong assume, if you take their remarks seriously, that when instruments are present singing does not happen. What a strange conclusion!
I have visited my daughters place of worship a few times and have enjoyed the good preaching of the godly pastor and the spirited worship (with instruments). Whether there or at my a cappella home congregation I worship and sing. I use the same vocal chords to express the gratitude and adoration of the same heart in one place as I do in the other.
The undeniable truth is, the Bible says very little about how Christians worship when assembled and we broadly ignore what it does say and instead spend crazy amounts of time on what it does't say.
If God could be frustrated He would be.
Royce
Nick:
Want to tackle your morning question (without trying to tackle all that is being said in this chain).
I am not convinced it is "my argument." Paul focuses on song; let's let him say what he is saying. But I do know much of the West wrestles (and always has) with Ephesians 4:17-5:21. Hugh Bowman's recently-released study of the mystery religions looks afresh at what was included in the "worship style" of the Dionysiac cult (and other similar Asian mystery religions). Lights; action; theatrics; strong instrumentation; we might even call the initiation rites a "concert" of sorts. Very powerful experiences that held sway in the Mediterranean world for centuries. Much of the West would probably enjoy the experience of a Haloa-like worship festival, complete with chanting, kettle drums and tambourines (which is likely what was happening in Ephesus).
Nick let me also offer that the parallels in 4:17-5:21 (with 5:11) and in 5:18-21 reveal that Paul is focused on song as the means to spread the Word and "expose" darkness. The context of the teaching (which may say much of why we wrestle with this) is spiritual war. Ephesians 5:11 guides us to see what 5:18-21 is about.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce. et.al.:
So, are you okay with other worship practices common in the region that Paul does not talk about specifically in Ephesians 4:17-5:21? The text includes quite a number of general statements (e.g. "impurity" and "debauchery" for two); Paul says that it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret — and says no more at that point. There is a great deal about the mystery religions that the apostle does not specifically touch upon. I hope folks give that some thought; Ephesians 4:17-5:21 has more in it than we have typically considered — and this is not majoring in the minors.
Paul does not tell us that we cannot practice parts of the mystery religion rites that were common in Roman Asia (and that some of the Gnostics picked up later), but I am confident the folks reading this weblog would not urge such practices. I am thinking about the Ophites practice, for one (I can think of a bunch more if you want me to "go there"). Appears their "revision" to the Lord's Supper with the addition of a snake was rooted in Dionysiac religious rites folded into Christian practices. And if this weblog were being pushed out in the late second and third centuries, I am certain the Ophites would urge that those snakes are important (and not be happy with my post)!
I know, I know, now I am getting extreme 🙂
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
For you to hint that people who sing with instrumental instruments are guilty of "impurity" and "debauchery" shows your true colors. You sir are another Kenneth Sublett, just more cunning. Yes, you are extreme. I doubt that as many people agree with your views as you suppose.
This is not an angry rant, it is a thoughtful rejection of your constant harping on the same ill conceived idea that extra biblical material carries the same weight as Holy Scripture. You nor any other man can defend your views on music using only the Bible. You pour meaning into Paul's inspired words that is your meaning and not his and you do it over and over again. You are wrong to to it.
Royce
Royce:
Whew. This blog can be a place where folks read with emotion and miss the point of a post. And what extra biblical material? I am looking at backgrounds, just like all of us do when we study the culture of the Pharisees, Corinth, etc. Let me emphasize that my focus is not the "church fathers," but Ephesians 4:17-5:21.
I did not say (and I do not believe) that people who sing with instrumental music are de facto guilty of "impurity" and "debauchery." I do believe that "debauchery" was happening in the first century and Paul is using a general term to describe the practices of the Asian religions.
And his contrasting song with "debauchery" should show us part of what is in "debauchery." Instrumental music played a major role in the Asian cults. I will suggest that before we jump to this century, let's take some time to read the text and better understand the first century background. Then, it will be easier to make applications.
Paul is revealing in Ephesians 4:17-5:21 that instrumental music in the case of the Asian cults is but a symptom of a root issue. The root issue is the focus of the teaching. Looking at your post I am not convinced you are open to what I write concerning this area of Scripture. So, I will leave you to your personal reading and prayer about 4:17-5:21.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Funny thing is that from your posts I thought the very same thing about you Bruce…you know… the obvious fact that you are not open to Royce’s point of view.
Why not look at the text again?
I think it is wise to start here. Quite a lot of our discussion is foolish (at least no outsider would be able to follow our deep concerns). And especially when speaking about IM it is quite often more about us and our personal preference than the will of the Lord. We clothe the discussion in scriptural words, but it is mainly about us, isn't it? and this is foolish.
I think I can understand Bruce's argument that drunkenness was combined with banquets and /or religious celebrations in various cults. I thend to see more a connection to the banquets, because the love-feast was pretty similar to a banquet – Christaians were eating and drinking together as they celebrated the Lord's Supper. We have a similar admonition in 1Co 11:21 which shows that plenty of food and wine (fermented) was served at a Christian Worship Assemply … which means worshipping God was combined with or even expressed by eating together as a church. That's why the question of clean and unclean food was such a big issue in the NT church.
In the secular sphere banquets were not only for fellowship, but also for celebrating with music and dance. Immoral behavior, filthy conversations and the like were more than common. If you went to a banquet you expected it to be this way. The whole atmosphere of such banquets was aimed at stirring up lust and emotions – and music was an important took to create this atmosphere. You can read this in the ECF (esp. Clement of Alexandria).
Now you can look back at Bruce's argumentation and see that he sees the whole chapter in the light of these pagan misbehaviours. Maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but it does make sense. At least there are some connections.
OK the Christian Assemblies – being banquets – are contrasted with the pagan banquets. They are temperate, they are edifying, they are alove feast, where the rich ones should provide a decent dinner to which the poorer ones are heartily welcome. We see that this attitude was lacking in Corinth 1Co 11:20-22.
We know from the ECF that one way to keep the Christian assemblies distinct from the Pagan banquets was that they banned musical instruments from them, because of their connections to debauchery. They are tied to bad memories of the immoral lives they lived prior to their conversion. This was BTW just one of their reasonings – the main line oftheir arguments had to do with the typological aspects of OT worship that were transformed into the reality of worship in Spirit and Truth.
OK – there is a parallel to today. Because when we start implementing IM we normally don't go to the organ which is in opur culture tied to religious music, but – NO – we tend to play with drums, electric guitars, keyboards and an expensive sound systems. And even more: We tend to promote Contemporary Christuian Worship which is patterned in style after the immoral worldly music. So here we have the EXACT SAME SITUATION as in the 2nd century.
AND: Even if we clothe it in spiritual and Biblical words, it is just feeding our flesh, a selfpleasing way of worshipping God with music we grew up with in secular society as if musc and its styles were a-moral. But that's simply not true.
Seriously: First we argue over Instruments or no instruments. Once we split the churches over this issue, there arises another one: Traditional Hymns or CCM – believe me, I know a church (very dear to me) that was almost paralized by 10 years of arguments and enmity over the issue of CCM. And many churches split over this, too.
I just ask you to judge the tree by its fruit, brothers. There are some very good reasons sometimes to just accept a church tradition – if we don't understand it yet or can't see its scriptural reasons yet. Far too often we cast traditions out, simply because we don#t understand them or don't see their scriptural reasons yet. Concerning a-capella worship we speak of a tradition that can be traced back to the 2nd century and that lasted in the West until the middle ages, in the East until today. This has more weight than you may be aware of.
OK, back to the text: The alternative to drunkenness and debauchery is being filled with the Spirit.
Again, our worship is in Spirit and Truth, therefore we must seek to be filled with the Spirit. Being focussed on spiritual things leads us from our sensual and carnal desires to unity in Christ and before His Heavenly Throne. We know that nothing unclöean may enter there. So the call for spirituality is also a call for soberness, for holyness and for a kind of joy that is deeply satisfying and peaceful. There is an atmosphere that would be deeply disturbed by pop-music or soft-rock that remind us of the joys/lust of this world.
If we put this admintion in this perspective, we should be able to understand the will of the Lord. And we might ask: Do musical instruments further or hinder us to fulfill this will. I think they are a hindrance – esp. when connected to CCM and instruments that are everything but neutral. And even an organ is a reminder of Roman Catholicism that is distracting for everyone who escaped this system.
The focus of the songs in their various forms is "one antother" – they are for teaching (Col 3:16) and edification (1Co 14:26-33), and they are for the Lord (songs of praise). But they are never about ME.
It ist not about me, but about the brothers and sisters in the congregation and about the Lord. Most of the IM-discussions and the heated debates on CCM are about our Self. This is by no means healthy.
I've said it at least once, I think: I am a musician, and I am a songwriter. I love to play instruments, and I like to perform – but in church I won't do it, except for a solo (which occurs maybe once every few years). I know from experience how hard it is not to try to draw the attention of the congregation to your musical skills when playing in a worship band. And when I watsch the performaces of such bands, I turn away, because they act like pop-stars. They don't do this on purpose or with bad motives – let me stress that! But they do this because this stage-behaviour is tied to the culture where they got the music from!
But it is not about the band, not about my musical taste. It is about the Lord and the others in a pure and holy way, that is clarly distinct from the ways of the world.
With our hearts – We sing and make music with our hearts. This answers the question "how shall we sing and make melody", and the answer is "With your hearts". Which means the focus is sincerity, uprightness, love. It is not about unsing instruments or not unsing instruments, but about the attitude of our hearts.
We can argue: Of course we sing with our lips, but the lips shall be moved by our hearts. In the same sense we can say: We can make music (psallo), but the msuic shall come forth from the heart. If we only had this verse we could rightfully argue it is OK to use an intrument, but we should play it from the heart in order to please the Lord.
But given the whole context the same instruction can be read this way also – and I think this is more to the point:
Focus on the heart, on Worship in Spirit and Truth! Don't just sing songs, because if the heart is absent, the songs are just an unpleasant voice (Am 5:23 or Am 6:5). So we sing with our lips, but the heart is our instrument, our psalterion!
Since the latter was the universal understanding and practice of the Early Church, I think the other interpretation (though possible) is not backed uo enough to be our first choice.
If we really focus on thanksgiving, we would not argue about changing (!) the tradition of our churches. But that we argue about ist shows that we don't focuis on thanksgiving but on our own desires, our taste, our self.
Of course you could turn the whole argument around and ask: If you'd focus on thanksgiving yourself, you would not be upset if we change the way we do it a little. And I admit (at least it is my observation) that quite often in the discussions tradition becomes more important than the Lord. But if I try to put this into perspective – and more – if I try to go back to the roots, to the original practice; and even more: If I start listening to the concerns of the teachers of old in our churches of Christ (ECF), and then go back to this text; I must admit that there are sound and solid reasons why we should abstain from the use of instruments.
It is not a salvation issue – no!
It should not be a test of fellowship either – although it proved to be divisive from bothe sides.
But it is embedded in the goal to undertand God's will concerning our banquets.
This makes me add a little side remark: As long as we don't eat and drink tiogether as a church they way they did back then, we could as well ignore the whole debate, because the original question was tied to the way Christinas celebrated "teperate banquets". So we, who are so puicky about IM or non-Im miss the best part of all: Feasting together in and on the Love of Christ.
You know, this makes me step back a few steps. I see apicture aof people arguing about the colour of the window-frames but forgetting all about the bricks that should keep the window in place. Somehow or IM-debate hangs in the air, disconnected from apostolic 1st century worship.
To be honest: If we in our housechurch use a guitar or don't does not make much difference. But it is really in the way, when we sit around the table, plates loaded with food. And it would be too loud anyway … not to mention a band wioth drums and sound-system …
Alexander
Not only should the church look to the NT alone, the church should look to the the Bible as a whole. The church also should look to the Hebrew Scriptures to teach and guide us in our walk with the Lord.
Michal saw the joy of the Lord David had and despised him for that.
2 Samuel 6:16 “As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.”
Michal having such hate in her heart toward David’s joy of Lord she was unable to have children.2 Samuel 6:23 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”
David wrote psalms to be sung with music, the apostles told people to sing psalms, being told to sing psalms was not a new command but a command they were already familiar with. Jews and non Jews used instrumental music when singing, the apostles never told them to no longer use instrumental music and they would have no reason to believe they couldn’t unless there was a command given that they couldn’t, which no such command was ever given.
The apostles never told people they could no longer sing with instrumental music…that it is now a sin, none of the apostles nor did Jesus ever say that. To say instrumental music is forbidden is very unbiblical. Those who say instrumental music is a sin add to God’s Holy Book.
