Inorganic Music
Once again, there were classes at Pepperdine (as there have been at ACU and Tulsa earlier this year) on the need for greater fellowship between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ — again taught by Bob Russell and Rick Atchley. Of course, this is just a beginning. A small beginning. But, it is an important beginning. (At least it’s a beginning in some places. Many of you are in places where you already realize that anyone who is a Christ-follower is WITH you not AGAINST you!)
So here’s my take on instrumental music: God doesn’t much care. Most of the old arguments were lame, built on shoddy hermeneutics.
Nevertheless, those in the a cappella tradition don’t need to be ashamed of it. There is a rich tradition in the church that runs through the centuries of singing without instruments. Even today, when people enter our churches, they are dumbfounded to hear people singing — full voice, four-part harmony.
That doesn’t mean it’s the only way, or that it’s God’s way. Sure, I could be blessed by being in a church with Chris Tomlin leading worship.
But I’m not. I’m in a congregation with a heritage of being a cappella. That doesn’t mark us as being the REAL people of God or as being RIGHT. But it is a rich heritage that can be, if continued in love and humility, a gift to Christian community, reminding us that worship is a place of full participation where we all offer ourselves again to God, seeking to be reshaped by him to live for the sake of the world.
So God bless the drums/guitars/saxophones that are played for the glory of God. And God bless the pitch pipes and the tuning forks that find a pitch so that others can sing without instruments.
Preserving this a cappella heritage isn’t nearly as important to me as it is to others. It’s nothing I’m going to fight a younger generation on. If they decide to set it aside for the sake of the mission, I’ll be with them. (Sad, perhaps, but still with them.)
But in the meantime, I want to participate at the top of my lungs; I want to remind others that such singing is a blessing; and I want to share with others a growing appreciation for the many different looks of the universal church that lives for Christ.
P.s
frist sentence of third paragraph above should read “one the subject of church buildings”
Homes are expedient to assemble.
20 homes in one community with 15 assembling is 300 members with no waste of the Lord’s money.
1.5 million dollar buildings are in and of themselves ridiculous, forget the hermeneutic.
What on earth are we thinking?
The Lord’s money was NEVER authorized in such a wasteful manner.
The Only monies ever collected from Christians were to share with the NEEDY! Even at that it was a ONE TIME collection! It was not an on going event.
The only exceptions to sharing with the NEEDY is to AIDE elders that are gifted in teaching and to aide missionary preachers who were not gifted making tents to “GO” and take the Gospel to those that knew not of the Christ.
Our hermeneutic isn’t bad, our Hermeneutic is a JOKE.
“IF” we followed it consistently we would STILL be meeting in our homes.
We would be dialoging and teaching “one another” just as 1 Corinthians 14:26 ff so obviously shows, and not the fabricated misleading Acts 20:7. Come on my scholarly brethren we aren’t idiots, then again maybe we are, if we continue to buy this bill of goods.
We so badly want to justify our inherited Catholic/Orthodox PAID Clergy/Pulpit preachers we have “deliberately” and with cold blatant disregard for the word of God ignored the truth as we wink at the very scripture we boast we follow!
We can fool ALL of the members some of the time and some, all the time, but I promise and I predict this will be the unraveling of “our” movement.
We are so inconsistent in our ethics we are rapidly losing our respect even amongst our very own membership.
The Internet as we speak is reporting and exposing our blatant past and present dishonesty with the word of God.
Our smoke screen is the instrument. Our whipping boy is the instrument. Our inconsistency will wind up making our scholars the whipping boy if they do not soon have the courage to stand and tell the truth..
Want to restore something?
How about loyalty to Jesus and not
churches……..or any church, just Jesus.
How does a family driving down the road reading church sign after
church sign from one coast to the other decide which sign or behind
which door are true disciples of the Christ?
Religious Russian roulette is the game we play.
Jesus prayed for Unity of ALL believers!
Do we continue to ignore that prayer, that heart wrenching prayer
or do we go along with the Christianity by “signs out front”?
What do we do differently from any other group?
I believe what we need to be doing differently is PROMOTING UNITY of
all followers. Who else does that? What other group teaches that?
All groups teach division, even churches of Christ.
Lets try what Jesus asked us to do for a while?
Unite all followers. Push those dumb signs down and UNITE firmly
behind Jesus the Christ.
Then when we are UNITED we can all begin afresh doing what scripture
teaches.
Ephesians 4 that I posted earlier!
Ephesians 4
Unity in the Body of Christ
1 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy
of the calling you have received.
2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one
another in love.
3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond
of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one
hope when you were called—
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in
all.
Promote all churches of all denominations to push those dumb divisive
signs down and Unite as the body of Christ and not as divisive
sectarian groups!
Look at what Paul taught to the church at Corinth:
This is the VERY beginning odf what we see today with all of our
divisive signs out front. Paul wrote this letter just in time for him
to stop their UPS shipment of their signs.
The church of “Paul”
The church of “Apollos”
The church of “Cephas”
The church of “Christ”
Notice if you will he “corrects: everyone of them! Even those that
were doing EXACTLY what we did! Do not be divisive by putting up your
church sign……….church of “CHRIST” That is being devisive is
EXACTLY what Paul was telling them all.
10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no
divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and
thought.
11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that
there are quarrels among you.
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I
follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]“; still another, “I
follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized
into[b] the name of Paul?
14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and
Gaius,
15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I
don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—
not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied
of its power.
