A Missionary's Attempt to Justify Instrumental Music (1)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
It must be stated at the outset that the missionary referred to here is not one that we support and is in no way affiliated with us. John (not his real name) is associated with another congregation in another state—in fact, with Claude in last week's article (“Building Bridges or Walls?”). When Claude and his wife met with a faithful brother, and this missionary's name came up in the conversation, they could not have been more effusive in their praise of John, stating how delighted they were to reconnect with him (after an absence). The very fact that Claude and his bridge-building wife are so keen on this man is a tipoff to what he believes. The reason for this article is that sometimes brethren may wonder, “How does anyone justify the use of instrumental music when the Scriptures so clearly do not authorize it?” They cannot justify it, but they try. In this instance, John wrote it down in a letter, which enables his thoughts to be analyzed.
Love and Unity
The letter is three pages; after some introductory comments, John says:
It is not my desire to change your mind but instead to perhaps have you look at the issue differently. I trust our Christian love can unite us even though we may have differing views on this and other subjects.
If it is not a desire to change someone's mind, then why bother to write? Why was the New Testament written? Can anyone imagine Paul saying these words to the Corinthians? No, what the inspired apostle said was that they should be in agreement:
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
The only time Christian love can unite us when we disagree is in a matter of opinion. No Scripture pleads for brethren to be united when some believe in truth and some practice error! Those who are in error must acknowledge their sin and leave it in order to come to the truth. Jesus prayed for the unity of His disciples (John 17:20-21). He first prayed, however, that all of the disciples be sanctified through the truth, which His Word is (John 17:17). Christians have no basis for unity if they choose to hold to conflicting doctrines. John referred to “this and other subjects,” which means that he thinks Christians can be united though there might be disagreement over five, ten, twenty, or who knows how many other doctrines he has in mind.
For or Against
Having seen that John's entire outlook is wrong, the reader should consider John's next sentence: “I will never promote instrumental music but neither will I condemn those brothers and sisters in the Lord who prefer to use it” (1).
This type of reasoning only works IF we are discussing a matter of no consequence. For example, imagine that there are some brethren who always use a pitch pipe and some brethren who do not. Both sides can love each other and be united because it does not matter if a pitch pipe is used or not. It may be advantageous, but it is not a command. Likewise, one might well say, “I would never promote the use of a pitch pipe, but I will not condemn those who do.” By arguing in this manner, John is essentially saying that the use of instrumental music is not a matter of importance—that is merely optional. Not only is he wrong, but he has assumed it is optional when that is the very thing he is required to prove!
Jesus taught that there are some things about which one cannot remain neutral: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matt. 12:30). So, how does John's logic stand up here? “I would never promote Satan, but….” “I would never promote premillennialism, but I cannot condemn those who believe it.” “I would never promote women being preachers, elders, or deacons, but….” Can anyone imagine Paul saying, “I would not promote the doctrine that the resurrection is already past, but I cannot condemn those who teach it”? Someone might protest, “But these are all doctrinal matters.” Yes, they are, and so is singing versus instrumental music.
If John were invited to worship with those “brothers and sisters” who use it, would he attend? He indicates that he would. If brethren took a vote and decided to introduce the instrument into the worship where he works, could he accept that? He answers that question in his next paragraph.
I agree thoroughly that the Biblical example of praising God is in songs and hymns without instruments. This is my preferred way to praise Him, but I don't believe that if I turned right around and sang the same song of praise using a piano or a trumpet, that God would be any less honored.
Notice that John rather than God has the deciding vote in this matter. Since he thinks singing with a trumpet honors God, then it does. He makes no effort to determine what God thinks about the subject. It is only a matter of what he prefers. Once again, this is an assumption which he has yet to prove. Most preachers and missionaries do know that it would not honor God to use an instrument along with the singing. God is only honored when we obey His teachings. He is not honored when we depart from them.
Slandering Brethren
It was only a matter of time until John got around to blaming faithful brethren for the problem of division. Notice he already admitted that in the first century the example was that of singing without musical accompaniment. So when instruments were brought in, who created the division? But in John's universe those following the example set in the Scriptures are the ones who are guilty and have mean motivations.
We, in the church of Christ, have tended to use instrumental music as a way of “separating” us from the larger body of baptized believers. Like the Pharisees in the Bible did with circumcision, we tend to use it to qualify people as to the sincerity of their believe [sic] in God. The “freedom” we have in Christ (Galatians 5:1-15) enables us not to be like the Pharisees and others who were so set on rituals of tradition which they called “the laws” and who eventually lost the “spirit” of the law. Today, we use instrumental music to say that it is not authorized by the Bible and lose the reason we're supposed to be praising Him in the first place (1-2).
This paragraph contains so many falsehoods that the reader should realize that John deals mainly in assumptions rather than facts. First, we in the churches of Christ do not use instrumental music as a means of separating ourselves from others. Such has never been the motive of any brethren. Our intent is to worship God as He commanded. When others violate the worship described in the New Testament, they separate themselves from us. Has John absolutely no knowledge of history whatsoever? Has he never read that in congregation after congregation “brethren” insisted on bring instrumental music into churches where it had never existed before, thus forcing faithful brethren to leave facilities they had built and paid for? Truly, those loving “brethren” had no regard for those who could not conscientiously sing with such unauthorized accompaniment. (Read the article, “Play On, Miss Bertha.”) And then John has the gall to insist that we have a problem? He should be ashamed and embarrassed to have written what he did (but probably is not).
