Welcome!

The Richland Hills church of Christ in Texas shocked our fellowship by announcing they were adding an instrumental service in the Spring of 2007. Even conservative strongholds like Freed-Hardeman University have held unity discussions with the instrumental Christian Church back in the Fall of 2006. It is time that all members of the churches of Christ reconsider the historical and biblical reasons for our position on a cappella music.

This site will provide you with a historical context and the biblical hermeneutics to understand the issues. Content was provided by Jack Bower (Elder) of the King of Prussia PA., church of Christ. We are a non-instrumental church of Christ. The study of this material has significantly increased our congregations desire to continue using exclusively a cappella music.

We suggest you read the sections in the order presented to the left. If you would like a full copy of the information presented on this site, please e-mail: jebower@eastern.edu

God bless.

Membership Survey

About two-thirds of the members of the King of Prussia church of Christ have a strong preference for an a cappella worship service. About one-third would leave the church if an instrument were added; but only 30% of those who object, do so for scriptural reasons. In other words, the doctrinal and theological arguments and counter arguments about the silence of the Scriptures, as presented in this study and many like it, don’t really matter to over 70% of the membership. The preference for a non-instrumental worship is an acquired taste, evidenced by a strong correlation to years of church attendance. As a fellowship we have learned to love harmony! There was no correlation to age or being raised in the North or South. Given the dangers of using instruments in worship, it is not a poor spiritual taste to acquire. We simply need to be scripturally honest in our explanation of the practice to both members and visitors so that we do not worship in vain and teach “but the rules of men,” if our goal is to worship in spirit and in truth.

One of the issues that received extensive coverage in this paper was using instrumental music as a test of fellowship. It would appear from the survey that the arguments in favor of using the instrument as a test of fellowship are not working. Among the church members surveyed only 18% said that it was an issue of fellowship. Dividing the movement over this issue may still get headlines in fellowship publications like the Harding Graduate Bulletin of January 1998, but the message is falling on deaf ears. As a people of the Spirit, we are shaped not by theories we carry in our minds but by the stirring of God’s Spirit in our hearts. Our hearts tell us that this is not a faith issue.

Our Musical Calling: “Sing to the Lord a new song for he has done marvelous things (Ps 98:1)

The admonition to sing a new song to the Lord has motivated both songwriter and instrument builder. God’s interest in new songs keeps music culturally dynamic, ever adapting and inspiring our creativity. The four-part harmony, for example, that we enjoy today was a 12th century addition. It is interesting to note how the vitality of music can be strongly correlated to a strong and active church. A musically dead church will also be spiritually dead. Conversely, a musically alive church will be spiritually alive. Gospel music has a purpose. It is an expressive voice proclaiming God’s word, a healing voice reconciling the sinner to the Savior, a community builder and a teacher that reminds us of God love.[1] We pray you have found our research beneficial.

---

[1] Corbitt, J. Nathan, The Sound of the Harvest...and the Beat of the Street: Music in the Kingdom, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998). (Page numbers are not available because this was taken from a pre-publication copy.) The book by Professor Corbitt of Eastern College is highly recommended reading for those interested in the power and scope of music in the kingdom of God.

The risks of using instruments in worship

Many of the great reformers like John Calvin and Alexander Campbell warned of the dangers of using instrumental music in worship.[1] “Yet we should be very careful that our ears be not more attentive to the melody than our minds to the spiritual meaning of the words.”[2] John Calvin’s concern is reflected in 1 Cor 14:15: “I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind.” The spiritual dangers of using instruments can be summarized in three arguments covered briefly at the beginning of this paper:

#1 The objective of worship is dialogue with God; to have a spiritual time of communication between God the Father and his children. We are to approach him with sincere hearts (Heb 10:22). Unfortunately, entertainment has become the worship goal for many faith groups. Concertizing is one of the major dangers of using instruments of any type in worship.[3] A common measure of entertainment is the clap test. If you feel the need to clap after the presentation is over, it was entertainment. The performing group, One Time Blind, for example, will ask the audience not to clap after each skit.

It is very interesting that musicians and pastors from other faith groups are quick to affirm that the musicians are in fact not performing.[4] They argue that playing an instrument in church is an act of service. Most strongly agree with the clap principle. Paul S. Jones is the organist and music director at Tenth Street Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. He has written an entire chapter (#4) in his book defending the use of instruments in worship. His position is as follows: “On the basis of Scripture, it appears that instruments can be employed in worship so long as they contribute appropriately and do not detract from the service and its purposes.” He acknowledges the same risks churches of Christ have with concertizing but believes the risks of a service becoming a performance is minimal.

