I’m posting one more history lesson on the congregational infighting that led to the split of the Restoration Movement over, among other things, the instrument. The first Restoration Movement church to have an instrument is the Midway Christian Church.
This is excerpted from this longer article.
What initially caused the problem was that the singing was deplorable. Pinkerton said that the singing would, “scare even the rats from worship.” At first they met in the home of some brethren on Saturday night for practice. To get the right pitch, they used a little melodeon. Before long one of the sisters was accompanying the singing with the playing of the little instrument. The group noted how the accompaniment helped the singing, and so they decided the use of it would greatly enhance their worship services. They asked L.L. Pinkerton, their preacher, what he thought of bringing it into the assembly. His response was that he saw no problem with it. So, the next Sunday, a melodeon was brought in for worship.
The Restoration Movement was not founded to deal either way with the instrument. It was simply a non-issue for the first 50 years. Most members of the Movement came from Calvinistic churchs — Presbyterians, certain Baptist branches — and the Calvinists had opposed instruments going back to John Calvin. Moreover, in the American frontier, few could afford a piano or other instrument.
But over time, the old Calvinistic roots eroded and the frontier became the heartland — and instruments became affordable. And there’d been very little teaching on the subject, because it was simply not a controversy — yet.
One who was strongly against the instrument was Adam Hibler, one of the elders. Late one night he, along with his slave Reuben, went to the church building. While Hibler held a window open, Reuben entered the building and passed the small instrument through to Hibler. They took an axe and chopped the melodeon to pieces there on the front lawn of the church building. Amidst much anger, a new melodeon was placed in the building, again with stiff opposition. So, Adam Hibler again, with the aid of Reuben, removed the new melodeon from the building, this time storing it in his barn. A third was purchased and placed in the building. To this, the acts of “righteous indignation” ceased.
An elder — clearly unable to persuade a majority of the remaining elders — stole and vandalized the melodeon twice.
Around here, these actions are called “felonies.” How is rebellion against an eldership, breaking and entering, theft, and vandalism viewed today in the Churches of Christ?
The Hickory Ridge Church of Christ defends the elder —
The Adam Hibler who has reported to have removed the melodeon from the church in the interest of congregational harmony was the descendant of a Mason County family, but spent much of his life near Midway in Woodford County and Cane Ridge in Bourbon County.
Plain Bible Teaching calls the introduction of the melodeon “apostasy,” but the crimes against the church were “ardent opposition … of error,”concluding,
Yet it often becomes easy for our opposition to false teachers and those who practice error to become soft. We get tired of fighting the battles, so we stop dealing with the issues, and eventually we become willing to have fellowship with those who were previously marked (Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). We must not allow ourselves to do this.
Yep. The elder should have stolen that melodeon one more time!
Marvin Howard, however, takes what I consider a much more scriptural approach to the event —
I wonder, where would the church be today if all those involved had obeyed the command to “First go and be reconciled to your brother” (Matt. 5:24). What if all had followed Paul’s example, “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path” (2 Cor. 6:3). Did anyone heed Ephesians 4:26-7, which warns, “Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” God is the judge, but I wonder, what if Adam Hibler had, in love and humility, approached the other elders and expressed his disagreement, rather than chopping the melodeon to pieces with an ax on the church lawn (after the sun had gone down)? What if, instead of purchasing another, and then another, in disregard of this elder’s opposition, the church had, for the sake of Jesus Christ and His church, been “like-minded, having the same love [as Christ], being one in spirit and purpose”? What if the “fans” of the melodeon had “consider[ed] others [such as Hibler] better than [them]selves” and looked “to the interests of others?” (Phil 2:2-4) When half of the church walked out during a Sunday service, why on earth did the other half not chase them down and plead for reconciliation?