Alexander…I think I agree with you…cautiously…if I understand you correctly…I understood you to say that although the use of instruments in worship had been commanded by God, the early church found it to be mostly associated with immoral behavior in their culture and so they decided not to use the instruments…That seems to reflect, at least to me, a certain freedom to choose…
I believe that you got to the heart of the whole issue and that is that there are two very good and scripturally supported positions…It really boils down to one's attitude and conscience regarding IM…Unfortunately, it has been elevated to a fellowship issue contrary to the founders of the restoration movement that the CoC claims to be a part of…and yes, we miss the fellowship meal when we do that…
Regarding style and muscial preference….whatever…each generation has it's own muscial style…I'm thankful that the younger, "progressive" generation found a way to use their preference to praise God. There have been generations of people that didn't do that. But we should be thankful that as a result of its popularity, we have CCM being played all around the world. I doubt that displeases God.
My guess is that the congregations and associations that allow for a wide variety and focus on INclusion rather than EXclusion will be the ones that grow and prosper…
Anonymous:
I am glad to search the Scriptures with both you and Royce. Royce's post about my being "cunning" was a surprising misjudgment of a brother (never been called that before; Royce Ogle has the distinction of being the first). And now I know that my posts in this area have been "constant harping." Finally, Royce's conclusions missed what I said and what I believe Paul is teaching. But I did not say that I would cease to listen to him; I am still doing so. And I am listening to you too.
Do you have something you want to share with me regarding Ephesians 4:17-5:21? Glad to listen.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Was David, who was a man after God's own heart, secretly sinning when he sang praises to the true and living God, was he walking in darkness when he used his God given talent playing instruments as he sang praises?
An issue that I encounter when leading some contemporary music acapella is the music itself just doesn't lend itself to being sung acappella. Contemporary music tends to have these awkward moments of silence when sung acappella. These moments are usually filled in by instuments when instuments are used but without them, it's just… silence, and it's difficult to keep the group together because of this. Does this mean that Christians must discard all such otherwise worthy songs? I hope it doesn't mean that contemporary music is disqualified from worship usage because just about all of the songs in any of our hymn books were contemporary at one point in time… even "Amazing Grace".
Anonymous:
I appreciate your highlighting the OT passages you did and noting David's pleasing music to the Lord. No question regarding what we read in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. The Lord even commanded the instrumental music. So, if a question let me confirm that I believe there is nothing inherently sinful regarding instrumental music. Hope that helps this study/note chain move along.
Now a question for you/et.al. What is your conclusion about the Solomonic Temple? Was it evil?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Two Aspects:
a) CCM is better suited (by its character and style) as performance or stage music than for corporate worship. It's the same as driving a bike in a living room – it's not meant to be used that way.
b) the CCM of old was either based on older church music or on folk-tunes – music of the common people, meant to be sung together. Modern CCM has a very differernt background, and when I go to a Christian Bookstore and see christian Worship Music presented the very same way as Pop Music: In charts! (Top Ton best of Worship) it gives me the creeps. This is not the least comparable to the songs of Charles Wesley which were composed to serve the church. These "products" are market-oriented and fame focussed ( at least the way they are presented).
This does NOT apply to ALL CCM, but the overall impression turns me away from it. ON the other hand I am strongly convinced that every generation shall compose new songs for God's Glory – but not in this manner, but in the way the composers of did it. I think there cannot be a thing such as Christian Disco-Music or Christian Rock-Music; at least not in worship. There is a place for such in outreach, as stage music, as performance music – but it is a narrow path between "becoming on of them" and "becoming like them" that few seem to be aware of.
Alexander
Hmmm… I see quite a few "I's and Me's" in your response and so am I right in assuming that this is just your opinion? Because, I assure you, the younger generation doesn't necessarily feel the way you do about CCM. I love to hear CCM when the artist singing stops singing and you can hear the entire group singing the song. These young people are worshipping, pure and simple, and theyd like their worship in Church to include the music of their generation. A great many of the most popular CCM artists and composers started off as Worship Leaders in their Churches and a lot of them continue to do that even though they now earn their living singing and composing.
Alexander…just when I was starting to agree with you you go off on something silly…..You see a top 10 chart of Christian music and it gives you the creeps ?? You have got to be kidding me… The simple truth that people are attracted to skillfully played and sung Christian music should thrill you…It should give the Devil the creeps…What? you want to force people to sing all six stanzas of Just As I AM ?? You come across sounding like some old fuddy duddy when you say stuff like that…
I was flipping through the channels yesterday between football games and came across an old show that had Christian Gospel quartets..My grandmother used to love listening to that on am radio back in the 60's. I sat there for 30 minutes listening to some awesome old time gospel barbershop quartet music…It was uplifting. Had me singing along in the middle of Saturday afternoon…Missed the better part of the first quarter of my game…:)
Someone mentioned King David….wow, can you imagine that God would inspire you to write a new song? That He would inspire the musicians to come up with a worthy melody to the words? God gave David a new song…Probably would have made Moses' teeth grind but the same ole songs apparently even bore God to death…:) This whole concept of doing, acting, singing, eating, fellowshipping like they did a thousand years ago has grown old…Let's be men of the 21st century.
It is my opinion, or mabe better: A convivtion based on a number of obvservations. Could you identify how I acme to my conclusions? Did the way I tried to explain it make sense? Be sure, for me it is not about emtions in this area.
You bet. But it is not about "how we feel" but about what is appropriate and fitting for worship. And there it should be the older generation that points the way and not the younger who has not yet learned how to descern good and evil. Sometimes they are just naive – as I have been when I was younger.
If you like to listen you actually confirm my statemnet that it is primarily "listening music" – composed for performace. Sorry to say, this style of music is not really made for group singing. It is like bike riding in the living room. This is not sio much an issue off CCM – Mozart Oratories are also not for worship but for listening. It's performance music.
And of course, every generation has to write, compose and sing its own hyms – also, but not exclusively. There are good new songs suitable for group singing with meaningful lyrics – such as "El Shaddai" by Michael Card. But many new songs are rhytmically a terror to sing as a group, because these nuances of syncopic and anticipating notes are being washed away in group singing, breaks for an intrumental interlude (esp. when sung a-capella) are really disturbing … in the end it does not sound right at all.
There are reasons why simple folk tunes are among the most used melodies in our Hymn books. Because music like this has been written for group-singing by non-professionals; such songs work fine a-capella, too. And you can write melodies today also, that meet the following criteria:
a) simple enough
b) easy to memorize
c) not distracting from the lyrics
Most of CCM today is stage music and does not meet these simple principles for group singing in worship, because it is written to be sold on the market place, where it has to compete with Michael Jackson and others.
And this makes it a problem. Not necessarily a sin, but a problem; because this "worship industry" works a lot like "MTV", has created a parallel structure to the worldly music scene. It is exactly this what I object to. If they do it just as stage music – there might be a place for it; but this kind of music then follows rules that are not suitable for group singing any more.
Think it through: Step back a little and imagine which songs are most likely to be sung at home as a famliy around the table – oh! Another question: Do you still sing at home? I've got the impression that we lost this as the music scene (radio, CDs, MP3s …) arose. To be sure, there is a lot of music in the house, but it comes from professional recordings. But we don't sing as it was usual until a few generations ago. That's just a side remark, but it has to do with this.
When we sing with the kids "Old 100th" is still a catchy tune, to which quite a number of lyrics fit (e.g. "Be present at our table, Lord"; Praise Him from whom all blessings flow") – and all our kids join is and sometimes even suggest on of these songs at our family table. But when I imagine e.g. "Celebrate Jesus, celebrate" – we are not really sure where to clap and when the unheard instrumental solo is over – it does not sound right. It does not sound like on the CD … so in the end, we turn on the CD and become passive … Doug, that's far from being beautiful!
Alexander
Bruce,
You said: "Paul is revealing in Ephesians 4:17-5:21 that instrumental music in the case of the Asian cults is but a symptom of a root issue. The root issue is the focus of the teaching. Looking at your post I am not convinced you are open to what I write concerning this area of Scripture. So, I will leave you to your personal reading and prayer about 4:17-5:21."
I have read it many times. I suppose that if this passage was assigned at random to 100 college graduates to be carefully read, even doing research on original languages, not one of the 100 would find any mention of musical instruments, unless, they like you, begin the reading with a conclusion already in mind.
Here it is, let the readers decide.
17Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
25Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27and give no opportunity to the devil. 28Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
Ephesians 5
Walk in Love
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not become partners with them; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
"Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
There is no indication that Paul is even addressing the assembly of believers much less prohibiting instruments in the Christian assembly.
Our claim is that we are people of the Bible. In my view trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say rather than what it says is more wrong than singing Amazing Grace while someone is playing an instrument.
Royce
Why not? Since gthe sermons are not allowed to be longer than 30 min any more, from where else should the teaching flow? 😉
But seriously: If we adopt Satan's methods and styles I think He has won us over to him. I just take a look at our general worldlyness. On blank faces when young people hear for the first time the meaningful word "Separation", completely unable to make sense out of it …
This is just part of a big picture, and I don't find it beautiful.
Alexander
Alexander….Any preacher ought to be able to make a succint and cojent point in a half hour. That is why we don't allow women to preach…it would take 45 mins minimum…:)
The only one who complained about David's unorthodox celebration was his wife, and if I read it right, she was rewarded for her sarcasim and contempt of his "progressive" behavior….The lesson to be learned from this story might be to give a person the benefit of the doubt…I'm afraid too many have adopted Michal's response to different expressions of worship and celebration…Condemnation is the Devil's style…
Not sure we are called to be totally separate…How can we be salt of the earth is we are removed from it? How can we be light unless we invade the darkness? Rather than fear evil we should kick it's butt…Rather than give the Devil anything, we should take it back and make it good…Sure, anything good can be abused..I understand that but just because somebody uses something improperly doesn't mean I can't use it for good.
Royce,
I will try to not be "cunning" as I write; it is not in my heart to do so. Also, want you to know that I am praying for you, that you reconsider some of what you wrote in an earlier post.
How about some initial overview questions as we look at Ephesians 4:17-5:21 together:
First off, what should we make of the "former ways of life" of Ephesians 4:22 and "live as the Gentiles do" in 4:17? Is Paul talking about the Asian cults or no? What do you see here as you read and think about Roman Asia and the spiritual threats the earliest Christians in the region faced?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander:
I appreciate your 9/12, 8:29am post. My oldest son was sharing with me this past Wednesday that he was more than startled by what he experienced as he and his wife visited a congregation in the area where they are now living. He said that every class he had attended in the congregation had the same character. Just "I thinks." Interestingly, he said almost the same thing you stated; just blank stares when he talked about a specific Scripture or teaching. And he mentioned he visited classes for different ages — not just young adult.
My oldest son is not given to exaggeration; pretty level in emotion. What he shared has fed a growing conclusion that matches the National Endowment of the Arts findings over the past 15 years. We are becoming a lazy nation; we are reading less than in previous times… perhaps much less. Which suggests we desperately need to sing Scripture more congregationally.
Great post, Alexander.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander, consider this:
I'm forgiven because you were forsaken
I'm accepted, You were condemmed
I'm alive and well, Your Spirit is within me
Because You died and rose again
Or this:
Who am I that You are mindful of me
That You hear me, When I call
Is it true that You are thinking of me
How You Love me, It's amazing
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
He calls me friend
Or this:
When the music fades
All is stripped away
and I simply come
Longing just to bring
Something that's of worth
That will bless Your heart
I'll bring you more than a song
For a song in itself
Is not what you have required
You search much deeper within
Through the ways things appear
Your looking into my heart
I'm coming back to the heart of worship
And it's all about You, All about You, Jesus
I'm sorry Lord for the thing I've made it
When it's all about you, All about you…Jesus
This music is WAY more insipred than "The Church in the Wildwood" isn't it? I readily admit that not all CCM is of this quality but when I sing one that is inspired, the Holy Spirit confirms to me that God is pleased, regardless of whether I'm singing acappella or with my old guitar.
Doug
Price, et.al.:
Thinking about separation and what shapes us. Certainly not easy to be salt and be separate.
C. Leonard Allen, Richard Hughes and Michael Weed in their book The Worldly Church, 2nd ed. (Abliene: ACU Press, 1991) well argued that we either write the Word on our hearts or our hearts get something else written on them.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Who writes the Word on our hearts?
Doug:
This post is less about vocal versus instrumental music and more about the place of Scripture in our assemblies. Just a quick thought/post. The Church in the Wildwood may not get to the need for us to write the Word on our hearts anymore than some CCM.
