Most of us don’t like paradox and tension. We like our theology nice and clean. We like to know who’s in and who’s out.

Growing up, it was easy. You had to have the RIGHT position on baptism: the right amount of water, the right age (accountability), the right reason (”for remission of sins” — usually nothing mentioned about “to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”), and the right prerequisites (hear, believe, repent, and confess). You also had to have the right understanding of the church (date of origin, organization, etc.), the right kind of worship (five “acts” involving weekly communion, and acappella singing), and so on.

Readers of this blog who aren’t from the Churches of Christ won’t understand all that. But trust me, you have your own version!

The borders were clear. We were right; others were wrong.

Now, I don’t believe that. I don’t believe people are lost just because they don’t share my understanding of various passages. We are saved by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus — not by our ability to exegete texts. Thank God for that! No wonder so many people went to their deathbeds worried about going to hell.

So some have assumed I don’t believe in baptism any longer. Far from it. I love the things written in a recent booklet from ACU Press by Jeff Childers and in a recent book by John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor.

But here’s the catch: I don’t think you have to agree with me on everything in order to follow Jesus. He is clearly working in the lives of people who drastically disagree with what I believe on some issues.

I’m not an agnostic about their faith, either. I’m not saying, “Well, maybe God will be merciful on others.” Nope. I’m saying, “These are my brothers and sisters in Jesus.” People in whom the fruit of the Holy Spirit is clearly being produced. We have some differences of opinion–even on things that are very important to me–but we are part of the one body of Christ.

It is the height of arrogance (often fueled by fear) to believe that WE got it right and in order to follow him you must follow US.

- – - -

It is important for you to control your own drawbridge. There must be times when you keep your bridge drawn and have the opportunity to be alone or only with those to whom you feel close. Never allow yourself to become public property, where anyone can walk in and out at will. You might think that you are being generous in giving access to anyone who wants to enter or leave, but you will soon find yourself losing your soul. – Henri Nouwen

- – - -

I’ve written before about my appreciation for youth ministers. That appreciation continues to grow as I hear stories of youth leaders who are instilling a deep sense of justice and compassion in their teens. Someday we may look back and realize that there was a dramatic shift in our churches — a shift that focuses more on God’s work to restore the world (in all ways). And we may realize how much of that took place from the teaching and modeling of youth workers.

- – - -

Insightful words about the gospels from N. T. Wright:

“No historian, no reporter, nobody ever tells things ‘just like they happened.’ All stories about all events involve the story-teller in selection, collection, arrangement and hence ‘interpretation.’ That doesn’t mean the whole thing is a pack of lies. It just means there is no such thing as a point of view which is nobody’s point of view. Nobody is ever a fly on the wall. All storytelling is story-telling with a purpose. The Gospels are no exception. To read the Gospels, then, we must continually be alert both for the question ‘what is this telling us about Jesus?’ and for the question ‘what is the evangelist trying to say, through this tory about Jesus, to his own contemporaries?’”

- – - -

My name has finally been removed from the www.foracappella.org site. It took quite a while for someone to figure out that I didn’t endorse the statement there. Hmmmm. Hadn’t read my blog, I guess. Keep hoping they’ll take down the scandalous articles that indicate instrumental music is a matter of salvation and fellowship. I’ve read some comments indicating that no one should bother to say anything about it. But those comments are wrong. That teaching is heretical. It reduces the gospel and throws up barriers that shouldn’t exist. Neither singing a cappella nor with instruments is heretical. Teaching that one or the other is necessary for salvation and fellowship is heretical.

- – - -

I’m expecting a short World Series, aren’t you? It’s hard to imagine either the Rockies or the D’backs matching up well with the Indians or Red Sox.

- – - -

I’ve been concerned about the need for the recruiters of Christian colleges to give the same perspective to potential students that the leaders on campus are providing once the students get there.

E.g., if a Christian college has banned people from speaking on its campus, that’s fine. The administration certainly has a right to do that. But wouldn’t it be ironic if the admissions people wound up recruiting from the congregations where those ministers work? Are they making it clear that they would like the students to attend even though the ministers they’ve grown up with are aren’t welcome?

Or let’s suppose that the administration generally believes that something like instrumental music will condemn you. Wouldn’t it be dishonest if the recruiters went to students from instrumental churches and encouraged them to attend, leaving the impression with the students and their parents that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are in full fellowship?

