A Principle of Bible Interpretation
Ordinarily, I don't listen to podcasts, but I received a copy of this one called Radically Christian; the radical part is correct. On this particular podcast, the two hosts were discussing the phrase, "Speak Where the Bible Speaks, and Be Silent Where the Bible is Silent." The ideology of the two participants is dangerous beyond imagination, and it literally begs to be analyzed. It includes so much error that it will take more than one article to cover it all. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is their emphasis on unity without defining who it is that is supposed to be united.
The discussion came about because of an inquiry from a listener—one whom the participants on the program know. Doing most of the speaking was Wes McAdams, who works with the McDermott Road Church of Christ in Plano, Texas. Introducing him and making occasional comments was an individual named Travis. The question was posed by Justin:
Would you will be willing to give an honest assessment or opinion of the traditionally-held mantra of, "Speak Where the Bible Speaks and Stay Silent Where It is Silent"? I've often heard this throughout my life, but I can honestly say that it seems to me we sometimes tend to say a lot where the Bible says nothing, which tends to cause fracturing among believers.
As the reader can see, this is a loaded question; Justin has already stated that he thinks we speak where the Bible says nothing. On top of that, he asks for an honest assessment, which implies that most brethren have not been honest—or at best ill-informed. Justin will surely be delighted with the answer because it soon becomes apparent that Travis and Wes agree with his assessment.
Instrumental Music
In order to discuss how to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent, the two speakers bring up the subject of instrumental music. Following are statements made by each of them.
Travis acknowledges that he grew up in an acapella church but worshiped in places that used instrumental music. "I don't think there's anything wrong with it." He also affirmed that he did not think "it's necessarily a sin to be worshiping with instruments…." This is the way he interprets silence—that it permits something to be done.
So, does he think celebrating the birth of Christ is all right? What about an annual Easter program? The Bible is silent about them, also. How about baby dedications? Some groups like to express their joy in dancing during worship; would that be acceptable? The Scriptures are silent about that.
Wes agrees: "And I'm not willing to go so far as to say someone is sinning for using instrumental music. I also want to be very careful in not endorsing it, either, because I can't find anything in Scripture to endorse it."
The New Testament doesn't endorse the practice, but Wes doesn't want to say people are engaging in something sinful when they do it. Apparently, he cannot determine right from wrong. He also said:
On the one hand, I could for sure agree, hey, for the sake of unity, let's do things this way, and I could agree with maybe some of the most conservative voices within the Restoration Movement, and say, "I agree with that, for the sake of unity; let's, let's leave all the baggage aside." But if we're going to take the extra step, and say, "Anyone who does x, y, and z is no longer my brother or sister in Christ—that they're, they're outside of Christ—they're, they're outside the grace of God, and they're sinning," aaahhh, now, now we've gone beyond what, what this idea was in the beginning.
Is he right? Is it wrong to conclude that those who use instrumental music are sinning? Let's consider what Jesus said in a Scripture never used by the two hosts in this discussion: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). To worship God in spirit would necessitate having the proper spirit, attitude, outlook, demeanor. We must also worship according to truth, but how do we know what that is? God reveals it to us. How?
The Authority Principle
There must be a way to distinguish between true and false worship. Of course, there is. God would not say we must be true worshipers—and then not tell us how to determine true from false worship. One verse of great help and importance is Colossians 3:17: "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." Remarkably, the two hosts never mentioned this vital verse. In fact, McAdams basically denounced it. Consider his comments on singing.
This is a Biblical thing. We see it explicitly taught in Scripture…. We don't see the early church using instruments in Scripture. Like, we just don't see that. Now, can we take the next step and say, "Well, since Scripture doesn't authorize it; it must be a sin"? Okay. Wow! Now we're going, now we're going too far, I think. That's not what Campbell was saying.
Does it matter what Campbell thought? At any rate, he is not present to explain his thoughts. What does Jesus think? What does Paul think?
Paul says that what we do in word (teach) or deed (what we practice), we must "do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." That means, "Does Jesus authorize it—either Himself personally or through His apostles?" Wes has already answered this question. He acknowledged that singing with instruments is not found in the New Testament. He admitted:
"I am a firm believer in acapella singing." Why? "It's for the sake of unity, because if, if we focus on singing, we can all agree. Everyone can agree. People from all kinds of religious backgrounds can agree that, that there's nothing wrong, and there's all kinds of good with Christians singing together."
So, Wes says we can all agree to sing. The fact is that Jesus, the apostles, the New Testament authorizes us to sing; therefore, singing is authorized worship. Adding instruments to singing is not "endorsed," which makes it false worship. Now he turns squeamish and refuses to accept the implication that singing with instruments is not authorized. His reluctance to call it false worship in no way legitimizes it. Now, if we can be saved while engaging in false worship, what is the point of true worship? God seeks true worshipers.
What are we to make of those who want to use instruments of music when they are not authorized? Or engage in dancing? Or burn incense? Or light candles? Or dedicate their babies? Or have a Christmas program? Are we "going too far" to say these are unauthorized when they clearly are not? Or do we just not have the intestinal fortitude to stand where the Bible stands on these matters?
Have Wes and Travis ever considered that God placed needing authority for what we teach and practice immediately adjacent to a verse that only authorized singing (Col. 3:16)? What great juxtaposition! It is as if God wanted people to notice that the practice is not authorized in the Christian system. The most difficult thing for some people, who have been accustomed to using it all their lives, is to give up singing with instrumental accompaniment, but it is necessary.
Infant Baptism
As Wes was introducing this topic earlier, he made a true observation about authority, which involves a well-known incident involving Thomas Campbell and others who were trying to go back to just what the New Testament teaches. He pointed out:
Campbell was saying why we have religious division. "Either we're not doing what Scripture says, or we're doing what Scripture doesn't talk about at all." His solution, therefore was, if Scripture teaches it, we should teach it. And if Scripture doesn't teach it, we should not bind it on anyone else.
A problem immediately occurred to those present: "What about infant baptism?" Thomas Campbell said if Scripture doesn't condone or doesn't authorize infant baptism, then we're not going to practice it. Does everyone who was sprinkled have to be baptized as adults? And they had to work through that.
How did they work through that problem? Did they consider those sprinkled as infants not actually to be Christians? Is it wrong for practicing infant baptism? Would they be lost for practicing what the Bible does not authorize? Did Campbell and others regard those who had been sprinkled as infants members of the church? No answers are given to these questions; McAdams just glossed over the situation.
In the Episcopal Church, their Catechism teaches: "Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God." Are they authorized to baptize infants (they do not immerse; they just pour water on them)? Are their infants members of the body of Christ?
"But," someone protests, "this is not the same as using musical instruments. We know that the New Testament teaches that baptism is immersion." True, and if we all are immersed, we can have unity. But are we willing to say, "Anyone who was sprinkled as an infant cannot be considered as my brother or sister in Christ—that they're, they're outside of Christ—they're, they're outside the grace of God, and their sins are not yet forgiven"? Is that too far for us to go, Wes?
If anyone answers, "Yes, that's too far to go," then they must fellowship those who are not saved. If they answer, "No, that's not too far to go; the Scriptures make that distinction"; then why can they not come to that same realization about instrumental music? Neither singing with instruments nor pouring water on infants to save them from Original Sin is authorized in the New Testament. Neither is condemned, either. One involves salvation, and the other pertains to acceptable worship.
Is it written somewhere that we must adhere closely to what the Bible teaches about salvation but that what God says concerning correct worship is arbitrary? When some prefer instruments of music in worship, on what basis do we conclude that doing so will not affect their salvation? Suppose some groups choose to put on dramas instead of preaching, are we going to say that Scriptures don't forbid such a practice? And if a religious group practices fundraising instead of the members supporting their own congregation, will we turn a blind eye to that, also? And if they only want to observe the Lord's Supper once a month, shall we refrain from "beating them over the head" (Wes' choice of words) with Acts 20:7?
"Well, I still think salvation is different." Is it? Do Wes and Travis truly make a distinction between the two? We must truly wonder if that is the case, judging from their argument for unity. One thing is certain, however; they do not know how to apply Colossians 3:17.