Now LOOK at what He said about Baptism as well.
Why didn’t Paul command those confused over Baptism to be re-Baptized?
That’s exactly what we would have told them!
He is telling them NOT to be squabbling over each others Baptism!
LOOK at what we are doing in churches of Christ?
Squabbling over Baptism.
LOOK at what Paul says about Baptism which confirms his attitude in
this text:
Ephesians 4 “There is only one Lord, One Faith and One Baptism!”
HELLO !!!!!!! How can even the simplist mind misunderstand what Paul is teaching?
Why do we blatantly ignore his CALL FOR UNITY of the Spirit?
Baptism Unites all followers of the Christ!
Baptism is not to be used as a tool to divide God’s children!
Baotism Instrumental music ir anything else!
Followers of the Christ are more mature than that!
We must STAND up and lead God’s people again!
All the lyrics you want at http://www.lyricshunt.com
We are c of c folks who have attended various instrumental churches, mostly independent Christian Churches one or two years at a time. Here are some comments about what we experienced over the years.
We loved the people and the fellowship, but the loud music drove us crazy especially when there were drums and electric guitars. I did not like not being able to hear myself or even my neighbor sing. Also my children could not hear me sing. I learned to sing parts by sitting next to my mother as she sang alto. No way my daughter could hear my alto and try to follow my voice.
God said to sing to one another, but if I can’t hear my brother or sister’s voice when it is drowned out by instruments, what’s the use.
Another interesting phenomena in the instrumental churches is that they seem to rely on instruments or they won’t sing. For example, our group was once at a camp- out around the fire. They would not sing any songs because no one was available to play the guitar. A group of C of C’ers would have been able to sing several songs, no problem. I was dying to start singing “It Only Takes a Spark to get a Fire Going” but I knew it would feel too odd for them. So I kept quiet and had one of those quiet moments where I felt very proud of my acapella heritage. Also when my son was baptized on a week night, the group who came to be a part to the service did not have any thoughts of singing before or after. During spontaneous events like this when they do not have time to practice songs (and the instruments) before hand, singing just does not happen. I asked them to sing from the song book, a few songs, but it was strained, and none of them knew how to sing parts.
I was surprised to learn how very distracted our family was when music was playing during some of the prayers, communion, and some of the times the minister was talking. I do not see a need for music then, but I guess they think it makes the prayer or talk more “spiritual”.
It’s tough for every body to sing the melody while the instruments play the harmony. Males usually must melody an octave lower. My daughters sing alto, but with words on the wall and no music to follow, they must strain to sing the melody which is too high for her to sing. Makes my kids not enjoy the singing as well. Usually with c of c churches the music is available to sing from.
Another point is that the loud instruments do not attract the elderly and I appreciate a chuch that has all age groups. My children need the older women and men as substitute grandparents, since ours do not live in the same town. Many of the elderly have hearing aids and can not here the speaking and singing if instruments are blasting away.
I feel sorry for the babies and young toddlers that are loosing their hearing and getting irritable because of the loud music. I have seen several holding their ears….one who’s mom was up on stage banging on the electric keyboard. I felt like telling her to please look at her little daughter.
The musicians on stage are not doing any singing usually. They are missing out on what God tells us to do.
With instrumental praise teams, I found that unless you had musical talent you were never asked to participate on the worship team. No elderly men leading prayers, no young men reading scripture. I missed that.
I really feel stongly that our children should be exposed to the classic hymns for their rich lyrics and edification. Take Time to Be Holy , Trust and Obey and similar songs are rarely, if ever sung because there was not beat for the drummer to beat.
Seems like the kids do not take the instrumental songs with them when they leave church. If the particular tune needs an instrument to make the song sound right the a kid is not going to be singing it without the instrument. I like my children to learn songs well enough to be able to sing them during the week, working in the yard, taking a shower, riding in the car. Non-instrumental songs lend themselves to leaving the church building.
I do not have a scriptural reason for no instruments, but I strongly suggest before a congregation go “instrumental” that it consider many of the consequences. Keep the acapella going strong. You can visit a Christian Church for your instrument “fix”.
We love our Christian Church bretheren, but we feel it’s best to have our children growing up in an acapella congregation. It’s best for us parents also.
NOWWWW I liked that response!
Is there anything wrong with just doing what God said to do, and when He is specific in how to do it (like “sing”) to just do it His way? Why do people continue to demand instruments and divide those who would otherwise be united?
Shouting Above the Silence
Reflective Review & Rebuttal of The
Spiritual Sword’s Stand on Silence
From 1769 to 1771 an unknown writer, using the pseudonym Junius, sent a number of letters to the London, England Public Advertiser. The identity of this writer remains a mystery, though many have speculated — Sir Philip Francis, Lord Shelburne, Lord George Sackville, and Lord Temple all being suggested. The insights of this individual into the ills of his own society are phenomenal. Of particular interest, within the context of this current issue of Reflections, is the following excerpt from a letter penned by Junius which appeared in the November 14, 1770 edition of the Public Advertiser — “An honest man, like the true religion, appeals to the understanding. … The imposter employs force instead of argument, imposes silence where he cannot convince, and propagates his character by the sword.”