One slice of religious history for all of us to consider (has been on my mind a lot lately): How were the first-century individuals in the Dionysus cult in Roman Asia to determine the truth of Jesus Christ versus belief in the strong experience of possession by a deity when they were initiated into the cult? How were they to distinguish good from evil, truth from deception? I have wondered if that is part of what is behind Ephesians 5:11.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Nick:
Exactly!! That is why the first part of Ephesians 5:18-21 is so crucial (and missed by some brethren who believe the Spirit works only through the Word). Paul is teaching us that one of the avenues of the Spirit's work is in congregational song — Christians speaking to one another in song.
Stephen Guthrie's 2005 JETS article is excellent. If you have not read, I encourage you to grab it. He notes the structure of Ephesians 5:18-21 and how Paul is tying vv 18-21 to 4:17-24. The Spirit uses song to renew us.
I know that may go against some of your conclusions. Please feel free to "toss" out a brother's (me) focus on song-only, but I hope you will take time to read Guthrie's article.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, I wouldn't still be talking on this string if I was going to "toss out a brother's focus" on anything. Do you think I'd have wrestled with Laymond over the Godhead for 2+ years?
But that doesn't mean I agree with you, and you still haven't presented evidence proving your foundational assumption – that the Spirit can't use accompanied singing to renew us – but is limited to "song only" – by which I know you meant singing only.
I believe singing is one of the most important things that happens in Christian worship – but I do not believe Scripture teaches that the instrument inherently hinders worship.
Nick:
I have an idea. Please feel free to send me your address if you would like a copy of recent study of Ephesians that includes Guthrie's research (and that of others). I will be glad to send as a gift. My email is [email protected] if an interest.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
My point exactly Nick.
Many people I have observed try to pour into Scripture a meaning it does not have. And, now I know, some also attempt to make history say something it doesn't say either.
Bruce, You asked "First off, what should we make of the “former ways of life” of Ephesians 4:22 and “live as the Gentiles do” in 4:17? Is Paul talking about the Asian cults or no? What do you see here as you read and think about Roman Asia and the spiritual threats the earliest Christians in the region faced?"
What I don't see is a prohibition against instrumental music in the Christian assembly. It is fine for you to imagine it means that but don't try to say that Paul's intention by mentioning the "former ways of life" and listing the long list of sins to avoid is that his focus is on condemning instruments in the Christian assembly.
I have read and reread that passage and how you conclude that Paul's focus on that whole lengthy passage is on singing is beyond me. I guess it's the same logic that make the book of Ephesians a "manual on baptism".
Nick…I agree…It would surprise me to find out that God designed worship in the O.T. in some sort of flawed manner. It would also be difficult to explain why He would reveal to the Apostle John that in the admiration and worship of His Son that He would allow anything that wasn't appropriate to be used. If the first century church felt compelled to remove instruments from worship, they did so without any instruction from God to do so…which may be an indicator of the freedom they felt in Christ to do so…at a minimum it suggests that they chose to be a church of the 1st century and not one of old traditions…another example that might be worth following, huh?
I, and all of us, when we open our Bibles with presuppositions that we give as much weight as the Bible are not likely to learn much. We must be willing to allow the word of God to set the agenda for what we believe and how we live in light of that truth.
Far too many of us have used the Bible to cherry pick "proof texts" to support what we already believe. Much of what we come to the table with are things we have been told to believe and we never questioned their validity in light of Scripture.
I have been guilty of what I am talking about. However, for the last 25 or so years, I have determined to have no agenda but God's the best I can determine it. Sure I am a flawed individual but the Holy Spirit is my teacher and yours and the promise is that if I want to know truth I can know it. So I am actively in that pursuit. No, I am not right about everything, in fact there is more I don't know today than what I thought I knew many years ago. But I and everyone of us must be ethical when we handle God's holy revelation and careful about what we try to bind on others lest we offend God himself.
Royce
Royce:
Do you think I am missing the background of Ephesians 4:17-5:21 to see Paul (and Roman Asia Christians) as having wrestled with the Asian cults (just like he had to wrestle with the cults in Corinth)? Do you believe this conclusion represents my attempting to make history say something it does not?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce:
I do appreciate your 11:25pm post tonight. That is why a look beyond Ephesians 5:18-21 and an attempt to not "proof-text" Paul's teaching there has led me to look differently at the text than I ever have. I hope you consider the parallels in 4:17-5:21 and the religious background.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Price:
Something to consider.
I am certain you believe the Solomonic Temple was not "flawed" (though the Lord did not command it to be built; He did not need, as He reveals to David; 2 Sam. 7). To confirm, I do not believe it was flawed either. So, let's add to the thought:
Apostolic teaching never tells us that we cannot build a Solomonic-style temple in the U.S. Right? So, how about we build one (despite Ephesians 2:19-22). Any issues with that reasoning/decision?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
No, not at all. What I am saying is that if the background info is correct (I have no reason to doubt it) it does not speak to instruments in the Christian assembly. That is my whole point.
The problem Paul was addressing was that there were believers who were lying, who were angry, practiced sexual impurity, and otherwise living double lives. His call is to repentance to a new way of life empowered by the Spirit of God. The result is "Speak out to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, offering praise with voices [and instruments] and making melody with all your heart to the Lord,
20At all times and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.
21Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One)."
This quote is from the Amplified Bible. The person (s) who added the parenthetical phrase [with instruments] had no more right to say that than you do to say this passage prohibits there use. I still don't believe that Paul had in mind the assembly or how to conduct a worship gathering but rather a lifestyle of walking with God in submission to Him and His people.
Royce
Royce:
Okay, I understand. You are not questioning the overall look at religious backgrounds and Ephesians 4:17-5:21, but only the applying of religious background to Ephesians 5:18-21. Correct?
Let me offer — as I sign off for the night — that Paul is concerned about more than ethical matters in the text. And that is where a lot of folks "get off the boat." But if Paul is wrestling with the cults (and the language he uses strongly points to such), he is also challenging the cult rituals as well. The teaching challenges more than ethical darkness; it also challenges religious darkness — the darkness that flows out of the rituals. And that is a key part of thinking about this text, and something that I believe it is difficult for those of us in the West to get our heads around (and I certainly include myself).
And why do I believe ritual is in view too? Because ritual was at the heart of the cults' strength. Paul's use of "impurity" points to more than ethics issues (cf. the Law of Moses).
And yes, I am still growing in the Lord too. Have tested my understanding of late by reading Harland's Associations, Synagogues and Congregations and Hugh Bowman's recent publication about the Ancient mysetery religions. Well… both have convinced me that I have underestimated/understated the power of the mystery religions in ancient Mediterranean society in the first century.
Enough for tonight.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Oooh! Bruce, you're gonna make some house-church folk very happy with posts like that, because they tend to believe that our single-use worship edifices are modern versions of the Solomonic temple.
But while I would have several issues with that reasoning, what I absolutely could not say is that God forbids it. That is why we're having this discussion – because I'm not hearing you say, "IM is an unwise practice." We could have a very profitable discussion about that.
I'm still hearing you say that Paul, in Eph 4-5, forbids their use in Christian worship – that is the root of our disagreement.
Bruce,
Quite a bit of the scripture I have memorized (and I am not good at memorization) is a result of having sung CCM. Many of the CCM songs are also known as "Scripture Songs" and many of the so called "Praise Hymns" contain quite a bit of Scripture. I find that I can remember scripture when there's a song attached to it.
Speaking of Scripture in Assemblies, have you ever been in an Assembly of "Catholic" origin? It might surprise some that ever Sunday in these assemblies a reading from the Psalms, The Old Testament, The New Testament and one of the Gospels is read aloud to the assembly. Do we in the CofC hear that much scripture read on a weekly basis? Have we accidently thrown out the baby with the bath water in this regard?
I've also sung a lot of classical style music in Worship and once again, I have Scripture memorized as a result of doing that. If you've ever sung music from one of the great classical composers in a worship setting, you can't help but be led into close communion with God and His son Jesus. At least that was my experience. I know that my worship experience is diferent from many in the CofC but I'm just sharing that experience. In many respects, I feel that I've given up a lot to worship in a CofC but I did it to be in a Church were the word of God wasn't distorted or even ignored. In some respects, these arguments on minor issues like IM make me wonder if I've bettered myself.
Doug
Nothing against your experience at all Doug, but there are many people who have left the CofC denom. and attend elsewhere for that very same reason.
I concur, that is the experience I have with the songs, Praise the Lord!!
BTW, the church I attend the services go more than 30 min, about 2 1/2 hrs. and the great thing about it is we are being so filled with God's Word we don't notice the time, instead of looking at watches, the people are looking in their Bible writing notes in notebooks filled with Scriptures from the teachings.
This is true, but it has a second side:
I remember a song based on Rev 15:3-4 – it has a chorus that goes "leileileileilei .." in the style of a dancing song. And – at least in the German version – the text was changed: Instead of "for your righteous acts (or judgements) have been revealed" the song lyrics read: "for your glory has been revealed."
When I went back to my Bible and looked at these righteous acts of judgement in the context of Rev 15:3-4 I did not feel like dancing. Still, I would worship my Lord, but rather with fear and trembling when I read of His mighty deeds. You could make a case though from Exodus 15 and the songs of Moses and Miriam after Pharaous army was destroyed …
What botherd me more though, is that they changed the text they were pretending to quote and make a song from. And this was not just a single incident …
Another example for CCM:
I do like Rich Mullins. Especially his song "Our God is an awsome God" is tremenduous. But whenever it comes to congregational singing, most of the time only the chorus is sung – for an obvious reason: The verses in between are far too complicated for congregational singing. But what makes this song a pearl for me are the verses in between. Without them, this song is just another "Feel-Good-Worship.-Song" … But as a performance song, a CD for the car or for work in the kitchen it is a great song.
Alexander
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love."
Stamps-Baxter material is more complicated to sing than anything being written by CCM writers. Multiple harmony parts, key changes, and time changes – all of which are foundational to the a cappella music we call traditional – are just as complicated and off-putting as "Awesome God" or "Ancient Words" or "Steadfast Love."
So (e.g.) the writer of Hebrews was not completed in love, yet (See Heb 12:21 and Heb 12:28-29? I have heard this so often that love drives out fear, but actually I believe it is a misquotation or a misunderstanding:
It's a little off topic, I know. But consider this:
If we abide in love … How do we do that?
By loving God and our brother.
Whose love needs perfection?
God's? No, ours.
So it is about our love being perfected.
Why does this give us boldness onthe day of judgment?
Because love is the fulfillment of the Law.
What if we don't love?
We will face torment on this day.
It's really crucial to get this right – and I know it goes against the vast majority of what people think about this verse. Therefore, please don't frown at my questions and answers drawn from this text, but give them a good time of study.
The fear of the Lord (Greek "phobos" – even "terror") is the beginning (Greek "arche" = beginning, origin or even source) of wisdom (Greek from the LXX of this famous verse Pro 1:7). This is often misunderstood in the same way: Yeah, at the beginning we fear and tremble, but when we know that God loves us, we don't need to fear anymore. But the Fear of the Lord is the "Source" of wisdom. It is not just the starting point, but a continuous source, like oil for the lamp.
John – the one Christ loved – fell to his face like dead when he saw the risen Lord. If we imagine this sight of our gloriefied Judge we would – rightfully – fear and tremble.
It is one of the issues I have with CCM, that it tends to make God look way too "soft and cuddly" (Feel-Good-Worship). I think the atmosphere it creates is quite different from what is described in Heb 12:22-29; Rev 4:5-11 etc.
On the other hand, most older Hymns who originated in Great Britain reflect a sense of Majesty that is inspired by the Royal Court of England. These men of old knew what a King was and how to step into the presense of a King. Although this is jsut a weak reflection of Christ's Heavenly Majesty, I fear that our generation has lost the sense of His true Majesty.
The way we even talk about holy things sometimes reminds me of Jud 1:8 – we lost the sense for rulership and authority, and we don't understand glories very well. All this runs parallel to the decline of authority and purity in society. And it is reflected in "Conteporary Worship" – why "contemoporary"? Because it is made to fit our (post)modern mindset, a mindset that does not understand majesty any more. THerefore we don't fear and tremble, don't bow our knees and don't use doxologies, but rather a "buddy-language" when talking to or about our Great King.
Do you see were a Christianity without fear leads? This is not about personal or sincere faith, not about genuine love – but about a naive and false understanding of His Glory and Holiness.
Alexander
P.S.:
I don't know Stamps-Baxter. But I do know Rich Mullin's "Awesome God" and I am a Musician: The verses are not suited for congregational singing.
Are you speaking on behalf of all churches around the globe?
So all the sins of the world are to be blamed on Instrumental Music….hmmmmmm.