The churches of Christ also do not have a chorus or solo performances for this reason. We don’t build elaborate sanctuaries or hang ornate paintings on the walls. We try to keep the focus entirely on God. The question is how can a church keep the use of instruments that accompany human singing from becoming a performance? The performance aspect probably cannot be totally eliminated; therefore, for the sake of the musician, it can be argued that they should not be used in worship. This is a much different argument than saying that it is a sin to sing a godly song on a guitar.[5]

#2 We are to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23ff; Phil 3:3; Heb 8:2).[6] Instruments have no spirit (1 Cor 14:7) and therefore cannot worship God. They can be extensions of ourselves but there is the ever-present danger that we think the instrument can do the praising for us. Alfred Edersheim, NT scholar and Messianic Jew, puts it, “Properly speaking, the real service of praise in the temple was only with the voice.”[7] It is so easy for a musician to get into the music and forget the purpose for which it is being played. The danger is that we sin by worshipping the music that God created instead of God himself (Rom 1:25). For the proper motives of the musician who loves to perform the song, instruments should be omitted from the service.

#3 We are a priesthood of believers (Heb 10:19). The churches of Christ do not have a clergy. We believe that we are all equal before God, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). God wants all of us to sing and be happy in our singing (Jas 5:13). Yet within the body there are special gifts and special callings. In the list of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12:8-11 or in the list of functions 1 Cor 12:28, musicians are not mentioned. Music, it seems, is to be everyone’s gift from God regardless of talent, and therefore, all of the voices should be heard. God is a wordy God and it is the fruit of our lips that God wants. There is the danger that the instrument will cover the voices and the words. This is historically the source of the strong opposition to the organ - it detracts from the human voices. Followers of John Calvin were so concerned that the organ would mask the human voices that they had the organs removed and burned. John Calvin was also opposed to having a choir for the same reason.[8] All the voices of the congregation are to be heard. Calvin believed that our songs are acts of prayer, something the entire congregation must do.

---

[1] F. LaGard Smith, The Cultural Church (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1992), 200-01. “Reformers like John Calvin, John Knox, Ulric Zwingle and Cotton Mather.” (Martin Luther was a notable exception.)

[2] Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, Westminster Press, 1975, page 895 (Book III, Chapter XX, #32, Church Singing).

[3] Andy T. Ritchie, Jr., Thou Shalt Worship the Lord Thy God (Austin, Tx.: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1969), 113.

[4] Jones, Paul. Singing and make music, Issues in church music today, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, N.J., 2006, page 18

[5] The performance aspect of worship cannot be totally eliminated. For example, this is precisely why churches hire interesting and exciting preachers – we do not want to be bored. We tend to seek those preachers who are most proficient at speaking, have good stage presence, and can use technology in creative ways. We are curious about such sure-fire rejection of this performance aspect in worship. It is best to humbly and honestly admit that it is a part of our worship. It is the degree to which it is present that becomes problematic.

[6] Fletcher has a narrative view of John 4:23 rather than a specific mode of worship interpretation. The passage in context is aimed at deconstructing worship wars not promoting them further.

[7] Edersheim, Temple, 50.

[8] Donald K. McKim, Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 308-09. Calvin’s views on the place of music in worship are stated in the prefaces to the 1542 and 1545 Psalters.

Instruments that accompany singing and those that replace it

“Pagan sacrificial music typically featured the frenzy-inducing sound of the loud double-reed instruments and the rhythms of orgiastic dancing. Words were superfluous. Temple music was different from pagan music in all these respects: words were primary to it, and they governed the rhythms; instrumental accompaniment was by stringed instruments that supported the monophonic vocal line…….never covering or distracting attention away from the words.”[1] It is critical to understand exactly what instrument was the primary source of the controversy. It was not stringed instruments like the harp that accompany human singing. It clearly and unequivocally was the organ, an instrument designed in 204 BC, in Alexandria for pagan worship that caused the conflict.[2] Even later during Christian times, “the organ came to be a symbol of strife among Disciples.”[3] The introduction of the organ in the church in the sixth century was also extremely controversial because it replaced human singing. It clearly had a different purpose than stringed instruments which aid human singing. After its introduction many religious leaders argued strongly against “the” instrument. Reference to the organ by church leaders like John Calvin can usually be differentiated by the word “the” before the word “instrument.”

---

[1] Stapert, Calvin R., A New Song for an Old World, Musical thought in the early church, Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2007, page 153.

[2] Wellesz, New Oxford History of Music, 408.

[3] Lester B. McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in Faith: A history of the Christian Church (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 244.

Worship in Heaven - Does God sing??

Does God sing? Zephaniah 3:17 says he does. There is only one NT passage that describes worship before the throne of God (Rev 5). In this one passage of a visual image of the kind of worship that obviously pleases God, the song leaders (elders) are holding harps: “Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, and they sang a new song” (Rev 5:8-9). Some of the description is symbolic and some of it is not. John explains the symbolism of the bowls of incense. He does not imply that the throne, the elders, or the harps are symbolic. In fact, what we have here on earth should only be a copy of the real worship in heaven (Heb 9:11ff). Some scholars argue that harps are authorized in heaven but not here on earth. One has to wonder about the supposed logic of God’s approval of harps in the OT, disapproval in the NT, but then approving of them again in heaven. Surely the God who is one (Deut 6:4; Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17) is consistent throughout Scripture regarding worship that is pleasing to him. Again, polemics have caused an unnecessary contrast between the OT and the NT.

Another way the “silence of the Scriptures” is presented as an argument against instruments is by asking for authority to use instruments: Show by the New Testament that the instrument is authorized in worship.[1] The above passages show authorization by both example in Rev 5 and by command in Eph 5 and Col 3. The point is that the use of instrumental music is not a sin and should not be thought of in that context. The critical issue is our attitude towards the music. Is it entertainment or authentic worship of God and his Son Jesus Christ?

---

[1] Lewis, Jack, A Cappella Worship in the Assembly, Harding Graduate School Bulletin, Jan. 1998. One could ask the very same question about the current four-part harmony in churches of Christ.

The use of the word "Psalm" in scripture

As previously mentioned, ado is the Greek word for singing without instruments and it is freely used with the verb form of the word psalm (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) in the writings of Paul. Again, there is virtually no historical evidence to suggest that the meaning of the word “psalm” changed from including instruments to being exclusively vocal singing by the time of Christ.[1]

Certainly God did not change and what pleases him in song did not change as the plan of salvation was revealed. Accompanied singing was not commanded in the Law of Moses or exclusively linked to temple worship. The coming of Christ did not terminate accompanied singing. Commentators in the past have often sought to distinguish sharply between worship under the Old Covenant and worship under the New Covenant, deciphering rules appropriate to each.[2] James Bales is a good example. In his book, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship (Searcy, Ark.: Resource Publications, 1987) he seeks to defeat all arguments that reference the NT use of the word psalms by linking it to the Law of Moses or to worship in the temple. He suggests that the word psalm does not mean the book of Psalms or specific psalms of David (p. 61). We reject this entirely. Given the high frequency of Psalms quotations in the NT, it is difficult to see how Bales comes to this conclusion except by a predisposed bias against the word psalm. No OT book is cited more often as a warrant for understanding the life of Jesus than the book of Psalms. Bales also argues that the meaning of the word psalm changed between the OT and the NT (p. 65) which we have previously critiqued and found lacking in substantive support.

There is a hint of the significance of music to the joy of the church in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15:25: “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.” Christ himself and others like Luke and Paul, continually make reference to the Psalms, David’s book of accompanied singing, without the need for clarification of the word:

Jesus (Luke 20:42): “David himself declares in the Book of Psalms . . .”

Jesus (Luke 24:44): “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

Luke (Acts 13:33, 35): “As it is written in the second Psalm . . . . So it is stated elsewhere” [Ps 2:7].

Paul (Eph 5:19): “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.”[3]

Paul (Col 3:16): “. . . as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs . . . .”

---

[1] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. by Arndt and Gingrich, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 891. Bauer quotes a non- Christian by the name of Lucian to prove that the meaning of psalms did not change by the time of Christ. Lucian says, “It is impossible to pipe without a pipe or to psallein without a lyre or to ride without a horse.” The translators of Bauer also mention Eric Werner as the leading writer on understanding the proper historical context for the church fathers’ opposition to instrumental music.

[2] This raises the thorny issue of the relationship of the OT to the NT. This is well beyond our current scope but suffice it to say that depending on one’s approach to Scripture (hermeneutic), one will either find continuity or discontinuity. We argue for more continuity on this music issue based on the nature of God which will be discussed below. There is nothing in the NT to suggest that every aspect of OT worship was canceled after the coming of Christ. The sacrificing of animals seems to be the main difference between OT and NT worship.

[3] Some scholars argue that Eph 5:19 is a Biblical mandate to sing the Psalms in worship. Jones, Paul S. Sing and Make Music, page 193. To Jones, singing the Psalms is “not an optional activity.”

The Problems of Trying to be a New Testament Church Musically

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.[1] 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.[2]

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.[3] 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.

---

[1] Here is a site that tries to duplicate the music used in scripture: http://www.cgmusic.com/library/musicofthebible.htm

[2] James William McKinnon, “The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1965). The entire dissertation is devoted to the condemnation of instruments by the church fathers.

[3] M. C. Kurfees, “Instrumental Music in the Worship or the Greek verb psallo, Philologically and historically examined.” The Gospel Advocate Co. 1922. also Firm Foundation, May 8, 1956.

The Pauline Principles of Music

The apostle Paul seems to take the opposite approach of the church fathers when he says to turn your pagan music over to God in Eph 5:18-19: “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” One of the best essays on the use of instruments by the Jews of the Diaspora and the early church is by Eric Werner, a lecturer on Jewish and Near Eastern Music at the Hebrew Union College.[1] Professor Werner, who is mentioned in the Bauer’s Lexicon, sets the problem in its proper historical context. The following is a summary of his six “Pauline Principles of Music:”

The Pauline Principles of Music

Paul’s reference to music is both inside and outside the worship assembly. (We are certain, however, that it is clearly a worship setting acceptable to God, from the pen of John in Rev 5, where the song leader is holding a harp.) Notice how Paul describes the use of psalms (accompanied singing) in the following passages. Certainly edification of the church is Paul’s main concern:

1. Use music to fill you with the Spirit of God (be filled with the Spirit) (Eph 5:18).

2. Let the music touch your heart (make music in your heart) not just your head

(Eph 5:19). Verse 19 also includes the root word ado which means to sing

without instruments.

