Would the instrumental churches impose the instrument on the rest?
Boles continues his arguments —
The other alternative that many took, and still advocate, is to place the organ in the “area of silence” or in the field of expediency. But if there is no stronger reason for using the instrument than the opinions and judgments of men, it is sinful to force the use of the instrument in worshiping upon God’s people.
Even today, there remains a carefully cultivated resentment against 19th Century instrumental churches that forced their members to either sing with an instrument or change congregations. But those fights are over 100 years old today. They were decades old in Boles’ day (future post coming with more detail). No one at that unity meeting was seeking to impose instrumental music on anyone. The goal was for the a cappella churches to accept instrumental congregations as sister churches, not to force unity of worship styles.
To my knowledge, today, every Church of Christ that has adopted the instrument has retained a separate a cappella service. That’s certainly true of The Hills Church of Christ (formerly Richland Hills Church of Christ) and many others I’m familiar with.
I agree that we should not force the instrument on people against their consciences. That would violate Romans 14. But neither should the a cappella-only Christians refuse to fellowship those who accept the instrument. That violates Romans 14, too.
If it is placed in the field of opinion and judgment of men, not only may it be abandoned, but should be, for it invades the realm of divine revelation. God’s children, to be loyal to his word, must oppose the use of the instrument in the worship.
Huh? On the same theory, we would have to abandon multiple cups and Sunday schools and located preachers, as all are matters of opinion and judgment and all may be abandoned in the discretion of a given, autonomous congregation. To argue that a matter of expedience is necessarily forbidden is ludicrous.
Those who use the organ in worship make it “a test of fellowship”; they sustain the attitude that if you do not submit to the use of the instrument in worship, then you can have no fellowship with us.
If Boles is right that the instrumental churches made the instrument a test of fellowship, he has a legitimate complaint, but he is reading his own attitude into his opponents. The unity meetings were founded by James DeForest Murch and Claude E. Witty. They proposed a five-point for re-unification:
1. Prayer. …
2. Survey. Seeking to determine how much we have in common in faith and practice.
3. Friendliness. Establishing individual friendly relations by exchange of fraternal courtesies and through fellowship meetings.
4. Co-operation. Joint activity in enterprises which will not do violence to personal or group convictions.
5. Study and Discussion. Open-minded study and humble discussion of the things which at present divide us, in order to discover the way to complete and permanent unity.
From the proposal for the 1937 unity meeting, quoted by James DeForest Murch in Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement, 274-275 (a truly excellent history by a man who helped lead the unity efforts). It’s obvious that the unity meetings weren’t designed to force the a cappella churches to adopt the instrument.
He is honest enough to admit that many consider the instrument theologically neutral, and this forces him to make a badly strained argument that it’s still wrong, even if an expedient (which by definition is neither right nor wrong) because the instrumentalists wish to force the a cappella churches to adopt the instrument. It’s entirely circular, avoiding the difficult case of a desire to be in fellowship despite the disagreement.
Indeed, it’s a common tactic in these discussions to impute evil motives to the instrumentalists, to avoid having to deal with the more difficult case of people who just want to be in loving fellowship with fellow believers and who just, plain honestly disagree. It’s astonishing how many bulletins are filled with stories of evil perpetrated by the instrumentalists in the 19th Century, as though by holdings grudges for over a century, we can forever treat these people as wicked.
But I’ve read the histories, and there’s enough pettiness, wickedness, and sin to go around. Both sides did some shameful, unloving things. And those people are all dead and judged by their Maker. It’s strange to imagine that we should separate fellowship over sins committed by our great-great grandfathers. It’s time to talk to the people who are alive today.
Continuing with Boles’ speech —
A denial of making it “a test of fellowship” does not change the logic of the situation; neither does the charge that those who oppose the use of the instrument in worship are disturbers of the peace and unity of God’s people make it true; the charge is not a proof of the fact.
But he just argued that it’s wrong to unify because the instrumentalists want to impose it. If they don’t want to impose it, of course that changes “the logic of the situation”! But Boles is unwilling to believe the word of the instrumentalists. It’s not good enough that they now say it’s not a test of fellowship! No, Boles will impute to them whatever motives are necessary to keep the branches divided.
Those who oppose the use of the instrument in worship are walking by faith in opposing it, but those who introduce it are making it “the test of fellowship.”
Not so! Perhaps there were some who felt this way, but that has never been the uniform view of the instrumental congregations, and I doubt that it was ever close to a majority view. It’s certainly not their view today! And yet many continue to insist that Boles’ arguments demonstrate why fellowship with the instrumental churches is impossible.
