Offense
Some who oppose the instrument would argue that they are “offended” by the instrument, a concept taken from the KJV translation —
(Rom 14:20-21 KJV) 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
The use of “offend” in the KJV is just a bad translation. That’s not what the Greek word translated means. And, of course, if the KJV were right, then any church member could control the church by choosing what is and isn’t offensive. (And this is exactly how this verse has been abused over the years.) More importantly, the word translated “is offended” does not appear in the best manuscripts. Thus, the language doesn’t appear in newer translations.
If the elders choose to establish a second service with instruments, they’ve not imposed any peer pressure on those who oppose instruments to participate in what they consider sinful. Some members may well be offended, but they aren’t being caused to stumble — sin against their consciences. And that’s Paul’s concern here.
Submission
(Rom 12:1 ESV) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
No, the correct way to read the passage is in terms of submission. You see, in chapter 14 Paul is continuing the thoughts introduced at the beginning of chapter 12. It’s about sacrificing yourself.
Those who wish to bring in instruments submit to those who do not by continuing an a cappella service. It’s trouble and expense, but it’s forbidden to ask someone to worship contrary to his conscience.
Those who wish to sing a cappella submit to those who do not by agreeing to the second service and not grumbling, leaving, or dividing.
Both submit to the others by refusing to judge or condemn those who disagree.
Both get their way. Neither get all that they want. Submission works.
Humility
(Rom 12:3 ESV) 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Closely tied to submission is humility. If I’m humble in my doctrinal views, I recognize that I just might be the one in error. At the least, I’m sympathetic to the errors of others. There but for the grace of God …
If I can muster some genuine sympathy for my brother — even though I disagree with him — I’ll not run over him and I’ll not insist on separating myself from him just because we disagree. (Of course, this is within the household of faith. Only those within grace are forgiven of their error.)
Division
If the a cappella advocates leave over the second service, they are guilty of division — and may well pay with their souls.
(Rom 12:16 ESV) 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.
(Rom 12:18 ESV) 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
(1Co 3:16-17 ESV) 16 Do you not know that you [plural] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you [plural]? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you [plural] are that temple.
Those who wish to insist on a cappella only will argue that the pro-instrumental camp is the one that’s really divisive. And that would be true if they threatened to leave or divide the church over the issue. It might even be true if they made no allowance for worship solely a cappella. But if the a cappella members can stay and not violate their consciences, they are not being forced to leave. Indeed, if they leave because they choose to violate Romans 14 — because they damn and look down on their brothers — they are the divisive ones and the ones in violation of 1 Corinthians 3:16-17.
Condoning
Perhaps the biggest lie taught in the 20th Century Churches of Christ is the false and heretical notion that by staying, the a cappella members would condone the sin of their instrumental brothers and thereby participate in their sin. But Romans 14 plainly contradicts that teaching.
Yes, there are boundaries, but how to interpret the silences of the text and to the binding effect of post-apostolic writings is not the line. Not even close. Indeed, if the line is found here, then all errors damn — and we’re all going straight to hell when we die because none of us is perfect, not even doctrinally perfect.
(Rom 14:13-14 ESV) 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
We’re all sinners. We all worship with sinners. By worshiping with sinners, we don’t condone the sin — rather, we approach God’s throne of grace together. We encourage and support each other. We help each other make it to the end.
Shalom
(Rom 14:17 ESV) 17 For the kingdom of God is … righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
What makes for peace? Well, I know two approaches —
* Always give into those with the strictest scruples and never require them to deal with those they disagree with. Give the weakest brother in the church control of the church.
* Get along even though you don’t agree on everything.
Which is truer to the text? Which one is truer to the theme sentence —
(Rom 12:1 ESV) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
If Romans 12:1 is true, why on earth would we require the stronger brothers to submit but not the weaker brothers? Both should submit, and refusing to challenge the weakest members will leave them forever weak. That’s not loving. That’s not right.
No, both have to submit. The stronger brothers cannot run over the weaker brothers. They can’t shut down the a cappella service. They have to make allowance. And there may be times when the services can’t be separate when they just have to leave their guitars at home. They submit — out of love.
The weaker brothers submit, too. They have to let the instrumental brothers stay and worship “to the Lord” as their consciences dictate — out of love.
And neither side gets to claim a victory over the other. It’s not about winners and losers. It’s about submitting. You see, the greatest victory is being the most like Jesus. And if we can just learn to think this way, the a cappella members will be grateful to the instrumental members for their consideration and love and refusal to look down on them. And the instrumental members will be grateful to the a cappella members for their consideration and love and refusal to look down on them.
Or we could just split, declare each other damned, and be angry to our graves. That’s been tried, too. And some will pay very dearly for their refusal to be like Jesus.
