Robert wrote a thoughtful comment in which he quoted from Everett Ferguson, A Cappella Music in Public Worship. I have the greatest respect for the scholarship of Dr. Ferguson, but disagree with his theological reasoning. However, I do agree with his heart and am proud to call him “brother.” Dr. Ferguson wrote,
We are on good historical and theological grounds to engage in a cappella music in our public worship. This is safe, ecumenical ground that all can agree is acceptable.
Is it “safe” to worship a cappella vs. to worship with an instrument? No. Safety is found in the grace of God, not in binding rules that aren’t plainly taught in scripture.
If the use of a cappella is a necessity for safety before God, then why not be “safe” with one cup, the rejection of fellowship halls and church buses, kitchens and even sinks in the building …?
You see, the safety argument proves too much. It drives us toward finding safety in rules inferred by man — and we are highly skilled at propounding rules to bind on each other. Soon, safety turns into a works salvation — we seek the comfort of obedience to rules in order to feel safe, rather than trusting that we are safe in the arms of Jesus. Soon, faith in Jesus is not enough to save. Rather, we must have faith plus hundreds of other rules, rules that must be endlessly debated and divided over. I’ve seen the fruit of that theology.
Instrumental music cannot be confirmed as authorized in the text of the New Testament.
This is, of course, a hotly disputed question. Moreover, where on earth do we get the idea that worship must be “authorized”? That comes from John Calvin, not the apostles.
You’ve argued in previous comments that Colossians 3:17 requires authority for Christian practices. I responded to this argument in detail three years ago. And we had a later discussion on it.
Ferguson continues —
It did not exist in worship until centuries after the New Testament was written.
Not proven. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, the Odes of Solomon evidence instrumental worship around the end of the First or beginning of the Second Centuries. And then there is the argument that Paul’s references to singing “psalms” must be taken in the context of the Psalms, which by their terms were written to be sung instrumentally.
The Jews historically celebrated God with instruments, not just in the Temple but in spontaneous and private celebrations as well. How can we just assume that their practices radically changed and find not a single command condemning their usual means of expressing celebration?
Rather, to conclude that the early church was a cappella, we have to read Third Century teachings into a First Century document, which is not good historical practice. That would be akin to reading iPhones into the Civil War. Things can change quite a lot in 150 years. Not everything changes, of course, but if we were to read the entirety of the Third Century early church fathers, we’d find a LOT of practices and teachings that are quite foreign to the First Century. Maybe a cappella is just as foreign. We can’t just assume.
Origen, for example, is among the earliest of the Fathers to oppose instrumental music in worship. He also wrote regarding women Christians —
And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.
Anyone want to preach that sermon? Then why assume his views on instruments are apostolic whereas his views on women are error? It’s a mistake to selectively pick the opinions of the early church fathers to bind as doctrine based on the convenience of the argument needed today. We would do much better to limit our doctrine to the scriptures and get serious about sola scriptura and being silent where the Bible is silent.
Moreover, even if someone could produce evidence of an a cappella command from the First Century, we know that there were many First Century practices that were determined by culture and not designed for all time. We no longer greet each other with the Holy Kiss, despite repeated direct commands to do just that, and yet we bind a cappella as a practice, despite the absence of a command, by reading Third Century documents into the apostolic texts. Maybe the scriptures are silent on the question because a cappella practice was never meant to last for all time?
Vocal music is more consistent with the nature of Christian worship.
This is also an assumption. I would agree that we are taught to sing, but not that we’re taught to sing without a piano. Whether there’s a piano or not hardly changes the fact that we’re singing and thus using words of praise.
Now, I’d also readily concede that some instrumental music is contrary to the nature of Christian worship. But I’d also point out that some a cappella singing is quite contrary to the heart of Jesus.
I once attended a church where “Sing and Be Happy!” was sung at such a slow pace you’d swear it was a dirge! We’d sing “Oh Happy Day” after a baptism so badly and so slowly and with so little rhythm that it was depressing. You see, implicit in our theology was that emotion must be suppressed — and that is contrary to a religion built on such passages as —
(Mat 22:37 ESV) 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”
— and —
(Rom 14:17-18 ESV) 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
(Have you ever heard a sermon built on this passage? Can our theology even comprehend what Paul is telling us?) We are told to sing because singing adds something to the words not found in mere recitation. Emotion matters. Emotion is part of any true worship.
