I get emails —
From reading several of your posts, it seems that you have a flawed application and understanding of authority (especially in light of vocal music only). I will lay forth two basic arguments:
First, the Bible teaches us that we must “prove” what the will of God is and prove our practices by the word of God (1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 5:10; Rom. 12:2). I have not seen you deal with these verses. I can prove vocal music in worship to God, but I have yet to see anyone prove mechanical music to God under the NT. If a practice can’t be proven, then we can’t have permission to participate.
Second, when God specifies the type or kind of what He wants in a command, it eliminates all else. I agree with you that sometimes silence is permissible and sometimes it is prohibitive. The question is: “when?” When God uses general authority, it would authorizes all types or kind under the category (permissible), but when God uses specific authority, it authorizes only the specified type or kind in that category (prohibitive). From the commands, examples and koine Greek words used in the NT, God has communicated His will by using specific authority when it comes to our music in worship. He has communicated vocal music. Not only vocal, but vocal that teaches, speaks, admonishes, sings and makles melody (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Consider the act of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). The Bible nowhere condemns “sprinkling” or “pouring” explictly. However, would these be authorized and approved ways of having one’s sins cleansed? No. Why? Because God has used specific authority and has specified the mode of having one’s sins cleansed. Now, if God would have communicated through His word to “be cleansed in water” without telling us how, then we could have used sprinkling or pouring. It is the same with music. Had God simply said “make music” without telling us how and what kind, then mechanical would have been authorized.
We’ve covered the instrumental music controversy here many times, and I’m not interested in rehashing arguments already made over and over again. However, the first argument made by the reader is new to me, and so I figure it’s worth the time to prepare an honest response to an honest question. The second argument is one of several arguments often made in support of Zwingli’s Regulative Principle, has been dealt with many times here, but can be answered briefly.
Proving God’s will
Let’s consider the three verses referenced using a modern translation used by many conservative authors, the ESV —
(1Th 5:20-21 ESV) 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
(Eph 5:7-10 ESV) 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
(Rom 12:2 ESV) 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
All three verses use dokimazo in the Greek, translated “‘prove” in the KJV. The translators of the NET Bible comment as to Romans 12:2,
The verb translated test and approve (δοκιμάζω, dokimazo) carries the sense of “test with a positive outcome,” “test so as to approve.”
Hence, the thought isn’t that we are to prove God’s will in the sense of proving a mathematical theorem using syllogisms, but to consider God’s will and find ourselves in full approval. Paul’s thought is that our hearts should be attuned to God’s will so that we want to do what God wants.
In contemporary English, most of us use “prove” to mean to “demonstrate as true from agreed premises,” that is, we normally use the meaning of the word found in law, logic, or math. But the first definition given by Merriam Webster is —
to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of
And that’s the meaning of “prove” used in the King James and some other translations. But it’s not the conventional use of “prove” in contemporary, conversational American English.
Therefore, there is nothing in these verses that say “you must be able to demonstrate authority to use instruments from the text.” Rather, the texts say we should test everything against God’s will. Amen.
They were written long before much of the New Testament was written. 1 Thessalonians may well be the first book of the New Testament written! They obviously aren’t referring to the New Testament as the source of God’s will.
Romans 12:2 tells us to test and approve God’s will by being transformed by the renewal of our minds. This is actually a reference back to Paul’s discussion of the Spirit in Romans 7 and 8. Paul’s only other use of “transformed” is found in —
(2Co 3:18 ESV) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
It’s the Spirit that transforms our minds so that we become more and more recreated in the image of Christ. You can see, Paul is a long way from urging us to write theorems based on silences and scattered verses. He’s telling us to let God work on our hearts and minds (Heb. 8!) so that we can recognize God’s will as good.
Now, I certainly do agree that the primary source of God’s will is the Scriptures. But the Scriptures shouldn’t be read like the United States Code — as a book of laws. Indeed, the commands that are given the greatest prominence are “love God” and “love your neighbor.” And these commands frame all the other commands and guide us where we lack specific direction. I don’t need a verse to authorize me to help someone in trouble. I just need to love them.
And this is a huge portion of God’s work within us. He changes our hearts to love, and so we do what needs to be done rather than looking for a theorem based on the Scriptures to excuse our failure to do so.
The Christian who honors Romans 12:2, therefore, doesn’t need to find a verse authorizing worship. He worships because his heart has been transformed to a heart that wants to worship. (Why do I need authority to worship with a guitar but don’t need authority to play golf? To buy a TV? To establish an orphans home?)
I realize that this is not the normal Church of Christ way of discussing Bible verses, but normal is wrong. We have to read with eyes that come only by the Spirit.
(1Co 2:14 ESV) 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Silences
This brings us to the question of authority. Here’s the flaw. If God says build the ark with gopher wood, and I use pine, I’ve violated God’s command. There’s no question of silence. I disobeyed.
However, if God says build the ark with gopher wood, and I furnish the ark with birch furniture, well, God was silent about the furniture. Does that mean that I can’t install furniture at all? What about shovels, rakes, and brooms? Can I make the handles out of hickory? God didn’t say. Maybe I have to rake the straw and shovel the animal feed by hand since God didn’t authorize tools?
For that matter, God was silent about food. Was Noah authorized to put food for his family and the animals on the ark?
Well, there’s obviously a world of difference between violating a command and using good judgment as to how to best honor a command without violating the command. We’re taught to sing. Good. But there’s no authority for a song leader, a church building, pews, etc. Well, we respond, these are “aids” but not “additions.” But, of course, all aids are, in reality, additions. They are things added. We use our judgment. Fine. Why can’t we use our judgment to add a guitar? It no more prevents us from singing than the pews.
The question that matters, therefore, is not whether we are adding or aiding or whatever. It is, rather, are we keeping God’s commands? And if we sing with a guitar, we are most certainly keeping his command to sing. And if Noah brought along a shovel, a rake, or a stool to sit on, he’d still have made the ark of gopher wood.
C’mon Jay, you’re getting sloppy. God WAS NOT silent regarding food on the Ark:
Genesis 6:21 “Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them.” 🙂
Jay,
It seems to me that the questions raised and answered in this post only require a bit of common sense. It doesn’t take a Bible degree or years of study to know the truth about this issue.
It is a foolish and illogical position to think that if sister Jones is singing at church this morning (along with the congregation of course :)), and on the second verse someone starts playing an instrument that even though the same sounds are coming from sister Jones’ vocal chords as on the first verse, now she is not “singing”. What??
That is the flawed logic of some people who come to the Bible with their minds made up and selfishly use the Bible in an attempt to prop up what they have already decided. If we want to know truth we must come to the Bible with an open heart, and an open mind, wanting to know truth even if it is the opposite of what we have been taught. The Word of God, not church tradition, must be the final authority for both faith and practice.
When deaf congregations sing silently using with hand signs, is it music or singing or something foreign (not scriptural) and not authorized?
I thank God for men and websites like you and yours – a voice crying reason and relationship instead of legalism. My journey out of legalism will take the rest of my life, and I glory in the patience and love of God that He is opening my eyes. He is so good. No amount of acapella singing, or any other physical act will ever make me deserve His grace, nor will it bring me into a loving relationship with my Creator. It’s not about what we do, it’s about who we are, and in Whom we place our love and trust.
One point #1: I wonder how many preachers are still using those “Read Your Bible” sermons which begin with, “Study to show thyself approved unto God…” Some things are just too good to let go, even after we find out we misunderstood them. This is my favorite apple tree and I will continue to eat apples from it even after the county extension agent shows me that it’s really a pear tree.
Point #1 also leaves out the object of such “proving” as is being demanded. To whom are we to “prove” our doctrinal positions? To God, perhaps? Or mainly just to the Baptists?
On Point #2: Hank’s right about the food; Jay is right about the manure shovels.
The regulative principle’s essential error is that it takes non-exclusive language and changes it into exclusive language, with no basis except that this mechanism makes for nice clear law. Or maybe it doesn’t.
Paul tells Timothy to take wine for stomach trouble and for his “frequent illnesses”. Here, God has prescribed a single treatment for stomach trouble and frequent illness. Thus is prohibited a large catalog of things practiced by the brethren, from taking Pepto-Bismol to having cancer surgery. Oh, and woe be unto the man who has a belly-ache and does NOT drink any wine, as he also violates this command.
And woe be unto the congregation who finds a member’s family in need and passes the hat for them on Monday. God insists that any such collection be put off until the following Sunday. If they get evicted on Wednesday, well, “we would obey God rather than men”.
I don’t mind other folks living according to the regulative principle, as long as they actually DO it, and stop condemning others for breaching the principle in one spot while they breach it in another.
Using pine versus gopher wood isn’t a practical application of silence determining the decision…it is a application of specificity… If God commands a certain thing He is being specific. …If He is silent on something He isn’t being specific..intentionally it seems… Who are we to put words in God’s mouth?
E-Mail wrote:
First, the Bible teaches us that we must “prove” what the will of God is and prove our practices by the word of God (1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 5:10; Rom. 12:2). I have not seen you deal with these verses. I can prove vocal music in worship to God, but I have yet to see anyone prove mechanical music to God under the NT. If a practice can’t be proven, then we can’t have permission to participate.
Ed replies:
I need to witness that Psalm 150 on ways to praise the Lord has been revoked in the new teatament.
I am still waiting for consistent logic from those who say adding to God’s commands is a sin. If adding one thing is wrong then adding anything is wrong. There can be no logical excuse for our “expedients” and “aids.” This is especially so when we realize that so many of our”aids” are necessary or “expedient” because we are doing church in ways that are far removed from Apostolic practice in the first place. Be honest – if we are still meeting in home according to the approved example of the apostles then we don’t need pews. Folks it is flat out ludicrous to oppose a guitar which is unauthorized while assembling in a building which is equally unauthorized. And if we are going to discuss which is actually an expedient I think every elder will confess how the need to maintain the building or resolve disputes concerning the building distract and endanger the unity of the Body.
Your email correspondent wrote:
Where has God communicated vocal music? You would probably say that it is in a group of passages where various words are translated sing. This would likely include Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. In each of these the koine Greek word used is ᾄδω (ado). The same word appears three other times in the New Testament, also translated sing each time. Those three are Rev 5:9, Rev 14:3, and Rev 15:3. All five times ado translates as sing.
The e-mailer states that this is specific authority for vocal music – and that such specific authority excludes any other kind of music in worship.
This assumes what is to be proven, and which the five uses of ado in the New Testament deny – for in three of these instances, namely the three in Revelation, the verse immediately preceding the verse where ado appears introduces harps as follows:
Now, the meaning of a word can only be determined by the way it is used. Three of the five instances of ado in the New Testament occur with harps. Granted, in two of these the singers are holding the harps with nothing specifically saying they were playing the harps. In the other instance John heard a sound like the sound of harpers playing on their harps – but he says nothing about anyone actually playing the harps or even that anyone actually had harps. Of course, that instance involved a multitude of singers, so John just may not have been able to see the harpists.
Now, what stretch of logic can say that ado, which does mean to sing, means to sing without instrumental accompaniment? I say again, the e-mailer has assumed what he needs to prove. Ado, while it does mean “sing” cannot be stretched to mean “sing unaccompanied.” The word itself says nothing about whether the singing is accompanied or not. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn’t. To say otherwise is to go beyond the meaning of the word itself.
Note: do not try to escape the meaning of the word by talking about incense or Revelation being symbolic. Even in symbolic language, words still have common meanings unless the context shows otherwise. This is simply an attempt to show that at least this New Testament koine Greek word can include singing that is accompanied. To say otherwise is to deny the evidence, not of secular writing (which is the usual way lexicographers determine meanings), but of the use of the word in the New Testament itself.
