We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
Chapter 8 deals with elders, ministers, and other leaders within the Church. It’s a good chapter.
Yeakley argues that elders should see the preacher as a partner in ministry, not a mere employee. They should work together as a team.
Amen.
Indeed, one of the largest reasons good men leave the ministry is thoughtless treatment of our ministers by the elders.
________________
Chapter 9 deals with personal evangelism. He criticizes the legalistic view that you can’t go to heaven if you’ve not converted someone to Jesus. He argues strongly against manipulative methods — such as using fear and guilt as motivators.
It’s another good chapter.
_______________
Chapter 10 is about instrumental music. He reports that the instrumental music issue was mentioned more than any other single issue in the 325 survey results. It’s obviously a big deal for those who’ve left!
Yeakley advises that many Church of Christ leaders argue —
They regard [having both a cappella and instrumental services] as being like a congregation that keeps its baptistery for those who prefer immersion, but also installs a “baptismal font” for those who prefer sprinkling — and has one worship service for those who prefer immersion and another for those who prefer sprinkling.
And here’s the core of the instrumental music controversy. Many of our leaders see a cappella music as essential to salvation — and this is utterly destructive of the gospel.
Yeakley next argues for the Regulative Principle (authority is required for all church practices), and against the Normative Principle (all is permitted that is not forbidden), ignoring the many other possibilities — such as that the question doesn’t turn on authority at all.
Thankfully, however, Yeakley argues that instrumental music is not a salvation issue but an obedience issue (“thankfully” because you can’t really teach salvation by faith in Jesus while teaching that error on the instrument damns). Indeed, he reiterates that perfect doctrine is not required for salvation.
This is truly a remarkable concession — and a very healthy one. Yes, we should be deeply concerned to obey God’s word as best we can, but, no, we should not damn those who disagree with us over the instrument.
Yeakley argues stridently against instrumental music, but at least he has the scriptural understanding to recognize that we’re arguing about a work, not faith in Jesus. And this is a big, big deal.
‘Chapter 10 is about instrumental music. He reports that the instrumental music issue was mentioned more than any other single issue in the 325 survey results. It’s obviously a big deal for those who’ve left!”
Just wondering…. Is it that the presence or absence of instruments is so important, or is it that the issue isn’t addressed in Scripture and is still the most important topic in coc’s? I don’t care either way although I worship with an a cappella congregation. I do care that so many people care so much about what the Bible does not say at the expense of what it does say.
Why should anyone respect such flawed logic concerning IM?
My wife and I enjoy American Idol, they have some great singers. However, using the absurd logic of many in the coc none of them are singing because they have instruments. How is that not a stupid conclusion? If you ask anyone with an IQ above that of a turnip what American Idol is about they will tell you it’s a singing competition.
It’s bad enough to believe foolishness. It’s even worse when people are told they will be condemned by God based wholly upon foolishness.
Yeakley next argues for the Regulative Principle (authority is required for all church practices), and against the Normative Principle (all is permitted that is not forbidden), ignoring the many other possibilities — such as that the question doesn’t turn on authority at all.
I appreciate Jay bringing up this third view, that there are many other possibilities. I would love to see some discussion on this. As the Regulative Priniciple and the Normative Principle are two sides of the same coin, it would be interesting to consider other things. When Paul was prevented from going to “the province of Asia” by the Spirit in Acts 16, how did that happen? Did Paul apply the regulative principle? Or the normative principle? Were all the apostles kept out of this province, or just Paul and his team? Was this a general rule or a limited command? Did it happen by circumstance (getting turned back by a border guard, or being too sick to go) or by direct revelation (the “telegram from God”) or by some other method?
When we finally break the shackles of knowing the will of God by reading the Christian Constitution and ruling on it ourselves, a whole world of possibilities opens up in which we follow Jesus relationally, not legally. A world in which we are at the same time freedmen and bondslaves, a world in which the Spirit may tell one man to do A, while telling another man NOT to do that same thing. Or that which was forbidden last year is expected today.
