Some of you may not know this, but there is a very large group of Christians in the USA (and the world) who don’t believe in the use of musical instruments in church. They are called the Churches of Christ, and I consider many of their pastors my friends. Well, I’ve not had anything but light-hearted discussions about this issue with them, but I got a letter from a concerned youth pastor who wonders how to deal with this.
I ask you to avoid the banal and the insulting and ask what you would say to him. I have no desire to get into it with my friends, but I wonder if you have thought about this and what you would say.
Dr. McKnight,
I know you are busy so I will keep it brief. I am youth minister … and received an M. Div. from a seminary. I tell you that so you know a little framework for my question.How would you respond to someone who believes that instrumental music is not an acceptable form of worship?Typically we have stated our reasoning is that instruments were not used/authorized in the New Testament (even though Revelation speaks of using them in the New Heaven/New Earth) therefore we cannot use them.
The topic of contemporary Christian music came up as well in a discussion with a youth minister and he stated that if we are consistent without acapella stance then we can’t even listen to that type of music because, according to him, there is no dichotomy in praise and worship.
So how would you answer this? I am not looking to quote you on it I am just a pilgrim on the way seeking learning.
I really appreciate all of your work as I have many of your books. MY favorites are Blue Parakeet and Jesus Creed. I read that you are coming out with a Jesus Creed for students…excited about that!
Blessings,
One of my suggestions would be to consider the Psalms as being an example of a book used for liturgical worship by the Jewish communities and how that book frequently mentions the use of instruments, primary one that comes to mind is Psalm 150.
Secondly, I would suggest a consideration about the Bible itself. No where in the New Testament does it say that even the letters of Paul should be used as a standard for Christian practice nor that it should be utilized in the canonization of Scripture and yet Paul’s writings are used by many churches.
Thirdly, the lack of authorization of the use of instruments in the New Testament does not necessarily mean a that it is a prohibition. There are a number of things in the New Testament that are not explicitly authorized and yet we do not consider them a prohibition. What about the use of fuel oil to heat our church buildings? Or even the use of church buildings themselves? What about a paid pastoral position? What about formalized seminarian training (Timothy and Titus were both sort of “apprenticed”)?
Finally, the fact that they are included in the book of Revelation means that there is nothing intrinsically evil in the use of musical instruments and, in fact, seems to imply that they are actually a good thing. If we are to live eschatologically, looking towards that future kingdom and living in that Kingdom here and now, I would think that including musical instruments in the now would be an important part of reflecting that future kingdom.
Full disclosure here: I am a Mennonite and, historically speaking, Mennonites have also had a similar prohibition. Some more conservative Mennonite sects still do. Part of Mennonite thought has to do with the idea of “simple living” and using musical instruments was seen as “worldly” and “prideful”. The arguments I’ve used above are similar arguments that have been used in the history of the Mennonite church on the same topic. There is still discussion among many Mennonites as to the extent of instrumental use (organ or piano only, full band set, limited band set, anything but drums, etc) so the conversation is ongoing.
I hope these insights have been helpful.
God bless!
People too often take the Bible’s silence as a command in itself. That the NT says nothing about instruments does not mean they aren’t allowed. The NT simply doesn’t mention them at all. Silence is not forbidding them.
“instruments were not used/authorized in the New Testament”
They weren’t authorized. Were they not used? We don’t know. They’re not mentioned at all. The question is, is there any historical evidence of instrument use in the early church and, for that matter, 1st century Judaism?
We normally argue that whatever is forbidden in the OT is still forbidden in the NT unless it explicitly says otherwise; the same for what is authorized. I can think of nothing that would change the OT use of harp, trumpet, and cymbal.
Psalm 150 first comes to mind as we think about how musical instruments were used worship God.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
praise him with timbrel and dancing,
praise him with the strings and pipe,
praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
This seems clear to me
The hermeneutical rules reflected in this banning of instruments seems unsustainable. If we limit ourselves in worship (or in other aspects of life) to what is explicitly authorized in the New Testament, we will have little left.
An example regarding worship: Ought we to sit or stand while worshiping? Neither posture is explicitly authorized in the New Testament. The only posture mentioned is prostration. Is it therefore illegitimate for Christians to worship while sitting?
A more general example: Riding horses is mentioned in the New Testament only in Revelation. Is it illegitimate therefore for Christians to ride horses in the present age? Such examples could be multiplied.
As a lifelong member of Churches of Christ, I can tell you that appeals to the OT won’t work for those who use the “silence” argument. They will respond that we are under church under the new covenant, not Israel under the old, mosaic law. You can, of course, pick apart that argument, but that is where many are coming from.
My trouble with the issue as I have heard it argued is that it is often not addressed theologically, and biblically only in the sense of proof-texts (either for or against the instrument). Some (many?) on the outside looking in have probably rarely addressed from a theological perspective why they do use instruments. They just do for the same reason many in the C of C just don’t, because that’s what they were raised with. Some in C of C’s push to use the instrument simply for practicality sake, e.g., they think it will help them attract more people to their church. Others resist because they hate to think we would loose that good ol’ four-part harmony.
I would advise him to first think it through theologically. What does having or not having the instrument mean in light of who God is, his purposes and mission, and who he calls us to be? Will those answers be the same in every community or context? He can also ask other questions. In his own church context will pushing the issue, even if he settles on accepting the instrument, create division in that community? What does love in that community lead him to do? Can we appreciate the tradition, if not all the reasoning behind it, without being sectarian?
