Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In spite of the number of arguments which have been presented in this treatise on instrumental music, someone is apt to be thinking, “Can I know for sure whether or not instrumental music in worship is sinful?” “Is the usage of instrumental music in worship such ah important issue as these writers are portraying it to be? After all, I cannot iln-~ agine that God would be concerned about such a trivial, issue.” Hence, we raise the question in this article, “Can we be certain about instrumental music in worship?”

The Rise of Agnosticism

We are living in an age in which agnosticism is rising; I do not mean by this the classic form of agnosticism which affirms that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. I am speaking of an agnosticism which states that it is impossible for man to know anything positively. To these agnostics, all truth is relative.

Here are some typical statements affirming the agnostic stance with reference to truth:

For nothing can of itself be labeled as “wrong.” One cannot, for instance, start from the position “sex relations before marriage” or “divorce” are wrong or sinful in themselves . . . . Whatever the pointers of the law demands of love, there can for the Christian be no “packaged” moral judgments – for persons are more important even than “standards” (John A.T. Robertson, Honest To God, pp. 118, 120).

To those in the Scriptural law camp we can say, “Oh, yes. You may sincerely believe that `Holy Writ’ is the `Word of God.’ But if you try to literalize the ethical sayings in it, you will soon find yourself in lots worse trouble than the mere headache of trying to figure out what to do when you turn its maxims into rules . . . . Either cheap melancholy or utter frustrations will follow if we turn the Bible into a rule book, forgetting that an editorial collection of scattered sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, offers us at most some paradigms or suggestions (Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 77).

But if people do not believe it is wrong to have sex relations outside marriage, it isn’t, unless they hurt themselves, their partners, or others (Ibid., p. 140).

That this has spilled over into the church is apparent from recent articles in both Integrity and Mission.

Roy E. ,Osborne wrote, “In a recent reaction, Craig M. Watts writes an excellent article differentiating between homosexuality the `disease’ and homosexuality the `sin”‘ (“A Look at the First And Second Look at Homosexuality,” Integrity, January, 1974). In the same issue of Integrity, an anonymous homosexual wrote, “I am a Christian . . . . The only fulfilling sexual relationship I have ever had has been with a person of my own sex . . . . If I were again to have the opportunity of a physical relationship with that person, I would not feel guilty or condemned by God . . . . I do not objectively know how God defines me” (“A Homosexual’s Viewpoint,” Ibid.).

The October 1979 issue of Mission showed the same attitude toward homosexuality; the paper acted as if one could not know whether or not homosexuality was sinful. An article entitled “Coming Out In Houston: The A Cappella Chorus” was published in which Lynn Mitchell, Jr. interviewed some homosexuals who were organized to give homosexuality respectability among members of the churches of Christ. In his commentary “We Fear Homosexuality,” Mitchell said, “I cannot yet accept the designation of homosexuality as one of God’s `gifts.’ If it is one of his gifts, I hope that he will get. past my defenses and show me that it is” (p. 64). Obviously, for Mitchell, what the Bible says on the subject is not authoritative!

Leslie D. Weatherhead wrote a book entitled The Christian Agostic which seems to be directly or indirectly affecting the movement of relativity which has shown itself among us. In his “Preface,” Weatherhead said,

I am writing for the “Christian agnostic,” by which I mean a person who is immensely attracted by Christ and who seeks to show his spirit, to meet the challenges, hardships and sorrows of life in the light of that spirit, but who, though he is sure of many Christian truths, feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously “sign on the dotted line” that he believes certain theological ideas about which some branches of the church dogmatize . . . (p. 15).

This book would say to the modern laymen “Don’t exclude yourself from the fellowship of Christ’s followers because of mental difficulties. If you love Christ and are seeking to follow him, take an attitude of Christian agnosticism to intellectual problems at least for the present . . . .” (Ibid., p. 21).

In Weatherhead’s opinion, matters such as the virgin birth (p. 31), the bodily resurrection (pp. 17, 20), the deity of Christ (p. 20), the atonement of Christ (pp. 113, 123, 347), and the inspiration of the Bible (pp. 192-193) were matters concerning which the Christian could not know for sure what the truth was, concerning which he recommended the agnostic stance. Yet, he saw a basis for unity for Christians in spite of disagreements over such matters; he wrote,

If Church unity means that all must believe the same things in the same sense, it can never be achieved. I should regard it as undesirable, and I should feel that any pressure brought to bear to achieve it, unwarranted. To my mind, the way to unity is not by endless discussions aimed at making men believe the same thing or worship in the same way.

What then is the way forward? I am convinced, after years of attending conferences on church union, that it is by getting to know, love, respect and tolerate one another, and then by showing a united front against every form of evil (Ibid., p. 161).

This is the kind of “unity” which has characterized Episcopalians for years. In his book Growth and Decline in the Episcopal Church, Wayne B. Williamson described the Episcopal Church as a fellowship “which tolerates completely antithetical views.”

Something of the morass into which comprehensiveness can lead is discerned in a report of recent happening in two of our major cathedrals. In was widely reported that during “a recent service at the Washington Cathedral a Muslim Azan, a Jewish Baruch, and aspirations from the Hindu Pali Prayer Book issue(from the pulpit” (Rutler 1978:4). The other episode took place in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. I hosted a Shinto ceremony in the name of ecumenicity. In gratitude for this recognition the Japanese Shintoists gave an altar (Shin) which the Cathedral received and ensconced within the Cathedral as a gesture of ecumenical solidarity (Ibid:10).

