[...] (traditionalists) with Churches of Christ in the past thirty years. His new, self-published book Facing Our Failures: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ points out that the presupposition that “every practice considered to be unauthorized in the [...]
I read your comments to Al Maxey tonight. I am ashamed that you call yourself a Christian. The Bible is our only guidebook. If you go outside the instructions of “The Book” where do you go?
Is there anything else “GOD Breathed?” If it is I sure would like to know how I can get my hands on it.
I have been reading Al’s “stuff” for 3-4 years now. Every mention of fellowship in the New Testament is a spiritual thing between you and God.
We are not in a battle of material things; we are in a battle of the spiritual between God and the devil.
Please re-think your position before you lead souls into error and you will be held responsible at the day of final judgment.
Got your book and finished quickly. The ingenuity of your book lies in the fact that you cannot be critiqued for your bible interpretations (because the book does not hinge upon any) or your alternative vision for going forward (because you provide none). Thus, anyone who reads it cannot do anything but take seriously the contradictions and inconsistencies you emphasize. Well done.
Wow. You are telling a baptized believer that you are ashamed he calls himself a Christian? I hope you will rethink that. I am not sure who made you the judge but if you were it sounds like all of us, yourself included will be in hell for eternity. Thank goodness God is able to overlook our weaknesses!
As far as fellowship goes I am really not sure where you are coming from when you say every mention in the NT is only about us and God. Romans 15:26 is one example where koinonia is clearly not used for fellowship with God. And what about 1 John 1:7? Does this mean you are in error and are on this blog leading people astray by your false teachings for which you will be accountable to God? I am not going that route but I do think we need to hold ourselves to the same standards, if not higher ones, than we hold others.
I love you in Christ and I hope you don’t take this as an attack on you. I have no idea who you are but it pains me when Christians attack other Christians and I can’t wait for all things to be made right so we can be at peace with one another. God bless,
The earliest description of a worship service among Christians outside of the New Testament is found in the writings of a non-Christian. Reporting to the Emperor Trajan around 110 A.D., Pliny the Younger wrote that Christians were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light and singing hymns to Christ, as to a god (Letters Book X. xcvi). The subject of music in the worship service, and especially any other form besides singing, has always been a hot topic, and not merely among members of the Church of Christ. Martin Luther said that the organ in worship is the ensign of Baal (The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie, 4:368). John Calvin compared the use of the instrument to bringing in the trappings of the Law of Moses (Commentary, Psalms, 1 Samuel). David Benedict, a Baptist historian, said that the Baptists in times past “would have as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries” (Fifty Years Among The Baptists). A number of sources readily admit the non-existence of instrumental music in not only the early Christian worship services, but its exclusion for centuries following the first century. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The rejection of all musical instruments from Christian worship is consistent among the fathers” (X.106). Another reference work notes, “The religion of Classical Greece and the Jewish Temple liturgy both used musical instruments extensively–by contrast, early Christian music excluded them completely. There is much evidence for this prohibition” (New Grove Dictionary, 4.368). The first widespread use of instrumental music in worship was not until around 950 A.D., and universal use not until 1300 A.D. In addition, it has only been in the last 150 years that the denominational world has fully embraced the instrument in worship.
History abounds with “respected” leaders in the church who opposed the use of any mechanical instrument in worship. Thomas Aquinas (1250 A.D.) said, “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries to praise God–that she may not seem to Judaize”. The Church of England was at one time (1562) on the verge of excluding instrumental music from the worship, but the practice was retained by the margin of a single vote (Hetheringtons’s History Westminister Assembly of Divines. p. 30). John Wesley who was a lover of music said, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen” (Adam Clark, Commentary Vol. 4, p. 686). John Calvin said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (Calvin’s Commentary on the 33rd Psalm). “Many of the fathers, speaking of religious songs, made no mention of instruments: others, like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them” (Music in the History of the Western Church. Edward Dickinson p. 54).
Why Didn’t The Early Christians Use It?
William Woodson wrote, “It is crucially important to observe that although instrumental music of various types was readily available in contemporary society, no passage shows that the churches mentioned in the New Testament ever used instrumental music in worship. Did they not understand the true meaning of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms? Did they not understand the meaning of various words, such as psallo, etc., so often discussed pro and con in contemporary debates? Did they not know the Jewish practices, both in the temple and in the synagogues? Did they not know the mind of God? Most certainly, on all these questions and much more. Yet, there is not even a hint of the use of instrumental music in worship of these churches. If present appeals to the Old Testament, the Greek term psallo, the temple or synagogue practice, and so on, legitimately warrant such use, why did the apostles and brethren in the first century not so understand and incorporate instrumental music into the worship of these churches? Such facts are not lightly to be dismissed or forgotten” (The Spiritual Sword, January 1993, pp. 17-18). Please note that all the arguments that are being used today in the attempt to justify the instrument in worship were available to those who lived in the first century! These Christians knew that the Old Testament had endorsed the practice, they knew the background of the Greek word psallo, and that the Revelation letter mentions instruments in heaven, yet the instrument was still rejected.