As a part of the instrumental Churches of Christ, I have had a lot contact with many non-instrumental Churches of Christ and her members. It is not uncommon for a non-instrumental person show up to worship with us on a Sunday. I can usually spot them from about a mile away. They look really nervous when they see the piano and organ at the front of our worship area and they usually have a southern accent, as we are in Northern Michigan it is sort of uncommon.
I usually engage the people to let them know that they are welcome to join us or leave if that is what they need to do for their own conscience. I speak to our common beginnings of the Stone/Campbell movement. I hope that they see the similarities rather than the difference, which are about to attack their ears when the piano starts.
What i have learned from conversations with non-instrumentalist is that for most of them now it is about the tradition of no instruments rather than the scriptural reasons for no instruments, although they usually stand on the scriptural reasons. In open conversation with some of my non-instrumentalist brothers and sisters, i have asked about other stuff that we do as a church that is not shown nor written about in the NT church, i.e. pews, stained glass, 501c3′s, 11am worship hour and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of stuff that we all do as a part of church, that is never spoken of nor shown in the NT. When we have been honest with one another we have to agree that there is plenty of things that we do as a church that was not written about or shown in the NT but are probably not against God’s will for His Church. When we can open the conversation to see that some of what we do, if not a lot, is about what tradition we have been handed (or our tradition of reading scripture)and not necessarily scripture itself, we have been headed in a direction to have an open conversation about these topics. That is both meaningful and useful.
I think that it is harder to change someone’s mind when looking at a tradition than if you are looking at scriptural reasons. You can reason easier with someone who holds the text high but often we hold our own traditions higher.
I don’t hope that non-instrumentalist will start using instruments in worship but rather would not use instruments as a reason to disrupt the unity between churches and her members. My hope for myself is that I would not use any issues to break unity with other Christians.
Typically we have stated our reasoning is that instruments were not used/authorized in the New Testament (even though Revelation speaks of using them in the New Heaven/New Earth) therefore we cannot use them.
Points of clarification, please:
I’m reading two assumptions here. Are these accurate to the intentions of those who believe that instruments shouldn’t be used?
1) If something isn’t explicitly endorsed, it should be avoided.
2) Even if something is endorsed in the Old Testament, if it isn’t endorsed in the New Testament, it should be avoided.
Good points, Phillip, and ones that resonate with me as a Mennonite who has seen some of that dispensational “That was the OLD covenant” kind of idea. That’s why only the Psalms were ones I used from the OT because even some of those “good ole hymns” utilize those old Psalms as text.
This topic has done more harm than good for many years. I am a youth minister at a church of Christ, received my undergraduate degree in ministry and in pursuit of an MDiv from a church of Christ university. With that being said this topic hits home for me because it is what my heritage is unfortunately known for. We are the acapella only bunch that condemns everyone else because they do not worship like us.
This is extremely sad to me and thankfully there is a wave within churches of Christ that are not completely abandoning acapella music but is now choosing not to condemn those who do worship with instruments. Our proof texts do not hold up when used in context, Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 for example has historically been our favorite texts to throw out proving our so called correctness, along with the silence of the NT canon authorizing instruments which has already been addressed in other posts. If I remember correctly some of the early church fathers were agaisnt instruments as well, but their reasons for being against instruments almost seem to be more culturally driven than biblical.
This topic has brought about divisions in churches, families, and friendships. What a shame. How can the Kingdom for which Jesus bled and died for make an impact in the world when we fight, divide, and bicker over silly stuff like this.
As one who serves as a Pastor/Preacher for an a-capella Church of Christ but disagrees with the view that rejects instrumental worship, let me say a word or two.
The argument employed in the Churches of Christ to prohibit instrumental worship is deeply wedded to the traditional hermeneutic employed in our churches which treats the New Testament as a flat, blue-print that regulates (think Regulative Principle) the worship, practice, and polity of the church through command, example, and inference (CEI). Second, since Churches of Christ are part of the “Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement” and thus want to “restore” New Testament Christianity, the hermeneutic necessitates that what is binding in the New Testament through deductive reasoning based on CEI is then binding on Christians today.
Those who are not part of the Churches of Christ may be scratching their heads saying “what” but believe me that if, as I did, you were raised in this thinking that it makes sense if you are not taught any other way. Fortunately, I was taught differently. I disagree strongly now with the traditional approach to reading scripture in the Churches of Christ which is why my view on instrumental worship has changed. The difficult task for any pastor, youth pastor, etc… is not just teaching what is said about worship in scripture such as the Psalms. Except for the novice Christian, everyone in the Churches of Christ is aware of what the Psalms say. The problem is with the hermeneutical lens that many in the Churches of Christ have read (and continue to read) scripture through. To deal with the issue one must deal with the hermeneutic and therein lies the problem since many have been taught this hermeneutical approach by default but are unaware of its assumptions and operation in their thinking. So the hermeneutical issue must be dealt with and I do not see any way of overcoming the a-capella/instrumental issue (and the division it has caused) without dealing with the hermeneutical issue.
One of the most helpful things to me was a class I took in Seminary titled “Theological Hermeneutics” taught by Dr. John Mark Hicks (this has no bearing on his view of a-capella vs. instrumental worship). That class not only deconstructed the traditional hermeneutic of the Churches of Christ by thoroughly exposing both the philosophical and theological problems entailed in it but also reconstructed a Trinitarian-Christological hermeneutic…one in which I was already being drawn to through my other studies but now gained the ability to articulate with clarity in my own words. I would highly recommend his class to any seminarian dealing with the hermeneutical problem.
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
P.S., sorry for the long comment.
I have been preaching in the Churches of Christ for the past 25 years and used to hold the same view. Most members do not consider this an essential matter of the faith although a small vocal minority insists its actually sinful.
The conclusion is based on the idea that the NT is “silent” about the use of instruments in the church and we can only do what God specifically says to do. Since the NT says “sing” we are to “sing only.” Introducing instruments would be “adding to God’s word” and therefore they are forbidden.
I have usually answered this by asking how playing instruments violates the instruction to sing. When one praises God with their voice and instruments are used they are still singing. The exhortation to “sing” is fulfilled whether an instrument is used or not. When we ask someone to sing a song for us and they pull out a guitar and sing we don’t conclude they are no longer singing. I have asked this question of fellow members who are convinced that instruments are wrong and have yet to get an adequate answer. They just assume your only supposed to sing because it says sing. Needless to say there is a big difference between “sing” and “Sing only.”
The belief is based on the supposed “silence of the Scriptures” which historically has been an interpretive key in the Churches of Christ. The principle itself is seriously flawed and until someone can see its problems they’re not likely to see that the use of instruments is a matter of personal judgment.
Actually, I’m afraid arguments — theological, biblical, etc. — won’t really matter. It would take a paradigm shift and I don’t believe it will happen on a macro scale. It may on a micro scale for a few people. Unfortunately, you will have to leave if you want to use instruments in worship. What a shame.
As a person who has grown up in the Churches of Christ my whole life, I know that this is a very difficult question. In a lot of ways it is not a logic issue or a theological issue, since both of those arguments point toward allowing instruments in worship (or not).
As Jack showed us in a recent “30 Rock,” you can’t argue against an illogical action by using logic. Well, kind of.
The reasoning CofCs, which is based on speaking where the Bible speaks, remaining silent where it is silent (or, as I like to say, say a whole lot more where it is silent). Keeping that in mind, I think the statement about buildings not being mentioned is effective. But it’s too late for that argument, because you’re discussing these questions in your building that you still have 20 years to pay on. Another way to go about it is to ask if it is a “salvation” issue. Or even if using instruments is a sin. Some people will say yes, but most will not. If they say no, then more than likely you are fighting the beast of tradition. Few arguments will fight off this beast. It usually takes a practical need. Unfortunately, the most practical way to sign hymns is acapella. (A friend once told me he went to visit a friend in the hospital with a couple of other Baptist friends. One Baptist friend said, “We’d love to worship with you, but none of us brought a guitar.” Good story. Not sure if it’s true.)
If they claim it is a sin–or, more popular, will cause a brother to stumble by distracting him from worship–then the arguments are against something different. Usually, it is the “mature” Christian who is basically saying, “I can’t handle the distraction of change.” Then you have a combo of the tradition and the sin issue. Delicately ask the person if they understand that in this scenario they are the weaker Christian who is easily distracted. That one gets people to either think about it or gets them very defensive.
All in all, remember to pray. Not only for them, but for your understanding of where they are. God works in the logical and illogical; theological and not.
Sorry for the over-long post.
BTW… Even though I disagree with the a-capella only view found in most Churches of Christ, I am proud to serve as a minister with a local Church of Christ and would mostly likely not be a Christian if it were not for being taught about Jesus in the Churches of Christ.
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
Do not forget that this posistion is the historic posistion of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.
And Robert Martin’s comments are excellent.
Is there not a prior question here which goes something like ‘why sing at all, in the context of worship/praise?’ I think this one frequently gets lost in our debates on worship/praise. One of the key roles corporate singing can play is in uniting the singers, creating a sense of purpose and solidarity. It does this whether it is in a religious context or not. Instruments can serve this end, but at the very least I need to be able to hear the voices of those around me. Otherwise I might just as well attend a gig.
So trying to win an argument about whether we should have instruments or not, really isn’t what is at stake here – as if one form was right and the other is wrong. In my thinking, what is at stake is the place of congregational singing – real human voices. (That’s not to say of course that one cannot play an instrument in a worshipping way).
And whether we worship in contemporary fashions, or in more traditional, we should not lose a grasp on the power of congregational singing. Get that focus in place and then we can debate the role of instruments.
For those who are interested you might want to take a look at an on-line magazine, New Wineskins ttp://www.wineskins.org/ as their current issue is on this topic. While not an official ezine, the staff is largely made up of people from the Churches of Christ/Christian Churches (Restoration Movement). Being of the middle grouping in the Restoration Movement, the Christian Churches between the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, I am not comfortable with the responses suggesting that the hermeneutic is wrong, or that this reading of NT worship practices are misguided or shortsighted. Imagine the response if you were confronted with such a stance in regard to a particular feature of your church’s practice. Is it possible the Churches, whether rightly or in error, believe that seeking to form a practice that seems consistent with the literal language of the Gospel narrative,is somehow purer – that removing the modern gloss may in someway make the aroma more pleasing – not as a line drawn in the sand as to doctrinal accuracy. I recall Wesley speaks to such issues.
As long as we BANISH any praise or contemporary Christian music, I have no complaints.
“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Eph.5.17-20
I was raised in and a minister in an anti-piani coC. For me it was the realization that to forbid musical instruments in worship was really to add restrictions to worship that were not in scripture that freed me to think otherwise. And to “add to scripture” is a very serious matter.
I also later found it significant that the word psalms (psalmos) in Eph.5.19 actually indicates songs accompanied by musical instruments.
I’d also point out the diversity in worship that Paul mentions: psalms (songs with musical instruments), hymns (well known songs of praise), and spiritual songs (songs inspired by the Spirit, which to me have a spontaneous or new element to them). I’ve also come to believe that Paul did not list these 3 as a means of limiting the types, but as a means of highlighting the diversity of types and styles of worship in the body of Christ.
