Sunday Sermons

Instrumental Music Arguments - Part 2

Mark Dunagan
06/04/06 - Sunday Evening

Instrumental Music

Part 2

In this lesson we will continue looking at various arguments that some offer to prove that instrumental music in worship is authorized by the New Testament.

Circumstances

One argument that I recently heard was that the early Christians abstained from using instrumental music in worship, not because it was unscriptural, but because they were either being persecuted or were meeting in their homes.

· Yet meeting in a home would not prevent the use of instrumental music, for after all, a harp or lyre can easily fit through the front door.

· It is equally erroneous to argue that early Christians were only meeting in their homes. The Corinthians were not meeting in a home (1 Corinthians 11:22,34), and the Ephesians actually met in a school (Acts 19:9).

· Neither would persecution eliminate the use of instruments. A lyre could be taken into the catacombs or other secret places of worship, and even though Paul was persecuted, he still owned a number of possessions (2 Timothy 4:13). If persecuted Christians could carry around books and parchments, then certainly they could have carried instruments if such were commanded for worship.

· Notice that this argument contradicts the claim that the Greek term psallo inherently means to sing to the accompaniment of an instrument. If early Christians did not use the instrument, then it obviously was not commanded. Even persecuted Christians continued to assemble (Hebrews 10:24) because such was not optional, even during times of distress.

Only an aid?

The argument that the instrument only aids in the command to sing is actually a concession that the instrument is nowhere commanded and that the instrument does not inherently reside in the term psallo.

· “Usually both in argument and in practice the aid argument is abandoned. First, they usually argue it is contained, and therefore commanded, in psallo and in the command to sing psalms. Second, many people will not long regard it as an aid” (Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, James D. Bales, p. 255).

· The Bible teaches that for something to be an “aid” or “expedient”, it must first be authorized (1 Corinthians 6:12). Instrumental music is not authorized, rather, singing is authorized.

· An “aid” or “expedient” is a way of carrying out a command. Instrumental music is not needed to carry out the command to sing, it is something in addition to singing. “If I am commanded to walk, can I ride as an aid?” (Bales pp. 278-279).

· People tend to overlook the fact that the kind of music commanded is specific. When God specifically commanded singing, may we use another kind of music as an aid?

· When God commanded that the ark of the covenant be carried, moving it by placing it on a cart was not viewed by God as an “aid” (1 Chronicles 13:7-10; 15:2,12-13).

Intended as an aid, not but an aid in worship?

This argument basically says that if we use instrumental music—not as an act of worship, but as nothing more than something to enable us to keep the time and pitch, it is lawful. Yet this is exactly the argument that Catholicism makes to justify its use of incense, rituals, rosary beads and images. The cart used to transport the ark in the above passages was not an act of worship (no one worshiped the cart), it was something that simply enabled David to move the ark, yet it was condemned because God had been specific about how the ark was to be moved. In like manner, God has been specific about what type of music that He desires, and that music is singing.

The Bible does not say sing “only”?

First, neither does it say, “immerse only”, or “immerse believers only”. “A command authorizes only what it authorizes. Other things must be authorized by other commands. There are no commands to sprinkle infants or to use instrumental music” (Bales p. 330). In addition, in Ephesians 4:4-6, the term “only” is not attached to the “ones” of this section, yet that is the clear intent.

“We are not without errors?”

(Or, “two or more wrongs make a right”)

This argument claims that seeing that we are probably doing something sinful as a congregation, there should be no opposition to instrumental music in worship.

· Yet this would be teaching that the commission of one sin authorizes the commission of another sin, and what vague, unnamed sin is this we are guilty of?

· Jesus did not teach that we need to “look the other way” if we are sinning, but rather, to clean up our lives so we can correct others (Matthew 7:1-5).

· Such an argument would justify the church remaining silent on every unauthorized practice; this is something that God did not teach (Ephesians 5:11).

The Culture Argument

This is the idea that the early Christians did not use instrumental music in worship because it was associated with paganism, but since conditions have changed, instrumental music ought to be accepted in worship today.

· Nowhere does the Bible attach the use of instrumental music with paganism. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made such a connection.

· The reason that it was not used, is because Christians were commanded to sing and make melody in their hearts(Ephesians 5:19).

· William Woodson wrote, “It is crucially important to observe that although instrumental music of various types was readily available in contemporary society, no passage shows that the churches mentioned in the New Testament ever used instrumental music in worship. Did they not understand the true meaning of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms? Did they not understand the meaning of various words, such as psallo, etc., so often discussed pro and con in contemporary debates? Did they not know the Jewish practices, both in the temple and in the synagogues? Did they not know the mind of God? Most certainly, on all these questions and much more. Yet, there is not even a hint of the use of instrumental music in worship of these churches. If present appeals to the Old Testament, the Greek term psallo, the temple or synagogue practice, and so on, legitimately warrant such use, why did the apostles and brethren in the first century not so understand and incorporate instrumental music into the worship of these churches? Such facts are not lightly to be dismissed or forgotten” (The Spiritual Sword, January 1993, pp. 17-18). Please note that all the arguments that are being used today in the attempt to justify the instrument in worship were available to those who lived in the first century! These Christians knew that the Old Testament had endorsed the practice, the background of the Greek wordpsallo, and that the Revelation letter mentions instruments in heaven, yet the instrument was still rejected. Why? Because early Christians honored God’s will on the matter.

Church Buildings are not Authorized?

This is an attempt to muddy the water. When we point out that there is no authority for instrumental music in worship, a couple of arguments might come back: “Well neither is there authority for church buildings, pews, lights, and so on”. Of course, such an argument shows that the person making it is not concerned about abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). Christians do not argue that they can operate independent of God’s authority (Colossians 3:17). And a Christian would never argue that he or she does not need the authority from Scripture first before they act (1 Peter 4:11). By way of clarification, the authority for a place to meet is found in the command to assemble (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Congregational Singing is Not Authorized?

This is a similar attempt to argue that since one supposedly unauthorized practice authorizes another unauthorized practice, that is, “we are doing this without Bible authority we might as well do other things without Bible authority”. This is similar to arguing that the unauthorized practices of the denominations prevent God from condemning us for our sins.

· Congregational singing is clearly authorized in more than one passage (1 Corinthians 14:26; Hebrews 2:12).

· The command in Ephesians 5:19 cannot be fulfilled all by oneself, “speaking one to another”. This demands a situation in which we are with other Christians, the same is true of Colossians 3:16 “Teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”.

· Carefully observe that once a person starts justifying instrumental music on the basis of “your (supposedly) unauthorized practice allows my unauthorized practice), they have conceded that there is no command, example, or necessary inference available in any New Testament verse that would justify it. Thus, they have conceded that the term psallo has nothing to do with instrumental music.

“It is beautiful, edifying, uplifting, meaningful to so many people”

This argument forgets that the person that we need to please is God. If instrumental music was so essential for our own spiritual growth, they why did God not command it? If instrumental music was essential so certain people could use their talents in the worship service, then why did God specify singing? Every argument that claims that this practice is “so necessary” for everything from the use of my talent, to church growth, to individual spiritual growth, completely overlooks the fact that God who is the expert on all these things, far more than any group of men, opted for congregational singing instead. Let’s glorify Him in the way He has asked.

Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017