“If I can muster some genuine sympathy for my brother — even though I disagree with him — I’ll not run over him and I’ll not insist on separating myself from him just because we disagree. (Of course, this is within the household of faith. Only those within grace are forgiven of their error.)”
Jay,
What are you trying to say with this parenthetical statement?
Just wondering,
Grizz
If we look at our stand on various Christian things throughout our life, we have been the erring brother to our own thinking more often than not.
Good point Jay. This idea of being offended can indeed be used to control the direction of a congregation. Offering alternatives, as you mentioned seems a viable answer, as well as a way to reach out to those who simply enjoy the use of instruments in praise.
Concerning the instrument, the real question is this one. Is God offended by it? And, the answer is no. All you have to do is read the OT. God appreciated it in Solomon’s day and I haven’t read where he changed his mind.
http://gracedigest.com/2011/11/21/thanksgiving-like-no-other/
Jesus did not say, no matter what you do ,you are welcome to my world.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
When we sing praises to God, they should be directed to the one who deserves “all glory”
O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration,
And then proclaim: “My God, how great Thou art!”
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!
As long as the CoC insist on following Paul, instead of Jesus they will have these disagreements.
What are the “best manuscripts”? But before you give a definion.
The words in discussion are (defined according to Strong)
There is no difference between the majority text (or Byzantine text) Westcott and Hort or Nestle Aland. At least avccording to Strong “offense” is a legitimate translation of this word.
The KJV is a bit inconsistent, because in V 20 we have the noun (proskomma), and in verse 21 the verb (proskopto), but while the noun is translated “offense”, the verb is translated with “stumble” – that’s because the Majority text has two more verbs following: skandalizo, which can also be translated with “offend” (but also “to trip”, “to entice to sin”) and astheneo which means “to be (made) weak”.
As for the “best text” the oldest manuscript of Romans (p46) is damaged in this part. The “critical texts” (NA, W&W) base their Greek NT on only a handful of old but not very good manuscripts. The two main codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) differ in about 13000 places! That’s why I’d rather consider the majority of over 5000 manuscript, plus the old Syriac translation and the old Latin version (Vetus Latina).
I know, Jay, this is way off topic … but when you refer to “the best manuscripts”, I’d challenge this because this sounds so much like a statement that settles all disputes – which it doesn’t.
But aside of this textual question: The translation “offense/offend” is at least fitting for proskomma and proskopto which appear in all Greek NTs.
Aside of this I won’t engage in a new devbate on IM, because this is not what Romans 14 is about. You cannot take this highly disputed issue and place it within the context of Romans 14 – because Romans 14 is about weaker and stronger faith. IM has nothing to do with this, but with the question “how was it at the beginning?” and “Are we still to hold fast to what was at the beginning?”. Thus I am not offended by IM, it’s just not how it was until the middle ages – why should any “restorationist” even think of introducing such a (rather young) innovation (2/3rds of church history the church was predominantly a-cappalla)?
BTW haven’t you left the idea of Community disciplines by now (fasting and the like)?
Alexander
Somehow this cries for a comment.
All you have to do is read Amos 5:23 or Amos 6:5 – God CAN be offended by our instrumental worship – of course, context matters. But have you ever found a verse where God said: No, I don’t like incense anymore? No, there is none – and in fact incense and IM appear side by side in Revelation. Or that God somhow today abhorrs beards? Then why do you shave? Haven’t you reat the OT (Lev 19:27 or Lev 21:5)? And of course you absrain from blood and strangled meat also, because this is not only OT but even confirmed in the NT. Well, IM is not confirmed in the NT … but since you think that God does not change his mind (unless He expressely says so), then why don’t we burn incense and grow our beards, if all we have to do is to read the OT?
Think about it …
ya know jay
bacanism or the scientific method used with scripture.
is just great when dealing with a theory in a closed loop of natural law,
but when dealing with intrinsic characteristics formed by a set of theological anthropological social sets over 2000 years old,
it becomes extremely difficult to sort out ontology and the dichotomy counter disposed by the true character of the trinity’s intrinsic nature.
that we as children of the Father are to accomplish TOGETHER IN THE UNITY OF THEIR SPIRIT IN LOVE.
in other words, men build doctrinal Boxes.
THE TRINITY CONTINUES TO SAY
“seek and you will find”
and we will teach how to tear down the walls of
THEOLOGICAL TRADITION
BLESSINGS
BRO
Knowitall,
Your examples would be pretty good if we had been told that growing a beard and burning incense would condemn you to hell, we haven’t have we?
Laymond,
You continue to write as if Paul didn’t follow Christ or teach others to. What he teach is that we should not depend on ourselves but on Christ.
p.s.
CRAP J
IT TOOK ALMOST 1500 YEARS TO FIGURE OUT PENANCE,
REALLY MEANT REPENT.
BOY OH BOY
talk about being hard headed.
and god is seeing every bit of it.
and the phrase.
be not many teachers among you because you will be under A stricter judgement.
thank god for the word repent.
because i would be a bloody piece of meat by now!
blessings
Grizz asked what I meant by —
Only those in grace receive grace. If you fall from grace by your sin, you aren’t within Rom 14. The passage doesn’t mean that we treat the damned as saved. There are boundaries.
But the boundaries are taught plainly enough in Romans, foremost the requirement that we have faith in Jesus —
Those without faith are not saved and are neither strong brothers nor weak brothers. They aren’t brothers. God will not make them stand.
Rather, the promise is to those in Christ —
Laymond,
I remind you that I do not allow discussion questioning the inspiration the scriptures.
Alexander,
The disciplines of not judging, condemning, or looking down on those we disagree with, but rather submitting are among the most important community disciplines. In fact, I can list many real-life examples of communities that have been destroyed by the absence of these very disciplines.
We don’t see them as disciplines because so many prefer license — license to damn and divide based on how strongly they feel on the subject rather than the scope of grace and faith in Jesus. It’s hard to accept that I must accept as a brother — and be in community with — someone I so strongly disagree with.
Alexander,
There is a debate among some between the “Majority Text” (or “Byzantine Text”) and the “Critical Text” (or “Alexandrian” or “Eclectic” text). However, the overwhelming majority of conservative scholars prefer the Critical Text, and this is why nearly all contemporary translations are based on the Critical Text. The NJKV is the most notable exception.
For those unfamiliar with the debate, it’s WAY outside the current discussion, but well worth the time to study. Google any of the key phrases and plenty of good articles will pop up.
I’m not embarrassed to assert the superiority of the Critical Text, but it’s not today’s discussion.
Alexander,
Regarding the translation of proskomma and skandalizo (“offense” in Rom 14:20, 21) —
First, notice that two different words are translated “offence” or “offended,” in the same context. That’s suspect by itself.
Second, proskomma means “stumbling block.”
Third, the other uses of proskomma in Romans are —
In 14:13, even the KJV gives the usual definition: stumblingblock.
Two forms of the same word are used in 9:32, and the concern is to trip so as to fall, potentially even to fall away. It has nothing to do with taking offense in this passage.
Fourth, the only other use of proskomma in Pauline literature is —
Fifth, the last NT example is —
Sixth, therefore, the translation of proskomma in 14:20 as “offence” is plain and simple mistaken.
Seventh, a better argument can be made in Rom 14:21 for translating skandalizo as “offense,” but the word doesn’t ever appear in the text that the vast majority of scholars consider to be the correct text, that is, the critical text.
Thayer’s translates,
If the word actually appears in the text, it’s obviously strongly parallel with proskomma = “stumbling block”. In fact, English doesn’t have an obvious synonym to use here: “tripping stone”?
In other uses in the NT, translations disagree as to “offend” or “stumble.” Consider —
VGNT comments,
“Offend” is not utterly impossible, except (a) scholarly consensus is against the word being used here at all, (b) the thought of the passage is not giving offense but causing someone to violate his conscience, and (c) even those places where modern translators use “offend,” the word can be equally or even better translated in terms of stumbling. For example —
Alexander; I notice that you have the ability to consult many resourses to confirm your statements. I have been told by many preachers that the early church and even the Jews in the Temple while Jesus was worshipping did not use IM. They claim that at least 200 years prior to Christ the Jews quit the IM. I have not found an individual that could document that statment. I believe that by using the Old and New Testaments I have been able to identify that there is more evidence that IM was used by both even until the distruction of the Temple and the Dispersion of the Christians. Therefore, I would request to see if you could supply information supporting the statement that you made which follows. “Thus I am not offended by IM, it’s just not how it was until the middle ages – why should any “restorationist” even think of introducing such a (rather young) innovation (2/3rds of church history the church was predominantly a-cappalla)?”
If you would rather not post a reply to this, I can understand. Possibly, Jay could send you my email address, I cannot communicate with you through your web site for I do not have a knowledge of your language.
Jay:
Since you have decided to launch into an IM discussion again, how about also emphasizing for all the parallelisms in Ephesians 5 that help us better understand Paul’s teaching — and the purpose of his focus on congregational song as a builder of congregational unity.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
@ Larry
I said I don’t wanmt to engange in this debate agin – but you can write me at alex(dot)basnar(at)telering(dot)at
looking forward to hearing from you
Alexander
Jay, we have the same “phenomenon” in older German translations. proskopto or proskomma is translated as “Anstoß (erregen)” (= cause offense). And it’s the first in the list of possible translations. It’s also a menaning given in Menge’s Greek-German dictionary (as in Strong’s).
