CofC adds instrumental worships and deems it right???

[DerSchweik]

Thanks Cremi for bringing the focus back to where we always must.

The ultimate purpose of restoring NT Christianity is not to be "right" in our NT practices, but that our NT practices most closely imitate those of the NT Christians and NT church - whose fruitfulness excelled par none - that we might match or exceed such fruitfulness in our own generations as the Lord gives us faith in Him.

Our "rest" - from legalism, from worldy pursuits, from seeking respite, from escaping our troubles, from seeking any escape in the world - from seeking to save ourselves - is in Him, in taking His yoke upon us.

The Lord gave us a commission:

[bible]Matthew 28:18-20[/bible]

There is no mention in that, let alone anywhere else in the NT about quibbling over wine/juice, guitars/none, one cup/many, missions/none, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If the boat is on the water and headed in the right direction with motive force, we can work on any leaks that may pop up in the hull as we go.

But if we are sitting in harbor or static in the water and leaks appear, they always take much more of our energy to fix - if only because we have nothing else to do.

I AM NOT saying that of anyone here - please understand - but our focus truly needs to be doing His will, and, IMHO His will as it pertains to the commission He has given us above all else. Whether we get everything right in the process must be of secondary concern, IMO.

I've not read all of the Millenial Harbinger, nor all of AC's works - but what I have read leads me to believe his vision (and others' of course) for restoring NT christianity was to rid ourselves of the centuries of staid practices and traditions that not only reduced our effectiveness in the commission, but halted it altogether in some cases.

ALL actions, particularly in the church, are responses to previous actions - and I believe restoring NT Christianity is an action in response to what many viewed as actions carrying us farther away from Christ's commission rather than closer to it.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. God bless.

 

[- DRA -]

I am a CofC instrumental pastor. While at Bible College, I attended a Non-instrumental church. Wow, they could sing.

But if we go STRICTLY as silence as the reason to restrict, then I dare say that you need to show me where Hymnals fit in. And I never could understand why the music director had to use a pitch pipe to start the first note???

According to Hebrews 7:13-14, silence is an issue when God has "specified" what He wants. That text contrasts the lineage of Christ with the Levitical priesthood. Earlier in the book of Hebrews, Jesus was declared to be a High Priest (3:1). Not a Levitical priest, but a priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10; 6:20). Hebrews 7 presents Melchizedek as being a type (shadow, or copy) of Christ. Concerning the Levitical priesthood, the law of Moses specified those from the tribe of Levi, with the High Priests being descendants of Aaron. It was silent about the tribe of Judah. The point? Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, He could NOT have been a Levitical High Priest (see also Hebrews 8:4). That's the jist of Hebrews 7:13-14. The reasoning is given to support the idea Jesus was of the order of Melchizedek versus the Levitical system. And, from this teaching we learn (or, at least, should learn) that when God "specifies" something, other options - though He was silent about them - are NOT authorized. Make sense?

Now, let's apply this principle to Ephesians 5:19. God specified what He wants in that passage. First off, note the passage. It is a command or direct statement, not just one of several available options. In the passage God "specifically" commands speaking/singing, what is to be sung (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), and the melody to use (from the heart, or inner man). It's the idea of God "specifically" commanding what He wants that reminds us of the principle taught in Hebrews 7:13-14. Therefore, it's not a matter of "STRICTLY silence," but keeping in mind the principle taught in Hebrews 7: when God specifies what He wants, silence does NOT authorize other options. Make sense?

Hymnals fit into the picture under the idea of an expediency - an aid to carry out that which is authorized. The first principle to keep in mind is that something has to be authorized first. Speaking/singing is authorized in Eph. 5:19, right? Therefore, we either have to memorize the songs or write them down so folks can refer to the words or notes (for those that read music).

Some folks "choose" to use a pitchpipe as an "aid" to getting the song started off on the right note/pitch. Personally, I've never known of a church saying you had to use a pitchpipe. I always understood it was up to the song leader's judgment.

And one other thing, if God had worship given to Him by instruments in the Old Testament and there will be instruments in heaven, why, if He didn't want them in New Testament times just tell us? And why would He not want them? If they are good enough to God in the OT and Heaven, why not now?

Many things used in worship/service to God under the law of Moses ceased when the law of Moses went into effect (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:16-17). As for Revelation, are those instruments in heaven literal or figurative? Not that it matters, cause God has specified what He wants under the law of Christ (Eph. 5:19; Colossians 3:16, Acts 16:25; James 5:13).

I mean no disrespect by my questions. Just questions. If a non-instrumentalist were to stop by our little country church and I knew they were offended by the piano, we would put it away for the day. In fact I have offered to do that on 4 occasions. No takers.
MAKE IT a great Sunday.

fishon

No disrespect is taken, and I hope none is taken by the comments I offered. My intent is not to debate this issue ... again. Just to hopefully answer the questions you asked.

Again, no offense intended, but the matter of a non-instrumentalist dropping in and you being willing to put the piano away for another day needs to be considered in light of the 2 John 9-11. You see, in their mind, you are acting without authority from Christ by having the piano there in the first place. And, by just not using it for one service/day isn't going to make the real problem go away (looking at things from their perspective). Make sense?

 

[Apollos1]

Cremi said - If you have to work so hard to make sure you are following all of the rules so that God will not be so displeased in your worship, is that really a faith based on grace? Or is it based on works?

Faith is not based upon grace, salvation is. Faith is based upon the word – Romans 10:17. The word tells us to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3), to take heed to our doctrine (1 Tim 4:16), and to work out our salvation (Phil 2:12) – this with fear and trembling. Salvation is going to take effort!

The Word is our source of faith. Bluntly put, we must have “word” for ALL we teach and practice in religion – see 1 Peter 4:11 and Colossians 3:17. ALL we do must be “rooted” in the word of God. There are no exceptions and there are no exclusions.

Paul makes quite a statement to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthains 2:9-13. There were things that God prepared for man, a part of which was man’s salvation. Paul goes on to say that NO ONE knows anything about God that the Holy Spirit did not reveal, which were the things that he (Paul) spoke! Yet here in these very threads we have people who PRESUME to know God well enough and what God wants that they will ADD TO the worship chosen by God for the church and ADD TO the communion which Christ instituted !!! Nadab and Abihu live today!!!