What can one say of this “comprehensiveness” when he is persuaded that tolerance of error is not a virtue; indeed, such tolerance will eventually sound the deathknell of true religion. The Christian religion is a religion of deep convictions, not of facile compromises. Christian charity does not require that one dissimulate, temporize or compromise (p. 21).

This religion fellowship is becoming alarmed at its agnostic and ecumenical stance in religion.

One who has been reading the writings of Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, Edward Fudge, Arnold Hardin, and R.L. Kilpatrick recognizes the similarity in what they are saying with reference to church support of human institutions, premillennialism, usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, church sponsored recreation, and some other issues to what modernists have been saying with reference to denominational divisions. The only difference is that those among us want to be highly selective with reference to what issues they take an agnostic stance on and a unity-in-diversity approach toward.

There Is An Objective Truth

There is an objective standard of truth by which all doctrines are to be measured! That truth can be ascertained and obeyed. We see this from certain passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The wise man advised us to “buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). David plainly confessed that he walked in the truth (Psa. 26:3; 86:11). Furthermore, he said that he taught the truth in the congregation of Israel (Psa. 40:10). These were not the statements of egotists; they were statements of men who recognized that “truth” was to be identified with the ordinances and commandments of God (Psa. 119:43, 151). They understood that “the sum of thy word is truth” (Psa. 119:160).

Jesus expressed this same attitude toward truth. He believed that there is an objective truth and that truth is His word. Furthermore, men must know that truth in order to be delivered from the bondage of sin (Jn. 8:32). Truth came by Jesus (Jn. 1:17) and is Jesus (Jn. 14:6; cf. Eph. 4:21). “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17); it is the only means which man has for being sanctified. Furthermore, by it all men shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). Hence, like the writers of the Old Testament, Jesus recognized that there is an objective standard of truth which all men can know through the reading of God’s revelation in the Bible.

Hence, the Scriptures purport to be the objective standard of truth by which all things are to be measured. Both conduct and doctrine are to be measured by the standard of God’s revelation in the New Testament Scriptures (I Cor. 4:6; 14:37-38; 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 11). The New Testament Scriptures were preached and were to be received as the word of God, not the mere words of men (I Thess. 2:13; Eph. 3:1-5). They are our sufficient guide to everlasting life (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). The man who refused to stay within the revelation of God’s word was not to be fellowshipped (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).

The Scriptures then are the measuring stick for determining what is right and wrong in reference to both morality and doctrine. In a society which sees nothing wrong with -pre- and extra-marital sexual relationships, homosexuality, gambling, nudity, divorce and remarriage for any reason whatsoever, prostitution, and any number of other immoralities, the Christian must preach the word of God as the standard by which to measure all moral questions. Similarly, to an age which teaches that men are acceptable to God whether or not they believe in Jesus as the only way to truth and light, that one can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, the atonement, and other important biblical doctrines, and that one can worship God acceptable in ways not revealed in the Scriptures, the Christians must hold forth the word of God as the measuring standard for all doctrinal issues.

Yes One Can Know For Sure

So, when we approach the issue of whether or not one can know for sure what God thinks of using mechanical instruments of music in worship, we affirm that a man can know for sure what God thinks about using mechanical instruments of music in worship. He simple must approach this issue in the same manner as he approaches any other issue regarding the Scriptures. Let me illustrate:

1. Can a pious unbeliever be saved? The man of God must commit himself to being guided by the revelation of God in order to answer this question. The Scriptures teach that, unless one believes in Christ, he will die in his sins (Jn. 8:24). Jesus affirmed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). The apostles revealed, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Consequently, the man of God can answer the question “Can a pious unbeliever be saved?” without a doubt; such a man cannot be saved!

2. Can a pious, unimmersed believer be saved? This is another question which has confronted God’s people; yet, the disciple of Christ can answer that question so long as he is committed to following God’s word. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). Again, He said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). Water baptism is essential for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), washing away one’s sins (Acts 22:16), and salvation (1 Pet. 3:21). Hence, the pious believer who has not been immersed is lost. The man who is guided by the revelation of God has no trouble answering this question; he can know for sure what the truth is.

3. Is the papacy wrong? The man of God is sometimes required to deal with the subject of whether or not the papal form of church government is wrong. He can know for sure what God thinks about it. The word of God reveals the organization of the local church. Elders are to be appointed an every congregation (Acts 14:23). The Scriptures always refer to a plurality of elders in each local church. The qualifications of these men are given in detail (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-8). The limitation of their authority is the “flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:1-3; Acts 20:28). There is no Bible authority for any kind of intercongregational union and for officers over a plurality of congregations. Hence, one can know for sure that the papal form of church organization is an apostasy disapproved by God. Similarly, he can recognize absolutely the proper form of church government as a pattern revealed from God, all departures from which stand equally condemned, whether they be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or the sponsoring church version of apostasy!

4. Is sprinkling acceptable as baptism? Others raise the issue as to whether or not one can know whether sprinkling or pouring will be accepted by God as baptism. The man of God can know for sure what God approves. He resolves to be guided by the revelation of God. He finds that God requires a man to be baptized. An honest investigation of the word “baptize” in the original languages will reveal that it was an immersion (see any reputable lexicographer). Furthermore, he will see that Bible baptism involved the usage of much water (Jn. 3:23), a going down into and a coming up out of water (Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:38-39); he sees that it is compared to a burial (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). Hence, the baptism of the Great Commission was an immersion in water for the forgiveness of one’s sins. The man of God knows that this meets God’s approval. In the absence of divine authority for sprinkling and pouring for remission of sins, he can know that God disapproves of sprinkling and pouring as substitutes for baptism. Similarly, he can know that God disapproves of infant sprinkling. Hence, he can know for sure what God thinks about these things.