I only wish that Br. Howard has also asked, “What if the ‘enemies’ of the melodeon had ‘consider[ed] others [such as Hibler] better than [them]selves’ and looked ‘to the interests of others?'” Submission has to be a two-way street, and it’s wrong for one group to demand submission without being willing to submit themselves. But he is at least approaching the topic with actual scripture! He is headed toward where we always should have been — the heart of Jesus.
I mean, when crimes are treated as heroic opposition to error, we’ve gone far, far astray from the Scriptures and from the heart of Jesus. Rather, those who oppose the instrument should mourn that their viewpoint has been blackened by such sins. Do we really intend that when one elder disagrees with the rest of the elders, his proper recourse is criminal theft under the cover of darkness?
There are better ways to work out our differences — and few worse. The instrument, even if wrong, wasn’t the biggest sin found in the Midway church — and yet some are so zealous for their doctrines that they’ll condone rebellion against the elders and even crimes to defend their practices.
And if any readers have read the criticism heaped on Pinkerton in the linked articles for allowing the melodeon, I recommend that you also read this defense of the man by Al Maxey.
We’ve all attended churches that could easily – for their singing – be renamed the River Styx Church of Christ. Singing so bad you can’t stay on key yourself without putting your finger in your ear to hear yourself enough to know one way or the other.
The passage doesn’t say “Moan and make wailing noises in your heart to the Lord.” Noise that obliterates the ability of others to make melody to the Lord is not supported by the text.
Amazing how the first decisive act of the opponents to the instrument was to commit a crime. A veritable Fort Sumter of the Restoration Movement.
“They asked L.L. Pinkerton, their preacher,”
“Do we really intend that when one elder disagrees with the rest of the elders,”
Jay I guess I missed any mention of other elders. but I did notice you referred to Mr. Howard, as “Br. Howard” and Mr. Hibler as (“Hibler”)– The instrument then as now is for the enjoyment of the people, not God. – “The group noted how the accompaniment helped the singing” For whom?
“What initially caused the problem was that the singing was deplorable.” To whom?
Bob, did Jesus commit a crime when he destroyed the property of others when he cleared the house of God?
tradition and Jesus….
by
JOHN MARK HICKS
“Mark 2:23-3:6 — Son of Man, Sabbath and Opposition
Though Jesus was a popular teacher and healer at the end of Mark 1, opposition to his ministry emerges throughout Mark 2 and culminates in plans to kill him in Mark 3:6. Mark 2:1-3:6 contains five “controversy” stories which highlight this emerging opposition.
Jesus forgives sin (thereby committing blasphemy). Jesus eats with sinners (and thus defiles himself). Jesus feasts rather than fast (contrary to the traditions of the elders). Jesus works on the Sabbath (violating the traditions). Jesus heals on the Sabbath (violating the traditions). In each case Jesus crosses boundaries that mark him as an agent of change. The change, of course, is the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.
The final two stories, both centered on the Sabbath, occur in Mark 2:23-3:6. In the first the disciples harvest a crop and prepare a meal. In the second Jesus heals. Both were regarded, by the traditions of the time, as violations of the Sabbath. They were forms of “work.” Later Rabbinic traditions verify such attitudes. And n the first century, contemporary with Jesus, the Qumran community explicitly denied people the option to heal on the Sabbath or help an animal out of a ditch. One could not even draw water from a cistern on the Sabbath at Qumran or eat anything that was not already “in the camp.”
This practice is called “fencing the law.” While the Torah, for example, does not explicitly say one cannot heal on the sabbath or draw water from a cistern, these regulations are put in place in order to distance a person from breaking the law. One does not want to get too close to the line for fear of violating the holy command. Thus, traditions accumulate. Jesus and his disciples violated a couple of those traditions by harvesting and healing on the Sabbath…..
p.s.
EVEN I CAN DRAW SOME PARALLELS,
from this little excerpt…
between then and now
“Bob, did Jesus commit a crime when he destroyed the property of others when he cleared the house of God?”
Objection sustained; question is irrelevant.