(Lev 19:17-18 ESV) 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”
The desire of many in the right-wing of the Churches of Christ to continually bring up old battles from long ago is petty and un-Christian. (For another example, see the recent discussion in the comments here.) Rather than stereotyping and imputing false motives to our opponents, we should have the courage to deal frankly — honestly — with them. It’s time to let God judge the dead and deal honestly with our living neighbors.
I pray that our other church publications never again publish an article rehearsing the 19th Century sins of the instrumental churches as though they somehow blacken the souls of their great-great-grandchildren. It’s wrong.
(Eze 18:20 ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
[to be continued]
It’s hard to believe that this controversy of IM has lasted so long and allowed by good men to so radically divide…
The instrument is indeed theologically neutral. It is also neutral in all other respects. Without a human actuator it makes no sound (under normal circumstances). The problem is not, and never was, the instrument…
This sort of reasoning could not only be applied to cups and preachers and kitchens etc., but also to pews and hymnals and electric lights and air conditioning and church buildings. In simple form, here the person who is offended by the most things makes the rules. Since we cannot know another man’s conscience, we can be –and have been– manipulated by anyone who is strong-willed. To these folks, unity is everybody doing things my way– for my way alone is truly God’s way. This is not a biblical idea, it is merely American, where the rights of the individual are our paramount virtue.
But this is not about unity, and never has been. It is simply human control. And for us to reject such control is not to “force” IM or flourescent light or Powerpoint or anything else upon a brother. In fact, that brother has already making his choice of fellowship based on how the group’s practice satisfies his view. So how wrong is it to allow him to continue to do so?
I appreciate this request to let the 19th century arguments die. Only way I know to do this effectively is to refuse to continue to address them. That’s not easy to do.
AH !!
it is a convoluted mess of misapplied concepts, men coming
out of perceived error that started in the 1500″s formulated a manner in which to realize true worship.
and the momentum of emotional passion to rightly divide and build lords again took on a life and manner of debate among those that could READ.
think on that one a bit!!!
by the time 1830s hit the seine the formulation had been refined and defined ,almost to an algebraic equation!!!
hence CENI…
THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE BECAME SO REFINED, that most all of the grand theologians wound up in a continual, position of defending their position….and refining the position,to the point of citing a Greek grammarian
to be sure this over the years caught on.
in the form of feeding the sheep the right good and scriptural way to approach the father.
the only
LITTLE BIT THAT WAS LACKING WAS ” UNITY” at the expense of EVERYONE DOING CHURCH…..” my way”….’the right way’….
which always resulted in a traditional point of view of
what john mark hicks would as the Pharisees enacted rules for the the day of rest…THAT GOD NEVER INTENDED…
OR CALLED” FENCE SETTING”
AND SO.
MY BROTHERS ALL
OUR TRADITIONS MAKE “US” FENCE SITTERS!
JUST LIKE THE LORD CALLED THE Pharisees children of who was that now?????
blessings
rich
all of
I was born in 1943, most of the IM battle must have been fought by then because I remember the two sides were well established within their respective battle lines as far as I could determine. I was born into the Independent Christian Church family and what I recall from within my ranks was an honest desire for fellowship with our non-IM brothers and sisters. Quite frankly, I couldn’t understand why a piano or an organ could keep two groups of people with so much in common apart. Of course, it wasn’t until I began worshipping with the “enemy” that I discovered that the real battle was over more than a piano or an organ. But, what I remember most was the conflict between the Independent Christian Church and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). That conflict was discussed more than the conflict with the non-IM Church of Christ. The IM Independent Christian Church was much more concerned about keeping local autonomy than about pianos and organs.
I really don’t know anything about forcing people to choose to worship using IM but in those days I suspect there were few Churches who had multiple worship services and so when IM was used for a single worship service, it was the ONLY worship service, so the whole Church used IM. I imagine we today over think what the reasons and rationales were for the use of IM in the Church in those days.
I do know this though, I never sensed any anger or hostility toward the non-IM Church of Christ while in the Independent Christian Church. I grew up thinking it odd that we didn’t have fellowship with each other and that surely one day we would have fellowship. Of course, I didn’t realize then that the non-IM CHurch of Christ didn’t have total fellowship with itself either. In many ways, I now realize that fellowship between the IM Independent Christian Church and the progressive non-IM Church of Christ may come before the non-IM Church of Christ has fellowship with itself. That’s kind of wierd, don’t you think?