Neither side of the instrumental music controversy has had a monopoly on Christian love and humility, and neither side has reason for pride.
Amen.
My hope is that we can go beyond our recent history of bitterness and unite on the original undivided ground of the Restoration Plea. This should not be done out of the spirit one side is right and the other wrong.
Amen, but we likely disagree as to the “original undivided ground of the Restoration Plea.” You see, I find that ground in such works as the “Declaration and Address” of Thomas Campbell and The Christian System by Alexander Campbell, both of which tell us to unite based on faith in Jesus and to never, ever divide over inferences.
But let us be New Testament churches in practice and in attitude, in loyalty to the Bible, and in the exercise of Christian freedom.
If by “New Testament churches” Ferguson means churches that honor the teachings of the New Testament, I respond with a hearty “amen.” If he means seeking to replicate the practices we speculate likely characterized the New Testament churches, then I would respectfully disagree. Our Christianity must be based on the word of God, not the wisdom of man.
To borrow from Thomas Campbell —
5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the scriptures are silent, as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be; no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency, by making laws for the church; nor can any thing more be required of christians in such cases, but only that they so observe these commands and ordinances, as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church; or be made a term of communion amongst christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.
6. That although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word: yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power and veracity of God–therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the churchs’s confession.
Jay, as you have pointed out many times, the central issue is whether salvation is by law or by grace. If by law, then the question of instrumental music may be relevant. If by grace, then it is not.
I agree, David.
And, secondarily, if we spend a lot of time in endless discussions (arguing?) about IM/AC, do we place ourselves under law, or under grace?
What is the result? Those who live by the law, die by the law. The law kills, but the Spirit gives life.
David, I would gently disagree with your observation. Even if salvation IS by law, there is still no law condemning or commanding instrumental music in the worship assembly. But if one does accept that salvation is by grace, then there is reason to believe that any act (barring the immoral) offered reverently is accepted by God. God bless, Dan H
David,
I only wish the worse thing I have done was play an instrument in church.
How many things are we to do or not do that we don't even understand or know about. Grace is the only hope any of us has.
Jay,
Robert seems to love the Lord, but I have a different approach to AC. It always disappointments me when folks on this forum [not you] group all AC people and defensives together. I will turn to my AC brother and identify a bad AC argument in a flash, but I have never seen you identify a bad IM argument. Although Robert uses a stricter form of the RPW, I wish to remind you [Jay] that AC does not rest upon the RPW. Folks of many non-RPW hermeneutics have defended AC.
Though a poor choice of words, I believe Ferguson was using safety to emphasize the ecumenical grounds of AC and not a law/grace contrast towards God. Ferguson has said several times that he would not condemn IM users to hell.
There are those who use the "safe argument" when talking about God’s grace and AC. I do not. It is a horrible argument. When somebody presents good evidence for AC and then uses the "safe argument," they nullify their position. Similarly, when IM advocates like Rick A. & others present arguments using prophecy and psallo/psalmos, but then say "the bottom line is that God does not forbid it" or "it is a matter of opinion," they nullify their position and might as well have said nothing.
You said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Within Biblical studies/hermeneutics, that may or may not be true [it varies]. However, when doing historical analysis, when listings of events occur, absence is evidence for absence. McKinnon, Ferguson, Page, and other historians employ this method even when dealing with the listings of worship rituals in the ECFs. It is a standard method.
You continue to skip over 1st and 2nd century documents that scholars discuss, to jump to the 3rd century. Ferguson, Page, McKinnon, Werner, Quasten, and every other scholar agrees that IM was not used in Christian worship until centuries after the NT was written. You stand against every scholar in the field when you say it is unproven.