Alexander,
The only reason I can think of that "Awesome God" might not be suited for congregational singing would probably be related to the Worship Leader. I sing this song acappella with Jail inmates and we sing the whole song… no problem. The Achilles heel of Acappella singing is the Worship Leader, of course. Without a good Worship leader, acappella singing is usually pretty bad… it might sound good to God but it sure sounds bad to me. I've been to congregations where the Worship Leader starts the song a good 4 notes too low. What are the poor basses to do? I guess they could begin smoking cigars and drinking vodka and hope they eventually become Russian basses but I suspect that you'd have problems with that solution too. Ha!
Doug
Nick, you are spot on…How can you fear Abba Father ?? So many of my contemporaries moved away from the CoC because of this very thing…They couldn't measure up to the perfection that was demanded by the CoC theology to be loved so they left….and found out that Abba isn't some angry God looking for every opportunity to punish somebody for all eternity…I believe this Fear Factor is the root cause for all the works oriented theology that exists in most of the conservative CoC congregations…If they don't get it exactly right, then mean ole God is going to punish them forever and ever…No wonder people have continued to leave that theology…It's as if punishment is the good news ….doesn't make sense… I prefer Grace and Forgiveness…and the idea that my creator, the one who humbled Himself and died for me…really does love me beyond my ability to understand…I would not respond to that with Fear…but I guess some do…sad.
We are always in awe (fear) of God. But, we need not fear being the objects of His wrath if we are in Christ.
The fear of an uncertain future, fear of death, and fear of punishment, should all flee in the light of God's perfect love demonstrated in the living and dying of Jesus "for us".
Royce
It’s phrases like that, Alexander and Bruce, that make the rest of us really sick and tired of being lectured at. Do you ever see anyone who disagrees with you making such condescending requests? You sound like a “teacher of Israel” waxing philosophic to your dunderhead pupils, as if the two of you are the only ones giving responses a “good time of study,” while unless you plead with us, we just snap off some ridiculous response. We aren’t children – you’ve been treated with respect – it would go a long way towards fruitful discourse if you’d stop acting otherwise.
That being said, I think you are exactly backwards on the 1 John text, because you fundamentally misunderstand our relationship with the One True God. It is serendipitous that Jay is working through Ephesians 1 at present, because it addresses so much of the material you shared, Alexander, about glory and fear. And quoting the Hebrew preacher doesn’t help, because he’s precisely the one who tells us (Heb 4:16; Heb 10:19-22) that we may BOLDLY enter the throne room – precisely because of our new relationship with Father God. Furthermore, the words in Hebrews 12:28 that describe how we are to worship are eulabeia and deous – which is why the ESV more accurately translates it “let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe.” We share His glory because He has glorified and will continue to glorify, glory upon glory, the clay jars in which we currently dwell! We are seated at his right hand in the heavenlies right now (Eph 2:6) All of those things cannot fail to inspire AWE, but FEAR? Why would I fear such a one when He is on my side? (Rom 8:31) Why on earth would Jesus command, more times than any other command in Scripture, “Fear not!” if the kind of “fear you’re describing is what He wants from us?
You may accept John’s response to seeing the fully-glorified Lord as paradigmatic if you wish, but the Lord Himself does not accept it as such – in fact, He commands John to stop being afraid! (Revelation 1:17) How does that command make sense if that response was appropriate?
If more readers would read arche in 1 Cor 11:3 as you are willing to do in the LXX, we would be well on our way to clearing up even bigger challenges than the instrument. But, as Eugene Peterson writes, fear-of-the-Lord is a syntagm – a combination of words/symbols that can only be understood in relation to each other. You cannot assess their meaning by mathematically combining their meanings. I highly recommend reading pp 40-44 of Christ Plays in 10,000 Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology, where he offers the best, clearest, and most useful definition of fear-of-the-Lord I’ve ever read. I promise it’s worth your time – and it is available in full-text at that link, which takes you to Google Books. The whole book isn’t available, but pp 40-44 are.
You’re right, I don’t fear and tremble. I revere and hold in utter awe, because I belong to the New Covenant, where I know Him as my Father, my Lord, my Brother, and my Friend. I do bow my knees – this is a ridiculous assertion. I use doxologies, all the time – in fact, it is one of the most important parts of my own prayer time as well as the instruction I give on a healthy prayer life – but not because I’m afraid of Him. Yes, he is my Great King, but when did he demand elevated language, trembling, or any such cowering activity from the disciples when He walked among them?
He is not angry with me, why should I be afraid of Him? Respect, awe, reverence – all these are part of a healthy love between parent and child – and even between friends. But not the kind of craven, cowering fear you describe. Adam did not cower until his relationship with God was wrecked; why should I act like Adam now that my relationship with Him has been restored by the blood of Christ? Should I ignore the power of His sacrifice, or His grace in choosing to save me? No, I will REVEL in his grace!
Yes, I see where a Christianity without fear leads! To a life so completed by the love of God that I can step out boldly and fearlessly to serve and embrace and love others! You’re right – there’s reason to fear if we don’t love – but what if we do??? I don’t have a naive or false understanding of His Glory and Holiness – I have a New Covenant understanding of my place in His Kingdom!
in HIS love,
nick
“Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, ‘Don’t be afraid; just believe.'” Mark 5:36
Man is to keep two greatest commandments and all the others hang on them, Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
God’s requirement of perfection is, Matthew 5:48 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” We are commanded to be perfect and the measure of that perfection is God Himself.
Not only do we sin by breaking God’s commands (sins of commission), we also sin when we don’t do the things God commands us to do (sins of omission). James 4:17 “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
We sin unintentionally and it is still sin, Numbers 15:29 “You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.”
When we do something good so we can make ourselves look good, we sin. When we do something because refusing it would make us look bad, it is turned into sin. We may be able to fool others, sometimes ourselves, but God knows it.
Anything we think makes us significance other than the Lord Jesus Christ is an idol. A career can be an idol, a home, a person, a car, money, even ourselves can be an idol. Anytime we say I worked hard to get my money, or I worked hard to get this house, or I worked hard to get this car we take the glory away from God.
We sin not only when we murder, but when are unjustly angry. Even if this anger takes no action. If we feel a flash of anger it is still a sin against God. Resenting someone, even only for a moment, because they took the parking spot you were going to pull in, is a sin, When we yell angrily at someone at home after it’s been a hard day at work, we sin. Sinful action doesn’t have to occur, we have still sinned against God.
Do you always love your neighbor as you should, do you always keep what you say to someone, do you always help someone you see needing help, do you ever see someone with something and want it too and covet, do you ever eat in excess which is gluttony, do you ever hear another person gossip about someone and have even a little interest, are you ever lazy, have you not given a deserved compliment to someone out of pride.
The greatest command is to love God, completely, continuously, with every part of our heart, soul, and mind. When we fall short of this, we sin. When we are distracted by this world and what is in it, we sin. When we take God for granted, we sin.
How many times do we break the commandment “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”? Anytime we are not content with what he has given us. Anytime we are angry about what life has dealt us. Anytime we fail to give God the glory. Anytime we want control over our lives instead of searching out what God has for us. Anytime we rely on man’s understanding instead of on God. Anytime we sin we rebel against God and break His command.
When we cut a person off in traffic, rather than letting him in, we sin. When we fail to offer help to a neighbor, we sin. When we shun the people not wanting to be bothered by them, we sin. When we consider the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we must consider our sins of omission. The command is not “When you interact with your neighbor treat him with love”. This command is broken many times by omission for every time by commission.
Other commands are “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”, and “honor your parents”. When we get creative with our tax report, or bring the office’s supplies home to use, shave a little time off the clock by leaving early or taking long breaks, or don’t tell the clerk about an error, we commit the sin of stealing. We can steal not just money and valuables, but also time, privileges, and honor.
We sin when by our silence when we fail to stick up for someone. When we pay a person false complements, exaggerate qualifications, or hide faults, resulting in a false representation of a person, we bear false witness and sin.
“Honor your father and mother” is more than just a command for children to obey their parents until they become adults. When we fail to respect our parents, we sin. When not listening to our parents, we sin. When we hold resentments, we sin, if they have hurt us through their sin and we fail to forgive our parents, we sin. When we place ourselves above our parents, we sin.
Jesus is our perfect standing before God, 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ did not deserve death, we do! It is only the righteousness of Christ that can satisfy the perfect demand of God’s law, Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” I am a sinner saved by God’s grace, Praise God!!
Luke 18:9-14 “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Dear Nick
I certaily did not want to be disrespectful. I am sorry that I came across this way anyway.
There are some reasons why I do have a strong opinion on this. It is not the first time I heard this, in fact I heard this understanding of 1 John 4 almost all of my Christian life. FYI I come from an Evangelical background, and God led me to a more or less conservative CoC (not typical of those in the US maybe); in the course of that I questioned almost all my Evangelical beliefs of the Gospel. Some was OK and correct, to be sure; but quite a lot was very unbalanced and misleading.
When I follow the discussions of my progressive brothers, I have the impression they lean toward Evangelicalism and adopt teachings that I – in quite a painful process – had to dismiss as wrong. One of these is the common understanding, that in the NT the love of God drives out fear in a way that we need not fear nor tremble anymore.
This said, I hope you will be able to understand me a little better, and I’ll watch out not to use offending phrases.
There is no “arche” in this text, but “kephale”, which means “head”. Some try to explain head in this text as “source” (because kephale can be used for the springs of a river as well). The reasoning is as follows: Christ “flowed from God”, and the woman “flowed from man”. So far this sounds convincing, but “man did flow from God not from Christ in creation – and that’s why this does not work. Kephale is used in 1Co 11:3-16 in the sense of authority just as in Eph 5:22-24 – and the responso to headship is submission.
I think that’s what you meant with this side-remark, am I right?
Let’s stay with Hebrews for the sake of brevity.
If we read Heb 10:19-22 we read of our great freedom to enter the Heavenly Assembly. But this freedom has a few things to remember:
a) It is based on the blood of Christ, which is a tremendous price for us to be able to enter a place where sinners can’t survive (see Is 6:1-7)
b) Then there is a second cleansing that is mentioned, namely our bodies being washed with water and our concienses sprinkled with blood. This second cleansing refers to the OT washings and cleansings whenever an Israelite touched or did something unclean or sinful (this is not a refernce to baptism!).
So there are two different cleansings, that we have to understand, and both are in Christ. You see this explained in the footwashing (John 13:10) where Christ speaks of a general or overall cleansing, compared to a bath (maybe a hint to baptism), and the washing of the feet, which is a cleansing we have to seek even after our bath. This is speaking of our uncleannes due to our daily walk in this world. The same is said twi chapters later: We are clean through His word, but we need to be cleansed regularly in an ongoing relationship with the vine (John 15:2-3).
There is a reason, why there are two different cleansings. Because no one was allowed to partake of the meet offered on the altar, when he was unclean for some reason (Lev 7:20) – and this applies to the Lord’s Supper as well. The effects of not minding this are illustrated in 1Co 11:30.
Well, maybe we can say, these texts not necessarily should make us fear and tremble, but they really DO teach us to take God’s holyness very seriously.
So, there are these two cleansings that are necessary that we may enter “with boldness”. Why does John say, we may be bold on judgement day? Let’s read this again:
Our Love (????? ??? ???? = love with us) is going to be perfected. It is the result of God’s Love in us, that we love God and others. He has loved us first. Abiding in His love, makes us love.
The result is, that we are like Christ in this world = we live the same way as He did, because that’s what we are called to. And then we won’t fear the day of Judgment. Hebrews says, without holyness we won’t see the Lord (Heb 12:14), and John says, without perfected love and without Christlikeness we won’t look forward to Judgement Day with boldness.
We really have to look at a parallel verse in the same letter of John:
So obedience is the way to become perfected in love and to become like Christ in this world. Or this one:
Nick:
I think I have been lectured at for lecturing (and that is okay). Just emphasizing Guthrie's article; that's all. I see that when Jay reads something he thinks is especially valuable, he even starts a web chain — and he talks up the article. I think we all do it.
Separately, are you saying you would raise up a solomonic-style temple and call it a temple of Christ? Just curious.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Who do you think was Lord of the Solomonic temple?
Can the walls of a specific building stop the Spirit of Christ from entering there?
If we are debating a scriptural point or practice and you have to resort to historical treatise or learned jargon to convince me of the truth of your position so I can see what is hiding behind the text I have to assume your position is flat out wrong.
If scripture alone doesn't solve it nothing else will. So leave your brother alone and get on with it.
Nope. The church is the temple of Christ – calling a building a temple of Christ would work completely at cross-purposes to the progressive nature of Incarnation.
However, from a certain perspective, I can see how many people believe all of our single-use worship edifices are replacements for Solomon's Temple. I think they, too, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Incarnation (as do those who immaturely operate from the presupposition that conflates church and building).
