Ramblings From a Lawyer

No, this article has nothing to do with lawyers questioning Christ. Instead, it involves a lawyer who claims to live in Colorado. He would probably like it if we mentioned his name, but we will just call him Lawton. He has mailed out documents before, but last year he sent a few pages on a variety of topics—allegedly to any church of Christ "of any significant size nationwide." One page out of the five received says:

Music Everywhere Except Church of Christ Buildings—Instrumental Music that is!

The opening question makes the reader wonder if he had taken a ride in a DeLorean back to 1899. Lawton asks: "Will instrumental music be the next split in the church of Christ?" Perhaps he failed to notice that such a split already occurred in 1906; since that time churches of Christ and the Christian Church have been separate.

Incredibly, he goes on to say that we already have enough divisions, and he cites those who insist on having one cup in the communion and those who oppose orphan's homes. Those may have been cutting edge issues more than fifty years ago, but they scarcely have remained at the forefront in light of so many other areas of disagreement.

He asks: "Why can't we have freedom in this area?" To which of the three topics does this question apply? Just to be safe, let's look at all three. Do some brethren want to use only one cup in the Lord's Supper? Fine. All who desire to do so may congregate together and do just that. No one will stop them. But are those of us who prefer individual cups allowed freedom to do so? No. Generally, those insisting on one cup for themselves also insist on it for everyone else as well. So, Lawton should address this question to them.

Likewise, if a congregation of the Lord's church does not desire to support an orphan's home, that is their right, and no one has the power or authority to make them do otherwise. We don't support one, either. But if a church is persuaded that they should, doesn't that congregation have a right to do so? Those who oppose such homes have historically argued that others do not have the right to support them and refused to fellowship them. Perhaps that is changing. At any rate, shouldn't Lawton be addressing them instead of us?

Now, however, we come to the subject of instrumental music. What Lawton seems to overlook in his quest for unity is that he has described an all-or-nothing situation. If instrumental music is used in worship, then it becomes a part of everyone's worship. Those who think it is wrong cannot un-hear it or pretend it is not there. If it is absent, no one's conscience is violated because all can sing unencumbered.

On this matter we cannot have freedom when it violates the consciences of worshipers. The same thing would be true if someone desired to introduce incense into worship when it is unauthorized. As many know, some are allergic or very sensitive to smells. To insist on flooding an assembly with various aromas might mean that some could not attend, but obviously all could participate in worship otherwise.

Legislation

Lawton claims that we have chosen to legislate where God did not, which is simply untrue. He apparently does not understand Bible authority. He chooses to find fault with the concept of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. He says that such a sentiment is unscriptural and cannot be found in the Bible. Really? Has he never read Colossians 3:17? The verse contains these words:

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 in word or deed refers to the fact that whatever we teach (in word) and whatever we practice (in deed) must be authorized by Jesus. Perhaps Lawton will recall that Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Therefore, we can only teach and practice what He authorizes. If Jesus authorizes something in worship, we may do it. If He does not authorize it, we have no authority to do it. Another way of stating that we follow these principles is to say that we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent. We are following Biblical principles, but Lawton tries to talk people out of them—on his say-so. Notice that he cannot appeal to the Scriptures for his philosophy.

An Example

Let's notice God's attitude toward presumption—that is, presuming to do what God has not authorized. In Leviticus 10:1 two of Aaron's sons—Nadab and Abihu—put fire in their censers and put incense on them. Unfortunately, they offered profane fire before the Lord which He had not commanded them. What does that statement mean? They offered fire that God had not authorized. Therefore, fire came out from the Lord and devoured them (Lev. 10:2). What they did was a violation of respect for God, who said, "By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy" (v. 3).

If we wish to regard God as holy, we too must only offer up worship in the way He has commanded us, which would be in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Nadab and Abihu did not offer incense in truth—the way God commanded that it be done. What they did was to suit themselves—not honor God.

