Non-Instrumental church of Christ

[- DRA -]

Sorry for the bluntness, but this is just like talking to the Mormons.

... my time is being spent.

"Parson,"

We are still waiting for those passages that deal with whether or not we are allowed to sing in the assembly. Previously, you have denied that Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, and James 5:13 have any application at all to the assembly. However, you have left us "hanging" concerning the passages that discuss how we are to worship in the assembly. Please share the passages with us that will help us better understand how we are to worship God.

- DRA -

 

[noparty]

I've got an awesome beatbox rhythm for Ring Out The Message.

 

[Latreia]

Well...I've been reading along for this entire thread. It's interesting. Nothing ever really changes. It's the same arguement/debate over and over again.

It's interesting to see each side present their arguements, reasonsing and even scripture to support thier POV. Problem is, no one's POV is changing. It's the same chatter back and forth. The other problem is that no one is really listening to what each "side" has to say....okay...I shouldn't say "no one", because some have done a great job of saying...."I see your point...let's look at it this way."

So where has this debate lead?

Has it edified? Has it changed anyone? Has anyone been "convicted" that they should either start using instruments or that they shouldn't? Has anyone grown spiritually because of this thread? Probably not...

Everyone is pretty much where they were when the question was asked. Why is that anyway?

Well, probably because some, like myself, have studied this issue to the nth degree and have already drawn the conclusions we are going to draw.

For myself--I am a trained musician. I even have degree in music. I can play an instrument (piano, percussion) and I also sing...some say pretty well. (I'll leave that opinion to the ears of the hearer, however )

I have always wondered, back in my non-instrumental coC days, why God would give me the talent to write music and play music, but I wasn't allowed to use it for His glory. That didn't make much sense to me. Growing up in "other" denominations, I was always writing, singing and playing music--with the intent of glorifying God. However, when I "converted" to coC, I somehow thought that what I did before was wrong. I gave up almost everything--even singing. Why singing? Because...it was only accepted at weddings, funerals and during worship services. So I had this great voice with a huge range, but I was only allowed to use it most of the time, on Sunday mornings....or occasionally for a wedding or funeral.

I actually tried to pursue a career in the secular realm, but it always felt "wrong". I really only ever enjoyed singing for God. I actually fell into a bit of depression over the fact that I couldn't use my gift in church, except on a very limited basis.

Of course, now I'm one of those 'terrible" christians, who sings on the praise team, sings solos, duets, etc... and I sing with and without instruments, but I do it for God's glory.

Really. I do.

You can argue about the silence of scripture and apply the hermaneutics that you wish, but the truth of the matter is that whether you sing or play an instrument, it should ALWAYS be for God's glory. I also happen to believe that my worship of God happens everyday. It doesn't just occur on Sunday morning for a couple of hours. Applying that principle, how many of you that believe instruments are inapproprate during worship, also believe that instruments are inappropriate the rest of the week? Is Sunday morning truly the only time you ever worship God? Wow...if that is true.

I love acapella music. Some of the most moving things I have ever experienced has been attending large gatherings where we all lifted our voices in song. But loving it and getting chills from it does not necessarily make it more acceptable in God's eyes.

Okay...I've shared my perspective. I know I haven't changed anyone's mind...I've already gathered that from reading this thread...just be careful to not be so stiff-necked about your opinion--one way OR the other--that you miss out what God was really saying or what he meant.

Still growing and learning myself!

The best reply post with the overall view of this thread and the issues. This particular belief would be an enormously difficult and painful idea in today's world of wonderful instruments and those who love to play and listen to them. Counting myself as one. A life-long love for wonderful music on the classical instruments, appreciation and enjoyment of sacred works by the world's greatest composers.

Bach's phenomenal organ compositions....all perhaps divinely inspired, I felt, being uplifted by the spiritual in them and all really fine music.

It is easy to understand the dismay and resistance of so many to any idea of the denial of instruments in the service of the worship of our Lord.

Long time, too long a time, member of CF, I am also accustomed to the strange obsession of those who claim every right to decided for themselves everything about what God Himself thinks: i.e. His approval of anything that they want to feel free to think and do.

The same are passionately active in striving to dissuade any other faith or belief that they fear might interfere with their own "freedoms" and "rights" Out come the heavy and hot debates and challenges to others who believe differently.

All understandible, all common place and usual on the online forum scene. But here, on this thread comes the one voice, just one, that stands out as the most patient, most charitable, most Christian to my mind and my heart.

