PART III.   EXAMINATION OF THE ANTI-INSTRUMENTAL CASE.

 

(“Weighed and found wanting.”)

 

I.                   ARGUMENTS DEMANDING SPECIFIC “AUTHORIZATION” OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.

 

A.     PRESUMPTIVE AND PREJUDICIAL ARGUMENTS.

 

1.      “We must have scriptural authorization for everything we do.” 

(“Where there is no law, it is sin.”)

 

ANSWER: “Where there is no law, there is no sin.” (Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 1Jn. 3:4; Jn 9:41; James 4:17)

 

The scriptures clearly authorize freedom where there is no law. There is no law requiring explicit authorization for everything we do or say.  Those who are against individual communion cups, separate classes, and church-owned buildings, use the same arguments as those against instrumental music. 

 

2.      “We must speak only where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent.”

 

ANSWER:

Again, this statement is not in the Bible.  While it can be used in a good way, it has been seriously abused and used misleadingly.  If we mean we command what God has commanded and do not command what He has not, that can be scripturally supported.  But if we mean that we must do nothing except what the Bible teaches, that is not. 

 

We are not required to find a command for songbooks, tuning forks, communion trays, church-owned buildings, baptisteries, collection trays, congregational singing, a piano and many other things.  Everything we do must edify but they do not have to be commanded.

 

3.      “It will open the flood-gates to liberalism, apostasy and endless inno­vations.”

 

ANSWER:

The “slippery slope” argument is probably the foremost underlying concern.  It is based upon fear, and certainly can be valid under some circumstances.  However, multitudes of problems have also resulted from its misuse.  Instrumental music is no more a turning point to liberalism than many unscriptural tests that have been arbitrarily established.  The Amish make a strong case that using modern clothing and vehicles is a step on the road to liberalism, and they still have problems.

 

If not authorized by God, the restriction itself may be an innovation.  True Bible-believing Chris­tians may object to these impositions just as did Jesus to the tests of orthodoxy imposed by the Pharisees.  The mere fact that liberals object does not make the prohi­bition authorized. Liberals also object to baptism and weekly communion. Establishing unscriptural tests of orthodoxy is not a solution. 

 

There is also the danger of opening the floodgates to division over non-scriptural precepts.  How many divisions are there among anti-instrumentalists?

 

Nor is it any panacea against liberalism.  Anti-instrumental churches also have apostates and liberals. 

 

Extremes beget extremes.  Extremism itself results in reactions that push people into liberalism. On the other hand, many instrumental churches are very fundamental in teaching.

 

No matter what we imagine may be the consequences, that cannot be justification for imposing an unauthorized command.  God knows better than we what is best overall.  Our tinkering with His ways may seem best but in the end cause worse damage.  He chose not to prohibit instrumental music.  What He has not prohibited, we should not prohibit.

 

4.      Attacks against the expediency of instrumental music. 

 

(Only their preference is “expedient”!)

 

ANSWER:

This squabble has been about as inexpedient as anything could be.  It resulted in great loss to a movement that had potential of turning this nation to New Testament Christianity.

 

Poor singing has itself been so inexpedient that instrumental music was introduced.

 

The same arguments against instrumental music are used by those who oppose Sunday-schools, church buildings etc.

 

5.      Calling for indulgence as the “weaker brother” (Rom. 14:21, 13--15:3)

(“You weak brothers must avoid offending us strong brothers!”)

 

ANSWER:

This is not a matter of the strong versus the weak.  This is a long-standing family squabble between strong-headed brothers. 

 

The argument is merely exploitative. It seeks to take advantage when the evidence is otherwise unconvincing.  The weakest thing here is their case. Are they willing to give up communion trays, Sunday schools and church buildings for the “weaker brothers” in their own house? 

 

We certainly should take care that a brother is not caused to stumble, but is it legitimate to use this to impose unscriptural requirements and control others?  Paul taught respect for the weak brother but did not allow those who insisted on circumcision to impose it upon others, “even for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).  To do so is to impose upon the weak an unscriptural teaching that offends their conscience and robs them of their freedom.  I have never heard of anyone turned away from becoming a Christian because we sing with an instrument.  However, I have known those who were turned off to “Churches of Christ” because teaching instrumental music was a sin, was so ridiculous.  Which position is the most likely to offend the weak?  That is the very reason why so many anti-instrumental churches have tuned down the subject.

 

On the contrary, Rom. 14:1--15:7, teaches the very things that anti-instrumentalists have so often ignored.  It says not to receive him that is weak to doubtful disputations (debates?).  Whether a day is kept is up to the individual (Christmas?).  He is not to be judged.  He is still the Lord’s.  He is to be received as Christ receives us.

 

6.      Claiming privilege as an “offended brother” (Rom. 14:21).

 

ANSWER:

It is amazing how offensive some brothers can be while imposing their demands under threat of becoming offended!  This scripture was never intended for such a use.  Those who depend on God to receive them must receive their brother on the same basis (Rom. 15:7).  Are they willing to give up their cups, classes, church buildings etc. to avoid “offending” their brothers?

 

The Jews also were offended when Jesus refused to bind their tradi­tions upon his disciples (Mat. 15:12). 

 

My conscience is also important.  Why must I be offended by being required to subject the whole body of Christ to this false teaching.

 

7.      Copping a one-sided “unity” plea. 

(Unconditionally surrender instrumental accompaniment to show you believe in unity.)

 

ANSWER: 

This is too much like the fellow who demands the girl “prove your love” before marriage.  But who ends up having the baby?  We do not insist on them using an instrument for us to have fellowship.  Why is it any less desirable for them to give up a position that offends our conscience?

 

Should Paul have circumcised Titus in order to have unity with the Judaizers?  He refused “even for an hour,” to permit an unscriptural requirement to be bound upon the brethren (Gal. 2:3-6)

 

Are they willing to give up communion trays, Sunday schools and church buildings in order to have unity?  Why do they not live by their own rules? 

 

If I am to give up my practice of freedom to sing with instrumental accompaniment in order to have unity, why should they not give up their practice insisting that no one else sing with it?  When we meet we do not ask them to play.  In fact, most of us do not play.  If they sang with us the only thing they would be doing is the same thing they do in their own churches--sing.  God told them to, “sing” but if someone is playing, they refuse to do so.  Even if someone else is doing someth­ing “unauthorized,” how does that relieve them from doing what God has commanded?

 

They try to get around this by claiming that singing with an in­strument “endorses” our unscriptural practice.  However, that is a two-edged sword.  If their participation with us condones our prac­tice of using an organ, then does not our participation with them condone their practice of imposing their unauthorized command prohib­iting it?

 

Was Paul endorsing all of the falsehoods of the Jews when he worshipped in the temple where instrumental music was used? (Ac. 21:20-26) Anti-instrumentalists make much of “approved precedent” and the need to follow apostolic example.  Why do they not follow this example of Paul and James?

 

8.      Exploiting the need to be “safe.” 

(Confusing “safety first” with “ME first”)

 

ANSWER:

Is it “safe” to bind an unscriptural commandment upon God’s chil­dren? (Mark 7:7)  Is it “safe” to misuse scripture? (2Pe. 3:16)  Is it “safe” to divide the body of Christ over something God did not forbid? (1Cor. 16, 17)  Is it any more “safe” to add, “only” to Eph. 5:19 (“singing only”), than to add “only” to Eph 2:1 (“faith only”)?

 

Putting safety above the welfare of expanding the kingdom was decidedly unsafe for the man who buried his talent. (Matt. 25:25)  Is it “safe” to impose an unscriptural prohibition that discourages the weak? Are they willing to give up communion trays, Sunday schools and church buildings, as called for by some, in order to be “safe”?

 

9.      “If you can play while singing, why not put chicken, sweet potatoes and roast beef on the Lord’s table?”

 

ANSWER:

Because God specified the loaf and cup, and, with regard to every­thing else, said, “eat at home” (1Cor. 11:34).  Where can anti-instrumentalists find a passage that says, “play your instruments at home”?

 

OBJECTION: “Why not just a little peanut butter on the loaf to improve the flavor?” 

ANSWER:

Is a little peanut butter the problem?  This sounds more like just a way to appeal to prejudice when nothing else helps the case.  If playing while singing is the same as peanut butter on the loaf, then is not playing the first note on a pitch pipe before singing the song, the same as eating a spoon full of peanut butter before eating the loaf?

 

Frankly, if somebody put some peanut butter into his mouth in order to help him eat the Lord’s supper, I would not kick him out of the church, and I certainly would not refuse to eat the Lord’s supper with him. That is between him and his lord.  Nor would I fault him for taking an antihistamine to avoid an allergic reaction to wheat flour.  Indeed, I am not sure I see any scriptural reason why peanut flour could not be used to make the loaf! 

Why should I refuse to eat with him because of what he ate?  Where is the problem? 

 

When they visit our churches we do not expect them to play.  Those who visit our churches do the same thing they do when they are in their own -- they “sing” -- nothing more.

 

It troubles me when people go to such nit-pickin’ ends to excuse the horrid state of division that has resulted from a false teaching.  Brethren need to get more concerned about beams and camels than gnats and motes.  Instru­mental music is not prohibited but division over non-essentials is!

 

10.  “Instrumental music is unsuitable for Christian worship.” 

Alexander Campbell said instrumental music was like, “a cowbell in a concert”

 

ANSWER: 

What brother Campbell felt was esthetically appealing is irrele­vant.  Cowbells have been beautifully used in concerts. Even Mr. Campbell’s choice of a “concert” as being contrasted to a cowbell indicates that instrumental music can be beautiful.  Most concerts are with musical instruments.  But, anti-instrumentalists are not content to just exclude cowbells.  In any case, whether or not Mr. Campbell would include instruments in his concert, God included them in His (2Chron. 29:25; Rev. 5:8, 9; 15:2, 3).

 

11.  “It drowns out the singers.” 

 

ANSWER: 

It can.  So can some bellowing off-key vocalist.  Indeed, sometimes song leaders can be very detracting to the worship of a service.  However, instrumental music can also inspire people to sing and help many to more accurately follow the melody and harmony, especially in learning new songs.  This objection has to do with expediency and applies only to some situations.  The fact is that they will not even sing with an instrument when it is not overpowering the singers.

 

12.  “A woman playing an organ or piano is leading men” (1Tim. 2:11, 12)

 

ANSWER: 

A strong woman singer can do the same.  Indeed do not, women usually sing the “lead part”?  Do not women tend to dominate the singing by virtue of numbers?  Perhaps women should sing at all! Again, the argument is spurious because when a man plays they still will not sing. 

 

13.  “It appeals to carnal pride”

 

ANSWER:

Have you ever seen any carnal pride in song leaders, teachers and preachers?  God did not eliminate these works because they would be abused by some people.  Amish do not drive cars for the same kind of reasons.  If the argument is so good, why do anti-instrumentalists drive cars?

 

14.  “It is sometimes out of tune and discordant.”

 

ANSWER: So is a lot of singing, usually more often than instruments.  In fact, arguing over the instrument is even more “discordant,” whether or not one sings.  The objection is false and inconsistent.  They will not accept it even when it is in tune.

 

15.  “It creates confusion.” (1Cor. 14:33)

 

ANSWER:

On the other hand, I have seen it stop a lot of confusion in the song service.  What about the problem of incompetent song leading and untrained singers?  That was one of the problems that cause people to want instrumental accompaniment in the first place.

 

Hardly anything has caused more “confusion” than battles over instrumental music. (James 3:16)

 

16.  “Instrumental music does not aid because one can sing without an instrument.”

 

ANSWER: 

One can also sing without a song leader and be baptized without a baptistery. That does not make them sinful. We do not have to have church-owned buildings, song books, pulpits, collection plates or com­munion trays.  However they can be helpful. They can aid people to do what God wants done.

 

If it does not “aid” then why do many use it at home to help learn new songs or perfect old ones?  Why is vocal training usually done with some instrument? It can aid singing in many ways.  It is especially versatile in helping to maintain accuracy.  It is difficult to view any fair-minded person as disputing this.

 

Last evening we had a new song leader.  He was very grateful for the instrumental help on timing, pitch, melody and harmony.  Those who are skilled may need instrumental accompaniment less, but for unskilled singers and song leaders, especially in learning new songs, it can be most helpful. 

 

Pitch pipes and tuning forks are proof that it can aid. Indeed, the basic standards of pitch and notation are indebted to instruments.  Our music was primarily produced with the aid of instruments, either directly or indirectly. We may compose a song without using an instrument but our knowledge and skill is very much indebted to its use, especially in its more complex forms.  Without its support, at least outside the church services, we would soon begin the slide towards Calvin’s “Plain Song,” and back to primitive chanting as when instruments were not used.  All of us, whether directly or indirectly, largely owe our knowledge of music to instruments.

 

17.  “Vocal music is the most beautiful.”

 

ANSWER:

God seemed to think instrumental music is also beautiful.  He ordained it in worship throughout the Old Testament  In the Book of Revelation He likened heavenly praise to “harpers harping with their harps” (Rev. 14:2).  The fact is that both instrumental and vocal music can be beautiful.  Which one is “most” beautiful depends to a great extent upon the preferences of the listener, the instrument used, and the ability of the musician. God has left room for our varied tastes. Some music may be more beau­tiful to our ear, but that does not make the less “beautiful” music sinful.

 

B.     ARGUMENTS BASED ON MISUSE OF SCRIPTURE (2Pe. 3:16) 

 

-Gen. 4:1-5.

ARGUMENT:

God rejected Cain’s substitution of a vegetable sacrifice.

 

ANSWER:

This has nothing to do with instrumental music.  Was it meat, or “faith” that God said made Abel’s offering acceptable? 

 

Heb. 11:4. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.”

 

Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).  Concerning prayer, James 1:5-7 says that lack of faith will keep us from receiv­ing.   His offering, like the Lord’s supper (1Cor. 11:29), may have lacked the required discernment.  Without faith, baptism is invalid (Mark. 16:16; 1Pe. 3:21; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:17).  The same is true of giving (2Cor. 9:7).  All service to God, is void unless done in faith.

 

Genesis does not say there was any command to bring an animal sacri­fice, and God’s warning to Cain fails to make any such specifi­cation.  How do we know the issue was that God commanded an animal and Cain failed to respect silence?  In fact, under the law we find vegetable offerings accepted.  (Ex. 29:23-25, 40-42; Lev. 2:1-16; Num. 15:4, 9 etc.)

 

It does not say that God commanded an animal sacrifice, but even if He had, the problem would have been that Cain failed to do what he was told.  That is substitution, not accompaniment.

 

We do what God said.  He said, “sing” and we sing.  To be parallel, Cain would have had to get into trouble for offering vegetables along with the animal. 

 

If it is assumed that “faith” means that Cain had been taught to sacrifice animals, may we not equally assume that vegetables had been specifically prohibited?  Unfortunately, this whole argument is pure speculation.  We do not know that God was displeased because he did not offer an animal, and we do not know that vegetables had not been prohibited.

 

-Gen. 6:14.

ARGUMENT:

Specification of “gopher wood” for the ark excludes all other kinds of wood.

 

ANSWER: 

Here again, the issue is not whether Noah could have used something as an aid in doing what God wanted.  Had he used another kind of wood for the ark he would have failed to do what he was told.  That would have been substitution, not aiding.

 

We do not substitute.  We were told to sing and we sing.  We aid our singing with instruments.

 

Noah was free to build as many boats as he pleased out of anything he pleased so long as he built one of gopher wood.

 

He was not restricted from using tools made of other things to help do the job.  He could have used an oak axe handle.  He could have used a fir ladder. He could have used a frame of some other wood to help support the construction. 

 

He may have used some brass spikes.  Ropes may have been used to bind the inner structure together as was one ancient technique.  Various fibers may have been used with the pitch for caulking.

 

He may have furnished the galley with a cedar table or made beds out of fir.  He may have used some birch corrals to “aid” containing the animals. 

 

“Gopher” itself seems to have been a generic term, meaning “pitch wood.”  If “make melody” (“psallo” -Eph. 5:19) indicates music in general, then the “pitch” of a psaltery is as acceptable as the “pitch” of the voice (or a pitch-pipe).

 

In fact, the specifications given are pretty general. Unless otherwise specified, if I told someone to build me a pine boat, they would be free to use whatever kinds of pine they deemed best for the various parts.  Indeed, unless there were some specific restrictions, a boat-builder would think I was crazy if I became upset because he used nails or screws to hold it together.  A fiberglass or aluminum boat does not exclusively contain fiberglass or aluminum.  The fact is that the passage provides far too little information to support the extent of assumptions made.  “Sing” is a translation and even in English it does not exclude instruments. 

 

-Lev. 10:1, 2.

ARGUMENT:

Nadab & Abihu died for offering what was “not commanded.”

 

ANSWER:

This argument is based on conjecture and is far removed from the idea that silence prohibits instrumental music.

 

Was the error, their use of fire from a different place (the altar), or was it that they made fire from a different substance (strange incense)?

 

It was not until later that the fire was specified to be taken from the altar (Lev. 16:11-13). 

 

They had already been prohibited from burning any other incense (Ex. 30:9, cf. 30:34-38).  Strange incense produces strange fire.  Instead of finding evidence from the New Testament, anti-instrumentalists, are using “strange arguments.”

 

Even the statement that they “did that which was not commanded,” does not prove that they were not to use fire from any other place.  In fact, they could have been specifically told not to use it.

 

Again, had they been told to get the fire from a particular place, if they did not, they would have failed to do what was commanded. That is substitution.  We do not fail to do what was commanded.  It says to “sing” and we sing.

 

As for the tabernacle, they had plain statements that nothing be added or taken from the pattern (Deut. 4:2; 12:32).  Where in the New Testament is a detailed liturgy with a similar restriction? 

 

They object to any use of the Old Testament to support instrumental music.  Interesting how they go to the Old Testament to find their principle for condemnation by silence?  If they can go to the Old Testament for this, why may we not go to the Psalms for understanding of scriptural use of instrumental music?  If the New Testament teaching is so plain then why must they get their rule from the Old? This seems to be a concession of the weakness of their case. 

 

-Numbers 20:2-13.

ARGUMENT:

Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land be­cause he struck the rock instead of speaking to it.

 

ANSWER:

Here again we have a simple case of failure to do what God said. Moses was commanded to speak to the rock.  He substituted striking the rock and speaking to the people.  But per­haps the real error was what he said.  “Hear now, ye rebels; shall WE bring you forth water out of this rock?”  God said to Moses and Aaron, “Because ye believed not in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel....” We certainly believe in God and we sanctify him before others.  Again, as the scriptures admonish, we sing.

 

-1Chron. 13:7, 10; 15:13-15. Uzza

ARGUMENT:

Uzza died for touching the ark without authorization.

 

ANSWER:

They did not obey the law requiring the ark to be carried on poles (Ex. 25:14; 1Chron. 15:2, 13; Num 4:15).  That was substitution and death was warned as the consequence. 

 

We are not trying to aid a substitution for what God said to do.  He said “sing” and we use instruments to aid singing.  There is no command against instrumental music

 

-1Sam. 13:12, 13.

ARGUMENT:

Saul offered unauthorized sacrifice.

 

ANSWER:

It plainly says that Saul had “Not kept the commandment of the Lord.”  In 10:8 he was told to wait seven days until Samuel came to tell him what to do.  Saul offered a sacrifice which was clearly restricted to the time of Samuel’s coming. 

 

This is a far cry from any restriction on Instrumental music.

 

We find others offering sacrifices on occasion.  David offered a sacrifice. (2Sam. 6:17-18)

 

-Heb. 7:12-14.

ARGUMENT:

Here is manifested the principle of silence of the scriptures concerning others than a descendent of Levi entering the priesthood.

 

ANSWER:  This was said in view of the background that clearly prohibited anyone else serving at the altar (Num. 1:51-53; 3:5-10; 18:1-7). Unless the law was changed, no one from another tribe could serve.  Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

 

Where is the law that prohibits instrumental music?

 

-Luke 20:2-4. 

ARGUMENT:

Authority to do anything must come from heaven.

 

ANSWER:

What authority from heaven is against instruments?

 

Note that the chief priests, scribes and elders, not Jesus, were pushing the idea of requiring authority to do miracles (20:2, 7, 8).  Jesus turned the tables and challenged their authority. 

 

We call for anti-instrumentalists to produce their authority to prohibit instrumental accompaniment.  

  

When John got all shook up about the authority of someone casting out devils, the Lord said not to forbid him (Luke 9:49, 50).  No such command had been given.

 

-Col. 3:17.

ARGUMENT:

Everything done must be, “in the name” (must be authorized)

 

ANSWER: In what “name” is a pitch pipe, song leader or communion tray?

 

“In my name,” does not mean, “commanded by scripture.”  Jesus said that many impostors would come “in my name” (Lk. 21:8).  It simply means representing or honoring his name.  Everything we do in word or deed is to be done in his name, but everything we are to do in word or deed is not specified in the New Testament.

 

-Gal. 1:6-9. 

ARGUMENT:

All other doctrines are to be rejected.

 

ANSWER: --Including unscriptural doctrines against instruments?  This passage has no relation to musical instruments.  I teach no doctrine that requires instrumental accompaniment.

 

-Deut. 12:32.

ARGUMENT:

Nothing is to be added or diminished (cf. Rev. 22:18)

 

ANSWER: This deals with the directions for the tabernacle.  Where does the New Testament say that we must not add or diminish from a set of specifications for the church service?  It is interesting how those who reject instruments because they are in the Old Testament must go to the Old Testament to try to find authority for their case!  

 

May we “add” a church building, baptistery, communion cups, classes, song lead­er, etc.?

 

-1Cor. 4:6. 

ARGUMENT:

We must not go “beyond what is written.”

 

ANSWER:  Is this speaking of instrumental music, or of divisions caused by disputes over which one was the best leader to follow? (1Cor. 1:10-12; 3:1-4, 21-23; 4:6)

 

Where is it “written” that we are to use communion cups, uninspired song books, song leaders, church owned buildings, baptisteries, tuning forks etc?

 

-2Jn. 9.

ARGUMENT:

Anyone going beyond the doctrine has not God and is to be reject­ed.

 

ANSWER:

What “doctrine”? –“that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (verse 7).

 

Christ never spoke against instruments.  Prohibiting them goes beyond Christ’s teaching.

 

Where are we told that church buildings, baptisteries, communion cups, Sunday school classes etc. are a part of the “doctrine of Christ?”

 

-Jn. 8:31. 

ARGUMENT:

We must abide in the word.

 

ANSWER: Where are church buildings, baptisteries, song leaders, pitch pipes and bap­tisteries found in the word?  That which proves too much proves nothing.

 

-Matt. 28:18-20. 

ARGUMENT:

Instrumental music was not a part of what Jesus commanded.  Music is a method of teaching.   Therefore instrumental music should not be practiced.

 

ANSWER:

Where are church buildings, song leaders, pitch pipes and bap­tisteries found in what Jesus commanded?  We teach all that Jesus commanded but Jesus did not restrict us to doing only what he commanded.  Jesus spoke against binding vain traditions.  We are against binding the anti-instrumental tradition.

 

-1Tim. 1:3.

ARGUMENT:

We must teach no other doctrine.

 

ANSWER:

Timothy was to warn against people teaching another doctrine than that of “Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” (verse 2)

 

-Jn. 14:26.

ARGUMENT:

The Spirit was to guide the apostles into all truth.  The church was never guided to use instrumental music.

 

ANSWER:

The Spirit told us to speak to each other in psalms.  One of the most outstanding features is instrumental music, both in its teaching and in the etymology of the word.

 

Furthermore, did the Spirit guide them to use church owned buildings, baptisteries, communion cups, Sunday Schools, automobiles, tuning forks and radios?

 

-Jn. 4:24.

ARGUMENT:

Worship must be “in truth.”  “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17)

 

ANSWER:  Where do we find offering plates, church buildings, baptisteries, etc. listed as “in truth”?</