The mysterious Junius, from out of the distant past, and from a different continent, speaks to the source of many of the besetting ills of our societies today, both secular and spiritual. Where honest hearts prevail, greater understanding among men of diverse perspectives is promoted. However, when one’s whims are promoted by force and imposed with little more to commend them than what isn’t decreed, then chaos and schism quickly reign supreme. One of the most tedious tenets of the humanly devised CENI (command, example, necessary inference) hermeneutic is this so-called “law of silence,” which in reality is little more than a tool for exclusion of all that differs (and all who differ) with one’s personal and/or party preferences, perceptions, practices and prejudices. I have spent a considerable amount of time in previous issues of my Reflections dealing with the countless inconsistencies and fallacies of this interpretive device (one of the primary tools of these legalistic patternists). I would refer all of those readers who may not be familiar with my previous studies on this topic to the following issues: #12 … #13 … #14 … #15 … #15a … #16 … #21 … #23a … #101 … #118 … #124 … #126 … #138 … #228 … #230 … #256 … #261.
I find it rather interesting, though on another level not particularly surprising, that some legalistic patternists are now attempting to disguise this so-called “law” of theirs with a completely new name. Even they realize how objectionable this “law of silence” has become among most disciples of Christ, thus they are desperately seeking a more palatable presentation of it. For example, on the infamous MarsList, a known breeding ground for patternistic exclusion, one of the Non-Institutional preachers who is a member of this Internet group wrote an interesting appeal to the other members under the heading: “Proposed Name Change for the Silence of the Scriptures” [message #2521, Sept. 27, 2006] — “Perhaps describing the ‘Silence of God’ as where we are ‘Without Instruction’ would be more palatable. This term carries a little less baggage … maybe!” Their highly rigid, restrictive theology of prohibition and exclusion drawn from such “lack of instruction,” however, is just as fallacious … regardless of how it is disguised or by what it is denominated. A dill pickle is still a dill pickle, even if you call it a pork chop. Such transparent efforts only display a desperate need on their part to hide the obvious discrepancies, inconsistencies and outright fallacies of their legalistic theology and the various interpretive devices that they employ to bolster it. Perceptive disciples have seen their teachings and techniques for what they are, thus we are not fooled by this pathetic attempt at an outward reclothing of that which is inwardly corrupt. It seems Jesus had something insightful to say to the legalists of His day about whitewashing tombs [Matt. 23:27-28]. Same basic principle.
On the other hand, there are those who continue to declare with great pride their adherence to this “law of silence,” and do so with no attempt whatsoever to disguise their support of such an interpretive device. Indeed, there seems to be a renewed effort among some ultra-conservative brethren to actually defend this dogma at any cost. A perfect example is the current issue of The Spiritual Sword, a publication of the Getwell Church of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee. The editor is Alan E. Highers. The October, 2006 issue, which is 49 pages in length, is on the theme: “The Silence of the Scriptures.” The men contributing to this issue are: Alan E. Highers, Phil Sanders, Ancil Jenkins, Gary McDade, David Sain, David Pharr, William Woodson, Hugh Fulford, and Dan Winkler. Almost all of these men are well-known and well-respected in our faith-heritage, and, collectively, they represent centuries of service to conservative Churches of Christ. Some of these men I know personally, and I have the greatest respect for them as persons, although I certainly differ with some of their theological perceptions and perspectives. This in no way causes me to love them any less, however, or to regard them as anything other than beloved brethren in Christ. Their teaching, however, I regard as extremely dangerous, divisive and even potentially deadly.
I have known Ancil Jenkins, and his precious wife Elaine, for almost 30 years. When I was the Executive Director of the Albuquerque Christian Children’s Home ['78-'82] I served as a deacon at the University Church of Christ in Albuquerque, New Mexico where Ancil was the pulpit minister. Elaine was my secretary. They are a precious couple. Hugh Fulford, who has been a gospel preacher for over 50 years, was a staff writer for Gospel Advocate under the editorship of Bro. B. C. Goodpasture, and who continues to write for that publication and a good many others, including The Spiritual Sword, has long subscribed to my Reflections, and he and I have had cordial dialogue over our many differing perspectives for quite some time. I respect this brother immensely and don’t take lightly his comments, primarily because I perceive they are motivated by love. Dan Winkler, as most of us within the Churches of Christ know, is the father of Matthew Winkler, who was slain by his wife, Mary Winkler, a few months back. We should continue to keep this good family in our daily prayers. Dan’s wife is the sister of a dear woman who attends where I currently preach. In fact, her husband, Jim Morrow, was one of the elders with whom I served prior to his untimely death a year ago [see my tribute to Jim in Issue #210 just prior to the "Readers' Responses"]. Thus, it should be understood by the readers of this current issue of Reflections that my comments are in no way reflective of personal animosity toward these men. They are my brethren, and in some cases they are my beloved brethren. My opposition is not to them personally, but rather to their teaching, which in this particular area I firmly believe to be fallacious. I have dealt with the teaching of some of these men in previous Reflections (see the listing above), to which I would refer those readers who might be interested.
The October, 2006 issue of The Spiritual Sword begins with a three page Editorial by Alan E. Highers. His first words are, “Churches of Christ endeavor to ’speak where the Bible speaks’ and to ‘be silent where the Bible is silent’” [p. 1]. In that same first paragraph this brother further observes, “To take away from the word of God is to remove that which God has spoken; to add to the word of God is to interject that which God has not spoken. To diminish what God has explicitly said is to violate speaking where the Bible speaks. To add to the word of God is to speak where God has not spoken and thereby to violate the silence of the scriptures. To ’speak’ and to be ’silent’ are equally valid principles in the scriptures.” There is absolutely no question that our God does not intend for mere men to tamper with His revealed Truth. When God speaks it is not our place to add to nor take from that which He has spoken. Our responsibility is to listen and obey. “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” [Deut. 4:2]. “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” [Deut. 12:32]. “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” [Prov. 30:6]. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” [Rev. 22:18-19].