I also believe that you misunderstood the point about ECFs and AC. Nobody denies that individual ECFs had divergent views. What scholars emphasize, as well as I, is that the testimony of the ECFs for Christian AC worship is collective – unanimous regardless of region, cultural background, hermeneutic, and language. The battle is over interpretation of Scripture, and we use the ECFs just like a lexicon.
Has our discussion become pointless? It seems that your mind is made up before the search begins. You believe that an explicit command would be only cultural, even before looking at the hypothetical context. — Very telling, indeed. I am sorry you feel this way, my friend.
Finally, I have tried to avoid this particular point, and it must be addressed with maturity & study. There are two standards of documents, which are Patristic and non-Patristic. I don’t use non-Patristic docs & have tried to avoid them on this forum. The Odes of Solomon is not considered a Patristic document. In some verses of the Odes you interpret the IM literally even though scholars affirm it is all allegory. Still, even if your interpretation is correct, it is not a Patristic document.
As tempting as it is for a conservative to embrace non-Patristic documents from time to time in order to strengthen one’s viewpoint, this leads to major issues, like the denial of the conservative viewpoint of Christianity, Christian practices, and NT Canon. While ECFs don’t trump Scripture, they are generally viewed as representing mainstream "right practice" of Christianity. Embracing non-Patristic documents to identify legitimate Christian practices in history is like asking the Gnostic’s to explain Christianity and identify the Biblical Canon. Whose version do you believe?
If you a want an early 2nd century source for IM, throw out the Odes and use the apocryphal gospels, which flourish with literal IM. Even the the Acts of John portrays the Last Supper as an event in which Jesus & the disciples dance while holding hands in a circle and sing "I wish to be saved and I wish to save. Amen. I wish to be delivered and I wish to deliver. Amen"
The conservative stand point has to deal with two issues: (1) Do the non-Patristic docs reveal truth about earlier periods of Christianity (2) Do they reveal truth about any period of Christianity. If we accept the Christianity that the ECFs like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and Eusebius present ,then Christian practice had been roughly the same and we embrace their Canon, which is our Bible. I loudly shout the Bible is from God and our highest authority. However, our Bible does not list a Canon, so we rely on the unanimous ECFs testimony as to what is the whole NT Canon.
If we deny the ECFs version of Christianity in favor of non-Patristic versions of Christianity, we deny our Bible, deny a consistent historical practice of Christianity, but gain some very interesting elements, like IM and a very different Last Supper. Whose account of Christian practice, even IM/AC, and the Last Supper are we going to believe?
If we go to Paul or Mark in the Bible, we are relying on the ECFs because they claim to "preserve" Paul & Mark. If we use non-Patristic writings to support an interpretation of the Bible, then we nullify our position because non-Patristic writings present a very different Bible and Christian practice. This was probably the largest hurdle for me overcome when converting from agnosticism. Whose version of Christianity do we accept? Are we really to believe that all the ECFs preserved the correct Bible, but were confused about IM/AC worship? I say no, you say yes – we keep studying.
Hi HG,
I believe you said: "Do they reveal truth about any period of Christianity. If we accept the Christianity that the ECFs like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and Eusebius present ,then Christian practice had been roughly the same and we embrace their Canon, which is our Bible. I loudly shout the Bible is from God and our highest authority. However, our Bible does not list a Canon, so we rely on the unanimous ECFs testimony as to what is the whole NT Canon.
Would you use their testimony to support a premil view view over an amil view regarding eschatology?
Just wondering,
Randall
Clyde Symonette (in commenting on the Richland Hills Instrumental Music And the Future of the Churches of Christ observed"
"Some non-instrumentalists contend that in the New Testament, singing a song necessarily infers that the song is unaccompanied.
"Not true. Far from true.
"All of the passages cited establish a connection of the song and instruments. Revelation 15:2-3 read:
"'And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty.'
"Whether literal or apocalyptic, in the church or out of it, the salient point is this: The above passage confirms that the first-century usage of the word “song” or “sing” did not demand a vocals only definition. Why do we assume that when the words “song” and “sing” are used in the New Testament they exclude the use of musical instruments? Can a song can be sung accompanied. Can a song be sung "in the heart" while it is accompanied? Sure!"
Clyde is exactly right.
