In a recent article, I discussed the decision of the leaders of Quail Springs church of Christ in Oklahoma City to add an instrumental service to their worship. A few readers responded to my article with the idea that those who opposed the Quail Springs decision are being “comdemning” and “judgmental.”
As a response, I asked the question, “How dark does darkness have to get before we oppose it?” I cited Paul’s admonition to the Ephesians:
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
A couple of readers commented, in effect asking the question, “How can instrumental music be darkness?”
Since instrumental music is admittedly absent from the New Testament (both sides of the issue seem to agree on this), the burden of proof seems to lie on the side of the instrumentalist to show why it would be acceptable to God.
As for my understanding, Paul says that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Since faith comes by the word of God (Rom. 10:17) and instrumental music is not commanded in the New Testament, it would seem that instrumental music is, at best, not of faith.
Since many go to the Old Testament for justification for the practice of using instrumental music, it might also be noted that Paul said:
Gal 3:12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “THE MAN WHO DOES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
If instrumentalists use the Old Testament as a standard, they put themselves into the postion of obeying the whole law.
So, whether one inquires of the Old Testament or New, instrumental music does not seem to be “of faith” according to the scriptures.
Therefore teaching others to use the instrument when the New Testament–the rule of faith for the Christian–includes no mention of their use by Christians is to digress from the teachings of Christ.
Those who oppose the use the instrument are not just scholars of the church of Christ. Pick up a copy of the book, “Old Light on New Worship” by John Price, a scholar of the Christian Reformed denomination. He does a good job of investigating the issue.
As always, thank you for your comments, and for reading.
by ollie
13 Feb 2008 at 08:09
Thanks Matt,
It is easy to see that one could be a professing Christian without ever knowing or practicing all these doctrinal details of faith. I have to wonder where that would put that one on judgement day? Such is a scary thought.
Can one be a believer in the Christ, be baptized into Him and still be saved if ignorant of these doctrinal details and not yet finding knowledge of them before He returns?
Thanks again,
ollie
by Matt Clifton
13 Feb 2008 at 08:55
Ollie,
Good question. I think it all comes down to the idea of living a life of repentance, and being submissive to God.
The sort of person you are talking about (one who has learned the biblical way of salvation, but perhaps has not advanced far in doctrine) is still a Christian, of course. We can look to the example of Acts 2 and Peter’s sermon to the Jews. There was not much teaching about the specific worship of the church there, but they were required to believe on Jesus as the Christ, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This was done publicly, so it was an open confession of Christ. Those who heard the word and obeyed were added to the church by Christ Himself (Acts 2:47).
They were at that point Christians. If they died right on the spot afterward, I’m sure they were heaven-bound.
When one obeys the gospel, frequently that person does not understand completely all things about the church. Yet, I don’t think we can say they are going to be lost because they do not know perfectly about doctrines of the church.
Peter tells us, though, that we have to be growing and learning (2 Peter 1:5-11), and Paul told Timothy to “study to show thyself approved” (2 Tim. 2:15).
In the case of those who have learned the truth, though, and stray from it, there is extreme spiritual danger involved. That is why we hate to see brethren fall away from the doctrine of the church. Our love for them compels us to express our concern for their practices.
God bless you in your studies, Ollie. Thanks for your questions, they cause me to think and study more also. We all need that!
by ollie
15 Feb 2008 at 06:29
Matt,
Thanks for your reply and encouragement. I am learning and working to grow in the Lord. I pray I can learn and share in His love and that we all can in Him.