And it is not so much a matter of following the rules (just to be right or to earn what we get) than it is wanting to be a servant of righteousness rendering obedience to our Lord to the saving of our souls – Romans 6:17-18.

cremi said - Somehow, I can't see Paul or Petter sitting around in the first century going toe-to-toe with the new converts, making sure they used only grape juice and had no instruments. Romans 14 surely needs to apply here.

The HS made certain that Christians had everything they needed – 2 Peter 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16. Because we are to live by faith (2 Cor 5:7) we have no options or choices in the things that God has provided. It is that important and it is that serious. And while we can grant "liberty" to new brothers and sisters in Christ, it can not be done at God's expense. Because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" - Romans 14:23, whether those be things that are lawful or unlawful. Actions without "faith" are sinful.

cremi said - A true Christian will be filled with the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is living within you, then you will be producing the fruit of the Spirit, won't you? It seems to be a natural by-product of having the Spirit living in you. That being said---if one is striving to follow after the Lord and glorify HIM in all things, then one won't be worried about dotting all of "i's" and crossing the "t's", will they?


The HS revealed the Word. How can anyone say that they are “filled” with the Spirit or that they “follow” the Spirit when they have no “Spirit” for what they practice? Saying one thing and doing another is what many call hypocrisy!

cremi said - So much of this seems to be nothing more than a modern version of being a Pharisee---making sure you follow the rules so that you won't displease God and lose your salvation.

Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for any of their obedience to the Law. Jesus typically condemned them for their motives, not following the Law, and “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men…”. Oh my! I wonder where Vino in communion and IM in worship fall within that condemnation.

cremi said - I'm not saying we should just go out and do what we want and call it all okay, but again...if the Spirit is leading us and we are truly listening to the nudgings of the Holy Spirit living in us, we aren't going to displease him.

Where are you going to draw the lines??? Will you use the word of the HS, opinion, emotion, or rationalization? I say allow the HS to draw those lines. To do that, all you have to do is know HOW does the HS leads us today. You will find all of that in the Word.

 

[cremi]

The HS revealed the Word. How can anyone say that they are “filled” with the Spirit or that they “follow” the Spirit when they have no “Spirit” for what they practice? Saying one thing and doing another is what many call hypocrisy!

.

Where are you going to draw the lines??? Will you use the word of the HS, opinion, emotion, or rationalization? I say allow the HS to draw those lines. To do that, all you have to do is know HOW does the HS leads us today. You will find all of that in the Word.

I won't even address the earlier part of your post, because you've missed the context of scriptures you've posted. This last part though, I thought I'd answer, because it's such an easy answer!

You don't need to draw lines. The Holy Spirit will not ever lead you to do anything contradictory to what God's word says. Ever.

How do you know if what you are doing is the right thing? By knowing God, by walking with him, by talking with him, by truly knowing what he wants.

I know my husbands likes and dislikes. As a matter of fact, I know him so well, that many times I don't have to ask what he wants, what he wants me to do or what he wants our family to do. Why? Because I've spent time with him and I talk to him. I KNOW him.

In the same way, when you spend time with God like that, pouring over the scriptures, hiding his Word in your heart and praying to him, you will then "know" what he is leading you to do....though the Holy Spirit.

I forgot (and am doing this right now) that many in the church of Christ do not see the Holy Spirit as a living person who leads and guides us. He was sent to us to be a helper. I suspect this will go off an another theological tangent --which I have no to desire to debate--but suffice it to say that I believe the Holy Spirit is living and active, right now today.

Ultimately, I believe you have a faith of fear--fear of the "rules" and whether or not you're keeping them to the best of your ability. You have no freedom because you are bound by the "law" still. Freedom in Christ is so liberating, but not so that you can do as you please. True freedom in Christ has really shown me how much I am so awed and grateful for the sacrifice that Jesus made for me--and for the rest of the world. Out of that awe-struck thankfulness, all I want to do is the right thing. All I want to do is follow him. No amount of proof-texting can give me the heart of gratitiude towards my Lord that I now have.

 

[- DRA -]

I forgot (and am doing this right now) that many in the church of Christ do not see the Holy Spirit as a living person who leads and guides us. He was sent to us to be a helper. I suspect this will go off an another theological tangent --which I have no to desire to debate--but suffice it to say that I believe the Holy Spirit is living and active, right now today.

Ultimately, I believe you have a faith of fear--fear of the "rules" and whether or not you're keeping them to the best of your ability. You have no freedom because you are bound by the "law" still. Freedom in Christ is so liberating, but not so that you can do as you please. True freedom in Christ has really shown me how much I am so awed and grateful for the sacrifice that Jesus made for me--and for the rest of the world. Out of that awe-struck thankfulness, all I want to do is the right thing. All I want to do is follow him. No amount of proof-texting can give me the heart of gratitiude towards my Lord that I now have.

Just as neither of us are qualified to speak on behalf of the church of Christ per se, we can share what we have seen and the conclusions we draw. I have never, and I do mean never, ever, heard any member of the church say or insinuate the Holy Spirit isn't a living part of the Godhead just like the Father and Son are, or that He doesn't lead and guide us.

As for the Spirit's work as a helper, indeed, that was His role per Jesus' promise in John chapters 14-16. In that context, His role was to help guide the apostles to all truth, bring to their remembrance the words of the Lord, convict the world of sin, etc. And He fulfilled His role. He guided the apostles in speaking the truth, and a written account of the Spirit's work has been preserved. According to Hebrews 4:12, the word of God is also living. I suspect many folks think they are just words on a page. They are not. They give us God's revelation to mankind. They are alive as much as the Spirit is, the Son is, and the Father is.

I wonder about the spiritual health of those who lack godly fear or reverence. In light of passages such as Proverbs 1:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, fear of the Lord is a good trait. In Acts 5:11,14, godly fear had a positive impact upon the church. And, thinking back about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-2, I suspect goldy fear needs to be kept in mind when considering God's will. I realize that example was from the Old Testament when the law of Moses was in effect, but we are supposed to learn from the old writings per Romans 15:4, right?