Ed, Psalm 150 has been removed from the LLV (Loose Leaf Version) Bible, along with large swaths of everything left of Matthew, as well as select portions of I Corinthians and the Gospels. But, not to worry, other pages have been inserted in their stead, covering a variety of topics neglected by earlier contributors.
There is one thing that is certain, both sides come to the Bible to prove their own position. Both set in their mind that their position must be the one that the Bible affirms, and therefore use scripture to prove it. Any hermeneutic can be adapted to fit any position. In some cases it falls flat, in other cases both positions can both be defended very well. There is one principle that guides everything, and that is the Law of Excluded middle. Either it is or it isn’t. There is no room for neutrality or gray areas. Either God meant for instruments to be used in worship or he didn’t. I have often wondered where the discussion for instruments leads. There is an unbalance there too. If not a guitar, why not a piano, then why not drums, or a full band, and on and on it goes. You could then make additions or aids, or whatever you want to call them ad infinitum. Carry that discussion a bit further to other areas. Why not praise dancing? Or anything else that would be acceptable. Yes I am carrying this to the extreme, perhaps it even sounds ridiculous. However, how would you make the argument that that would be too much? If God so moves your heart to do so, who can argue? So then any and all sorts of worship would be acceptable to God as long as the heart and conscience of the individual was clear, and pointed to God. Let us continue into the realm of absurdity and even include those who handle snakes in worship. Can anyone doubt their sincerity or devotion? I would never consider picking up a rattlesnake and dancing around with it. Yet these people do it in full belief that they are acceptable to God, and that it is even commanded in the scripture. Could you say that form of worship is obviously not acceptable? They also have tested the scripture for themselves and decided to dance with snakes. But then again we remember that that is just a ridiculous example and doesn’t really apply. I think we would all recognize one thing, there is a point that an addition is sinful because it goes against the will of God. Sadly I do not believe either side will ever be convinced. Both truly believe that they have the truth, and that the other stands in error. Now there has been a middle ground that has been attempted. It says that whatever you agree to do is okay, but that harkens back to my previous statement of where does that end? I have heard those say that God would want them to be happy in worship, and that must include instruments in their worship to be happy. Why in the world is such a push being made to get instrumental music into the church? It is not because God wants music, or because the Bible allows for music, or because we are left with the freedom to choose. It is because the churches of christ want to compete with the denominations for numbers. They are gaining thousands with contemporary worship that dazzles and amazes. I’ll be honest it is hard not to be swept away in it. We want to be entertained, no two ways about. We want church to be more entertaining so that people will come in. Church must be transformed from its boring state into something exciting. We must make the church over in the image of the world, because if the church looks like the world then the world will flock to it right? That is where grace comes in I suppose. If small exceptions are made it is okay because grace covers it. If there are some things done that may be questionable, just chalk it up to tradition and move on. God is a god of love after all right? He would never condemn his people for worshiping him, or doing something they honestly thought was right.
Joshua,
“Excluded middle”? That’s a new one for me, but I don’t get out much.
It must black of white? You said ” Either God meant for instruments to be used in worship or he didn’t.” How can you be so sure? An option you evidently haven’t considered is that it could very well be God doesn’t care. I know its a Mount Everest issue for many people but I can’t help but wonder why it didn’t rate even one mention by God when he inspired the writing of the New Testament.
Isn’t it likely that God is far more concerned about the condition of our hearts? You don’t suppose that a person whose heart is focused on Jesus as he or she sings while accompanied by an instrument could possibly please God just as much as another singing without any accompaniment?
My guess is that if you could find 20 very intelligent people who knew nothing about the A Capella vs instruments disagreement, and had them study both the OT and NT for 10 years not one of them would decide on his own that God forbids instruments in Christian assemblies, in a particular building, on the first day of the week. There is a reason, it isn’t in the Bible! Why not admit it is a rich tradition, we love it, we intend to do it, but please don’t tell anyone God demands it. Singing is singing with out without the aid of an instrument.
Joshua… you may be right, at least in your experience that people use the Bible to prove what they want to prove… At least for me, I didn’t come into the IM debate looking to prove a point at all…I was anxious to hear from everybody who was knowledgeable about the subject so that I could make up my own mind… From all the material submitted and discussed, I determined for myself that IM was permissible because A) it was originally introduce to worship by God Himself; B) it was allowed to be included by the Eph and Col passages using the common definitions of the words as understood by the readers to whom the passages were written; C) it was never excluded or restricted by scripture, and lastly; as many have plainly shown, it is in use in heaven where there is certainly no sin before God. Even if it was entirely symbolic, one can’t possibly convince me that God was using an evil symbolism to celebrate our Risen Savior… And, while we’re at it…Let ’em dance !! I can’t imagine that God would be mad at someone who was so thrilled by the concept of salvation that they danced before the Throne with heartfelt appreciation and celebration… Whoever decided to insist on “church” being boring needs to be taken off the committee… for no one would condemn a person for dancing for joy before the Lord on Saturday afternoon in the backyard so why would it be sinful in a designated building designed for worship? It would be nice to see people as truly appreciative of Jesus as Nick Saban… or Eli Manning… I mean, when the Roll is called up yonder it might be some folks from Alabama…
And actually Joshua I don’t think anyone using the “silence is just silence” hermaneutic is condemning anyone who disagrees with them. I don’t think my brothers who choose not to use an instrument are going to hell necause of that choice. You concept of an excluded middle doesn’t actually describe our situation. The two sides really don’t represent either/or choices, but more of an only/not only siuation. The condemnation (aside from condemning others for condemning others) is mostly one way, not mutual.
I’m sort of like Price. I don’t care either way, although I do worship each Sunday with about 900 to 1,000 people who can sing up a storm, A Capella! It is wonderful!
My only reason for ever entering a discussion on the matter was when people bound their preferences on others, condemned them if they didn’t comply, and were sure they were better Christians than those who disagreed.
Just to fit in with some of my more conservative friends, I long ago made my decision based on what the Bible doesn’t say. I would never tell anyone they should not use instruments in the assembly of the saints. And, I would not tell anyone they ought to abandon their instruments. I have no right to do either and neither does anyone else.
Royce: The reason that God did not rate instrumental music as worthy of discussion in the New Testament is that the church was descended from the synagogue, which lacked instrumental music, and this was understood by the first century readers and needed no special discussion.
To several commenters and Jay: Pews and song books are only a good counter-point when people come up with poorly stated hermeneutics concerning silence. As one commenter noted, generality vs. specificity is the common-sense dividing line in interpretations, not arguments from silence. We must sing in an orderly fashion together, all of us singing the same words at the same time, to have the kind of worship required of us. We could meet before church to practice and memorize songs, or do the same during the week. We could have song books. We might be able to think of still more alternatives. God was not specific about any of these alternatives. His discussion of singing in the New Testament was at a more general, less specific level than that. Therefore, it becomes hard to argue that one specific method (e.g. song books) is forbidden while another (practice and memorization) is good.
The bottom line is that we need to be convinced from scripture that we are pleasing God. If someone can convince me that NOT using song books is more pleasing to God than using them, then I will stop using them. A focus on pleasing God cuts through the nonsense that derives from improper arguments from silence, but it also gives us a scriptural focus that is lacking in modern permissiveness.
God knows our hearts. I believe that this truth goes farther than makes us comfortable. As surely as God would mention an instrument in the NT canon, we would have brethren saying that it is a command for ALL to play, and brothers and sisters, you do not want MY playing, either baby grand or glockenspiel. Some are gifted in the instrumental arts. Bless ’em. ‘Most anyone can force air past their vocal cords.
(As to the deaf who sign their songs…are they not still making melody in their hearts?)
I pray we are not going to see a replay of the pig-headedness that shows up over every issue. I came out of the Presbyterian church. I groove to some pipe organ, but I am not going to split a congregation (I’m sorry…Start a new work elsewhere) over my druthers. Sadly, there is a long distance from “May we?” to “Must we?” and a lot of folks fail to see that distance. It has always seemed to me that New Testament church practice has an Occam’s Razor nature. What can the most do, with the fewest intricacies to make it work.
Thank you for your work here. It is good to see things talked out with amity.
Jay,
The reader’s email is interesting, but as equally flawed as every IM argument of which I am aware (and you know my staunch AC stance). I will not rehash the issue either, but in light of one of your explicit statements, I ask you to revisit an old question, which you never answered.
In your post February 5, 2012 by Jay Guin agree that singing is a command
Thus, how would you answer the question from “Instrumental Music: Is Singing a Command?” posted on November 21, 2010 by Jay Guin
/2010/11/instrumental-music-is-singing-a-command/
Clark…can you point me to the passage of scripture where God instructed the Israelites to begin the synagogue ? Thanks.
But even generality vs. specificity breaks down when certain words allow for the inclusion of additional action without altering the meaning of the original. In the current instance – as others have explained – we commonly acknowledge that a person can sing with or without accompaniment and still be considered to be singing. The common understanding of music and singing allows the verb “sing” to be satisfied with or without instrumental accompaniment, solo or in a group, in unison or in harmony. Once more we are left to our own reasoning to establish how to interpret the word and though we can establish personal practice and through the elders a congregational practice, we do not have the right to condemn others because they – in good faith – reach a differing conclusion. This is Christian liberty and I see it much more approved in the text than any nascent Phariseeism that requires all things to be nailed down and uniform in all the congregations. (To be honest – though I see a scriptural call for holding on to the original Gospel message I don’t see a whole lot of Scriptural pressure to “restore” the original practices. Looking at the text and the early Fathers it is somewhat difficult to determine exactly what the original “uniform” practice was or even if there were an original uniform practice among all of the congregations.)
Joshua wrote: “There is one thing that is certain, both sides come to the Bible to prove their own position.”
>>
And how did you come to such certitude, Joshua? This is just another version of the “tu quoque” fallacy, by which you justify dismissing another’s view because his motivations are just as base as your own. Seen that one before, hermano.
>>>
Josh also wrote: “God is a god of love after all right?”
>>>
It saddens me to see this particular truth expressed as sarcasm. We should not take essential truths which are precious to us and sully them this way. And it is most bitterly ironic that one would take the statement “God is a god of love” and use it to smack someone else in the back of the head.
After reading Joshua’s post twice, I still find no cohesive argument of any sort being made. It’s just a tossed salad of old cliches and harrumphs and strawmen and exaggerations for effect with not even an attempt to bring that hodge-podge to any sort of point. The level of cynicism here is off the charts… even by my scales.
HG, acapella singing (in this argument) is not being respected as biblical command on its own merits, but this supposed command is being bent and rewritten BEFORE it is offered as an argument for AC.
First, exclusive language is tacitly inferred from the text, and presumed without the transparency of doing so in print. (At least the old KJV put such insertions in italics.) Our position requires that Ephesians 5:19 ACTUALLY say, “Sing, and making no other form of music, make melody in your hearts to the Lord.” Which is an odd choice, since we do not salt this reasoning evenly across the verse. That consistency would give us: “Sing and make melody, and no other form of music, including any form of harmony, only in your hearts, not with your vocal cords, to the Lord.” I am not exaggerating for effect here. I simply am inferring publicly the exact same presumed exclusive language throughout the entire sentence that others are tacitly tacking onto just one word. If such inferential consistency sounds foolish, perhaps it is time to reconsider the basis for the inference in the first place.
Next, we have expanded and amplified and clarified the passage to reference the scheduled church service. (The fact that the context does not require this slows us down not a bit. We know what we are doing.) As a result, HERE is how we currently read Eph. 5:19– “When you hold a church service, everybody sing acapella each and every time and make no other form of music to the Lord, but you may add vocal (not instrumental) harmony to the melody if you like. After the church service is over, you may worship God with a musical instrument, as long as this is not done on church property or at any meeting approved by the elders; except for weddings and funerals held in the church building, which ARE approved by the elders, but do not REQUIRE mandatory acapella congregational singing, but still prohibit any instrumental form of music.”
