RICHLAND HILLS, RICK “ABIHU”
ATCHLEY, AND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (1)
Gary
W. Summers
“Nation’s Largest
Congregation Adding Instrumental Service,” boasts the headline on page 3 of the
January Christian Chronicle. The Richland Hills Church of Christ near
Back in 1991,
Goebel Music wrote 30 pages about Rick Atchley and
the
At that time, Atchley had only been with Richland Hills a year, but the
congregation was evidently so far gone that the elders and members did not
notice that he placed the Lord’s church, a Divine institution built and paid
for by Jesus Himself (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28), on a par with religious
denominations which were established 1500 years later by mere men. How can any discerning soul—especially those
who grew up hearing the truth—not see the difference between the two?
His “sermon” is
filled with quotations and faulty human reasoning. Besides the text, the only other Scripture
references are “some verses, spoke of earlier in Mark 9, chapter three and
‘over in the nineteenth chapter of Acts’” (149). He did find time to mention or quote 14
individuals, including his grandparents,
Music also exposed the dishonesty of false
teachers like Atchley, who had previously stated publicly:
I will be open to any opportunity to
teach and be taught more fully the way of Jesus. I’ll be open to any chance,
any place, any where with any body to teach and be taught more fully…. I will
seek any chance…or to be taught because a disciple is, by definition, folks, a learner (160).
Brother Music
took him at his word. On
Restoration Forum, 2002
In October, 2002,
Rick “Abihu” Atchley (as
this writer designated him due to his comments) spoke at Restoration Forum XX
in
What are you going to wind up with
if you follow Jesus? You are going to wind up with a cross on your back, aren’t
you? Let me just imagine—I don’t think anybody with a cross on their back,
about to die, fussed about a piano (much laughter). Did they? That’s not what you talk about when
you are on your way to be crucified. When you and I die to self, we can be of
the same mind, even when we are not of the same opinion. I think it is a
crucial matter we need to get across. Be of the same mind with one another.
This writer’s
observations concerning such gibberish were written in May of 2003 but not
published in Spiritual Perspectives
until November 2nd of that year:
The fact is that Jesus spoke about
the Father seeking true worship (John
Anyone with a cross on his back
should be reminded constantly that it is not what he thinks that is
important—but rather what God commands.
We should be so concerned about pleasing Him that we would never want to
do anything that is questionable or that lacks Biblical authority (Col.
3:17). Where is the New Testament
passage that authorizes instruments of music in our worship? No one can cite a commandment for its being
added to our singing. No one can provide
a single example of Jesus, the apostles, or the church using it in the entire
New Testament. No verse implies that it
ought to be used. Where does the authority
come from to include it? It is nothing
but “will worship” (KJV) (“self-imposed religion,” NKJV), which simply means:
“We will use it because we like to use it.”
Atchley’s vision is misapplied: we have no
pianos upon our backs while we carry the cross; those who have brought them
into their worship with-out God’s authority or approval are the ones bearing
that burden.
But Atchley was far from finished in that Forum. He also vowed:
I figure I’ve got about twenty,
twenty-five years of preaching left.
I’m not going to spend them pushing brothers and
sisters away. And in my lifetime, brothers and sisters, the walls between our heritage can come down.
He acts as though
those who disagree with his approach are pushing people away. The fact is that those who introduced
instrumental music into the worship are the ones who pushed us away. If they would give up what they cannot
justify, we would be delighted.
An Open Forum
followed this session, and Atchley defiantly challenged:
So what it’s going to take from our
side is some churches and some leaders and some preachers to stand up and say,
“Folks, we’re not trying to make you worship and violate your conscience. We’re
not trying to bring in pianos. We’re sayin’, FLAT
OUT, it ain’t wrong. You shouldn’t believe its
wrong—because, if you do, you haven’t preached the gospel well here.”
What could be
plainer? So far as Atchley
is concerned, instrumental music “ain’t wrong.” Many of us are, therefore, scarcely surprised
that Richland Hills, under Atchley’s razor-sharp
ability to comprehend and explicate the Scriptures, would bring in the
instrument (despite the affirmation: “We’re not trying to bring in pianos”).
The Plan Announced on
The Christian Chronicle article reports that
Richland Hills “has decided to add an instrumental worship assembly with
communion on Saturday nights” (3). One
of the elders described the response as overall “extremely positive.” What a surprise! After seventeen years (1989-2006) of Atchley’s “preaching,” they could probably introduce Hindu
chants on Friday night and have 1,000 people show up.
