RICHLAND HILLS, RICK “ABIHU”
ATCHLEY, AND INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC (3)
Gary
W. Summers
The New
Testament is the only document that can authorize what Christians ought to
practice in worship (Col. 3:17; cf. John
Five Reasons for Accepting Instrumental Praise
1. “Jesus never deals with the issue. The anti-instrumental advocates must speak
where Jesus never did. You would think
He would if this was worth splitting His church over.” If Christians oppose abortion, rape, or
homosexuality, are they speaking where the Lord never did? Jesus used the Greek word porneia, which includes
homosexuality, but He did not use the specific Greek word for that sin. Should we argue, therefore, that these things
must be unimportant? Did the Lord say,
“Don’t sprinkle people in place of baptism”?
For that reason we operate by what
we have authority to do; we do not look for a specific denunciation of a practice.
Anything not authorized by direct statement, example,
or implied by a valid principle is worth splitting the church over. Perhaps if some brethren in the early church
would have opposed choosing one bishop as head of a congregation, the manmade
structure of the Roman Catholic Church might not have emerged. No one knows what might result from an
unopposed error (such as voting on whether or not to reaffirm elders).
Besides, our friend “Abihu” has things backward.
Perhaps he ought to answer this question. When congregations are not using instruments,
and brethren (lacking Biblical authority) have determined to introduce them,
who causes the split?
Atchley argues
that music (symphanos)
was being played in honor of the return of the prodigal son and that,
therefore, anti-instrumental people would have a hard time arguing against
instrumental praise. Is there some
reason Rick does not cite the passage (Luke
Jesus taught regularly in the temple in
the presence of instrumental praise, Atchley observes,
yet He only cast out the moneychangers—not the musicians. Catchy, huh? If musicians were playing music while Jesus
was present, it is not mentioned.
Furthermore, their doing so would not have violated the Law of
Moses. Making money off of religion,
however, was despicable; Jesus expressed His displeasure. Although Atchley
later castigates brethren for arguing from silence, he does it himself—and
incorrectly at that. Nothing he said
here relates to the issue; he gave no valid argument.
2.
“Instrumental
music is a non-issue in the book of Acts.”
Right—brethren never used it.
Rick makes another argument from silence, however, claiming that the
disciples met daily in the temple courts; so they must have been able to
worship in spirit and in truth in the presence of instrumental music. One wonders if those temple musicians ever
got a break from blowing their trumpets and strumming their harps.
Was the place ever quiet? Atchley assumes what he cannot prove.
He adds that nowhere in the New
Testament is congregational singing specifically authorized. So, he laments having a lack of Bible authority
when it suits his purpose! Later he will
take issue with the need for authority.
The fact is, however, that congregational singing is one way of
following what Ephesians
3. “New Testament commands to sing neither prescribe
nor prohibit instrumental music.” He cites
the two Scriptures mentioned above, along with James 5:13. Atchley affirmed
repeatedly, as if attempting to convince himself, that these verses speak to the individual and that the
corporate setting is not in the context of any of the verses. They are all dealing with daily living. Really? Exactly how is one brother to sing to
another, if he is alone? He has a point
on James 5:13, but the other two involve others.
“The only verse dealing with singing
in the assembly is 1 Corinthians
Atchley asserted that there is no command
to sing only—that the command is to sing. To say sing
means “sing only,” he continues, is a human inference that comes dangerously
close to speaking where God has not spoken (as Atchley
did in his two previous points). He
added that we don’t use the word that way today and wondered if we could honestly
say that Christians would have done so in the first century. The answer is, “Yes. In light of the fact that Jesus, the
apostles, and the church never used instrumental accompaniment, it is fair to
think that when they read or heard the word sing, they understood it to mean “sing only.”
4.
“The
New Testament refers to instrumental music in heaven.” Shades of
Revelation 5:8 also
talks about golden vials filled with odors.
Are those literal, or does it matter?
The other passage speaks of a sea of glass mingled with fire. Will Atchley
actually argue that all of the images in the book of Revelation are literal—or
that it doesn’t matter?
He
claims that the worship of God described in the two passages is going on right
now in heaven and then asks, “Am I honestly to believe that God accepts in
heaven what He despises on earth?” The
point would be more persuasive if everyone was not aware of the fact that
Revelation is a book of symbols, which the alert reader senses as early as chapter
one.
5.
“The
New Testament idea of giftedness supports the practice of instrumental
praise.” If musicians in the Old
Testament could praise God by playing instruments, why may we not do so now?
Rick wonders. He cites Psalm 150:3 and 2
Chronicles 30: 21. Could it be that we
are under the New Testament and not the Old?
Many churches allow acting and
painting, he continued. Why not
instrumental music? Hmm! What passage was that which authorizes
acting? When did the apostles operate a
playhouse instead of proclaiming the gospel?
When did brethren paint for one another as worship? Rick stated (incorrectly) earlier that
Christians have no authority for singing in the assembly. Apparently, then, a lack of authority does
not bother him, since brethren sing anyway—and act—and paint—and dance.