Therefore, here is the conclusion: 1. Such instruments did exist in the first century (1 Corinthians 14:7). 2. Congregations could afford them (1 Timothy 6:17). 3. They were not viewed as inherently sinful, for many of these converts had come from the Jewish religion in which these instruments were used in worship with God’s approval (Psalms 150:3-5). Yet according to historians we find such instruments absent from the worship of churches claiming to be Christians for at least the first 600 years after the church was established.
Commanded In The Old Testament
While the Old Testament offers us examples from which to learn (Romans 15:4;
1 Corinthians 10:12), it clearly is a covenant that was removed by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13; 9:1-4; 10:9-10; Colossians 2:14-16). Most religious people understand that the following commands or details in the Old Testament have been removed by Christ: Animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:11-12); the Levitical priesthood (7:12); Jerusalem as the place of worship (John 4:21); Sabbath Day observance (Colossians 2:16); the Jewish feasts (2:16); Circumcision as a religious practice (Galatians 5:3-4); and the food laws (1 Timothy 4:3-4). Most would also agree that it would be wrong to incorporate any of the above into Christianity. The same is true concerning music. While we find instrumental music commanded in the Old Testament (Psalm 150), we find “singing” commanded in the New Testament (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Remember, there has taken place a change of “law” (Hebrews 7:14).
Ephesians 5:19: “Psalms”
From time to time, proponents of instrumental music in worship have attempted to prove that instrumental music, or singing to the accompaniment of an instrument, is inherent in the definition of the Greek word psallo. Note the following definitions that are given by the experts: “The original meaning was ‘pluck, play (a stringed instrument) –in the LXX., frequently means sing whether to the accompaniment of a harp or (usually) not. The process continued until ‘Psallo’ in modern Greek means ‘sing’ exclusively, with no reference to the instrumental accompaniment” (Arndt p. 891). Both Thayer and Vine note the same progression in both words. “In the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song” (Thayer p. 5). “Denotes in the N.T. to sing a hymn, sing praise” (Vine p. 58 ‘Melody’). What these definitions reveal is that the instrument was never inherent in either word. This is true in the Old Testament as well. Psalms 98:5 “Sing praises (the Hebrew word here means striking with the fingers, to touch. But the instrument must be supplied by the context, hence we find what follows) with the harp”. The same is true in Psalm 71:22; 33:2; 144:9; 149:3. Compare Ephesians 5:19 to Psalm 98:5. In both contexts an “instrument” is supplied to “Psallo”. In the Psalm it is a harp, in Ephesians it is the “heart”. God specified the “instrument” to “touch, twang, pluck”. But if the instrument is inherent in the word, then there is no middle ground. To argue that psallo allows the instrument contradicts the idea that the instrument is inherent in the word. In addition, whatever is commanded in Ephesians 5:19 is commanded of all Christians “speaking one to another”. Other uses of psallo in the New Testament are: James 5:13 “sing praise”; Romans 15:9 “sing”; 1 Corinthians 14:15 “sing”. Obviously those that translated the KJV, ASV, NASV and NIV all understood that psallo, simply means to sing. “One hundred and forty-eight scholars who translated the American Standard Version and King James Version have said with one voice that “psallo” in the New Testament means “sing”. That alone should settle the matter” (The Spiritual Sword, April 1997, p. 20).
A little history lesson
At the very beginning of this debate some churches defended the instrument by saying it was used “only in the Sunday School” and not “in the worship”. This seemed to be a recognition that it was unauthorized in the worship. Soon, of course, the instrument found its way into the regular assembly. One of the first serious efforts to prove that instrumental music was Scriptural was based on the Greek word psallo. O.E. Payne of the Christian Church published a book in 1920 in which he argued that “instrumental music unavoidably inheres in psallo, and that therefore to employ it is mandatory. Payne’s book was widely circulated by the Christian Church as the “answer” to the instrumental music controversy. This book in turn led to the Hardeman-Boswell Debate in Nashville in 1923, attended by over 6,000 people each evening. By the time of the debate, however, the leaders in the Christian Church realized that Payne’s book led to a very embarrassing conclusion. In all the excitement over Payne’s treatment of the term psallo, it was almost overlooked that he said the use of the instrument is mandatory. That was more than even the most devoted defenders of the instrument wanted to say. Over the years the line of argumentation for instrumental music has diverged. Some argued on the basis of Old Testament passages, but had difficultly justifying David’s harp without endorsing David’s animal sacrifices. Some contented that it was an act of worship; others said it was an aid to worship, but not an act of worship itself. A strange argument has arisen which says that instrumental music does lack Bible authority, but so does congregational singing, thus proving nothing. One of the most recent arguments has been “What difference does it make?” One minister of the Disciples of Christ argued in Mission Magazine in 1987: “Why be concerned about whether churches in the Roman era used instrumental music?” In answer to his own question, he explained, “We live now; and such music is not only inspiring, but it also sets us on a par with the Presbyterians and the Methodists”. Of course this argument concedes that the New Testament does not authorize it, which makes all the difference in the world (2 John 9).
