Truth Magazine

By Don Hooton

When people worship with most churches of Christ today, the absence of instrumental music nearly always causes a brief quizzing like, “Why don’t you use a piano or an organ or all the other instruments that other churches use?” Frankly, that’s a great question! And as Christians, we are, and should be, always willing to “give an answer for the hope” and the faith that we have (1 Pet. 3:15) whether it is asked by a believer or an unbeliever. So let me try to answer why you hear no pianos when you worship with us. 
 
There are three lines of reasoning or evidence that make us believe that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is unacceptable to God. The evidence that supports such a conclusion are: (1) The Historical Argument (the historical fact that vocal music was the only music used by Christians for centuries); (2) The Hermeneutic Argument (the absence of any New Testament passage authorizing its use); (3) The Scriptural Argument (the clear scriptural proof that in the New Testament age, singing was the form of musical worship practiced and thereby was and is the worship God accepts in every generation). 
 
Of course, we are using the term “argument” in its classic dictionary usage of “a course of reasoning to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of something” (Webster’s II). After we present these three “arguments” regarding why we believe instrumental music in worship to God is not acceptable to him, we will also evaluate Bible passages and/or reasons people have used and continue to use to justify the use of musical instruments in worship to God. 
 
Historical Argument 

First, let’s begin with the fact that history and scholarship alike agree that early Christians did not employ instrumental music and in some circles, emphatically opposed it. For emphasis, we will italicize and embolden significant statements in these quotes. 
 
In the History of Western Music, a standard music history textbook, Donald Grout writes, “Hymn singing is the earliest recorded musical activity of the Christian Church” (13). He says further that the early church “excluded instrumental music from public worship” (26). And then Mr. Grout observes that, “The organ does not seem to have been used regularly with the choir in Mass much before the thirteenth century” (64). 
 
The Encyclopedia Judaica says, “jingling, banging, and rattling accompanied heathen cults . . .The voices of nonconformists were emerging from places of Jewish and early Christian worship. Early synagogue song intentionally foregoes artistic perfection, renounces the playing of instruments, and attaches itself entirely to ‘the word’ — the text of the Bible” (“Music,” XII:566).  

 In the Catholic Encyclopedia, these Catholic historians say, “For almost a thousand years, Gregorian chant without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connection with the liturgy” (X:657).  
 
And also in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The rejection of all musical instruments for Christian worship is consistent among the (Church,  dph) Fathers. They were  associated with pagan, orgiastic rites” (“History of Sacred Music,” X:106). 
 
In the New Oxford History of Music, the writers say, “The primitive Christian community held the same view, as we know from the apostolic and post-apostolic literature: instrumental music was thought unfit for religious services; the Christian sources are quite outspoken in their condemnation of instrumental performances. Originally, only song was considered worthy of direct approach to Divinity” (“The Music of Post-Biblical Judaism,” I:135). 
 
The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia says, “There is no record in the NT of the use of instruments in the music worship of the church. In this regard, early believers followed the practice of the Hebrew synagogue music” (“Music,” 1163). 
 
Historian Lars Qualben writes, “Singing formed an essential part of the Christian Worship, but it was in unison and without musical accompaniment” (A History of the Christian Church, 112). 
 
And finally from John Girardeau, professor at Columbia Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church USA, we read, “The church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice had no instrumental music for 1200 years; and the Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it from its services as an element of Popery (i.e. Catholicism, dph), even the Church of England having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship. The historical argument, therefore, combines with the Scriptural and the Confessional to raise a solemn and powerful protest against its employment” (John Girardeau, professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, Presbyterian USA, quoted in the American Encyclopedia). 
 
Hence, history uniformly agrees that instrumental music was not only absent from the worship services of first century Christians but was altogether and universally rejected for twelve centuries of Christian practice.

There are historical writings also that show religious leaders opposed the use of instrumental music. What this means is that the prohibition of instrumental music is not new. Instead, it is the practice of instrumental music that is the new innovation. Consider these well-known church leaders from the last twenty centuries:

Tertullian (c. AD 160-230) wrote, “Musical concerts with viol and lute belong to Apollo, to the Muses, to Minerva and Mercury who invented them; ye who are Christians, hate and abhor these things whose very authors themselves must be the object of loathing and aversion.”
 
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), a monk and celebrated Catholic theologian, “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize” (Bingham’s Antiquities, III:137). 
 