The point is that there needs to be a consistent message between the policy and practices of the administration and the impressions given by the admissions counselors.

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.

- – - -

Here’s my foreword to the new edition of Leonard Allen’s The Cruciform Church:

The Cruciform Church is one of the most formative books of my Christian life. It’s a pleasure to write a foreword for this new edition. In some ways I feel like I’ve written many forewords over the past sixteen years (since it was first published) as I’ve encouraged many young ministers and university students to read it.

There’s a television program that comes on here that’s associated with Churches of Christ. This past week the speaker kindly explained why women have to keep their mouths shut in church.

And that’s a message from Churches of Christ? Or just faithful Churches of Christ? Maybe a list needs to run of those who are faithful enough to support the message.

I couldn’t disagree more with his message. And yet people in Abilene hear that it’s from Churches of Christ.

This post isn’t about the issue of women and gifts, per se. Time will take care of this, anyway. Churches will realize they were wrong — just as on the issue of race.

It’s about presenting yourself as representing a whole denomination. (I know, I know, we’re not a denomination!) It would be like me presenting this on the internet as a message from Churches of Christ. It’s not! it’s my ramblings. It’s what I observe . . . what I believe.

Some who are older than me remember two-week meetings, but I only go back to one-weekers. One in the fall; another in the spring. Every year.

You’d think those are bad memories. And yes, those probably weren’t my favorite two weeks of the year.

And yet — I remember the excitement at our church of knowing that someone was coming with urgent messages. Most years, Guy Napoleon Woods came. Other favorites were Hugo McCord, Bobby Key, and Walter Buchanan (my favorite because he was always so much fun at Green Valley Bible Camp near Bentonville).

I remember Guy N. Woods as a man in whom there was no doubt. His book “Questions and Answers” was like our “Pearl of Great Price” — not exactly the Bible, but still a pretty holy book.

But with the others, the memories are much better: the church getting ready in prayer, the discipline of going to the assembly every night (while other kids were playing ball!), and the attempt to write down every scripture mentioned.

I’m not wanting to go back to gospel meetings. Not at all.

But . . . remembering them makes me ask these questions: In what ways are we providing biblical teaching for the church? In what ways are we reaching out to people who are lost (in every sense of the word) — so that we seek to go out rather than attract?

Here are my bosses:

Rodney Ashlock (associate chairman of undergrad Bible)
Glenn Pemberton (chairman of undergrad Bible)
Ken Cukrowski (associate dean of College of Biblical Studies)
Jack Reese (dean of College of Biblical Studies)
Dwayne Van Rheenan (Provost)
Royce Money (President)

I’m sure I’ve missed some others.

Having said that, I love teaching there. I love the direction of the university. I love the way there is an openness to a larger Christian world while still valuing the heritage of Churches of Christ. I love the variety of the student body. I love the sense that we are both participating in and calling people to the mission of Jesus.

- – - -

In front of a bunch of my buddies, I lost a bet to my friend Chris Flanders. The loser had to make a public confession.

SO . . . let me say this. Flanders was right; I was wrong. Our question was, Who had the most hits in the major leagues in the 1990s. I felt sure I knew. I was wrong. Do you know? Leave your guess here. Don’t google first. Don’t say something like “I know this because I just saw it the other day.” And don’t come back commenting on it. Let’s just see who knows.

What major league player had the most hits in the ’90s?

We won game two against the winner of the Waco district last night, 6-1. Tonight we play the host team from Ft. Worth in the finals of the winners’ bracket. Either late tonight or early tomorrow morning, I’ll hustle back to Abilene to preach. My guess is that the preaching will be a bit blurry-eyed tomorrow. (Note: I’ll just be underscoring the text about how this treasure comes in jars of clay!)

Today: lunch at Pappasito’s. Yes, fajitas, guacamole, and salsa are in my immediate future.

- – - -

Is the Pope stealing his speech material from Churches of Christ? (See this article entitled “Pope: Other Denominations Not True Churches.”) Makes a Protestant really miss John Paul 2.

The Christian assembly is the place where we remember that there is only one ultimate allegiance, and it is to Jesus Christ. It is where we remember that any other ultimate allegiance is idolatry.

The early church didn’t pledge allegiance to Rome. They confessed Jesus as Lord — which was a political statement over against the confession that Caesar is Lord.