Now that all the necessary inferences are in place –and in print, for we are not ashamed of the Gospel– we can take this single verse from the CoC Amplified and Clarified Bible, and read it to those doubters, saying, “See? The Bible clearly prohibits pianos in church. We speak where the bible speaks!”
But I think we have left that old “silent where it is silent” thing far, FAR behind us.
Charles,
Thank you for your thoughts. I did not give any reasons for why I am an AC advocate, and I also said I would not rehash the issue. I asked a specific question for Jay — for certain reasons–, but again, I appreciate your thoughts. I am trying to be sincere, not sarcastic. Meditate on the question/post I resurfaced and you will notice it is not about a cappella vs. instrumental, but rather an application and limits of one’s approach. For example, if ones approach is that “IM aids the singing,” will it be consistently applied and distinctions drawn between what aids the command versus what detracts from or prevents the command. Regardless of ones hermeneutic, commands must be deciphered (eternal vs. cultural) and applied (means & boundaries). Whatever one’s position, it will have be consistently defended against OT & NT theology, practice, exegesis, et. al. In summary, I am AC adocate, but did state why; I agree the emailer has some flawed arguments; and my question was not about silence or a cappella. I have to get back to work, but have a great day, Charles.
The reason that God did not rate instrumental music as worthy of discussion in the New Testament is that the church was descended from the synagogue, which lacked instrumental music, and this was understood by the first century readers and needed no special discussion.
>>>
This is the classic “everybody knows” fallacy. “Everybody knows you sing acapella in church.” Just like everybody knows the earth is flat; that women aren’t smart enough to vote; that black people are inferior to white people; that the sun revolves around the earth; that man will never fly. This same argument has been used for millenia, and its track record is quite poor. This argument also takes the status quo and presumes that it is eternal. “Such as it is, so shall it ever be.”
Only it’s generally not true.
Well, not always the “everybody knows” is a fallacy. So it’s a bit unfair to count that statement into a collection of myths.
Intrumental worship – to make that clear – was limited to the temple, where worship “took place”. That’s the place the sacrifices were butchered, the incense rode to heaven and where the Levites (that is certain, appointed families from the tribe of Levi) played on specifically approved instruments.
Therefore no such instruments were used in the synagogues which were basically schools and not an alternative place of worship. They did not butcher or burn incense there either.
The church of Christ however is the Temple of the New Covenant. I disagree BTW with the often heard statement that serving the widows is all that worship consists of. Our worship would be incomplete without benevolence and charity, but nonetheless our spiritual sacrifices are our praise to God when we assemble to worship Him.
Now where is the incense in our assemblies? Our prayers are the incense.
Where are the sacrifices in our assemblies? Our praise is the sacrifice.
Where is the altar in our temple? The Lord’s Supper is our fellowship with the better Altar (the Cross).
Where are the instruments? We play with our hearts.
See, Charles, it is about the shift from the external to the spiruitual worship we are talking about. What prefigured worship in the OT has been fulfilled in Christ and is expressed in completely different ways now. But based on the same spiritual principles.
And these interpretations are the ones from the earliest sources we have on the matter: The Odes of Salomo and Clement of Alexandria. What no one so far could answer me: How can it be that the church in the West remained a-capella until the 1200s and in the East until today? Is it so unreasonable to trace back the reasoning and to rethink a little? It is not a church of Christ peculiarity – we talk about a historical consensus among almost all denominations!
Alexander
Very good discusion . I refuse to say that anyone how has been baptised (buried) gathers on the first day of the week to take of the Lord’s Supper and truely lives a servants life continueing to walk in his light and grace is going to hell for having some instrumental music in the church services. I have been raised in the CoC and feel very blessed to be here and depend totally on the grace of Christ my Lord.
By the way we do not have any instrumental music in our worship and I personally would feel unconfortable if we did but I am sure not going to judge those that do.
Our Worship?
No instruments in our worship in the church building is what is usually meant.
Most of us worship many more times that is not in the building.
Also most do have worship while singing along with songs with instruments at home or in the car. Playing a favorite tape and singing the words praising God.
So much we argue about really just doesn’t matter and is vain janglings.
Our relationship that really matters is the one with God and not how we are judged by one another.
Danny wrote: “I refuse to say that anyone how has been baptised (buried) gathers on the first day of the week to take of the Lord’s Supper and truely lives a servants life continueing to walk in his light and grace is going to hell…”
>>>
This is a version of the gospel of salvation with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Alexander wrote: “Where are the instruments? We play with our hearts.”
>>>
Alto or soprano hearts, Alexander? Do I have a bass heart? If I shift over and sing tenor, is that a change of heart?
Your reasoning, my brother, creates an arbitrary line when you separate vocal music from instrumental music in this argument. If I recall correctly, vocal music was even controversial at one time in the church, a melody being seen as a carnal accession to human sensuality. We got past that, and also got past a similar objection to musical instruments as well. Until a small 19th century cadre decided to retreat past the “organ line” into Acapella Country.
Alexander, your argument would at least have more consistency if you eliminated ALL music from Christianity, and declared worship as a purely internal meditation of the heart with no musical expression. However, when we accept vocal polyphony and voicings, and defined choral arrangements and arm-waving directors and pitchpipe puffing and practicing songs, we actually depart your reasoning.
This is a clear case of reverse engineering, which starts at the existing vocal/instrument divide, presumes it and works from that point. You suggest that one who sings worships from his heart, while one who sings and plays a mandolin worships from somewhere else. Not only is this an unsupportable division biblically, it is a judgment of the heart of the worshipper. Not a place I feel qualified to stand.
My argument is based on comparing the sentence structure of Eph 5:19 with Psalm-texts in the LXX. The grammar and wording is the same, except that instead of a “mechanical instrument” Paul inserted the heart. Now, if that was not in line with Clement of Alexandria’s or Chrystostom’s – or even earlier: the Odes of Salomo (around 130 AD) – view, I would have been quite reluctant to draw this analogy.
But in the end it is completely in line with all the shifts from the OT to the NT. That’s why I don’t use the Regulative Principle in these debates (although it has some value), but the reasoning of the Early Church concerning this matter. So my reasoning is not arbitrary, but rooted in the testominy of the earliest resources on the matter.
I do admit this is a bit hard to follow, because we Westerners are not used to reason the way they did. But once you grasped it, it becomes as obvious as the fact that Hagar is mount Sinai. And that’s actually quite easy to understand, isn’t it? 😉
Alexander
“I do admit this is a bit hard to follow, because we Westerners are not used to reason the way they did. But once you grasped it, it becomes as obvious as the fact that Hagar is mount Sinai. And that’s actually quite easy to understand, isn’t it?” aBasnar
Thank you. A strong suspicion that I have had for some time is that we have been trying to decode writings from Eastern Semitic thinking using Western-Greek-Regulative-CENI algorithms. Something like playing Monopoly using the rules of Poker.
The endemic lack of teaching and and suspicion of the idea of enlightening from the Spirit of God (NOT NEW REVELATION!!!) may well have robbed the church of its Enigma machine.
HistoryGuy asked,
1. The instruments most often used in instrumental worship are the guitar, keyboards, drums, piano, and organ. None prevent the instrumentalist from singing, and in my limited observation, they in fact sing. There is certainly nothing inherent in the instrument that prevents singing.
2. I have a particular affinity for a brass section myself, but it’s unimaginable that a church would play songs arranged so that a trumpeter must play every single note for the full worship hour. Most horn parts are much more limited.
3. Nothing requires that those singing sing every word. Alto leads, rounds, and countless other a cappella arrangements require one voice to be silent while another sings. If it’s okay for the basses to be silent during the first three verses, while the sopranos, altos, and tenor join seriatim, then the horn player can blow for a few bars.
4. There is a huge irony in your argument. After all, the passage says,
(Eph 5:19 ESV) 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
Nothing keeps a trumpter from doing exactly that. Which is why Paul takes his language from —
(Psa 108:1-3 ESV) My heart is steadfast, O God! I will sing and make melody with all my being! 2 Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! 3 I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations.
5. Scriptural language sees no conflict between singing and playing the trumpet –
(Psa 81:2-3 ESV) 2 Raise a song; sound the tambourine, the sweet lyre with the harp. 3 Blow the trumpet at the new moon, at the full moon, on our feast day.
(Psa 150:3-6 ESV) 3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!
6. Must the soundboard operator sing? The women tending the nursery? The ushers? The preacher — even he’s supposed to preach three times that day and his voice won’t stand it if he sings?
Ultimately, we reach absurd conclusions when we treat the participles in Eph 5:19 as written as statutes.
(Eph 5:18-21 ESV) 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Grammatically, the command is to “be filled with the Spirit.” Three participle phrases then give examples of results of being filled with the Spirit: addressing/singing/making melody; giving thanks; submitting.
These are examples. They are not exclusive. And even though v. 20 says “always” I don’t think we go to hell if we fail to give thanks to God for everything in every single assembly. I’m not sure we can fairly claim that every single member somehow submits to all others in every single assembly.
Ultimately, patternistic, legalistic interpretations suck the joy and life out of the text. I’m confident God would far prefer that we honor him as David says in the Psalms, even if it means the horn section plays during some of the songs.
Regarding instruments in the synagogue, recent studies demonstrate that the First Century synagogue did not use instruments and did not have congregational singing. Those were all added much later, the 3rd Century or even later. http://www.jstor.org/pss/737240 and http://books.google.com/books?id=dBuzG2enXxMC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=first+century+synagogue+singing&source=bl&ots=W8iIZlb8A_&sig=sINIcxQ5pJVLvk2Gw0LsWCdfO2s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7d82T5ybJseItwfP89C4Ag&ved=0CB4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=first%20century%20synagogue%20singing&f=false
The synagogue was a place of study, where the Tanakh (Old Testament) was read and studied. And it was a place of prayer. But it did not involve singing, with or without instruments.
Commentaries and blogs articles are filled with the assumption that Christians borrowed their worship practices from the synagogue, based on the false assumption that contemporary synagogue practice (Jews do in fact sing today in synagogue) dates back to the First Century. But there is simply no evidence for such a practice until much later, but there is ample evidence of prayer and scripture reading and study.
Moreover, the early Christian practice included the love feast combined with the eucharist, which is very different from the synagogue of any age. Therefore, it’s far more likely that the Christian practice is taken from the Passover and other less formal family or community gatherings. The Jews often spontaneously gathered to sing in worship — it wasn’t only at the Temple — but they sang in celebration, not out of ritual.
Think of Meriam’s song after the crossing of the Red Sea. Or David singing his psalms. That’s closer to the model than the synagogue.
(Isa 12:1-6 ESV) You will say in that day: “I will give thanks to you, O LORD, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me. 2 “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.” 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. 4 And you will say in that day: “Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted. 5 “Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth. 6 Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.”
Jay,
Although I did not list any passage of scripture and was asking a question [February 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm] based on the logic of certain approaches, such as “but that instrument does not prevent us from singing,” I do appreciate you giving an understanding of your approach. I agree that we do not have to sing all the time, but my approach is quite different than yours. You seem to be saying, a guitar is okay because it does not prevent us from singing, and while a horn does prevent us from singing, it is also okay because we do not have to sing all the time. GAT was slightly right that your explanations are at times hard to nail down, like Jello. Again, my question is about trying to understand your approach, not so much the AC/IM issue.