Great discussion going on here. Doug you may very well be right about fellowship growing between the Independent Christian church and the Non instrumental progressive movement. Seems more and more people are recogniszing Instruments as a non issue, and certainly not important enough to distract from the real mission and vision of the church. Amazing how the early restorationist leaders were behind in the merging of many of the members who were coming into contact with each other and finding out they had so much in common. Eventually Campbell and Stone ‘joined in’ and unity blossomed. Maybe the church will once again, be the movement that shakes America as before.
Jack, you just have to wonder how great the impact would be… from time immortal it seems there has been some cause that posits us versus them… from Jews/Samaritans, Romans/Christians, Black/White, Republican/Democrat…. I wonder what the world would look like if the churches unchained the doors and decided to unite under the One Banner…
I realize that part of the issue here is that over long periods of time many people have become accustomed to instrumentation… and may now feel like they cannot worship without it. But I have to wonder just what would happen in congregations with it if they decided one morning to do what the Fiji Islanders do in churches of all names: sing together (no instruments) as an expression of congregational unity? What would people feel? What would happen were they more aware of the working of the Spirit through their song, per Paul (Eph. 5)?
The Fiji Islands’ example is a powerful one. And in a weblog like One in Jesus that is focused on the work of the Spirit and a striving for unity, I continue to find it interesting that so many who contribute seem to avoid talking about and reflecting on what the Fiji Islanders have embraced — and much of America has thrown away….
And lest you think I speak “at a distance,” you should know that I have indeed joined churches of Christ with both assemblies and seen the differences for myself. It is a remarkable difference. Anyone want to ask me just what the instrumental assembly was like? (And why some in the congregation who “voted for it” now regret their decision…. They told me so.).
But then there are a host of one-another teachings that folks have a hard time hearing; singing to one-another is but one of the collection.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Yes, Bruce, I’d like to know your opinion on instrumental worship vs. non-instrumental worship so I can then take that opinion as my own. 🙂
Are you actually serious?! You have “…seen the differences yourself. It is a remarkable difference”?! Do you really expect to throw out a blatant opinion and have it go unchallenged as though it were fact?!
…And just because someone at another church “regretted their decision” to vote for IM we are supposed to rally against it, too?
Anecdotal evidence based in opinion is perfectly fine, but it sure isn’t something I need to frame my doctrine.
Please, respect the commenters here a bit more.
“seen the differences for myself”… Bruce Morton 12/13/2011.
Bruce, surely you don’t think that you are the only one who experiences IM worship, do you? I go from IM worship to non-IM worship several times a year and this is what I have noticed. Some non-IM worship, especially in the smaller Churches, is truly awful. In fact, it was so awful that it was distruptive to at least one worshipper (who happened to be me). Other non-IM worship is very conducive to worship, more so than the IM worship that I also experience. This is true at the church where I currently have my membership. BUT, this is only the case when our regular song lead is present. When he is absent, the Worship experience is not as conducive to worship. Still okay but not more so than the IM-worship that I experience. I would say that when non-IM is done well, it is preferable but when it is done lousy… the voices can use the assistance of some instruments and the whole worship experience is enhanced. This is only from a musical point of view, of course.
As for the “regret” thing. I fail to see why anyone would have a valid reason for regret if they have a choice on IM or non-IM worship. You can explain that to us if you wish.
It is not likely that a person who believes honestly and wholeheartedly that IM is against the will of God would be able to embrace and wholeheartedly participate in worship where instruments were used. Thus, a critique coming from that person about the quality of the IM service would not likely be taken very seriously.
“I really dislike brussels sprouts. Always have. I ate two meals yesterday, one serving brussels sprouts and one which did not serve brussels sprouts. Anybody want to know which meal was better?” ;^)
Try it this way: Maybe God would not make a big deal of it, although He has a will in this matter. There are weightier matters than these. I do believe AC is in line with the big picture of the transition from the old to the new covenant. Therefore using IM MISSES THE POINT without being an actual sin (if done naively). God would most like not withdraw His blessings from His children because of that.
Therefore we MUST NOT withdraw our love and fellowship because of IM.
Having said that, there is still a right or wrong in this matter. A better or worse. A more or less fitting way. It should be our desire to search diligently for the best way to worship God.
And we should be aware, that our flesh and preferences have loud voices. Our carnal tendencies to go with the flow of the world need to be watched. As I have observed, the IM debate almost NEVER centers on allowing a piano in worship, but about introducing a worship band and CCM. This is a completely different topic that is interwoven here and can hardly be separated. I have no bone to pick with a humble piano, but a lot to say against imitating the world and call this show “worship”.