I’d also point out that it says to sing “to one another”. In the churches of Christ I grew up in there was a tendency to disdain choirs or solos in other churches as “entertainment”. Today I find this belief to be very sad because it effectively stops the ministry of many members of the body. Some people are gifted in playing musical instruments, singing, etc. and to stop them from encouraging, empowering, and even healing others through their various gifts because of not allowing them to use their gifts in the “official service”, is just wrong!
If we’re looking to live by Law, then there will be no end to the restrictions that we can place on ourselves and on others. I thank God that I’ve come into the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus to no longer live by law, but by the very personal and ispirational leading of the Spirit!
Like others, I take some issue with the assumptions that Mark (6) and others have identified, which strike me as both inconsistent with the NT narrative generally and with how we see the church resolving issues of what is “lawful” in the NT, both in Acts and elsewhere. And it appears very selectively applied in any event.
But, honestly, I think we distort/belittle the meaning of “worship” or even praise or thanksgiving altogether if we get too wrapped up in form or any kind of singing at all. To me the better conclusion is that the instrument issue isn’t mentioned in Scripture because Jesus didn’t come and die and rise to set our singing right. It’s just not very important. Even if the use of instruments is the subject of some very hard to infer “command” (and I don’t believe it is), we do know it did not make Jesus’ top 1 or 2 commands. In fact, if Jesus ever did breach the subject at all, none of the gospel writers saw fit to include it in their accounts.
No small part of following Christ in real life is keeping the main thing the main thing. Singing with or without instruments isn’t the main thing; it’s not even close. And we have so very far to go with the main things–the weightier matters of Christ’s law, why strain at this gnat? Look at how central love (as Christ taught and modeled) is in the NT teachings. Even James says that “true religion” is purity and care for orphans and widows, not singing. I can’t help but think that style of singing in this debate, on either side, is much like circumcision was then–something some preach so they can boast about something meaningless. Singing with instruments or without means nothing; the only thing that matters is faith in Christ expressing itself through love.
How interesting to hear from all of the CofC folks here! When I was young my family attended a Plymouth Brethren congregation in which instrumentation was verboten during the breaking of bread service. I’d echo all the comments here about how that kind of approach can become legalistic.
OTOH — those often were truly beautiful services. I miss the reverence of the acapella singing, the smell of a fresh baked loaf of bread and of real wine in a cup being passed around (even though I was too young then to partake), the cadences of my German great-uncle saying reciting Jesus’ last words on the cross…
So maybe I’d say this — affirm the beauty and simplicity of worship without instruments, but affirm also, gently, the creative calling to use every gift — instruments included — go glorify God.
This is interesting, Scot. I had no idea there was such a thing as a non-instrumental tradition among some Christian churches.
If the NT is being used as a blueprint for worship, and the NT’s silence is viewed as a license to prohibit certain things, why would churches permit worship to take place in English rather than Greek and Hebrew? Why, in fact, would they allow the use of Scriptures translated out of the original languages, either for personal study or for use in group teaching and worship?
It seems to me that the form worship takes in any culture is deeply contextualized by the ways in which that people express themselves and their emotions during times of celebration and mourning, giving voice to the emotions of joy, sorrow, thankfulness, awe, wonder, and so on. What we see in Scripture are the peculiarly Hebrew expressions of those things. But culture is not universal, and the expressive forms of those emotions undoubtedly changed as Paul took the Gospel to Greece and Asia. Again, the Scriptures are silent, but we do know that Paul himself contextualized his message as he traveled. He also insisted that the Hebrew requirement for circumcision was not to be made a normative part of Christianity. Would he have permitted freedom in the case of circumcision but required a particular legality in the forms that worship might take?
Charlie (@ #23):
The hermeneutical question is much about whether the silence of scriptures is regulative or not and thus prescribing a fixed form to the function. As an “insider” among Churches of Christ, I know that one of the problems with this hermeneutic is the failure to apply it consistently across all aspects of church life. For instance, historically that majority of Churches of Christ have had no problem supporting certain forms of para-church ministries as long as the ministry is overseen by the leadership of a local church. However, there are a small group of Churches of Christ who have denounced such a practice as having no biblical-foundation based on the silence of the scripture in the regulative approach to scripture. And of course, based on that approach, where would there be justification for buildings, hymnals, etc… Where is their justification for carrying on the function of “Greet one another with a holy kiss” while jettisoning the form?
That is all in part, part of the fallacy of such a hermeneutical approach. As I try to tell people…its value is seen in the fruit of untold amounts of division it has lent to (and I know that Churches of Christ are not the only denomination to historically be plagued by this approach to hermeneutics).
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
Dr. McKnight,
From a historical standpoint isn’t the use of instruments in the protestant church rather a new addition as well? And related to this have you written anything on the idea of the regulative principle since this is the reason that many reject instruments and other practices?
My concern is that if we do away with the idea of the regulative principle then we open the door to anything.
I don’t have an answer as much as I have questions. Where do you draw the line with what is allowed in worship? Did they sit in pews in the New Testament? Did they have altars? Did those teaching wear robes? I know these questions seem sarcastic but they come from a genuine place of wonder. If we start drawing all of these lines I think church life would get pretty ridiculous pretty quickly.
Well we are a larger south Texas church of Christ who recently made the transition from strictly a-capella to a mixed variety with one service still non instrumental and the second with instruments. The key for us is our church was built around the concept of moving us away from the unhealthy ideas that permeated our movement. The hermeneutical understanding of Grace was needed to allow us to eventually grow into our current position. We progressed slowly with minister lead series on how to embrace change. Our changes were gradual and it took years to progress to the point where we felt it was healthy for our church to make the change.