Atchley assured the church that this decision was not a
hasty one: “This has been part of about a three-year journey that the
leadership has been on” (3). In other
words, they started moving this direction shortly after Atchley
spoke at
The following
information is not hearsay. The three
videos of what was taught at Richland Hills are available at www.rhchurch.org,
and anyone can watch them. Because it is
a video and not a tape recording, some of the quotes may not be precise; those
with quotation marks around them, however, are.
The December 3rd
class was introduced by an elder, who said he knew all the elders that Richland
Hills ever had in its fifty year history and that they were all honorable men
of God. He asserted that Rick Atchley was a man of sincerity and wisdom (even though he
could not answer two questions posed to him by Goebel Music). He said that Rick cares about the Bible and
what it says. “He never steps outside
the authority of the Scriptures.” The
reader has already seen enough of Atchley’s comments
to know better than that.
When Rick began
to speak, he emphasized how that he and the elders had studied, prayed, and
fasted over this decision, which apparently means that it must be correct. In his first lesson on their decision, he
chose to deal with the either/or versus the both/and principle and then discuss
underlying fears.
John Wooden, Authority
He began by
quoting John Wooden’s devotional thoughts which he
wrote at the age of 92. The former UCLA
coach gave examples of the idea that there is no progress without change, which
constitutes enough authority for Rick and Richland Hills to make the adjustments
they had proposed.
Next he explained the difference between
either/or issues versus both/and ones.
“Was Jesus human or Divine?” presents a false dichotomy since He was
both while on the earth. “Is God
sovereign, or does man have free will?” is another one in which both alternatives
are true. He did recognize that some
either/or alternatives are legitimate, such as “Will you serve God or mammon?”
Atchley placed a cappella singing and singing with
instruments in the both/and category, but never once explained why they fail to
be diametrically opposed. He next gave a
brief summary of his own history, explaining that he had been reared in an
anti-instrumental music church. (He now
claims to be pro a cappella.) When he
was in the student senate at
He made it clear
that the leadership at Richland Hills has no intention of forcing instrumental
music upon anyone; all will be free to sing a cappella just as they have for
years. But Richland Hills must become a
both/ and church, where people have choices.
How absolutely generous and tolerant to a fault!
He finally
arrived at a passage of Scripture—Acts 15.
He does a credible job of
explaining the context of the problem and an incredible job of applying the passage. The Jews had for centuries observed circumcision;
some were requiring of Gentiles that they be circumcised and keep other parts
of the Law of Moses. Many Jewish
Christians insisted that circumcision was an either/or proposition: either a
convert had to be circumcised or he could not be fellowshipped. The apostles and elders made it a both/and
situation. The Jews could continue to
practice circumcision, as they always had, and the Gentiles would be free not
to do so. In Atchley’s
mind (and the elders who gave him full endorsement), this situation is parallel
to using instrumental music or not doing so.
What Rick failed
to do is to show why the two are parallel.
In fact, they are not. The Jewish
Christians were born under one covenant and obeyed the gospel under another
one. The Christian system has been in
effect for nearly 2,000 years, and instrumental music has never been accepted
by the church or authorized by God. The
two situations are not parallel at all!
In the Old Testament, the stranger and the servant could not partake of
the Passover unless they were first circumcised (Ex.
Atchley concludes by saying: “The simple and wrong solution
is to make a law and say everyone must live according to this law.” The Jewish Christians were doing that very
thing. But those of us opposed to instrumental
music have not made a law; we have simply observed that nothing in the New
Testament authorizes its use. Again, no
parallel exists.
Four Principles
Atchley tried to apply to the situation at Richland Hills four principles from this study of Acts 15.
1. “There was clear and respectful
communication” in resolving the Acts 15 problem. No name calling was in evidence; such
indicates a weak position. Has he forgotten
that Jesus called the Pharisees “serpents” and a “brood of vipers” (Matt.
2. “The believers listened with an open
mind.” They did on this occasion. Atchley praises
more than once the Richland Hills church members for their maturity and
open-mindedness. What that means is that
they do not oppose unscriptural innovations because they have heard his skewed
preaching for 17 years.
3. “They turned to the Word of God for
confirmation,” which refers to James’ citing of Amos 9:11-12. Rick commends them for looking at an old text
in a new way (what does that portend?).
4. “They were more committed to their
mission than to their heritage.” The Jews,
of course had a 2,000 year heritage. So
do Christians, and it begins with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Unlike the Jews, however, our covenant will
not be changed while the earth stands. Atchley, however, thinks we are tied to the 19th
century restoration movement, which is false.
Our only tie to them is with their plea to go back to the New Testament
for our authority in worship, service, and in our teaching concerning
salvation. Who dares to find fault with
that idea?
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please
refer to this article as: "Whatever the article name from above is (
Return
To Article Index