Open Discussion: No Music Allowed

“What are your thoughts?”

Where were they authorized to communicate their statement of faith through mechanical instruments?

Didn’t David use a harp in worshiping the Lord and weren’t many of the psalms originally set to music (which is now lost to time).

My first thought would be about David playing lyre music for King Saul when he was afflicted by the “harmful spirit” (1 Sam 16:16-23).

Also David danced and had lyre music playing as they were bringing back the ark, David was “making merry unto the Lord”(2 Sam 6:5)

While those two above references dont speak specifically about how we are to praise the Lord musically, they do provide reference to Musical instruments being used in a worshipful fashion. I think that gives enough evidence to say that it is not sinful to do the same, as long as it is done unto the Lord.

Psalms 149:3 “Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!”

1 Chronicles 16:4 “He appointed some of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, to make petition, to give thanks, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel: 5 Asaph was the chief, Zechariah second, then Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-Edom and Jeiel. They were to play the lyres and harps, Asaph was to sound the cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow the trumpets regularly before the ark of the covenant of God.”

David seemed to think it was fine.

Michael,

That’s why they specified the New Testament.

I can’t think of the book right now – whether it was one of my books on the history of church worship or Dr. Ann Nyland’s translation in The Source New Testament (informed by readings in the papyri that have not been adequately utilized in many translations) – but the author/translation note indicated that the psalming or making melody in Ephesians or Colossians referred to tambourine/timbrel playing which, if true, would twist the panties of some non-instrumental Christians into knots. 😀

“…is without authority and sinful.”

Wow. And what else do they apply this to? They have a statement of faith. Where is that commanded or given authority in scripture to the new testament church? To write down exactly what you believe? Good idea, yes. Commanded? (someone want to give me a reference?)

How about church buildings? I guess by their own mandate they are house church only?

And if the verse they quote in Eph.5:19 lists Psalms as a viable option (yet they see it as only allowing the singing of them, yes) there are just too many of the Psalms that open with instructions to certain instruments for me to follow their argument. Why only sing the Psalms if they were written for instruments as well?

Sinful!?! wow.

Re: reply #2., churches that claim that they are “New Testament” in their worship so as to exclude the worship use of cymbals, flutes, instruments, etc., as being “Old Testament” seem to ignore the fact that the “Bible” for the early church was this same Old Testament – i.e., the real historical New Testament Church’s (as opposed to a 19th century restoration of said church) “rulebook” and text for prayer, worship, liturgy, doctrine, teaching, etc., was the Old Testament and Psalms, etc.

It would be interesting to see someone who defends this type of thought. I see it all the time, but never a defense beyond what is in this post.

This may be facetious but where in the NT are we given permission to wear pants or drive cars? There are many things in this life that the Bible doesn’t expressly speak to but that does not make it automatically sinful.

If you don’t want to use musical instruments during worship fine. But to label it as sinful is absurd.

I find things like this somewhat sad. The selective use of a small passage of Romans 14 alone really appears to me to be wrong. The context of that passage would appear not support their argument. In fact, depending on how far they extend their opinion on the matter (if they use it to condemn others Christian bodies of sin), then a case could be made that this misuse is sinful. Gee, I hate sounding judgmental.

This logic sounds to me a lot like the Jehovah’s Witness logic about how birthdays shouldn’t be celebrated because they don’t talk about celebrating birthdays in the Bible (except the one at which John the Baptist was beheaded…and look what happened THERE).

Just because the Bible doesn’t mention something (though I agree that it does, with the above references to David who played an instrument) doesn’t make it wrong or right.

By this same logic, we could say that nobody in the Bible wore cowboy boots and therefore, nobody should wear cowboy boots because it goes against the Bible.

Kinda silly, really. In fact, it almost reminds me of today’s post on the Stuff Christians Like blog (http://www.stuffchristianslike.net) about people going way overboard to look more spiritual.

They do specify the New Testament, however drawing a vast large dividing line between the Old Testament and New Testament is wrong to begin with (though there are certainly differences), and it would be even more wrong in this instance. It is clear from Scripture that though newcomers to the Christian faith were not required to adopt Jewish customs many Jewish Christians continued to carry on Jewish traditions and methods of worship and that this was not considered sinful. This would include the use of instruments as can be inferred from the worship practices of the Old Testament. To say that use of instruments, which was ordered in the Old Testament, is now sin in the New Testament without some express Scripture reference stating this is absurd. Furthermore there is no step by step guide to the proper order an formality of a Christian worship service in the New Testament, though there are general guidelines. As a result there is very little express authorization for anything that goes on in the formalized Christian worship service (if there is such a thing).

So are there other examples of things which are acceptable and approved of in the OT but just not mentioned in the NT? Or not “revoked”.

What basis is there for an implicit revocation of anything in the OT if not restated in the NT?

-steve

My first thought? CHURCH OF CHRIST!!

My second thought? Wow, my theological cousins do tie themselves in knots, don’t they?

My third thought? It’s still funny that most of the really talented drummers, trumpeters, saxophonists, and trombonists in my high school’s band attended the local a capella Church of Christ. (I’m not making that up. Our high school football team was also the Fighting Quakers, so our town liked to load up on the irony.)

My fourth? This is one of those moments when the distinctives of the Stone-Campbell tradition, which were supposed to unify American Protestantism, became a point of sectarian dogma, and that’s really sad.

Guess we should all give up our toilets…Bible never stated we could use one of those. If you use the argument of silence (Even though the Bible is NOT silent on the use of instruments..just look at Psalms) then there is very little you can do. No TV….No cars…no airplanes…no refrigerators…no vaccines….no phones…

I used to work with a couple of Church Of Christ guys. Music is only the most obvious of their strange ideas.

It’s just a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible even is. The Bible is not an all-encompassing systematic theology or book of propositions. Even if you only look at the New Testament itself, it’s a collection of memoirs and email-forwards (circulatory epistles).

Does the preacher have a copy of the Bible in his hand while preaching? Where do you find THAT in the New Testament?

I guess that central heat, air conditioning, and electric lights are out as well.

CMP,
It seems to me that the odds of finding someone to defend this on your blog is pretty slim. Simply put of the .01% of Christians that have this position 95% probably don’t believe in the internet.

[…] discussion on music over at Reclaiming the Minds Ministries. tweetmeme_url = […]

COC folks believe that all aspects of worship, from music to the name of the church, have to be specifically authorized by NT scripture or they are unauthorized by default. For example, they only allow a few names for a church; Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Firstborn. Then, individual congregations are distinguished by location – Wichita Falls Church of Christ. That gets tricky when many congregations are located in a major city. Names including terms such as Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist are signs of serious problems.

Oh, and Church of Christ is NOT a denomination, and don’t you even THINK that it is.

My thoughts would be more on how you would engage someone that believed this.

Given the way the statement of faith is written it seems that this particular church is arguing that it is sinful to do anything that is not expressly commanded or demonstrated in the Bible. Obviously, many commentators here have pointed out the logical fallacy of such a position. I think this is an appropriate argument to make but it might be insufficient in itself.

However, it might be useful to try to demonstrate how their interpretation and application of the two verses cited (Rom 10:17 and 14:23) is flawed. Contextually, the two verses are not addressing the same topic and cannot be linked in the manner which they are done. Also, the Romans 14:23 passage is actually set in the context of allowing for differences of opinion between believers over issues that are not explicitly commanded in Scripture. That’s very ironic since it is being used by this church to argue that just such a difference in opinion is sinful. Whether this approach would work may be doubtful but I think it is worth the attempt.

@michael — I know of one church that COMMANDS that we use the same instruments that David used, and no others: http://calvaryroyaloak.org/church/beliefs_worship.htm#6

Please tell us who they are. 😉

And I hope this statement was handwritten in upper-case on papyrus

Jim,
You assume that the people you are dealing with are logical and can be therefore convinced by reason. However, like the faith-healing types, some people believe that faith is blind and will not be convinced that their position is wrong even in the light of clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary. Another good one is people who still insist the sun revolves around the Earth because in Joshua it states that the “sun stood still”.

If these seems a little harsh perhaps it is. However, I was trained as a lawyer to see all sides of an issue and perhaps it is a personal failure, but there are some issues, such as this, that I can’t see the view from the other side no matter how hard I try. There is simply no logic to the positions and the people who push the position don’t care how out of context, or how many rules of exegesis they are violating to arrive at their position.

I talked with somone once, on- line, I think he called himself a Psalmist. They sang only scripture. As I talked with him the more validity I found in what he was saying. One point was .. what better words of praise to sing and what better way to show unison and agreeance then to use God’s own lyrics. And another point was.. that singing is one of the best ways of memorization, how much scripture we could be teaching our kids by use of scripture in all our songs. Think how many hundreds of songs you know by heart.
What if the were all segements of scripture?

But sin for using musical instruments…nah, and written in the doctrinal statement, wow

I worship at a Church of Christ ( http://www.cochrist.org ). I’ll say right from the start that I don’t agree with their position on instruments. It’s the church I got saved in and is for the most part a loving Christian family, so my family remains there despite some a few areas of doctrinal disagreement that I have with the movement.

Essentially, the argument on musical instruments boils down to “Well, they aren’t mentioned in the New Testament, and so if it’s not mentioned in the New Testament then we’re not allowed to do it”. I’ve cited all the refernences in the OT that basically say to Praise the Lord with anything you can get your hands on, but they don’t see it that way. I’ve even had some tell me that Jesus’ command that “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord… But I’ll say ‘I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of iniquity’ ” applies to people in churches that use instruments. Again, I don’t agree with that position, so I just pray “Lord, it’s your book, you can straighten it out.”

I’ll note that for the most part, their doctrine on instruments involves only the Sunday morning church service. Many members will get together with guitars and sing praise music outside of Sunday morning. We had a 4 piece band at our Christmas concert. The friend who references Jesus’ “I never knew you” comment plays in a death metal band.

I’m sure some within the movement would tell me that Jesus would banish me for believing in the Rapture, which is another doctrine that I disagree with them on (they’re mostly postmillenial and preterist). My wife and I brought them the book for an AWANA program that we put our kids in to see if our church would be interested in doing it. One of our elders said something about the book has a reference to the Rapture (I can’t find it in the Cubbie book) and they lost interest.

I will say this: it’s not productive to argue the issue with COC members by saying things like “Well, the New Testament doesn’t say anything about cars, iPhones, and church buildings, so get rid of them.” It’s not graceful or loving.

Eric,

I’m curious, how do they handle the II Timothy verses about all Scripture being useful for teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc. when it comes to this understanding of music?

I went to a Fundamentalist Bible college and I think what may be the real issue here is an attempt to avoid “worldliness.” Combine that with a good-intentioned but ultimately dysfunctional effort to be “Bible only,” this is what you get. Since the Bible (or NT, whatever) gives us a complete guide to every area of our lives and transcends all cultures, there really isn’t room for much diversity if we are *all* following the Bible.

Now, in their defense (whoever “they” may be); If you were to ask my church (a more progressive Bible church in a white middle-class community) their stance on, say, hip-hop music in worship, they would probably respond that it wasn’t appropriate for their situation. Now, my church makes no pretense to be “Bible only,” but if they did they would probably feel compelled to give a ‘biblical’ reason. And there you have, “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

[For the record, I think I just wasted the last 15 minutes of my life thinking through this issue.]

Dr. Ann Nyland THE SOURCE NEW TESTAMENT with Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning. If Dr. Nyland is right, the non-instrumental Church of Christ has misunderstood the NT Scriptures:

Ephesians 5:19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις4 καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες5 τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ,

Nyland’s Translation: Ephesians 5:19: “while you are chirping to yourselves in songs of praise, festive praise songs4 and spiritual songs, singing and playing the musical instruments5 to the Lord with all your heart.”

4 υμνεω, humneo. See note on Matt. 26:30. [The note at Matthew 26:30 is rather lengthy, and Nyland says the word means “to sing an υμνος, humnos. υμνος, humnos (usually translated as “hymn”) was a festive song sung in worship, not necessarily a song sung to stringed instruments. There were 2 types of υμνος, humnos:”] She goes on to say that one type of υμνος, humnos, was sung to the kithara, a type of lute or lyre. The other was in epic meter and chanted without STRINGED instruments. With this the Greeks often used castanets and maracas. (see her NT for the full note)

5 Technically, “stringed instruments.” The verb refers to the playing of a stringing (sic) instrument with the fingers rather than with the plectrum. Equally, “singing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument.”

If I recall correctly even the form of singing they’re advocating is unbiblical. As I understand it the ancient forms of singing were monotonal. The harmony of many tones was a medieval invention.

To ignore the Lord’s command for the use of instruments in worship from the Old Testament is a Marcionite-like error. Worship revealed by the Apostle John in Revelation demonstrates instruments are used in worship in heaven. Instruments used pre-cross, instruments used post-glory, but none in between?

The Bible is one book.

A coherent theology cannot be formed for either sacrament – the Lord’s Supper or baptism – without the Old Testament.

It’s an error.

Cheryl, I avoid arguing the issue. They do agree with Paul that all Scripture is profitable… but are adamant that the “1st century church” did not use instruments in worship. That’s another angle they use. They say that the New Testament doesn’t say anything about instruments, then they say that because pagans used instruments in worship, when they turned to Christ, they stopped using instruments in an effort to leave their paganism behind. ( I can’t find anything that satisfactorily backs that claim up.)

I’ve tried to follow the “restoring the 1st century church” argument, but I can’t. I can’t in any of my study of history find a monolithic movement among the first century where every church did things exactly alike, and of course they all resembled 19th century American fundamentalism. But like I said, it’s for the most part a loving church that tries to follow the Bible. And yes, our acapella hymns are sung from a Power Point presentation.

but are adamant that the “1st century church” did not use instruments in worship.

Well, that is an argument from silence, IMO.

And if Dr. Nyland is correct, it may be an argument from lexical and cultural and historical ignorance as well.

I have a stupid question…

what is a “mechanical” instrument? Would this include things in the OT like the harp, lyre, etc?

Also,
I think what this statement is saying has to do with the regulative principle of worship. Unless I am wrong, very few people would apply this outside of the context of a gathered church and what is done during the worship service. Therefore, things like wearing pants, etc. would not matter. However, I often wonder about those that seem to take this regulative principle to an extreme. There are so many things that are assumed in our worship services that are not expressly spoken of in Scripture.

My thoughts:

RUN!!!!!

Another question, given your view of what it means to be “evangelical” can such a statement as the one in this post be considered evangelical in your view?

Why or why not?

I guess they don’t use a data-projector for displaying the lyrics.

Without too much thought…. 1) , isn’t the only form of reading document mentioned in the New Testament (or old Testament) a scroll? So a folio (bound book that we know) is not authorized as a bona-fide medium for storing God’s words, neither is a typeset book, or electronic format, and yet presumably this congregation used some of these to prepare their statement of faith, and during their worship service.

Heb. 10:7 “aTHEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN bTHE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’”
Rev. 6:14 aThe sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and bevery mountain and island were moved out of their places.

2) The argument that what someone did not do is also normative for us not to do, is always pretty weak. “You shall not use mechanical instruments in your worship, it is an abomination to God” Now, that would be normative. Even a statement such as “You may use either brass or woodwind instruments”, is not to be taken as normative unless there is strong contextual connotation, as the authors intent in not known to be inclusive (the conjunction used to open up the possibilities) or exclusive (the conjunction taken as an only) from most language.

Other than my first thoughts about King David, another consideration is Elisha where he asked for a musician and the hand of the Lord came upon him. (2 Kings 3).

************
I am not certain how it relates to “evangelical.” They could still be evangelical, they are just wrong about music.

The “Church of Christ” is a branch of the Stone-Campbell movement, as someone alluded to earlier. I’m a part of the bigger movement but not of the non-instrumental bunch. I say that, but I wouldn’t consider their preference (they’d generally word it more strongly) for vocal music only to be a test of fellowship. Ofc, many of them would.

My oldest brother actually married a girl who goes to one of these churches so I’ve run into it quite a bit now and then.

They have a lot of answers for most of the types of arguments made in the comments section (though I don’t find them convincing).

It’s funny though, that because I know some of these people and have discussed it with them, I find the tone of a lot of these responses to be harsh and inappropriate.

CMP,

I’m not entirely sure this statement, to me anyway, has direct implications regarding evangilism. Though, I think that with the goal of evangilism being to bring people to Christ, it seems to me that it would be much more difficult if one were to follow such strict guidelines. I mainly say that because, if they are this strict about the music for worship, what other things are they like that about?

I understand that the church can’t be too concerned about looking “familiar” to “this world” but at the same time, I see this as a hindrance for being able to relate to un-saved people.

Hope that makes sense.

Daniel, I meant evangelicalism, not evangelism.

I think I would catagorize that statement among the “other stupid saying”. But since I don’t agree with your position on the original stupid saying maybe not…

I wonder what their reasoning is for interpreting a lack of explicit mention as implicit prohibition. (An interesting contrast to the more popular line of reasoning these days that considers lack of explicit mention to mean lack of possible prohibition.) That reasoning is taken for granted in that excerpt, but it’s the heart of the whole argument. To me the “not authorized” argument seems at odds with the freedom and grace thrust of passages like Colossians 2, and uncomfortably close to the type of religion called out in Matthew 23. That troubles me.

So what’s the reasoning to conclude that lack of mention is lack of authorization and thus prohibition? Also, where are the boundaries of what requires explicit authorization and what does not? Where are those limits drawn from?

To be honest, at least in my church, nobody makes a big deal of it. As I said, it’s a loving family and it’s been growing rapidly. They treat it more like “This is how we do things and if you ask this is why”. The acapella singing is really nice when they do it right. Something that bugs me a lot more than the “no instruments” doctrine is that my church only seems to know fewer than 20 songs, so we sing the same songs week after week after week and I’ve gotten so tired of most of them over the years. I’ve told a few people that I’ve thought about going to another church occasionally just to get some variety in the worship music.

To be honest, at least in my church, nobody makes a big deal of it. As I said, it’s a loving family and it’s been growing rapidly. They treat it more like “This is how we do things and if you ask this is why”. The acapella singing is really nice when they do it right. Something that bugs me a lot more than the “no instruments” doctrine is that my church only seems to know fewer than 20 songs, so we sing the same songs week after week after week and I’ve gotten so tired of most of them over the years. I’ve told a few people that I’ve thought about going to another church occasionally just to get some variety in the worship music.

If you like a capella singing, but also like variety in the words, begin attending an Eastern Orthodox Church (preferably one with no organ – or pews/chairs!). Though the Divine Liturgy is often sung the same, at various times the tones change, and there are new words/songs/psalms used each week (troparia, etc.). Also, be sure to alternate between Greek Orthodox, Antiochian (Arabic) Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox (including OCA, the Orthodox Church in America). The music style and range and notes is different for each of these three Orthodox cultures. As the legend of how Russia became Orthodox has it:

http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/212/9/vladimir.html

In the year 987, Vladimir called his boyars and city elders together and said to them, “The Bulgarians have come to me and said, ‘Accept our religion!’ Then came the Germans and they praised their religion, and afterwards the Jews. The Greeks [Byzantines] also came and belittled all other religions except their own. They spoke much about the beginning of the universe and the existence of the world. They are cunning of speech and talk so pleasantly that it is a pleasure to hear them. They say that there is another world, and that if anyone enters into their faith, he would live after his death and would not die again for eternity. But if he accepts any other faith, he would burn in the other world. Now, what cousel do you give me? What is your answer?”

The boyars and elders said, “You know, O Prince, that nobody detrtacts from his own, but praises it. If you are anxious to find out the truth, you have men whom you can send out to see how they all serve God.”

This speech pleased the Prince and the people. They selected ten good and clever men saying to them, “Go first to the Bulgarians and inquire into their religion.” They went and saw their abominable deeds and their worship at shrines, then returned to Russia. Vladimir said to them, “Go now to the Germans and find out about them, then also to the Greeks.”

They went to Germany, observed their divine services, then came to Constantinople and went to the Emperor. The Emperor asked them what they had come for, and they told him. Having heard this, the Emperor was glad, and gave them a banquet on that same day. (cont’d)

(cont’d)
Next morning he sent to the Patriarch saying, “Some Russians have come to find out about our faith, so have the church and clergy in order. Put on the holy garments that they may see the glory of our God.”

The Patriarch called together the clergy to celebrate the day according to the custom. He lit the censers and arranged the singing and the choir. The Emperor went to church with the envoys, and they were brought to a prominent place where they could see the beauty of the church, hear the singing, and watch the deacons during the service. They were surprised, and marvelled, and praised the service. The Emperors Basil and Constantine called them, showered them with many gifts and honors, then said, “Go back to your land.”

Upon returning to Russia, and the Prince called together his boyars and elders. Vladimir said, “The men we have sent have come back. Let us hear what has happened.”

The envoys said to the assembly, “When we were in Bulgaria, we saw them worshipping in the temple where they make small talk in the shrine and stand without proper clothing. Having said some prayers, they sit down and look here, there and everywhere like madmen. There is no joy among them, only sadness and a great stench. Their religion is not good.”

“We went to Germany and saw many ceremonies in their temples, but of beauty we saw nothing. We went to the Greeks and they took us where they worship their God, and we did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth for there is nothing on earth so beautiful. We were preplexed, but this much we know: There, God lives among people, and their service is better than in any other country. We cannot forget that beauty, for each of us has partaken of sweetness and will not now accept bitterness. Therefore, we can no longer remain in our former condition.”

The boyars anwered, “If the Greek religion were bad, your grandmother Olga, who was the wisest of all people, would not have accepted it.”

Then Vladimir spoke, “Where shall we receive our baptism?” They answered, “Wherever it pleases you.”

To Michael’s second question,

“Another question, given your view of what it means to be “evangelical” can such a statement as the one in this post be considered evangelical in your view?

Why or why not?”

No, I don’t think the doctrinal statement itself could be considered evangelical. Music is a non essential, or a place where there should be liberty.
It is not the practice that removes it from evangelicalism, but that the practice of a non-essential has made it’s way into the doctrinal statement and has become essential in thier belief.
If I sat on an Evangelical judicial court that is how I would rule it. 🙂