3. Use music to build a sense of community (speak to one another with psalms)

(Eph 5:19).

4. Share your song in an orderly fashion to strengthen the church (for God is not a

God of disorder but of peace) (1 Cor 14:26).

5. Sing out of the gratitude in your hearts to God (Col 3:16).

6. Songs can teach and counsel one another (Col 3:16).

---

[1] Everett Ferguson, ed., Studies in Early Christianity, A Garland Series.

The association of instruments with pagan worship

This final section of OT perspectives on instruments is also an introduction to a problem that continued into NT times. Capturers like the Babylonians and Romans tolerated approved religions and persecuted the illegal ones. During the Babylonian captivity elaborate worship services without the support of the temple became impossible. The book of Daniel describes the various problems the Jews encountered worshipping in Babylon. The book of Daniel also prophesies about the coming of Alexander the Great (Dan 8:21). The conquest by Alexander brought Greek music into the culture of the Jews and because of the close association of instruments with pagan worship, the Jews began to exclude them in their worship.[1]

First century Christian worship was often in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:3) or in a synagogue (Acts 14:1) as a sect within Judaism.[2] They most likely worshipped in temple precincts with instrumental accompaniment. This is enough to raise a note of caution regarding the NT’s silence on musical instruments in worship. Alfred Edersheim describes the temple worship as including instrumental accompaniment. Concerning temple worship he writes, “The melody was simple, sweet, and sung in unison to the accompaniment of instrumental music.”[3] The synagogue is perhaps a different situation. The absence of musical accompaniment is a little more concrete. The synagogue service was more didactic. According to Edersheim, the synagogue service was intended primarily as instruction and teaching and there was no “service of praise” in the synagogue.[4] Christian worship in NT times followed the model of the synagogue more so than the temple.[5] Perhaps this is a stronger argument for a cappella music in the early church. Of course all of this applies only to the Jewish churches in the NT period. The Greek churches may have used instruments but there is no historical record to confirm or deny this assumption. What is agreed upon is that music “was more of a regular feature in Christian households than it was in formal worship.”[6] It is certainly dangerous to make an argument from silence, but basically, there is no mention of singing in the descriptions of early Christian worship.[7]

Several early church fathers, though not all, also had the same concern as the Babylonian Jews. Instruments had a strong association with the sinful activity of the world and therefore should be avoided.[8] The specific first century problem is that the Greeks used sensual musical orgies in worship to false gods. The fact that the first century Christians did not use instrumental music is a strong argument and sufficient reason for many members of the churches of Christ to oppose the use of instruments today. It is perhaps the most quoted of the arguments against instrumental music. But before accepting this argument a study of the words of the apostle Paul on the subject of music should first be considered.

---

[1] Egon Wellesz, ed., New Oxford History of Music, Vol. I: Ancient and Oriental Music (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1957), 300.

[2] Interestingly, the synagogue itself is never approved of or authorized in Scripture. Here is a concrete instance of Scripture’s “silence” which obviously did not “rule out” the use of the synagogue. Note again the inconsistency of this ruling in vs. ruling out hermeneutic.

[3] Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: its Ministry and Services (Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson, 1994), 51.

[4] For a good discussion of the synagogue worship service see Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life (Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson, 1994), 244-45. All of this is difficult to assess objectively given our lack of sources describing temple and synagogue worship, especially in NT times. The only available source is the Mishnah, a rabbinical codification of laws from the early third century. It may or may not accurately reflect temple and synagogue worship in the first century. The traditions reflected in the Mishnah are very old and probably go back to the first century (and beyond) but this is debatable.

[5] John Rogerson, Christopher Rowland, Barnabas Lindars, The Study and Use of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 233.

[6] Stapert, Calvin R., A New Song for an Old World, Musical thought in the early church, Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2007, page 153.

[7] We have a compete description of the Eucharist by Justin Martyr who died in AD 165 and there is no mention of singing .

[8] Howard D. McKinney, and W. R. Anderson, Music in History, the Evolution of an Art (N.Y.: American Book Co., 1949), 108-09.

Basic Types of Stringed Instruments

God sent Jacob and his sons to Egypt to save them from the Amorites, an extremely violent people of giant stature.[1] While in Egypt for 400 years (Acts. 7:5) they perfected their ability to make musical instruments. Both the lyre and the lute were modified during the Egyptian captivity.[2] Jewish culture incorporated these improved instruments while in Egypt and then their construction did not change significantly through the time of King David. The two basic types of stringed instruments are as follows:

Kinnor or lyre, mentioned forty-two times in the OT and is most famously known as the harp of King David.[3] It often had ten to twelve strings. The lyre was played by touching the strings that did not belong in the chord with one hand and then the other hand would strum or pick the open strings.