Only an expedient?
Some have argued, “The instrument is only an aid or expediency to singing, just like a pitch pipe or song book”. First, an expedient must be lawful (1 Corinthians 6:12). The only thing authorized is singing, and instrumental music is something in addition to singing.
Harps in heaven?
Others have said, “The book of Revelation talks about harps in heaven (Revelation 5:8), and therefore whatever exists in heaven can exist in the church”. Of course the book of Revelation equally discusses incense, the throne of God, horses, and so on. The assumption that whatever is in heaven is authorized in congregational worship is not true. First, the Lord’s Supper does not exist in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:26), and neither does preaching the gospel to the lost. There are many things in heaven that do not exist in the church (Revelation 21:4), and there are many things in the local congregation that will not exist in heaven.
No one here is trying to abandon the scriptures as our guide. But there are disagreements among devoted Christians as to which hermeneutical approach is biblical and how detailed the patterns really are. And even among “conservatives” like yourself who are in agreement that the NT provides a detailed pattern for worship, there are still serious differences as to what is authorized and what isn’t. They may agree with you that instrumental music in worship is sinful, but I guarantee some of those whom you fellowship disagree with your views on divorce and remarriage, qualifications of elders, what women can and can’t do in the church, and a number of worship practices as well. (See my book for many examples.)
So the question we’re focusing on here is not which practices are right and which are sinful. There will always be disagreement over that, even among conservatives. The more important question, which is our focus here, is: which differences warrant the breaking of fellowship and which ones don’t? As far as I can tell, conservatives have reached no concensus on this vital issue. They seem to make fellowship decisions on a pick-and-choose basis. That is why I believe the whole fellowship issue needs to be reevaluated. If you know the biblical criteria that determine who can be fellowshipped, please provide them so we can examine them in light of the scriptures.
[...] Facing our Failure–A Review February 9, 2009 — Brian Here are some quotes and some of my thoughts on Todd Deaver’s book, “Facing our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ.” [...]
Thanks Todd for your stand. Truth is always more important than the well wishes of friends and brethren. God bless you for what you are attempting to do.
Todd, Have just now found and read these blog entries about your book, which I have not read. In reading brother Bowers lengthy reply I noticed that he
had a paragraph with the sub-heading: A little history lesson. Near the beginning of that paragraph he made reference to the past when instruments were introduced in The Sunday School, but not “in the worship”. I am not the first to point out that this distinction lacks any basis in the scriptures at all.
The fact that Paul DIALOGUED with those at Troas
is a part of the “pattern” that is regularly ignored -
Acts 20:7 & 9. Acapella singing from the heart is wonderful, but it was never intended to be a point of distinguishing ourselves from others who need the blood of Jesus to forgive their sins as much as we do.
Morris
I understand your logic behind the history debate (of ‘no instrumental music’ in the early church) — many people use that and it’s easy to get caught up in history and tradition. That is our human weakness. . But if you choose to use that logic, please be consistent. i believe this is where many conservative c o c are failing.
I went through a stage where i was very interested in the early church teacher and read and studied many of the books. Did you notice, as I did, that ALL of them were against war (since our Lord disarmed us and we are now soldiers of HIM and HIM ONLY), they were against violence (since our God hates violence- they would not even step foot in the roman stadiums where violent games were played- do you watch boxing matches, football, or even maybe many of the violent show on t.v.?? Christ called us to be peacemakers and love peace, love, justice and mercy), they were against secular holidays (they considered birthdays pagan- do you?) they were against materialism (they didn’t just preach it, they lived it– and today many christians spend more time decorating their homes than they do helping others) they taught their women to be quiet workers of the home and women did not wear makeup and jewels. they got together DAILY to build one another up so satan’s works would be destroyed, they gladly took in orphans and raised them (today- are all christians willing to make this sacrafice for GOD–since Christ himself said TRUE RELIGION to the Father is to care for the orphans and widows) and i could go on and on. They didn’t just do these things because they felt like it. They taught other Christians to follow and LIVE them. These are things that the conservative c o c now allow (war, violence, makeup ect.) or dismiss (the orphans, daily meetings, selling our possesions to give to the poor ect) . Why?