If Lawton has any knowledge regarding either Colossians 3:17 or Leviticus 10:1-3, he shows no evidence of it because he continues to rant that we have a "man-made rule that one must have a Scripture to justify everything done at the church service." Really? Most Bibles say that Paul wrote Colossians 3:17. Did members of the church somehow sneak that verse into the text? Hmm.

After more ramblings, Lawton cites Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 and then comments that these verses "do not tell us whether musical instruments are permitted." It would be more pertinent to say that these verses do not authorize the use of musical instruments to accompany singing. And since he has brought up verses that mention singing, it might be appropriate to add that no other verse in the New Testament authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music to accompany our singing, either.

Furthermore, Colossians 3:17, which deals with the need for requiring authority, immediately follows Colossians 3:16, which only authorizes singing. It may be that the Holy Spirit put these two verses together for a reason—so that we might connect the need for authority in worship with singing. We should notice that singing is authorized, but no type of accompaniment is.

What Preachers Can't Preach On

One of the most incredible sentences the reader will ever come across is set forth next. In an effort to prove that we cannot actually abide by the saying, "Where the Bible is silent, we are silent," Lawton provides the following examples.

Its application would prohibit preachers from preaching on the evils of Hollywood/tv and dancing and "dating" as well as so-called "mixed bathing" at beaches and pools since there are no specific Scriptures on these subjects.

How does anyone draw such a strange conclusion? Does Lawton not know that Biblical principles are given in order to be applied? The Scriptures, for example, authorize a woman to adorn herself in modest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9). Can she not, if she puts on a bikini, conclude that it does not qualify as modest apparel? Can lasciviousness not apply to certain types of dance movements? Can no one speak out against movies or television programs that promote adultery and fornication? Is there a verse that mentions Hollywood? No, but there are plenty that condemn the type of behavior that comes out of Hollywood.

Isn't his argument kind of like saying that one could not condemn Hitler because his name is not in the Bible? The Bible does forbid murder, however. By Lawton's logic, no one could condemn homosexual marriage because it is not mentioned in the Bible. If homosexuality, period, is wrong, how can two becoming "married" be all right? Again, where does the Bible authorize such a practice? It does not.

Elders

Whether or not a congregation uses instruments of music should be decided by the elders, according to Lawton. In a sense, that is true. They will be the ones who make that decision. But if they choose to use instruments of music, they have exceeded the authority that the Scriptures give them. They cannot authorize what God does not authorize. If they do, they are sinning against God and will be held accountable for leading God's people astray.

What if a congregation's elders say that women can lead in prayer in the worship assembly (or out of one, for that matter)? Do they have the authority to do so? What if they decide to make some of the women deacons—or allow them to read Scriptures, lead a devotional, or preach to the entire assembly? What's wrong with this picture?

Someone might rightly point out that elders do not have the right to permit Christians to do what is wrong. God gave men the role of leadership; elders cannot change that and tell women to do it instead. Neither can they authorize instruments of music to be used in worship when God does not do so.

The Solution

In suggesting a solution to this problem, Lawton sets aside Divine wisdom and substitutes human wisdom in its place. Here is his solution.

I like the approach of some churches of Christ: those members who want to sing without instruments can come to an early service whereas those who want instrumental music can come to a later service. This way the elders meet the needs of all members. Try it! It works!

Let's see how it works on the role of women. Those who do not want women to lead in worship can come to an early service. Those who desire for women to lead the worship can come to a later service. "But wait!" someone protests. Having women lead the worship is wrong whether earlier in the day or later. True! And so is the use of instrumental music. The time of day does not matter. The elders okaying it does not matter. They cannot approve of what the Scriptures do not authorize.

The elders approving of a service with instrumental music are not meeting needs; they are violating Scriptures! Exactly what need is being met when instruments of music are added to Biblical worship? If God is pleased without it, exactly what is in man whom He created that makes it a necessity? The desire for the use of instruments is nothing more than a preference on the part of human beings—just as using strange fire was a preference for Nadab and Abihu. Lawton (and all who are tempted to agree with him) ought to ask themselves what is the purpose of the account of those two sons of Aaron? Why does Moses record the incident? Can we not see what it teaches about worship?