Nevel or lute, also translated as “harp,” is mentioned twenty-seven times in the Bible.[4] The lute had a body made of a gourd with a neck and four strings. A fifth and then a sixth string was added in the ninth century.[5] The six-string guitar is considered the direct descendant of the lute.[6] Over time the lute replaced the lyre as the harp of choice for the soloist.[7]

---

[1] Broderbund, “Amorites,” in Multimedia Life Application Bible, Tyndale Press, Parsons Technology, 1998.

[2] Claire C. J. Polin, Music of the Ancient Near East (N.Y.: Vantage Press, 1954), 55.

[3] Ibid., 67.

[4] Ibid., 69.

[5] Egon Wellesz, Ancient and Oriental Music (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1957), 446.

[6] Andrews, George, Musical Instruments (N.Y.: Irving Squire, 1908), 132.

[7] Wellesz, Ancient, 409. Wellesz states, “Based on a survey of the surviving illustrations, especially in Pompeli.”

Musical Insights from the book of Psalms

David defined worship to God by arranging to build his house and by writing much of God’s official songbook, the book of Psalms. Again, the word “psalm” means any type of accompanied singing.[1] Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says that “psalm” comes from the Greek word psalmos which means, “songs sung to a harp.”[2] This meaning continued into NT times to the extent that the word psalm was synonymous with singing, accompanied or not accompanied. Instruments were so pervasive as an accompaniment to singing that writers of the NT freely used psalms to describe “singing” (psallo) in worship to God without any effort at clarification of definition. Granted, there is a word for a cappella singing (ado) also used in the NT but it is used in connection with psallo (“psalm”) (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).[3] It is difficult to know for sure whether Paul uses these words to differentiate singing styles or whether they are used synonymously. Given the close proximity of the words in these contexts of Christian encouragement, they are best seen synonymously. It is helpful at this point to examine some OT psalms to understand their impact for Paul and the early church as well as the impact that music can have on our spiritual lives today.

Psalm 33:2: “Praise the Lord with the harp: make music to him on the

ten-stringed lyre. Sing to him a new song: play skillfully, and shout for joy.” It is important to play “skillfully” for the Lord. He wants our best when we play and sing for him!

Psalm 43:4: “I will praise you with the harp, O God my God.” The admonition to sing a “new” song inspired songwriters for the next two centuries and it is what gives music a dynamic quality. There are additional comments about this concept in a later section of this study.

Psalm 49:4: “I will turn my ear to a proverb: with the harp I will expound my riddle.” Notice that the harp is David’s method of composing and communicating his riddle. Like many musicians, David would not think of writing a song without using his harp. What musician would not sit at a piano or use a guitar to write a song? Instruments such as the harp are a normal part of the composition process and without them there would be a limited production of new songs. Almost all of the hymns we sing today were originally written by the great masters (who were not members of our movement) using instruments of music for the purpose of praising God with accompanied or non-accompanied singing.[4]

Psalms 57:7; 108: “I will sing and make music, awake my soul. Awake harp and lyre! I will awaken the dawn.” “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God: I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel, My lips will shout for joy when I sing praise to you, I whom you have redeemed.” It is amazing how instruments can awaken the soul. Music seems to touch the very fabric of our spiritual being. Instruments that accompany singing inspire us to shout praises of joy to the Lord (Pss 71:22; 81:2).

Psalm 92:3: “It is good to praise the Lord and make music to your name, O Most High, to proclaim your love in the morning and your faithfulness at night.” A songwriter once observed that you can fight the devil with a song. It is true that songs proclaim the gospel and remind us of what we know to be true. A sermon gets old very quickly, but a good song can last from generation to generation. The Alfred E. Brumley song “I’ll Fly Away” was written in 1932 and you can still hear it today on the radio. At the same time that we love and enjoy the old songs, there is clear admonition to write new songs.

Psalm 98:1: “Sing to the Lord a new song for he has done marvelous things . . . make music to the Lord with the harp and the sound of singing.” Sometimes it takes a new song to catch our attention and make us reconsider our commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We have the same exhortation in Revelation to sing a new song to the Lord (Rev 5:9). New acts of redemption call for new songs of praise.

Psalm 150:3-5: “Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and the flute, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals.” It is interesting that the conclusion and climax of the book of Psalms highlights the role of worship this way. The book of Psalms was considered the songbook of Israel as well as the early church. It would be odd for the worshipping church to sing these very psalms that mention instruments while at the same time teaching that they should be omitted from worship.