In any event, who has jurisdiction to charge God with a crime? You?
boy oh boy
Moreover, he grieved their hardness of heart, that is, their inability to see the world through God’s merciful eyes. They could only see the world through their rules.”
sound familiar
“…God’s commanded rituals (as, for example, the Sabbath) are intended to serve humanity. They do not rule humanity nor should they ever be used to subvert God’s goal for humanity. Consequently, mercy will always take precedence. Matthew called attention to this in his version of the story–if people truly understood Hosea 6:6 (“I desire mercy and not sacrifice”), then they would not use the Sabbath (or any rituals) in such an obstructionist manner (Matthew 12:1-8). God’s heart lies with mercy rather than sacrifice.
This explains Jesus’ anger. When he asked the question about whether it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, the Pharisees were silent. To Jesus it was obvious, but the Pharisees were caught in the dilemma of their own traditions and understanding of the law. Jesus was angered by their insensitivity to the Torah’s mercy. Moreover, he grieved their hardness of heart, that is, their inability to see the world through God’s merciful eyes. They could only see the world through their rules.”
Bob…agreed…Didn’t Jesus say it was His Father’s House ?? So, who did God say it belonged to ?
Christ and the divine nature!
Christ in us
obviously
a work in progress
Laymond, in your question to Bob, are you arguing for or against being horsewhipped at church by those who might disagree with you? I’m not clear on your point…
Jay,
You make a great point regarding seeking the heart Jesus demonstrated towards those traditions and accepted practices that went against God’s desire for mercy. In discussions like the one here in the comments it is too easy to battle over the details and lose the main point being promoted. I pray that we will look beyond our feverish prejudices (both ways towards one another) and seek that heart of Jesus which you emphasized. There is a time for reconciling the finer points, but I believe that we need to come together regarding the main point BEFORE we cloud the issue with arguments over the finer points of application. Once we determine what we should be seeking it will be much easier and more fruitful to consider how to go about that seeking.
Blessings,
Grizz
What initially caused the problem was that the singing was deplorable. Pinkerton said that the singing would, “scare even the rats from worship.” Wow that seem pretty bad! Could you imagine being some poor lost sole who found themselves in that church. Think they would want more of that? If the IM caused such a fuss maybe they should have worshiped with silence. I personally love to worship with a good worship band and can’t see the harm. Though I prefer unity to style. It’s true worship is directed toward God though I think it’s okay if we enjoy it too. I love to hear great voices and great instruments being used well to worship God. I guess the little drummer boy song you hear around this time of year is not so welcome in some homes. That just to say this. Would such a drummer boy who wants to worship God with this talent be welcome in your church? I feel he would be in a church run by Jesus.
Charles, do you think it would have been considered a crime, if Mr. Hibler had proceded to “horsewhip” the one who brought in the melodeon, instead of breaking it? I believe that both Jesus, and Mr. Hibler were trying to enforce respect for the “house of the Lord” in their opinion.
No doubt the melodeon, had been forced upon Mr. Hibler, and in his mind upon God as well.
Jay:
Your raising this history and your focus on mercy/love is important. Historically, some of the actions and thought of the past have been influenced by darkness; that is clear. I also continue to wonder how you can raise this history for view and argue as you do against part of the theme and context of Ephesians 5 — which you did recently, and then moved the discussion again.
This is what I am talking about:
/2011/11/community-disciplines-community-disciplines-romans-on-discipline-part-3-chapter-14b-2/
Specifically, your response to this post:
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/
After this post you changed the subject and urged me to take up Romans 14 and the subject of music. I said I would be glad to do so… if you would answer a simple question you have been evading.
When I look at your unwillingness to face and discuss part of the message of Ephesians 5, your action shout as loudly as do those of the man who got rid of the melodeon — in any way he could. Jay, your argument for mercy carries with it a responsibility to express that mercy/love to others — with no boundaries or excuses. Correct? And that translates to not walking out of a conversation. Midway should have been about a commitment to the Lord and to one another. And that is part of what will build the kind of unity you are urging.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
Just because someone chooses another emphasis it does NOT necessarily mean they have dismissed the other line of reasoning. It could mean they do not have anything to add to is. We need all kinds of approaches here, brother. Let’s reach as many as we can – including those who take a different perspective than you or I may take.
And if Jay was not talking about love of Christ constraining and dictating our love for one another, what did you think his message has been?
And Laymond,
first – tumbling tables is NOT the same as destroying tables … and if you would argue that point, feel free to do so after you go buggy-whip a table into little pieces….
second – reread the passages about cleansings of the Temple courtyards from the money-changers and merchandisers there … and find for me the part that says Jesus whipped even one person … (hint: it is NOT there).
Thanks,
Grizz
Laymond,
The available resources state that Hibler was “an” elder, implying that he was one of several. Had he been the only elder, he’d not have needed to sneak in at night to take the melodeon.
It’s standard cant in the Churches of Christ to respond to the suggestion that singing is sometimes deplorable by responding that the singing is for God, not the members of the church. Thus, since God only listens to the heart, the quality of the singing is irrelevant. It’s a flawed and desperate argument.
First, all the passages that deal explicitly with the assembly speak in terms of edification of the members or visiting unbelievers.
Second, if God only listens to our hearts, why sing at all? Why not do, as Zwingli’s followers, that is, “sing” silently? Why sing harmony? Why have a song leader? Why print notes? Why not just read the text in unison? If God doesn’t care about whether we hit the notes, why say “sing” rather than “recite”?
Just so, if the quality of our singing doesn’t matter, why worry about the quality of the preacher? Why not use good-hearted men who can’t speak well? Doesn’t God judge his heart only?
Laymond,
God can kill people and not sin. Does that mean we should destroy cities, even civilizations?
We are not God. We are not Jesus.
And I find no evidence that Jesus destroyed any property in the text.
(Mat 21:12 ESV) 12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
(Mar 11:15-16 ESV) 15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.
(Joh 2:15-16 ESV) 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”
Not quite the same thing as stealing a melodeon at night and then vandalizing it.
Bruce,
What you repeatedly ignore is the fact that I’ve posted literally hundreds of pages answering your question on baptism already. And I’ve responded to your earlier comments with links to many of them.
Final point: I’m not interested in discussing baptism with you at this time. I’ve spent months on the topic this year already — in which your question was answered in great detail. I have nothing to add what was already posted. And my mind will not be changed by insults.
Bruce;
I have noticed your continuing desire for Jay to allow you to communicate your views on baptism. Your comments led me to re-read Jay’s book “Born of water” to see if I could locate any place that the subject was not covered fully. I was impressed that I could not find a thought that I had ever encountered that was not discussed. But, you surely must have some thoughts that you feel are important that could change the minds of those that believe what Jay has identified as Bible truth on that subject. I am interested that you feel the points that you may make could make a difference and therefore if you will re-read Born of water and send me the information that you disagree with I will be glad to respond to you privately with what I can find within scripture that approves or disapproves your thoughts. My email [email protected]
Jay:
My post here was NOT about baptism. It was about the subject of this webchain. It is about Ephesians 5 (my “obsession,” per you) and a comment you made about unity, congregational song, and churches of Christ. Your previous comment disappointed greatly, partly because it clashed with Paul’s teaching… and with clear exegetical findings noted in the very article you highlighted months ago. And yet you avoided discussing and instead turned the discussion back to me. In a word that is exactly the kind of conduct that wears away efforts at unity.
Note: I will take up baptism in a future post by you. (And no you have not answered my question in your writings. I know you keep saying you have, but you have NEVER answered one simple question on the subject. And I have read your writings carefully. Alexander has drawn the same conclusion, so it is not just me.)
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Larry:
Thank you for your post. Glad to discuss with you.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Grizz:
I appreciated your post. You speak with consistent kindness. I think my new post answers the question you asked me. But also glad to discuss further with you at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink net.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I’m lost. I have no idea what question you’re asking me to answer.