John Calvin (1509-64), founder of present day Presbyterianism, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the Law (of Moses, dph)” (Commentary of the Psalms, 33). 
 
Joseph Bingham, a writer from the Anglican Church, said, “Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so” (Works, III:137). 

Charles Spurgeon (1834-92), a renown Baptist preacher, wrote, “We do not need them (i.e., instruments of music, dph). They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice    . . . What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it” (Commentary on Psalms, 42:4). 
 
Adam Clark, a Methodist commented, “I declare I never knew (instrumental music) to be productive of any good in the worship of God and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental 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 corruption of the worship of the author of Christianity” (Commentary, IV:686, on Amos 6:5). 
 
John Wesley (1703-91), another Methodist, wrote, “I have no objection to the instruments in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard” (ibid). 
 
Then Adam Clark responded with, “I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared” (ibid). 
 
So clearly, historical scholarship says instrumental music practiced among Christians did not become an accepted practice until thirteen centuries after the church began. And still,  historical church leaders opposed its use even when others wanted to use instruments or were already using them. 
 
The historical truth is that singing was “for almost a thousand years . . . the only music connected with the liturgy” (Catholic Encyclopedia, X:657) because early church fathers “rejected all musical instruments for Christian worship” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, X:106). 
 
However, it would be absurd to say that the practice of instrumental music was wrong for the simple reason that others have thought it was wrong historically. Anyone, including you and me, can be wrong on any subject. So to conclude that something is wrong because others have rejected it places the reason of our faith in people — a very dangerous, as well as prohibited, practice (cf. Prov. 14:12). 
 
Still, the historical argument is compelling by itself. Using again the words of John Girardeau, a Presbyterian, who said, “The historical argument, therefore, raises a solemn and powerful protest against the employment.” Yet it is the reasons why these people opposed instrumental music that should be of greater consideration and imitation. And that

By Heath Rogers

The Lifetime Television Network recently aired their feature movie, “The Truth About Jane.” Jane is a teenage girl, and Lifetime wouldn’t be making a movie about her unless she had a problem. Care to guess what her problem is? Is she anorexic or bulimic? Does she have cancer? Are her parents divorcing? Is she being abused? No, the truth about Jane is that she is a 15-year-old lesbian. 

The synopsis of the movie on Lifetime’s web site reads, “Ellen Muth, Stockard Channing, James Naughton and RuPaul star in the drama ‘The Truth About Jane.’ Fifteen-year-old Jane lives the quintessential suburban life with her parents and younger brother. Although popular, Jane has always felt somewhat different than her peers. However, after meeting Taylor, a transfer student at school, Jane’s life changes irrevocably. Jane and Taylor become close friends very quickly, and Jane feels a connection to Taylor that she’s never felt with her other friends. One night, Taylor kisses Jane, and it becomes clear to Jane that she’s found what has been lacking in her life. As her relationship with Taylor deepens, Jane realizes that she has to face her family and come to terms with her true self, which changes her life forever.” 

Sound like quality television? It does to some folks. The network has been championed by some for taking on the subject of teenage lesbianism. I didn’t watch the movie. I find the subject matter neither entertaining nor appealing. Movies like this are not meant to entertain, they are meant to indoctrinate. And who is this movie focusing on — our teenagers!

I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust my television to give me the “truth” about anything. My TV is constantly telling me that the earth is billions of years old and that the life on it is the result of ages of evolution. My TV is not a stickler for historical accuracy either. Remember last year’s movie about Noah’s Ark? 

God’s word is the truth (John 17:17). The things it has to say about homosexuality and lesbianism are easy to understand. Without even seeing this movie, I can open my Bible and tell you “The Truth About Jane.” 

1. Jane Has Made A Choice. She wasn’t born a lesbian. She didn’t inherit a defective gene from her parents. Why isn’t her little brother a homosexual (oops, I may have given away the sequel)? She has chosen to be a lesbian. Homosexuality is a sin (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-11), and any sinful behavior is a choice.

In Romans chapter one, Paul described the sinful behavior of the Gentiles who chose to leave God. Included in this chapter is both male and female homosexuality: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (vv. 26-27). Paul is making the point that all of this is the result of man’s choice to leave God. Jane is different because she chooses to be.

