A Time to Speak — Christian Chronicle Ad
First, here are my thoughts on instrumental music vs. a cappella music.
But this isn’t about the issue of a cappella music, per se. It’s about the two-page ad in the most recent Christian Chronicle entitled “A Time to Speak.” If you haven’t seen it, you can read a similar version here.
There are some differences. For example, the ad online says, “We, as a group of younger ministers, present this article to the public to affirm that we stand firmly united for a cappella singing.” Then there is a long list of names of people from ages 17 to 77.
In the Chronicle ad, it says, “We, as a group of ministers who are age 55 and younger, present this statement to the public to affirm that we stand firmly united for acappella singing.” The list of names of “preachers already affirming this statement” in the Chronicle has expunged the names online of those who are female and those who are over 55. I counted over 300 names, though I only recognize four or five. (I don’t mean that to downplay the individuals — I just mean that I don’t know them.)
When I first read it, I had serious questions about the Chronicle’s advertising policy. The Chronicle has in recent years been such an effective tool for unity and missions. Why would they accept an ad like this? Does it promote unity or disunity? Does it force ministers to sign or resign from some churches? Would they receive a similar ad from those who also think it’s “time to speak” — but who disagree — complete with their own set of names?
I had a wonderful conversation with Lynn McMillon today, however. He assured me that the Chronicle has a brand new advertising policy. Something like this won’t appear there again. Congratulations to the Chronicle staff and board for reconsidering.
The ad directs people to the www.foracappella.org website. Here is a section from one of the articles the site includes to set us straight:
Some suggest that whether or not one uses instrumental music in worship really doesn’t matter. Since we all are imperfect and stand in the need of the grace of God, whether we use instruments is a moot question. They believe they can continue using the instrument without losing favor with God. Any issue that involves sin is a “salvation issue.” When people persist in sin and do not repent, they put their souls in peril (Heb. 10:26; 2 Pet. 3:9; Luke 13:3,5). The question here, then, is the use of instrumental music in worship sinful. Based upon the Scriptural evidence we have examined, we believe it is sinful to go beyond the authority of the New Testament and use musical instruments to worship. Some might use it for a time and then repent; surely God’s grace will forgive them in response to their repentance. What will happen to those who will not repent?
This is what’s most disturbing. I keep trying to convince young ministers that there aren’t many who think this is a salvation issue — but maybe I’m wrong! Perhaps some of those listed on the planning and advisory committee can assure us that this article is improperly placed on the website.
My dear friends, if the use of instrumental music will send a Christ-follower to hell, then we’re all going to hell. Over something. We’re all wrong about something!!
Those words above show that the deepest need is for us to understand what the gospel is.
Nearly as disturbing are these words from another recommended article:
Should those who oppose the use of instruments, then, extend their fellowship to those who do? Fellowship implies approval. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses the question of fellowship with the man who has his father’s wife. He says that even the pagans do not approve of such behavior. For the Corinthians to continue to fellowship him would be to send a message of approval for something even pagans condemn. Paul then commands them to withdraw from him. Paul also writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 that “if anyone does not obey our instruction in this epistle, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.” To associate with those who have strayed, Paul says, is to send the message of approval of what they do. In the same way, John tells Christians that if someone “comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him” (2 John 10). Again the point is clear, to extend fellowship implies approval. This does not mean, of course, that we can have no contact with such people, but does mean that we do not extend to those who are engaging in a practice which is not in harmony with scripture the same fellowship we would to those who are in such harmony.
The world is disoriented, hurting, and lost. God is seeking to restore and repair what’s been broken. And someone is paying for a two-page ad in the Chronicle for this?
One of the most gifted young ministers I know in Churches of Christ sent me a brief email a few days ago. It said, “Yup. I’m out.” I hope he won’t leave. But if he does, I understand. And I know he’ll still be a powerful servant in the kingdom.
Sorry, Ray- I missed your other entry. To say that the people had the NT available to them because it was being written then- well, one church or another may have had a copy of 1st Thessalonians, or maybe Mark or Luke/Acts, and they might have had copies of other letters or gospel accounts from other people as well. Do we have proof of how much NT was available to Timothy at the time of Paul’s writing, or that Timothy, to whom the letter was being written, could be expected to understand Paul as meaning first of all those few copies of what little had been written, and all the rest only in a secondary sense?