As for the rest of your comments, are we rehashing the IM issue? I found your points in #4-6 to be quite ironic. #4 is ironic because I did not cite a verse; #5 singing and playing are two different actions performed by different people in the OT worship while the NT and Patristic evidence is far different; #6 you did not give a complete understanding of the participle/grammar issue, which also makes it seem as if you are contradicting your previous statement by saying singing is not a command.
I have always enjoyed our discussions, but as of late, have become disappointed in your quickly typed and undefined usage of “patternistic legalistic…” I realize that some folks are naive enough to claim that every soul who embraced AC during the last 2000 years is a legalistic patternist, but surely that is not what a man of your intellect is saying.
This kind of discussion about IM really gets to me. 1)When I play my guitar, I also sing. 2)I know of many piano players who also sing while they play the piano. 3)Louis (Satchmo) Armstrong played his horn and sang… not at the same time. 4) I sing AC at my church. I see little convincing evidence that God, the creator of Heaven and Earth and everything else prefers 1,2,3 or 4. All the evidence that I see being thrown around is just us cutting and pasting the bible and history accounts to prove our chosen point. I’m okay with 1,2,3 or 4 and would like to get on with the serious work that God has for us. And… I’ll never read another comment on this blog about IM or AC music. I guess if I stop reading the comments that means that I won’t be responding to any comments too. So, you all go ahead and post yourself until your blue in the face, I’m through with it. Please excuse my melt down.
Doug,
For whatever it’s worth, I agree. I’m leaving instrumental music behind for a while. A long while. We’ll be moving on to other topics.
In fact, I think I’m going to drop baptism as a topic, too. Done that; been there. Covered and covered again.
I’m moving on to other things.
The change in subject to less familiar material may force a slower pace of posting for a while. I’m really busy at work and at church. But it’s definitely time to move on down the road.
A wise move sir. Thanks.
Royce
Alexander, as hard as it may be to believe, it is not my incapacity to follow your reasoning that is behind my disagreement with it.
But I can leave that there. I think Jay is wise to move past IM and baptism as post topics. I have noticed on other CoC boards in various formats that other subjects will lie dormant and undiscussed for weeks, but let the subject swing to one of the CoC’s two signature topics and the posts come rolling in by the dozens. They never cover any new territory, but merely revisit the old arguments, the old miscontructions and the old allegations ad nauseaum. I really hope to hear my CoC brothers on matters other than these two historic “hills to die on”.
But if history is any indicator, leaving these two topics alone will thin out the remaining discussion a great deal. That would be unfortunate.
“I do admit this is a bit hard to follow, because we Westerners are not used to reason the way they did. But once you grasped it, it becomes as obvious as the fact that Hagar is mount Sinai. And that’s actually quite easy to understand, isn’t it…”
A disinterested onlooker might consider this gnosticism dressed up as patternistic legalism. But all patternism becomes practically gnostic at some point.
Bob….interesting comment…expound on patternism becomes gnostic at some point…
Charles:
I read this from you re the IM posts: “They never cover any new territory, but merely revisit the old arguments, the old miscontructions and the old allegations ad nauseaum.”
An interesting comment from someone who… declined my repeated offers. And please do not suggest that you have heard all that I have offered as background. Instead, I have watched closely over the past year and noted that most here seem relatively closed to a growing body of evidence as to why Paul placed the subject of music into ETHICS SPACE (which he does in Ephesians 5:18-21). But bring up that subject in this weblog and things go from testy to down-right heated. I, for one, am no fan of such conversation.
I will offer that Jay has not tackled all that Paul has written — and WHY he wrote it. John Price, for one, does a good job of looking at the “ethics space,” for any who dare to wade into his study. I have wondered why Jay has said little about that study. His actions are revealing.
But I think enough for now.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Price:
My notion that patternism (as we – or some of our brethren – practice it) is a form of gnosticism comes from reading Todd’s book (Facing Our Failure) and Jay’s and Todd’s conversation with Tidwell, Phil Sanders, and others. When pressed, folks like Greg, Phi, and others are quite unable to describe the boundary between who they will fellowship and who they will not. Their lack of consistency points to some sort of “hidden” knowledge of who are ultimately”faithful” and who are ultimately not. Nonetheless, they on “knowing” and labeling those who are faithful and who are apostate (or “liberal” or – Tidwell’s latest perjorative “universalist”- or whatever insult pops into their heads).
Their knowledge is precisely hidden in that they “know” who are faithful, but that they can’t – or won’t – tell you. It’s insider knowledge, and they’re insiders among themselves: we’re the outsiders; all the rest of us are just guessing. They just “know”, and that “knowledge” is obviously hidden from the people they label “apostates”. Jay did his best to ferret out that information, better than anyone else I’m aware of trying, and he hit the same barrier. That’s the gist of my impression.
Don’t get me wrong: our patternistic legalists are not gnostic like our society’s best example of wacko modern gnosticism, Scientology, but it’s clear that their “mystery”, like that of the adherents of L. Ron Hubbard, appears to be one accessible by upon their personal invitation, and is nothing like the revealed mystery of Jesus’ finished work on the Cross.
My $0.02’s worth.
Bruce, I’m sorry you are still offended that I have not read your book.
You said of Jay, “His actions are revealing.”
Revealing WHAT, exactly, Bruce? What do they reveal? Just when you are on the verge of becoming interesting, you let your innuendo trail off into a mutter…
Jay,
With all due respect, isn’t your decision possibly a death blow to your coc oriented blog? If instrumental music and baptism are off the table what is there to talk about?
Maybe some of your readers would like to discuss the reasons why churches of Christ are in decline as recently reported by the Christian Chronicle. But, I wonder if it could be done without the two watershed topics?
In my view what we practice as believers is always at least somewhat advised by what we believe about God. And, who we exclude and include also reflects our vision of God. So, how about some serious discussion about theology? I don’t mean more discussion about what churches do on Sunday but discussions about our God and his redemptive work. It is my conviction that our fellowship and unity problems can never be solved unless our vision of God more closely resembles the God revealed in Scripture vs the god who only exists in the minds of those who serve themselves.
I will be interested to see how this plays out.
Bob, I have come to suspect that the fellowship position of my traditional CoC brothers is less a clear and explicable doctrinal line and more like something the old fellow said about art: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I don’t like.”
Traditional CoC doctrine on exclusion (and I think we should call it this, because they exclude 99 believers for every one which they fellowship) is built on a rolling platform which essentially says, “I cannot fellowship that man, as I believe correctly and he does not believe exactly as I do.” Trouble is, it turns out that hardly anybody sees things exactly as I do, if you let the discussion range wide enough. This fact requires the traditional CoC conservative to establish some arbitrary lines, SOME places of disagreement which do NOT prevent fellowship, lest he wind up in the land of “my four and no more”. But when Jay or someone else starts to question why that arbitrary line is where it is and not somewhere else, this has no biblical explanation. That’s when the trouble starts.
Gnosticism requires a claim to knowledge; I think my brothers are not so much holding or claiming secret knowledge, but are merely using bluster to mask the inconsistencies which illustrate where they leave their knowledge and start making it up wholesale. The real killer is the old theme that everything we practice is from the Bible, and those who have it otherwise are damned. That’s a clear and hard position. So when it becomes apparent that some things WE believe are not from scripture, our own stance requires us to either [1] join the choir of the damned, or [2] repent of our foolishness, or [3] go all John 9:34 on our questioners and withdraw from the field.
So far, Door #3 seems to be the popular choice.
Charles:
I appreciate your comments. Let me see if I understand you as best I can: the invisible and unknowable lines of fellowship are not gnostic but based on bald stubbornness. So if our legalistic brethren come on here to “bleat and flee” as one poster as noted elsewhere (and well put at that!) denying they’re gnostic (and accusing their prosecutors of further synonyms of error), they’re essentially going to have to confess the core precept of their “gospel” is sheer obstinacy – simply willfulness and disagreeability.
I don’t know if it’s their core or not, Bob, but I know this: once sweet reason and biblical study have worked through some layers of tradition and misinterpretation and logical fallacy, we often strike a layer of adamant which submits to neither reason nor the scripture and is cannot be penetrated from the outside. But I think this layer is composed more of petrified pride and fear than of sheer bloody-mindedness. Pride of place and fear of losing that place. When I read Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees, I see a process that is not dissimilar.
But I still believe this hardened layer can be penetrated from within, where the Holy Spirit has access.
Jay,
I love AC/IM & baptism talk, but I am looking forward to conversations about other topics. Do you have any plans to challenge the COC to press on to maturity with a study of such things as the nature of the atonement, presence of Christ in/at the Lord’s Supper, justification as imputed or imparted, the kinds and value of prayer, the providence of God and the will of man, and the like? I suppose time will tell. Have a great day.
“Do you have any plans to challenge the COC to press on to maturity” – HistoryGuy
Since the writer of Hebrews states ” 1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”, until we have a handle on the elementary things, we cannot press on to maturity (which would explain much about the Whole State of Christ’s Church). Well, we seem to have a fair handle on A baptism. Seems there is a raft of other teaching to engage us for a time.
Well, the problem with more “mature” discussions is that they are apt to lead where no-one really wants to go: issues concerning class, wealth, race, gender, assimilation, and the like. And they’re the discussions we really need to have. However, we like the easy discussions about what we do and what we think about what we do because they are little more than the theological equivalent of reading People Magazine for the latest celebrity scandals./p.r. opportunities. It’s just gossip among ourselves that we really don’t care whether or not anyone outside our clique pick up on or not, but we get to draw our lines and be part of one clique or another.
Having mature discussions means confronting what we have done with “church” in our country and in our time, and many folks would get very angry very quickly, if they haven’t already.
Cynical, ain’t I?
Ooooh, HG… I’d like to know more about “the presence of Christ in/at the Lord’s Supper”. I personally don’t ever even feel confident about intoning “emblems” or “Body and Blood” in a communion meditation. I know what the Word says but my CofC brothers and sisters kinda scare me a little on this. The last time I counted there were about 6 major interpetations of this subject. Being as the CofC is confident of their ability to interpet the Word, let’s hear some thoughts on this.
If I may kibitz…
Re: The presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, “emblems” and such.
It is never wrong to speak as Jesus did, what Jesus did. He said “This is my body…this is the blood of the new covenant”. I feel much more comfortable speaking as He (and Paul) spoke, without importing non-biblical words like “emblems” or even “Presence”.
No need to interpret if you’re quoting.
Color me unsophisticated.
Charles:
I am not offended. Just wanted you to see that you yourself need to act differently; otherwise, your remarks are… empty, or worse.
What do Jay’s actions reveal? His actions reveal that he picks VERY CAREFULLY who he elects to tackle. And he avoids consistently some of the most rigorous studies in print on key subjects of this weblog where those studies clash with his conclusions (e.g. Everett Ferguson on baptism; John Price on IM). Not a word by him. Jay picks studies where he sees weaknesses and trumpets the issues he finds. But when it comes to something as thorough as Everett Ferguson’s study? Well…. if we do not talk about it… maybe it will go away….
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bob:
I read your comments about “patternism” and decided to offer an observation for consideration. EVERYONE reading this weblog approaches the Scripture seeing a pattern. Indeed, every biblical study I have read (including many by radical feminists) sees pattern in Scripture — and depends on such. And promotes such. And apostolic teaching itself has pattern to it, per Paul.
Wineskins published an article sometime back along that very point. So, part of the issue here has nothing to do with a “pattern” and everything to do with what a pattern says — or what we do not want it to say. That is where this weblog is at. It challenges conclusions on specific subjects where it suggests no “pattern” exists, but certainly believes in “patterns” of teaching regarding the person of Father, Son and Spirit, for example. So, “patternism” does not automatically translate to “legalism.”