Lexicographers define words by how they are used. In Revelation 15, the verb ado (noun form, ode) is used to sing (ado) a song (ode) with harps. As Clyde pointed out, ado does not demand instrumentation – but neither does it forbid it.
The point here is that ado is the verb used in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 for singing.
To forbid the use of instruments because Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 say "sing," we must assume that ado excludes instruments; Revelation 15 is a Biblical text which clearly includes singing accompanied by harps. This should be the end of the argument for those willing to listen to the testimony of Scripture.
Hello Randal,
Thank you for the very good question. To begin, I wish to point out that the question in the quote was part of a series of questions that we ask regarding non-Patristic docs. We certainty ask the same of ECFs, so I am just making sure everyone stays on track, since it is a technical conversation. I am answering from the Patristic period.
The heart of my position is recognizing virtual unanimity among the ECFs on a particular issue, especially when it is Scripturally plausible [a possible interpretation], and claims to be a continuous practice from the beginning of the church. While such is the case with AC, it is not the case with eschatology.
From the late 1st century forward, there was NOT agreement among the ECFs regarding eschatology. Some held to Historic Pre-millennialism, others A-millennialism, and some did not comment about it at all. [To be clear Dispensational PreMil is not in this picture]. Yet, I do not wish to leave you empty handed.
The ECFs view of eschatology was quite different than how we process the issue today. ECFs did NOT see Historic Pre-Mil and A-mil as isolated alternatives. The differences stemmed from a hermeneutical approach dealing with prophecy that mainly centered on the concern for the immediate state of the dead. I would venture to say that it was a 50/50 split. That said, there were theories on eschatology that the ECFs stood against.
I lean more towards A-millennialism and think the Scriptural and ECF arguments for it are better. A-millennialism eventually became dominant because it addressed the concerns initially raised by the Historic PreMil regarding the immediate state of the dead. However, I have no quarrels with one who holds a properly understood Historic Pre-millennial view.
You can read available primary sources about who believed what in Everett Ferguson, Early Christian Speak: Vol. 2, 2002, pg. 127-135. I imagine there are good sources online as well. Knowing your background, I did look in Grudem’s Systematic Theology, but he does not deal with specifics of the Patristic period. Perhaps this is not surprising since Historical Theology and Systematic Theology are different fields. I hope this helped.
– grace and peace
Randall,
[Wrong Section of study – ha ha] Correction
Everett Ferguson, Early Christian Speak: Vol. 2, 2002, pg. 327-350
let me answer, too. Since this was the earliest undestanding of Rev 20, even among the closest companions of John (Papias, and – via Polycarp – Irenaeus) I am totally convinced of the pre-millenialist undetrstanding of the Revelation (not to be confused with dispensationalism).
Alexander
Maybe I missed something, History Guy: But could you geive me examples for an a-mil position prior to Origen?
Alexander
Jerry:
I posted some information to Clyde in a different webchain. I saw your comment and decided it might help to highlight here as well.
Certainly, the Classical definition of the Greek word included instrumentation, but the Biblical use changed from that to some degree. Psalmos (Gk.) does not necessarily include strings/instruments in later use. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 8:498ff. has a good overview of the subject. As Gerhard Delling notes, sometimes the "strings" can be figurative, not literal.
As the notes in TDNT 8:499 summarize, Greek-speaking Judaism appears to have used "psalms" and "hymns" as synonyms versus adopting rigid use of Classical Greek. As one example it is known that the Jewish Therapeutae, as one group of the time, urged singing only — no instruments. And sometimes psalmos (Gk.) is used to refer to the collection of writings/songs (as in Luke 24:44). There is a good bit more in the area, but decided to highlight the above for your consideration.
Also, if an interest in browsing/reading a publication that spends some time with this, I would be glad to send a copy of my 21st Century Christian book as a gift to you. Just let me know your email address.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
David, Alabama John,
Let me highlight that it is easy with the thought of grace and all the world's problems in view to urge/insist that this IM/AC discussion becomes nonsensical or minor. Let's not worry about it and just worship — either way. I believe that is the thinking. Right?