Can we say that “All scripture” as mentioned by Paul in, say, AD 55, refers exclusively to a collection of documents which were only partially written at the time and would not be compiled for over 300 years into the future? Wouldn’t that be like my offering to send you a .mj37 file, or a hot cup of coffee, over the internet? The “scripture” that Paul knew, and that you could be sure he meant when he used that word, was the collection we call the “Old Testament.”
Maybe the problem comes from the fact that we tend to associate the Old Testament with Old Covenant which it contains. The tragic part of that piece of mental shorthand is that most of what we know about Jesus found primarily in the Old Testament.
Robert,
Jude said it was all delivered when he wrote. He was stating the oral communication of the faith. The first century used the old just as we do. Paul used the old in his preaching. And the first church of Christ in Jerusleum was abiding in the doctrine of the apostles. The first Christians knew about the difference in the two covenants.Paul even quoted Jesus in his letter to Timothy. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the doctrinal foundations were communicated by the preaching and teaching of the apostles and the prophets.
Today , there is no reason we cannot know. We have the full written revelation. We can know the difference in the two covenants.
That’s all good, Ray, except I would have a hard time interpreting the phrase, “The faith that was once delivered to the saints” to mean, “I have scanned the future, and no other page of what the bishops three hundred years from now will agree is the sum total of Christian scripture shall be written than what already is, except this letter I’m writing to you. I’m sure you will agree that is a stretch, especially when the Revelation had not been written, and likely some other letters as well. Back to that other question, though:
How did people come to know the Lord before Christ, and how could they be saved?
I wonder how many people might have been reached for the Lord if all the collective hours put into either side of this argument had been spent reaching out to our neighbors the de/unchurched that surround us. I truly appreciate passion but I struggle with how dedicated so many are to this issue and yet the epidemic of sin kills millions a year and we are worried about getting this issue right (as though any of us have it right). Funny thing is, 359 is right behind this post, while another person is neglected by a well thought out argument on the use of mechanical instrumentation in the praise of our God and Father who has blessed each of us with the means to somehow defend his honor on multi-thousand dollar mechanical instrument (preferably and apple) that spit out worldwide communication. I wonder if he feels praised or honored by our passion. Again, where is the cross of Christ?
Les, the whole purpose of this conversation, at least from my seat, is exactly your question: Where is the Cross of Christ?
Some will read, or participate, in this discussion who have always thought that their salvation hinged on their own good works- whether in good deeds and keeping a friendly attitude, in holding to a particular dogma, or in having been baptised in just the right way. Some even think that they are risking Hell’s flames if they sing a song to Jesus in the wrong way. All this is confusion that can do two things. One is that it will keep that person from trusting God (and not himself) for his salvation, and it will encourage that confused soul to zealously spread that confusion to others. The end result is that many more people not trusting Christ for their salvation.
On the other hand, the more that people come to realise the difference between the law of sin and the Law of God, and begin to discover that Jesus (the Word) gave us the whole Word of God which He Himself said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word ..of God, the more they will come into a closer relationship with the very Word Who breathed that scripture to us, and the more effective they will be in reaching others with His love.
There’s a lot more to the picture than this, but at least this might cast some light on the questions.
You know I hesitate to even add another comment as this dead horse has been beat like a drum and red headed step child combined. My grandfather once told me that while no one can see into one’s heart their behavior will usually give it away. The churches of Christ in the USA have more circulated publications like the Chronicle or The firm foundation per captia than any other religious group. 100 different ones at the last count. There is an arguing fractiousness that is a product of our hermeneutic that has nothing to do with an on going search for meaning and truth but rather a morbid desire to engage and crush the opposition in a combat of wits and rhetoric. This is evident to the ever watching un-believing world. It is why there are now 360 comments. Much of what will determine whether or not most church of Christ congregations even exist in the next 10-30 years will be our ability to change our hermeneutic to one that lines up with the core values and ideas of the scripture like the cross and the most important thing mentioned 10 times in scripture “Love” and the resulting attitude. You know this where I have arrived in a method to determine what practices are authorized. I take the idea and look at it through the lens of the cross. For instance this is how I use it: “Jesus lived suffered and died on the cross so that no one would ever use an instrument when assembled to remember and follow him”. This brings perspective to the things that demand 360 comments and things for which Jesus simply did not die.