Clearly King David wrote many of the psalms. Some of the topical Bibles will even link specific psalms to events in David’s life such as 2 Sam 8:13-14 with Ps 60 or 2 Sam 12:13 with Ps 51.[5] The book of Psalms also contains songs written during the Babylon captivity like Ps 137. Once David defined the role of the harp in worship, the admonition to use it continued to be a part of the worship service in the temple and even after the temple was destroyed. Psalm 147:7: “Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving; make music to our God on the harp.” Verse two of this same Psalm refers to the “exiles of Israel.” This is significant because some scholars argue that harps were confined to temple worship and therefore God’s approval of the harp ceased when the temple was destroyed.

---

[1] Jay Green, The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek English Bible, 4th ed. Vol. 2, (Associated Publishers and Authors, 1976), William Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon), Hartman, Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (Louis, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963). There are endless lists of sources from both OT and NT periods that confirm the word psalm meant accompanied singing.

[2] Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Portland House, 1996.

[3] Ferguson, Everett, A Cappella Music (Abilene, Tx.: Biblical Research Press, 1972), 6.

[4] Smith, Brother, 110.

[5] The superscripts are not original to the psalms but have healthy traditions underlying them. They should not be used to dictate the meaning of the psalm but may help illuminate a potential meaning.

Harps and the Heart of God

The following presentation of evidence and reasoning will be true to our hermeneutic, examining first the OT passages and then the NT passages related to instrumental music. When reading the Scriptures, it is difficult to ignore the significance of harps to the heart of God. Of all the earthly treasures we presently enjoy from God, he chose the harp as the one precious gift we would carry beyond the grave. In heaven we are promised a white robe (Rev 7:9), an everlasting crown (1 Cor 9:25) and a harp (Rev 15:2): “Those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name, they held harps given them by God, and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb.”

We know that God gives good gifts to those he loves (Matt 7:11), but why would a stringed musical instrument be so important as an expression of God’s love for our victory over evil? The superficial answer is that God loves our praise and therefore the instrument is simply a vehicle of encouragement to produce accompanied singing. But God’s love for stringed instruments goes much deeper than just as an aid to singing praise.

The Impact of a Great Musician on the Heart of God

The history of the use of stringed instruments in worship provides an insight into God’s character and the importance of this gift. The harp did not become a part of the ministry of the temple worship until the time of David, the great musician[1](1 Chron 25ff). Instruments were common among God’s people. Jubal was “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen 4:21). We know that instruments were popular in celebrations such as the missed opportunity for a party recorded in Gen 31:27. Females seem to particularly favor percussion instruments like the tambourine, such as Aaron’s sister, with the praise recorded in Exod 15:20. King David had a special gift for playing the harp. David clearly proclaimed God’s love for accompanied singing throughout the book of Psalms, particularly with the strings of a harp. David became God’s benchmark for playing the harp (2 Ki 18:3).

David literally defined how God was worshipped in the temple by writing much of God’s songbook, the book of Psalms. But it is the very special and remarkable relationship of King David to the heart of God the Father that sealed God’s love for harps. Children often introduce activities into our lives that we accept and enjoy. Those activities then remind us of our children even when they are not present. So it is with the harp. It reminds God of the great king and of his eternal promise to David: “He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father and he will be my son . . . . My love will never be taken away from him . . . your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam 7:13-16).

This promise to David is so significant that prophets repeat it for generations to come (Isa 9:6-7) and, of course, it finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ. Playing the harp for God reminds him of King David, a favorite child “a man after His own heart” (1 Sam 13:14; Amos 6:5) and of his promise to David that one of his descendants would be on the throne forever. No wonder it is our heavenly gift for being people of justice (Amos 5:21-24) and for being victorious over evil (Rev 15:2).

---

[1] Marion Bauer and Ethel Peyser, How Music Grew from Prehistoric Times to the Present Day (N.Y.: Putnam’s Sons, 1925), 27-28. These two music historians suggest that Samuel built a school of prophecy and music which David attended.

Hermeneutics: Understanding Scriptures

How do churches of Christ understand Scripture? This is a question of hermeneutics - how we read, understand, and apply Scripture. The Restoration Movement quickly applied a hermeneutic of “command, example, and necessary inference.” This hermeneutic is not original to the Restoration Movement for it stems from the Westminster Confession of Faith, appealed to often by the Presbyterian-bred Thomas and Alexander Campbell.[1] Granted, this three-fold hermeneutic is not sanctioned by either the OT or the NT. It is an external method applied to the biblical text but has no scriptural authority in and of itself. This is humbling for we should keep in mind that all our interpretive “methods” are fallible at best. Again, we caution that it is appropriate to ask whether or not Scripture requires this three-fold hermeneutic. Is the first-century church to be “imitated” as some suggests by using this command, example, and necessary inference hermeneutic? This imitation idea comes from our overall approach to the NT but not the NT itself. Further, the language of “imitation” and “pattern” in the NT is always ethical and gospel-centered and not focused on ritual or external religious forms (1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 2 Tim 1:13).