I don’t know how the English language developed, I can imagine that a century ago Offence had a meaning more in this direction “to tempt someone to sin”. Menge’s dictionary is also about 100 years old by now.
Skandalizo and proskopto seem to be used synonymously in Rom 14:21, even emphasizing the gravity of the matter. Just to let you know: I think “offence” (or “Anstoß”) is a rather “soft” way to translate what Paul said – and I think here we do agree. It was your 1% of very divergent manuscripts against 99% of the other texts on which you based your argument, that made me hop in on this. It’s a pity that “my” side of the debate is sometimes led by hysterical and loud KJV-only people – there are a number of very qualified scholars who hold to the majority text as well. So if we lead people to a google quest on the matter, I thinbk this should be made known in advance: There are good and bad web-sites.
Alexander
This is perhaps the scariest thing I have ever read! That we would level all change, all difference, as a necessary move toward apostasy. That all diversification and organic growth is necessarily to ‘leave the old paths’. This is perhaps the most modern comment I have ever heard with regards to time and truth. I’m not sure whether this statement is merely sectarian or unknowingly making an idol out of the primitive church—either way, I worry for someone who would hold to such a perspective without (1) really listening to the rationale of ‘non-restorationists’, and (2) critiquing oneself as to why one might have such a view. Does it not help us to forego the always difficult task of Christian discernment and judgment that changes moment to moment, culture to culture, time to time. Does it not help us short-circuit all questions of biblical application, meeting our modern craving for certainty.
How easy it would be to just ape the early church on such a surface level—copying ‘what’ they did without any care for ‘why’…
I never spoke of apostasy – please don’t read “hard-core rethoric” of “ultras” into my posts. Try to step back a little and look at things from the broader historic perspective. we have nothing to lose, but a lot to gain.
There MUST be a reasin that for 1300 years (in the West) and for two millenia in the east the churches remained a cappella. The reasos are clear from the Early Christian writings, and the priciples apply to us as well! Konastephen, this is a very direct question: Can you sum up the reasons ofthe ECF accurately? If so, then explain why and how our times and culture would rule out their reasons. This is a historic question, and it is about facts.
But that’s only the first question. The second is a little different: Who gives us the right to depart from the “old paths”? Did the word of God originate from us or come only to us (1Co 14:36)?
If we change something, it affects our unity, doesn’t it? IM has always been a dispruption. Thomas Aquinas (13th century, rebowned RC scholar) was very much opposed to the introduction of IM. Most reformers “restored” a-cappella worship, even among the Lutherans who were les dogmatic, many churches remained a capella in to the 17th and 18th century. the cange to IM NEVER created but destroyed unity. Judge the tree by it fruit! I am sick of this fruit.
The same happens among the churches of Christ today. Those innovators are among the most scary persons I ever heard of (to rephrase your comment).
To bring it into a broader context: IM are the red dots in the face of a sick person. I have no interest in these red dots (that’s why I think discussions on IM are not profitable) but in the disease that cause them: It’s a hermeneutical disease. To cure this, we must rid ourselves of our enlightened Western pride and start reading the scriptures in the light of their first followers – you cannot brush aside the ECF. See where our wisdom has brought us!
Alexander
Heaven forbid we brush aside the ECF. I would never encourage such a thing. However, there is a fine line between venerating the ECF and making an idol out of what they said and did. I don’t doubt that there was a good reason that the ECF argued against the innovation of ‘fill-in-the-blank’. Yet I do not always see a connection for us today to hold exactly the same stance. Theologically, the arguments for us to hold to the same ‘old paths’ are not convincing. Nor do I believe that even the most ardent promoter of early-churchianity lives out its own mandate, but instead picks and chooses what they feel we must hold to. We are fools if we don’t heed the wisdom of those who have gone before us—we are doubly fools if we think we can just copy what they did (to the letter) in order to be the Lord’s church for the world today.
The many congregations in my town worship in a variety of ways. There is only one small group who makes a stink about the issue of instruments. Can you guess who it is? We have issues of unity on numerous points, all of which are lamentable; and so we must be ever vigilant to argue for truth and to build bridges. But some issues are just not applicable anymore, accept to the ultra-ecclesial primitivists…
But this ‘enlightened western pride’ you speak of, I’m not sure where this fits. It is those who draw only Cartesian lines from the past that seem to me to be in error, a uniquely modern error. The old paths wind and wend. Most people I know value the testimony of the ECF, and yet need not ape them on all accounts…
Well, I have re-read this article, and really enjoyed the re-reading, and it makes me ask why in the world the church split? Seems splitting is the answer to almost any disagreement. Someone said there was a man on an island and he worshipped by himself regularly, untill one week he moved location. When asked why (by I don’t know who), he replied… I disagreed with myself so I startedf another church.