Freedom or liberty must be taken with a grain of salt. Freedom from sin? Yes. Freedom from the law of Moses? Yes. Freedom to undermine or disregard what God had commanded or inferred? No. Freedom to undermine the Lord's church and His people. No.

Very glad to hear your sincere desire is to do the right thing and follow Him. Why would you suspect any different from those who diligently apply themselves to studying and applying His word (i.e., 2 Timothy 2:15)? Doesn't the faithful Christian's role also include helping a brother or sister who has strayed from the truth to get back on the right track (i.e., Galatians 6:1-9, James 5:19-20)?

 

[Apollos1]

Cremi –

Thank you for your considerate reply. Please know that I wish you well as we discuss these matters.

cremi said - I won't even address the earlier part of your post, because you've missed the context of scriptures you've posted. This last part though, I thought I'd answer, because it's such an easy answer!

Missed the context? I don’t think so…

cremi said - You don't need to draw lines. The Holy Spirit will not ever lead you to do anything contradictory to what God's word says. Ever.

Agreed. Now all we need to agree on is HOW the HS leads us today. The HS draws the “lines”.

cremi said - How do you know if what you are doing is the right thing? By knowing God, by walking with him, by talking with him, by truly knowing what he wants.

Stop the dance. HOW do we know what God truly wants? God wants to talk with us every day – through His word. We can only “walk” with God when we are doing what He says to do.

cremi offered - I forgot (and am doing this right now…) that many in the church of Christ do not see the Holy Spirit as a living person who leads and guides us. He was sent to us to be a helper. I suspect this will go off an another theological tangent --which I have no to desire to debate--but suffice it to say that I believe the Holy Spirit is living and active, right now today.

I believe the HS is alive and well today. I can not answer for others. But the question is – how and where the HS is alive and well today. And I do not want to go off on another subject here also – but we must answer (perhaps in another thread) HOW the HS guides and leads Christians today. If you believe this is accomplished outside of God’s word today, then we do have reason to begin another thread.

cremi said - Ultimately, I believe you have a faith of fear--fear of the "rules" and whether or not you're keeping them to the best of your ability. You have no freedom because you are bound by the "law" still.

There is nothing wrong with God giving the rules and nothing wrong with my trying to keep them as best I can. His grace will cover my short-comings. But let’s examine the motives for keeping rules. Are you attempting to use disdain of “rule keeping” (a type of “Teacher’s pet” attitude ?) as an excuse to not observe some rules or as an excuse to not do the best you can?

Motives for obedience can be fear (of punishment), expectation (of reward), and/or love (acting in the best interest of another). All of these are choices we can make as to why we may choose to serve (keep the rules of) God. As we “grow” toward God under the “leading” of the HS we should pass from fear, through the expectation of reward, to love.

I no longer fear going to Gehenna (Hell), but I do “fear” Jehovah God. I serve Jehovah God Almighty (keep His rules) to the best of my ability because of the love I have for Him. This is not rote rule keeping for the sake of keeping rules. I am motivated to act on His behalf under His guidance. Those that are not at this point in “growing” to God (cf. 1 Peter 2:2, 2 Peter 1:4-8, Phil 3:13-14.) do not know the true “freedom” to be found in obedient service to Jehovah God. (I have no qualms about being the “Teacher’s pet” on God’s behalf.)

cremi said - No amount of proof-texting can give me the heart of gratitiude towards my Lord that I now have.

Was it not the “proof-texts” that led you to where you are today? What I know about God came from the “proof texts” and this has led me to give thanks and glory to God for His unspeakable gifts to me. I suspect it is the same for you.

 

[- DRA -]

Thanks Cremi for bringing the focus back to where we always must.

The ultimate purpose of restoring NT Christianity is not to be "right" in our NT practices, but that our NT practices most closely imitate those of the NT Christians and NT church - whose fruitfulness excelled par none - that we might match or exceed such fruitfulness in our own generations as the Lord gives us faith in Him.

Our "rest" - from legalism, from worldy pursuits, from seeking respite, from escaping our troubles, from seeking any escape in the world - from seeking to save ourselves - is in Him, in taking His yoke upon us.

The Lord gave us a commission:

[bible]Matthew 28:18-20[/bible]

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There is no mention in that, let alone anywhere else in the NT about quibbling over wine/juice, guitars/none, one cup/many, missions/none, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If the boat is on the water and headed in the right direction with motive force, we can work on any leaks that may pop up in the hull as we go.

But if we are sitting in harbor or static in the water and leaks appear, they always take much more of our energy to fix - if only because we have nothing else to do.

I AM NOT saying that of anyone here - please understand - but our focus truly needs to be doing His will, and, IMHO His will as it pertains to the commission He has given us above all else. Whether we get everything right in the process must be of secondary concern, IMO.

I've not read all of the Millenial Harbinger, nor all of AC's works - but what I have read leads me to believe his vision (and others' of course) for restoring NT christianity was to rid ourselves of the centuries of staid practices and traditions that not only reduced our effectiveness in the commission, but halted it altogether in some cases.

ALL actions, particularly in the church, are responses to previous actions - and I believe restoring NT Christianity is an action in response to what many viewed as actions carrying us farther away from Christ's commission rather than closer to it.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. God bless.

Uh ... not sure what you mean by "closely imitating" NT Christians and the NT church. Does it mean the same as following the "pattern" per passages such as Philippians 3:17, 2 Timothy 1:3, & Titus 2:7?

I tend to think the idea behind restoration is to return to the truth.

In Matthew 28:18-20, two levels of teaching occur. The first is involved with converting sinners to Christ (verse 19). The second involves teaching the newly converted Christian of the additional things required to follow the Lord and serve Him faithfully (verse 20). The Lord's Supper, Singing, etc. fall in the category of the teaching of verse 20, as does the assembling to worship God discussed in Hebrews 10:23-31.

Granted. There was no quibbling in the New Testament over instruments versus singing - because the disciples sang per Acts 16:25. And, they observed the Lord's Supper per the Lord's instructions (Acts 20:7). And, first-century Christians took journeys to preach the gospel per the Lord's instructions in Matt. 28:18-20 (e.g., Acts 13-14). No quibbling. They did as the Lord said. At least, those that were faithful were obedient.