2. Jane Is Struggling With This For A Reason. Homosexuals who still have a conscience are going to struggle with their behavior because it is unnatural. A woman has a natural sexual use for a man, but not for another woman. Isn’t it interesting that we don’t have a problem with homosexuality in nature? Dog, cats, and horses don’t have to be told not to mate with members of the same sex — people do! Any plumber or electrician will tell you that you can’t put two male or two female parts together. Jane is struggling with this because she is going after strange flesh (Jude 7). She is doing something that even her own body tells her is not right to do. 

The movie also deals with Jane’s struggles with her mother and classmates. Elsewhere on the web site, we are told, “15-year-old Jane has always felt different. When she realizes why, her mother cannot handle it and fellow students turn on her.” Poor Jane is getting picked on for a reason — her lesbianism is deviant behavior. According to the dictionary, deviancy is that which turns aside from what is considered normal in a group or for a society. Her mother knows it isn’t normal, her fellow students know it isn’t normal, and as long as she engages in it she will be treated as if she isn’t normal. Of course the purpose of movies like this is to get you and me to feel sorry for Jane and to consider her lifestyle normal. Until we do, homosexuals will have these kinds of struggles. We are the bad guys. 

3. Jane Will Go To Hell. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Despite the clarity of this passage, some so-called Christians still   believe homosexuality is acceptable. In recent years, denominations have struggled with the decision to ordain known and practicing homosexuals. God has decided that homosexuality is a sin. It is no worse or no better than any other sin — but a sin none the less. And as long as Jane chooses to engage in sinful behavior, she will go to Hell when she dies. 

4. Jane Needs To Repent. The synopsis tells us that “Jane’s life changes irrevocably.” This means that she can’t be changed back; that what she experiences changes her forever. I disagree. There is a way out of homosexuality. There is a way out of any sin — repentance. Now it probably won’t be easy for Jane. The shackles of sin are not always easy to break. It isn’t always easy for the drunk to give up the bottle, the gambler to give up the Lottery tickets, the gossip to give up his tale-bearing, or the fornicator to battle his lustful thoughts. But it has to be done. And it can be.

After telling the Corinthians that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, he told them, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Some of these people were homosexuals. They changed. Any homosexual coming to Jesus in faith, repentance and baptism can be forgiven, washed clean in the blood of Christ. 

Some of you might think I’m being too hard on Jane. While I have compassion for those caught up in homosexuality, I have absolutely no tolerance for the homosexual agenda. There is a difference. We are taught to hate the sin but to love the sinner. I have a love for these people’s souls, but I hate what their sin has done to our country. Since they came out of the closet, the moral fiber of this nation has deteriorated. The entertainment media is sympathetic to their cause and has taken up their fight. Because of that we can expect a good dose of homosexuality on TV every night. Show me one prime time program in the last ten years that hasn’t had a homosexual character in at least one episode. The teachings of the Bible and the moral standards of God-fearing people are constantly ridiculed on these types of shows. 

Their agenda is to get us to accept homosexuality as being normal. However, realizing that it is too late to change many of our minds, they are specifically targeting our children with movies like this. We need to be ready and willing to stand up for what is right “lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). 

23 S. Margaret St., Joliet Illinois 60435 heathrogers@mind

By Johnny Stringer

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” charged Jehovah as he set forth the reasons for Israel’s downfall (Hos. 4:6). Knowledge of God’s word has always been vital to maintaining a good relationship with him. Those who are ignorant of his word can neither obey his commands nor uphold the truths that are essential to man’s salvation. Hence, the New Testament emphasizes the importance of studying, learning, and meditating on the divine revelation (2 Pet. 1:5; 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 5:11-14; Col. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:15).

I fear that too many of us are failing in this area. We are not as grounded in truth as we should be, even to the point that we are unable to teach our friends and neighbors the most fundamental truths. Clearly we need to study. Those who serve as shepherds over a local church have a responsibility in providing teaching for the flock; this is an essential part of tending the flock (Acts 20:28). Preachers and Bible class teachers must take seriously their responsibilities in this matter.

Some are making a serious effort to fulfill this responsibility. They are conscientiously seeking to fill the hearts and minds of the congregation with divine truths. They are making a valiant effort to overcome the sad lack of Bible knowledge that plagues our brethren. They are showing reruns of the Andy Griffith show! Those who view the program discuss things in the show that are related to biblical principles.