Be that is it may, perhaps the most practically developed articulation of the three-fold hermeneutic within the a cappella churches of Christ is from F. LaGard Smith. Smith writes, “We try to imitate whatever practices we find in scripture in the form of either direct commands, biblical examples or any other necessary inferences which might flow there from. The idea has been that, if we faithfully pattern our Christian walk on biblical commands and examples, then we can be the same kind of Christians-worshipping God in the same way-as Jesus’ disciples in the first century” (italics added).[2] Granted, Scripture never requires this imitation hermeneutic; it is simply an external assumption imposed on the text in an effort to duplicate the first century church. At any rate, this particular hermeneutic uses the Scriptures to “rule in” certain practices of worship. Any practice not mentioned is by default “ruled out.” Most other faith groups use the Scriptures to “rule out” instead of “rule in.” In other words, for most faith groups any practice not prohibited in the Scriptures is acceptable. However, we do this just as often as other religious groups. We rule in things like full-time pulpit ministers, youth ministers, paying ministers from the church treasury, song books, song leaders, pitch pies, etc. It is impossible to be consistent with this ruling in vs. ruling out hermeneutic.

The churches of Christ try to look for biblical authority in any spiritual activity. Without biblical authority to justify a position, it then becomes an issue of faith. Therefore, some who believe that instrumental music is an issue of faith use a “silence of Scriptures” argument to defend this position. Many hold the position that since the NT does not provide a command, example, or necessary inference to permit the use of instrumental music in the worship assembly, it is therefore an issue of faith. The problem encountered by this position is the use of the word “psalm” in the NT. Any college-level dictionary will define “psalm” as “accompanied singing.” More importantly, Greek lexicons define psallo, the Greek word for “psalm,” in similar ways.[3] In order to support the exclusive a capella position, some insist that the word psalm changed meanings between the Old Testament (hereafter OT) and the NT. There is little concrete biblical support for this position. This argument does not arise from the biblical text itself but rather from a pre-understanding (bias) imposed on the text. At any rate, the argument is that a psalm in the OT was accompanied singing but it was exclusively a cappella singing in the NT.[4] Historically, the leading scholar in the churches of Christ who defends this position is Everett Ferguson, from Abilene Christian University.[5] But survey results indicate that the majority of the members of the churches of Christ do not understand this line of reasoning. They believe that instruments should not be used in the worship assembly for the reasons detailed in the beginning of this paper and they do not consider it an issue of faith. An analysis of this issue will consume the remainder of this study and focus on answering the critical question, from a biblical perspective, is the use of instrumental music in the worship context an issue of faith?

---

[1] WCF I.6

[2] F. LaGard Smith, The Cultural Church (Nashville: 21^st Century Christian, 1992), 15.

[3] William Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 486.

[4] Fletcher is more cautious regarding such generalizations. Perhaps the most that can be said for this view is that it is possible that the original meaning of psallo, accompanied singing, was expanded through the years to include non-accompanied singing. The term is inclusive not exclusive. The word ado remains the best exclusive option for a cappella singing in the NT. For a brief discussion see Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1096.

[5] His book A Capella Music, in the Public Worship of the Church, Publisher: ACU Press

· ISBN: 1-56794-217-2, is an excellent historical study of the overall issue. A more recent book by E. Claude Gardner entitled, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbols http://www.bible-infonet.org/merchant/merchant.ihtml?id=20&step=2 takes a similar approach.

The Restoration Movement and the Division over Instrumental Music

Churches of Christ are a part of the Stone Campbell Movement, which has a rich and colorful heritage beginning on the American frontier in the early 19^th century.[1] The Christians of the Stone-Campbell Movement have always been and continue to be people devoted to seeking and following the truth as revealed in God’s word. Early Restoration Movement leaders were intensely concerned that their worship was not simply rules taught by men. Thomas Campbell, one of the founding fathers of the Restoration, would not have broken with the Presbyterian Church if it had not been for their restrictive rules of communion.[2] As a body of believers, we take very seriously the admonition of the Lord in Isa 29:13-14 which warns ancient Israel of their tradition-laden worship. The Lord Jesus Christ also confirmed the danger of making human traditions a component of worship when he repeated this song of Isaiah: “Jesus replied, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . . Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules

taught by men.’” (Matt 15:3-9)

The intense concern to have a pure worship experience, which is in spirit and truth, divided the movement about sixty years after it began.[3] The causes of the division, according to most movement historians, were instrumental music in the worship assembly and the use of missionary societies. For those congregations who broke away from the main body by insisting on exclusively a cappella singing, this became an issue of faith used to decide who is or is not a brother or sister in Christ. These two groups are currently known as the churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ or Christian Church. However, not every church changed its name along the same lines of fellowship and as a result, today there are both instrumental and noninstrumental churches of Christ. One hundred and thirty years later the movement is still divided over this issue but there is no longer agreement that this is an issue of faith. Discussion between the two perspectives continues through two journals, Stone-Campbell Journal http://www.stone-campbelljournal.com and Restoration Quarterly http://www.rq.acu.edu/default.htm.[4] Each journal publishes articles covering many topics from both perspectives and are written by and directed to scholars at colleges and universities within the movement.[5] Both journals are of excellent quality and are highly recommended reading materials.