Again, God can live with such misunderstandings – He also had a lot of patience with all the 7 churches in Asia Minor. But just because God still viewed Laodicea as HIS church (which means: WE MUST NOT WITHDRAW FELLOWSHIP FROM LAODICEA, EITHER!) does not mean that everything they did is commendable, is it?
So we can fellwoship with IMers without having to agree on IM.
Alexander
Alexander… if the CoC did as you suggested it would require wholesale change. It appears to be happening but I’m hopeful that more will embrace your suggestion… As Al Maxey says, “we don’t have to be twins to be brothers.”
Alexander, I would say that I listen to CCM like I eat fish. That is, I eat the meat and throw away the bones. Not all CCM should be used for worship and that is a mistake that some worship leaders make as they just try to play the latest top 10 CCM hits. But, some CCM is prettty good with nice melodies and meaningful lyrics. You just can’t pronouce that a worship band and CCM automatically equals worldly music and has no place in church worship unless you have a bias leaning against IM and CCM. I have seen both IM and non-IM transport people into a place of Godly Worship that they wouldn’t have reached otherwise. I do believe that non-IM permits the worshippers to interact with each other more capably but that is just my opinion and another Christian may feel eaxctly the opposite. We need to permit this sort of difference if unity is to be facilitated and the Church is to really be the Church. . We are not called to be carbon copies of each other but to be the hands and feet and ears and yes… vocal cords of the Church. Not everyone has the gift of good vocal cords but those that do are blessed as are the hands and feet and ears people.
Indeed, the real argument is often about musical style. This is not limited to the CoC, but is an issue in many groups. Folks who have had a piano and organ for 100 years blanch at a drum kit. We need to realize that this is mainly about style, not spirit. A wrong spirit can readily appear in every form known to man.
One of the issues is expressed by using the pejorative term “entertainment”, and seems to refer mostly to musical complexity, or to people (God forbid) enjoying it too much to suit us. The humble piano is okay, the bass and synthesizer are ungodly. Guitar is okay, so long as it is an acoustic guitar. No Les Paul or Rickenbacker players need apply. These rules are entirely arbitrary, no matter how many weighty adjectives we toss in or how much we try to correlate certain instrumentation to certain things in the world. I would observe that at this time of year, a number of my CoC friends find themselves in secular or ecumenical choruses, singing Handel’s “Messiah”. Beautiful! And inarguably worshipful! And complex! And enjoyable! The one place it is unwelcome is at church…
Sadly, worship music that is too complex or loud or beautiful or enjoyable is somehow being deemed by some to be unsuitable for the believer to share in a “worship service”. This while even the heathen listen to it and hear its message. What matter if the composer is Handel or Switchfoot when the chorus proclaims, “Hallelujah! For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth! And He shall reign forever and ever!”
Every generation likes its own music. Would that we could understand that much of the sturm und drang on this whole subject is precious little more than that. Unfortunately, we have developed the nasty habit of signing God’s name to our preferences and traditions, thus turning them from mere differences into division.
Hey, if you know somebody that would like to listen to a great Christmas program go here…
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmediasuite.streamingfaith.com%2FplayerJS.php%3Fp%3Dmj3d7nkr&h=aAQFX1NDoAQFwfIEy0Ke9g4OinaeVUOa1L47qsqK8EUfhKQ
at 1:30:45 is Have You Heard (Acapella) and at 1:55:00 is the best Little Drummer Boy you’ve ever listened to…
Enjoy… It’s my church so I’m proud of the effort they put forth…
JMF:
I was hoping folks would take my note and respond with genuine interest — or say nothing, especially nothing that seems to have the goal of poking “fun” (which I know is a widespread action in our time). No, sarcasm is not my idea of expressing Christian love.
Moving on….
I hope you and others think about the example of the Fiji Islands. I will be glad to provide the citation if an interest. The sociologist who documented the purpose of their acappella song did not do so in a Restoration Movement journal. Her observations focused on what song accomplishes in terms of promoting unity. And it is an insightful article. Same theme as Guthrie brings out in the article Jay and I have cited previously in a focus on Ephesians 5.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Doug:
There is a lot here in terms of why the “regret” by some. I gathered there is a feeling that unity is breaking down. Many just listening to the band and the praise team; treating the assembly like a concert. And the ones singing sometimes feel isolated. I know I did. I eventually looked around and saw no one singing within forty feet of me. One of the most isolating assemblies I have been part of. Was the music pretty? Absolutely. But I continued to think while I was there about the uniqueness of a congregational assembly — and what it can accomplish when we give up a this-world focus.