Every post by JDIBe.

Thanks be to God.

 

[- DRA -]

ParsonJefferson,

Are you ready to respond to Post #120 on page 12?

 

[brwilson1]

I appreciate the list of verses. I need help in one area of this age old argument that I have never heard addressed. The teaching my entire life has been that the NT does not make mention of instrumental music in worship. IN three of the references provided ny JDIB3, James 5:13, Romans 15:9, and I Corinth. 14:15, the greek translation of "sing" that I find is "psallo", which is the same word used for "melody" in Eph.5:19 meaning to pluck a musical instrument. (Only in these other three verses it doesn't say "in the heart" as in Eph.) Why is this scriptural reference to instruments not considered valid? I really do not understand. Please help. Bruce in Florida

 

[AJB4]

I've a question:

Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 both say sing in "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". Now, in Psalms 150, it speaks rather explicitly of praising God with instruments.

Put 2 and 2 together?

 

[JDIBe]

I appreciate the list of verses. I need help in one area of this age old argument that I have never heard addressed. The teaching my entire life has been that the NT does not make mention of instrumental music in worship. IN three of the references provided ny JDIB3, James 5:13, Romans 15:9, and I Corinth. 14:15, the greek translation of "sing" that I find is "psallo", which is the same word used for "melody" in Eph.5:19 meaning to pluck a musical instrument. (Only in these other three verses it doesn't say "in the heart" as in Eph.) Why is this scriptural reference to instruments not considered valid? I really do not understand. Please help. Bruce in Florida

Bruce, first let me say welcome to the forum. We would be honored if you would hang around and participate with us.

You are right. "Psallo" is used without modification in the other verses. And yes, "psallo" meant, among other things in the OT, "to pluck". However, by NT times, the large majority of reputable scholars agree that the verb simply means "to sing". If the Scriptures meant to "sing and play a mechanical instrument" one would expect to see the instrument expressed in at least one of the verses.

AJ inadvertently brings up a good example. In Ps. 150, OT believers were commanded to sing and play the harp, cymbals, etc. So where are those like verses in the NT that state such things? None of the scriptures dealing with music in the NT infer or state an instrument is to be used except for one. That Scripture is Eph. 5:19, and it states the instrument to be used is singing with the accompaniment of the human heart. The heart is the instrument. If Eph. 5:19 states as such and the other Scriptures are silent on the matter it is reasonable to assume that it applies to them too in absence of contrary evidence. (Particularly with supporting historical evidence.) So I guess in a sense, we do have "instrumental music". The instrument is just spiritual instead of physical.

So how do we know "psallo" means to "sing" by NT times? The word of some scholar? Probably the best witnesses of the fact is the early NT Christians themselves. There is a thread somewhere on this board with some Early Christian references as to how the earliest Christians interpreted these verses and how they worshipped. (AJ, the Orthodox Church still worships and teaches this today. You might check out what the historical sources say on the subject. I know this carries some weight with you.) We still sing Psalms today, too. They don't have to be accompanied by musical instruments to be sung, and apparently weren't until the 6th-7th century in the Church.

So in short, "psallos" does not authorize musical accompaniment in the NT because....

1. The Greek language lexicons show a different NT time use.
2. Every Bible translator translates it "sing". I have never seen the verses mentioned ever translated "sing and play". Ever.
3. Historical sources up until the 7th century disapproved of it and thought it contrary to the Word and the Apostles' teaching. It is a modern invention in the Church.

BTW, I also have never heard anyone actually claim that we HAVE TO use instruments based on the "sing and play" argument, so I think even those who might wish to use them think it would be weak to stand on that alone.

The best case I could see for IM would be one of "christian liberty". However, to me, an extremely strong case can be made for non-IM based on
1. authorization
2. historical evidence
3. expediency
Each reinforces the other and makes the case that much stronger.

Probably more than you wanted to see or read. Take what is useful to you. In any event, again, welcome to the forum.

 

[crawfish]

I'm a bit of a long-time lurker here, but have finally decided to register. I really like the site, I hope this is the first of many posts.

I am a long-time member of the non-instrumental CofC - born, bred and raised. Although I have been a bit dubious of the arguments banning instruments from worship since high school, I have only recently had to deal with this issue, as my particular congregation has just added an instrumental worship service. I thoroughly understand the CofC arguments on this issue; I'll try to explain below how I've come to a change of heart.

1) The NT simply does not speak directly on this. I'm very certain that God would not make a point so unclear if it was essential to salvation.

2) The NT simply doesn't put such rigidity on corporate worship. The CofC's tend to feel the implementation of the "five acts of worship" is an absolute necessity.

3) the previous item leads to: "the heart". The biggest problem with the CofC and their rigid worship guidelines is that it really tends to eliminate the heart from the worship equation. When you're so worried about doing things "right", you tend to forget that the entire point is to please God with your attitude. One can sing from their heart to instruments, or they can simply belt out the words with no feelings at all to no accompaniment.

4) I've found that although some people like me (typically left-brained) can really get a lot out of a bare-bones worship with lots of preaching depth, many people just do not find that inspiring. The CofC tends to turn off large numbers of people because it can turn what should be a joy into an ordeal. This isn't because of the lack of musical instruments, of course, but because of the typical attitude behind their exclusion.

I really love many things about the CofC. The emphasis on Bible learning is commendable, as the average CofCer has more raw Bible knowledge than the average member of just about any other group. They have brought up some incredible preachers, the likes of which I have rarely heard the equal of. Unfortunately, the full concept of grace has been lost on many of the brotherhood, and that is something that needs to change.

 

[brwilson1]

Bruce, first let me say welcome to the forum. We would be honored if you would hang around and participate with us.

You are right. "Psallo" is used without modification in the other verses. And yes, "psallo" meant, among other things in the OT, "to pluck". However, by NT times, the large majority of reputable scholars agree that the verb simply means "to sing". If the Scriptures meant to "sing and play a mechanical instrument" one would expect to see the instrument expressed in at least one of the verses.

AJ inadvertently brings up a good example. In Ps. 150, OT believers were commanded to sing and play the harp, cymbals, etc. So where are those like verses in the NT that state such things? None of the scriptures dealing with music in the NT infer or state an instrument is to be used except for one. That Scripture is Eph. 5:19, and it states the instrument to be used is singing with the accompaniment of the human heart. The heart is the instrument. If Eph. 5:19 states as such and the other Scriptures are silent on the matter it is reasonable to assume that it applies to them too in absence of contrary evidence. (Particularly with supporting historical evidence.) So I guess in a sense, we do have "instrumental music". The instrument is just spiritual instead of physical.

So how do we know "psallo" means to "sing" by NT times? The word of some scholar? Probably the best witnesses of the fact is the early NT Christians themselves. There is a thread somewhere on this board with some Early Christian references as to how the earliest Christians interpreted these verses and how they worshipped. (AJ, the Orthodox Church still worships and teaches this today. You might check out what the historical sources say on the subject. I know this carries some weight with you.) We still sing Psalms today, too. They don't have to be accompanied by musical instruments to be sung, and apparently weren't until the 6th-7th century in the Church.

So in short, "psallos" does not authorize musical accompaniment in the NT because....

1. The Greek language lexicons show a different NT time use.
2. Every Bible translator translates it "sing". I have never seen the verses mentioned ever translated "sing and play". Ever.
3. Historical sources up until the 7th century disapproved of it and thought it contrary to the Word and the Apostles' teaching. It is a modern invention in the Church.

BTW, I also have never heard anyone actually claim that we HAVE TO use instruments based on the "sing and play" argument, so I think even those who might wish to use them think it would be weak to stand on that alone.

The best case I could see for IM would be one of "christian liberty". However, to me, an extremely strong case can be made for non-IM based on
1. authorization
2. historical evidence
3. expediency
Each reinforces the other and makes the case that much stronger.

Probably more than you wanted to see or read. Take what is useful to you. In any event, again, welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the time and effort you took to provide an explanation. You are the first that has offered an explanation to this first question of mine that was based upon my initial simple word study from the NT. Sadly, some of the most staunch defenders of the "voices only" leadership within my congregation could not explain why, other than how they were taught.

I certainly do plan to research both scholarly interpretation of the changes in context of some these original Greek words and the early church practices as well.

Let me also say that I am not saying any of these verses command music also nor do I wish to change to instrumental music since the scriptures do teach that acapella singing is just fine, and frankly I prefer it. merely from practice. The problem I am having though is the increasing condemnation of some other congregations that have added an instrumental music service. If there is any hint of this being a matter of opinion in worship then I do not want to stand in judgement of anyone without perfectly understanding God's stance on such matters. As alluded to above it also makes me increasingly skeptical of my own leaders that cannot give a biblically supported explanation but expect one to "fall in line" with cursory "as we were taught" lines. Whatever happened to the Bereans, you know?

I do hope to learn more of how and why these scholars came to the knowledge that the word means something different than originally scripted. I always thought the Greek language intentionally used such simple verbiage to convey more complex actions. Obviously I don't purport to understand all the translation ideology, rather these are just my beginning curiosities that I aim to research thoroughly.

Thanks again and I hope to learn more and more here.
God's Glory abounds!!!

 

[Wordgazer]

As someone who is pretty much a newcomer to Christian (Restoration) churches, all this seems pretty strange to me. I've been attending a Restoration church for about five years now. I was attracted to it because they said they had "no creed but Christ." I interpreted that as meaning that if I believed in Christ, Son of God, crucified for my sins and risen from the dead, and if I made Him my Lord and Savior, that was all that mattered. Isn't that true? Where the Bible is clear, it is intended to be followed exactly as it is clearly written. Where it is ambigous, we are allowed to read it as best we can and make our own decisions, because God desires us to love him with all our minds-- using our minds. We are to follow Him ourselves, not follow what someone else says is the right way to follow Him. And we are not to impose our ideas of how it is best for us to follow Him on others, as if we were all supposed to be exactly alike.

So if you don't feel you should worship with instruments, don't. And if you feel you should, do. And if you go to or visit a church where they don't use instruments, accept them as they are, and vice versa. "For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? . . . therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Cor. 29-31. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (and I submit that this might apply to using or not using instruments) avails anything, but a new creation." Gal. 6:15.

Hugs to all of you.

 

[JDIBe]

So if you don't feel you should worship with instruments, don't. And if you feel you should, do.

Wordgazer,

We don't and we do.

One on the wonderful things about being a part of the RM is the freedom and ability to reason together to attempt to find the truth of God's Word. Each individual is responsible for finding their own salvation. We do not leave such matters up to a governing body of people who "know better" and interpret the Bible for us.

If I disagree with you on a matter, I'm not going to lie to you and say that I don't. If someone here disagrees with me, they are not going to lie to me either. We do this because we are ALL interested in finding the truth. And most of all, we do this because we love each other and we want to see each other in Heaven. If we didn't care we would just let each other go their own way and not bother.

So although the discussion may get heated at times, the intent (for the most part ) is honorable and yes, necessary, however unpleasant it may be sometimes.

As for as matters of liberty go, sometimes one man's liberty is another man's article of faith. If everyone on the forum believed IM was simply a matter of liberty as you do, there would be no discussion. Some people here feel it is more than that.
When you read posts by people who have a problem with it, try to keep this thought in your heart as you read them. Try to be understanding of the intent even if you can't understand or agree with the content.

Welcome to the forum, BTW. Feel free to hang out and contribute more in the discussions. It's nice to have you aboard...

 

[Wordgazer]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, JDIBe.
I guess I have a misunderstanding of what the Restoration Movement is, then. I thought it was about liberty in every area except the fundamentals, the things the Bible makes absolutely clear. I need to sit back and learn more before spouting off, I guess. (grin)

I'd be interested in knowing what other areas you personally feel are not matters of liberty, but are things we all should be persuaded to believe in common? Or does this question also reflect my lack of understanding?

 

[JDIBe]

Wordgazer,

You are welcome to spout off as much as you want here. (We all do... ) Yes, one of the things that is important to RM people is liberty. The question sometimes however, is what is "fundamental".

Your question opens up a very large kettle of fish for me. It's kind of like saying, "Tell me your opinion on everything in the Bible.". If I attempt to answer, I would be typing and responding to other's objections in this thread from now until Christmas about both things I say and others I left out. This coupled with the fact that there are "grey areas" between "absolutely essential" and "absolutely non-essential". There are things that are "fundamental", some "extremely wise and expedient", some that are "expedient" some that are "nice" and some that are "six of one and half-dozen of the other".

However, lest you think I am dodging you question, (I suppose I am...) I think it is a fair one to ask. Give me some time to think about it. I will try to come up with something for you. I think that is a question that should be thought about hard before answering, anyway.

I will say this. I think the guiding principle for ANY CHRISTIAN not just for a person associated with the RM, is that if God tells you to do something, you do it! If God says this is the way it is, it is! I don't care how inconvenient it is. I don't care if it is against your sensibilities. (For if you only did the things that seem right to your sensibilities, why not eliminate the middle-man and worship yourself?) I don't want to stand before God on Judgement Day and say, "I know You told me to do this, but I know You will make an exception for me." He might, but then again He might not. I'd rather go and say, "I did the best I could to follow you. I know I fell short on many things because of both my weakness and my stupidity, but I know You promised to extend mercy to me." This guiding principle is, IMO, absolutely fundamental.

As for as what we should believe in common. I think we should believe ALL THINGS in common. (Rom. 15:6, II Cor. 13:11, Phi. 1:27, Phi. 2:2, I Pet. 3:8) I am realistic enough to know that probably won't happen. (Apparently, Paul was too...) But I have never known a family to solve it's problems simply by not speaking to each other for 20 years. I think unity of mind is an admirable goal even if it cannot be achieved perfectly.

 

[Wordgazer]

Heh, heh. I'm not even sure we can agree on this "being of one mind" thing that the Scripture references you gave speak of, JDIBe. I think it means that we are to set aside our differences in order to work together towards our common goal-- the glorification of Jesus Christ. But if God wanted us to agree on everything, why didn't He make the Bible a nice, clear rulebook rather than a mixture of history, poetry, prophecy, and theology? I think God did that because worshiping Him is ultimately not about rules, nor about everybody being and thinking alike, but a living relationship between unique individuals and a divine Person-- and with each other. We are to eat from the Tree of Life, not from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And while "Knowledge puffs up (1 Cor. 8:1)," Life is clearly a thing of myriad facets, each reflecting in a unique way the manifold (variegated or many-sided) wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10).

 

[Wordgazer]

. . . though I do agree with you on what I'd call the "Lordship principle" as being a fundamental one, JDIBe.

 

[JDIBe]

. . . though I do agree with you on what I'd call the "Lordship principle" as being a fundamental one, JDIBe.

"...And I said,
well that's
one thing we've got"

"Breakfast at Tiffany's"
Deep Blue Something

 

[- DRA -]

I've a question:

Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 both say sing in "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". Now, in Psalms 150, it speaks rather explicitly of praising God with instruments.

Put 2 and 2 together?

Okay, I believe that 2 and 2 equal 4. Agreed? Let's see ... "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful. Let him sing [2] psalms [2] (James 5:13 - NKJV)." Now, does 2 and 2 still equal 4?

 

[AJB4]

Okay, I believe that 2 and 2 equal 4. Agreed? Let's see ... "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful. Let him sing [2] psalms [2] (James 5:13 - NKJV)." Now, does 2 and 2 still equal 4?

We are told to sing the psalms. Psalms 150 speaks very explicitly about praising God with musical instruments. If musical instruments were not allowed, we would have to have been told somewhere to ignore that Psalm, and only use the other 149. I'm not aware of this happening anywhere. That, to me, indicates that they are allowed.

Of course, there's to consider that the early church using instruments was unheard of prior to the sixth century or so. That's to indicate that they're not a part of the tradition of the early church, though I would be lying if I said I was completely one-sided on the issue.

 

[- DRA -]

We are told to sing the psalms. Psalms 150 speaks very explicitly about praising God with musical instruments. If musical instruments were not allowed, we would have to have been told somewhere to ignore that Psalm, and only use the other 149. I'm not aware of this happening anywhere. That, to me, indicates that they are allowed.

Of course, there's to consider that the early church using instruments was unheard of prior to the sixth century or so. That's to indicate that they're not a part of the tradition of the early church, though I would be lying if I said I was completely one-sided on the issue.

In simple terms, "sing" is the verb. "Psalms" are to be sung. In Acts 13:33, Paul quoted from one. Nothing is inherent in the word or implied that Paul played. While it is true the Psalms were sometimes put to music (after all, they were written in Hebrew poetry), the context tells us what the done with the psalm. In essence, the New Testament shows us they were read, quoted, or sung. Nothing more.

So, if Psalms meant "play" or "sing and play," why did it take folks some 600 years to figure it out?

 

[AJB4]

In simple terms, "sing" is the verb. "Psalms" are to be sung. In Acts 13:33, Paul quoted from one. Nothing is inherent in the word or implied that Paul played. While it is true the Psalms were sometimes put to music (after all, they were written in Hebrew poetry), the context tells us what the done with the psalm. In essence, the New Testament shows us they were read, quoted, or sung. Nothing more.

So, if Psalms meant "play" or "sing and play," why did it take folks some 600 years to figure it out?

Fine, but in the next post I'll let Splayd do the talking.