Please note something extremely important here, however — that which is not to be tampered with by men (neither added to nor taken away from) is that which God has spoken. Read the above passages again very carefully … very carefully! These verses say absolutely nothing about the responsibility of men with regard to those areas about which God has never uttered a single word. True “silence” of both God and the sacred Scriptures is when our God has offered NO guidance from above, either for or against. How are we to approach such deafening silence? Is such total lack of divine declaration permissive? Is it prohibitive? Or, is it neither? Does God perhaps simply desire for His people to use sound judgment, determining their actions and attitudes in the face of such silence in accord with His greater guiding principles (such as love, compassion, mercy, etc.)? It is my conviction that the latter is the will of our Father. To boldly assert that utter silence is either proscriptive or prescriptive is to promote and impose man’s will in such areas, and this will always lead to conflict, chaos and ultimately condemnation and castigation of our spiritual siblings. Thus, in the face of such silence we must each prayerfully, and with appeal to the guiding principles of God’s Word, come to a studied conviction of His will in the matter, and then “the faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God” [Rom. 14:22], “each man being fully convinced in his own mind” [vs. 5], being careful not to harshly judge nor view with contempt those who arrive at differing convictions, but rather accept them in love as your brethren in Christ Jesus, just as God accepts you both [vs. 3], differing views and all. Such is the responsible approach to genuine biblical silence.
The problem, of course, is that in the face of such absolute, and genuine, divine silence with regard to a matter, some men have dared to speak for God; presuming to prescribe or proscribe as a matter of settled law for all the rest of humankind for the remainder of our allotted time upon earth. Brethren, that is not bringing honor to true divine silence; rather, it dishonors it. Bro. Rick Atchley, the minister at Richland Hills in Fort Worth, Texas, in a speech delivered at Abilene Christian University, and reported in the April, 2006 issue of Christian Chronicle, insightfully, and correctly, observed: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent, we have even more to say.” Bro. Alan E. Highers retorted, “Most members of the church understand what it means to ‘be silent where the Bible is silent.’ Rick Atchley is not one of them” [p. 48]. Well, I beg to differ. In my view, it is Bro. Highers, and his co-writers of this issue of The Spiritual Sword, who have completely failed to perceive the significance of genuine biblical “silence,” as I shall seek to demonstrate in the course of this review (and as I have sought to do in previous articles).
Bro. Alan Highers, in his opening Editorial, seeks to address Bro. Atchley’s above comment. He wrote, “Some think ‘being silent where the Bible is silent’ means that we cannot say anything if the Bible is silent. If we say something, we are speaking where the Bible is silent. Therefore, since they agree the Bible is silent about instrumental music in the worship of the church, they declare that we cannot say anything about the practice because we must be ’silent’ where the Bible is silent. Of all the absurd claims and contentions ever promulgated, this has to be one of the worst. It manifests that one does not comprehend the meaning of being silent where the Bible is silent” [p. 3]. Bro. Alan E. Highers has completely missed the point of Bro. Rick Atchley’s statement (I hesitate to think he has intentionally misrepresented it). There is nothing wrong at all in discussing these countless areas of silence and in speaking our convictions. We all do plenty of it. What IS wrong, however, is elevating our own convictions in such areas of genuine biblical silence to the level of divine declaration and decree. Bro. Highers is certainly free to speak his convictions in the face of biblical silence; he is NOT free to introduce said personal convictions with a “Thus sayeth the Lord!” He is free to order his own life by those personal convictions; he is NOT free to impose them upon others as eternal LAW. It is this “speaking” in the face of “silence” that Rick opposes … as do I. Therefore, if the Bible is truly utterly silent about the use of instrumental accompaniment in the singing of praises unto God in this present dispensation (and I believe that point is arguable), then men are entitled to reach their own convictions as to the significance of that lack of guidance, but they are NOT entitled to impose those convictions upon others, nor to withhold fellowship from or deny salvation to those who differ with them (as per the guiding principles of Romans 14). This is an abuse of silence, not a respect for it.
Bro. David Sain, in his article in this issue of The Spiritual Sword, made the following astute observation: “One may ‘add to’ the Scriptures by binding that which God has not bound, i.e., requiring something that the Lord has left in the realm of judgment or opinion” [p. 18]. This is true. But, equally “unauthorized” is the forbidding of something about which the Lord has expressed no judgment one way or the other. It is just as wrong to require someone to engage in some practice, in the face of genuine biblical silence, as it is to prohibit some practice. Both are additions of fallible men to divine silence. In other words, it is equally unauthorized to prescribe the use of instrumental accompaniment as it is to proscribe its use. Both are additions in the face of divine lack of specification one way or the other. As Bro. Sain suggests, this should be left in the realm of judgment or opinion, and we should accept one another in spite of varying convictions in such areas. Bro. Ancil Jenkins observes, “A further failure of some is to speak where the Bible has not spoken. This happens when men promote their opinions into law” [p. 11]. Amen, Ancil. And our countless factions and divisions attest to the fact that we have not heeded this sound advice.