To bolster the notion that, if you
have a talent, you should use it in worship to God, Atchley
read an e-mail from one of Richland Hills’ young ladies. She had written it a few months earlier to
encourage the leadership there to adopt the alternative service. She reasoned that some people connect with
God best when instrumental music is used and that she has found a passion of
depth in such praise. The question,
however, is: “Who knows best how to define spiritual worship?”—men or God? No one doubts that painters, dancers, and
musicians derive satisfaction from their efforts, but God did not incorporate
such physical manifestations into New Testament worship.
Atchley bemoaned, “Why do we want to make
it difficult for unbelievers to worship with us? Why do we want to make it difficult for our
own children? You can’t open your Bible
and show me where God forbids it. The
New Testament was not even remotely concerned about it. The cross was central in worship.” Again, the New Testament does not forbid
dancing in worship, either; what we need is a passage that authorizes dancing,
using incense, painting, playing instruments of music, or smoking marijauna in an effort to draw closer to God. The cross is central to our preaching, along
with respecting the authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18).
Sniper Fire
The material just presented (and refuted)
is the best Atchley can do after reading everything
that had ever been written (allegedly) on both sides of the issue. It seems doubtful that he is even aware of The Highers-Blakely
Debate, which occurred only twenty years ago and reviewed the arguments
made in favor of instrumental music over the years.
One of those is based on the Greek word psallo. Our brethren have rightly taught that this
word once included the idea of musical accompaniment but that by the time of
the New Testament it just meant to sing.
We have taught this fact—not because we made it up in order to sound
impressive—but because lexicons say that it happened that way (Thayer, for
example). Rick says that the bulk of
scholarship disagrees with us, and he mentions the names of Josephus, Suetonius, Chrysostom, and
Gregory of Nyssa. Unfortunately, he provided
no passage that any of these men wrote so that we might read what they said and
understand the context in which they said it.
Perhaps the reader has seen the size of the volume of the writings of
Josephus (published in small print). No
one wants to read through 1,000 pages in an effort to figure out what Atchley is alluding to.
He says that the Bible of the first
Christians used psalmos
and that they clearly understood that the word meant use an instrument. This argument was advocated in 1920 and
shortly thereafter defeated when it was pointed out that, if Christians are to psalmos to one
another (Eph.
He poses the question: “Is it any wonder
that this explanation seems contrived to anyone except those in an anti-musical
instrument tradition?” This writer attended
the
Next Atchley bemoaned the Law of Exclusion—the teaching that
anything not specifically authorized is forbidden. Well, he got that wrong, also. Brethren have never argued in that way. What we have said is that we must have authority
for what we teach and what we practice, which Paul himself taught (Col.
3:17). No one has ever required
“specific” authority. Implication involves
the correct application of Biblical principles.
Meeting in a church building, for example, is a legitimate means of
keeping the commandment to assemble together (Heb. 10:25). No one has ever said, “I demand to see a
Scripture that mentions a church building.”
Atchley is wrong in his depiction of us
requiring specific authority. He knows
better.
Next he lists things brethren have divided
over and then says: “Silence is not intentional; it is incidental. Silence is not prohibitive or
prescriptive.” The great scholar who
allegedly respects the authority of the Scriptures must not have read Hebrews
7:14 lately, in which the Holy Spirit argues that only Levites could be priests
because of the other tribes Moses spoke
nothing. In other words, God was
silent.
“Abihu” actually
accused the Lord of violating the law of silence. “Where does God authorize a synagogue? Jesus taught in one. Where did God authorize a feast of
lights? Such was begun by the Maccabees. Where
does the Passover authorize using cups of wine?” Such questions are irrelevant. People were to teach God’s word; synagogues
were simply a means to do so. The feast of lights was a tradition that had begun; so is the
Fourth of July. Neither of these is required
to worship God properly. We do not
know what, if anything, the Israelites drank with their initial Passover. If it was wrong to use the fruit of the vine
in connection with the meal, Jesus would not have done so. Evidently, it was a matter of
indifference. Atchley
does not have a logical argument with any kind of proof to offer. He is like a sniper on an overpass, firing bullets
with the desire that, if he shoots enough of them, he will hit something. He has not hit any target yet.
The Two
Problems
As he concludes his December 10th
speech, Atchley reaffirms that he has no problem with
a cappella music and that there is nothing wrong with it (unless as he interpreted
earlier, we must play an
instrument). Then he concludes with two
final points.
1.
“No
one, not already indoctrinated would arrive at such a conclusion” (that
instrumental music should not be used in worship). He is obviously ignorant of the fact that
thousands of us have given it up. He
further claimed that most of our schools don’t even try to teach the
anti-instrumental position any more (which may be true). Most of our pulpits no longer teach it, either
(quite likely). He said a visitor asked him
why we have communion; he opened the Bible and showed them. He wanted to know why we baptize; he opened
the Bible and showed him. He asked why
we don’t use music; “I did not open my Bible.”
Many of us would—to Colossians 3:17, which is not hard to understand.
2.
“God
does not vacillate, liking instrumental music under one covenant but not another. Why would He hand someone a harp in heaven
after condemning to hell someone who used it on earth?” God accepted the sound of instruments under
the old covenant, but this one has progressed to a higher level of worship—one
in which the voice is sufficient and the noise of instruments has been
stilled. Crowns we knew would be available. Is someone laboring to receive a harp? Atchley assures
people that God will not consign people to hell for something He did not say.
*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