Now really, brethren, is this what churches ought to be doing in their Bible classes? In watching most any television show, we see things that relate to biblical principles. This fact, however, does not make a discussion of those shows equivalent to teaching the Bible. Sometimes, in the process of teaching the Bible, we may quite effectively use an incident from a television show, a book, or real life to illustrate a biblical point. This, however, should be done while studying the Bible, not while study ing the television show or the book or our observations of life. If we could justify studying the Andy Griffith show in Bible classes because we discuss biblical applications, we could justify studying The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in Bible classes so long as we make biblical applications of things found in that book.

This practice began among denominations, many of which have for many years de-emphasized the study of God’s word. Then, some of the most liberal of the institutional churches of Christ followed the denominational example. Now, the practice is not unheard of among non-institutional churches of Christ. I believe it reflects an attitude of which I am afraid — an aversion to serious study of the biblical text in the belief that such a study is not really relevant and cannot hold the interest of those in the class. The attitude seems to be that the Bible is dull and the only way to teach us is to mix in some biblical principles while we are being entertained. The more brethren substitute the study of television shows (or anything else) for the study of the Bible, the more deficient we will become in our knowledge of the Bible.

It may be argued that Jesus taught in parables, and an episode of Andy Griffith is like a parable. Yes, Jesus taught in parables, and a part of studying the Bible is a study of his parables. Episodes of the Andy Griffith show, however, are not parables of Jesus. They were not written by divine guidance and the church has not been assigned the mission of teaching them.

Brethren, let us teach the Bible. The church does not serve its function as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) through showing television programs in which one can find some illustrations of biblical principles. There is a dearth of Bible knowledge among us, and this problem will not be solved by viewing reruns of the Andy Griffith show.

By Mike Willis

In recent months, much has been written about the days of creation as a result of recent teaching that the days of creation are long ages and the teaching that the creation days are separated by long eons of time to allow natural evolutionary processes to develop the earth as we know it. Much has been written to address this issue.

This article is designed to discuss the flood. When men use extra-biblical evidences to reason that creation could not have occurred in six literal consecutive days, they allow extra-biblical sources to have final authority over their faith. Those same extra-biblical sources that deny a six-day creation also deny a universal flood. This article is a preemptive strike against any who might deny the Genesis narrative of a universal flood and who might affirm that Genesis 6-8 describes a local flood. 

The Biblical Flood

Genesis 4 relates the growth of sin that led to fratricide, Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. After listing the eight generations of Adam’s descendants through Cain, the narrative culminates in Lamech’s slaying of a young man and then boastfully defying anyone who attempts to avenge his death (4:23).

Genesis 5:1-6:8 forms the section of Genesis known as “The Book of the Generations (toledoth) of Adam” (5:1). Chapter 5 lists Adam’s descendants through Seth through ten generations, down to Noah’s sons (5:31-32). It climaxes in a description of the wickedness of the world brought on by the intermarriage of the “sons of God” (not a reference to angels, but an ethical description of those descendants of Seth who “call upon the name of the Lord” — 4:26) with the “daughters of men” (an ethical description of wicked women). The whole generation was corrupted.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (6:5).

God determined to execute judgment against the wickedness of the world. He said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” (6:7). The section concludes with the statement that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8).
Structure of the Flood Narrative
Genesis 6:9-9:29 forms the section in Genesis known as “The Generations (toledoth) of Noah.” Largely this section narrates the flood. The outline of the section is as follows:

6:9-13 — God tells Noah of his intention to the destroy the world.
6:14-22 — God commands Noah to build an ark, specifying the dimensions. Noah obeyed the Lord’s commandments.
7:1-6 — God commands Noah to enter the ark.
7:7-24 — The Flood waters prevail.
8:1-5 — The Flood waters recede.
8:6-14 — Noah sends out the raven and dove to determine if the ground is dry.
8:15-19 — God commands Noah to depart from the ark.
 8:20-22 — Noah offers sacrifice to God.
 9:1-17 — God makes a covenant never again to destroy the world with a flood.
9:18-29 — Noah’s sin of drunkenness and the judgment on the descendants of Ham.

For a discussion of the structure of the flood narrative see Wenham (Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-18, 155-158). Wenham cites B.W. Anderson’s analysis of the structure of the Flood narrative in its extended chiasmus structure:

Transitional introduction (6:9-10)
1. Violence in creation (6:11-12)
2. First divine speech: resolve to destroy (6:13-22)
3. Second divine speech: “enter ark” (7:1-10)
4. Beginning of flood (7:11-16)
5. The rising flood (7:17-24)
God remembers Noah
6. The receding flood (8:1-5)
7.    Drying of the earth (8:6-14)
8. Third divine speech: “leave ark” (8:15-19)
9. God’s resolve to preserve order (8:20-22)
10. Fourth divine speech: covenant (9:1-17)
Transitional conclusion (9:18-19) (Wenham 156)

Note the correspondence of the sections: 1-10, 2-9, 3-8, 4-7, 5-6. This orderly structure makes the concept of an editor carelessly putting together two or more documents a difficult position to defend.