We lost fewer members in this change which was minuscule in numbers than when we introduced women into our a-capella praise team years before. However you don’t just do such a thing just to be doing it. More important is the proper attitude of the church to be receptive to many differing issues in a loving and unified manner. For older established churches this may mean little change or even none at all. Paul said he could be all things to all for the sake of the gospel and the instrument or lack thereof is not the crux of the matter.
Just one other thought. Some of those who left us said they would be back. This would occur when mother or dad was not there anymore to chastise them on why they were going to such a liberal church.
Ephesians 5:19
λαλουντες εαυτοις [εν] ψαλμοις και υμνοις και ωδαις πνευματικαις, αδοντες και ψαλλοντες τη καρδια υμων τω κυριω,
The word can indeed mean to pluck a musical instrument.
ψάλλω psallō sing; sing praise*
This vb., which occurs 5 times in the NT, actually means “pluck / play a stringed instrument” or “sing to the accompaniment of a harp.” In the NT it always refers to a song of praise to God (dat.). In the LXX ψάλλω usually translates Heb. zāmar, esp. in the Psalms, and can refer to the playing of an instrument (LXX Pss 32:2; 104:2; 146:7, and elsewhere) or, less frequently, to the praise itself that is sung (LXX Pss 9:3; 65:4; a taunt-song: Ps 68:12 LXX).
Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 3: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (495). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
ψάλλω fut. ψαλῶ (Aeschyl.+; ins, LXX; TestAbr A 20 p. 103, 26f [Stone p. 54]; TestJob 14:2, 4; Jos., Ant. 11, 67; 12, 349; Just.; Mel., P. 80, 588; Did.) in our lit., in accordance w. OT usage, to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment, sing, sing praise w. dat. of the one for whom the praise is intended τῷ ὀνόματί σου ψαλῶ Ro 15:9 (Ps 17:50). ψαλλῶ σοι B 6:16 (Ps 107:4). τῷ κυρίῳ Eph 5:19: in this pass. a second dat. is added τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν in or with your hearts; here ψ. is found with ᾂδω (as Ps 26:6; 32:3; 56:8), and the question arises whether a contrast betw. the two words is intended. The original mng. of ψ. was ‘pluck’, ‘play’ (a stringed instrument); this persisted at least to the time of Lucian (cp. Par. 17). In the LXX ψ. freq. means ‘sing’, whether to the accompaniment of an instrument (Ps 32:2, 97:5 al.) or not, as is usually the case (Ps 7:18; 9:12; 107:4 al.). This focus on singing continued until ψ. in Mod. Gk. means ‘sing’ exclusively; cp. ψάλτης=singer, chanter, w. no ref. to instrumental accompaniment. Although the NT does not voice opposition to instrumental music, in view of Christian resistance to mystery cults, as well as Pharisaic aversion to musical instruments in worship (s. EWerner, art. ‘Music’, IDB 3, 466–69), it is likely that some such sense as make melody is best understood in this Eph pass. Those who favor ‘play’ (e.g. L-S-JM; ASouter, Pocket Lexicon, 1920; JMoffatt, transl. 1913) may be relying too much on the earliest mng. of ψάλλω. ψ. τῷ πνεύματι and in contrast to that ψ. τῷ νοΐ sing praise in spiritual ecstasy and in full possession of one’s mental faculties 1 Cor 14:15. Abs. sing praise Js 5:13. WSmith, Musical Aspects of the NT, ’62; HSeidel, TRE XXIII 441–46.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (1096). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
As a minister in a non-instrumental C of C, my main concern is the folks in our congregations who take the issue of instruments to be salvational, and then judge our brothers “across the keyboard” and assign them to hell, contra the principle in Matt 7:1 ff. I went to an Independent Christian Church seminary (Lincoln Christian) and thankfully learned the value of unity in non-essential areas…
Orthodox Christians also do not usually use instruments, except for an occasional organ in a larger (usually) Greek church in the US.
The rationale for this has not been developed from scripture. It’s a matter of 1) practicality- not everyone down through the years possessed instruments or the knowledge of how to play them well, but most everyone can carry a tune, and singing by itself sort of “automatically” encourages participation by everyone; 2) beauty – the human voice has always been considered the most beautiful instrument, and whatever is most beautiful is something that is of great value in Orthodox worship; 3) most importantly, Orthodox services are full of text- biblical and liturgical/poetic, and singing is always meant to serve the text. To be a “Reader” in an Orthodox service is to be a faithful person who knows how to chant the applicable text so that it is able to be heard and understood throughout the church building. Singing/chanting automatically increases the volume in declamation, as opposed to simply speaking, so that’s another practical aspect.
Style is not limited to Greek/Byzantine chant or two-part Slavic folk-song-like harmonies. There are multipart liturgical compositions by the likes of Tchaikowsky, Rachmaninoff, etc., there’s the minimalist sound of Arvo Paart, and I recently heard a very nice Celtic-like setting of a very common liturgical exclamation to Mary. Lots of gifted Orthodox composers in the US are just getting their feet on the ground.
If anyone’s curious, yes, I sometimes miss “good contemporary worship” and Western hymns at church. But I still enjoy singing Western songs and hymns with good theological content in my private worship time – or while doing the dishes or folding laundry, etc. – and Orthodox teaching doesn’t forbid that. So I get the best of all of it, and am grateful for it.
Dana
As a life-long worshipper in churches of Christ, I dread the thought of spreading our endless debate over instrumental music to anyone else. We perverted this topic to an art form in itself.
Bill H #18 cited the current wineskins discussion.
You may also choose to review Jay Guin’s blog at http://www.oneinjesus.info. This subject has been discussed there are some length, mostly among CofC people.
There is no simple or even direct answer to your youth minister friend, beyond teaching grace, forgiveness and loving as Jesus loved.
Some of this reminds me of Luther & Calvin. Didn’t Luther say anything like – that if something is not forbidden in the New Testament was okay to use. And Calvin say that we are to only do what is specified in the New Testament. I think this had a big influence then on how each of those streams used art and music.
I’ve always been perplexed by the logic behind the no-music arguments. The NT churches didn’t speak in English or use electricity either, so why aren’t they forbidden?
From a pastoral standpoint, if it’s a make or break for you I would recommend leaving the congregation to go elsewhere. If you value the community more than this make or break than invest heavily in relationships and help them avoid a legalistic stance that errs toward making this a salvific issue. Pick and choose the “battles” and conversations you have and whom (proper usage?) you have them with.
I would encourage the student to read Dr. James McKinnon works on music in the early church.
Some of his articles can be found here: http://www.catholicculture.org/search/resultslist.cfm?requesttype=docbrowseauth&resourcetype=1&catlabel=author&catid=2212
Being raised in the church of christ most of my childhood, and then going to a non denominational church around the age of twelve, and having been involved with an Assemblies of God campus ministry in college, I have experienced both extremes of musical worship preference.
Here’s what i believe,
The bible says that we should offer our lives as sacrifices, and that this is our spiritual act of worship. I believe that this means every aspect of our lives should be devoted to service for God, not for legality’s sake, but because we are so enamored with our love for Jesus, that anything else than every part of my life isn’t good enough.
So, being a musician, I have no other choice but to give my musical talents to Jesus as worship, again not for the sake of the law, but because i love him with everything.
As a musician, i can see no other way to use my musical ability to truly worship God and to bring glory to His name, than to use it in worship.
Granted, there are bands such as Switchfoot that have songs that are not blatantly christian and yet they are christians and are seeking the lost. Some people would say that doing things of that nature would be acceptable because it’s for Jesus, and yet it’s not worship. But i say it is worship. Worship is about your heart and your willingness to sacrifice, not the procedure. So i think it’s impossible to condemn music in or not in worship. It’s preference. Give your everything to God. The End.
I generally agree with Phillip above as to how to approach this issue and others pastorally — “What is the loving thing to do in community?” is Paul’s answer to a myriad of issues, and it should be ours — but I agree with others also on a theoretical level that this is a hermeneutical problem, and it won’t be resolved until those of us in Churches of Christ move from a Scripture-centric hermeneutic to a Trinitarian-centered relational one.
I can tell you that Churches of Christ today vary somewhat both in terms of practice and rationale. Yes, we are a tradition that had practiced non-instrumental worship for many, many years. (That may vary somewhat today as one can find churches that offer both non-instrumental and instrumental services on Sunday am. Others will offer an assembly that features both.) Churches of Christ (particularly those in the south) typically remain non-instrumental.
One observation. Many, many people in Churches of Christ have no idea why they are a part of a group with no instruments. In other words, for many people in these churches they are unaware of the history, the arguments, and the theological hermeneutics (right or wrong) that got these churches to this place. Some people have “sound bite” explanations. A snippet of something they heard from someone else which becomes their “answer.”
Many people in Churches of Christ today listen to Christian music and participate in special Christian conferences and other gatherings where there is instrumental worship.
Rather than being anti-instrumental worship, many in Churches of Christ simply choose to embrace, appreciate, and develop this practice which has long been a part of their heritage.
(In the comment above, I am not attempting to describe or explain Churches of Christ. I am just attempting to provide a snapshot of this moment in time in the life of many of these churches. This snapshot only captures a slice of Churches of Christ. I do think, however, this is a large slice.)
Two observations:
1) I appreciate the respectful tone of this conversation.
2) Scot, You sure have a lot of readers from the Churches of Christ, including me!
I am not part of this church tradition. However, looking in from the outside, while it would seem that the argument for non-instrumental worship from scriprure is probably a dead end, the argument from a standpoint of simplicity and elegance and clarity of worship focus, and avoiding unhelpful worldly indluence etc., is a significant one.
A quick survey of some of the negative excesses that some “contemporary worship” music and practice has led in some churches to would seem to illustrate the excesses and abuses that traditions like the Christian Church were seeking to avoid.
Those traditions are a voice of caution about how music, instruments, videos, performances, technology, etc., can take worship in an unhelpful direction.
Why does this discussion even need to get to the textual level? Shouldn’t it stop with “God doesn’t make arbitrary rules?”
But textually, Acts 10:9-16. How much more clearly could God say, “You don’t need me to specifically tell you something is okay before you do it?”
Dear Brother in Seminary:
I once had in my possession a dissertation on the non-use of instruments in worship in the early church from a doctoral student at the Free University in Amsterdam. The student, a member of the Gereformeerd Church (re-reformed), however came to the conclusion, based on O.T. practices, that the use or non use of instruments was a matter of personal preference. A Cappella (according to the chapel) music is an ancient practice and those who follow these ancient ways deserve our respect. When church leaders at The Hills Church of Christ, after much study, fasting and prayer, made the decision to add a contemporary service with praise band, the change was prefaced with much teaching and open discussion. The transition was filled with grace. These teachings are available from our on-line store at http://www.thehills.org. The titles are the Both/And Church. In these lessons is a good discussion of how to love and help the ‘weaker brother.’ I believe these discussions will help you with your Youth Minister.