What we can miss at this point is a crucial parallel that underlies Paul's Ephesians 5:18-21 teaching. What he writes in the text he writes as a contrast with the broad character of Mediterranean worship practice. He sees in the Gentiles' "former way of life" (Eph. 4:22) corruption and sensuality. And his Ephesians 5:18-21 is tied to the parallel of Ephesians 5:11 and his admonition to "expose darkness."
You have probably noted from my other posts that I have urged folks look at the parallelism. It will guide our understanding of Ephesians 5:18-21 considerably. Ephesians 5:18-21 is more than a general conversation about singing. It represents a corrective to fragmentation, chaos, and all that is part of the powerful Greek word asotia (Gk.; typically translated "debauchery" — not an easy word for us to get our minds around; we use it so little).
Paul is indeed emphasizing singing the Scriptures and he is emphasizing the practice as a further means of congregational unification. He writes all specifically to address a spiritual siege. The siege provides the important backdrop to his teaching here. That is why I have been urging folks to relook at the questions they ask. The parallelisms in the text provide a powerful corrective to much of our discussion.
Glad to send a copy of a 21st Century Christian publication I authored, if an interest. Just send me an email note at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net or let me know your email address.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I posted a response to this in "Richland Hills, Instrumental Music, and the future of the Churches of Christ, Part 1"
HG and Alexander,
Yes, there is clearly a difference between the historic premil (chiliasm) view and Darby's dispensational premil eschatology. Right off the top of my head I could think of an ECF that was amil prior to Marcion and maybe Origen – and I think Origen was capable of using a dubious hermeneutic in order to get there. Wiki has a discussion of the issue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism
Hesed,
Randall
Thank you, but it rather confirms my understanding that there were no orthodox ECF until the 3rd century (or prior to Origen) who were a-mil.
Alexander
Alexander,
Can I give you examples of Amil before Orgien? Good question.
I thought of you while choosing my words very carefully in my previous post (ha ha). Please keep it in mind, especially the ECF concern over the immediate state of the dead, which revealed where they stood on the Premil/Amil issue.
The Didache discusses end times, but does not give a PreMil perspective even though drawing on the Synoptic Gospels & Jewish eschatological discourses while presenting a rather complete treatment of the subject. Granted, the ending is missing. However, if the Apostolic Constitutions truly reflect the missing ending of the Didache, then the sequence of events leaves no room for an interim PreMil kingdom.
The Epistle to Barnabas and Hipolytus are claimed by both Premil and Amil, depending on the scholar. Ferguson sees them as Amil, ISBE as Premil.
Polycarp and the church at Smyrna were Amil, which is interesting because both Polycarp (Amil) and Papias (PreMil) claim tradition from the Apostle John. Clement of Alexandria also held Amil before Origen. It should be noted that when Justin Martyr wrote to defend PreMil, he admitted to Trypho that "that MANY who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Dialogue with Trypho, LXXX)
In both periods, Justin and later Irenaeus & Tertullian, these ECFs knew other ECFs who rejected the Gnostic denial of the resurrection, but did not accept the PreMil view because such ECFs held an an Amil view. I hope it helps.
I'm wondering if anyone has read Robert Shank's book titled Until The Coming of Messiah and His Kingdom. Appendix F is titled The Church and Premillennialism. Shank promotes a premil view and this appendix deals with the original premil position of the early church and how the amil position developed, at least from his perspective. Origen is not well thought of!!! The book was published back in 1982.
By way of background, Shank was a Baptist who converted to the CofC so we loved him, especially b/c he was anti Calvinistic. Then he wrote this premil book and many (most?) of his speaking engagements were canceled. I do not know a lot about how highly his scholarship is regarded. I suppose that depends a lot of whether one agrees with him 😉 I have not heard his name mentioned in a very long tiume
Hesed,
Randall
Randall,
Thank you for mentioning Robert Shank. He dealt more with Systematic theology than Historical Theology, but was a great writer. Who has not read Life in the Son? (ha ha). I have not read the book tha that you mention, but I will try to locate it for the future. Robert was certainly a man going where the evidence led him, while trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation. It is my understanding that he went to be with the Lord in 2006.