5. Are counting rosaries in prayer, using water on the Lord’s table, burning candles, and using holy water acceptable in worship? The man of God who is aware of the diversities of public worship is sometimes faced with the issue of whether or not God accepts these diverse expressions of worship. He can know the answer to these questions because he is committed to following the revelation of God. He understands that things introduced in worship without divine authority invalidate the worship (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:20-22). God has divinely revealed what kind of worship pleases Him; anything for which there is no divine authority stands outside the revelation of God and condemned thereby. God has revealed a pattern for worship. If there is no law for worship, no form of worship is wrong (Rom. 4:15; 5:13). If there’s a pattern of worship, every expression of worship outside that pattern -is sinful. By simply consulting his concordance to see if items such as those mentioned above were mentioned in the Scriptures and then studying the Scriptures in which these words are found, he can see whether or not God authorized these items in worship. Finding that He did not, the man of God can know positively that their usage in worship is disapproved by God.

Conclusion

In exactly the same manner as a man can know the answers to the above questions, the man of God can know whether or not instrumental music in worship pleases God. If there is no positive divine authority for-using-mechanical instruments of music in worship, the practice stands on exactly the same basis as counting beads in prayer, using holy water, burning incense, and any other form of worship which is not authorized of God. If a man can know that these things displease God, he can also know that the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship also displease God.

Whatever stance he takes with reference to those who introduce other apostasies in worship is exactly the same stance which one should take with reference to those who introduce mechanical instruments of music in worship. If one is unwilling to extend the right hands of fellowship (Gal. 2:9) to those who burn incense in worship, burn candles, count beads during prayer, observe the Lord’s supper unscripturally (either because of the usage of the wrong items, for the wrong purposes, or at the wrong intervals), and who otherwise depart from the divine pattern of worship, he should also be unwilling to extend the hands of fellowship to those who violate the Lord’s pattern for worship by introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship.

A Christian cannot take a permanent agnostic stance on such matters. When he assembles with groups using the mechanical instruments of music in worship, he is forced to decide whether or not to participate in that worship. He can know for sure what God thinks about this kind of worship for he has the revelation of God in the New Testament to guide him. A Christian can know for sure that God disapproves of mechanical instruments of music in worship.

Questions

1. Can one consistently imply that he cannot know for sure what the truth is on one subject on which the Bible speaks without giving up the Bible as his objective standard of authority (cf. Jas. 2:10-12)?
2. Is there any difference in principle in the following statements?

a. A man cannot know for sure that a sincere atheist will be lost.

b. A man cannot know for sure that an idolater will be lost.

c. A man cannot know for sure that a pious, unimmersed believer will be lost.

d. A man cannot know for sure that a Catholic will be lost.

e. A man cannot know for sure that a man who uses mechanical instruments of music in worship will be lost.

1. Is there an objective standard of truth? If so, what is it?
2. Is the affirmative statement, “There is no absolute truth,” a contradiction of its affirmation?
3. Can a person know the truth?
4. Must a person know the truth in order to be saved?
5. What stance should the church take toward the man who refuses to walk within the boundaries of God’s truth?
6. How can one know that

a.. The pious unbeliever is lost?

b. The pious unimmersed believer is lost?

c. The papal form of church government is sinful?

d. Sprinkling is not acceptable for baptism?

e. Departures from God’s pattern of worship are sinful?

1. Has God given a pattern for worship? Pursue the consequences in the event that the answer is “yes” and in the event that the answer is “no.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 391-394
June 12, 1980

By Steve Wolfgang

The assignment to discuss the comments of various religious leaders regarding instrumental music has raised several questions in my own mind which will no doubt occur to readers of this article as well. I would like to consider some of these questions by way of introduction to their comments.

What Does It Matter?

Though I have more than a passing interest in church history, it appears to me that there is little utility in discussing the opinions of religious leaders on this or any other subject. As interesting as it many be to study the views of past generations, we must never forget that they in no way provide a basis for authorizing (or condemning) any practice. This is not to argue that there is no value whatsoever in discovering that there were many leaders in various denominations who did oppose the instrument – it is simply to remind us that a doctrine or practice is authorized or condemned only on the basis of what the Scriptures teach. The reverse of this principle is even more salient to our study: even if we could find no religious leader of the past (or present) who opposed the use of instrumental music, it would yet stand condemned, lacking scriptural justification despite the opinions of religious leaders pro or con.

How Reliable Are These Quotations?

This raises at least two separate questions. I have given diligence to check the accuracy of these quotations in their original sources (insofar as is possible, some of them being rather obscure). I have on occasion quoted from a secondary source, of which several can be recommended. These include M. C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship, and James D. Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, both excellent overall studies of these (and other) aspects of the instrument question; Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak and A Capella Music, for the views of the “church fathers” and early church figures; and John T. Lewis, Voices of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies, for quotations from “Restoration” figures.