Blessings on you, dear Seminary student. May God give you wisdom and fill you with grace and peace.
I too, am from the CoC acapella background and served 25 years in Africa as a church planting missionary who believes in both allowing new Christian bodies to make decisions for themselves concerning what forms of worship will look like, but I do have a bias toward seeing them contextualize the forms to their indigenous culture. Anyway, in Benin, all of the congregations we planted have decided to use instruments. This is the case in most CoC church planting missions where the missionaries did not paternalistically direct the nationals to follow patterns from overseas. Looking at the scriptures and walking with the Spirit they just do not come up with the same answers that we did in our heritage years and years ago.
Interesting comments throughout . . . two reflections from another Church of Christer:
- One of the most disappointing aspects of this issue is that it regularly defines who we are more than core Gospel characteristics – that routinely breaks my heart
- It will be less and less of a defining characteristic in the future as few members have any kind of grounding for the practice and our churches continue to immerse themselves in worship renewal and have a new found appreciation for the Old Testament (esp. Psalms).
The main challenge for our churches is in our increasingly influential voice (here speaking of theology), how do we maintain our distinctiveness while engaging in the broader theological conversation. Technically, we don’t fit the evangelical mold very well . . . but more and more of our churches do and I find that to be a little bit of evidence of losing some of our distinctiveness.
From OrthoCuban.com: ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO: “Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate 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 the worship.” (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius, yes THAT Athanasius.)
there’s a great opportunity to push the “reset” button and fast from many of our conceptions of church music.
Why not go back to chant for a while to freshen our perspective- not the kind of commercial chant junk with new age music in the background. I mean chant as monks have been doing for centuries, and the kind of chant you hear at temple or at a bar mitzvah. This would certainly help clear away notions of what church/worship music “is” and “must be.”
After reading all of the comments I wonder why our empasis isn’t more on our God and what he has left us in his word as our salvation. I don’t think music has anything to do with our salvation. Some of the people must think it does but it’s really a traditional thing and as one person wrote it has split, broken and worn many of our Churches out. With traditional things I think what it comes down to is what do your members want. If a majority believe it will help them in worshipping God by having intrumental music so be it. But let’s not make intrumental music a salvation part of our Church. Good common sense is needed rather than anything else in this determination. I rather doubt when we do get to Heaven God will say well you used intrumental music in your Church so you aren’t invited to spend time with me. Let’s spend time on what God wants and less time on non-salvation things. Just my opinion.
As a lifelong member of Churches of Christ who has been preaching,teaching, and/or eldering for 50 years, I am one of many who considers our anti-instrumental stance sadly misguided (biblical basis at http://www.edwardfudge.com/instrumentalmusic.html), as also the peculiar hermeneutic of which this issue is one fruit (discussed at http://www.edwardfudge.com/patternismCENI.html) but who nevertheless loves and appreciates the beauty of our a cappella congregational singing tradition.
As a 25 year member of the churches of Christ, I understand the arguments that are made concerning the silence of the New Testament scriptures on this point. I enjoy very much our non-instrumental worship. I find that the worshipers are active participants in singing together to praise God, not just audience members listening to someone else play or sing. I would never argue for our congregation to begin using instruments.
Having said that, I agree that the emphasis that is placed on this issue is misguided. To me, the most telling silence in the Scriptures is the fact that this issue is never discussed in Paul’s letters or any of the other epistles. If it was not a debated topic in the 1st Century church, that tells me that it wasn’t critical to the needs of Christ’s followers. We need to be careful that we do not place on our brethren a requirement that God did not place there.
All right, I confess I haven’t read the comments, and I am just kibitzing, but — honestly, I think some of the most beautiful and moving religious music is acappella (I say this as someone who attends a church with a spectacular music ensemble which includes many superb professional musicians). but — theology aside — I have some serious love for Gregorian chant and Sacred Harp (shape note) music.
There. I said it.
*looks around, whispers*
…although my beloved husband does play bass in our church’s music ensemble . . .
Uninfluenced by the other comments, I’d like to briefly answer both paragraphs:
“Typically we have stated our reasoning is that instruments were not used/authorized in the New Testament (even though Revelation speaks of using them in the New Heaven/New Earth) therefore we cannot use them.”
I see two typical statements here, which both are weak.
a) To point to silence is insufficient as an answer for someone who does not see silence as prohibtion. This does not do justice to the one who asks. So we need to do a better job making our point.
b) Pointing to Revelation as an argument for using instruments in worship is equally weak, because Revelation goes back to Old-Testament imagery in order to describe Heaven. This makes sense, since the tabernacle was patterned after the Heavenly Reality – but in symbols and figures! So the harps in Revelation are figurative language. If we use them as an argument for using literal instruments today, we must burn incense as well in order to be consistent (also described in Revelation).
Most debates on the issue are built up on these two insufficient approaches.
“The topic of contemporary Christian music came up as well in a discussion with a youth minister and he stated that if we are consistent without acapella stance then we can’t even listen to that type of music because, according to him, there is no dichotomy in praise and worship.”
I think there is a difference in “performance-music” and congregational worship. One is done by professionals on a stage in order to entertain people, the other is done by a whole congregation together in order to praise and please God.
CCM is a copy of worldy music styles that are questionable. I doubt that Rock Music or Pop Music are entirely neutral. The first question that needs to be addressed is precuisely this one: Can Christians use and enjoy any kind of music?
The second question is, which kind of music is suited for performace music: here we have to think of the audience, the message and how this fits to a certain style of music.
Music for worship does not have to deal with these questions, because it is not for outreach and performance, but for edification of the saints and worship. THe standards are a lot stricter here. A worship service is not an evangelistic meeting; and worship should not be “instrumentalized” in order to meet worldy expectations and preferences.
Last, not least: It is natural, that a youth minister raises such questions, because he has to deal with and appeal to young people who still are more or less on the border between commitment to the Kingdom and the peer-pressure of their unbelieving friends. Such a ministry needs good guidance and advice from the Elders – a certaiun measure of freedom, but not so that the worship of the church would be changed, but that the young people would be brought out of the world into the community of the saints.
Alexander
Romans 14:1-23 ESV
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. …
I find it interesting that so many people here say that they do not feel that it is a heaven/hell topic.
How do you know? Why take the chance?
I strongly recommend anyone who truly wants to study the topic instead of just trying to justify themselves to read Dan Chambers book “Where is the Piano”.
I Cor. 4
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
And especially:
http://executableoutlines.com/top/musicnt1.htm
http://executableoutlines.com/top/musicnt2.htm
Dr. McKnight:
As the author of a recent book that looks at the subject if song, music, and congregational worship — among others (Deceiving Winds (Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2009), I will ask readers to take another look at Ephesians 5:18-21 in context (4:17-5:21).
The context tells us much about 5:18-21. However, the parallels and contrasts in the text have rarely been discussed. As one example Ephesians 5:18-21 parallels 5:11 and Paul’s urging the Ephesian congregation to “expose darkness.” And what is 5:11 about? What is behind the counsel? Ephesians 4:17-5:21 and the religious background of the region surface the answer.
Laying behind 4:17-5:21 is the subject of spiritual war, a subject that desperately needs our attention in the early twenty-first century. I am inclined to conclude that Andrew Delbanco is correct in his book The Death of Satan; the large majority of the U.S. has concluded that the matter of a spiritual war is no more than myth and Gothic drama. And as such the importance of the Scriptures declines — including reading and singing the Scriptures at length as congregations.
Congregations are underestimating the spiritual importance of what a cappella accomplishes when it is unifying song that is filled with the Scriptures.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
MortonBLSL7@earthlink.net
I have read with great interest the views on musical instruments in the worship service.
I have been with the (hardshells) since 1958 and we have a very different approach to a cappella singing. Remember we have been anti instrument since before Stone/Campbell.
You can read our view at primitivebaptist.org
THE VOICE OF HISTORY…
1. “All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church,but they are chary with mention of any other manifestations of musical art… The 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
2. “Only singing, however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church.” – Hugo Leichtentritt, MUSIC, HISTORY AND IDEAS, p. 34
3. “There can be no doubt that originally the music of the divine service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature.” – Emil Nauman, THE HISTORY OF MUSIC, Vol. 1, p. 177
4. “We have no real knowledge of the exact character of the music which formed a part of the religious devotion of the first Christian congregations. It was, however, purely vocal.” – Dr. Frederick Louis Ritter, HISTORY OF MUSIC FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE PRESENT TIME, p. 28
5. “Both the Jews in their temple service, and the Greeks in their idol worship, were accustomed to sing with the accompaniment of instrumental music. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this
mode of singing…But it is generally admitted, that the
primitive Christians employed no instrumental music in their worship.” — Lyman Coleman (Presbyterian), THE APOSTOLIC AND PRIMITIVE CHURCH, pp. 368-369
[It may seem odd that music was entirely vocal in the early church when instrumental music was quite common in the worship of the Jews and Gentiles. But not when you recall that the worship in the NT was to be spiritual in its emphasis.]
THE VOICE OF VARIOUS RELIGIOUS SOURCES…
1. CATHOLIC – “… the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice.” — CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
2. GREEK ORTHODOX – “The execution of Byzantine church music by instruments, or even the accompaniment of sacred chanting by instruments was ruled out by the Eastern Fathers as being incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ.” — Constantine Cavarnos, BYSANTINE SACRED MUSIC
3. PRESBYTERIAN – “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, the restoration of the 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.” – JOHN CALVIN, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. 539
4. METHODIST – “I have no objection to instruments of music, in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.” – JOHN WESLEY (founder)
5. METHODIST – “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 here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity.” – ADAM CLARKE (commentator)
6. LUTHERAN – “Martin Luther called the organ an ‘ensign of Baal’.” – MCCLINTOCK & STRONG’S ENCYCLOPEDIA
7. BAPTIST – “I would as soon attempt to pray to God with machinery as to sing to Him with machinery.” – CHARLES H. SPURGEON
[Why did these men object so strongly to instrumental music in the worship of the church? Because they properly realized:
1. That such was a carry-over from the Jewish worship
2. That as such it was out of harmony with the SPIRITUAL nature of NT worship
3. That it rightfully belonged to the Old Law with its “shadows” and not the TRUE worship of the NT.
And lastly, WHY TAKE THE CHANCE???? Is it truly worth having instruments in worship, get to judgement day and find out that God does have a serious problem with it? WHY TAKE THE CHANCE????
In Him,
Don Gartman
The futility of reasoning with persons who are not reading their Bibles correctly is evident. For your consideration…
“Secondly, I would suggest a consideration about the Bible itself. No where in the New Testament does it say that even the letters of Paul should be used as a standard for Christian practice nor that it should be utilized in the canonization of Scripture and yet Paul’s writings are used by many churches.”
It should be clear to any New Testament Christian that the letters of Paul are authorative for the NT church. I don’t believe that I have to cite any of his instructions for the church. If “necessary inference” part of your hermeneutic you will understand this. Furthermore, if the writing of Paul are not a “standard” where would those who adhere to it get their information regarding “Praying Jesus into” their hearts?
In Christian Love,