Personally, I think restoration is an excellent idea. It was for the unfaithful Israelites who had strayed from God under the law of Moses. It was the basis for some of the kings of Judah (after the nation of Israel was divided) to be what we call "good" kings. It was their efforts to restore faithfulness that separated them from the "wicked" kings.

 

[crawfish]

I tend to think the idea behind restoration is to return to the truth.

I would add that it was a minimalist movement with a desire to strip away the pretenses and human traditions that had gathered like moss on the denominational world of the day. It wasn't that those pretenses and traditions were wrong, per se, but they tended to be a distraction which kept people from learning and living the truth.

Granted. There was no quibbling in the New Testament over instruments versus singing - because the disciples sang per Acts 16:25. And, they observed the Lord's Supper per the Lord's instructions (Acts 20:7). And, first-century Christians took journeys to preach the gospel per the Lord's instructions in Matt. 28:18-20 (e.g., Acts 13-14). No quibbling. They did as the Lord said. At least, those that were faithful were obedient.

We don't know exactly what their personal view on instruments were. There weren't exactly music shops at the time; it would have been uncommon to have them in one's home (where the early church met). We really don't know if they were used or not until later when the Gentiles chose not to use them to differentiate themselves from the pagan rituals that they had been a part of.

I have to believe that if it mattered, then Paul or one of the other writers would have let us know that the OT authorization of using instruments for celebration was now changed, as he did with circumcision and animal sacrifice.

Personally, I think restoration is an excellent idea. It was for the unfaithful Israelites who had strayed from God under the law of Moses. It was the basis for some of the kings of Judah (after the nation of Israel was divided) to be what we call "good" kings. It was their efforts to restore faithfulness that separated them from the "wicked" kings.

Agree here. Just as we take showers or baths to remove the nasty buildup our bodies accumulate each day, we need to periodically go through a restoration.

 

[DerSchweik]

I would add that it was a minimalist movement with a desire to strip away the pretenses and human traditions that had gathered like moss on the denominational world of the day. It wasn't that those pretenses and traditions were wrong, per se, but they tended to be a distraction which kept people from learning and living the truth.

Yes. It was definitely a "minimalist movement" - and in response to an accumulation of sedimentary abuses (or distractions) that had slowly built up over the centuries.

We don't know exactly what their personal view on instruments were. There weren't exactly music shops at the time; it would have been uncommon to have them in one's home (where the early church met). We really don't know if they were used or not until later when the Gentiles chose not to use them to differentiate themselves from the pagan rituals that they had been a part of.

I have to believe that if it mattered, then Paul or one of the other writers would have let us know that the OT authorization of using instruments for celebration was now changed, as he did with circumcision and animal sacrifice.

I think you said this very well, cuz I just don't see the issue being that explicit that we can turn it into a matter of faith. I agree, if the issue were that important I have to believe one of the NT writers would have addressed it explicitly. There is no question the first century church sang. And all the 21st century churches sing - some just do it with music in the background or as accompanyment. Personal preferences aside for acapella worship, I just can't "go to the pulpit" over IM.

Agree here. Just as we take showers or baths to remove the nasty buildup our bodies accumulate each day, we need to periodically go through a restoration.

Brother, I appreciate the manner in which you present your thoughts - very respectful, thoughtful, and salient to the point. Thanks!

 

[Apollos1]

Crawfish said - I have to believe that if it mattered, then Paul or one of the other writers would have let us know that the OT authorization of using instruments for celebration was now changed, as he did with circumcision and animal sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:12 - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hebrews 8:6 - "...he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises."

Didn’t anyone notify you of the change??? I think if you check, we know things changed for music in worship the same way we know that animal sacrifices and circumcision changed.

No one is under that covenant with God made with a nation given through Moses at Sinai. We know the covenant arrangements God made through Moses with Israel.

Today the world can be under a covenant with God given through Jesus – ratified at the cross. Today we know the covenant arrangements God makes through Jesus with everyone.

But then, you still haven’t told us how to authorize OT practices for the NT church have you?

 

[DerSchweik]

Crawfish said - I have to believe that if it mattered, then Paul or one of the other writers would have let us know that the OT authorization of using instruments for celebration was now changed, as he did with circumcision and animal sacrifice.

Hebrews 7:12 - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hebrews 8:6 - "...he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises."

Didn’t anyone notify you of the change??? I think if you check, we know things changed for music in worship the same way we know that animal sacrifices and circumcision changed.

Hi Apollos - brother, I agree with crawfish on this. If the NT writers (under God's inspiration) believed IM were wrong, or if they anticipated this as an issue we would be dealing with today, I wish they would have explicitly stated the case.

I don't understand the references in Hebrews to the issue of IM. I think I understand your point that IM is related to a change in covenants - but I don't see the link between the change in covenants and IM in the NT.

No one is under that covenant with God made with a nation given through Moses at Sinai. We know the covenant arrangements God made through Moses with Israel.

Today the world can be under a covenant with God given through Jesus – ratified at the cross. Today we know the covenant arrangements God makes through Jesus with everyone.

But then, you still haven’t told us how to authorize OT practices for the NT church have you?

Brother, I appreciate your zeal and passion for this issue. Let me be clear that I disapprove of IM, especially as practiced in churches today. Whether it is an organ, a piano, or as typical of most IM churches - full blown bands and stage productions - I most heartily disapprove for these reasons:

• It is distracting to reverent worship of Him
• It detracts from the congregation being able to lift their voices in song to Him
• It has made us dependent on others for our worship "ceremonies"

On these issues, I believe one can make a solid case against IM scripturally.

However, this does not close the door on the sacred, reverent use of instruments in worship. Were a congregation able to employ IM thus, I would not argue against it, though my preferences remain to acapella worship exclusively.

But, I simply do not see the explicit prohibition of IM in the NT. I pray, I pray fervently we be able to hold differing opinions on this yet remain in fellowship and service to one another.

If the doctrinal issue with IM be platformed on the above bulleted items - I'm already there!! But the doctrinal position that IM is not part of the new covenant is tenuous at best, imo.