Disagreement over doctrinal issues is not uncommon for Christianity in general and was equally not uncommon in the history of the churches of Christ. When the movement began the expression “Christians only, but not the only Christians” was commonly used to reflect the wide range of beliefs among various Christian groups. However, as mentioned earlier, there is no central office or earthly authority for the movement to restore “New Testament Christianity,” which is its intended goal. The Bible is the only authority and is, of course, subject to various interpretations.[6]

We know that the Lord hates seven things, one of them being “a man who stirs up dissension among brothers” (Prov 6:16ff). The portion of the movement that made instrumental music an issue of faith instead of opinion was largely the a cappella churches of Christ. Members of the churches of Christ caused the dissension and therefore carry the greater burden of proof in this matter. There are a significant number of members in the churches of Christ today that are convinced that instrumental music and missionary societies are matters of faith and therefore sin before God. The majority of members do not hold this view but still insist on not using instrumental music for the reasons given in the first section of this article.[7] There is currently a wide range of issues often discussed in churches of Christ as “tests of fellowship.” F. Lagard Smith’s book entitled, Who is My Brother? addresses many of the major issues.[8]

The critical question is how did instrumental music become a test of fellowship? After all, it is not a test of fellowship in the NT.[9] In fact, there are only three tests of fellowship in the NT: 1) Fundamental error about the work of Christ (Galatians) or the nature of Christ (1 John 2:18-23; 2 John 7), 2) Unrepentant immorality (1 Cor 5:1-11) and 3) Causing division among believers (Titus 3:10-11; 3 John 9-10). It is unfortunate that we divided over worship styles and rituals; something the NT never advocates or authorizes. But be that as it may, the division in the Stone-Campbell movement occurred during and immediately after the Civil War. Other religious groups also divided during the war over doctrinal issues such as missionary societies. The Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist fellowships each split so that brothers and sisters in Christ would not fight against other brothers and sisters in Christ during the war.[10] The Civil War was a potential source of division between all Christians. The churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ were no different. We divided over the issues of instrumental music as well as the role of missionary societies.[11] Actually, it was the northern-based missionary societies in 1861 that provoked the conflict within the movement by endorsing the anti-slavery Union position during a meeting when most of the southern members were absent.[12] There seemed to have been a propensity for division leading up to the Civil War and the War was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Those opposed to the instruments defended the slaveholder’s position. Division was in the air. To quote a church historian; “If the Disciples had not disagreed over instrumental music and missionary societies, they would have divided over something else.”[13] The question then remains, were these two issues of faith developed as a cover to disguise the slavery issue or would the movement have divided in time over the same issues? There is no agreement from restoration historians about this question.

---

[1] For a very readable version of the history of churches of Christ, see Gary Holloway and Doug Foster, Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ, (Abilene, Tx.: A.C.U. Press, 2001).

[2] B.J. Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1969), 14-15.

[3] Ibid., 57. Sixty years uses the date of the “Declaration and Address,” September 7, 1807 and the ten years of division, 1866 – 1875.

[4] Stone-Campbell Journal, St.Louis Christian College, Florissant, MO, 63033, published semi-annual at a cost of $15.00/yr. and the Restoration Quarterly, Abilene TX, 79699-8227, published quarterly at a cost of $15.00/yr.

[5] The purpose of the two journals is “to provide a scholarly platform for biblical interpretation, history, theology, philosophy, apologetics, and cultural criticism for those who value the perspective of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and who endeavor to advance its distinctive principles today.” See web sites listed above.

[6] A track entitled “What is the Church of Christ?” by Joe Barnett addresses this issue in a succinct manner.

[7] When surveyed in 1999 18% of the members of the King of Prussia church of Christ believe that instrumental music is an issue of faith. Over 70% said they would leave the church is the instrument was used.

[8] F. LaGard Smith, Who is My Brother? (Nashville: 21^st Century Christian, 2003).

[9] Daniel Fletcher notes that there are only 3 tests of fellowship in the NT: 1) Fundamental error about Christ (Galatians, 1 John 2:18-23; 2 John 7), 2) Unrepentant immorality (1 Cor 5:1-11) and 3) Causing division among believers (Titus 3:10-11; 3 John 9-10). It is unfortunate that we divided over worship styles and rituals; something the NT never advocates. Fellowship is always ethical in the NT.

[10] Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1981), 521.

[11] Joe D. Gray, in Unity in the Midst of Slavery and War (Choate Pub., 1983) disagrees with this position, but “the statistical evidence is overpowering: two-thirds of the members of Churches of Christ in the 1906 census were in the eleven Confederate States.” Ibid., 522.

[12] Ibid., 505.

[13] David Harrell, “The Sectional Origins of the Churches of Christ,” Journal of Southern History (1964): 262.