ollie
by Brenda
11 Apr 2009 at 06:27
I have been prayerfully considering this issue for years now. I decided to look into the original languages of the day and determine just what was really said about the church’s worship of God. You know, I was shocked and deeply grieved when I read for the first time the original Greek texts (as we have them today). All of my religious life (I was first baptized at 7 years old and again at 16, having been birthed on a pew), that psallo meant to sing without musical instruments. That was the arguement I used when trying to convience all of my “erring brothers and sisters”. However, as I look into the evidence, I find that I was wrong. (That thought still makes me nauseated.) I was wrong, all these years, to simply believe what I was told by those whom I trusted. We have to search for truth, seek it diligently, and when we find it, hold onto it tightly. What did I find? I found that the error lies in the translation of the text, not in the interpretation of the text. As I searched for the truth, I found that there was more than one Greek word that was translated “sing” in the English translations. Psallo is the one we most identify. However, the original text also used “ado” in Revelation, and “humneo” in Hebrews. “Psallo”, to many Greek scholars, meant “to twitch or to twang, to play on a stringed instrument”. But what of the other words which were interpreted “to sing”? A question must be answered. If all these different words meant the same thing, then why use them? Why not just use Psallo? Could it be that they did mean to sing, but each to sing in a different way? Much the same way we now understand our “love” and their Greek “agage”, “philo”, and “ero”? All meant to love, but in a different way. If psallo means to sing only, then the verse, we all love to quote from Ephesians would read: “sing and…sing…” Does that make sense? I realize that the teachers who hold to the belief of not using instrument in worship respond that “we are to stroke the strings of our heart.” But does the Bible say that? Are we adding to the Word in order to defend our position? The actual text says: “singing and PSALLO to the heart (“ho kardia”—to the heart)”. We are not singing WITH THE HEART as the the instrument, we are singing and making melody TO THE HEART as the recepient of our encouragement. We have all used this verse erronously at times. In context, Paul was telling them to “speak to YOURSELVES, in songs and hymns, singing and making melody TO THE HEART.” Haven’t we all be encouraged by songs of praise? Yes, even those where musical instruments are used. I realize through studying the original language, that I have been wrong. Wrong for simply believing what I have been taught. Wrong for judging brothers and sisters who beleived differently. Wrong for not searching for the truth for myself. I repent. Thank God that He is indeed gracious to us all.
by Matt Clifton
16 Apr 2009 at 10:54
Brenda,
I greatly appreciate your posting your thoughts. And while there is much in your post to which I could respond, I will only reply to a few of your main points, and give you some links to articles to consider on the rest.
As you know, language is a fluid thing. We have words that we use in English today, that once carried a different meaning even 50 years ago. For instance, we do not use the term “ga*y” for a state of happiness anymore, because the meaning has changed to include other meanings. So even over relatively few years, language and meaning can change drastically.
It was once the case that psallo meant “to pluck an instrument.” That was before NT times. According to BDAG, the OT usage of psallo could mean to sing with or without instrumental accompaniment. This is ascertained by noting the OT translation in Greek (the Septuagint). In modern Greek, psallo means to sing only, no accompaniment. So you see, there was a transition in the word. It once meant to pluck an instrument, began a transition to singing with or without instrumental accompaniment, and finally ended up meaning “sing” only in modern Greek. Because of this fluctuating use of the word, context is important.
One thing is clear, though. We cannot say that psallo in the NT means to sing with accompaniment. This argument has been tested and failed many times. There is just no way to place such a definite meaning on the word.
The use of different Greek words to mean “sing” is not an error in translation. For instance, if I write an article about running, I might use the word “jog,” “sprint,” or “run” to denote the action of running. There is no error, they are just different terms. Could it be that sing “in a different way” was meant? Possibly, but not necessarily.
First of all, there is no translation of the scriptures that give the reading of “to the heart” that you suggest. Whether based on the critical text, majority text, or Textus Receptus, this passage has never been translated “to the heart.” Either “with your heart” or “in your heart” are the translations given. Now, either you know more than all the Greek scholars in the world, or their translation is appropriate. The Majority Text has “?? ?? ??????,” while the Aland’s critical text has, “?? ??????.” Neither of these readings been translated in the way you suggest.
Now, whether you believe you have been wrong or not is beside the question. You cannot base your “wrongness” on the arguments you put forth, you will have to go with something else.
Brenda, I don’t have much on musical instruments on the site here. But here are a few good articles from foracapella.org:
http://www.foracapella.org/acappellaarticles/index.php
And here are some from Wayne Jackson:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/404-do-the-psalms-authorize-instrumental-music-in-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/615-what-about-mechanical-instruments-of-music-in-christian-worship
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/128-the-silence-of-the-scriptures-permissive-or-prohibitive
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/286-the-divine-pattern-of-acceptable-worship-part-1
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/829-psallo-and-the-instrumental-music-controversy
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/752-responding-to-critics-on-the-instrumental-music-issue
Here is a review of a book written by a denominational fellow about IM. This review is by Denny Petrillo:
http://www.christianchronicle.org/article779~Debate_over_church_music_is_nothing_new,_authors_write
Any of these are good sources on the IM question. I would also be glad to study it out with you, time permitting.
As something to ponder, I would have to ask you this: since history shows the early church never used instruments, and the Bible does not speak of the church using them in worship, why would you want to use them?
It is clear God did not desire their use, or He would have said to use them. Since we cannot say using instruments in worship is for God, who are they for?
You cannot say “for God.” There is only one other possibility…
God bless you,
Matt