Why do you condemn instrumental music and use the reason of ‘history’ but you don’t stick strictly to the history of the early christians? why are some changes ok, but not others? I think sometimes we forget that worship for a christian is not just when you clock in to your church buildings…. worship is a way of life. it’s an on going sacrifice to our Father. In ALL we do- In ALL we think. In ALL we feel– WORSHIP OUR CREATOR. Can a mute person worship and praise God with their heart, even though they can’t sing? Isn’t the heart different than the mouth? of course, singing and making melody in the heart is truely FEELING and MEANING the words in your inner being that your mouth is singing.
One last question for you- if worshiping the creator while playing an instrument is a SIN, then shouldn’t instruments be considered corrupt, vain items? Why would God give some people talents that they could not use in service to Him? Since it’s taught ‘In ALL things, Glorify your Father in Heaven’.
David was given this natural talent by God, this is why Saul got him to come play the harp for him when he was tormented in his spirit. And David, a man after God’s own heart, felt the need to worship his Father with his talent. I don’t understand how this can be a SIN against God? Please read Matt. 7 and make sure your not doing what the pharisees did. I can hear Jesus now asking, “don’t you remember how David praised God?”
where there is no law, there is no sin. Sin isn’t a guessing game, Jesus made it very clear what was a SIN against his Father. Let’s stick to HIS list, and not add to it.
also,
Lets love each other through this disagreement… if not to keep our hearts pure, then because that is what our Lord asked of us.
A. Keith
Research on early church worship will probably show you that the early Christian church took its worship style from the Jewish synagogue where there were no use of instruments. That is why the early church did not use instruments. Not because Ephesians said not to use them. The early churches were not using instruments long before any writings in the Bible were used to make that argument.
I enjoyed reading your original post on instruments but couldn’t finish it all because I’m falling asleep. It’s very late and I’ve got to get to bed.
It is my understanding of the responses to my mention of instrumental music in in our worship to God; that you people do not understand a very fundemental issue of “Authority.”
God gave us what He wants us to know. What He hasn’t told us is none of our concern. We surely can not improve on His “revealed word.”
Todd, I understand why you don’t want the Biblical view.
Too bad that people make themselves visible and audible but will not tolerate any questioning. I have noticed that when preachers get certified and elders get installed:-) they no longer want to be challenged.
You are terribly wrong and I would not expect one to know too much from the university level.
Just because we have failed in practicing consistency fellowship does not mean we should not strive for it. Neither does it mean there is no standard for understanding it. There is a standard, the Bible. All the early churches had problems, and that cannot be denied; however the Holy Spirit gave instructions on how to handle those problems and ultimately to mark and withdraw from those who “cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned.” (Rom 16:17). What ‘doctrine”? There was not one doctrine in Rome and another in Ephesus, etc. All were to continue in “the apostles docrtine” (Acts 2: 42) as the Jerusalem church did in the beginning. That doctrine had is basis in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and guidance by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16;13-15; 17:20-21; I Cor. 14:37. etc) The “doctrine of Christ” (II Jn. 9) is more than objective, it is also subjective in that what was believed about Christ affected how they “walked in truth” (v4). The doctrine of Christ includes all about Him and all that He taught. Anything that apostles taught was the doctrine of Christ. It came from God for the Christian faith. Reading some ramblings here, one could distinctly get the idea that there is no such thing as clear truth, error, or false teachers. I have not read Todd’s book, but I do agree that there must be consistency. But we must be very, very careful not to leave the door open to any and ever thing that we do not agree on with a goal to agree to disagree. When Jesus made it plain that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven, He meant exactly that and excluded all others. We need to spend out time understanding the will of the Father and making our best efforts to the doing of it and less time philosophizing on unity in failing to do it. Unity is based on following the will of God, not failing to do it!
“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:17-21)
Roger
[...] (traditionalists) with Churches of Christ in the past thirty years. His new, self-published book Facing Our Failures: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ points out that the presupposition that “every practice considered to be unauthorized in the [...]
[...] book, Facing our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ, has already begun stirring up great [...]
Mr. Deaver,
I read your comments to Al Maxey tonight. I am ashamed that you call yourself a Christian. The Bible is our only guidebook. If you go outside the instructions of “The Book” where do you go?
Is there anything else “GOD Breathed?” If it is I sure would like to know how I can get my hands on it.