From my perspective, I believe churches and cathedrals and the like can be incredibly beautiful expressions of the goodness of the artistic and creative gifts with which we are blessed by the One True God. Calling such a building a temple, while erroneous and confusing, wouldn't upset me terribly. Teaching that only in that building does true worship occur? That, I believe, would be damnable heresy.
So, to summarize: No, I wouldn't – but I can see why some believe I already have – I sympathize with their concerns but reject their solution. Nor would I be accepted as a brother by one who would erect a temple in the true Solomonic sense – the one place on earth where true worship to God is raised and the house where the One True God dwells with his people.
So the temple has a spiritual meaning today – 1Pe 2:4-5
The animal sacrifices have a spiritual meaning today – 1Pe 2:5
The altar has a spritual meaning today – Heb 13:10
The burning of incense has a spiritual meaning today – Rev 8:3-4
The priesthood is a spiritual priesthood today – 1Pe 2:9
Only the musical instruments of the temple should still be "binding"? I rememeber some who said, that instruments are even commanded in the OT – so what? Building a temple was commanded, too; offering animal-sacrifices, burning incense by a special priesthood – all of this was commanded in the OT as well.
But how does all this apply to our worship in Spirit and Truth?
And why did the ECF follow the same line of reasoning concerning instruments as for incense (Both mentioned inthe NT only in Revelation)?
These brothers learned reading their Bibles from the Apostles or their companions themselves; they learned worshipping in churches founded and instructed by the apostles, led by elders chosen by Christ's chosen ones.
Who is inconsistent, today?
Alexander
The temple had a spiritual meaning then, and it has a physical presence today.
The animal sacrifices had a spiritual meaning then, and they have a fulfilled physical presence today in Christ Jesus who sits at the right hand of God in the heavenlies. Also, Scripture clearly says that they were made obsolete by the sacrifice of Christ.
The altar had a spiritual meaning then, and since the one sacrifice has been completed, there is no place for it today. As the daily sacrifices were fulfilled, so the altar was fulfilled.
The priesthood is a physical priesthood today, every bit as much as it was a physical priesthood in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The best argument of the ECF was always that OT worship had been transformed into NT forms. But not every element was transformed.
The incense had a spiritual meaning then; why would you say that Christians are forbidden to use it? In what way can you say that the purpose of incense-burning has been so fulfilled that doing so now would contradict the gospel?
Likewise IM – in what way can you say that the purpose of musical accompaniment in the worship of the One True God has been so fulfilled that doing so in New Covenant worship would contradict the gospel?
And you've once again run ahead of the argument being made by those who disagree with you: I am adamantly opposed to anyone teaching that the use of IM is binding – just as opposed as I am to anyone teaching that a cappella is part of the law of Christ.
The point of the OT references (as you well know) is not to prove that the playing of instruments is still a requirement, but simply that Scripture affirms that God enjoys it when his people celebrate Him with music – vocal and instrumental.
Those parts of Mosaic worship that were of atoning significance – they have been made obsolete because of the better sacrifice. Those parts of Mosaic worship that were genetically limited – that have been fulfilled and expanded to universal scope. The cleanliness ordinances are also fulfilled in Christ.
Neither incense nor instruments fall into any of those categories – yet, since we know that NT worship does not have 'an earthly tabernacle and ordinances for worship' we know they are not bound. If they are A) not bound, and B) not prohibited, we are C) free to use or abstain according to the best interests of the mission of God in our setting.
No disagreement on that (none at all!), but what I said/wrote was:
But anyway …
So we agree on 5 out of 6 given examples. But interstingly, you use a different wording, just one example (the others follow the same logic):
I had to read this twice. You are right, if you see a temple of living stones as a physical presence. But this is not what is being associated with the word "temple". Rather, the temple was a physical reality back then, pointing to a spiritual reality that had not been revealed yet.
So in the OT we had a temple of stones, in the NT a temple of "living stones".
And the same is true for Instruments:
In the OT-Temple they used physical instruments, in the NT-temple we make melody with our hearts (= We become the instruments). This is the reasoning of the ECF, and it makes totally sense to me.
Incense was part of the offerings in the tabernacle, and has also been fulfilled in Christ. It is a type of the NT-teaching, that our prayers must ascend through the Spirit in the name of Christ. The ingredients of incense had to be according to fixed recipy, and it was most holy; a part of it was put before the ark of the covenant (Ex 30:36).
Now are we allowed to burn literal incense in our worship services?
Actually, I don't think this question points in the right direction. It is not about being allowed or not allowed, but about hitting the point. Understanding, that incense is just a shadow of the body, as the whole OT-temple worship was, leads to the answer: We miss the point, if we still (or again) burn incense. We miss the point.
Is it sin then? Again – this is a wrong question. If you want to do something that misses the point, it is not ncessarily sinful, it just misses the point, and it might be misleading and confusing.
When the churches after Constantine introduced incense in their worship again (against everything the ECF said on this subject), they did it with good intentions; but the result was a kind of worship, that focusses (in many aspects) on a literal application of metaphorical descriptions of the heavenly worship in Revelation. You can derive many spiritual lessons from that, it can be deeply moving if you understand the meaning of all the symbols. But it misses the point. The point is not to imitate OT- or Revelation-Worship (that uses OT-imagery).
What is the point then? Worship in Spirit and in Truth.
Building a "temple" might not be sinful in a strict sense – but it misses the point. If we are called to be a temple of living stones, a living room can serve as a meeting place as well. But if we build beautiful cathedrals, this distracts us from the great truth of the NT temple.
And what about the instruments? Exactly the same.
Using external music might not be sinful in a strict sense – but it misses the point. Instruments were assigned to specially chosen and trained people from among the Levites, but now we are all a chosen priesthood (we are Priests, not Levites!). And we shall sing and make melody with our hearts.
Again to Eph 5:19 – the only verse speaking of making music in the NT: Why doesn't Paul say: Singing and making music with the Psalterion, the cymbal or the harp? Why "with the heart" – because this is the transition from the OT to the NT.
Again: Is it sinful to use an instrument? It misses the point.
You might want to see how the Musical Instruments could be something that has been fiulfilled in Christ (as the rest). There are two anwers to this:
a) It is not about the single elements of temple worship, but about the whole sytem itself and everything that was contained therein. So Instruments are a part of a system of worship that was typological in its entirety, and the body of this whole shadow is Christ.
b) Almost all elements individually also point to Christ, His atoning sacrifice or something else connected to His glory. And the instruments are surely no exception to that. This instruments for instence accompanied the burnt offerings in 2Ch 29:27-29; they were played when the ark of the covenant was brought to the temple, and at many celebrations in the temple. In short they were "tools" for worship. These instruments were as external as the smoke of the burt offerings or the incense – pointig to a different "tool" for worship – and this is a heart, filled with the Spirit.
Again: It is not sin to worship with instruments, but it misses the point. And is it not so, that many Christians do church hopping because they are looking for the "best worship experience"? Which means, the best "worship band" and "worship leader", missing the point that the quality of worship solely depends on his or her own heart, filled with God's Spirit.
So what happens, when we miss the point? We put something in front of our eyes, ears or noses that was once a pointer to a spiritual reality; and we beginn looking at the piointers instead of the realities.
I don't say, Nick, that you are unable to make the difference between pointer and reality. But I do say, that there are many, who think (or act as) they cannot worship without the aid of a band. Who don't think (or behave as if) they are on holy ground, unless they are in a Gothic Cathedral. Who don't sense the glory of God unless they smell the incense. They miss the point – it does have serious effects in the long run, not immediately. As it had in centuries past. Up to the point that the reformers had to restore congregational singing in worship, because this had become a task for professionals (choirs, instrumentalists) in the RCC. And especially Zwingli and the Swiss Reformation rejected the use of instruments (although Zwingli was a gifted musician himself), and – but I haven't found a relieble source yet – according to some Luther used very strong words against the organ. When they introduced the first organ in the 7th century they probably did out of good intentions – but they missed the point.
You may do as you please and can justify – it is not a matter of fellowship, not a matter of heaven or hell – just a matter of not missing the point. As an elder (which I am not) in a church I would therefore not introduce instruments.
Alexander
Alexander,
While I agree with your rational I disagree that it misses the point. Yes, as you state we are the temple, we are the instrument, we are etc.
I would say because that is the point it doesn't necessarily matter if you worship with or without accompaniment. I can be the instrument of worship with or without instrumental aids, just as I can be the temple in a large group or small group setting.
If it is indeed spiritual then freedom allows many choices as long as we continue to be the temple, the instrument etc. I think that is why Paul doesn't seem to mind the Jews continuing in Temple worship (Acts 21) as long as they do not place that worship as the point.
Do people who use instruments allow them to dominate? Sure, but so do those who don't use instruments when they say that is what saves.
I don't disagree with you argument I just think that it doesn't follow that it necessarily has any bearing on whether or not one sings with accompaniment or not.
The Temple was both a physical and spiritual reality in Jerusalem, and it is both a physical and spiritual reality now. The Jerusalem temple was inadequate because it could not encompass the world – it could not move. In fact, that is my sneaking suspicion about the nature of the quirky conversation between God and David, where God prefers dwelling in a tent to dwelling in a immobile edifice, no matter how glorious.
It only makes sense if you imagine the Jews to be somehow less spiritual, less faithful, less dedicated to the One True God than we are. Did they not also make melody with their hearts? Of course they did! Not everyone, but we know full well that not everyone who sings makes melody with their hearts today! I also never have understood why that one metaphor – make melody with your hearts – must be understood with such stiff and wooden literalism, when we so casually spiritualize away any literal potential in other metaphors.
Building a cathedral might miss the point, if the point is about establishing exclusive locations of worship. The location of New Covenant worship, as you rightly quote (dubious interpretation, but accurate quotation) is in the Spirit and the Truth/Christ. It occurs wherever we are – living room, Westminster, farm, Wal-Mart, or even the parking lot or the dressing room of a strip club.
But that doesn't have to be the point. The point about the NT temple might be missed altogether, because someone wants to make an altogether different point about the good and beautiful Creator God who can be honored with glorious architecture as well as other schools of the creative arts.
There's also a practical point to be made about how a commonplace helps draw a community together. But Temple language carries with it a sense of exclusivity – that is why no building can ever fully convey the truth of God's Temple that is His people.
And again, if a Christian believes that incense is necessary to convey their prayers to the One True God, they should be encouraged to move more deeply into the freedom that is in Christ. But that was never the only function of the incense. The smoke of the incense protected the High Priest from witnessing the full Shekinah-Glory in the Most Holy Place. It fostered, and served as a reminder of the holiness and mystery of YHWH. It also covered over the stink of the atoning blood – giving a very tactile reminder that coming into the presence of the good and beautiful God means entering a sensual and lovely place.
Mystery, loveliness, invitation to experience God with the senses — all of those things (as well as prayer) were generated by the use of incense in ancient times. The ECF, in seeking to separate Christian worship from pagan, latched onto the prayer-symbolism to the exclusion of all the other good purposes which the incense fulfilled.
Why "with the heart"? Unless you are willing to say that the OT did not demand worship from the heart – which the prophets deny over and over and over – then it must be because not everyone can make music with the instrument – even when that instrument is the voice! But everyone, even the tone-deaf and the mute, can make melody from the very center of who they are. You see, I believe the argument of the ECF fails precisely in the same way that Luther's casting of the RCC leadership as the Pharisees in the Gospels fails – because OT worship was every bit as spiritual and every bit as from-the-heart as is NT worship. There are many differences, but the idea that God only wanted rituals from them and wants heart-worship from us is foreign to Scripture.
It is sadly true that some Christians do church-hop looking for the "best worship experience." But I disagree that "the quality of worship solely depends on his or her own heart, filled with God's Spirit." If that were true, the instrument would be utterly irrelevant! No instrument can prevent one's heart from being filled with the Spirit! But that's not my biggest concern with your measure of 'quality worship' – I think your definition is far too individualistic – if it were true, why gather at all? If the sole measure is what happens inside me, I don't need you! But if the "quality of worship" is defined in terms of whether the worshipping community was gathered together into the presence of God, then the "worship leader" or the "worship band" can play a very important role in inviting us, together, into the presence of God… a very important role fostering reverence… empowering celebration (how many congregations sit mutely while the angels burst into celebration as a new saint rises from the watery grave, because they have no leader who will encourage them to celebrate???)… inviting grief or mourning or a recognition of our helplessness without the power of God? The assembly is not the place for me to sit by myself and commune with my God – that's what my "closet" is for. The assembly is the place for us to be transformed together – to experience the unity of the Spirit as we worship together.
No, I can't. I'm constrained by love! This has never been a discussion about whether it is right to do as we please. Nor – I think – has it been a conversation about whether or not to introduce instruments. Rather, it has been a conversation about whether communities that use them are wrong to do so.
We could definitely have a discussion about the missional usefulness/appropriateness of the instrument, but I fear it would not bear much fruit, as the mission of God in our lives is being carried out in very different contexts: I in Kentuckiana, and you in your location. If I were an elder in my congregation – which I am not (36 and childless, so the lowest I can go in the CoC 'lowerarchy' is Bible-class teacher… Deacon and Elder are off-limits), I wouldn't introduce the instrument either. My opinion is that their missional value wouldn't outweigh their expense or the heartache that would ensue. As Jay has written, there are many ways to upgrade our worship without buying a guitar, and I don't think the mission of God to Frankfort, KY, will ever hinge on our music style. It hinges on whether we will sacrificially love our community, and whether we will live and tell the truth about Jesus Christ.
NIck,
You said:
"It only makes sense if you imagine the Jews to be somehow less spiritual, less faithful, less dedicated to the One True God than we are."
How does that follow? A religion being of a different nature or having different emphases or having elements which serve a different purpose than ours is not the same as saying their worshippers were insincere or lacking devotion compared to us.
Do you not think Hebrews is a book which argues that Christ is superior to OT Judaism? Better promises? Better sacrifice? Better High Priest? etc.? But that doesn't imply that the Jews weren't devout or sincere.
–guy
guy, that's precisely my point. I believe that OT worship was not of a different nature than NT worship. The movement is from partial to complete ("The Law came by Moses, grace and truth through Jesus Christ"), not from physical to spiritual.
Christian worship has different elements and (perhaps) different emphases, but the same nature: submission to and adoration of the One True God.
Hebrews argues that Christ is superior to Moses and the angels, and that the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant because it has better promises, a better sacrifice, and a better High Priest.
What it does not argue – and what Alexander is arguing – is that because Paul says, 'Make melody in your hearts,' the OT worshipers who made melody with the Psalterion, et al, were not making melody from the center of who they were, and therefore NT worshipers who make melody with instruments are also not making melody from the center of who they are.
Nick,
You said "less faithful, less dedicated." i still don't think that follows from Alexander's argument.
And maybe i'm misunderstanding Alexander (which i've clearly done before), but i don't see that his arguments assume that OT worshippers using instruments means they–the individual Jewish worshippers–were less spiritually engaged in their worship than we are. i understood his claim to be that instruments or incense or any other such feature of OT Judaism is part of a system the trappings of which are of a different nature than the NT. i understood the argument was about appropriate forms, not about differences in quality of attitudes or motives.
–guy
You may be right, guy. But when I read Eph 5:18-19, I hear Paul saying, "Don't fill yourself with alcohol, which releases your evil desires. Instead, fill yourself with the Spirit! Sing and make music to the Lord with everything you are!"
If "with the heart" must exclude the instrument, then it follows that "with the instrument" must exclude the heart. That is the old RM formulation of the argument, and it follows with Luther's argument and the ECF argument that Christians should avoid how Jews worship because their worship is ritualistic and surface-only, while Christian worship is "with the heart."
It further follows that, if the instrument hinders true worship, then God actually instituted something that hindered the Jews from rendering true worship. That's why some a cappella apologists argue that the passages commanding instrumental worship in the OT were Davidic innovations rather than commands of God.
Singing was part of OT worship – is it not then "part of a system the trappings of which are of a different nature than the NT"?
Giving was part of OT worship – is it not then "part of a system the trappings of which are of a different nature than the NT"?
Prayer was part of OT worship – is it not then "part of a system the trappings of which are of a different nature than the NT"?
I can do this all day, but I think the point has been made that OT worship and NT worship, while having different forms and emphases, were of the same nature: submission to and adoration of the One True God with the whole of one's being – body, soul, and spirit.
Many go on unknowingly as a traditional Christian as if they are actually a "follower of Jesus", yet never once begin to compare "doctrinally" the Jewish faith with their Christian faith which has been taught them by Gentile Roman Christianity. Christian values we now hold dear are rooted in theology practiced by the Jewish people for thousands of years. The Jewish people are the bedrock of our very faith. I know this concept flies in the face of the anti-Semitic poison that has filled the mouths of church leaders for centuries.
Jesus was born to Jewish parents. He was dedicated in the Jewish tradition. He became a Jewish rabbi and died with a sign over His head that read: “This is the king of the Jews!" If Jesus, Whom we read about in the Bible, came to your church, what would you expect? He would have penetrating dark eyes, an olive complexion and prominent Semitic features. His hair uncut at the corners, and a full beard, and His shoulders would be draped with a tallit (prayer shawl).If Jesus identified Himself to your congregation as a Jewish rabbi who befriended prostitutes, who socialized with tax collectors and other outcasts, and who surrounded Himself with full-bearded, Jewish men with shoulder-length hair, what would people think?
Jesus of Nazareth was of the tribe of Judah, His name was given by an angel of God, Jesus’ name is originally the Hebrew word Yeshua, which in Hebrew means “Salvation.”
It was Judaism that believed humans were created in God’s image. Judaism gave us the concepts of hell, heaven, angels, devils, the acceptance of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, and the creation of the world in seven days. Judaism taught us to sing psalms of praise, while pagan religions sacrificed their children to foreign gods. It was Judaism that gave us the Lord’s Supper as a part of the Passover celebration. Judaism gave us the patriarchs, the prophets and our Lord. Judaism gave us the Hebrew Scriptures, were penned by Jewish writers, from which Jesus taught from.
The whole Bible is an introduction to the true and living God. To sum it all up, the Jewish people gave to Christianity the foundation of the Word of God. The Jewish people do not have to use Christianity to explain their existence, but we cannot explain our existence without our Jewish roots.
Nick,
You may be right about Ephesians 5:19. And i think Alexander has used it in that way. But i'm not sure the basic position is dependent on that passage in that way.
i don't think the point is that absolutely every practice ever done approvingly by a Jew must necessarily be discarded. But there are at least some elements of Judaism which are to be discarded. Some elements of Judaism are of such a nature that they are appropriate to Judaism but not to the NT. Some elements of Judaism are particularly Judaistic.
Some elements of Judaism the NT refers to as "shadows," for which there are NT realities. (And i don't think the elements in question are the subjective states you're spotlighting–attitudes or motives of worshipers). And the Hebrews writer's argument suggests i think that there is something wrong about preferring shadows to shadow-casters.
i hardly think any of that is controversial. What is obviously controversial is whether or not certain items/practices in question belong in that category of "shadows" or "things-which-were-particularly-Judaistic." i could be wrong, but it seems clear enough to me that IM has more in common with with priestly garments, showbread, tabernacles, etc. than it does with NT elements of which those things are meant to bear some "shadow-ee" relation.
Further, i'm not precisely sure how this fits into the discussion, but Jesus contrasts "worship in spirit and truth" with the Jewish/Samaritan notion of particular place and edifice. Seems then there is some sense in which NT worship is "truer" than at least those notions. Though i think "truer" might be suffering some equivocation in this discussion. (Likely because it presently remains vague.)
–guy
When Jesus speaks of worship "in spirit and in truth," I don't believe he is contrasting that worship with what we would call false worship. Remember that in John, the contrast is between 'The Law' and 'Grace and Truth.' A person can worship the One True God and not be a Christian – Jews all over the world worship Him, but it is not true worship in the Jn 4:24 sense because those worshipers are not "in Truth" – in the Messiah. So yes, there is a sense in which NT worship is 'truer' than those notions, but it is because the location of that worship is IN the Messiah. That's how I read His worshipers must worship in Spirit and truth" – His worshipers must have been 'born of the Spirit' and remain dedicated to the One who is the truth.
If that is so (and I agree that it is), then the contrast cannot be between IM and a cappella, because Eph 5:19 refers to one of those subjective states – the state of one's heart while singing. Otherwise the metaphor breaks down into absurdity. If Eph 5:19 – because it is about one of those subjective states – is therefore NOT referring to shadows and shadowcasters – then there is no other support for the prohibition of IM except the ECF and the vagaries of later church history.
I tend to agree with you, though, about the idea of 'truer' worship – but I also think that the milk vs. meat contrast must also come into the discussion.
Nick,
i already admitted i don't think this use of Ephesians 5:19 in this position works. That'll be Alexander's task to explain it. i don't think Paul had this contrast in mind at all when he wrote that passage.
i did say though i don't think the position depends on that passage. If anything, it depends more on passages in Hebrews that do speak of shadows and shadow-casters. (Though, to be careful, i don't think we can draw one-to-one correspondence relations between shadows and shadow-casters, and i don't think the position depends on any such apparatus as that either.)
–guy
This pretty well sums up the question.
As for Eph 5:19: Aside from Revelation which uses OT temple imagery and is therefore not helping to decide on this mater, Eph 5:19 is the only verse that uses the verb psallo (make Music). This is quite significant, but it does receive its significance not so much from its place in the NT alone, but from the practice of the Early church.
Not only that they all agreed on a-capella worship. Nowhere do we see the slightes hint of a change in the worship practice. So there was no debate about what was the original practice handed down from the Apostles.
And this leads us back to Eph 5:19. The phrase I want to point out is
How shall we translate “??? ???? ???????? ??????“? “With your heart” or “In your heart”? According to Strong’s both ways are possible:
This leaves room for endless debates:
If we say “with the heart” we could argue, the heart shall be the instrument or we should play an instrument “from the heart”; if we say “In your heart” we could even argue for silence. Interestingly: Conrad Grebel, an early Anabaptist, wroto to Thomas Muentzer that we should speak (!) to one another with songs, but sing and make music only in our hearts. He argued against singing completely …
But we can solve this puzzle by lookinmg for similar phrases, especially in the Psalms. Normally we would expect to read: “Singing and making music with a guitar”, and phrases like this can be found in the Psalms:
We see here the same grammatical composition: “?? ????????“ (with the psalterion) – “??? ???? ???????? ??????“ (with your hearts). Therefore we can say two things:
a) Paul uses the same grammatical structure as in the Psalms
b) Paul replaces the instrument with the heart
I would not say this is necessarily the only correct interpretation, but it is certainly a valid interpretation that does make sense. That’s why I lean towards the conclusion that the heart is the true NT instrument for worship.
Alexander
In my view most people who fight so feverishly to uphold the superiority of a cappella only singing do not do it primarily because they believe it is what pleases God. They do it because a cappella only is one leg of their 3 legged stool of identity.
When your identity as a Christian is "church of Christ" it makes you very uncomfortable when anyone challenges any of it's distinctives. When your identity is "Christ" it isn't quite so important if someone worships differently or has a different name on the sign in front of the building.
New life and becoming a child of God is only through Jesus. NO church ever saved anyone.
Royce
Careful there, Royce. I fear you're getting to the heart of the matter.
But it's a perspective few will want to admit or acknowledge.
I'm sure this has been asked and answered in this forum many times but as a newby, maybe I won't be taken to task too hard by asking it again.
If I am singing with IM and I am either singing "with my heart" or "in my heart" (I dare anyone to tell me how I am singing because only God knows my heart), am I still doing wrong by CofC standards? Is it then, by CofC standards, only those who are playing the instuments that are doing something wrong?
I'd like to get this issue to a personal issue as opposed to a "Church" issue. I have led singing accapella at a fairly large CofC and while I don't want to judge, based on the expressions on the faces and the number of persons who simply don't sing, there's a lot of not singing either "with my heart" or "in my heart" going on in this particular CofC.
Doug
Well stated conundrum, Doug.
So it's perfectly fine for Doug to say that no one but God knows his heart (with which sentiment i agree), but it's also perfectly okay for Royce to say he knows the hearts and motives of most involved on one side of this debate. (And to insinuate that such motives somehow render their position either invalid or insignificant.)
Perhaps when engaged in conversations with our own spiritual family we could refrain altogether from impugning each others' motives?
–guy
The underlying motivation / rationale for the positions we take is often something we're not even aware of Guy.
While you may choose to nit-pik at word choice, Royce raises a valid perspective. Individually, each of us must decide if that perspective is applicable.
Royce clearly begins his post, "in my view." He's expressing an opinion. Is his opinion less valid than your or mine?
Ultimately, the only thing any of us has is our own opinion / perspective / point of view about the evidence on any given matter.
So somehow this has boiled down to the essentials, which is fine with me. Col 3:16 wasn't a good text to start such a debate anyway – it could have been read into a completely different, more fruitful direction.
But somehow, this is the issue, that burns under the fingernails (I don't know if this German saying works in English as well). And it was brought up by Jay when presenting this text. So it is necessary to deal with this question, but probably it should be solved in the local churches and the realtionships between different local churches (or even nationwide) – but in a Blog, where no one really seems to have the authority and means to make a change concerning this split among our churches, such a discussion will most likely always end like this one.