Whatever happened to GRACE?
Jack,
Splitting was at one time a way to look to others like you were the true worshiper of God holding to the Old Paths.
After a while though, it becomes obvious after almost 30 split sects that something is obvious wrong with the whole thinking and its embarrassing.
Hopefully sites like this will expose this foolishness and cause us to extend GRACE to one another as we pray God to extend it to us..
Thank God for a site like this so we can actually say what is being thought.
Jay:
The subject of music in Ephesians 5:18-21 — within the context — carries with it far, far more than a discussion of supposed freedom. I am aware that many Americans would like to couch the IM discussion in the realm of freedom alone, but that is a mistake. Your continued call to place this discussion in those terms chooses to ignore some crucial messages in the context of Ephesians 4:17-5:21. That, brother, is something you do NOT have the freedom to do….
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
What irony that you are Jay’s critic saying he does not have “the freedom to…” teach Scripture the way he sees it and yet you relentlessly pour meaning into a text that simply isn’t there. I think the pot is calling the kettle black.
Since this is Jay’s blog I think he can say what he chooses. Maybe you should start your own blog, state your views, and see how people respond to you.
Bruce wrote,
Bruce, why move the discussion from Romans 14? My understanding is that you don’t consider your views on Eph 5:19 to be salvation issues — although you have very strong feelings on the topic. That being the case, I’d think you’d find my exposition of Romans 14 very much in line with your thinking.
I mean, it’s obvious from Church of Christ history that a firm commitment to congregational singing does not produce unity in practice. It takes something more. That something, I contend, is grace — extending to one another the same grace we receive from God. I think Romans 14 teaches exactly that.
Do you disagree?
Royce:
What you write is ironic. I have received emails from elders of congregations with instrumental music who have told me I am “on target” to note the parallelisms in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. Notice Paul’s use of “therefore” (similar to other letters he wrote).
What I think people continue to find refreshing is to look closely at the “good” of human song as part of God’s creation. I hope you reconsider, Royce. And I hope you move away from a view that says we can teach “what we choose.” It is a mistaken view of freedom that dominates this nation.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay:
I will be glad to answer your question in this webchain… when you answer my question to you regarding baptism as an action of God’s grace. While you have written extensively on the subject of baptism, you have yet to speak with candor at that point (and I know you have said before that this is a difficult question for you).
I think you do recall that I have made it clear that I will not announce that individuals and congregations using IM “are going to hell.” That is the Lord’s business, not mine. And I do desire that all who have faith in Jesus will be saved by the Lord’s grace. But that does not mean that every religious belief and practice in this country is “okay” in the sight of the Lord (and I do know we are “one” at that point). The warnings in the New Testament should tell us that dangers exist and faith can be destroyed….
And that does not translate into a move to IM having no spiritual consequence. It does. Would you like for me to forward you an email from a well-respected elder in the Christian church sharing his observations after 35 years of experience with such?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce said, “I hope you reconsider, Royce. And I hope you move away from a view that says we can teach “what we choose.”
Can you give me one example where what I have taught is so wrong and unscriptural?
To even hint that the Ephesian passage you cite so often prohibits IM in worship is a stretch most serious Bible students are not willing to make.
Jay is an elder. Why would you put up one elder as authoritative over another? Until you can prove your points by Scripture alone most people will not take you seriously in my view. Every person who insists that God has banned IM must resort to extrabiblical material to prop up their position. You are no exception.
BTW, I worship every Sunday a cappella. I have no problem with the practice, in fact I love it. It has a primitive feel to it in my opinion. What I object to is telling people the Bible commands it or forbids IM. It doesn’t.
Jay:
I also saw this: “I mean, it’s obvious from Church of Christ history that a firm commitment to congregational singing does not produce unity in practice.”
A disappointment to see you pen those words, brother. You are urging people in the wrong direction when you write such. You sound like someone actually directing people away from thinking about the work of the Spirit as we sing to one another! Paul was striving to draw the Ephesian congregation together, including doctrinally, right? Isn’t that part of what Ephesians 4:1ff. is about? And that is also part of what is behind Ephesians 5:18-21. Paul is showing them the power and importance of congregational song — singing the Word. I will suggest that one of our failings is not singing Scripture enough.
Let’s remember “the sword of he Spirit,” (Ephesians 6:17) Jay.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce:
Besides your view of baptism, what you write about my “pouring meaning” into Ephesians 4:17-5:21 is off track. It ignores the structure of what Paul writes — which is a key to better understanding Ephesians 5:18-21. One of the most challenging aspects of this discussion is to get people to see the parallels in the text. Within the Restoration Movement we have focused on “silence” so much that we genuinely have a challenging time seeing the teaching in context.