Just some thoughts.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce:
The problem is the slippery slope patternists seem to insist upon. “Pattern” in our fellowship means recipes for our external organization and governance of our congregations and, by extension, our fellowship/denomination. We can read the text to learn about the gospel (although I submit we often first appreciate the gospel from the lives of others who influence us) and, upon faith, endeavor to conform our lives to the gospel. That change, that conformation, may rely directly or indirectly upon what we read and conclude from the text, but the changes in our lives do not constitute such a pattern that confirm that we should organize our churches in accordance with patterns and patternism. We are to live our lives to the example of agape love Jesus embodied: this does not mean that our use of Jesus as “example” invariably means insisting upon a capella singing as congregational music and anathematizing all those who disagree. Mr. aBasnar commits the same folly with the notion of “doctrine.” The slippery slope is that if one sees “pattern” in his or her spiritual life from the examples and lessons from the text then, ergo, there’s no discussion over whether or not even malignant patternism should flourish in the Churches of Christ.
Most of us are heartily tired of slipping on the black ice of legalism.
I can’t remember any post recently on this Blog, Bob, that “anathematized” those using IM. So maybe we can put that “war-polemics” out for the sake of the argument, Bob (or Mr Bob).
Alexander
P.S. The best example of a slippery slope is the latest article on New Wineskins by Carme BeauBeaux. This is the consequence of just anbanding the “old hermeneutics” of “Command, approves precedent and necessary inference” to shaky, slippery individualitic spiritualty.
This is the consequence of just anbanding the “old hermeneutics” of “Command, approves precedent and necessary inference” to shaky, slippery individualitic spiritualty.
Abandoning an extrabiblical, rationalistic, legal hermeneutic as to how to know what Jesus says to move toward the promise of Jesus in which he said the Holy Spirit would take what is his and make it known to us? Yes, I’ve done that. The former form is human, unspiritual, and needs not the living presence of God. It works best when applied to the closed work of a long-absent god. The latter form, Alexander, is entirely dependent on the life of Christ which is within us, and his revelation by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I will take the Spirit over CENI. HE is neither shaky nor slippery, nor are those who hear him led astray by the mistaken authority which comes from the consensus of a group of rock-solid, never-changing people who just happen to be wrong.
Bruce, I am reminded of the fellow who is selling used cars. He tells us every single car on his lot is a hand-picked gem, that he only sells the best automobiles. We try the first one and it won’t even start. He shuffles us away from it to the next one, which has four flat tires. (Even the spare is flat.) Our salesman then steers us to another car, which does start, but produces an impenetrable cloud of blue-black smoke. A fourth car starts, coughs, emits a loud bang and a sticky fluid pours out all over the ground.
We look at one another, shrug, and take our leave, over the salesman’s plaintive protestations. “But you haven’t seen the rest of my cars! I’ve got some great cars! Trust me, this other one over here is perfect! It is! You knucklehead, what do you know from cars, anyway?”
Book recommendation, Charles: I just read it and it is excellent, maybe you better understand my point afterwards: The Cultural Church by F. LaGard Smith.
Alexander,
I believe what some of us forget or do not consider when we enumerate all the supposed “boundary markers” is that those 1st century believers we all want to be like did not have a New Testament, ever. They relied on the readings they had heard, or in the case especially of Gentiles, stories from others who had heard the scriptures read, and mostly word of mouth reports of what Jesus and the apostles taught. The passage you are fond of referring to (the seven ones of Ephesians) was not a boundary marker passage for even the Christians living in the area of Ephesus for many decades. The letter was not written until sometime in the early ’60’s. The letter to the Ephesians was likely not widely circulated in the rest of the 1st century world for many more decades. Of course the same principal applies to those selected passages coc people use to prove up what the Bible does not say about singing and instruments.
It seems to me that the church did rather well for many years simply preaching the story of the worth and work of Jesus and loving everyone in his name. The 5 step this and the 5 step that were completely foreign to Christians for many centuries. It is ignorant and arrogant for those of us who are products of a movement started in America many hundreds of years removed from the days of Peter and Paul to claim we alone hold truth and can set the template for everyone else in the world.
Jesus did not live and die so sinners could win a lottery by going through a religious maze defined by a group whose self proclamation is that they alone, in all of professing Christendom, hold the truth of God. We rail against denominations while we condemn our own to hell for doing something different than us on Sunday morning. And we wonder why our young people are deserting the faith of their fathers!
Jesus did not die for sinners so they could have a chance. He came that they might have life. He didn’t come to condemn and didn’t send anyone else to do that either. I never cared much for the WWJD bracelets and bumper stickers. But, I have to ask, would Jesus do most of the stuff we Restorationists have done? I doubt it.
Wow. And Paul could not teach without having written the letter first? Royce, that’s ridiculous! Did an apostolic doctrine beceom a doctrine to be followed only after it had been written down? The Early Church held fast to the Apostles TEACHING not to the hearsay of men with some experiences here and there. The foundation FROM THE BEGINNING was apostolic teaching (Acts 2:42). And this was and is binding whether it was comitted orally or in written form (2Th 2:15).
Well, WHY, did Paul write most of his letters? Because everything went well before then? Galatians? Not really. Corinthians? definitely not. Ephesians (still – as many others – struggling with the Jew-Gentile issue). Also not without prblems.
There is one reason, you and others downplay the role of Eph 4:4-6. Baptism. If it were not included in this list ALL Progressives would use it as their “Charta of Unity”, but ugly enough, baptism is part of this unity and this RULES OUT a number of dreams. It defines a clearly visible boundary very much to the dislike of those who look for an unbounded fellowship.
He – that is His disciples under His authority – even baptized. This was important enough for Him to command it. Even to tie His promise to this act of immersion. You need not blame me or the conservative churches of Christ for this! If you don’t like it, argue with the Lord who said it! And if you diagree with him, do as all the others do: Make up a new church! With only 6 of 7 “ones” or even less.
Alexander
BTW: I think you meant to post this under a different thread, not under the IM-discussion
Well written and so true Royce!
Charles:
To be clear I agree with you that “truth” and “fellowship” are different things. I am not convinced that my “and” automatically communicated what you pounced on.
A personal note: I can tell you with certainty that I do listen to the voices on this weblog — including yours. And I try to speak with respect and patience. As if I was talking face-to-face with folks. I listen closely, and I read Jay’s stuff (including his ebooks). And I am sure that some of the response I hear from others (including Jay, by his own admission) reveals that some responders do not really hear what I am saying. And that is partly because weblogs, at times, fill up with a great deal of emotion. And that can hinder efforts to show the love of the Lord.
I hear your metaphor; to my mind it is disrespectful and it misrepresents the hearts that are involved in this discussion and seeking the Lord’s will. I think I will take another path.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bob:
You have drawn way too much from my brief post. Whoa, please. I realize that in our day and in weblogs we tend to think we know almost everything that someone is saying and so we react quickly. It is part of the danger of weblogs and part of the crystallizing that happens in a fast-paced society such as ours.
I am no fan of legalism. But perhaps you would say that if I am urging a cappella, then I must be a legalist! Hmmm. No, I think I understand legalism; not how I approach this subject.
And I believe I can describe how those who urge IM-accompanied music in congregational worship assemblies face a trap as dangerous as legalism — the one Paul discusses in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. It is called “sensationalism” and it is wiping out worship. A friend of mine, a Baptist, has made that clear to me from his own experience. An elder in an Independent Christian church has echoed exactly the same message. I have raised my voice on that very point in this weblog. I am convinced that we do not see (or we purposely want to ignore) all that Paul is saying about the danger of sensational worship in a dark world. That is what is at the HEART of the parallelism between Ephesians 5:11 and 5:18-21.
Glad to discuss more. Also, will offer a publication to you — that has been endorsed by some even within some Independent Christian churches (who are now striving to move away from IM-accompanied worship). Feel free to send me an email if an interest. My email address: MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Well, Royce, of course we may object to these 5-steps of salvation approach. But which of these can be ommitted?
Hearing the Gospel? …
Believing the Gospel? …
Repenting of sin? …
Being baptized for the remission of sins? …
Living in faithful obedience? …
Maybe my 5 steps vary in detail, but anyway:
a) Which of these 5 steps is optional?
b) Which of these 5 steps is not scriptural?
c) Which other one might be missing (I’m open to good suggestions)?
d) Does the order of step 1-5 make sense or can it be turned upside down?
All of these 5 steps are in scripture. And I assume – one way or the other – all of these were presented to those interested in salvation. Even, if at first glance it does not seem so. For instance, as the Jailor asked what he needed to do in order to be saved, Paul simply answered: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ …” – and you might draw the conclusion: “See, all it needs is faith!” But the story does not end there: Paul has a lengthy conversation with him and his family and in the same night they were baptized. So what did he tell them in this conversation besides “Believe in Christ”? Obviously the need for remission of sin and baptism as well.
It does not matter whether Paul used the exact same wording I used for the 5 Steps, whether he added one or two, the point is: You cannot take away from them, they are a BARE MINIMUM. I am not at all happy when we oversimplify salvation, and I disagree with Easy Believism strongly (or with “Faith only”), which is even FAR LESS than the 5 steps.
Used in a sensible way they are of a tremendous help to stick to the point. Abuse of them does not justify casting them away completely. You polemic is of no help at all.
Alexander
The same could be said about the 5 acts of worship, of which I also am critical, but used as a concise summary they are a valuable starting point. We don’t need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Neither ignorance nor arrogance are virtues. But putting our light under a bushel isn’t either. Where we have been led to right conclusions by Christ, we must hold fast to them. If you say we claim to have knowledge or understanding while we err, you must give examples.
I see some points where the churches of Christ are off base, but I do this with book, chapter and verse, Royce. Yet the way you present your argument sounds not like a scriptural rebuke, but like a “time of this age”-demand for more tolerance. That’s not the pipe to which I dance.
Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever – right?
His words have not changed either – right?
The Spirit still leads God’s people into all truth – right?
So why is it ignorant and arrogant to claim we have the same basic understanig of the faith, or even the same understanding of the church and unity, as had Peter and Paul, simply because we accept Christ and His word and strive to b led by the Spirit? What kind of faith would that be, if we believe but at the same time don’t believe Christ leads us into His truth? That’s self-contradictory!
When the Anabaptists in the 1500s rediscovered adult baptism and the essence of a separated church, they were the first ones to restore New Testament Christianity in a way that very very closely resembled the faith and ethos of the Early Church (compare their writings to the ECF, it’s amazing!). How was that possible? The same Christ, the same Bible, the same Spirit – accepted in faithful obedience! The Restoration Movement stands on their shoulders.
So yes, I do believe that Christ in and through our movement set a lot of things in order, and I quickly add, there’s more to be done. But to what we have come, we shall hold fast.
Alexander
Alexander,
Perhaps you are too far removed from American church life to understand the context of my remarks. Or, maybe you are just being your lovable obstinate self. When you say “we”, who are you including and excluding? Just curious? We conservatives?
These are some of the “truths” set forth as the “words of Christ” and anyone who disagrees is lost, church of Christ or not.
1. The Lord’s Supper must be observed every Lord’s day but only in the morning and only in a specified way.
2. Congregational singing must be sans instruments of any sort. Only the human voice may be used except for a pitch pipe of course. One song leader is expedient, two or more damns.
3. The name of every local congregation must include the words church of Christ (case sensitive) Any other name is proof the people who worship there have fallen away.
4. Only apostates forsake the assembly on Sunday evenings in favor of groups of believers meeting in houses.
And the list goes on and on and on. You see, here in America the boundary markers are not usually about matters of the great doctrines of the historic Christian faith but about the preferences of men. Those preferences are elevated in authority so that they equal or even trump the actual words of Scripture.