This is exactly the message of Fiji Island churches (of every name). And exactly what Paul is urging in Ephesians 5.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
“The desire of many in the right-wing of the Churches of Christ to continually bring up old battles from long ago is petty and un-Christian.”
I am puzzled then as to why we are bringing up old battles from Boles and others of his time. Brother Boles is not here to comment and clarify his statements. Hence, it seems rather un-Christian to argue against his writing.
I think the reason we keep bringing up the old past is to show that so much of what we have taught is not from the scriptures, but from man.
Most members of the churches of Christ have no idea of our history as it is not taught at all in the conservative churches.
When something they said long ago does cone up that differs with what is being taught now, we are reminded that we are to study to show ourselves approved and we have studied far past the old folks to our position today.
We can never have UNITY unless all sides want it and we are now split 25 or more different ways.
Returning to the old paths when there was unity, or at least far more than today, is our only way.
Dwayne,
Did you miss the following at the very beginning of part 1 in this series?
The fact that Boles’ speech is being touted as “The best position on this issue [inclusion of instrumental congregations in the Churches of Christ]” makes discussion of this speech from 72 years ago very relevant to us today. Let those who are promoting this philosophy today defend it in brother Boles’ absence.
The link to part 1 of this series is /2011/12/the-fork-in-the-road-the-way-of-unity-between-christian-churches-and-churches-of-christ/#more-16390.
Jerry,
I had read part 1 of the series. I am still puzzled as to why we would bring up a 70-year0-old speech by someone who is long departed. To me at least, it would be more positive to discuss the subject with G.A. Tidwell.
WE CAN’T EVEN agree on what Eph. 2:1-8 is saying about god’s grace through faith…
which i read Christ’s faith…
or the trinity’s act of overcoming the death for the restoration of all things…
Returning to the old paths when there was unity, or at least far more than today, is our only way.
>>>
AJ, I’m not sure when this was. Jewish believers were setting themselves apart from Gentiles early on. So we have to go back farther than that, at least. Hopefully not back to the part where one of eleven did not buy into the resurrection, or to the time when ten of twelve got put out with two who seemed to be jockeying for top positions. Or to the place where we were telling slaveholders how to manage their enslaved brothers. I simply have no confidence that there is some discernible “old path” to which we could return and find unity. Who would decide just what the appropriate “old path” consisted of? We have to walk in the light we have now, and be led by the Spirit.
“We can never have UNITY unless all sides want it and we are now split 25 or more different ways.”
That’s not a real “unity” that’s attainable. The truth is that those who want to be united in the Cross will find that unity. Those who want to advance and aggravate division and traditionalism will persist in their sin. Both will gain exactly what they seek, and at some point in God’s time, neither will have to be bothered by the other.
Dwayne… I understand your POV… However, if Brother Tidwell references a commentary by another person as a foundational platform for a current theological position, it seems only reasonable to take a Berean approach and examine the validity of the commentary for ourselves.. It seems Brother Tidwell has quite the influence within the CoC faith heritage and back in the day, many folks without the resources of a vast library, would take what he said at face value. Thanks to Jay, and the power of the internet, we can further examine the remarks of Boles to determine if it is indeed worthy of the credibility that Brother Tidwell gives it.. Not for the purpose of throwing stones as Brother Tidwell or one another…but to determine individually whether or not Brother Tidwell is making a sound argument by drawing on Boles… I see this differently than just opening up old wounds for the sake of causing angered debate.
Price,
Who said anything about ” throwing stones as Brother Tidwell or one another” or “opening up old wounds for the sake of causing angered debate.” ?
Back to my first comment, it seems to me that Jay is contradicting himself and that contradiction puzzles me. If you disagree with me, that is fine.
Dwayne…not suggesting that YOU would throw stones… Just saying that researching, examining and discussing the commentary on which a “leader” in the CoC draws his influential and publicized conclusion isn’t the same as just bringing up old arguments just to argue.. He’s the one that brought it up and made it relevant to a current theological position. If we are to accept Tidwell’s conclusion then we have agreed, knowingly or unknowingly with Boles. To do so without investigation seems careless…at least to me, and perhaps to me alone. Hope I didn’t unintentionally offend.. my apologies if I did.
Dwayne,
Greg Tidwell said that Boles’ paper represents his own position, and Greg — the editor of the Gospel Advocate — is a reader and very capable of defending his views.
Even if that were not true, it’s not remotely un-Christian to argue for or against the writings of the deceased. After all, we are all deeply influenced by our spiritual ancestors and need to discuss the Nicean Creed, the works of Luther, the writings of Campbell, etc.