"GGary W. Summers" / "GOING"
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC
Generally speaking, no matter how much attention is paid to the way the Bible authorizes, some are never convinced. Regardless of how much time is spent looking at Cain, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, or Jeroboam, some are determined to add instruments of music to their worship. Occasionally⅑but not often⅑advocates of the practice have made attempts to justify it. Alan Highers debated Given O. Blakely in 1988 and presented a chart of those various efforts that have been presented over the years.
Highers introduced chart 28 in his second negative speech on the third night of the debate. It contains six defenses of instrumental music that had been made over the years (unsuccessfully), including the one Blakely had been trying to set forth in his affirmative speeches (188).
Highers’ first listing refers to O. E. Payne, who wrote a book in 1920 with the rather aggressive title, Instrumental Music is Scriptural. He argued that the instrument “inheres in psallo,” thus making the use of musical instruments mandatory. Most Bible students know that psallo at one time did refer to the playing of instruments, but by the time the New Testament was written, the word had changed to mean “sing,” which is the way all major translations render it. In much the same way, the word lyrics, derived from the lyre, referred originally to melody, but today when we use the word, we are discussing the words of a song instead. Highers observed that when Payne wrote his book,
it was thought to be the final answer. They had, at last, established their proof for instrumental music in the worship, but then they realized that the consequences of that argument were undesirable. They did not want to say you had to have the instrument. They knew that Paul and Silas likely did not have one in prison in Acts 16:25 and so they largely abandoned the idea that it was required by the Greek (187).
Another consideration is that, if the word translated “singing” also means to play an instrument, then why is not everyone required to play an instrument? Is everyone supposed to sing? The same ones singing must also be playing instruments, then, if that is what psallo means.
About three years later (1923), J. B. Briney and Ira M. Boswell then made a second argument—that it may either be used or not used. The Greek permits it either way. But that ploy was insufficient because words are not that vague. Does psallo mean “to sing,” “to play,” or “to play and sing”? Who can imagine that it means, “Do whatever you want: if you only want to sing, it means that; if you only want to play, it means that; and if you don’t like one of these, make up your own definition”? This tack left everyone dissatisfied.
A third argument became quite popular. Arising in the 1950s, many thought it was brilliant and sought to employ it. In fact, some are still using the rationale. The idea, as advanced by Burton W. Barber and Julian O. Hunt, was that the instrument is only an aid, like a songbook or a pitch pipe. The use of the Greek was now all but abandoned. Barber said “that it is not even in the worship” and tried to “compare it to eyeglasses and walking canes…” (189). This “logic” sounds good until one realizes that it does not just aid the singer, it adds another element to singing.
A pitch pipe, for example, actually is an aid. It helps us all begin the song on the same pitch, thus avoiding chaos. It does not accompany the singing or alter it in any way. Neither does a songbook. It enables us to sing with understanding, since we have the words before us. Having them overhead on PowerPoint accomplishes the same purpose. None of these tools prevents us from worshipping in spirit and in truth; in fact, they facilitate it.
Instrumental music adds another element to singing. One of the complaints of those who use it is that it drowns out voices and prevents worshippers from hearing other voices. Everyone knows that the instrument is playing notes that are not sung, period, because they were not designed to be sung. Instruments of music are not aids; they are another type of music. A plate holding the communion bread is an aid; spreading peanut butter and jelly on the bread adds another element beyond the requirement.
The fourth argument, believe it or not, was that congregational singing itself is not authorized in the New Testament. This argument was made by no less than Don DeWelt, owner and operator of College Press, a well-known publishing House for the Christian Church. He resurrected this old argument about 1985. This argument involves the tu quoque logical fallacy. In a nutshell, the idea is, “Okay, we don’t have authority for using instruments of music, but you don’t have Biblical authority for congregational singing.” In other words, we’re wrong, but you are, too.
Paul was writing to the whole church when he admonished In Ephesians 5:18-19:
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.
He did not specify whether the singing was occurring in a public meeting place, an upper room, in a prison in Philippi, or on the way out to the Mount of Olives. The point is that, whenever we sing, we all sing, and we all sing to one another.