A second aspect of this question pertains to the integrity of the men themselves. Men do change their opinions, being human, and it is entirely possible to find quotations from the same man on opposite sides of one issue. That is not the case, insofar as I can ascertain, for the men quoted in this article, but is entirely possible that any of them, or any other men, may have written strongly in favor of the instrument at one time, and then later may have changed his mind and subsequently may have written equally as fervently against the practice, or vice versa. Even then it is possible, as M.C. Kurfees so often does in his landmark work cited above, to quote a fatal admission from a man openly arguing in favor of the instrument – using the man’s own admissions to capsize his case. This simply further underscores the futility of establishing any religious practice or doctrine on the shifting sands of human ideas, regardless of the brilliance of the human or our esteem for him.

What Have Religious Leaders Said About Instrumental Music?

We turn now to a brief sampling of some comments of religious leaders, including:

John Calvin: “Calvin is very express in his condemnation of instrumental music in connection with the public worship of the Christian church . . . In his commentary on the thirty-third Psalm he says: `I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was part of the . . . puerile instruction of the law. [But for believers now] 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 other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise, but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.’

“In his homily on 1 Sam. xviii. 1-9, he delivers himself emphatically . . . on the subject: What therefore was in use under the law is by no means entitled to our practice under the gospel . . . . Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was tolerated only on account of the times and the people, because they were as boys, as the Sacred Scriptures speaketh”‘ (John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, pp. 163-165).

Ulrich Zwingli, who “had read some of Luther’s writings, had become convinced that the New Testament was above all other authority and that the church should be thoroughly purged of everything which did not square with its teachings. Far more than Luther, he wanted to break with the Roman tradition, and to reestablish the church squarely on apostolic foundations . . . . the silence of the Scriptures . . . for Zwingli . . . tended to be a prohibition. Therefore, under his preaching, . . . such Roman practices as Mass, the veneration of images and relics, the confessional, . . . fasting during Lent, clerical celibacy, and the use of organs, were abolished as having no warrant in Scripture” (Richard M. Pope, The Church and Its Culture, p. 355).

John Wesley: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, providing they are neither heard nor seen” (quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684).

The above quotation (as well as others below front Clarke) are some of the more frequently seen comments and raise again the questions of reliability of the sources. Though having some exposure to the Wesleyan tradition, I have been unable to document this often-quoted statement anywhere else, and would be indebted to anyone who can provide verification. The source, Adam Clarke, a Methodist commentator, is himself often cited from his remarks made at several places in his Old Testament commentaries, such as:

“Moses had not appointed any musical instruments to be used in the divine worship; there was nothing of the kind under the first tabernacle. The trumpets or horns then used were not for song nor for praise, but as we use bells, i.e., to give notice to the congregation . . . But David did certainly introduce many instruments of music into God’s worship . . . and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by Divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No: the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this, and . . . these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion . . . . Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly” (Clarke’s Commentary, II, 690-691, @ 2 Chronicles 29:25).

I believe that Clarke has allowed his opposition to the instrument to lead him to an extreme position here (and elsewhere), though much of what he says is true. He cites in the above commentary (omitted here) the frequently abused passage in Amos 5 and 6, and we reproduce a portion of his comments on that passage below:

“I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirits of true devotion, and that they are sinful . . . . Music, as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and I here register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity” (Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684, on Amos 6:5; see also comments on 1 Chronicles 23:5 in Vol. II, pp. 620-621).

Again, these quotations, while containing several good points, demonstrate some of the problems of relying on quotations from commentators to determine the truth or falsity of an issue. As another commentator (!) has observed, this passage

“did not refer to the instruments used in worship; nor can this passage be used as an argument against the use of such instruments in worship today as is done by Adam Clarke. They invented musical instruments to be used in the sordid revelry of their feasts . . .” (Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, p. 114).

This is not to argue that commentators and other leaders in the formulation of religious thought cannot and do not express many proper and appropriate ideas; as demonstrated by the following quotation, they often do so. It is simply to warn against placing too much stock in the remarks of any human commentator. From Conybeare and Howson:

“Let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart . . .” (W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson, The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, II, p. 408).

Another illustration of questionable use of commentators is a quotation sometimes seen from the pen of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, British Baptist preacher. It is reproduced in the following manner in a recent handbook of religious quotations (an otherwise excellent work):

“Praise the Lord with harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes . . . . We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice.” (Spurgeon, Commentary on Ps. 42).

This quotation, probably lifted from a secondary source, is in fact taken from Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, Volume II, p. 115. Commenting on Psalm 33:2, Spurgeon includes the following comments, often omitted when reproduced elsewhere:

“We who do not believe these things (instruments – SW) to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right?”

Further, after the phrase, “We do not need then,” Spurgeon says:

“but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty?”

We are not attempting here to be hypercritical of the excellent work of brethren in compiling useful quotations, but simply wish to counsel all of us (self included) to be extremely careful to check the reliablity of what we quote, if we must quote. When we do, let us attempt to do so accurately. Above all, let us turn our attention to the Scriptures themselves, and what they actually say, rather than depending upon the “think-sos” of the world’s religious leaders, past or present.