Liberals like me get accused regularly of not following the Bible, of having foggy theology, and being immersed in the sensational, culture driven dark world of faith only and love. There is a glaring problem. I can take the hits all day, I’m not offended by them. The problem is the critics actually follow the Bible less closely than those they criticize in many cases. When someone can show me chapter and verse, in context where many of the so called fellowship boundaries are in Scripture I’ll apologize and set the record straight. In the meantime, people who decide who is right and wrong based on things such as those I listed can keep on rattling their empty heads, I’m not impressed.
I don’t know you except for what I have read here on Jay’s blog. (blog is a more up-to-date term than weblog….couldn’t resist Bruce) Here is my impression, tell me if I’m wrong. Not only do you think you are right about everything concerning faith and practice, you also believe that in at least some part you will merit your eventual salvation. I believe you are one of the men here who admitted Jesus is NOT enough.
I recently saw a video of a little child with chocolate all over his arms, legs, hair, face and hands. When questioned by his mom he denied profusely that he had been in the chocolate. The scene reminded me of men who deny teaching salvation by works, grace by a legal system, and that at best any hope of salvation is tentative, and that they alone are the store houses of Bible truth. They deny they are what they are but the chocolate is on their faces.
Royce:
On the issue of unity, I saw that you wrote the below in Wineskins:
“There is no higher purpose than the glory of God. Denominational purity, the ancient pattern for the Lord’s church, the praise of men, defending the faith once for all delivered to the saints… Everything pales in comparison to God’s glory. Every good He accomplishes is for his own glory, even our common salvation has that end.”
It seems to me that you have divided some things that Paul places together in Ephesians 4:1ff. Let me describe. “Living a life worthy” is the glorifying God you mention. Right? And how does Paul describe that happening? Being humble and gentle; unity of belief; teaching to prepare God’s people for works of service; speaking the truth in love versus getting blown around by every wind of teaching. Right? Isn’t that what Paul says?
Certainly, he says more, but doesn’t the text get at some of the “fellowship boundaries” as well as what glorifies God? It talks about beliefs. Right? Seems to me that it makes sense to start with Ephesians 4:1ff. before wading in further. Just wanted to ensure we are on the same page at this point. I could not tell from what you wrote in Wineskins. You drew a distinction that seemed far removed from Ephesians 4:1ff.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
Ephesians 4 is not the only passage that addresses unity. I referenced Romans 15 in the article I wrote. Part of that passage is: “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”
“Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God”. I don’t see any problem with this statement. I try the best I can to do what it says.
Ephesians 4 is not a call to create unity, that happens when we become one with Christ (John 17). It is also not a call to decide who is in and who is out of God’s family. It does call for a life that matches our confession. (The Romans 15 passage does as well..) We are to maintain unity and peace by living lives marked by the fruit of the Spirit.
God’s purpose and God’s provision is that Christians grow to maturity so that we live up to “the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. When that does not happen people behave like children falling prey to the schemes of mere men and not looking like Christ to the world.
We are called to care for one another, speaking the truth, putting off the old life and clinging to the new life. None of us is an island. Christ’s body is made of many members and on the whole they don’t look alike. We are brothers and sisters but not twins as someone recently said. A toe does not look like an eye nor does it have the same function. And, an elbow does not decide who fills the role of left ear. That’s the Creator’s role.
If I am in Christ and you are in Christ we are one because of our union with him and the Father, not because we reach the same position on every passage of Scripture, nor because we agree on every point of doctrine or give the same weight to tradition. It is only our oneness in Christ that makes us one.
In view of this and since I don’t know the heart of anyone I will welcome others who claim Christ as Lord as the Lord welcomed me. I came with no commendation, no merit, I came like everyone else, empty handed, needy. And Christ welcomed me into his family as a free gift. So, I welcome others with grace. I hope God agrees. I like my chances. If you disagree with what I wrote here then no, we are not on the same page. I do wish you well.
Royce
HistoryGuy,
I’m starting a new series designed to tie together several themes previously discussed re soteriology and add some depth in new places.
And I want to get around to further posts on Resident Aliens and Everything Must Change. And I need to get back to Acts. My church is going to study Acts for another quarter, and so I’ll have get past chapter 2 at some point. Oh, and I have several books to review. And I need to update my thoughts on Logos and BibleWorks. There’s no lack of material … yet.
But my plans are rarely realized. I may actually do something entirely different. I have to write where I think God wants me to go, and his plans are often different from mine.
@ Royce:
The “we” is sometimes the fellowship of moderately conservative positions, and sometimes including you or the whole movement. Depending on my mood and the context.
You present the same old argument, which I think is an extreme position even among conservatives: Everyone who does church not in a specifically prescribed way, sins and is lost/damned. I’ve never met a person who said it this way, but I am sure they do exist – as on the opposite end there indeed are “progressives” that openly deny the inerrancy and authority of scripture and do teach universalism. Of course everyone here protests if someone like Gregory Allen Tidwell makes a point of this: “You cannot put us all into the same boat!” That’s true, and you cannot do it in the other direction either.
Lord’s Supper – has always been the center of Christian assemblies. Daily at the beginning, then on the 1st day. This was an uninterrupted practice until the Reformation – it is the original, apostolic practice; although we lost the Love feast along the way. So restoring it and urging for it is commendable. Splitting over it and condemning each other, is not.
A-capella singing – we’ve been through this endless debate so often. Most CHristians worldwide (roughly) still sings a-capella as an uninterrupted practice from the earliest records (2nd century). Denying history is not helpful at all, drawing the right conclusions from history is not always that difficult. And then – understandingthe topic in the light of two imprtant arguments: “Sensationalism” (Bruce Morton’s point) and “Typology” (my never-ending story). So restoring it and urging for it is commendable. Splitting over it and condemning each other, is not.
The name of a church is not that insignifact as you propose. Especially when the name adds a human name to it (e.g. Lutheran), or elevates a spiritual disciplin (E.g. methodists), or a specific practice (e.g. Baptists) or church organization (e.g. Presbyterians) the name itself gives not only a distorted view of the message, but testifies and upholds divisions. The point of our name was (and should be) that it is a testimony for Christian Unity. But this unity is not reached by paying lip-service to it, nor by superficial ecumenism, but by restoring the original practice and doctrine, so that ALL we do and believe can be representative for ALL Christians. I strive for nothing less.
The last point has to do with church discipline. If a local leadership decides on staying together on a Sunday Night as an assembly or to break up in house churches, is a matter of local decisions. Since we can point to BVC for house churches, weare on solid ground and those who damn others because it, go beyopnd scripture.
But as I said, I hardly met anyone who holds to such views you present. So, please, don’t put me in a boat with them. My confidence in what is right and what is wrong BTW is based on scripture. Sounds like a clichée, but I’m serious. I can have a fine time with everone of any persuasion who accepts the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of scripture (be they Roman Catholic or Pentecostal). When this is being replaced by cultural views, subjectivity and outright criticism of the scripture, I still can love the person, but we won’t come to an agreement.
Illustration: If someone builds a helicopter according to his own ideas and invites me to join him on a flight, I want to be sure whether he believes and applied the laws of aerodynamics and gravity. If this “Icarus” says: “I think nature is too legalistic”, I’ll politely hit the road. So, rightly diving scripture may become a serious fellowship-issue: We might be unable to ride a helicopter together.
Alexander
Royce:
How are we raised with Christ? Eph. 2
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alexander,
What Royce described is the norm in the American South. All of those things exist and more. Because of the environment you live in, you do not and cannot understand the mindless attacking that goes on here. The preacher at the Church I attend has been attacked because he spoke in Methodist Church at a Mothers against Drunk Driving event, the church has been criticized because we take up a special offering that goes only for the poor. We have Churches who will condemn you for drinking a soft drink while mowing the Church lawn (you have to go across the street). We have Churches who are condemned for having a basketball goal on the premises for the youth. The list is endless, with arbitrary lines used to condemn. Now they will often smile and say as a Preacher friend of mine did “well I am not going to say for sure that doing ………….. will send you to hell, but if you ask me to give you my opinion I would have to say yes it will”. Some are less soft spoken and will directly tell you that you have left the faith and are bound for hell.
I ask you to consider that you can not understand the mindset of some here, if you never been condemned because you gave food to the poor in your community who were not members of the Church.
Thanks Johnny. Your comment reminds me of a couple of episodes after Hurricane Katrina.
A group of friends, members of the church of Christ in a small Alabama fishing community were doing all they could to relieve the hurting in their community. They were sternly rebuked by so called “brothers” from the church of Christ for giving out canned goods that had been donated to them from Methodists. There was no label on the cans except the one you would see in a supper market.
In that same community strongly rebuked a church of Christ man, a very dear man to me now, because for fear of what the brotherhood might think he was willing to help drunks, addicts, whores and the whole array of sinners who were in need but loudly protested helping black Baptists.
I could write a book of such utter, unChristian nonsense. How about a group of fine “Christians” who together paid for and published a full page ad in an Oklahoma news paper to condemn a church of Christ that decided to have an instrumental service. Such sinful stupidity has nothing to do with theology but to prove that everyone who cries Lord Lord is not the real item.
Royce:
How are we raised with Christ? Eph. 2
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
The same way we were “made alive” and “seated us with him in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus”. I understand you believe this is a reference to baptism but it isn’t for the following reasons.
1. A large part of both Ephesians 1 & 2 are a look back to what God has already done, some of it before the creation of the world. It is a glimpse into God’s predetermined purposes and plans for the redemption of a fallen humanity who were not yet created.
2. In chapter 1 there is the view of God choosing a people in Christ to be holy and blameless vs 4 Predestined to be adopted as sons through Christ vs 5
Then in vs’s 17-23 is Paul’s prayer for the believers at Ephesus, (a prayer that we should read carefully and thoughtfully by the way.) Near the end of chapter 1 Paul says “and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places” vs’s 19-20 Note: “seated…in the heavenly places”.
3. Now we come to chapter 2. In verses 5 and 6 there is the same language as chapter one 19-20. “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” If you pay close attention to the words you can see what is being said. “Made us alive TOGETHER WITH CHRIST”. When? When he made Christ alive. And in the same way, “And raised us up WITH HIM and seated us WITH HIM in the heavenly places…”. When did he raise us? When he raised Jesus. When did he seat us? When he seated Jesus.
4. In Romans 6 Paul begins a teaching about how believers are freed from the dominion of sin and death. In the first section of chapter 6 he lays out what baptism beautifully pictures. It is a reenactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He uses the wonderful language of being buried with Christ and being raised with Him which is what baptism depicts. Then in chapter 7 Paul illustrates how believers are freed from the requirements and penalty of the law by talking about divorce. A woman whose husband has died is free. Then Paul says this in vs 4 “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law THROUGH THE BODY OF CHRIST, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead”.
So, did I die in baptism, or did I die in the representative death of Jesus? It was the later. Just as I was seated with him in the heavenlies when he was raised and seated, so I died when he died because he represented me. Just as my death was linked to Adam my release from death is linked to Jesus, the second Adam. When Adam sinned death passed to me and every man. When Jesus was raised from death to live forever I was promised immortality by his life. It was his physical body and perfect life that reconciled me to God. Nothing by human hands could do that.
5. I know you want Ephesians 2 to mean baptism. But, look at what it says. “and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” vs 6. So Bruce, was Jesus raised up when you were raised up from the water? Were you seated in the heavenly places when you were raised up from the water, or when Jesus was seated? “Raised us up WITH HIM” is hard to get around, it is very clear.
Finally, back once more to Romans 6. Paul is talking about what baptism pictures. He says “We know that our old self WAS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin”vs 6. So Bruce, were you crucified in baptism or in his representative death on the cross? Now everyone knows that “crucified” means death. If we were crucified “with him” then our death is not in the waters of baptism because Jesus didn’t die in a river, he died on a Roman cross. Rather our death was “with him” in his dying. Baptism is, like the Lord’s Supper, a physical representation of the passion of Jesus for sinners. Neither is optional, both are essential, and both picture the work of God in Christ Jesus to save us.