Eventually (the fifth argument), the Disciples of Christ came along and basically said, “It does not matter whether we use them or not.” By whose authority was that determination made? Have those who made this argument never noticed how specific God was in the Old Testament. He designed the very clothes that the priests wore and specified the dimensions of all the furniture of the tabernacle. But suddenly, Jesus establishes a new covenant, and God no longer cares about anything. What an attitude change! For what reasons, then, does Jesus talk about true worshippers offering up their worship to God in spirit and in truth, since it no longer matters?
Highers read a quote from one of the ministers from the Disciples of Christ: “We don’t care whether they had instrumental music in the New Testament or not. We live now” (190). The problem is that the entire Bible—both Old and New Testaments—emphasizes that worship, in order to be acceptable to Him, must be offered in the way designed by Him (John 4:23-24). To say that the way we worship does not matter begs this question to be asked: To whom? To whom does the content and attitude of our worship not matter? It may not to us, but it does to God!
The sixth position was advanced by Blakely in the debate. It is an antinomian approach—namely, that no authority is needed. This affirmation got Blakely into loads of trouble. If no authority is needed in worship, then worshipping with rosary beads must be acceptable. On what basis could dancing be forbidden? Neither of these are condemned in the New Testament, but the point is that they are not authorized. Colossians 3:17 requires authorization. Paul wrote to the brethren there (incidentally, right after he talked about singing in verse 16): “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.”
Whatever we do involves the way we live and practice Christianity, including worship. What we teach involves our communication of Christianity to others. We must have authority—the authority that comes from Jesus, the Head of the church—for what we teach and practice. The question is not, “Does the New Testament condemn a practice?” It is: “Where does the New Testament authorize it?” Blakely was essentially contradicting that verse when he said, “No authority is needed.” Highers observed on this point:
He thought if worship was unregulated he could get the instrument in, but he could not keep Roman Catholicism ritual out (238).
Right! If worshippers do not need authority for what they do, then the rosary comes in the same door as instruments of music. And why not dancing also? After all, we can even read about that one in Psalms: “Let them praise His name with the dance; let them sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp” (Ps. 149:3; cf. Ps. 150:3-5). Whatever door one of them comes in at, so does the other.
Once one departs from the teaching of Colossians 3:17, there is no stopping place. If no authority is needed for what we do, then it must be all right to use rosary beads as an aid to worship. And what would be wrong about praying to Mary? Well, sure, Jesus instructs us to pray to the Father through Him (John 16:23), but where does He say not to pray to His mother?
How can dancing be forbidden? It once was acceptable to God; why can’t we do it now—especially while we are playing musical instruments? What about incorporating “baby dedications” as part of worship, also? Nothing in the New Testament says not to do that, either. Incense was a part of Old Testament worship; why can’t we use it? Pizza and Mountain Dew for the Lord’s Supper would be a lot more relevant to our youth. The Bible does not forbid it. And on and on we could go. Ignoring Colossians 3:17 and all the other principles of the way God authorizes is like taking the foundation away from all pieces resting on top of it.
What would Blakely and those who stand with him tell church members who insisted on worshipping on Saturday, the Lord’s Sabbath? Sure, we know that in the New Testament (and for centuries afterward) the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), but for hundreds of years God’s people met on the Sabbath, and the New Testament does not say not to. In fact, many religious groups are already conducting service on Saturday evenings—possibly with Blakely’s blessing. They do so because few people are asking for Biblical authority any more, as Colossians 3:17 teaches.
Restoration
The idea of restoration was to return to what was taught in the New Testament. It (not the Old Testament) is our authority for teaching, worship, and service. Others may not care about such matters, but those who wanted to follow Jesus and His apostles—to adhere to the new religion of Christianity as set forth in the New Testament—prized the concept highly because it is built on Biblical principles. For half a century, on this North American continent, this was our goal and our plea to others—to rid ourselves of manmade creeds and follow the New Testament. Then an issue arose that divided us. Pertaining to that, Brother Highers asked:
Brother Blakely, how can we restore something that was never there? How do you go to an unbelieving world, and say to them that we are endeavoring to restore first century Christianity in this day, we are endeavoring to restore the New Testament church, and then present to them something that was never in the New Testament church? How do you restore what was never there? (226).
Neither Jesus nor His apostles are ever mentioned as singing with musical accompaniment. No church used instruments, either. The only justification for their usage is: “We like it, and we’re going to have them.” This attitude does not constitute a valid argument.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: