Members of churches of Christ sometimes use the expression “We are a new testament church” meaning we attempt to follow the doctrinal teachings at the time the church was formed in the first century. Some Christians would even like to worship the way the apostles worshipped, but most members do not speak or sing in Greek and Hebrew. We cannot duplicate the musical worship of the first century church, nor are we commanded to sing as they did. They used an eight-note scale and we use a twelve-note scale. It is unrealistic to think that singing in the first century was the only singing acceptable to God. Music theory has advanced over time and so has our singing. The admonition to sing a “new song” in Psalm 149:1 would support the progressive nature of music in worship. To properly understand the doctrinal position of the early church, most scholars turn to the writings of the early church fathers. Several of them condemned the use of instruments in the same manner that Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 condemned the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
Obviously Paul thought that food sacrificed to idols was enough of a problem that he addressed it in his letter to the Corinthians. To our knowledge Paul did not place the association of instruments with pagan worship in the same category as food sacrificed to idols. For example, Paul uses instruments as an illustration in 1 Corinthians 14:7 to make a point about speaking in tongues but does not make any negative association with the flute or harp: “Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there a distinction in the notes?” The church fathers had a problem of the close association with instruments and paganism but Paul clearly did not. Should this problem of association be of concern to us today? Possibly yes, given our culture’s musical preferences. But those wanting to be “New Testament” Christians should be more concerned to promote the observance of foot washing, head coverings, fasting, or eating meat than in the use of instruments. Paul repeatedly used the word psalm or accompanied singing to describe singing without any effort at clarification. To Paul’s readers, instrumental accompaniment was proper and acceptable to the extent that psalm was synonymous with singing. It simply was not an issue Paul needed to address.
One of the most complete and noteworthy studies on the use of the word psalm(s) in the NT was by Tom Burgess. His book entitled, Documents on Instrumental Music was printed in 1966. Mr. Burgess contacted the following sources to inquire about the meaning of the word “psalm.” Specifically, he asked “for any evidence to suggest that the word psalm(s) in English was ever intended to exclude the idea of instrumental accompaniment”:
#1. Eight English dictionaries said “no evidence.”
#2. Nine Greek lexicons said it was “to sing to musical accompaniment” or “to
sing with or without accompaniment.” None of the lexicons excluded the
instrument nor did any of the following:
#3. Thirty commentators, encyclopedists, grammarians agreed with the
lexicons.
#4. Ten professors of the Greek language.
#5. Nine translators.
#6. Eleven early ecclesiastical and contemporaneous writings.
The independent evidence is overwhelming. Seventy-seven independent sources confirm that the word “psalm” never excluded instrumental accompaniment to singing. The scholars who disagreed with all of the other sources regarding the meaning of the word “psalm” were mostly from the a cappella churches of Christ. One has to wonder if their perspective is more polemical than not considering the evidence against them. In the last chapter of the book by Mr. Burgess, in the very last paragraph, he pleads with members of the churches of Christ to stop “raising unnecessary barriers” that divide the church.