Another structure in the narrative pertains to the days which may be outlined as below:

7 days until the flood comes (7:4)
40 days and 40 nights of rain (7:12)
150 days of the waters prevailing (7:24)
 God remembered Noah (8:1)
150 days of the waters declining when the ark rested on Ararat (8:3)
40 days of continued drying at the end of which Noah sent out birds (8:6)
7 days after the raven was sent out, Noah sent out the first dove (8:10)
7 days after the first dove, he sent out the second dove (8:12)

One should observe the correspondence in the numbers (with the exception of the last group of seven days).  Both of these structural analyses emphasize the unity of the Genesis narrative in contrast to the composite authorship interpretation suggested by modernist commentaries (see for example, Skinner, Westermann, Gunkel, Von Rad, Brueggemann, etc.).

The narrative of Genesis has God speaking to Noah in these texts:

6:13-22 — God tells Noah of his intention to destroy the world and gives him instructions on building the ark.
7:1-4 — God tells Noah to enter the ark.
8:15-19 — God instructs Noah to leave the ark.
    9:1-17 — God makes a covenant with Noah.

There is not one word recorded as the thoughts of Noah. This will have significance in later comments about the language used in describing the flood.

Widespread Belief in a Universal Flood

Aside from the common belief in creation, there is not another common belief among the races of mankind more extensive than belief in the flood. There are many existing traditions of a universal flood that are told in numerous languages (see Lange 293-296 for a listing of them from West Asiatic, East Asiatic, Grecian, those outside contact with the Old World [Celts, Mexicans from Cuba, Peruvians], Egyptians, and other cultures). Westermann states that there is no Old Testament story that has as many extra-biblical parallels as the flood. “The collection of R. Andree (1891) contains 88 texts; J.G. Frazer (1919; 1923) has assembled 250 texts covering almost 100 pages; J. Riem’s collection (1906; 1925) offers 302 texts” (402). He said, “We can say at once that the flood narrative like the creation narrative is part of the common property of humanity” (395). However, two particular ancient narratives are of interest, both of which come from the region near Babylon, because of their similarities to the biblical narrative:

1. The Gilgamesh Epic. The Gilgamesh epic relates that man was created out of clay. Enkidu lived in perfect harmony with beasts until he had sex with an harlot; he lost his strength and was changed in nature. He developed a fear of death. The flood came from the gods who gave instructions to build a boat with decks; they gave the dimensions of the boat, and instructions for its roof. The seed of all living things were put in it. The boat was pitched with bitumen. Gilgamesh put his family and animals on board. The flood lasted seven days and all mankind was destroyed. As the waters subsided the boat rested on a mountain. Gilgamesh released doves, a swallow, and a raven. At the end of the flood, he made a sacrifice to the gods after leaving the boat. 

2. The Atrahasis Epic. According to this narrative, the flood comes because the gods were irritated by the noise of men. The gods first sent a disease, then a drought, and finally a flood. Atrahasis is warned by Enki beforehand to build a boat. The boat has several decks and is pitched with bitumen. Atrahasis puts animals on the ship. The rain lasts seven days and seven nights. Sacrifices are offered to the gods after the flood is over. Also, the flood may have come because of sin.

The similarities between these accounts are too close to be accidental. The explanations suggested are these: (1) Maximalists: Moses took the Sumerian history and revised it to fit his purposes. (2) Minimalist: Both narratives come from a common history of a universal flood. Various scholars hold positions somewhere in between. My position is minimalist. If a universal flood occurred, all cultures descended from the survivors and transmitted to their posterity a record of that flood, as supported by Frazer’s finding 250 flood stories. The biblical narrative is divinely revealed; those from other cultures contain the errors that would naturally creep in through the re-telling of the flood story through the centuries. As it stands, the common heritage of a flood story from many different cultures lends support to the historicity of the biblical narrative of a universal flood.

Those who explain the flood as a local inundation have no adequate explanation of the common heritage of a universal flood from so many different cultures.

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com