Second, John compares us to the Pharisees (how flattering), but he is comparing apples to oranges. Members of the body of Christ are worshipping the way the New Testament teaches. The Pharisees' problem was that they were trying to bind something from the Law of Moses despite the fact that they were under a new covenant. Paul does discuss the freedom Christians have, but that freedom is not from any law or any obedience—it is freedom from the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:1-4). Members of the church of Christ are the ones who actually understand that we are not under the Law of Moses. Most in denominations do not make a distinction between the two covenants, but we do. Why would John compare us to the Pharisees unless he is just trying to prejudice the case against us?
If John wants to compare someone to the Pharisees, who insisted on things that were in the Law, he should look at those who bind instrumental music upon others. Under the old covenant, God commanded their use (2 Chron. 29:25), but He did not command their use in the new covenant, and John has already admitted the Biblical example we have. Those “brethren” who insist on using them often appeal to the fact that David used them and that they are found in the Old Testament. Therefore, those “brethren” do not understand that our covenant is different, and they also appeal to the law for support just as those in Galatians did. John has again tried to twist this around to intimate that we are guilty of Phariseeism when there is a far more logical case to show that those who use instruments are.
Third, we have never questioned the sincerity of those who use instruments any more than we question the sincerity of prophets of Baal, who cut themselves in their religious frenzy (1 Kings 18:26-29). What we do know is that they do not worship according to truth.
Fourth, John speaks of rituals of tradition. Really? Does he not know that apostolic traditions are to be followed? Although the traditions of men are condemned (Matt. 15:1-9), Paul wrote: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). One of those traditions includes singing without the accompaniment of mechanical instruments of music.
Fifth, who is it that has lost the spirit of the Lord's teachings—those who are worshipping as God commanded—or those who have changed and altered the pattern given to us by God? One wonders if John ever accuses those “brethren” of having lost the spirit of worship.
Sixth, he charges us with using instrumental music to say that it is not authorized by the Bible. He has the tail wagging the dog; we do not use instruments to create a principle; we apply the authority principle of Colossians 3:17 properly to singing. Is what we are doing authorized? If we are singing, it is. If we are playing instruments of music, it is not.
Seventh, how does singing to one another, as God commanded (Col. 3:16), cause us to lose sight of the reason we are to praise Him? This is a non sequitur, one of many logical fallacies used in this letter. Who would have ever thought that doing what God requires would actually cause us to lose sight of what we are doing or why?
Deliberate Obfuscation
John then tries to confuse the issue by butchering the principles that the Bible provides for us to use. He apparently never heard of expediency, nor does he understand the way it works. He says that we do not use instruments of music to accompany singing because they were not used in the first century. And then, acting as though he had made a great discovery, he says: “The Bible also shows no examples of song leaders, public address systems or song books; so therefore they must be wrong” (2). Brethren could forgive someone for making such a ridiculous argument if he had only been a Christian two weeks, but this kind of subterfuge is inexcusable in a missionary.
How does John know there were no song leaders in the first century? Did all the brethren start on different notes and then see who could sing the loudest until everyone else changed pitch? Just because one is not mentioned does not mean that no one led a song when the brethren met together. He cannot prove what he alleges on this point.
No, the first-century church did not use song books or a microphone because they had not yet been invented. Does that make them wrong? No, not if they are aids and do not change the nature of the command to sing. We have several expedients in teaching, preaching, worship, and evangelism that were not used in the first century, and they are not wrong.
An expedient only facilitates the keeping of a command. It does not change it. For example, does it matter if we sing a song from memory, from an overhead projector, from a song book, or a sheet passed out to everyone? No, we are all still just singing. If we use one communion plate or some other type of dish, does it change the fact that we are partaking of the Lord's body? If a preacher uses a microphone, we simply hear him better; it does not change the message that he spoke. None of these things alters any command that God has given us.
Changing the fundamental nature of what was commanded, however, would be wrong. If someone begins to preach the message of Buddha, he has changed from the Gospel he is charged to teach. If we switched unleavened bread for pizza and the fruit of the vine for coke, then the nature of what was commanded has been altered. Likewise, when instruments of music are added to the singing, the nature of the singing has been altered. A songbook did not affect the sound, nor did having a song leader, but instruments do change the sound. They are not expedients or aids; they are additions. Brethren have only been voicing this observation for more than a century. Maybe John could try and catch up to the rest of us pretty soon.
Furthermore, while songbooks and public address systems did not exist in the first century, instruments of music did. God commanded them about 1,000 years before the church was established, and the Jews were certainly familiar with their use. Yet neither Jesus nor His apostles used them or commanded them to be used. No church in the New Testament used them (although they had their share of other problems). They were a part of the secular society in which Christians lived; their absence in worship is striking!
Those who try to equate expedients with changes to worship are either too naive to be trusted with handling the Scriptures, or they are deliberately trying to distort the Word of God. This tactic is like saying, “Preachers use television today, and we don't object; therefore, we can teach Mormon doctrine.” What? Those two things don't have anything to do with each other. Exactly! But it is just as invalid to change singing to include musical instruments as it is to change the truth into Mormon doctrine. The very nature of worship has been altered.
John adds that, just as a microphone enhances singing, so does instrumental music (2). Many would respond by saying, “No, it drowns it out.” But even if what was played did not infringe on the singing and kept to a minimum level in the background, it would still be an addition to what God commanded the church to do. He commanded singing—not playing instruments (Eph. 5:19). Someone could whistle in the background; it would still be an addition. Several people could hum softly; it would still not fulfill what God said to do. A group could perform vocal music, imitating the sounds of instruments with their vocal chords. It would still not involve words and would yet be unauthorized. Why do people so often want to change what God said to do?