I would be glad to chat by phone if you wish. I believe weblogs have limited value as people search the Scriptures together.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce put forward an oft-proffered view: “I think you do recall that I have made it clear that I will not announce that individuals and congregations using IM “are going to hell.” That is the Lord’s business, not mine.”
So, Bruce, is it “the Lord’s business and not mine” if a man in your congregation offers human sacrifices in the name of Jesus? Would you be content to withhold a view on the spiritual standiing of a man who does such things?
I know this is a very hyperbolic example– (the wildest I could think of– but it is offered to suggest that you do, in fact, hold a position on the eternal destiny of people who engage in certain acts. But which ones?
Bruce, you are a good brother in the Lord, I will not address your personal beliefs, which you can clarify if you wish. But I have heard this position expressed often. And frankly, I have lost patience with it. This viewpoint.IMO, is simply a passive-agressive way of condemning without having the courage to do so in clear language. It tells the believer who worships with a piano, “You may well be going to hell for that. But hey, it’s not my problem; it’s the Lord’s.” This statement is not of the Lord.
This view refuses even to admit that the holder does not know whether IM users are going to hell. At least that might be an honest expression of ignorance. It refuses to embrace IM users as saved and then has not the integrity to stand by either of the only other two choices on the menu.
I find this expression intellectually dishonest. Either the IM user is condemned for his practice, or he is not, or you don’t know whether he is condemned for such a practice. Three options, no waiting, no fourth choice to seek.
If a brother says openly, “I don’t know whether or not one is condemned for IM,” then so be it. He can be educated further. If one says, “One is not condemned for IM,” –as 99% of Christians do– then that position is simple and clear.
Otherwise, we have Door #3. This is all that is left for those who cannot enter Door #1 or Door #2. It’s high time that we acknowledged this reality, as a matter of simple intellectual honesty, and give up the dissimulation.
Jay said: “I mean, it’s obvious from Church of Christ history that a firm commitment to congregational singing does not produce unity in practice.”
Bruce objected: “A disappointment to see you pen those words, brother. You are urging people in the wrong direction when you write such. You sound like someone actually directing people away from thinking about the work of the Spirit as we sing to one another!”
Bruce and others have suggested that acapella singing contributes to church unity. History does not support this suggestion, as Jay notes. But rather than acknowledge the truth of the statement, or challege it rationally, Bruce objects to having his assertion even questioned. He suggests that the very act of pointing out the invalidity of his statement leads people astray. This is simply not the case.
We hold many ideas which have good intentions. In this case, the argument is made that acapella singing contributes to church unity. Whether it is effective or not– and the history is not supportive– the fact is that congregational unity is not in any way DEPENDENT on acapella singing, any more than it is dependent upon meeting in homes or selling one’s own possessions. To offer such a conflation is to defend one’s tradition by its intentions rather than by its effects or any indication of God requiring that this tradition be observed. More than this, it does not really even defend that tradition, just flatly accuses any who would dare question it.
Charles you nailed it in both comments.
The one constant that creates church unity is for a group of people to acknowledge none of them has any merit before God and that only because of the work of Jesus are they accepted by God. ONLY because of the work of Jesus! Oneness is not anything more or less than being one in Jesus. Perhaps we should do a daily reading of John 17.
In my experience, the debating IM back and forth and back and forth, and back and forth, and back and forth, has never created unity either. This has been going on for two hundred years i know of with no conclusion so why continue?
I don’t think it matters that much, and by that much I mean the time spent debating, no, arguing over it, splitting, hard feelings, and many times it is simply a one-up-man-ship contest especially when its not one on one, but IN WRITING for many to read and see the authors name as a headliner of whatever source or title.
Its like women wearing a covering, do what your conscience tells you. Interestingly is those whose conscience tells them are those that attend churches where its taught its a sin to not wear one.
This is true in so many positions taken that have been turned into salvation stands.
Can’t we find something more productive to do?
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Remember at a time when most whites in what later became AMERICA couldn’t read or write, the Cherokee could read and write in their own language and could speak Cherokee, English and French.
All history, same as our church of Christ history many times gets slanted toward the user doesn’t it.
Charles:
I am truly surprised every time you Jay and others write and critique as you do about a comment that looks at context. Jay has talked about “context” in many weblog essays and posts and I, for one, appreciate when he urges people to look at context. It matters.