God bless bro! In Him, Steve

 

[freespiritchurch]

It seems to me that God did not have a problem telling us what he didn't want us to do. If he doesn't want us to murder, he says, "do not murder." Similarly, when he wants to give us detailed instructions about our worship, he does so:

4You shall lay your hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be acceptable in your behalf as atonement for you. 5The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 6The burnt-offering shall be flayed and cut up into its parts. 7The sons of the priest Aaron shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the parts, with the head and the suet, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; 9but its entrails and its legs shall be washed with water. Then the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odour to the Lord.

If God is deeply displeased with worship using instrumental music, why didn't he just say so? The God I read about in the Bible doesn't make people jump through hoops to figure out what he wants; he just tells them.

Alan

 

[- DRA -]

It seems to me that God did not have a problem telling us what he didn't want us to do. If he doesn't want us to murder, he says, "do not murder." Similarly, when he wants to give us detailed instructions about our worship, he does so:

Leviticus 1:4-9
4You shall lay your hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be acceptable in your behalf as atonement for you. 5The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 6The burnt-offering shall be flayed and cut up into its parts. 7The sons of the priest Aaron shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the parts, with the head and the suet, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; 9but its entrails and its legs shall be washed with water. Then the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odour to the Lord.

First, concerning the works of the flesh, let's note Galatians 5:19-21 (NKJV):

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Don't overlook the red-bolded font.

And, let's see if God gave us detailed instructions under the law of Christ concerning what He wants:

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.

If God is deeply displeased with worship using instrumental music, why didn't he just say so? The God I read about in the Bible doesn't make people jump through hoops to figure out what he wants; he just tells them.

Alan

In a sense, you have a point. God does NOT say He is displeased with instrumental music in Ephesians 5:19. But, He does tell us what pleases Him. And, jumping through hoops is NOT required. It's just a matter of doing what He says.

Question:
When God specifies what He wants, does He have to give an exhaustive list of everything He won't accept? Take the text you posted ... Leviticus 1:4-9. Does God list all the sacrifices He won't accept, all the folks who could offer the sacrifice He won't accept, or all the various ways of offering the sacrifice He won't accept?

 

[crawfish]

In a sense, you have a point. God does NOT say He is displeased with instrumental music in Ephesians 5:19. But, He does tell us what pleases Him. And, jumping through hoops is NOT required. It's just a matter of doing what He says.

Question:
When God specifies what He wants, does He have to give an exhaustive list of everything He won't accept? Take the text you posted ... Leviticus 1:4-9. Does God list all the sacrifices He won't accept, all the folks who could offer the sacrifice He won't accept, or all the various ways of offering the sacrifice He won't accept?

I have found it is impossible to use the standard arguments against IM and stay consistent. There are plenty of things used in mainline CofC's today that are not strictly authorized; if one is to believe that all key items of worship must be authorized in some way, there must be some way to determine which things are ok and which things aren't.

This is, of course, where all logic falls apart.

The belief, which apollos1 has explained so well, is "expediency". Some things are ok because they are expedient and do not *add* to those things that are required. (Please note that I do not feel the passage he uses to justify this is being used correctly; however, I won't address that here.) This argument allows one to accept dedicated church buildings, microphones, song books, overheads and other items as things that allow us to more efficiently do the work that has been set aside, although none of them is strictly authorized. There is a huge logical leap, though, when the argument excluding IM is applied. The logic only makes sense to the long-time NICOC member; it makes no sense outside of that context.

For the sake of argument, what is "expedient"? I would argue that it is a cultural thing that allows the church to more efficiently and effectively minister to the society in which it exists. A dedicated church building might be an extravagance in a poor, third-world country (there are church gatherings outside, under trees in Africa). In the U.S. it is definitely an expediency. Likewise, IM is an extravagance in some areas, but in today's changing culture instruments are so pervasive and expected that they have become an expediency. There are simply people who do not understand or "feel" a Capella music.

I love a Capella, and I worship a Capella. But it would be arrogant for me to claim that is the only acceptable way to worship God. Arrogant and contrary to the spirit of God's revelation.

 

[DerSchweik]

Col 3:12-17 (NASB): "So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 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. Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father."

Eph 3:18-21 (NASB): "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ."

If the argument be that God demands singing ONLY in our worship services, the context of the passages in support of this argument seems weak at best. Worship is to God, not to one another and these passages speak in reference to our communications with one another as well as the attitude of our heart toward God. It is a leap to forbid musical instruments in worship based strictly and solely on these passages, IMO.

On the other hand!! If the argument be that instruments distract, hinder, impede one's ability to worship God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, which is the greatest commandment - THEN I think we can make an argument against IM - but on that basis, and on that basis alone. And this IS my argument against IM and my warrant for claiming IM should not be allowed in corporate worship of God - for IM is (IMO) a distraction, a hindrance, and an annoyance to reverent, sacred individual worship of Him as a congregation. As far as I'm concerned, IM has only turned congregations into a bunch of "pew-potatoes" barely capable of singing anymore, staring at the stage and screen, numbed by amplification, mouthing words weakly, listening more than participating. Indeed, one might even argue IM prohibits full congregational involvement in worship, except as spectators.

But to use these verses - and I realize they are the traditional verses against IM and for acapella worship - is IMO not an entirely proper use of Scripture. The verses speak of our ATTITUDE w/r to one another and to God. No, I think these passages are to be understood in the context intended - as "one another" passages encouraging us to be filled with His Spirit at all times and at all times being thankful in our hearts to God.

We have the same goal here, IMO, (adherence to His wishes and quality, reverent worship of Him) but are coming at the issue from different directions, with different arguments.

But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

God bless!

 

[- DRA -]

I have found it is impossible to use the standard arguments against IM and stay consistent. There are plenty of things used in mainline CofC's today that are not strictly authorized; if one is to believe that all key items of worship must be authorized in some way, there must be some way to determine which things are ok and which things aren't.

This is, of course, where all logic falls apart.

The belief, which apollos1 has explained so well, is "expediency". Some things are ok because they are expedient and do not *add* to those things that are required. (Please note that I do not feel the passage he uses to justify this is being used correctly; however, I won't address that here.) This argument allows one to accept dedicated church buildings, microphones, song books, overheads and other items as things that allow us to more efficiently do the work that has been set aside, although none of them is strictly authorized. There is a huge logical leap, though, when the argument excluding IM is applied. The logic only makes sense to the long-time NICOC member; it makes no sense outside of that context.

For the sake of argument, what is "expedient"? I would argue that it is a cultural thing that allows the church to more efficiently and effectively minister to the society in which it exists. A dedicated church building might be an extravagance in a poor, third-world country (there are church gatherings outside, under trees in Africa). In the U.S. it is definitely an expediency. Likewise, IM is an extravagance in some areas, but in today's changing culture instruments are so pervasive and expected that they have become an expediency. There are simply people who do not understand or "feel" a Capella music.

I love a Capella, and I worship a Capella. But it would be arrogant for me to claim that is the only acceptable way to worship God. Arrogant and contrary to the spirit of God's revelation.

First off, having authority from the Lord is commanded for all we say and do per Colossians 3:17. Authority doesn't necessarily mean "specific" authority. Authority can also be generic. Take the command to "go" in Matthew 28:19. It is a general command in the sense that the apostles were commanded to "go" and teach the gospel and make converts - but no specifics conerning the mode/means of travel were given. Therefore, the apostles and first-century Christians were free to use whatever means of transportation that was available. In Acts 8, Philip ran in verse 30, and rode in the chariot with the eunuch in verse 31. In Acts 13, Barnabus and Saul sailed in a ship in verse 4. Thus, we get a glimpse of how generic authority works. "Go" is a general command. It authorizes various means of travel. Choices were available. Thus, one was able to choose or select from various means of travel according to cost, availablility, etc. An expedient would be the means of travel chosen to carry out the command to "go." It aided the Christian in getting from one location to another.

Specific commands are quite different. Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4 fall into this category. God specified priests from the tribe of Levi and High Priests from the order of Aaron under the law of Moses, but was silent about the tribe of Judah. Therefore, according to the logic presented, this prohibited those from Judah from being Levitical priests. Specifically, the point of the text was that Jesus could NOT be a Levitical priest. He was NOT from the tribe authorized to be Levitical priests. However, He was authorized to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek - explained in the preceding verses in chapter 7 and in Psalm 110:4, which is quoted Hebrews 7:21. See the point? Jesus was authorized to be a priest. Long after the Levitical system was put in place, God spoke of another priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4, which takes us all the way back to the latter part of Genesis 14.

For sure, church buildings are NOT commanded. However, assembling is commanded (Hebrews 10:23-31). Therefore, it means God's people must have a place to assemble. True, it could be outdoors. However, weather could be an issue. Adverse weather could cancel services. In the part of Texas we worship in, there are times when it rains and the wind blows so hard a tent would be blown away. And, there are times the mosquitos might carry the tent away ... after they have been well nourished by all the vulnerable folks that came to worship. Plus, there's also the heat and high humidity. And, there's the problem of taking care of nature's need (i.e., going to the bathroom). Either we provide facilities for folks to take carry of business in close proximity to the assembly, or folks would have to leave to answer nature's call. I, like a number of folks who have preceded me, decided it was expedient to have a building to protect us from the elements (mostly wind, rain, and lightning where we currently live, but could include hail, snow, and ice in other areas) and provide a comfortable environment to expedite learning and worship, and restroom facilities that are helpful (expedient) for us to minimize time away from the worship/Bible study services. The bottom line is assembling is authorized. That's the part we shouldn't overlook.

While not going through all the points detail by detail, let me say this about the microphone. "Preahing/teaching is authorized per Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19, and 2 Timothy 4:2. And, according to 1 Corinthians 14:16 understanding, which includes hearing the message, is a necessity for edification to take place. Therefore, a microphone can be helpful, or an aid (i.e., an expediency) to ensure folks hear the message, prayer, song leader, etc. adequately.

As far as the last point is concerned about being arrogant, is it arrogant to make the conclusion the Hebrew writer makes in 7:13-14; 8:4 ... that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest because those from the tribe of Judah weren't authorized?

 

[crawfish]

First off, having authority from the Lord is commanded for all we say and do per Colossians 3:17. Authority doesn't necessarily mean "specific" authority. Authority can also be generic. Take the command to "go" in Matthew 28:19. It is a general command in the sense that the apostles were commanded to "go" and teach the gospel and make converts - but no specifics conerning the mode/means of travel were given. Therefore, the apostles and first-century Christians were free to use whatever means of transportation that was available. In Acts 8, Philip ran in verse 30, and rode in the chariot with the eunuch in verse 31. In Acts 13, Barnabus and Saul sailed in a ship in verse 4. Thus, we get a glimpse of how generic authority works. "Go" is a general command. It authorizes various means of travel. Choices were available. Thus, one was able to choose or select from various means of travel according to cost, availablility, etc. An expedient would be the means of travel chosen to carry out the command to "go." It aided the Christian in getting from one location to another.

Specific commands are quite different. Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4 fall into this category. God specified priests from the tribe of Levi and High Priests from the order of Aaron under the law of Moses, but was silent about the tribe of Judah. Therefore, according to the logic presented, this prohibited those from Judah from being Levitical priests. Specifically, the point of the text was that Jesus could NOT be a Levitical priest. He was NOT from the tribe authorized to be Levitical priests. However, He was authorized to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek - explained in the preceding verses in chapter 7 and in Psalm 110:4, which is quoted Hebrews 7:21. See the point? Jesus was authorized to be a priest. Long after the Levitical system was put in place, God spoke of another priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4, which takes us all the way back to the latter part of Genesis 14.

For sure, church buildings are NOT commanded. However, assembling is commanded (Hebrews 10:23-31). Therefore, it means God's people must have a place to assemble. True, it could be outdoors. However, weather could be an issue. Adverse weather could cancel services. In the part of Texas we worship in, there are times when it rains and the wind blows so hard a tent would be blown away. And, there are times the mosquitos might carry the tent away ... after they have been well nourished by all the vulnerable folks that came to worship. Plus, there's also the heat and high humidity. And, there's the problem of taking care of nature's need (i.e., going to the bathroom). Either we provide facilities for folks to take carry of business in close proximity to the assembly, or folks would have to leave to answer nature's call. I, like a number of folks who have preceded me, decided it was expedient to have a building to protect us from the elements (mostly wind, rain, and lightning where we currently live, but could include hail, snow, and ice in other areas) and provide a comfortable environment to expedite learning and worship, and restroom facilities that are helpful (expedient) for us to minimize time away from the worship/Bible study services. The bottom line is assembling is authorized. That's the part we shouldn't overlook.

While not going through all the points detail by detail, let me say this about the microphone. "Preahing/teaching is authorized per Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19, and 2 Timothy 4:2. And, according to 1 Corinthians 14:16 understanding, which includes hearing the message, is a necessity for edification to take place. Therefore, a microphone can be helpful, or an aid (i.e., an expediency) to ensure folks hear the message, prayer, song leader, etc. adequately.

As far as the last point is concerned about being arrogant, is it arrogant to make the conclusion the Hebrew writer makes in 7:13-14; 8:4 ... that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest because those from the tribe of Judah weren't authorized?

None of that disproves my point. I completely agree about the expediency of church buildings, microphones, song leaders. etc. None of it justifies the logical leap making IM inexpedient.

As far as I'm concerned, IM has only turned congregations into a bunch of "pew-potatoes" barely capable of singing anymore, staring at the stage and screen, numbed by amplification, mouthing words weakly, listening more than participating. Indeed, one might even argue IM prohibits full congregational involvement in worship, except as spectators.

No disrespect intended, DerShweik, but I think this viewpoint is the product of a biased NICoC upbringing. I had the same opinion for a long time, until I actually started worshiping (irregularly) at IM churches. They are every bit as involved as we are. Sometimes more. CoC's can be a tad dry and unemotional, which serves a certain type of people well, but for many it actually discourages from participating because of an inability to connect emotionally with the message. (Please note that I'm not talking "spirit-driven" and charismatic, necessarily.)

I admit that I have been in some services that made me uncomfortable because of a focus on entertainment value. I'm not trying to justify that with what I'm saying. There are many things that distract us from true worship that have nothing to do with IM. The worst church I've ever attended was a small town NICoC with an arrogant, intolerant attitude. Worship was an exercise in making them feel like they'd completed their duty; there was no joy or caring in them. I'd rather attend a rock and roll church than that one any day.

 

[DerSchweik]

No disrespect intended, DerShweik, but I think this viewpoint is the product of a biased NICoC upbringing. I had the same opinion for a long time, until I actually started worshiping (irregularly) at IM churches. They are every bit as involved as we are. Sometimes more. CoC's can be a tad dry and unemotional, which serves a certain type of people well, but for many it actually discourages from participating because of an inability to connect emotionally with the message. (Please note that I'm not talking "spirit-driven" and charismatic, necessarily.)

I admit that I have been in some services that made me uncomfortable because of a focus on entertainment value. I'm not trying to justify that with what I'm saying. There are many things that distract us from true worship that have nothing to do with IM. The worst church I've ever attended was a small town NICoC with an arrogant, intolerant attitude. Worship was an exercise in making them feel like they'd completed their duty; there was no joy or caring in them. I'd rather attend a rock and roll church than that one any day.

Well, I do admit I have a penchant for "overstating" my case and generalizing with exuberant, broad-brush strokes - often bigger than a wide floor broom . I did that here perhaps with a little more polemic than necessary. My bad. And I do admit bias - wholeheartedly! I am saddened by what I consider the demise of congregational singing, a demise I believe brought about by the incorporation of IM in worship.

And no offense taken whatsoever.

It is not my intent to state a case for abolishing IM across the board. Nor do I wish any leeway I might give for IM to be construed as merely a "personal taste" issue.

Turning IM into a legalistic construct is an improper wielding of scripture, IMO. I certainly allow that there are congregations whose worship is ENHANCED by IM. Such has not been my experience (and I think you and I must have visited the same small town NIcoC - horrible!).

I do not believe the Bible prohibits IM in worship (in all cases).
I do not believe the Bible necessarily permits it either (in all cases).

I disagree with the traditional arguments against IM in worship. I think prohibition of IM is better argued on the basis of the greatest commandment.

My "preference" for acapella music is based on my positive worship experiences with it and on my contrastingly negative experiences with IM. I stand by my "pew potato" comments.

Most importantly, I oppose IM (in general, mind you) for the same reason I oppose stale, dead, acapella or non-IM worship.

My best friend lives in Nashville, TN and attends an IMcoC. He doesn't mind IM there (though he and I were "raised" with good non-IM worship). The musicians there are understandably good - being primarily "session artists." His take on typical IM worship (with non-session musicians) is interesting - he thinks the sound way too amplified and over-produced; furthermore, he thinks it is that way to mask lesser-quality music. For him, the bottom line is the same as mine - the music doesn't drown out the congregational singing, it enhances it.

I look forward to visiting his congregation this summer to see what he believes IM should be, where employed.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

First off, having authority from the Lord is commanded for all we say and do per Colossians 3:17. Authority doesn't necessarily mean "specific" authority. Authority can also be generic. Take the command to "go" in Matthew 28:19. It is a general command in the sense that the apostles were commanded to "go" and teach the gospel and make converts - but no specifics conerning the mode/means of travel were given. Therefore, the apostles and first-century Christians were free to use whatever means of transportation that was available. In Acts 8, Philip ran in verse 30, and rode in the chariot with the eunuch in verse 31. In Acts 13, Barnabus and Saul sailed in a ship in verse 4. Thus, we get a glimpse of how generic authority works. "Go" is a general command. It authorizes various means of travel. Choices were available. Thus, one was able to choose or select from various means of travel according to cost, availablility, etc. An expedient would be the means of travel chosen to carry out the command to "go." It aided the Christian in getting from one location to another.

Specific commands are quite different. Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4 fall into this category. God specified priests from the tribe of Levi and High Priests from the order of Aaron under the law of Moses, but was silent about the tribe of Judah. Therefore, according to the logic presented, this prohibited those from Judah from being Levitical priests. Specifically, the point of the text was that Jesus could NOT be a Levitical priest. He was NOT from the tribe authorized to be Levitical priests. However, He was authorized to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek - explained in the preceding verses in chapter 7 and in Psalm 110:4, which is quoted Hebrews 7:21. See the point? Jesus was authorized to be a priest. Long after the Levitical system was put in place, God spoke of another priest after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4, which takes us all the way back to the latter part of Genesis 14.