The result is, that we are still in disagreement on IM – but we do agree on what is really important. A-Capella worship is certainly not what makes my identity in Christ; and I am glad that no one here seems to say, "without my guitar I can't worship God."
Alexander
(1) The underlying motivation of anyone involved in any domain of discussion does not bear on the validity of the arguments they offer. That's a basic genetic fallacy.
(2) Suppose i said, "In my view, most of the people who spend time arguing that IM is permissible are really just out to get what they want and have things the way they like them and aren't really concerned about whether or not their position is pleasing to God."
Am i really in a position to know whether that's true?
If it were true, does that give me legitimate grounds for dismissing the arguments they make in favor of their position?
Does my statement communicate respect or admiration for the hearts and reasoning capabilities of those people?
Does my statement edify or encourage or is it conducive to unity between the parties involved?
–guy
[1] actually, your underlying motivation does impact the validity of your arguments, because nearly everyone evaluates / accepts / rejects other points-of-view or arguments based upon whether those alternate points-of-view support or oppose their pre-existing conclusion. It's known as "selective perception", selective recall, selective retention.
[2] I've known people of whom I think the expressed view might be true. But regardless, I respect your right to have and express that view. If you went on to say, you thought such people were jerks and idiots, then the implications of your last two questions become more obviously relevant.
You may disagree with Royce's observation. But I have sat in congregational meetings and heard a woman say, she objected to IM because it violates her expectations of what a Church of Christ is.
Is that not the point Royce was making? Perhaps, you've never heard that view expressed. Since I have, Royce's observation seems less objectionable.
David,
(1) Suppose a person believes that (a) because Jesus performed miracles by God's power, and (b) because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and (c) because no one could perform miracles by God's power to support a false claim, then (d) Jesus must have been the Messiah. Suppose further that the person's motivation for that belief is because that is what her family has always believed, and she wants to remain closely identified to the faith-heritage of her family; if she were to reject this belief and this argument, it would greatly displease her parents and grandparents whom she loves dearly.
Does her motivation render that argument any less cogent? Am i rationally permitted in this case to dismiss her argument because of her personal biases?
Suppose a politician tells you "We need to lower taxes," and someone standing next to him says, "You're only saying that because you represent fiscal conservatives and you want them to re-elect you." Even if the second person's statement is true, does that necessarily imply that the politician's position is false?
(2) Even if we took a poll of all people who "feverishly" argue against IM and found out that it was statistically true that a majority of them had the motive Royce specified, that isn't the point. When i haven't taken a such a poll and my purpose is not merely to report the results of such a poll, then i don't see how it's mine or anyone's place to make sweeping statements about a class of people which assigns them a bias or ill-motive, and then suggest that such bias makes their positions or arguments less worthy of consideration or respect or of equal weight in the marketplace of ideas as my own or those of the class of people to which i belong.
–guy
Alexander,
Yo keep saying the early Gentile church sang only a capella as handed down from the apostles. As we can see from history, early church leaders were very Anti-Semitic and disengaged the church from the Jews and anything that they thought was remotely Jewish.
I believe they where in error doing such…they were no more without error than what we see about people in the Bible. As we can see reading from the Bible the church had problems from the beginning making many errors even after being taught under the apostles.
You say "handed down from the apostles" which is your opinion. Where did the early church leaders say that?
Guy,
I never suggested you should ignore anyone's arguments. I suggested that our current positions and underlying motivations influence how we hear arguments and how we frame arguments, and ultimately, what arguments we accept or reject.
And I never described anyone's motive as "ill-" anything. Nor did Royce.
Now, bias is another point … I've never met someone who did not have their own bias. But pre-existing bias is among the most fundamental reasons why this collection of posters and readers on Jay's blog will likely never agree on IM.
That doesn't seem to effect anyone's ability or inclination to present their argument.
It seems to me, that you're drawing conclusions from my statements (and perhaps, Royce's) that I/we did not promulgate. But perhaps I'm misperceiving your intent.
David,
Am i to understand then that "They do it because acappella only is one leg of their 3 legged stool of identity," was meant to suggest a good, pure, noble, respectable, rational, legitimate motivation for feverishly arguing for the superiority of acappella only singing?
Either way, i'll leave it alone.
–guy
Are you sure they were anti-Semitic? Or is it just our interpretation after the terror of Adolf Hitler that makes us understand these writings as anti-Semitic? Have you ever read Luther's works against the Jews? That's what I call anti-Semitic – and there is a huge difference between him and the ECF.
I'd rather say the Jews separated themselves from the messianic movement. After the destruction of the temple, many Messianic Jews (Ebionites) separated themselves from the rest of the church. So it is quite unfair to blame the Greek Christians for that.
And we are not free from errors either. But we so quickly dismiss them as "erroneous" and "uninspired", saying they have no authority whatsoever, we go by the Bible alone, we have the Hoily Spiruit, and we know the truth … I exaggerated a bit, but I strongly object to this kind of attitude.
The advantages of
a) language
b) culture
c) personal acqaintance with the apostels and earyl leaders of early, original, unified churches
d) tremenduous knowledge of the Scriptures in their original language
.. make me seek every opportunity where I can sit at their feet to listen and learn. I put aside this proud and puffed up idea that I, my Bible and my personal Savior will get everything right. No, I learned a lot from them, and a good deal of what I believe I dio believe because of their testimony.
That was their basic attitude towards everything they did and believed. If you want to understand their way of thinking, don't just pick on their supposed anti-Semitism. Listen to them, take – for instance – 1st Clement and study it, or the Didache (one of my favourites because of its simplicity). Their way of thinking is sometimes quite different than ours, and this might at first make you frown at what they say. But how can we think of ourselves that our way of thinking is closer to the mind of the apostles than theirs who lived in the same sphere and culture?
Really, it is worth the time. And for a quick overview on many subjects, there is a valuable source easiliy availabe: |||The Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs which is a handy reference work for the <a href="http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/more-anf.html?__utma=1.1700206021.1283676637.1283676637.1284750148.2&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1283676637.1.2.utmccn%3D%28referral%29|||The Ante-Nicene Fathers
I don't want to promote a speacial publisher or author, but his publishing house is specialized in the ECF from a Bible believing perspective, which is really rare.
Anyway, let me encourage you to take the risk of getting a different perspective on the Scriptures through listening to its first readers and teachers afte the Apostles (who even decided on what will be accepted as part of the NT canon and what not – so we rely on them in one of the most important areas already).
Alexander
Do you really have yourself believing you are the only person who has studied church history??
No; but the way you judge over them I had the impression, that you misread them … If I am mistaken, I did not want to belittle you (nor any other). But obviously – although all seem to be "experts" in church history, we cannot agree on what history teaches. That's why I simply encourage to go back to the sources (again).
And the attitude of being (or feeling) superior to the Early Christians – and then producing quite strange and new ideas (such as conditional damnation, the denial of the intermediate state of the death, a-millenialism, reduced symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper, unconditional eternal security, … all more less often presented by many different commentators in this Blog) is something I find at least questionable.
My approach: Every teaching, doctrine, practice that cannot be traced back at least to the second century or even contradicts the unanimous understanding of the 2nd century (as far as have the sources) is at least doubtful if not wrong.
Maybe there is a better way to come to conclusions. I don't hold to Sola Scriptura any longer, since I realized the mess it created …
Alexander
Can anyone demonstrate through early Christian fathers' writings that instrumental praise was universally rejected and never practiced? Or that the authority to reject it was by inspiration, rather than opinion? Or that these writings should carry equal influence with scripture in the canon? Or that the conditions and reasoning behind them were exactly the same as in the first century?
To Keith: all early reading I've done says that 1) no-IM was the commom and 2) NO ONE argued that its was by scripture, apostolic authoriy, or revelation. 3) a couple wrote that the pagans used a lot ot insturments and noise, so let's not imitate that.
Personally, I think we live in an entertainment world. People expect it of all media, TV, radio, musical performances, and even church. I'm in favor of boosting the participation by the assembled over the quality of the entertainment. Congregational singing fits "let the redeemed of the Lord say so" very well.
Which is quite remarkable, since they also had areas where they differed (such as when to celebrate Passover/Easter). But that we have
a) … no record anywhere of Christians using instruments in worship (with the exception of singing a solo in the imitation of King David – see Clement of Alexandria)
b) … records from Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novation, Cyprian and Arnobius who all wrote very critical about the use, the context and the effects of music, and (not all made this explictit application) therefore did not use them in the assemblies.
c) … examples in the Early CHristian writings that when they disagreed on a matter, or something seemed doubtful or ambiguous they went to the oldest churches to ask for their remberene of apostlic teaching on this given subject (Tertullian asked the Corithians whether the veilig applied to virgins as well, Irenaeus adived to look to Rome or any other apostolic church). This shows that they tried to agree as much as possible.
It is their overall consistent attitude of striving to be and stay one that makes their practice of a-capella worship appear as well rooted in apostolic tradition whether they explicitly call it this way or not.
And furthermore, this tradition/practice prevailed in the Eastern churches until today, while the Western churches began to sloly introduce organs in the 7th century; by the 13th century almost all RC Churches had organs.
Any significant departure from the way all churches worship would have caused an uproar (and did; e.g. when in Carthage some used water instead of wine in the Eucharist in the morning), and the echo of this we would find in their writings. Comparable to the reactions of conservative churches of Christ to the "departure" of the progressive churches.
But there was no conflict concerning IM in the churche of Christ between the 2nd and 7th century. This is indeed remarkable.
That's not quite correct. They did not argue like the CoC do, but they used a typoligical interpretation of the musical instruments in the Psalms – showing that they treated them in the same way as incense and the other temple items.
There is one glaring reason this debate will not be resolved. It is a matter of personal preference, or more broadly, a matter for each congregation to decide.
If the New Testament addressed the IM issue it would be easier but since it doesn't one opinion is just as valid as another.
My objection is making IM a salvation issue. Anytime we make something more important than the Bible does we are off track.
Royce
Abasnar,
You said, "That’s not quite correct. They did not argue like the CoC do, but they used a typoligical interpretation of the musical instruments in the Psalms – showing that they treated them in the same way as incense and the other temple items."
To what are you referring? Could you be more specific?
I have spent some time trying to find the first recorded instance of anyone in the church using scripture to argue against IM. I have never seen where any ECF did so. They had plenty of opportunities and certainly would have done it had they felt scripture would bear it out. But they didn't. Why?
Your reference to some sort of scriptural argument is intriguing so if you would be so kind…
Thanks,
Scott
The understanding through the ages that the early “church fathers” were the authentic teachers of the faith was emphasized. Their infallible authority was exercised to define a matter of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.
It is obvious from the NT that doctrinal confusion and legalism were beginning to find their way into the church well before the second century. The writings of the “church fathers” are not free from such influences. It is therefore a mistake to view the early “church fathers” as not infallible.
During the second century, a distinction grew between those who preached and the other members of the church. Those in the clergy often dressed differently, many wore the title “father.” In stark contrast, Peter, and Paul showed great humility in carrying out their evangelistic missions. They never claimed to be different or exalted. Nor did they ask to be called “father.” Moreover, Jesus warned us: “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”(Matthew 23:9) Along with this centralization of power, there were fundamental changes in church doctrine. Christ was no longer head of the church. Nor was the Bible the final word of authority. Gentiles usurped that authority. It was a church with a hierarchical structure, usurping the power to rule, a bishop being in charge of each church in the communities. During the second century, baptism of infants had begun. Confessing sins to a priest to be forgiven. Doctrine of purgatory – whereby souls of those who have died in a state of sin are made fit for paradise by temporary banishment, suffering, or punishment. Doctrine of transubstantiation – whereby the bread and wine changes into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Images and prayers to saints and martyrs. Penance – inflicting punishment in payment for sin as evidence of penitence.
While Marcion's heresies against the Hebrew Scriptures were repelled and the Hebrew Scriptures were saved, still the early battles between the Gentiles and Jews resulted in a certain Christian ambivalence towards the Hebrew Scriptures.
In the Bible Jewish believers kept the faith in its original Jewish form. But the early Gentile church did not seek to understand the Jewish roots of the faith but applied Greek philosophy to it. Because of the Greek outlook the official line was very Anti-Semitic. The Gentile church leaders disengaged the church from anything that they thought would be remotely Jewish.
"b) Paul replaces the instrument with the heart
I would not say this is necessarily the only correct interpretation, but it is certainly a valid interpretation that does make sense. That’s why I lean towards the conclusion that the heart is the true NT instrument for worship."
I find this quite intriguing. Does bring to mind the type and anti-type of Hebrews and the contrast of the NT/OT of physical vs. spiritual. Thanks for sharing this Abasnar.
The understanding through the ages that the early “church fathers” were the authentic teachers of the faith was emphasized. Their infallible authority was exercised to define a matter of faith and morals, judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.
It is obvious from the NT that doctrinal confusion and legalism were beginning to find their way into the church well before the second century. The writings of the “church fathers” are not free from such influences. It is therefore a mistake to view the early “church fathers” as infallible.
During the second century, a distinction grew between those who preached and the other members of the church. Those in the clergy often dressed differently, many wore the title “father.” In stark contrast, Peter, and Paul showed great humility in carrying out their evangelistic missions. They never claimed to be different or exalted. Nor did they ask to be called “father.” Moreover, Jesus warned us: “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”(Matthew 23:9) Along with this centralization of power, there were fundamental changes in church doctrine. Christ was no longer head of the church. Nor was the Bible the final word of authority. Gentiles usurped that authority. It was a church with a hierarchical structure, usurping the power to rule, a bishop being in charge of each church in the communities. During the second century, baptism of infants had begun. Confessing sins to a priest to be forgiven. Doctrine of purgatory – whereby souls of those who have died in a state of sin are made fit for paradise by temporary banishment, suffering, or punishment. Doctrine of transubstantiation – whereby the bread and wine changes into the flesh and blood of Jesus. Images and prayers to saints and martyrs. Penance – inflicting punishment in payment for sin as evidence of penitence.
While Marcion's heresies against the Hebrew Scriptures were repelled and the Hebrew Scriptures were saved, the early battles between the Gentiles and Jews resulted in a certain Christian ambivalence towards the Hebrew Scriptures.
In the Bible Jewish believers kept the faith in its original Jewish form. But the early Gentile church did not seek to understand the Jewish roots of the faith but applied Greek philosophy to it. Because of the Greek outlook the official line was very Anti-Semitic. The Gentile church leaders disengaged the church from anything that they thought would be remotely Jewish.
Why don't we do a study on whether Lot's wife was a blond or brunette. It is only slightly less important than the IM question and you can use the same hermeneutic.
Brunette, it is so plain. The pictures in the bible I had as a youth shows her to be brunette (well coiffed too). I really don't know what else there is to debate. It's very clear.
Well if you're bored with it just skip over to another topic, but don't belittle a good healthy discussion. I have my own opinions about the IM question and it's been enlightening seeing what others who see it different than I think on the matter.
@Jay, I have wondered for some time about the why? After all these many years of not having an instrument why all of a sudden are churches wanting an instrument?
All churches universally…can you give solid evidence to that?
I'm just referring to what is going on in the churches of Christ.
Anne,
History has a way of repeating itself. Very similar situations occurred in the late 1800's. The church split about down the middle over mostly instrumental instruments. Using current names, the Disciples of Christ and Christian Church chose to add instruments and the churches of Christ chose to remain acapella. The northern churches tended to go instrumental. Some speculation as to why includes two ideas: 1) the north was more affluent and could afford the ornateness associated with the instrument and 2) the highly influential editor of the Christian Standard newspaper (Cincinnati, OH) believed in the instrument while the highly influential editor of the Gospel Advocate (Nashville, TN) was against the instrument. It seems the affluent among us are tending to choose instruments again.
This is perhaps an overly brief look at the recent history of the subject.
Dear Scott
OK, this will be an exhaustive answer. But it will also be my last statement on this subject:
Clement of Alexandria is the one who wrote the most about it. His concern in this context was “our behaviour” at the Christian Banquets (Love Feast, Agape – which was one of the most important meetings of worship, originally the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of this Love Feast, that’s why it is called Lord’s Supper. A Supper is a full meal, not just a symbolic meal.).
In this context, Clement wrote (The Instructor, Book II, chapter IV):
A Christian Love Feast comes close to an Ancient Banquet. Nowadays we would say, Christian worship should have some striking similarities with a party! We eat and drink together – even wine – and we sing and praise God together in harmony.
The difference to the Ancient Greek and modern day parties should be marked by “temeperance”. Our worship does not focus on stirring up carnal desires or drunkenness, but we focus on mutual edification and the praise of our God. Therefore everything that has direct a connection to carnal desires in wordly parties must be banished from our Love Feasts. Note the strong word “banish”!
The application in our day and age should seem clear: All instruments, that have a direct connection to the immorality of our culture should be banished. Clement makes a list; we could make a similar list: Electric Guitars, E-Bass, Drums, Synthesizer … our worship must not sound like a Pop- or Rock-Concert. Farwell, CCM! .
But we also see, all these instructions have their context in the Love Feast, in meetings that tend to be rather small and intimate, centred around a few tables with an abundance of food and wine (mixed with water). Clement would be confused by what we call “worship” or “assembly” today. It is necessary therefore not to read our traditions back into these ancient texts. Christian Worship was very different back then.
So, reason number one: The call to worship is: “Let’s have a party!”, but is must be a temperate, God-centred and edifying party. Therefore keep away from anything that resembles “Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll”, any instruments that are connected to this culture of immorality and revelry.
Now to some Scriptural considerations:
In this paragraph, Clement makes a typlogical application of the musical instruments in the Psalms. In this he answers the objections some might raise: “But the Psalms allow or even command the use of instruments!” And that’s his answer to this claim:
We have to grasp the spiritual meaning. The Trumpet is a type of the trumpet on resurrection day. The psaltery he equates with our tongue. It all sums up to the comment to “Let every breath praise the Lord”, saying, that this speaks of living beings, humans. We are the instrument – see how this resembles Eph 5:19 when Paul changes “Making melody with the psaltery” to making melody with the heart”?
So this is Clement’s line of reasoning, and this actually rules out the use of instruments in worship as “missing the point”.
Reason number 2: The musical instruments in the Psalms (or entire OT worship) have a spiritual meaning: We humans are the instruments.
Clement goes back to the different uses and contexts of instruments in various cultures of his day, closing that we celebrate with the Word. So the second spiritual meaning of musical instruments is the Logos of God (he comes back to that in the next paragraph also).
This results in a pretty categorical statement: We no longer employ the ancient psaltery. . This we speaks of all churches of Christ, because what he explained from the scriptures applies to all churches of Christ: Christ is a spiritual fulfilment of the instrumebnts, and we are becoming instruments in the New covenant. This – BTW – is similar to: Christ is the fulfilment of the sacrificial system, but we become living sacrifices as well.
Now something for my temperate brethren in the US 😉 : Let our genial feeling in drinking be twofold … We shall see that we have a friendly, a warm and inviting atmosphere in or worship parties, that also include a good and healthy drink (not just a tiny wee sip of “Fruit of the Wine” (unfermented). Social drinking was not only acceptable, it was part of worship – and this makes it all the more important to ban everything, that in associated with drunkenness and revelry. We focus on love toward God and our neighbour.
Reason number three: Christ is the body of the shadow (the instruments), we let the Word dwell richly among us, and we want to create a warm, loving atmosphere in our Christian Worship Parties (= Agape, Love Feast); and while we eat and drink, we keep it tempermeate, chaste and uplifting.
There is room for instruments, if someone sings a solo (see also the next paragraph) in this banquet. But notice, this has to do with the whole concept of worship as a Christian Banquet. And although this is permissible – in imitation of David – Clement enforces the typological meaning of the ten-stringed Psaltery to Christ. He does not go into details, why and how he comes to his conclusion – but anyhow, he makes clear that the instruments are to be understood as types in the first place.
He also would not agree our exegesis where we point to the etymological root of Psalm as plucking a stringed instrument in order to argue for instrumental worship. He argues – again from the scriptures – that Paul calls the Psalm a “spiritual song”, and so he focuses on singing once again.
And he also shows, that the banquet was opened by blessing the food and thanking our creator. This was done by singing Psalms and spiritual songs.
And the Christian Worship Party is also closed with thanksgiving, and then we go straight to bed, having been filled with good food, good drink, and the Word of God. Again this is done by singing.
Clement goes back to the Greek practices of banqueting. Here we see the background to his statement of singing with a lyre like King David. So don’t take this out of context. A solo sung by a gifted singer for the edification of the church may be accompanied with (e.g.) a simple acoustic guitar or a piano (remember: no instruments associated with immorality are allowed).
Then Clement answers a question: “What about the choir which plays” (or What about the band)? Again he points to the spiritual meaning of these texts: The choir / band is the congregation of worshippers, the humans” – so again, the congregational singing, when all join is, is a-cappella.
Clement finishes with a strong objection to CCM. Let him who has ears, hear. A footnote to this chapter states:
I let this be my final statement on this topic in this thread. I am off for a men’s retreat for a week. The topic will be “Be Holy”, and I am really looking forward to this.
Let me challenge you with a different question: Is what we call worship (or the 5 acts of worship) in any way comparable to an “Early Christian Worship Party” (Agape, Love Feast)? And is our yearning for instruments and CCM not just an attempt to fill the emptiness, or rather “structured” and “rigid” assemblies have created?
If we really want to improve our worship, let’s set the tables, bring in the wine, meat and cakes, and of course the bread and the wine for the Thanksgiving (Eucharist). And then: Let’s celebrate! A-cappella as was taught in the early churches of Christ.
Alexander
Alexander…well researched…Now we know how Clement felt. If we wanted to become Clementines we would follow what he said as if he were Christ Himself or a designated Apostle, Of course, he is neither so his personal opinions on what he considered essential and/or non-essential. Why would I surrender a freedom that Jesus gave me to some uninspired man or woman? Well, perhaps to encourage and honor you as my brother. Or perhaps to attract others that have never heard the Gospel…I realize that many have dug in their heels on this issue and quite frankly I believe you have the right to choose. What angers people is when someone condemns the other for not agreeing and attempts to use Scripture to support the condemnation when in fact Scripture does not do that. Why can't people just be satisfied with their choice of tradition? Why must we condemn the other for their choice of song writers, musical instruments, melody or lack thereof….There would be so much more fellowship and less division if people would celebrate the freedom of one another…To me it's far more than song or instrument…it's a heart issue…and if the heart isn't right, God says He won't even listen to your prayers…If he won't listen to my prayers, will he listen to my songs?
Larry, Anne, Alexander,
I appreciate your posts and what they highlight.
As another voice I am not convinced that all see "identity" as the crucial aspect of all of this. I hear more folks realizing how important it is to sing the Word together and to one another — how different the expression is from the surrounding society (and I hear more people among the Disciples of Christ and Baptist churches reconsidering the importance of congregational a cappella). Ephesians 5:18-21 ties directly to 5:11 and the importance of "exposing darkness." It is one of Paul's parallels in the text.
Jesus reveals to us how to expose darkness as he confronts Satan: "It is written." With the context of Ephesians 5:18-21 being spiritual war, Paul gives us a congregational mission.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Larry,
The use of the instrument does not contradict congregational singing. It's entirely possible to do both — even at the same time. Instruments can't be used to encourage and enhance congregational worship.
There are, of course, churches that turn the instruments into a performance that detracts from congregational worship, but that's not a necessary result. There are also churches that manage to use instruments to effectively lead congregational worship.
Anne,
Here are two reasons I reject the interpretation that the heart replaces the instrument in Paul's theology:
1. On that theory, the heart makes the sound, not the mouth. The Reformation leader Ulrich Zwingli actually took this position, teaching his congregations to quietly meditate on the texts of the psalms, "singing" silently in their hearts rather than singing aloud! It didn't catch on.
2. The subject of Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 is not the instrument. Paul is simply not addressing the question, and the context of both passages makes clear that Paul is not addressing the mechanics of the assembly but the nature of our walk with God. Consider —
The common theme of verses 15 -17 is thanksgiving. Thanksgiving should overwhelm and suffuse our hearts, our teaching, our admonishment, our singing … whatever we do. And yet I've never heard a sermon emphasizing the necessity of thanksgiving in our assemblies. Obedience, yes. Thanksgiving, no. I've heard lessons on gratitude, but only occasionally, and never as an act of worship.
Well, in context, what Paul is saying is plainly: be thankful. "With thankfulness" modies all three participles: teaching, admonishing, and singing. But somehow we figure that this is really all about the 19th Century instrumental music controversy, instead of being about having thankful hearts.
Readers,
Manifestly, the choice of a cappella vs. the instrument has nothing to do with whether we are thankful. On the other hand, our willingness to extend grace in this area has everything to do with whether we honor v. 15: "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body." When we insist on enforcing v. 16 by dividing from each other or judging each other, we violate v. 15. And I'm entirely certain that v. 15 tells us to live in peace as a single body (which we don't do). I'm not at all certain that v. 16 has anything to do with instrumental music at all. Therefore, my encouragement is that we emphasize the sure thing: unity despite our disagreements over the meaning of v. 16.
Anne,
I'm working on a series. May be a little while coming, but it's a good question that bear serious thought.