But I bring up context in the discussion of IM in this weblog and… whew!! The connection between congregational unity and song to one another is Paul’s connection in Ephesians 4:17-5:21, not mine. His use of “therefore” guides. I am glad to send a publication to you which highlights the structure as well as some of the background. I am hearing from both those who have been worshipping with IM and those who are acappella that the study is refreshing to them in that the context provides some messages we have spent too little time considering. And that includes messages for acappella worship as well.
As to the critique of “intellectual dishonesty,” please stop. I hear people announcing that a given follower of Jesus is “going to hell” for what they say or do. I believe you are just as angered by that as am I. It is not what we read from the apostles. But what we do read about is the impact of disobedience and the impact of faith dying. When people cease reflecting on the Word of the Lord, writing it on their hearts, singing it, etc., that has a dramatic impact on their faith. It can and often does head them away from the Lord. And that is spiritually dangerous. That is what I WILL say.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Charles, et.al.:
I decided one more thing I could do is to refer back to an essay by Jay earlier in the year. It is at the below link. It refers to an excellent article by Stephen Guthrie — that includes a look at the connection between song and unity. Note: Stephen Guthrie does not go far enough, but his article does an excellent job of noting some of the key messages of the context of Ephesians 4:17-5:21. And one of those messages is the one Jay has dismissed in this webchain — based on history (And that is justification for ignoring apostolic teaching in a dark world?!).
That is why I am mystified by Jay’s posts in this webchain. I will not try to guess why Jay has written what he has. I will just point folks to a good study that Jay himself hightlights and leave it at that:
/2011/02/instrumental-music-stephen-r-guthrie-%E2%80%9Csinging-in-the-body-and-in-the-spirit/
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
Speaking of context, this is a discussion re Romans 14. Do you agree with my understanding of the text? You seem to have an obsession with Eph 5, but to read Eph 5 while ignoring other key passages, such as Rom 14, is surely a mistake.
Rather than pushing the conversation away from Rom 14, how about sharing with the readers your understanding of what Paul wrote in this passage? Agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Jay:
Haven’t we both diverged somewhat from Romans 14? Certainly, I agree that I have and as well you wrote: “I mean, it’s obvious from Church of Christ history that a firm commitment to congregational singing does not produce unity in practice.”
But I think you got my point. I believe you have ignored your own previous post. But I will not press further.
Regarding answering your questions, did you read my above post to you?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I heard my favorite topic was being discussed and figured I would stop in while nibbling on left over thanksgiving dishes… it sure is hard to type with turkey fingers. I hope everyone here is doing well and had a blessed Thanksgiving. We have much to give thanks for, indeed.
Jay, singing as worship has community agreement, but the IM issue, either for or against is divisive; IM was divisive at its late introduction and has been ever since. Starting in the early 1800s a select few dared to class it as a Rom 14 issue. Those taking that approach see IM as a matter of opinion. Yet, you have never clearly taken that position, especially given what you have written about music in other verses. I will not bore you with the reasons that I (and some IM advocates) don’t class it as a Rom 12/14 issue, but it would be helpful if you laid out some points in a future post offering the evidence for believing that IM is a Rom 14 issue. Of course, I am willing to give some reasons for my position (rejecting it as a Rom 14 issue) as well.
Royce,
Your post on November 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am was a bit oversimplified and neglects a millennium of information written on the topic by Christ-loving people on both sides of the issues. Sadly, on November 23rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm you switched the emphasis from seeking truth, what offends God, what God has repealed, and what is proper as Christian worship, to a dichotomy of heaven and hell. I would rephrase most of Knowitall’s post, and remove some red hearings, but I believe his point was that some worship practices can be offensive to God, even while receiving his grace and heavenward bound. We, thus, come full circle to asking if IM fits the didactic nature of Christian worship. You say yes and I would be interested in your evidence for believing that IM is a matter of opinion (Rom 14 issue).
Larry Cheek,
I think you got Alexander’s email, but feel free to email me anytime historyguy007[at]yahoo[dot]com
Konastephen,
Interesting post on November 24th, 2011 at 3:06 pm. In all seriousness, do you really believe that others, including yourself, just “pick and choose what you feel we must hold to?” Surely there is something deeper that people base their decisions upon. If there is only one small group in your area who make a “stink” about instruments, then you are either living in a small area, or you have not had the pleasure of talking with folks from many groups outside churches of Christ who do not use IM. I find it sad that the issue is a “stink” instead of a cordial and insightful dialogue.
How does IM relate to Romans 14?
By now, any of could take either side of the IM question and do a great presentation and be very convincing.
Sorta like Chess, we can play either color pieces with the same ability to win.
In the end though, it will be Gods GRACE that will determine how we are judged in both cases.
What I fear is we might just be judged more harshly because of the good time we could of been doing something more productive than debating this over and over and over and over with no end results.
But, that is what grace in Romans 14 is for isn’t it.