For sure, church buildings are NOT commanded. However, assembling is commanded (Hebrews 10:23-31). Therefore, it means God's people must have a place to assemble. True, it could be outdoors. However, weather could be an issue. Adverse weather could cancel services. In the part of Texas we worship in, there are times when it rains and the wind blows so hard a tent would be blown away. And, there are times the mosquitos might carry the tent away ... after they have been well nourished by all the vulnerable folks that came to worship. Plus, there's also the heat and high humidity. And, there's the problem of taking care of nature's need (i.e., going to the bathroom). Either we provide facilities for folks to take carry of business in close proximity to the assembly, or folks would have to leave to answer nature's call. I, like a number of folks who have preceded me, decided it was expedient to have a building to protect us from the elements (mostly wind, rain, and lightning where we currently live, but could include hail, snow, and ice in other areas) and provide a comfortable environment to expedite learning and worship, and restroom facilities that are helpful (expedient) for us to minimize time away from the worship/Bible study services. The bottom line is assembling is authorized. That's the part we shouldn't overlook.

While not going through all the points detail by detail, let me say this about the microphone. "Preahing/teaching is authorized per Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19, and 2 Timothy 4:2. And, according to 1 Corinthians 14:16 understanding, which includes hearing the message, is a necessity for edification to take place. Therefore, a microphone can be helpful, or an aid (i.e., an expediency) to ensure folks hear the message, prayer, song leader, etc. adequately.

As far as the last point is concerned about being arrogant, is it arrogant to make the conclusion the Hebrew writer makes in 7:13-14; 8:4 ... that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest because those from the tribe of Judah weren't authorized?

None of that disproves my point. I completely agree about the expediency of church buildings, microphones, song leaders. etc. None of it justifies the logical leap making IM inexpedient.

The logical leap is from the principle taught in Hebrews 7:13-14 & 8:4 to Ephesians 5:19. The principle taught in the passages in Hebrews is that specific authority authorizes only that which is specified (i.e., priests from the tribe of Levi). Ephesians 5:19 contains specific commands. Speaking/singing is a specific action. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are specific, and tell us what is to be spoken/sung. Making melody in your hearts is specific, telling us where the melody comes from. The logical question becomes if Jesus wasn't authorized to be a Levitical priest, then how are we authorized to deviate from the specific commands given in Ephesians 5:19? Make sense?

Now, let me throw a "wrinkle" in the reasoning. Speaking/singing is commanded per Eph. 5:19, right? But, there's no mention of a songbook. Therefore, because singing is specifically commanded, we can't use a songbook as an aid or expediency, right? Let's think about it. Would a songbook aid those who don't know the words or musical notes (for those who read music) to a psalm, hymn, or spiritual song? It could, right? After all, if one doesn't know the words to a song, it would make it pretty hard to sing along. However, with a songbook, the words and musical notes are readily available. Let's think. Singing is authorized. And, the songbook itself is not adding to or taking from the singing, but does aid those of us who don't know the words to every song so we can sing along. Wouldn't that be like a preacher or Bible class teacher using their Bible because they don't have every Bible verse memorized?

Now, let's compare this thought to the melody specified in Ephesians 5:19. Singing is to come with/from the heart of each singer. Therefore, in order for the instruments to aid singing, it must aid the aid or expedite the melody coming with/from the heart. Does it? Personally, I think it makes singing sound better to our ears, but the issue is whether or not it aids in the melody coming with/from the heart (the inner man). If it doesn't, it is an addition to that which is specified. Relating it to Hebrews 7:12-13 & 8:4, it would be like having a priest from the tribe of Levi and one from the tribe of Judah. Will that "fly" in light of what God specified? Make sense?

 

[- DRA -]

Well, I do admit I have a penchant for "overstating" my case and generalizing with exuberant, broad-brush strokes - often bigger than a wide floor broom . I did that here perhaps with a little more polemic than necessary. My bad. And I do admit bias - wholeheartedly! I am saddened by what I consider the demise of congregational singing, a demise I believe brought about by the incorporation of IM in worship.

And no offense taken whatsoever.

It is not my intent to state a case for abolishing IM across the board. Nor do I wish any leeway I might give for IM to be construed as merely a "personal taste" issue.

Turning IM into a legalistic construct is an improper wielding of scripture, IMO. I certainly allow that there are congregations whose worship is ENHANCED by IM. Such has not been my experience (and I think you and I must have visited the same small town NIcoC - horrible!).

I do not believe the Bible prohibits IM in worship (in all cases).
I do not believe the Bible necessarily permits it either (in all cases).

I disagree with the traditional arguments against IM in worship. I think prohibition of IM is better argued on the basis of the greatest commandment.

My "preference" for acapella music is based on my positive worship experiences with it and on my contrastingly negative experiences with IM. I stand by my "pew potato" comments.

Most importantly, I oppose IM (in general, mind you) for the same reason I oppose stale, dead, acapella or non-IM worship.

My best friend lives in Nashville, TN and attends an IMcoC. He doesn't mind IM there (though he and I were "raised" with good non-IM worship). The musicians there are understandably good - being primarily "session artists." His take on typical IM worship (with non-session musicians) is interesting - he thinks the sound way too amplified and over-produced; furthermore, he thinks it is that way to mask lesser-quality music. For him, the bottom line is the same as mine - the music doesn't drown out the congregational singing, it enhances it.

I look forward to visiting his congregation this summer to see what he believes IM should be, where employed.

Want to single out a small portion of your post and say that I wholeheartedly agree.

Ephesians 5:19 does NOT say that if we sing without instrumental music our singing will be uplifting, acceptable, and pleasing to God. Rather, it says, "... Singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." The heart of one who loves God, and is thankful and filled with gratitude is what God wants to accompany the singing. Without this, the singing is going no farther than the singer's voice carries. On the other hand, singing coming from the heart of such a person carries all the way to the "ears" of God in heaven.