Where following Jesus and walking by the Spirit is a matter not of regulations, but is a description of life itself.
I know, it’s terrifying…
When one denies that there is no power operative upon the human heart/mind than the written word, then one necessarily restricts oneself to, “reading the Christian Constitution and ruling on it ourselves”. The mystery to me is how, after reading and studying the scriptures, one can maintain the above viewpoint.
“Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
Lol should read maintains rather than denies…
Wow, instrumental music is an obedience issue? How can we obey the silence of the scriptures. Instruments were authorized in the Old Testament. Instruments are used in heaven in Revelation. There is a silence on instruments in the New Testament so how can we obey this silence? Again, traditional Churches of Christ major in minors and split hairs over non-salvation issues. It is no surprise that many have left and are leaving. I attended a CoC in Virginia that had wonderful contemporary Christian music and boasted of over 1000 in attendance on Sundays. The church changed the music back to traditional hymnal songs and the attendance dropped to about 500.
Too much of our bickering has been because of a “one-size fits all” mentality in our approach to discipleship and obedience. While there are definite, specific commands we all must obey, there are other teachings that have almost infinite possibilities for application. To forget this is to pave the road to frequent division.
I’m kind of with Skip – what would we be obeying or disobeying as far as IM go if the bible doesn’t speak against it?
Skip
I’d be curious to know what happened to the 500 who left? Did they go back to a CofC with instruments somewhere else or did they just drop out of the CofC all together? If the latter, then that may be more disturbing.
Its become over time what we are known for. Ak anyone in the denominations what they know about the COC and no musical instruments will come first.
To change and use instruments other than a pitch pipe is to make us like so many others, well, practically all others and we know and teach we must stand apart and walk the narrow road while all others walk the broad.
Whether right or wrong doesn’t matter, its us.
To insure this thinking and conformity continues, it must be presented s a sin and hell damnation for sure or we will really have some COC having music and some not, and that causes confusion in who we are.
No one wants to speak out in class and be ostracized and not accepted as scriptural above all others and maybe even withdrawn from in their community so its best to just be quiet and agree.
I have been told that the Church of Christ adheres to the Regulative Principle of Worship “Because it is safe”. I’m afraid that I see nothing safe in Mr. Yeakley’s numbers. Besides, since when did Christ put a spirit of fear in His disciples?
“Yeakley next argues for the Regulative Principle (authority is required for all church practices), and against the Normative Principle (all is permitted that is not forbidden), ignoring the many other possibilities — such as that the question doesn’t turn on authority at all.”
I believe the Informative Principle of Worship is a wonderful middle-of-the-road position that sees silence not as automatically prohibited. Nor does it automatically give a green light. But further questions need to be asked(e.g. does said practice edify others? Does it glorify God? Does it express his attributes as revealed through nature and revelation? etc.).
I think most conservative NPW’s and liberal RPW’s fit into this bill.
Skip,
Your anecdote about the church in Virginia does not really match up with your thoughts on the inability to obey a silence without more information.
When you say the church used contemporary music, do you mean the songs were more modern or that the church used instrumental music? I’m curious, because you contrasted contemporary music with traditional hymnal songs rather than contrasting instrumental and non-instrumental music. I have never heard of a church of Christ that used instruments later deciding not too.
What was the church’s rationale for the switch. You gave the anecdote without telling us why the church made a change in worship style.
Finally, it is disappointing that attendance at the church dropped by 500 after the change. But I think that is a commentary on the people attending that church as much as the church itself. One of the themes of Jay’s Tulsa workshop series has been teaching people to move past the consumer mindset and learn to submit and sacrifice their own preferences. If that church lost that many people because of a change in worship style, there are problems with its teaching that go much deeper than worship style.
Criticize the church for majoring in minors and splitting hairs if that is truly what happened. But you should also recognize the immaturity exhibited by 500 that left because of the worship style.