One thing that has always bothered me is when all around you in your community that worship the same God see verses in the same KJV one way and you see it differently, you just might be missing something.
Singing with out instruments because you want to is a different situation. Because it is a sin and hell trip if you do is another and that stand requires GRACE..
How about a little common sense?
God was well pleased with IM in the past. Consider 2 Chronicles 5:11-14. In the New Testament the matter isn’t addressed at all. Not a hint that God now deplores IM.
Interestingly, there is very little said about how Christians worship. Other than correcting the Corinthians for their abuses of the common meal and each other I don’t remember very much that addresses how we worship.
Humility, submitting to one another, forgiving one another, being long suffering with one another seems to be much more important than singing with our without instruments.
Focus on Jesus is the missing ingredient much of the time.
Bruce said, “As to the critique of “intellectual dishonesty,” please stop.”
>>>
Charles replied, “As you wish. Such redundancy would be irritating, no doubt.”
Historyguy remarked: “We, thus, come full circle to asking if IM fits the didactic nature of Christian worship. You say yes and I would be interested in your evidence for believing that IM is a matter of opinion.”
I can’t speak for Royce, but since instrumental music is apparently used and received as worship in Scripture, it seems to me that the burden rests on those who would ban it to demonstrate that it displeases God. The absence of reference to it would not serve. One cannot argue the meaning of words that do not exist. Those who do so in this particula instance are woefully inconsistent in their interpretations.
Note that there is no requirement to be found in scripture that worship must universally include instrumentation. SO, take the lack of a positive and comprehensive command for instruments and combine it with the lack of a prohibition of such instrumentation, and we are left with something which is strangely discomfiting to some believers: freedom.
Now, it may be reasonably argued that there are times when dragging the piano into the room might not be beneficial. But this is a generic principle which applies to almost every human choice, and really does not bear on the argument at hand.
I find it interesting that brothers establish unspoken defaults, which tend to cloud discussion. Brother A defaults to “God has regulated everything, with certain exceptions, and it is our first duty to ascertain all the regulations, so that we might please God..” Bro. A requires others to prove that God expressly approves of any significant action. Brother B defaults to “We are called to be free, and this pleases God.” Bro. B then requires others to provide tangible authority if they would limit his liberty.
Where the scripture does not expressly require and does not expressly prohibit, it seems to me that Spirit-led liberty is the reasonable ground that remains.
Charles:
I do not want to frustrate you — or anyone — either. And not trying to “dodge.” What I have been attempting to do with kindness is to approach the subject of music and worship as Paul does in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. I have purposely tried to not galvanize; I am convinced that such pushes us away from all that Paul is saying in one of the “one-another” texts in Ephesians.
From what I can tell — including in this webchain — we struggle to hear Paul here. He is directing us to the power of the Spirit’s work as we sing to one another. However, religion in North American generally seems insensitive to the importance of at least this one-another guide to building unity and acting out our discipleship. And that is part of the challenge. One in Jesus is Jay’s webforum to build unity with all religious groups across North America — and beyond. And the idea of congregational song has been discarded by many in North America. So… we are supposed to “go with the flow.” Really? And if “the flow” discards other “one another” teachings as well? That is okay too?
In summary, Charles, I believe Paul is telling us that the one-another imperatives in Ephesians are life-giving to a congregation. We allow Satan to do great damage when we ignore them.
“Signing off” with this post as I will be away from the Internet for awhile. But my offer to you of a publication still goes. I would hope you would browse through it before critiquing me further. Again, you can reach me at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net. And I am willing to give a limited number of copies to others as well who are reading this weblog.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yes. And as all of the OT worship it was strictly regulated, the use of instruments was regulated, too. Only certain Levites were appointed to play certain instruments within certail boundaries (within the temple worship). therefore it is a silly illusiion to imagine the Jerusalem church worshipping with instruments in the temple – because they were not the ones allowed to use them under the old system (I think, Clyde Simonette tried this one, but it does not work).
Anyobne who so bradly points to “scripture” must also recognize this context. The question is, how do we transfer this into the new Covenant, since we have neither the temple nor the Levitical priesthood?
It is my conviction that the instruments passed away as a shadow as did the incense, the animal sacrifices, the temple and the Levitical priesthood; because instrumental worship was tied to all of this. It did not stand on its own, but it stood AND FELL with the temple.
Hence the silence on incense in the NT (which is normally not questioned), and hence the silence on instruments. Both appear only in Revelation, together with other temple items (ark of the covenant, altar, smoke, …), leading back to the OT shadows that are used now to describe heaven.
What most IMers (or all) who point to the OT approval of IM fail to see, is the end of OT worship in general. You cannot take just one element of it into the New Covenant – all has passed away.
Alexander