Alan Highers invoked the name of one of the giants of our movement: Bro. G. C. Brewer. In his book “A Medley on the Music Question” this beloved brother in Christ (and also my cousin in the flesh; we are descended from the same couple, he by one son, I by the other) wrote, “To remain silent means that we will stop practicing where the Bible stops teaching; that our practice in matters of religion is limited by the word of the Lord, restricted by divine revelation. That is what the motto means, as everyone should know.” This sounds remarkably similar to a statement made by Bro. Greg Jordan of Indiana in the current issue of Old Paths Advocate (a publication of the one cup, no classes Churches of Christ) — “If God has not uttered it, we must not practice it” [vol. 80, #10, Oct. 2006, p. 9]. Well, with all due respect to brothers G. C. Brewer and Greg Jordan, this just ain’t so. There is not a congregation in our brotherhood that has not gone well beyond “biblical silence” with respect to various practices. Indeed, if a first century disciple came to one of our Sunday morning assemblies, even one of the most conservative congregations among us, and this disciple had the same legalistic mindset evidenced by some today, he would likely flee the building and disfellowship the whole bunch! If we were to truly “stop practicing” where the Bible “stops teaching,” the changes in our “worship services,” as well as other areas of daily ministry, would be so dramatic that the shouts of outrage would be heard clear to the moon and back! We could all begin by throwing out the Sunday School “heresy,” get rid of our million dollar facilities and start using the money for benevolence, meet in homes in the evenings, observe the Lord’s Supper in the context of a “love feast,” do away with four part harmony in our singing, and … well, you get the idea! Stop practicing where the Bible stops teaching?! Anyone out there really want to try introducing that next Sunday? Good luck!
Several of the writers for the October, 2006 issue of The Spiritual Sword paraded before us the standard scriptures which, in their view, prove their position regarding the prohibitive force of “silence.” Frankly, these only show their confusion between God’s specificity and God’s genuine silence. The writer who came the closest to grasping this distinction in his article was Bro. Dan Winkler. His article was titled appropriately “God Has Spoken” [p. 35-39]. I thought his presentation was excellent, and I agreed with the vast majority of what he said. My only disappointment was that near the end of his article he retreated back into the standard “law of silence” fare in a couple of statements with regard to instrumental accompaniment. Aside from that inconsistency, he stressed over and over in his article the fact of God’s specificity being determinative in whether one’s actions or attitudes are acceptable in His sight. He says we should remind ourselves “that, with the Bible, ‘God has spoken’” [p. 35]. “The specifics of God’s spoken revelation prohibited the children of Adam from …” [p. 36]. “The inhabitants of Babel took it upon themselves to countermand the specifics of this instruction” [p. 36]. “They were planning to do just the opposite of what God had specified” [p. 36]. “A people whose failure to respect God led them to disrespect the specifics of God’s expressed will” [p. 36]. “It will lead you to disregard and disobey the specifics of that revelation” [p. 36]. “Nadab and Abihu forgot that God had spoken” [p. 36]. “When we do something other than what God has specified” [p. 36]. “Moses ignored God’s specifics” [p. 36]. “We are obliged to give an ‘obedient ear’ to the specifics of His message” [p. 37]. “Jesus is a great example of someone who did just that, someone who obediently followed the specifics of that which God ‘has spoken’” [p. 37]. “He respected the silence of God’s specifics” [p. 38]. We could go on and on in this article, but you get the point. The specifics of what God has spoken is the key, NOT men’s assumptions and deductions in areas where He has said absolutely nothing.
Let’s be honest here, brethren — most of what is promoted as binding or prohibitive today, based upon this so-called “law of silence,” has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biblical silence, but everything to do with divine specificity. When God SPEAKS, there is no SILENCE. As Bro. Winkler says in his article, we must respect “the specifics God has spoken” [p. 38]. This is not about “silence,” it is about honoring what God has SAID. Nadab and Abihu are paraded before us as an example of those who violated “silence.” Bro. Gary McDade, in his article on Nadab and Abihu [p. 12-16], wrote, “The case of Nadab and Abihu proves that action in a realm where the Lord has ‘commanded them not’ is prohibitive. … Nadab and Abihu stand as case law in the study of the Bible warning people not to do that which the Lord has ‘commanded them not’” [p. 13-14]. “The silence of the scriptures is prohibitive” [p. 14]. “What is the teaching, admonishing, and warning, then, from the case of Nadab and Abihu? The teaching: the silence of the scriptures must be recognized and respected” [p. 14].
Bro. Gary McDade’s obvious error here is in his insistence that the deadly offence of Nadab and Abihu was a disrespect for the silence of God. That is simply false. Their offence was their disrespect for what God had spoken … for divine specificity. God was NOT silent in His specification of the source from which they were to take their fiery coals. He had specified it quite clearly. They disobeyed His command. I have dealt with this in some depth in Reflections #63 — Nadab and Abihu: The Nature of their Fatal Error. In that article I wrote, “Nadab and Abihu, in a flagrant act of irreverence, presented an offering before God that only the High Priest was allowed to make, in a location where they were clearly forbidden to be, using coals of fire taken from a source other than the one clearly commanded by the Lord God. Saxe & Jensen (Studies In Leviticus) cite this as ‘no light offense,’ but rather constituting ‘flagrant disobedience and presumption.’ Whether they thought one source of fire was as good as another, or whether they just didn’t care, the reality is that these two brothers were in direct violation of a specific command of the Lord God. He had specified the source of the coals of fire; they had chosen another. That is NOT a transgression of silence, it is a transgression of specificity.” McDade suggests, “the case of Nadab and Abihu will continue to be presented as a powerful example of the wrongdoing that occurs when the silence of the scriptures is not honored” [p. 15]. Wrong! Their example stands as a powerful reminder of God’s displeasure when the specificity of His spoken word is not honored. Big difference!
Once Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, are presented to our view, Hebrews 7:14 is then paraded before us as additional “proof” of the prohibitive nature of biblical silence. Once again, however, this passage proves no such thing! “Our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” See there?! Proof positive! How could anyone possibly question it? Moses was silent about priests coming from the tribe of Judah, therefore because of that silence we know that priests could not come from Judah! Wrong!! Priests could not be taken from Judah for the simple reason that God specified that priests could only come from Levi. Priests from Judah were excluded NOT because of Godly silence, but because of Godly specificity. God had spoken. This is not a “silence” issue at all. When our God has SPOKEN, there is no SILENCE. I would encourage the reader to examine Reflections #228 — The Silence Syndrome: Arguing for Exclusion … Again. In the section under the heading “Christian Courier” I deal with Bro. Wayne Jackson’s woeful misuse of Hebrews 7:14 in far greater detail.
Nevertheless, several of the writers for this most recent issue of The Spiritual Sword insisted on trying again to slip Hebrews 7:14 past our radar. Bro. Highers wrote in his Editorial, “Obviously, the inspired writer meant something when he said Moses ’spake nothing’ about Judah and the priesthood. To speak nothing is to be silent. How much clearer could the Bible be on this subject? There was no authority for serving as a priest on earth if one was from the tribe of Judah” [p. 2]. Highers’ conclusion is clearly correct, but the reasoning by which he arrived at that conclusion is fallacious. There is no authority for a priest from Judah because God specified Levi, NOT because He was silent about Judah. God had spoken. Bro. William Woodson wrote in his article, “The silence of Scripture about a descendant of Judah serving as a priest at the altar prohibited Christ from so serving” [p. 30]. Again, this is false reasoning. The prohibition was NOT due to “the silence of Scripture” on the matter; it was due to the fact that God specified Levi. God had spoken, and in the presence of His declared will there is NO silence!
Other examples were brought up, such as Noah and his use of gopher wood. Was cedar forbidden due to God’s silence about using cedar wood? No. Noah used gopher wood because God specified it. To have used cedar would have been a violation of specificity, NOT a violation of silence. Bro. David Sain raised the issue of “specific and generic authority” with regard to this doctrine. I have dealt at length with that argument in Reflections #228. Both Highers and Woodson raise the question of Hebrews 1:5. I deal quite thoroughly with that argument also in the above issue of Reflections, to which I would refer the reader simply for the purpose of saving space in this current review. Bro. Hugh Fulford raised a further question about expediency in his article titled “Expedients or Additions?” [p. 31-34]. I believe one will find I have dealt quite extensively with that issue in Reflections #261 — The Law of Expediency: A Reflective Examination of Legalistic Patternism’s Loophole. The speech of Bro. H. Leo Boles was also brought up in the October, 2006 issue of The Spiritual Sword. I provided an in-depth analysis of that very speech in Reflections #247 — The Boles Manifesto: A Reflective Review of a Sectarian Speech delivered by H. Leo Boles on May 3, 1939.
A Challenge to Bro. Phil Sanders
The first article to appear in the October, 2006 issue of The Spiritual Sword was by Bro. Phil Sanders, and it was titled “Do the Scriptures Teach by Silence?” [p. 4-8]. Bro. Sanders is the minister for the Concord Road Church of Christ located in Brentwood, Tennessee, and also serves as an instructor at the Nashville School of Preaching. He is the author of the book “Let All the Earth Keep Silence,” which was released this year. Phil made a most interesting analogy in his article that I believe opened him up for a significant challenge, particularly with reference to his view of the prohibitive nature of biblical silence and the use of “silence” in the establishment of authority. I sent the following email to Phil (the full text is included):
To: Phil Sanders
From: Al Maxey
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2006 1:19 PM
Good Afternoon Phil,
I just read your article in the October issue of The Spiritual Sword. Near the close of your study you used the illustration of “roast lamb” at the Passover meal, stating, “The text, however, says nothing of roast lamb as part of the Lord’s Supper. What if, for the sake of argument, one was to suggest eating roast lamb in the observance of the Lord’s Supper?” You then wrote, “The attitude with which we approach the question of roast lamb on the Lord’s Table reveals much about our view of Bible authority.” You further noted, “People who would use roast lamb would do so out of their own desire, not because they can find any instruction. … To eat roast lamb is not to do what was delivered from the Lord, but to act on one’s own authority. … it is presumptuous sin.”
May I ask you a question, brother; one along similar lines? I would genuinely like to hear your response to this.
With regard to the ancient Passover, the Lord God was very specific as to what He wanted included in this memorial feast. Interestingly enough, however, God never mentioned anything to drink. In fact, the Passover was constantly referred to in Scripture as a feast during which the celebrants would EAT the meal; they are never urged to DRINK anything. The Bible is SILENT with respect to drinking anything during this feast. In other words, God said EAT the Passover, He didn’t say EAT & DRINK the Passover. Thus, if one were to apply the so-called “Law of Silence” to this situation, one would have to exclude and forbid as sinful any form of drink being added to the Passover feast. After all, since “silence” supposedly excludes and prohibits, is God not suggesting by this silence His disapproval of any form of drink? Similarly, according to the legalistic patternists, God said “sing,” not “sing and play.” If “playing” is sinful, godless presumption, is “drinking” not the same? If not, why not? They seem to be based on the same reasoning, or am I missing something? If so, what?
But let’s not stop here. In addition to the command of the Lord God Himself with respect to the Passover, and what should be included or excluded, we also have several biblical examples of the Passover being celebrated by God’s own people. We find it being observed, for instance, in Numbers 9:1-14, Joshua 5:10-12, and 2 Kings 23:21-23. In none of these biblical examples of Passover observance is there any mention of anyone drinking anything, or of the use of cups, or of the consumption of wine. The Bible is completely SILENT about any such additions to the prescribed elements of the feast. Even in 2 Chronicles 30 (in which the people of God “ate the Passover otherwise than prescribed” — vs. 18) there is still no mention of cups of wine being consumed. In short, there is not a single, solitary word anywhere in the Old Testament writings that speaks of cups of wine, or of the drinking of any liquid, being connected in any way with the Passover. All that exists within the biblical record on this particular matter is a deafening SILENCE.
By the time of Jesus Christ, however, things have changed with regard to the prescribed observance of this God-ordained commemorative feast. Rather than being eaten “in haste” (Exodus 12:11), it had become customary for the participants to eat it while reclining at a table. “Now when evening had come, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples” (Matthew 26:20; see also: Mark 14:18; Luke 22:14-15).
Another innovation was the addition of drink to this Passover feast as part of the religious ritual. Four cups of wine had been added by the rabbis to the Passover celebration. These were not just for the purpose of “washing down the food,” a mere “incidental,” an “expedient,” as a few have feebly sought to suggest, but these cups of wine were specially and purposefully added for their spiritual significance to the feast itself. The Jews themselves admit that these cups of wine were “a Rabbinic tradition,” with a specific religious purpose, and thus were not originally part of the divine directive, nor were they merely “incidental to the Passover itself.” “By New Testament times the Passover observance had features ADDED to those already SPECIFIED in the Old Testament …. At various intervals four cups of wine, a symbol of joy, were consumed” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, page 677).
The use of four cups of wine during the course of the Passover feast was also more than just a humanly devised tradition …. It had become mandatory, and indeed crucial to the religious significance of the feast itself. “The use of wine at this festival was COMPULSORY, even upon the poorest …. But used it must be, even by persons commonly abstaining (from wine) and young persons” (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, page 326). In the Jewish “Orach Chayim” it is written, “Whosoever has not got wine transgresses a command of the rabbis, for they have said that there shall be no diminution from the four cups. And it is necessary to sell what he has in order to keep the command of the wise men.” The Talmud states, “If he has not enough money to get four cups of wine, he must get it from the poor box or pawn his coat or hire himself out for four cups of wine.” Yes, the Jewish rabbis had actually elevated this human tradition, this addition to God’s Passover, to the status of LAW. Hardly an “incidental.”
What exactly is the purpose and significance of these four cups of wine? A Jewish Rabbi by the name of Tim Hegg, from Beit Hallel, has written an excellent treatise on “The Four Cups,” and he clearly demonstrates not only the purpose, but that this practice came not from God, but rather from “Jewish Rabbinic Tradition.” He writes, “The sages ordained four cups in the meal of remembrance to commemorate God’s work.” He points out that the historical background of these four cups is found in the Midrash (which he quotes extensively in the article). In the Jerusalem Talmud there is an expansion of the source of these four cups. It reads, “Why do we have four cups of wine? Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Benayah, this refers to four stages in the redemption.” Thus, these cups clearly had religious significance, and were not simply added to “help wash the food down.”
Rabbi Hegg goes on to inform the reader that the use of these four cups of wine in the Passover is “the tradition” that symbolizes “the four activities of God as described in Exodus 6:6-7. Thus, the four cups represent God’s saving activity, one cup for each of God’s sovereign acts as He fought against Pharaoh and the pagan gods — four cups outlining the work of God on behalf of His firstborn son, Israel.”
Clearly, the use of four cups of wine during the Passover celebration was not something that was prescribed by God. Rather, it was a human addition and innovation to a God-ordained and divinely regulated commemorative feast. The Old Covenant writings are absolutely SILENT about cups of wine in the Passover feast, both by command and by example (precept & pattern). If the so-called “Law of Silence” is valid as a hermeneutical principle, as its proponents allege, then here they have a perfect example of a practice about which there is deafening silence. IF silence excludes and prohibits, and IF violation of said “law” constitutes SIN …. we have a problem!! Jesus embraced the practice of the four cups of wine!
“From the NT record it seems clear that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper by associating it with the third cup of wine. It was known as the ‘cup of redemption,’ linked in rabbinic tradition to the third of the fourfold promise of redemption in Exodus 6:6f, ‘I will redeem you.’ Jesus associated this cup of red wine with His atoning death” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, page 678). Yes, the cup being utilized by Jesus in His last Passover celebration, a cup given special new spiritual significance to those under the soon to be established New Covenant, was a human innovation and addition to God’s directives. As such it was “unauthorized.” Thus, each year as Jesus and His family, and later as Jesus and His disciples, celebrated the Passover, they made use of the four cups of wine (as they were mandatory), even though the OT Scriptures were completely SILENT with regard to drinking from cups of wine.
Some suggested that Jesus would have refused, on principle, to employ this “unauthorized addition” to the Passover, and thus He never actually utilized the four cups of wine. This is a ridiculous assertion that seemingly forgets His use of these cups in the establishment of the Lord’s Supper. It also fails to reconcile how such yearly refusal for decades had gone unnoticed by His fellow Jews, who were intent upon finding any small deviation from the Rabbinic Tradition in His every action. Had Jesus consistently refused to use the four cups of wine, it would have come to the attention of His critics. However, there is not a single word of criticism against Jesus for such an omission of what was then a mandatory aspect of the Passover meal. There is thus no doubt that Jesus had observed the Passover repeatedly “otherwise than prescribed.” If the so-called “Law of Silence” is valid, then Jesus violated it. If violation of this so-called “law” constitutes sin, then Jesus sinned.
Bro. Phil, I have for years challenged the proponents of this so-called “Law of Silence” to address this challenge in a rational, biblical manner, and to explain how the action of our Lord Jesus is not a violation of this “law” of theirs. They have tried every maneuver imaginable to evade this challenge, but none have yet presented a reasoned response in defense of their theory. The typical responses I get are: (1) they totally ignore me and hope I’ll go away, (2) they make some feeble attempt at rationalization, such as “food and drink go together, don’t they?”, or (3) I am “tossed up on tongues” — being called everything from “false teacher,” “false brother,” “heretic,” “apostate,” “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and worse. Caustic pejoratives come easily to those caught in the absurdities of their assumptions. Respectful, reasoned responses and careful exegesis of the Word require a greater degree of integrity and humility.
Jesus, who was sinless, embraced and utilized the four cups of wine which were added by men to the Lord God’s Passover feast. Jesus thus demonstrated that innovation and addition are NOT necessarily wrong, IF that to which they are added is not negated or replaced or diminished by the addition or accompaniment. In other words, the four cups of wine in no way negated, replaced or diminished what God HAD prescribed and ordained in the Passover. The things which our God commanded continued. The same is true with respect to our singing. By the addition of musical accompaniment one does NOT in any way replace, negate or even diminish the heartfelt expressions of devotion by those singing. Singing continues to occur. It still comes from the heart. The directive is obeyed fully. The only thing truly negated here, for those not too blinded by their tradition to perceive it, is the exclusionary force of this so-called “Law of Silence.”
Phil, in one of my upcoming “Reflections” articles I plan to do a review of the entire October edition of The Spiritual Sword. I will, in that article, be commenting upon YOUR article as well as the others. I want to give you a chance to address the above challenge to your premise. I would be interested in your thoughts, and look forward to your response.
Have a great day, and may God bless you.
Al Maxey
What was Phil’s response to the above challenge? The answer is: Silence. Complete, total silence! He never responded. I find that rather interesting, don’t you? The apostle Peter commands that we are to be the kind of disciples who are “always ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” [1 Peter 3:15]. Scripture certainly isn’t silent on our Christian duty in this matter. Yet, time and time again, year after year after year, when proponents of the “law of silence” are challenged, the response of far too many is simply … you guessed it — Silence. Brethren, this ought to tell us something! Are we listening to these “sounds of silence” from those who advocate this law? If not, we should be. It is deafening.
In conclusion, I personally find nothing within the October, 2006 issue of The Spiritual Sword that convinces me that this humanly devised “law of silence,” and the prohibitive force of it, is a valid hermeneutical principle. Quite the opposite. I have no doubt that the brethren who penned this issue of that publication are good, decent, devoted disciples of Christ. Some I know personally and love dearly. However, I cannot endorse their view of biblical silence. I believe them to be seriously misguided on this matter, and pray daily that their eyes may be opened (and I have no doubt they pray the same for me). Nevertheless, I embrace them as my beloved brethren in Christ, with whom I am in full fellowship, and just pray they feel the same about me. When we can dare to differ without seeking to destroy one another, we are on the right path to greater understanding, and we thereby seek to build bridges rather than erect barriers. May God bless these men for their centuries of collective service to Him, and may we all strive for greater devotion to His cause!
Al Maxey
maxey@zianet.com
Man…even the denominations are learning that instruments have no place in worship:
http://the7ones.com/2007/05/01/musical-instruments-in-worship-on-the-decline/
How far will you go, brother Mike? You ridicule a cappella music on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fqyp8UPaA
What’s next for your “humor?” The Lord’s Supper as a comedic skit?
Brother, turn again, and respect the Father.
For many, many centuries after Christ walked the earth Christians praised God by singing and without music. That is a fact. The division in fact comes about when others added instrumental accompaniment to the singing. In the spirit of unity, shouldn’t the movement be back to the original rather than to the newer, human-added ways?
I’m not going to say that having instrumental music will send one to hell. But, doubting if it is in accordance with God’s will and choosing to do so anyway is a sin (Romans 14:23). The fact that there is an argument means there is room for doubt. I’ll choose to err on the side of caution as it pertains to trying to honor God in all that I do and I will encourage others to do the same as I am certain this is what God wants from all His children.
Divisions are brought about by those doing the changing not the status quo. I have never figured out how it is those holding firm to the ways of old are the ones at fault for division.
By the way, I am a younger man (33) who went to ACU. It is a shame that in the spirit of “progression” so many have adopted teachings that are perverse. Most of my ACU friends who agree with having instruments also support social drinking, women leadership and are generally more tolerant of sinfulness in their lives. This observation has probably done more to convict me of my beliefs in a capella than any other argument. It seems often that those of weak faith in other areas are weak in this as well. Give the devil and inch and he’ll take a mile.