Questions

1. Is there any value to considering what religious leaders say about this or any issue?
2. How much “weight” should be placed on what religious leaders say about a religious question?
3. Discuss the differences in the reforming principles of Luther and Zwingli as revealed in their attitudes toward instrumental music.
4. Can you find any indication in the Old Testament that instruments were unscriptural in the times of the Old Covenant?
5. Discuss Amos 5:23 and 6:5 in this context.
6. Did David sin by using the instrument in his day?
7. Compare the quotations of John Calvin and Adam Clarke. In your opinion, who was closer to the truth on the use of instruments in the Old Testament?
8. If one concludes that instrumental music was authorized or permitted in the Old Testament, does it follow that such instruments are permitted under the New Covenant?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 389-390
June 12, 1980

By Brooks Cochran

The story is told of a new husband who was watching his wife prepare her first ham for the oven. He noticed that she cut off a few inches from the end. When asked her reason for doing such, her only reply was that her mother always did it that way. Upon calling her mother they found she could give no other reason except that her mother had always prepared her hams that way. Finally, they called the grandmother, who told them she always cut a few inches off because her pan was too small.

This story reminds us of the fact that people may do things a certain way simply because they have always been done that way; i.e., they do things out of tradition. This is especially true in matters of religion. Many times the only reason a person can give for believing or practicing a certain thing is, “That’s the way we’ve always believed or done things.” Jesus, in Mark 7:6-9, warns us against following the customs and traditions of men.

One such example of this would be the use of instrumental music in worship to God. The only reason some people can give for the use of the instrument is that they have always used them. In fact, many may live their entire life without -ever giving any serious thought about the matter. But, has the instrument always been a part of man’s worship to God? If not, when did it become a part and who authorized such?

In this lesson we will see that the instrument was not always used in worship to God. During the early years of the church’s existence, there were no instruments of music used in the worship of the church. It was several hundred years later that the instrument made its way into the worship. This being the case, exactly when did the instrument become a part of Christian worship?

Introduced In 666 A.D.

Most reference works ascribe the introduction of the instrument into worship to Pope Vitalian I (657-672):

The organ is said to have been first introduced into church worship by Pope Vitalian I, in 666 (Chambers’ Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 112).

The organ is said to have been first employed in the church during the time of Pope Vitaliam I (c. 666 A.D.) (New International Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 446).

Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe . . . (The American Cyclopedia, Vol. XII, p. 688).

Introduced Later Than 666 A.D.

However, not all agree with the above statements. Some tend to place the introduction of the instrument much later. Everett Ferguson states that “it is quite late before there is evidence of instrumental music, first the organ, employed in public worship of the church. Recent studies put the introduction of instrumental music even later than the dates found in ,reference books. It was perhaps as late as the tenth century when the organ was played as part of the service . . . When introduced in the Middle Ages, the organ was still not part of the liturgy proper. That is, it did not initially accompany the hymn service, but was a separate item in the service” (A Cappella Music In The Public Worship of the Church, p. 81).

The Catholic .Encyclopedia .(1913 edition) states that “according to Plating (`De vitis Pontificum’, Cologne, 1593), Pope’ Vitalian (657-72) introduced the organ into the church service. This, however, is very doubtful. At all events, a strong objection to the organ in church service remained pretty general down to the twelfth century, which may be accounted for partly by the imperfection of tone in organs of that time. But from the twelfth century on, the organ became the privileged church instrument . . .” (Vol. XI, pp. 300-301).

Edward Dickinson states that “since harmony was unknown during the first one thousand years or more of the Christian era, and instrumental music had no independent existence, the whole vast system of chant melodies was purely unison and unaccompanied, its rhythm usually subordinated to that of the text” (Music in the History of the Western Church, p. 129).

As can be seen from the above quotes, it is apparent that there is a question in the mind of some, as to whether or not the instrument was introduced into the worship of the church during the seventh century.

Introduced Prior To 666 A.D.

Yet, there are some who reject both the seventh and tenth century dates and place the introduction of the instrument as far back as the third, fourth, or fifth century. Though this would be too early a date for the organ, it is argued that the lute and/or lyre were used in the worship.

To support this claim an appeal is made to Clement of Alexander. He wrote around 200 A.D. He said, “And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.” But, as James Bales points out, “Clement is not discussing the assembly, or even a private devotional service, but `How to Conduct Ourselves at Feasts.’ Second, he spoke of the use of musical instruments at banquets and called them `instruments of delusion”‘ (Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, p. 262).

M.C. Kurfees states that “with no other light on the case except that thrown on it by these bare words themselves, we submit that it would be utterly impossible to tell whether the author of the passage meant that these instruments might be used by Christians in the worship of God, or as a mere entertainment outside of that worship. The passage itself does not specify either, while the context is decidedly in favor of the latter view” (Instrumental Music In The Worship, p. 124).

Joseph Bingham states that Clement “speaks not of what was then in use in Christian churches, but of what might lawfully be used by any private Christian, if they were disposed to use it; which rather argues that instrumental music, the lute and the harp, of which he speaks, was not in use in the public churches” (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 485).

By a careful study of Clement’s statement one would be hard pressed to prove he had the public worship of the church under consideration when he wrote these words. (For those wishing to study his statement in light of its context, see the following: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, pp. 248-249, American reprint of the Edinburgh edition.)

[Note: Though both Kurfees and Bingham refer to the use of the instrument at home, it should be pointed out that to sing hymns to God with an instrument, whether collectively in public worship with a group of Christians in a private home, and/or by by oneself would be sinful. Any hymn singing must be done without the addition of the instrument for it to be acceptable to God.]

Sir John Hawkins, in General History of Music, makes an appeal to Ambrose (340-397) Bishop of Milan to support the view that the instrument was in use in public worship prior to the seventh century: “T hough it is uncontroverted that Vitalianus introduced the organ into the service of the Romish church, yet the use of instruments in churches was much earlier; for we are told that St. Ambrose joined instruments of music with the public service in the Cathedral church of Milan, which example of his was so approved of, that by degrees it became the general practice of other churches, and has since obtained in almost all the Christian world besides. Nay, the antiquity of instrumental church music is still higher, if we may credit the testimony of Justin Martyr and Eusubius, the latter of whom lived fifty and the former two hundred years before the time of St. Ambrose” (Vol. 1, p. 147).

Hawkins, however; fails to support his claim. He gives no evidence as to whom it was that “told that” Ambrose introduced the instrument into the worship of the Cathedral church of Milan. He does make an appeal to the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius in support of his claim that the instrument was in general use before Ambrose. Yet; upon reading the writings of these men, one will not find any statement made by them favoring ttie use of the instrument in worship. Kurfees made it a point to read the writings of the two and found that they were void of any reference to the use of instruments in worship.

The weight of historical evidence is against any who would claim the instrument was used in Christian worship prior to 600 A.D.:

All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestation of musical art . . . T he development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church (Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, pp. 53, 54).

These chants – and the word chant (and not music) is used advisedly, for many centuries were to pass before instruments accompanied the sung melodies (Kurt Pahlen, Music of the World, p. 27). [Note: T he chant, which is a simple song in which a number of syllables or words are sung in a monotone, was the main form of music in the church from about the fifth century on.)

While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal . . . . Many of the fathers, speaking of religious song, make no mention of instruments in worship; others, refer to them only to denounce them . . . . The religious guides of the early Christians felt that there would be an incongruity, and even profanity, in the use of the sensuous nerve-exciting effects of instrumental sound in their mystical, spiritual worship. Their high religious and moral enthusiasm needed no aid from external stimulus; the pure vocal utterance was the more proper expression of their faith (Edward Dickinson, Music in the History of the Western Church, pp. 54, 55).

Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp were associated so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in worship (E.E. Ryden, The Story of Christian Hymnody, p. 7).

Thus, to argue that the instrument, be it harp, lute, lyre, organ or whatever, was used in Christian worship prior to the seventh century is to do so with little or no historical evidence. The voice of history is against such. James W. McKinnon states that “many musicologists, while acknowledging that early church music was predominantly vocal, have tried to produce evidence that instruments were employed in the liturgy at various times and places. T he result of such attempts has been a history of misinterpretations and mistranslations” (Unpublished dissertation quoted by James Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, p. 261). [Note: For further study on this subject see the following: James William McKinnon, “The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic Against Musical Instruments,” Current Musicology, Spring, 1965, published under the aegis of the Music Department, Columbia University, New York.]

Conclusion

Though we may not be able to determine the exact date the organ was first used in worship, we do know that it was several hundred years after the establishment of the church before it was introduced. However, due to opposition, it was another two or three hundred years before it became generally accepted. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Vitalian introduced the organ into the worship of the church at Rome to improve the congregation singing. But, it was not until the ninth century that the organ was “consistently” used, and the thirteenth century before it was “in general use throughout the Latin Church” (Vol. 10, p. 746).

It would be fair to assume that the first known use of the instrument in worship occurred under Pope Vitalian, in the mid-seventh century. However, many years were to pass before it would be generally accepted and put into common usage.

We need to realize that the use of instruments in worship to God was never authorized or allowed in the Lord’s Church. Regardless of what church councils, creeds, dogmas, leaders, and/or traditions may say; the use of the instrument in worship is wrong. The New Testament does not command, authorize, or sanction its use. To do otherwise is to follow the teaching and commandments of men, and Christ condemned such in Mark 7:1-9.

Questions

1. How do many people justify their religious practices when asked their reason(s) for doing so?
2. Did the first century church use instruments in its worship? Why?
3. What is the generally accepted date that is given for the introduction of the instrument into worship? Who introduced it? Check some major reference works and see if you can find some other things this man did.
4. What reason(s) could one give in support of the view that the instrument was introduced into worship later than 666 A.D.?
5. Is there any evidence that the instrument was used in worship prior to 666 A.D.?
6. Who were Clement and Ambrose? What is their importance to us in this study?
7. What arguments can be made for and/or against the use of the instrument in worship prior to 666 A.D.?
8. Discuss the use of the instrument in the home. Would it be right to sing hymns at home with the addition of the instrument? Why?
9. Discuss Mark 7:1-9 as it relates to this study. What do the following terms mean: a. Vain; b. Doctrines; c. Precepts of men; d. Tradition of men; e. Commandment of God. (See also: Matt. 21:23-27).
10. Suppose that it could be shown from secular history that the instrument was used by some congregations in the first century. Would that make it right for us to use it today? Why?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 386-388
June 12, 1980

By Mike Willis

1 Corinthians 1:10

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

This passage which condemns division among the Corinthians has been used by brethren for years to show that our divisions over the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship is sinful. Brethren have insisted that we should all speak the same thing with reference to the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship in the same way as we have spoken the same thing on baptism. Through teaching the same doctrine on this subject, we can have unity among ourselves.

However, Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside and others lampoon the idea that we can ever have unity in doctrine on such matters. Typical of what they are saying is the following statement:

Does this passage enjoin believers to see everything in the Bible alike? Does it teach that we must see eye to eye on all points of doctrine, that there can be no honest differences of opinion?

This is what we are told. We must all speak the same thing! If we study prophecy in the Old Covenant scriptures, we must come up with identical positions . . . .

On and on it goes, almost endlessly. We have to speak “the same thing” on whether congregations may cooperate and on what basis. (A division has occurred in the last two decades over the support of Herald of Truth TV/Radio). We have to speak “the same thing” on instrumental music, otherwise the division must continue another century (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . That You All Speak The Same Thing,” Restoration Review, XVIII, p. 282).

A more obvious abuse of the Scriptures cannot be imagined than this. Whereas Paul demanded that unity be obtained by all of the divided brethren speaking the same thing, the grace-unity brethren say that this is impossible and cannot be Paul’s meaning in this passage. Any theory which posits unity without us speaking the same thing on doctrinal matters is not that which Paul demanded.

Several current theories for overcoming the divisions among Christianity completely ignore the divine instructions given in this verse regarding how to have unity in the body of Christ. The ecumenical movement, for example, encourages a “unity in diversity” basis of unity. The diversity to be tolerated ranges from evangelical churches to non-Christian religions. Others have sought union on the basis of some type of super organization such as the Catholic Church. Inside the Churches of Christ, some are presently promoting an ecumenical movement to reconcile the divisions among us. Like their denominational counterpart, these men are tolerant of doctrinal differences which range from the Disciples of Christ (the body which has within its fellowship modernists who deny the deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, etc.) to the radical right-wing churches (such as the no Bible class, no located preacher, and no literature groups, etc.). This type of unity is one which ignores the issues which divided us and ignores Paul’s instructions for unity given in this verse.

Although noos (mind) and gnome (judgment) are synonyms, they have distinctive meanings. Some understand mind to refer to theoretical understanding and judgment to be practical life. This distinction, though not totally inaccurate, is not sufficiently precise. The noos refers to the Christian way of thinking. The same word is used in 1 Cor. 2:16 (the noos of Christ) to refer to the revelation delivered to the apostles by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when Paul urges the Christians to be of the same mind, he is urging them to have the mind of Christ, i.e. to accept the Christian revelation as the final authority in settling religious questions. The gnome (judgment) refers to the manner of deciding a particular issue in question.

Let me illustrate how the unity of the church can be maintained on the basis of Paul’s advice given in this verse. The question we shall consider is this: What is the action of baptism (baptisma)? Everybody must approach the matter with the same mind (noos); the inspired scriptures will be the final authority in answering the question. Approaching the matter in this way, the people studying the question turn to the Bible for guidance. Inasmuch as the Bible does not teach a multitude of doctrines on the subject and it is able to be understood, the different people will reach the one conclusion: Baptism is immersion in water. Having reached the same conclusion (gnome), the body will all give the same answer (speak the same). In this manner, the unity of the church can be attained. So long as matters not authorized in the Scriptures are not brought into the work and worship of the church there will be no divisions in the body of Christ. Scriptural unity can be attained or maintained only so long as brethren follow Paul’s instructions presented in this verse. Our first work is .not to arrive at unity, but to conform ourselves to the standard of Divine Truth. Just as the unity of a choir is not gained by each singer striving to keep in harmony with his neighbor but by all following the prescribed notes of music, so also the unity of the Lord’s church can be attained only by all of us conforming to the revelation which He has given to us.

A Pattern Of Conduct

I think that any perceptive reader can see a pattern of conduct developed in the handling of passages pertaining to false teachers by the grace-unity brethren. Every passage which demands that false teachers be rebuked and exposed as heretics has been said not to be applicable to those false teachers among us who have introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship, church support of human institutions (missionary, benevolent, or educational), church sponsored recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, premillennialism, and any other false doctrine (such as the denial of the virgin birth, resurrection, necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, as some individuals promoting the grace-unity heresy have said). To further demonstrate this, I reproduce several other comments on other verses, not for the purpose of giving ,a detailed examination of what the verses say, but to demonstrate that these brethren are consistently trying to make passages which have been used against false teachers among us to be not applicable to them anymore.

1. 2 Peter 2:1. Peter warned, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” Garrett assures us that this passage cannot be legitimately applied to denominational people, much less our own brethren.

I may shock some of my more staid readers with the thesis I now set forth as to the identity of a false teacher. I do not believe, as I was always taught in the sect in which I grew up, that “denominational preachers” are necessarily false teachers, which is the view still urged upon us by many within Christian Churches-Churches of Christ.

. . . The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you made of Romanism . . . .

No one is a false teacher who is honestly mistaken or in error. It is gracious of us to distinguish between unintentional wrong and deliberate and malicious falsehood (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . Who Is The False Teacher?”, Restoration Review, XVIII, pp. 262, 264, 265).

Whereas it is an abuse of this passage to apply this passage to denominational preachers or brethren who have introduced unauthorized items into the work, worship and organization of the church, Garrett believes that it can be legitimately applied to those of us who are calling for a “book, chapter, and verse” for all that we do. He continued.

. . I have no interest in excluding anyone as a false teacher if he fits the description set forth here, whether he be of “us” or “them.” And we may be closer to the description than we realize when we bask in our own self-righteousness and set all others at naught. We have those among us who are willing to bruise and batter innocent lives in order to safe-guard the party and preserve what they call sound doctrine. That too gets close (Ibid., p. 264).

Though this passage. cannot be applied to those who introduce false doctrines, it can be applied to those who are dedicated to practicing only those things found in the New Testament. And Garrett wants us to believe that we are abusing the Scriptures!

2. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Once again, our grace-unity brethren have assured us that this passage definitely cannot be applied to those who have departed from the revelation of God by introducing things unauthorized into the work, worship, and organization of the church.

Paul could never have dreamed that his words, “Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” would someday be used as a proof text for “withdrawing fellowship” from those who veer from this or that doctrinal position, whether in reference to a divorce, speaking in tongues, importing an organ, becoming a Mason, conducting a Sunday School, using uninspired literature, adopting the pastor system, or supporting a TV-radio program through the treasury of the church (Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . Withdrawing From The Disorderly,” Restoration Review, XVIII, p. 343).

Again, this passage cannot be applied to those “disorderly” people among us who “obey not our word by this epistle” (2 Thess. 3:14), according to the grace-unity brethren.

3. Jude 3. We read, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Whenever brethren have introduced matters which are not a part of the faith which the apostles delivered to us, this passage has been used to admonish brethren to defend only what has been authorized in the Scriptures. But, Ketcherside says that this is an abuse of the Scriptures.

It is argued by factional leaders that “the faith” here spoken of is the entire body of new covenant scriptures. In addition, each party includes in “the faith” the particular and peculiar traditional interpretation and deductions which separate and segregate it from all other believers, sects and parties. This when one debates the validity of cups and classes, he is contending for “the faith.” When another engages in heated discussion over support of orphan homes or Herald of Truth, he is contending for “the faith.” When another argues about the use of instrumental music, either pro or con, he is contending for “the faith.” When another goes on a radio station and delivers an attack on the pre-millennial interpretation he is contending for “the faith.” The content of the faith which was “once for all delivered to the saints” differs with each contentious party of saints (Carl Ketcherside, “The One Faith,” Mission Messenger, XXVII, p. 150).

Hence, this passage cannot be understood to have any bearing on additions made later than the revelation of the one body of doctrine from the inspired men. Garrett and Ketcherside said so and, surely, they cannot be wrong.

Conclusion

Why have the grace-unity brethren been so bent upon reinterpreting every passage which has been used to oppose those who have unscripturally introduced into the worship, work, and organization of the church things which are not found in the Bible? Is it because they are concerned with the proper interpretation of the Scripture? Is it just because they want to be sure that other passages are applied to those who have introduced things which are not authorized? Are they opposed to these things having been introduced but simply feel that we have been using the wrong Scriptures to condemn them?

Most definitely not! Read their journals from cover to cover, year in and year out. You will never see one single passage applied in opposition to those who have unscripturally introduced mechanical instruments of music in worship. You will never see one passage introduced to call back to the word of God those who have departed from the Scriptures in urging churches to contribute to human institutions (whether missionary societies, benevolent societies, or colleges). You will never find one condemnation of those who split the church by forcing these matters upon brethren who were conscientiously opposed to doctrinal innovation. Why? Because they do not believe that sin was committed in introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship, churches supporting human institutions, churches sponsoring recreation as part of their work, or altering the organization of the church in the sponsoring church arrangement. Not believing that these things are sinful and will send a man to hell, Ketcherside and Garrett are methodically trying to get brethren to quit calling those who do introduce these things “sinners.” Unfortunately, they have been successful with some. Bruce Edwards, Jr., Arnold Hardin, Edward Fudge, and some others who formerly stood with us have become convinced. If you doubt that this is so, try to find anything written by them in recent years in which the introduction of these items is condemned as sinful, brethren were admonished to repent of the sin in order to avoid going to hell, and condemnation was given because of their guilt in dividing the body of Christ through the introduction of unauthorized items!

The result is that these brethren are cutting their own throats. By saying that these verses have nothing to do with doctrinal apostasies, they will have no verses to use on those who are departing from what the revelation of God says about the (what they incorrectly label) “gospel.” Already some are teaching that men can go to heaven without believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, and the coronation of Jesus. They have been teaching that one can go to heaven without baptism for several years now. What Scripture can be used to show that these brethren have “departed from the faith”? There are none left by their own admission.

Hence, salvation is reduced to a warm, syrupy feeling of love that is closely akin to what Pentecostals and other denominations have been preaching for years. If these brethren are attracted to this kind of “religion,” why won’t they just go to those denominations? Why do they feel compelled to drag all of the rest of us with them? It certainly cannot be because they believe that what we are doing will send us to hell; they have already admitted that this is not what they believe. Why?

Brethren, the time to become alarmed is past. We each need to be aware of the false doctrines and unscrupulous tactics employed by the grace-unity brethren as they “abuse the word” and “twist the scriptures.” An informed membership is a strong membership.

Questions

1. How is unity to be attained according to 1 Cor. 1:10?
2. How can we be united on the action, subject, and purpose of baptism? How can we be united on the frequency of observing the Lord’s supper? Is unity in doctrine necessary to unity in these matters?
3. Why are some trying to deny that Gal. 1:8-9, 2 John 9-11, Rom. 16:17-18 and other passages have any application to modern problems?
4. Is there a pattern of conduct in their treatment of these passages? If so, what is it?
5. Why would one cease to oppose the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship?
6. Are there any false teachers among us today? If so, what makes him a false teacher?
7. Must one be insincere to be a false teacher?
8. If insincerity is necessary for one to be a false teacher, how can I know if a given man is a false teacher?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 23, pp. 377-380
June 5, 1980