While some very little time has been spent on this discussion, a lot of time has been spent on preaching the gospel , the death and resurrection of Jesus. Discussing doctrine is good. Let there be the times of study and meditation and then as a result let us go out everyday into our lost world and proclaim the good news. And when an opportunity to do a good work of compassion arises in each of our lives then paricipate. My point being that doctrinal studies can always be a part of your Christian life right along with all kinds of good works. Like Paul, let the love of Christ , His cross , compel us to love .
Ray mentioned, I think, the phrase from Jude, “the faith ..once delivered to the saints.” This phrase, like another, “..one baptism,” when three are mentioned in Scripture, is like an old portmanteau bag that unfolds as it opens. We can read that verse, without contradiction, to mean belief in God’s revelation of Himself and His salvation from the gates of Eden. The word, “saints,” as God’s chosen and set-apart people, is used in Scripture for Hebrews as well as Christians. So how did people know the Lord before Christ? By the many ways He revealed Himself- the miracles, the signs of His guidance, by the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings… But how were they saved? Do we just assume that they were all living under the “law of sin and death” and therefore all died in sin? God forbid! “Abraham,” we read in Hebrews, “believed God, and it was counted for him as righteousness.” The same applies to Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, and David who wrote, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” This pointing forward to Matt. 5:3-12 with the heart that God seeks to place in each of us, and to the heart with which Christ sacrificed Himself for us.
Joe, not coming from a CofC background, I really don’t know exactly what is the official hermeneutic, but it seems like there might be a root-to-fruit connection if there is such a focus on marking (arbitrary?) divisions through the Word of God as to what is or isn’t profitable on the one end, and similar divisions amongst the brethren on the other. Not saying, just asking.
An interesting note: From the time that Moses wrote down the law concerning the cleansing of a leper and his re-admission into the people, (the cure of an incurable disease, often used as a figure of sin) the only time that happened was when Jesus did it. Jesus gave Moses the Law, and, like Jesus said, those are the Scriptures that testify of Him!
Robert,
I appreciate your comments but the cross of Christ is more than simply a sacrifice of the conversation. It is an allowing of God to use us at every moment (not there yet myself of course). I am a church planter who has resisted in so many ways to put aside notions of marketing, attraction models, etc. to reach people on the basis of relationships. Please don’t here my comments in a martyr light by no means am I some saint. However, our church is currently 80% or more de/unchurched people, praise God. Yet, I can truly say, I have never seen Christian community so clearly. Raised in a traditional church, love my heritage deeply but my point is not simply that replying to this blog is wrong (hence I would be a hypocrite, well I guess I am that anyway, lol). My point is that the cross of Christ would realize that we close the door on so many because of our expectation that accappella or instumental is a black or white issue.
Today, I know of a church where a recovering alcoholic and drug addict found a place to serve in the band. They are hearing the gospel and what’s even crazier is that these two rough and tattooed up people are crying like babies and repenting of their sinful lives each week. They struggle but they also know they are a part of a community that will not judge them but will help them, love the and care for them deeply. It is transparent. The cross for me brings with it a realization that this conversation seeks to ostracize these brothers in Christ into some camp. One that says they are saved and another that says they are in question.
As I recall, the worst atrocity ever committed was when those who should have recognized Christ as their brother and salvation, hung our Lord, Savior and GOd on that tree. His response to this far greater atrocity than our worship preferences was “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” For me the cross is a reminder that we do not operate as the risenChrist at the right hand of God but instead we are all operating from the wounds of Christs nail scarred hands and feet and his pierced side. This argument presuposes that we have, will or can get worship right. It makes it something to be figured out, mastered or worked out. It places worship in our hands. My whole point is that this is skewed thinking in the kingdom. For the kingdom come is God’s work, through which we are allowed as imperfect fallen creatures to enter the throne room of God and to utter a word, that before out God should find us all like Isaiah saying, Woe is me! I am a man of unclean lips! Yet the words shared here are words that suggest that some are pure. more pure or right, which at every level does not allow for the cross. It rips the power away from the cross when we claim any control over it. At best we should come as those who find their perfection in the nail scarred hands and feet of Jesus, who seek to share our woundedness as oft as we can. My fear is that so many are more concerned with covering the wounds than letting the wounds speak into the brokenness of our world. But then again I don’t have it all figured out either. God bless, hope this clarifies some.
Brother Ray,
I agree with you about doctrine. My experience is that while ministry occurs we do so in the confines of our comfort. Same goes with our doctrine. Moreover, I have found that doctrine seems to be an outgrowth of ministry. Paul’s becoming all things to all people so that all may come to know Christ has some level of serious flexibility. Doctrine I hope is not simply for the internal polity of the church but rather serves our telos on earth, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” Yet, is this truly where we can say this doctrinal issue is most concerned. Are we really as the minority practice able to chalk this up to “narrow is the road.” My concern is that we are seeking to spell out the scripture in ways that leave little room for error (i.e Mishna or even more so the Talmud, etc.). I appreciate this conversation a great deal. In my mind, this is where the discussion should start, if we are going to work out the doctrinal issue of accappella vs instrumental. We should define our telos more fully in order to more accurately define what Christ might desire from his wounded body. May his mercies continue to poor out upon us in this conversation.
Sorry Robert, I also meant to say Brother Robert, lol.
You know our teaching minister this past week spoke of how it was not the Bible that was wrong but our blind fundamentalist method of biblical interpretation that was the demon with which we wrestle. He spoke of how Joseph chose to ignore the existing law at the time that would have stoned Mary the mother of Jesus for becoming pregnant. The scripture says he planned to divorce her quietly. He listened to God and his nature. There are many things that the Bible says that we take figuratively so we won’t have to pluck out our eyes or greet each other with a Holy Kiss etc. The famous verse many have used to argue that church of Christ is the only name that can be on the outside of the building Rom 16 says greet each other with a Holy Kiss, the churches of Christ salute you. So one half of this verse we have traditionally said instructed us to only name groups of Christians church of Christ and then turn around and ignore the command to greet each other with a Holy Kiss which also appears 5 more times in the New Testament. So by what or whose authority do we decide which scriptures we are going to follow with a strict dogmatic fundamentalist view and which we are not? When ever we use the word of God to hurt, castigate, humiliate, neglect our families, manipulate, control, coerce, be vindictive or cause injury to others then we are wrong in violation of the nature of God, no matter what we think the word of God says in our limited fundamentalist view of scripture. Most of the young ministers and organizers of this article and issue believe that they are doing what God wants them to do. They believe that are acting on God’s part and in his name. What they have failed in miserably is not their doctrinal conclusions but rather how they have decided to act towards through their understanding of the nature of God. Muslims use the same type of thinking to kill others in name of God. Thankfully the Bible does not instruct us to kill others with whom are infidels otherwise Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly others like them would have been shot dead a long time ago. We rather kill each others spirits by our doctrinal arguments, publications like I mentioned before and public castigation of those with whom we disagree which may even be worse than killing someone’s body. What is life when your spirit has been destroyed? Again it is my opinion that our method biblical interpretation is what is killing us!
Amen, Brother Les!
I didn’t understand the “sacrifice of the conversation” reference, but the rest- Preach on, hallelujah! That sounds like you all are having church! And, Joe, a big amen to you, too! I’d just wanna throw in that if the Bible is the word of God, that means there’s just one word there, and one word has got to agree with itself. So if we find a verse that doesn’t seem to go with something we read someplace else, then we need to ask the Holy Ghost to help us see how they’re both right in what they really are saying, which might be close to what we thought they said, or maybe a whole different story! The more we read, with a heart for Jesus to be formed in us the way He really is, the more we see it all fit together, from cover to cover! God is good!
364
365
Now the comments can be used as a calendar. Daily thought for the day or such.
KIETH A. MITCHELL
Dear Joe Baggett:
I could not agree more with you! Until we can get our hermeneutic (our methods of interpreting the Scriptures) in line with the “mind of Christ” (Philippians 2), the “Church of Christ” denomination (a relgious group with an official title) will not even come close to looking like the New Testament Church.
Faithfulness to the Lord is from the inside out, primarily a case of motives and purity of love for the Lord with all ones heart, soul, mind and strength. Legalistic compliance can be in place with none of these spiritual qualities being part of it!
Joe, I noticed you had no takers for discussing how a particular denomination can see an official “title for a congregation” in Romans 16:16 and only offer rationalizations as to why the commandment in the passage is irrelevant. Isn’t that what all denominations do–pick and choose and even impose their own rules and regulations into the silence of the text.
In the same way, no one took up my discussion (introduced earlier) on the fact that the “red letter” words of Jesus (Luke 15) clearly taught that to celebrate our salvation in the Father’s House calls for a variety of praises, even the music of many instruments. Without controversy, instrumental accompaniment is also inherent in the different verbs and nouns (used for praise) in the C of C a’cappella proof texts, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossiand 3:16.
Jesus also gave John the revelator a picture of praise in the worship of the Lamb on the throne with the elders praising with singing and instruments, harps. What meaning might this have for the part of the Lord’s Prayer that calls for “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!”?
All sectarian systems of Scriptural interpretation are equally illogical, as well as unfaithful to the letter and the Spirit of the biblical text.
Anyone here ever heard of the thing called e-mail? It’s a great way of communicating with other people…
Seriously can’t believe this post is still accruing comments.
Keith, amen, and merry Christmas to all!
(Excellent point- Jesus is the ?&? Beginning and the End, the Unchanging God, Glory!)
Stop for goodness sake. The dead horse cut in two is stinking up the blog. Part ways and carry half the horse with you.
I’m always curious and chuckle a bit about why someone would post a comment to scold other posters for posting comments.
Thanks for your personal recommendations about not posting comments, but I think one purpose most blog posts is to generate discussion. Feel free to walk away and let the discussion continue if people want to discuss. If Mike wants to shut it down, I’m sure he’s more than capable.
P.S. Feel free to respond to this comment.
This is a protest post directed at Darren and Leland.
Glenn ,
I agree. If you wish to continue the discussion , then enter. Nothing wrong. No one will have their psyche damaged and the kingdom will go on no matter how long a blog will continue. This has been a good and healthy discussion.
“This has been a good and healthy discussion.” As millions die of social injustice and ethnic war. I’ll have to wave the bullshit flag on that Ray B.
Glenn,
Stop taking yourself so seriously. I’m going to need a hanky if you say I scolded someone again. I’m tearing up right now.
It is always good to discuss the word and then to apply the word. Whatever the subject may be.
I also agree… Well said…
I agree to Ray B (common ground) How does instrumental music and its application helping a hurting, doubting (me) and dying world?
How does acappella music and its application help a hurting and dying world?
Neither one does. Didn’t mean to imply the converse.
Have a discussion about how to help a hurting world. But you can also have one about worship. Lots of blogs to discuss both.
Great article. It is sad that the little things in life cause divisions among the family of God. We need to look past the littlest things in life and focus on Jesus and the Gospel.
When did worship become “one of the littliest things in life?” I recall that Jesus spoke of worshipping God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).
John 4:23-24
Instrumental music is not a part of N.T. truth.
PRESBYTERIAN “Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation.” (Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publications, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1842, pg. 55.)
GIRADEAU “The church, although lapsing more and more into deflection from the truth and into a corrupting of apostolic practice, had not instrumental music for 1200 years (that is, it was not in general use before this time); The Calvinistic Reform Church ejected it from its service as an element of popery, even the church of England having come very nigh its extrusion from her worship. It is heresy in the sphere of worship.” (John Giradeau, Presbyterian professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, Instrumental Music, p. 179)
FINNEY “The early Christians refused to have anything to do with the instrumental music which they might have inherited from the ancient world.” (Theodore Finney, A History of Music, 1947, p. 43)