Jay,
I think if you look at my post closely you will see what is on my mind. I was not asking you a question here as much as I was urging you to rethink a conclusion you had reached — and strongly expressed — about unity and congregational song — in light of Stephen Guthrie’s good article (and that is why I highlighted). I was not trying to “insult,” just urge you to reconsider what you wrote.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce —
Are you still requesting that Jay answer whether baptism is an act of grace or a work? I too am trying to follow this thread and am having trouble tracking with your thoughts.
JMF:
No! Please note my 9:25 am post; NONE of my posts in this webchain have been about baptism. And I am NOT asking Jay to answer the question I have posed to him. My posts above all are about instrumental music and unity (and all of this is because I think Jay scanned what I wrote and thought he knew what I was discussing.). I know it happens, especially in a day of “texting,” lol, and ttyl.
Okay, I hope that clarifies.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay, I do believe Br. Morton could be referring to ,all your post that emphasize Love,
forgiveness, and mercy, and then you turn and place a “horsewhipping ” on Br. Hibler.
This could give the notion that your mercy only applies to those who agree with you.
Jay, I am not Br. Morton’s spokes person, but that is what I got out of your post.
I didn’t see much love or mercy there.
To me this started out wrong. It was a group that asked one preacher, and this one preacher was indifferent on the matter. He should have discussed it with the elders in the first place instead of simply allowing it.
This is – at least to me – a symptom of the unhealthy “preaching-minister-system”. Because the preacher is always viewed more or less like a pastor and chief authority in the church, while the board of elders are something like administrators. So from the perspective of “these little ones” (who are the least to blame in the story), they went to the person who seemed to be the one who decides; yet the preacher should have known better.
No, Adam Hibler and Reuben did not act Christlike at all – but I sense a level of frustration here: It was settled and decided before there was unanimity in the church, and without including the elders in the matter.
For me this is another example for the historic pattern: Introducing IM almost always causes division and enmity. And of course it is easy to point your finger at Adam Hibler, because he did something obviously wrong – but it started with Pinkerton. Any Lawyer, Jay, should be able to discern between action and reaction, the cause of a crime and the crime itself.
Alexander
Laymond,
Jay suggested that Br Howard was correct (more scriptural) to approach the issue by asking the questions he did … and going further to suggest that such questions should be asked of BOTH sides of the question. How much more loving and merciful could it be to suggest that dialogue and consummate love be shown by considering one another as equals in regard to responsibility and considering the other side better than yourself when you answer those questions for yourself? BOTH sides should have sought one another out to settle the matter. BOTH sides should have avoided the indefensible actions taken by Br Hibler under cover of darkness and in violation of even worldly standards of respect for one another. BOTH sides should have been shamed by their part in escalating the matter. And ultimately, BOTH sides were guilty of unbrotherly conduct.
We have such a bias towards democratic resolution of conflicts that we seem to have forgotten altogether the admonitions of Matthew 18:15-20. Where does Jesus teach us to “take a vote to decide the matter”? Where does Jesus teach us that the majority “rules” the minority in such matters? And where does Jesus allow EITHER side to expect the other side to seek loving resolution unilaterally? Following Jesus’ teaching, BOTH sides should have been seeking one another so that they met one another on the way to seeking each other out to settle the matter in which each could be said to have “held something against” the other. Indeed, it could be said that if both were aware of the issue with the other (as in the above case) and only one party was seeking to find the other to resolve things, then the seeking party would be walking WITH Jesus and the other party would be found to be refusing to walk WITH Jesus. To walk WITH Jesus in such a matter REQUIRES seeking out the other party – for ALL involved. Neither party is excused from this teaching.
For your consideration,
Grizz
Grizz,
Thanks. I would add that I quoted a conservative preacher as having the heart of Jesus on this question.