I have been reading Al’s “stuff” for 3-4 years now. Every mention of fellowship in the New Testament is a spiritual thing between you and God.
We are not in a battle of material things; we are in a battle of the spiritual between God and the devil.
Please re-think your position before you lead souls into error and you will be held responsible at the day of final judgment.
Ciao,
Morris Bowers
Todd,
Got your book and finished quickly. The ingenuity of your book lies in the fact that you cannot be critiqued for your bible interpretations (because the book does not hinge upon any) or your alternative vision for going forward (because you provide none). Thus, anyone who reads it cannot do anything but take seriously the contradictions and inconsistencies you emphasize. Well done.
Zach
Morris,
Wow. You are telling a baptized believer that you are ashamed he calls himself a Christian? I hope you will rethink that. I am not sure who made you the judge but if you were it sounds like all of us, yourself included will be in hell for eternity. Thank goodness God is able to overlook our weaknesses!
As far as fellowship goes I am really not sure where you are coming from when you say every mention in the NT is only about us and God. Romans 15:26 is one example where koinonia is clearly not used for fellowship with God. And what about 1 John 1:7? Does this mean you are in error and are on this blog leading people astray by your false teachings for which you will be accountable to God? I am not going that route but I do think we need to hold ourselves to the same standards, if not higher ones, than we hold others.
I love you in Christ and I hope you don’t take this as an attack on you. I have no idea who you are but it pains me when Christians attack other Christians and I can’t wait for all things to be made right so we can be at peace with one another. God bless,
Matt
Todd and all,
I’ve begun posting my review of Facing Our Failure.
http://the7ones.com/2009/02/06/facing-our-failure-a-review-part-1/
Thanks!
Instrumental Music
The earliest description of a worship service among Christians outside of the New Testament is found in the writings of a non-Christian. Reporting to the Emperor Trajan around 110 A.D., Pliny the Younger wrote that Christians were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light and singing hymns to Christ, as to a god (Letters Book X. xcvi). The subject of music in the worship service, and especially any other form besides singing, has always been a hot topic, and not merely among members of the Church of Christ. Martin Luther said that the organ in worship is the ensign of Baal (The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie, 4:368). John Calvin compared the use of the instrument to bringing in the trappings of the Law of Moses (Commentary, Psalms, 1 Samuel). David Benedict, a Baptist historian, said that the Baptists in times past “would have as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries” (Fifty Years Among The Baptists). A number of sources readily admit the non-existence of instrumental music in not only the early Christian worship services, but its exclusion for centuries following the first century. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The rejection of all musical instruments from Christian worship is consistent among the fathers” (X.106). Another reference work notes, “The religion of Classical Greece and the Jewish Temple liturgy both used musical instruments extensively–by contrast, early Christian music excluded them completely. There is much evidence for this prohibition” (New Grove Dictionary, 4.368). The first widespread use of instrumental music in worship was not until around 950 A.D., and universal use not until 1300 A.D. In addition, it has only been in the last 150 years that the denominational world has fully embraced the instrument in worship.
History abounds with “respected” leaders in the church who opposed the use of any mechanical instrument in worship. Thomas Aquinas (1250 A.D.) said, “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries to praise God–that she may not seem to Judaize”. The Church of England was at one time (1562) on the verge of excluding instrumental music from the worship, but the practice was retained by the margin of a single vote (Hetheringtons’s History Westminister Assembly of Divines. p. 30). John Wesley who was a lover of music said, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen” (Adam Clark, Commentary Vol. 4, p. 686). John Calvin said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (Calvin’s Commentary on the 33rd Psalm). “Many of the fathers, speaking of religious songs, made no mention of instruments: others, like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them” (Music in the History of the Western Church. Edward Dickinson p. 54).
Why Didn’t The Early Christians Use It?
William Woodson wrote, “It is crucially important to observe that although instrumental music of various types was readily available in contemporary society, no passage shows that the churches mentioned in the New Testament ever used instrumental music in worship. Did they not understand the true meaning of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms? Did they not understand the meaning of various words, such as psallo, etc., so often discussed pro and con in contemporary debates? Did they not know the Jewish practices, both in the temple and in the synagogues? Did they not know the mind of God? Most certainly, on all these questions and much more. Yet, there is not even a hint of the use of instrumental music in worship of these churches. If present appeals to the Old Testament, the Greek term psallo, the temple or synagogue practice, and so on, legitimately warrant such use, why did the apostles and brethren in the first century not so understand and incorporate instrumental music into the worship of these churches? Such facts are not lightly to be dismissed or forgotten” (The Spiritual Sword, January 1993, pp. 17-18). Please note that all the arguments that are being used today in the attempt to justify the instrument in worship were available to those who lived in the first century! These Christians knew that the Old Testament had endorsed the practice, they knew the background of the Greek word psallo, and that the Revelation letter mentions instruments in heaven, yet the instrument was still rejected.
Therefore, here is the conclusion: 1. Such instruments did exist in the first century (1 Corinthians 14:7). 2. Congregations could afford them (1 Timothy 6:17). 3. They were not viewed as inherently sinful, for many of these converts had come from the Jewish religion in which these instruments were used in worship with God’s approval (Psalms 150:3-5). Yet according to historians we find such instruments absent from the worship of churches claiming to be Christians for at least the first 600 years after the church was established.
Commanded In The Old Testament
While the Old Testament offers us examples from which to learn (Romans 15:4;
1 Corinthians 10:12), it clearly is a covenant that was removed by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13; 9:1-4; 10:9-10; Colossians 2:14-16). Most religious people understand that the following commands or details in the Old Testament have been removed by Christ: Animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:11-12); the Levitical priesthood (7:12); Jerusalem as the place of worship (John 4:21); Sabbath Day observance (Colossians 2:16); the Jewish feasts (2:16); Circumcision as a religious practice (Galatians 5:3-4); and the food laws (1 Timothy 4:3-4). Most would also agree that it would be wrong to incorporate any of the above into Christianity. The same is true concerning music. While we find instrumental music commanded in the Old Testament (Psalm 150), we find “singing” commanded in the New Testament (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Remember, there has taken place a change of “law” (Hebrews 7:14).
Ephesians 5:19: “Psalms”
From time to time, proponents of instrumental music in worship have attempted to prove that instrumental music, or singing to the accompaniment of an instrument, is inherent in the definition of the Greek word psallo. Note the following definitions that are given by the experts: “The original meaning was ‘pluck, play (a stringed instrument) –in the LXX., frequently means sing whether to the accompaniment of a harp or (usually) not. The process continued until ‘Psallo’ in modern Greek means ‘sing’ exclusively, with no reference to the instrumental accompaniment” (Arndt p. 891). Both Thayer and Vine note the same progression in both words. “In the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song” (Thayer p. 5). “Denotes in the N.T. to sing a hymn, sing praise” (Vine p. 58 ‘Melody’). What these definitions reveal is that the instrument was never inherent in either word. This is true in the Old Testament as well. Psalms 98:5 “Sing praises (the Hebrew word here means striking with the fingers, to touch. But the instrument must be supplied by the context, hence we find what follows) with the harp”. The same is true in Psalm 71:22; 33:2; 144:9; 149:3. Compare Ephesians 5:19 to Psalm 98:5. In both contexts an “instrument” is supplied to “Psallo”. In the Psalm it is a harp, in Ephesians it is the “heart”. God specified the “instrument” to “touch, twang, pluck”. But if the instrument is inherent in the word, then there is no middle ground. To argue that psallo allows the instrument contradicts the idea that the instrument is inherent in the word. In addition, whatever is commanded in Ephesians 5:19 is commanded of all Christians “speaking one to another”. Other uses of psallo in the New Testament are: James 5:13 “sing praise”; Romans 15:9 “sing”; 1 Corinthians 14:15 “sing”. Obviously those that translated the KJV, ASV, NASV and NIV all understood that psallo, simply means to sing. “One hundred and forty-eight scholars who translated the American Standard Version and King James Version have said with one voice that “psallo” in the New Testament means “sing”. That alone should settle the matter” (The Spiritual Sword, April 1997, p. 20).
A little history lesson
At the very beginning of this debate some churches defended the instrument by saying it was used “only in the Sunday School” and not “in the worship”. This seemed to be a recognition that it was unauthorized in the worship. Soon, of course, the instrument found its way into the regular assembly. One of the first serious efforts to prove that instrumental music was Scriptural was based on the Greek word psallo. O.E. Payne of the Christian Church published a book in 1920 in which he argued that “instrumental music unavoidably inheres in psallo, and that therefore to employ it is mandatory. Payne’s book was widely circulated by the Christian Church as the “answer” to the instrumental music controversy. This book in turn led to the Hardeman-Boswell Debate in Nashville in 1923, attended by over 6,000 people each evening. By the time of the debate, however, the leaders in the Christian Church realized that Payne’s book led to a very embarrassing conclusion. In all the excitement over Payne’s treatment of the term psallo, it was almost overlooked that he said the use of the instrument is mandatory. That was more than even the most devoted defenders of the instrument wanted to say. Over the years the line of argumentation for instrumental music has diverged. Some argued on the basis of Old Testament passages, but had difficultly justifying David’s harp without endorsing David’s animal sacrifices. Some contented that it was an act of worship; others said it was an aid to worship, but not an act of worship itself. A strange argument has arisen which says that instrumental music does lack Bible authority, but so does congregational singing, thus proving nothing. One of the most recent arguments has been “What difference does it make?” One minister of the Disciples of Christ argued in Mission Magazine in 1987: “Why be concerned about whether churches in the Roman era used instrumental music?” In answer to his own question, he explained, “We live now; and such music is not only inspiring, but it also sets us on a par with the Presbyterians and the Methodists”. Of course this argument concedes that the New Testament does not authorize it, which makes all the difference in the world (2 John 9).
Only an expedient?
Some have argued, “The instrument is only an aid or expediency to singing, just like a pitch pipe or song book”. First, an expedient must be lawful (1 Corinthians 6:12). The only thing authorized is singing, and instrumental music is something in addition to singing.
Harps in heaven?
Others have said, “The book of Revelation talks about harps in heaven (Revelation 5:8), and therefore whatever exists in heaven can exist in the church”. Of course the book of Revelation equally discusses incense, the throne of God, horses, and so on. The assumption that whatever is in heaven is authorized in congregational worship is not true. First, the Lord’s Supper does not exist in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:26), and neither does preaching the gospel to the lost. There are many things in heaven that do not exist in the church (Revelation 21:4), and there are many things in the local congregation that will not exist in heaven.
Bro. Bowers,
No one here is trying to abandon the scriptures as our guide. But there are disagreements among devoted Christians as to which hermeneutical approach is biblical and how detailed the patterns really are. And even among “conservatives” like yourself who are in agreement that the NT provides a detailed pattern for worship, there are still serious differences as to what is authorized and what isn’t. They may agree with you that instrumental music in worship is sinful, but I guarantee some of those whom you fellowship disagree with your views on divorce and remarriage, qualifications of elders, what women can and can’t do in the church, and a number of worship practices as well. (See my book for many examples.)
So the question we’re focusing on here is not which practices are right and which are sinful. There will always be disagreement over that, even among conservatives. The more important question, which is our focus here, is: which differences warrant the breaking of fellowship and which ones don’t? As far as I can tell, conservatives have reached no concensus on this vital issue. They seem to make fellowship decisions on a pick-and-choose basis. That is why I believe the whole fellowship issue needs to be reevaluated. If you know the biblical criteria that determine who can be fellowshipped, please provide them so we can examine them in light of the scriptures.
Thanks, brother, and God bless.
Thanks, Zach. I hope the book will have exactly the effect you described.
[...] Facing our Failure–A Review February 9, 2009 — Brian Here are some quotes and some of my thoughts on Todd Deaver’s book, “Facing our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ.” [...]
Thanks Todd for your stand. Truth is always more important than the well wishes of friends and brethren. God bless you for what you are attempting to do.
Todd, Have just now found and read these blog entries about your book, which I have not read. In reading brother Bowers lengthy reply I noticed that he
had a paragraph with the sub-heading: A little history lesson. Near the beginning of that paragraph he made reference to the past when instruments were introduced in The Sunday School, but not “in the worship”. I am not the first to point out that this distinction lacks any basis in the scriptures at all.
The fact that Paul DIALOGUED with those at Troas
is a part of the “pattern” that is regularly ignored -
Acts 20:7 & 9. Acapella singing from the heart is wonderful, but it was never intended to be a point of distinguishing ourselves from others who need the blood of Jesus to forgive their sins as much as we do.
Just ordered a copy of your book, and I can’t wait to read it. You must be commended for your courage.
Morris
I understand your logic behind the history debate (of ‘no instrumental music’ in the early church) — many people use that and it’s easy to get caught up in history and tradition. That is our human weakness. . But if you choose to use that logic, please be consistent. i believe this is where many conservative c o c are failing.
I went through a stage where i was very interested in the early church teacher and read and studied many of the books. Did you notice, as I did, that ALL of them were against war (since our Lord disarmed us and we are now soldiers of HIM and HIM ONLY), they were against violence (since our God hates violence- they would not even step foot in the roman stadiums where violent games were played- do you watch boxing matches, football, or even maybe many of the violent show on t.v.?? Christ called us to be peacemakers and love peace, love, justice and mercy), they were against secular holidays (they considered birthdays pagan- do you?) they were against materialism (they didn’t just preach it, they lived it– and today many christians spend more time decorating their homes than they do helping others) they taught their women to be quiet workers of the home and women did not wear makeup and jewels. they got together DAILY to build one another up so satan’s works would be destroyed, they gladly took in orphans and raised them (today- are all christians willing to make this sacrafice for GOD–since Christ himself said TRUE RELIGION to the Father is to care for the orphans and widows) and i could go on and on. They didn’t just do these things because they felt like it. They taught other Christians to follow and LIVE them. These are things that the conservative c o c now allow (war, violence, makeup ect.) or dismiss (the orphans, daily meetings, selling our possesions to give to the poor ect) . Why?
Why do you condemn instrumental music and use the reason of ‘history’ but you don’t stick strictly to the history of the early christians? why are some changes ok, but not others? I think sometimes we forget that worship for a christian is not just when you clock in to your church buildings…. worship is a way of life. it’s an on going sacrifice to our Father. In ALL we do- In ALL we think. In ALL we feel– WORSHIP OUR CREATOR. Can a mute person worship and praise God with their heart, even though they can’t sing? Isn’t the heart different than the mouth? of course, singing and making melody in the heart is truely FEELING and MEANING the words in your inner being that your mouth is singing.
One last question for you- if worshiping the creator while playing an instrument is a SIN, then shouldn’t instruments be considered corrupt, vain items? Why would God give some people talents that they could not use in service to Him? Since it’s taught ‘In ALL things, Glorify your Father in Heaven’.
David was given this natural talent by God, this is why Saul got him to come play the harp for him when he was tormented in his spirit. And David, a man after God’s own heart, felt the need to worship his Father with his talent. I don’t understand how this can be a SIN against God? Please read Matt. 7 and make sure your not doing what the pharisees did. I can hear Jesus now asking, “don’t you remember how David praised God?”
where there is no law, there is no sin. Sin isn’t a guessing game, Jesus made it very clear what was a SIN against his Father. Let’s stick to HIS list, and not add to it.
also,
Lets love each other through this disagreement… if not to keep our hearts pure, then because that is what our Lord asked of us.
A. Keith
Brother Bowers,
Research on early church worship will probably show you that the early Christian church took its worship style from the Jewish synagogue where there were no use of instruments. That is why the early church did not use instruments. Not because Ephesians said not to use them. The early churches were not using instruments long before any writings in the Bible were used to make that argument.
I enjoyed reading your original post on instruments but couldn’t finish it all because I’m falling asleep. It’s very late and I’ve got to get to bed.
Yours in Christ,
Brian
Hello Everyone,
It is my understanding of the responses to my mention of instrumental music in in our worship to God; that you people do not understand a very fundemental issue of “Authority.”
God gave us what He wants us to know. What He hasn’t told us is none of our concern. We surely can not improve on His “revealed word.”
thanks,
Morris Bowers
[...] as Todd Deaver’s Facing Our Failure destroys one of the linchpins of conservative theology — their utterly absent theology of [...]
Todd, I understand why you don’t want the Biblical view.
Too bad that people make themselves visible and audible but will not tolerate any questioning. I have noticed that when preachers get certified and elders get installed:-) they no longer want to be challenged.
You are terribly wrong and I would not expect one to know too much from the university level.
Good luck, you will truly need it
[...] Deaver has written a book called Facing Our Failure chronicling the abysmal failure that the “conservative” Churches of Christ to come to [...]
Just because we have failed in practicing consistency fellowship does not mean we should not strive for it. Neither does it mean there is no standard for understanding it. There is a standard, the Bible. All the early churches had problems, and that cannot be denied; however the Holy Spirit gave instructions on how to handle those problems and ultimately to mark and withdraw from those who “cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned.” (Rom 16:17). What ‘doctrine”? There was not one doctrine in Rome and another in Ephesus, etc. All were to continue in “the apostles docrtine” (Acts 2: 42) as the Jerusalem church did in the beginning. That doctrine had is basis in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and guidance by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16;13-15; 17:20-21; I Cor. 14:37. etc) The “doctrine of Christ” (II Jn. 9) is more than objective, it is also subjective in that what was believed about Christ affected how they “walked in truth” (v4). The doctrine of Christ includes all about Him and all that He taught. Anything that apostles taught was the doctrine of Christ. It came from God for the Christian faith. Reading some ramblings here, one could distinctly get the idea that there is no such thing as clear truth, error, or false teachers. I have not read Todd’s book, but I do agree that there must be consistency. But we must be very, very careful not to leave the door open to any and ever thing that we do not agree on with a goal to agree to disagree. When Jesus made it plain that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven, He meant exactly that and excluded all others. We need to spend out time understanding the will of the Father and making our best efforts to the doing of it and less time philosophizing on unity in failing to do it. Unity is based on following the will of God, not failing to do it!
“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:17-21)
Roger