History guy asks the question, "Has our discussion (of MIM) become pointless?" The simple answer is ,"yes". Although there are always things to be learned from scripture, and sincere discussion of differences among brethren can be a way to sharpen the mind, the discussion is pointless in that the discussion is about arguments that scripture does not make over an issue that is not part of the gospel.
Jay recently posted a video of the Kimyal people of East Indonesia as they were receiving the new testament in their own language for the first time. It was exciting and heart warming to see these people so yearn for the word of God. They came to "church" in their finest clothes at the side of the landing strip as a plane brought to them their Bibles. But did you see how they worshiped? They danced, jumping up and down in unison. They waved their hands in the air. They waved their spears and bows with arrows in the air. Some wore bones and grass skirts. Are these things permitted by the Early Church Fathers? Are these things condemned by the Bible? For me it makes as much sense to discuss their church behaviors as it does to discuss instruments of music in praise. Yes the Bible talks about modest clothes, yes the Bible has things to say about trusting one's weapons, yes the Bible mentions dance, But no; none of these things are part of the gospel…… And to the best of my ability to discern the behaviors of the Kimyal were just as worshipful ( or more so) than any group of Christians I have ever witnessed.
As long as people are making laws about God's grace then I suppose the mechanical instruments of music issue will be discussed; but, History Guy, yes– the overall discussion is pointless because it elevates the idea as something that is significant when it is not. The significant thing is the grace of God as demonstrated in the gospel.
Dan H,
Thanks.
Dan Harris,
My question was addressed to Jay to bring to remembrance to some wonderful and purposeful public/private conversations that he and I have had. It does not dominate our time, nor prevent us from doing God’s work elsewhere. The question followed a quote from Jay and my personal comment to him.
Asking questions is why we are here [I thought], so I thank you for asking me questions. I am very pleased about the Kimyal people. It is clear that they have desired the pure milk of the Word. Several news sources have noted that though the older generation, which you saw, still lives in the stone age, many of the younger generation live throughout Indonesia and study at university. A few study theology.
I am glad that God brought the Word so that his grace can not only teach the Kimyal to turn from [more] ungodliness (Titus 2:11-12), but so that his grace can teach them a more adequate way (Acts 18:24-26). Praise God for his grace and demanding that we convert from our pagan ways, even Kimyal or agnostic [like I was]. Your words not only affect your posts, and my posts, but devout Christians of the past, as well as IM advocates on this forum today.
The questions you asked of me regarding conversion and worship can be answered by studying the Bible, a history of Biblical interpretation, and church history. You see, the ECFs, even the Ethiopian Orthodox, were not only set free by God’s grace, but both a cappella and missional as they encountered many "tribes, nations, and peoples" while spreading Christianity.
Jay,
Have a good night, my brother.
likewise to all……dan
Bruce,
I respect your study of Ephesians 5 and also you as a Christian. I have been raised in a conservative CoC my entire life. I have not heard of the argument you have used before until recently, but my question to you is where are we ever told that our purpose of coming together as Christians is for the purpose of a worship service? Obviously, when we edify, encourage and build each other up, we can't help but worship our God in the process, BUT a worship service is not mentioned in the NT scriptures. So I'm trying to understand how your argument holds any ground, because Paul, who also wrote 1 Cor. 14:26 said, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." (ESV) The (NKJV) says "edification" instead of "building up." So it seems from scripture that the point Paul is making is all things should be done to edify one another, so therefore, if people do not see IM as edifying (or authorized), then it should not be used cause it would not build up the Christians that meet in that particular location. However, if IM does edify, then it should be used, because it helps build up the body of Christ. Would love to hear your feedback. God Bless brother!
Christian:
There is a good bit in what you write, some of which I have tackled in other webchains in this forum — and glad to do a bit of it again.
Regarding a "worship service," the West has a considerably distorted view of how the first century Mediterranean world saw apostolic teaching at this point. That distortion comes as a result of how our society shoves worship assemblies into ever narrowing places and times. As a result we can (and often do) misread both the ancient evidence and the NT at this point.
For example, a thorough look at inscriptional evidence from Roman Asia has revealed that the Asians assembled often and in many places. Their worship gatherings (i.e. "services") were mingled with their trade guild meetings, weddings, neighborhood gatherings, etc. When they gathered, they worshipped as a public expression — to ask the supposed gods and goddess to bless their gatherings. Why? Paul reveals the answer with mountain stream clarity in Ephesians 2:1ff. and Ephesians 6:10ff. The Asians believed the sky above them was filled with evil spirits desiring to prey on them at every moment (the West should take a lesson from their alertness to the spiritual realm).
So, instead of questioning if the NT is even talking about public worship services/gatherings, we should see quite the opposite. We should recognize that texts such as Ephesians 4:17-5:21 and Paul's "former way of life" reference (4:22) has in view all that the Gentiles did — which included worship "services" often and in numerous settings. A public worship assembly was as common to the Asians as the idea of a Super Bowl with a 30 minute worship service is uncommon to the West.
I'll point you to the below for more information here:
Philip Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
Harland's work is ground-breaking research that provides a corrective to the misreading of Ephesians 5:18-21 by some who have suggested that Paul does not have a worship assembly in view.
Hope this helps.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Dan:
A brief post regarding your assessment of how we should see the actions of indigenous people (e.g. the Kimyal). There is a lot here that I have tackled in other posts and will not repeat (as know you may have read some of it). At least one aspect of this that should come into consideration is just what do we make of the indigenous actions of first century Roman Asia?
Would you, for example, defend the actions that Paul is correcting in Ephesians 4:17ff. which were probably normal and natural in the eyes of the Asians, but which Paul critiques? He is talking about more than ethics in the text. Ephesians 5:6 and the close association to Col. 2:8 helps reveal some of this, as does the vocabulary Paul uses. The apostle is also dealing with indigenous worship practices — and he is critiquing some of them.
Your thoughts?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, I think Paul and God want all people to be moral, spiritually minded, and partakers of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. If the Ephesians needed to be taught about the pitfalls of immorality, hedonism, idolatry, and social justice then naturally Paul would help their understanding. I do not equate that with wearing grass skirts, bones, dancing in joy before God while waving their spears. I have an idea that if I was with them the day they received their Bible translations I would have been breathlessly jumping up and down too. (might have even borrowed a spear to shake!) They are my brethren and I would be sharing my joy in their way instead of in a way I learned in Alabama or Tennessee. As I mentioned in my previous text, barring immorality I see no restrictions placed on customs of worship as long as it is understood they are customs and not law that must be followed by all. God bless, Dan
Dan:
You missed it. The Asian Christians did NOT think of some of their practices as immoral or wrong. It is easy for us to look back with apostolic teaching as our guide and draw a distinction between Ephesus and Indonesia. We do it oh so quickly.
I am asking that we not be so quick to draw that kind of distinction. For example, one missionary I know has mentioned to me how Asian mystery religion practices have penetrated India in very subtle ways. Indian "jumping around" might look innocent as well. But is NOT.
I read a similar study of MODERN DAY Turkish ritual. Just "jumping around." Right? Wrong. The sociologists were noting from their visiting with villagers how very ancient rituals (from mystery religions) had remained part of the celebrations of the common folk over millenia. Surprised the sociologists. And were the rituals "innocent", "moral?" Hardly. They were filled with the very things that Paul called indecent. I can point you to the article if an interest. Quite eye-opening.
Ephesus is not as far away as we may think it is.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I'm concerned that you not be misunderstood. Are you saying that the behavior of the tribesmen when they received New Testaments in their own tongue was the sort of behavior condemned by Paul in Ephesians?
Jay:
Sociology studies continue to reveal that indigenous actions can have deep roots — some not immediately apparent to people (including missionaries). I cannot speak knowledgeably about the Kimyal and not attempting to do so. But apostolic teaching does reveal that we should be alert to the fact that not every indigenous response to the Gospel has been shown to be good. Some are evil — and that should not surprise us in a world that is the dominion of darkness (Col. 1:13). Correct?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas