Instrumental Music

Introduction

Preaching

Prayer

Lords supper

Contribution

Singing

Cecil May

Where’s the Piano? Where’s the authority for it?

Why is this topic, important?

Because worship is important

One of the first controversies God had with man was over a matter of worship

Genesis 4:4–5… The Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.

Nadab & Abihu offered strange fire unto God… their worship was rejected and they were killed

Colossians 2… condemns the wisdom behind self-made religions

Because unity is important

Our plea is for unity

It is not to embrace sensuality, it is to leave sensuality behind altogether, and conform to the Biblical pattern of worship

Because truth is important

If a principle is established that additions can be made to our worship… it opens the door for anything

My plea to you

Have an open mind and an honest heart

You may never have learned this, or maybe you could write a book on this topic

Either or, have your ears open to what the Bible teaches, throw pre-suppositions aside, and look at what God says on the matter

Ephesians 5:19 NASB95

19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

Colossians 3:16 NASB95

16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

What defense can be given to introduce instruments into the assembly?

The answer I get from reading the NT is none

Did Christ ever appoint it? … no

Did the apostles ever sanction it? … no

Did the early church ever use them? … no

Then what is the argument? The argument is: “There is no harm in instrumental music in worship to God”

First… that’s not an argument, it’s an opinion that doesn’t appeal to scripture

Second… if you grant the argument then what kind of instrument can be used?

Organ? Yes!

Drums? Some yes… others no

Bagpipes? Well, idk about bagpipes

What is we all brought harmonicas? Would that please them?

It’s completely arbitrary! Whatever YOU like is what YOU’LL do!

Third… why add them at all?

We like it

We want it

It draws people in

All of these answers are completely unfounded!

The only proper answer, is that adding instruments in worship, is more pleasing to God… that’s it

Yet to argue that point is to rip up the entire New Testament text!

The History:

Let us pause a moment to notice the fact, supported by a mass of incontrovertible evidence, that the Christian church did not employ instrumental music in its public worship for 1200 years after Christ

Is it really a big deal? A historical walkthrough

At one time Christian churches, and churches of Christ, were one body

1859… Midway KY, instrumental music was introduced

Campbell, J.W. opposed to it

Instrument: a melodian (on display at the Midway college)

Alan Highers once told the story of his late professor G.K. Wallace who took a tour of the college… and they showed the melodian… and the person guiding the tour said, “Isn’t it amazing that division came from such a little thing as that!” … and brother Wallace said “It’s no bigger than that golden calf.”

Other congregations then began to use instrumental music

Immediately caused division

Some wanted them, some not

Those that wanted them often took the buildings away from who built the building itself

Lot of hard feelings

Lot of division

“Christian churches” who used the instrument

“Churches of Christ” who did not use the instrument

Led to debates… public discussions over the scripturalness of the use of instruments in worship

6 defenses of instrumental music… 6 attempts made in efforts to defend it in worship

1. “Psallo”

It authorized the use for instrumental music… was the argument for many years

That instrumental music was REQUIRED by the greek term

O.E. Pain (Christian Church) wrote a book: “Instrumental Music Is Scriptural” (1920)

Said: “The instrument inheres in the word Psallo. Therefore it is mandatory in worship” … so we don’t have a choice, mandatory

Christian Churches thought they had the magic book!

Distributed it… especially in Nashville (home of Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate)

“This is the final answer! The ultimate defense!”

Decided to make an issue on this topic to individuals in the Churches of Christ

Brought about debates! Most known: Bogwell—Hardeman Debate (1923, 8000 people a night)

Boswell brought out dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, you name it… Hardeman brought his Bible

Boswell would not defend O.E. Pain’s book… why?

Because Pain’s book didn’t just PERMIT instruments in worship, he MANDATED it! You cannot worship in obedience to the greek word “Psallo” without instruments!

Never reprinted… rare & hard to find

They were THRILLED to find a defense for it!… but in debate, they could only back away from it

So Boswell simply debated, that it was “allowed” … completely moving away from Pain’s book

You go from “Either with or without”

Now it’s just “permitted”

If you read the debate, you’ll notice that a lot of the arguments you hear today for the inclusion of instruments in worship, weren’t used.

The reason is… this was there only justification back in the day!

And the only footing the Christian Church had was that book which they retracted from!

Hardeman’s argument:

The word Psallo did have a meaning,

“to twang or to pluck”

“to a plumbline of a bricklayer to mark the place to lay a brick”

“to plucking the hair”

“to plucking the strings of a harp”

Therefore it must justify it, right??

Hardeman: “The element to be plucked, does not inhere in the word. It has to be named seperately”

If plucking the hair, you have to SAY the hair!

If plucking the plumbline, you have to SAY the plumbline!

If plucking the harp, you have to SAY the harp!

The instrument to be plucked did not inhere within the word itself!

So he went to Ephesians 5:19… speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart

He pointed out, we have the instrument for psallo named in the scriptures

It was a metaphorical use

It was plucking the strings… of the heart!

Therefore no instrument is mentioned but the heart (or mind) of the individual

To argue that psallo allows the instrument, contradicts the idea that the instrument is inherent in the word. Other uses of psalloare: James 5:13 “sing praise”; Romans 15:9 “sing”; 1 Corinthians 14:15 “sing”. When psallo is found in the New Testament, the translators never translated it “playing an instrument”. Obviously the scholars that translated the KJV, ASV, NASV and NIV all understood that psallo simply means to sing. 

Word got out, that Ira Boswell, and his advisors… stayed up ALL NIGHT after the first night of that debate… trying to figure out HOW answer to Hardeman’s argument

Years later Hardeman happened to run into Boswell in a train station!… He asked if that story were true, and Boswell acknowledged it.

That he stayed up all night. They didn’t know what to do with that argument

That the instrument to be plucked, is not apart of the WORD “Psallo,” it has to be mentioned in addition to that word, and Ephesians 5:19 names the instrument, and it was not a mechanical instrument

Thats why Hardeman only needed his Bible

Soon, Boswell and others abandoned their argumentation altogether

Interesting! To go from:

Required… Permits

2. “Only an Aid”

Christian Church preachers: Burton W. Barbor & Julian O. Hunt… both had a debate with G.K. Wallace

They didn’t argue that instrumental music was justified by the Greek

But that it’s an AID to a worshipper

The compared it to glasses (helping you to see)

Communion trays (although not mentioned in the NT, was an aid)

Walking cane! (it just helps you, not a PART of the worship itself)

Here’s the problem:

If I were to look through my glasses, I’m still just reading

If I take the fruit of the vine out of of a red cup, I’m still communing

If I walk with a cane, I’m still just walking

But if I play an instrument in worship, I have added another element

Tried to compare it to a songbooks (“Nothing in the Bible about a SONGBOOK!”)

But even with a songbook you are still just doing what the scriptures authorize.

So down went the argument

Wallace: “There is a difference between and aid and an addition”

It was separate and apart from what was commanded in scripture

Think

If the Psallo argument worked, would they have gone on to something else?

They were trying to justify!

Completely deserted the previous argument altogether!

If the word “Psallo” really permitted, or allowed it, would they have moved on from it?

There was a time when BOTH assemblies did not use the instruments at all!

Division, Lawsuits over church buildings

Moves from one argument to another to another!

But they would not have left all those arguments behind if they had actually worked

3. “Congregational Singing”

Don Dewelt… There is no authority in the scriptures for congregational singing

The “your another” argument

2 boys argue behind the house

One says: “You’re a liar”

The other says: “You’re another”

He’s not saying “I am NOT a lair”

He’s ADMITTING I’m a liar but is saying, “You are too!”

Dewelt: I know we do not have authority for instrumental music… buttttt you don’t have any authority for congregational singing!

“Your another”

The weakest argument ever made for instrumental music

“Maybe we are doing something wrong but so do you!”

That doesn’t justify either one of them!

Of course there are many passages that prove congregational singing

4. “A Different Time”

The Christian Church divided

CC & CoC over instruments

CC split over liberalism

Conservative: CC

Liberal: DoC

Mission Magazine, June 1987 Daniel Griggs, minister in DoC

“Why be concerned about whether churches in the Roman era used IM? We live now and such music is not only inspiring, but it puts us on a par with the Presbyterians & the Methodists”

So his argument is, it really doesn’t matter… but it helps us get on par with the denominations… LOL

Again, why jump from argument to argument to argument if ANY of these arguments worked?

The fact is, they could not justify it from the Greek NOR from the English!

Barton Burbor: “It’s not even in the worship it’s just an aid TO the worship”

And now the DoC say: why should we care about what they did in the Roman era, this is today!!

NO respect for the authority of the scriptures

5. “No Regulation”

1987 Debate in Missouri (Highers—Blakely)

Blakely: “Worship is nowhere regulated in the scriptures”

In other words, since there is NO regulation in worship, you can use whatever you desire including IM

Not ONE reference to the Greek in 4 nights

Not to Greek, not to an Aid… but that there is no regulation in the scripture for how we worship

I believe this is the only argument he could really make to attempt to justify it… everything else was shot down and proven faulty

Highers put up a chart with a big question mark: “Name the passage, just give us a passage of scripture that justifies your argument”

The blank was still there when the debate was over

Interesting! Over years, each argument that was made was abandoned!

One thing Highers pointed out was that Blakely contradicted the arguments of his predecessors! … many of whom were in the audience

The principle that there is no regulation in worship contradicts all the efforts they put forward to PROVE IM’s justification in worship!

John 4:24 “24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.””

John 17:17 “17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

John 8:32 “32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.””

The Lord said worship in truth… that was the Lord’s regulation

Matthew 15:9 “9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me’” …

And you have many individuals who think almost no worship is in vain, if you are sincere and you worship God, that’s enough. God will accept it

Blakely: “The only regulation is that you worship the right object… the God of heaven”

Yet Jesus described vain worship as what?

Matthew 15:9 “9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ ””

If we don’t have authority for what we are doing, we are worshipping in vain

So does it really matter? Is it really a significant issue?

There was a time where none of us had it

“The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we  honour God, is what we  employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and  trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.”  — Clement of Alexandria, A.D.  153-217).

 “...Now, instead of organs, we  may use our own bodies to  praise him withal.... Instruments  appertain not to Christians.”  — John Chrysostom , Homily  on Psalm 149 (4 th  century).

Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians

John Wesley: “I have no objection to organs in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard”

Martin Luther called the organ: “The ensign of Baal”

Ulrich Zwingli:

Spurgeon: “I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery.”

Calvin:

“Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law.”

“In Popery there was a ridiculous and unsuitable imitation [of the Jews]. While they adorned their temples, and valued themselves as having made the worship of God more splendid and inviting, they employed organs, and many other such ludicrous things, by which the Word and worship of God are exceedingly profaned, the people being much more attached to those rites than to the understanding of the divine Word...”

Both appealing to 1 Corinthians 14:15 “15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.”