Now I don’t think for a millisecond that I’ve changed your mind or anyone else for that matter. But maybe you understand my position better.
I also thank you, Johnny for giving me a glimpse of the situation there. I only know two churches of Christ in the Duluth Area /Minnesota – that’s where my wife is from. They are very conservative, but not remotely the way you describe it. I do agree that what you describe is absolutely and in no way justifyable.
But in the discussions here, no one spoke or argued like this. And more: These positions are far beyond anything that a healthy application of CENI would lead to. Therefore, since mostly we debate is rooted in our different hermeneutical approaches, it’s not helpful to point to such extremes and to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Misapplications of CENI do not render this approach worthless as a whole.
But what I have read here, in various comments or (especially now) at new Wineskins is often way beyond ANY common sense approach to reading and understanding ANY given text. These articles don’t qualify as teaching based on sound exegesis and discernment of God’s Word, but are an example of a “culture driven” church-movement that has lost its connection to the good roots of our heritage. May it be a reaction to the abuses you mention, Royce, but it is a terrible overreaction, way into the other extreme.
And of course churches that are in the habit of condemning others for even drinkng soft drinks while mowing the church lawn, will speak out loudly against these developments as well. The problem is, since they have used their loudest voice already on such “nonsense” (as you correctly put it), they lack any means to communicate that this time it is really setrious. So, their concerns/criticism to these far weightier issues looses any credibilty.
But you should be able to discern, Royce: Is what is debated at the New Wineskins now – a boundless Christianity – really on the same level as drinking a soft drink while mowing the church lawn? It is not even remotely on the level of instrumental Music, either, Royce. It is about understanding terms and boundaries of the covenant which is vital for our life and organization as churches of Christ. the question “Who is in and who is out” is important, yet all answers (Jay being the only exception) are embarrasingly poor: No definitions of fellowship were offered, texts are quoted that have nothing or only very little to do with this question – and most ofthe time Bible Verses were just used to illustrate the conviction of the author. I was very explicit in my criticism there.
It is not good and not helpful at all, when you (or Bob, or others) somehow throw all the critics into one boat, mix the issues, and dismiss the possibility that from “our” direction anything sensible could come. Here we are dealing with some real and deep differences, and I am glad that Jay started a new series now, going into this in more detail.
To reconfirm e.g. I have a strong opinion on e.g. a-capella worship, and I say it is necessary that each local congregation is unified in this issue. Yet I don’t regard it a s a fellowship issue between different churches. On the other hand, the way IM is being introduced too often lacks discernment, love, submission and therefore unity is being sacrificed for the Baal of IM. To this I oppose strongly.
And again: This is on a far lower level than what is at stake at the current issue of New Wineskins.
Alexander
Bruce spoke of the use of instruments and remarked: “It is called “sensationalism” and it is wiping out worship.”
>>
To an extent, I will agree with Bruce here. But I must divide the generalization much more finely if it is to make much sense. There is, indeed, a hazard which I have seen of making music in the church into a spectator event which does not encourage participation in the songs themselves. It puts the emphasis on production value, and lets everything else come second. Most godly musicians struggle with this at times. (I can testify to this challenge personally.) For those who stumble over this obstacle, it is very real. They may wind up enjoying the moment much as they would a concert, but miss connection with the Father and with one another. This is not, however, a problem of instrumentation. For many of us can readily and joyously worship even when the songs are unfamiliar and the tunes not so accessible. I was visiting with a well-known worship leader several years ago, and he opined, “Some folks are just worshippers. Hit a C chord and they are at 40,000 feet in the Spirit, with you or without you.” But many are deterred in worship in acapella services by songs sung poorly or apathetically, or strung together awkwardly, or led inexpertly. Killing the piano does not solve the problem. Because the problem never lies in the instruments. Ever.
Yes, anything beautiful has the capacity to draw attention to itself. But thus is the nature of beauty as God has made it. Hold services outside next to a beautiful waterfall, and yes, you may have trouble getting people to concentrate on your carefully-crafted lecture about sanctification. That does not make waterfalls somehow evil or inappropriate for Christians. Trying to avoid such beauty for religious reasons is a monastic, ascetic view– wherein sackcloth is more holy than a trumpet played in praise to the Most High.
I will suggest that if we are to talk about worship, or something “wiping out worship”, we had best be much more clear about what we actually mean. We use “worship” to mean many things: the regularly-scheduled meeting as we know it, the musical part of the meeting, adoration toward God, reverence, singing, “the five acts”, etc. Especially when used as a noun, I see a wide variance in what various believers mean by it.
When a brother says that certain kinds of music are “wiping out worship”, I realize that this can mean a number of things, from “That music is not encouraging the hearts and minds of people toward God,” to “That music is too loud and rowdy and I don’t like it. It’s ruining what I expect to experience when I come to church.”
Sometimes, we are not sensitive enough to one another with how we arrange things in a group setting. That I have a favorite new song is not a good reason for bringing it into the assembly. It’s not about me; it is about encouraging others to direct their love to the Father. On the other hand, sometimes we become very proprietary about what happens in our group meetings. We become, sadly, a bit like little neighborhood children who stamp their feet and say, “I was here first! I get to say what we play!”
Yes, sensationalism does find its way into the church, and it’s not healthy. But those who think the cure is to bind acapella music on people are like the man who would poke your eyes out to keep you from looking at things you shouldn’t.
Alexander,
Obviously, your boundaries for fellowship, or who is in and who is out, are different than mine. Perhaps you could list some of them. Could you or would you be willing to do that? I believe that would be a great help to me. Then I could know clearly, rather than in generalities, exactly how New Wineskins has run into the ditch.
Thanks,
Royce
Oh, let me add this. You said “But you should be able to discern, Royce: Is what is debated at the New Wineskins now – a boundless Christianity..”
I’m sure I remember at least once when the webservent added a disclaimer saying that content does not necessarily reflect the positions of New Wineskins. I understand it’s scary to some people to see a different view in print.
One of the reasons most of the U.S. more traditional coc’s have a flat earth theology is that for many, many decades members are trashed if they dare read a book or listen to a CD by anyone other than a “brotherhood” author or speaker. You know, someone they know before hand they agree with. Maybe it’s because I’m the curious sort but I’ve always enjoyed theological and doctrinal discussions with all sorts of people including atheists, Pentecostals, Methodists, several varieties of Baptists, Church of God, Assembly of God, Mennonites, Bible Churches, Community churches of several flavors, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and fire breathing Campbellites. You know what? Among almost all of those groups I have met some humble, Jesus trusting, sinner loving, people of God.
So, my hat is off to Keith Brenton for allowing a sprinkling of views that are more to the progressive side than suits my taste. I am not offended in the least. I doubt you will find my alternative views in the Gospel Advocate for example. A faith you can’t defend isn’t much is it? Not implying you can’t and don’t defend yours well, but most in your camp can’t.
I could make this very short and just refer you to Eph 4:4-6, Royce, but that would be too repetetive. Let me try a differernt route:
What gave the impuls for the Restoration Movement was the extremely closed practivce of the Lord’s supper among the various Presbyterian subdivisions. As minister in the Old Light Anti Burgher Seceder Group (I think I got that right) Thomas campbell could not have fellowship in the communiun services with other Presbyterian groups. (See, it can be worse than our own factionalism …)
When you read the Declaration and Address of 1809, you frequently cross the phrase what and what not shall be considered being “terms of communion”. From the background of his biography, this focusses in th question: “With whom can we celebrate the Lord’s Supper?” This is A LOT MORE precise than the question “Who’s in and who’s out” or “with whom can we fellowship.” I take the D&A as a starting point, and let me sum it up:
a) A Christian is a person, who believes the Gospel and lives accordingly.
b) Living according to the Gospel is defind by striving to do what is written in the New Testament which is God’s book for the people ofthe New covenant.
c) How do we discern what and how the NT shall be applied? By recognizing clear commands as such, by following (not any old “pattern”, but) approved (!) precedents (see, it needs discernment). Applying these might sometimes require some inferences as to the exact how an when, but they should be regarded as human expediences, although they also may be correct biblical doctrine.
What I like about this original understanding of CENI: It is not a creedal approach, but rather giving a direction. Applied consistently and wisely it has the power …
a) to lead us into a better understanding of God’s will under the guidance of the Spirit through His Word, because it rules out human influences best as possible. Why? because it forces us to draw our conclusions from scripture and not from culture or tradition.
b) to unite Christians as they draw closer to God’s Will revealed in his Word.
A few years later (1812) the issue of baptism was resolved following this “method”, or better: Following God’s leading. And although administered by a Baptist the “Disciples of Christ” refined the Baptist understanding of baptism, going beyond the limitations of their creeds. Now, interstingly, this was too much for the Red Stone Baptist association, and the “Disciples of Christ” were excluded.
This shows, BTW, that the way to unity will also meet denominational or simply human resistance. But anyway – I read the D&A in the light of 1812 as well, so baptism is a command or approved precedent which by its very nature is a term of communiun (fellowship at the Lord’s Table).
Now, what is not a term of communion? Whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian, for instance. Why? Because such issues are way more complicated than a simple Christian can understand without considerable effort in theology. They are a bit more than just “opinions”, but they are defnitely not fellowship issues in the discussed sense. The same is true for Instrumental Music which is also a complex matter, esp in our day and age, where a lot of confusion is being spread. What does that mean? I personally greeted and welcomed a brother from Quail Springs coC/OK in our assembly. I just told him not to touch the piano (we rent the facilities from an Evangelical church), because it is full of Demons. He accepted and worshipped with us. Or, a brother among is is “hyper-dispensationalist”, we frequently discuss this, but is no big deal for either of us. We even have a more progressive brother – yet, when he preached and I noticed the bend, I talked to him – and we had some more serious discussion on it – yet, he chose to not worship with us any more (he was never in any way asked to shut up and leave).
Most of these “opinion” issues however have to be solved and decided on the level of a local congregation. We won’t accept teachings based on the historical critical method (that was the issue, among a second topic, I’ll mention soon). We have to decide whether we worship with or without instruments. And here the congregation has to submit to the leadership they themselves (under the guidance ofthe Spirit) chose and appointed.
As for interdenominational fellowship: We welcome all sincere Christians that are baptized into Christ and want to live accordingly as brothers and sisters at the Lord’s Table. As Christ has received us, so do receive them. We see baptism as the step when this “officially” happens. Whether saved before by faith or not is secondary in this context – baptism is the “entry” into the covenant. Period. But we don’t expect them to share all our dectrinal view and decisions, we as a local church hold to. So, Baptist, Mennonites, Pentecostals may worship with us any time. Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians and Methodists (unless they are baptized on their confession to Christ as Lord) are not invited to the Lord’s Table. Because they have not entered the covenant, yet.
Now for inter-congregational fellowship. This is a bit more difficult. First of all, the divisions are still there, and our aim is to overcome division. As church of Christ we already stepped out of denominationalism (if we slip back again, then this is a wrong move). Our whole idea is: We are simply a Christian Church. We model our church life as closely as possible according to the NT, because we are convinced that what applies to us applies to all: There is one Bible for all Christians, and we all are to seek God’s Will diligently …. for details go back to the principles laid out in the D&A.
Now some churches today openly go into a different direction: The make culture the standard for their hermeneutc and abandon bit by bit biblical truths (e.g. inerrancy of scripture), commands (e.g. women are allowed to become elders) or approved precedents. Yet they introduce a number of new inferences (based e.g. cultural evolution – we are more adbvanced than 1st century Christians; or based on “guessing” what the impact/purpose of the “story/narrative” originally might have been) that are often highly subjective. In this we cannot follow, and reaching out becomes difficult.
If we fellowship the churches (not receiving them as brothers or sisters in our assembly) – meaning congregational co-operation – we should be at least united on commands and approved precedents. We cannot invite a female pulpit minister to speak in our church, for instance. This would mean, we approve of this grave disorder. We also won’t invite speakers that question e.g. the miracles of our Lord Jesus. Most contributers on the New Wineskins we’d welcome as brothers and sisters at the Lord’s Table for instance, but we would not let them teach.
But there are other areas, where we CAN cooperate. We are loosely associated with the Evangelical alliance, for instance. We can cooperate in charity and relief work. And of course, we can socialize, meet and greet each other! We can read the Bibles together or pray together in “informal meetings”, recognizing our differences without the need to overcome them here and now. But this is not unity, this is a first step to eventually introduce the idea of unity by restoration.
And BTW restoration is still unfinished (als with us in Vienna). I see two main problems among churches of Christ: Churches that view themselves as a finished work (fully restored) – give me five minutes in their meetings to show them they are not! And churches that go into a completely opposite direction by adopting contemporary culture and philosophy as their guiding star. Both ways are equally wrong. Both are a departure of the way that once drove the Restoration Movement and DID create unity.
I hope this was helpful
Alexander
Alexander,
It was extremely helpful! Thank you very much for presenting these things. I am pleased to learn that you are far different in your views than my perceptions having only become acquainted with you by reading your many comments on Jay’s blog. We have more in common than you might be comfortable admitting, LOL.
Our first difference is that I have zero loyalty to Alexander Campbell. He was a great Christian man, an influential leader, and I’m certain accomplished much good. However I wouldn’t allow him or anyone else to set the agenda for how I view God’s family. Campbell had some seriously flawed theology (as we all do I suppose, I’m sure I’m not right about everything) so I’d rather try to sort out God’s path using only my Bible and my prayer closet.
And, I would fellowship folks you would not because of our differences on baptism. I come down very close to Jay, light years from your position.
I believe you are a good, sincere man. I believe that at times, like yours truly, you paint with too wide a brush, and like me, are too quick to make a judgment about others.
Just for the record, since I contribute at Wineskins, your negative remarks describing writers there miss me, as we say in the South, a country mile. When it comes to the Word of God I am a strict literalist except for places where the literary style is clearly something other than literal. And culture certainly does not have any bearing on how I view ministry, worship, or evangelism, except when culture can be used to further ministry opportunities. Nuts need love too! For example, it makes little sense to use 1050’s methods of communication in 2012. As for fellowship markers I am partial to 1st John, the whole book. There are many other passages but I am especially fond of 1st John.
It might interest you to know that you would be black listed in much of the South in America as a liberal. Jay can confirm this as he lives and ministers on the buckle of the Bible belt here in the U.S.
One last thing. I hope you will rethink rejecting everyone who contributes to Wineskins wholesale. I know some of them pretty well and I assure you some of those men are far better men than I, far better Christians, and would come far closer to agreeing with what you teach than I would. So, reject me if you choose but let every person stand on his own merit. I think that is good advice anytime.
Thanks again for the discourse.
Royce
Charles:
Thank you for considering the post. I appreciate your listening. Let’s not think of “binding a cappella” and instead focus on what Paul wrote. He addressed darkness and the issue of sensationalism by guiding the Ephesians to the simplest expressions of worship — song from the heart. That is what is at the heart of Ephesians 5:18-21. And the more I learn about the background, the more I see why he contrasts “debauchery” with song. Doing further translation of some remarkable inscriptions from Roman Asia along that line, but not ready to describe findings yet.
However, urge “no IM in our congregational assemblies” and many folks in the U.S. get very emotional and their thought crystallizes into, “But is it WRONG?” That question announces the very legalism we need to be running from. Amazes me that we keep asking that question when we see what Paul is saying and why.
And YES sensationalism can show up in a cappella assemblies as well. One thing we need to do differently — and do it NOW? We desperately need to sing the Scriptures to one another far more than we have over the past 50 years.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce:
I appreciate your taking the time to lay out your thought and beliefs. So, you believe that baptism is a “work of faith” (the Baptist/Evangelical conclusion and I gather Jay’s as well)?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I think I made myself pretty clear. What part did you disagree with?
Jay has written extensively about his views, I’m surprised anyone who is a regular here would wonder what he believes. You call it Baptist others call it Biblical. The good news for you is that you are free to believe what you choose and you never have to accept what is wrong to you.
Bruce,
Just curious, why when you discuss Ephesians 5:18-21 you usually do not mention being filled with the Spirit, giving thanks, and submitting to one another? Why do you only talk about singing? Since the obvious construction of the verse suggests singing, being thankful, and submitting are results of being filled with the Spirit, maybe you should investigate that.
Well, Royce, I think our tensions cooled down a bit, and that’s great.
BTW a brother just confirmed to me via e-mail:
And he is from the South. So maybe its different from congregation to congregation, and “shunning” is can be regarded as an expression of “church autonomy”.
Anyway, thanks for taking time to hear me out …
Alexander
Oh, on thing: I take Alexander and Thomas Cmpbell with a grain of salt also, but I am eager to listen to great teachers of the past, also the ECF, because of two reasons:
a) They were appointed by the Spirit – so I can expect “inspiring” teaching from them
b) They – as any other gift – are for the whole church, as Paul says in 1Co 3:21-23, they “are all yours”
And I appreciate them. They help me to stay in balance and bind me together with the church of Christ throughout history. Unity does mean unity with the whole church from pentecost to their rapture. But my faith is built on the Lord.
Alexander
Alexander,
Royce said that you would be branded as a liberal in MUCH of the South USA and I would say that he is absolutely correct. When I started attending the CofC congregation with whom I worship, a class that I was in was studying a book (written by a CofC minister, of course) that mentioned “Liberal CofC’s”. I asked the class if that wasn’t an oxymoron and what would a liberal CofC look like anyway? The person sitting behind me said “most of the other CofC’s in this county would say you are sitting in one right now”. So there is some variation in the Southern USA CofC but for the most part, you probably would be tagged as being a liberal. Just try letting a group know that you have some problems with CENI and see what happens. I got crossed up with some of the church leadership when I did that even in my “Liberal” CofC.
Alexander,
In my part of the world, N E Louisiana, a coc congregation doesn’t have to have a woman preacher or a live band on Sunday morning to be branded “liberal” or even worse.
If a church has a praise team (more than one songleader), especially if they stand and face the congregation, If some people are allowed to clap their hands to the music, If the preacher or elders considers anyone other than coc people saved, If the leader of the children’s ministry is a woman and they call her a children’s minister, etc., etc.
A young preacher friend of mine who was the pulpit minister for a church in Arkansas wrote a passage of Scripture on a chalk board while teaching a Sunday morning Bible class. Immediately after the class an elder chewed him out saying it was wrong and unscriptural to do that. He asked my advice and I advised him to get away from that place as soon as possible and prayed for God to give him another assignment. God did and he did.
The list could go on and on. Maybe you see why there is such a push back against this sort of ignorance and sinfulness especially here in the American south. The almost funny thing is that when a congregation is branded “liberal” or even “apostate” it is very seldom related to theology. I use the word “legalists” to describe such people because like the Pharisees they have their own unique list of rules that one must comply with to be considered saved. I am thankful you don’t have to contend with this sort of nonsense in the name of Jesus.
Bruce said: “Let’s not think of “binding a cappella” and instead focus on what Paul wrote.”
>>>
Ah, but there’s the rub. For us to “not think” of binding acapella music on believers does not change the result. That undeniably is our historic practice. Were I doing it, I would not want to think of it that way either.
I know what Paul wrote, but here, I think the issue is that we are talking about what he did NOT write. In this case, Bruce, I think you are building a doctrinal mountain, not out of a molehill, but out of the absence of a molehill. The admonition to “sing” is being taught as though it says “sing, and don’t play any instruments while you do so, at least not in church”. For a group who prides itself in sticking to what the scripture speaks, this is additive doctrine created by making an inferential leap which invents an exclusion found nowhere in the text itself.
Here is a parallel to consider. Paul instructs believers to “greet one another with a holy kiss”. But we do not follow the same interpretive track with this passage as we do with his instruction to “sing and make melody in your hearts”. No satisfactory reason for this inconsistency has been offered. If I were to apply the hermeneutic consistently, I would have to teach that the handshake is displeasing to God, for the scripture specifically says “kiss” and mentions a handshake not once. In fact, under this interpretive approach, the admonition to kiss specifically excludes the additions of handshaking or hugging. In fact, I might well get a bit stirred up because, in this case, we have actually stopped doing what is taught us in scripture, and replaced it entirely with a greeting more suitable to our own culture.
Having said all this, I find myself merging into the same roundabout which has been hauling traffic counter-clockwise for years. One more truck burning gas in this little exercise is probably of no value. I think I shall let others have the last word.
The sitution in Europe is very different, since we are even less than a minority group. Yet we also had our splits, and to us “liberal” definitely are those who for instance change the role of women in church; or better (since this is just the outcome) whose hermeneutic has been opened to historical-criticism and cultural thinking. The problem may not so much be the congregation, but the preacher – and this leads back to the influence of some Christian Universities I am very careful about … This BTW makes me a quite convinced “non-institutionalist”. Interestingly: In my experience, it’s been the “liberals” so far who separated themselves.
@ Doug
The difference between liberal churches of Christ and Leprachauns is that the latter truly don’t exist. What constitutes a liberal church of Christ may differ from what a person considers liberal (it’s not an absolute term, but relative to your stand point), and surely they don’t write it on their church doors either. As beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, so liberalsm does.
As I said elsewhere: We are talking about a cross-denominational split. So it does not necessarily create new denominations, but alienates congregations within each congregation. So it’s different than in the past, in a sense more compicated, in another sense it simplifies the matter. I find a lot more agreement with the conservative groups in almost any given denomination that with New Winerskins for instance. Again, this might open new doors for cooperation and start a new process of unification, who knows …
Alexander
@Alexander, I concur that in many congregations I am aware of your stated views would cause you to be viewed with some suspicion at the very least.
The latter I can imagine, Emmet. I do have something to say about typical coC inconsistencies, but on the other hand, I still use CENI to make my points – which means, we still speak the same language.
Alexander
Two points that I would like to make here. Exclusionists ( no instrument in worship ) use the history argument to prohibit instruments in worship, and conclude that the early Church “sang accapella “( an Italian word ). What they never mention is that the early Church “chanted “. This means that they all sung in unison in the same key ( no harmony ). This fact would prohibit any kind of worship that included harmony, with or without instruments. The second interesting fact is that you will find no early Church Christians using the same argument from Scripture to condemn instrumental music that Exclusionists use today; primarily Ephesians 5:19. This begs the question that must be answered; Why did they chant? If there was a command from God to sing without instruments, why did they not cite such Scripture? If Scripture cannot be brought forth that prohibits instrumental music in worship, and it was not part of the Mosaic Law that was done away with, then there is no Biblical authority to do away with instruments as well as vocal harmonies. The early Church did both.
Alexander,
I am a little suprised you can say that the use of CENI allows you to speak the same language with others in the CofC. I think that, in fact, CENI-S causes the various CofC factions to speak very different languages. Like I mentioned on Wineskins, the 12-step definition of insanity to to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. The factions of the CofC keep placing their faith in CENI expecting it to restore the Church… it hasn’t happened yet brother, and by now you’d think that they’d realize that it’s insanity to keep expecting it to happen. It might be great if we could replace CENI-S with perhaps CENI-G(race) and try that for awhile to see what happens.