Aren’t we to be good citizens? Of course — whether we live in Mexico, Chile, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or the United States. No one nation is God’s nation. He is working in visible and (often) hidden ways in all countries.

There are settings where I say the Pledge of Allegiance. I’m thankful to be a citizen of this country; I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that have been made; and I do see my Christian obligation to be a good citizen. (I’ve written before about the need I sometimes feel to tell people that I’m not talking about the deepest allegiance of my life. Countries come and go; but the kingdom of God keeps encroaching!)

But historically, the Christian assembly has NOT been the place where people pledge their allegiance to a flag or a country. It’s not a place where they celebrate patriotism. Rather, it is a place where they remember that Jesus Christ alone is Lord. It is where they remember the words of Jesus: to come follow him, to turn the other cheek, to love enemies, to have only one Master, to serve one another, to go into all the world, etc. The assembly has been a place where we remember our status as “aliens and strangers” in this world whose true citizenship is in heaven.

You can find earlier blogs that are related here . . . and here.

Part of the ad says: “We are looking for a man who wants to be right not radical, a man of wisdom and understanding who truly believes the song ‘Just As I Am’ and permits the gospel to change people’s lives according to “THE faith once delivered to the Saints.” Change agents, misguided, or unlearned men who desire to forget the old hermeneutic pattern of, who is speaking, to whom is he speaking, and when is he speaking, or Command, Example, and Necessary Inference need not apply. We are seeking a man to continue these God inspired biblical traditions taught by men of faith like those listed above [G. C. Brewer, C. E. McGaughey, Rex Turner, Sr., John Henry Clay].”

Just this reflection: My guess is that if they find someone who really believes the song “Just As I Am,” he won’t get the job.

- – - -

Just a few more recent pictures:

You think I’m kidding. I’m not. I’ve still got a copy. You can’t make stuff up that funny.

The Chronicle has become such a blessing. The coverage of missions is superb. The way the lead articles on potentially explosive issues are nuanced and balanced — always hinting at the possibility of unity even in the midst of disagreements — is wonderful.

If you don’t get a hard copy, be sure to check out their website.

And by the way, Greg Taylor (and others!) continues to improve our online presence for Wineskins. It was a blessing to Rubel and me to edit the magazine all those years; but now I’m so grateful for this online source of good writing. Check it out if you haven’t been there for a while.

- – - -

You’ve seen that there is a special coming out claiming that the tomb of Jesus has been found — with the remains of his body inside.

And to think that unbelievers can poke ridicule at Christians for walking by faith without evidence! There is no way anyone can prove this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

Pardon my doubt, but I think I’ll go ahead and celebrate Easter.

- – - -

One of the many things I loved about the North Atlanta Church was the huge number of people who have come out of serious addictions to faith. What a testimony!

I remember two articles we had in Wineskins in the ’90s. One was by Joe Beam — one of the most requested articles we ever had. Joe talked about the growing, yet-unnamed divide in the denomination (he may not have used that language) between the “progressives” and the “conservatives.” Let’s pause here to all say we hate labels. Of course we do. But you still need some way to describe what you’re talking about. But, he said, there is also a declining middle group that doesn’t yet know which way it is leaning.

Another article — actually a series, as I recall — was by Randy Harris. He was asking if the future for Churches of Christ is hopeful. His answers, in true Randy style, were “no,” “yes,” and “maybe.”

Today the picture is fuzzier. There is still an uneasiness between many churches over issues like, “Are we the only ones faithful to God?” For some, the answer is “yes.” Others of us can’t even fathom asking the question.

But there are other ways in which diversity is manifesting itself, too. Such as these:

Are the leaders reading scripture as fundamentalists or not? (I personally think this will, fifty years from now, wind up having been the most significant question.)

How does the church understand the kingdom of God?

What does it see as its purpose?

How important are the traditions of the church in a rapidly changing world? (Do traditions hold back or do they anchor?)

We’ll look quite different in twenty years. I’m pretty sure of that. Already — and this is such a small example — people who print the official C of C directory are having to figure out how they indicate that a church considers itself a part of Churches of Christ but uses instrumental music (Richland Hills, Farmer’s Branch, . . . ).

And I purposefully didn’t include style of music as one of the central defining questions!

Should be interesting times ahead.

First: Most people I know who want to preserve it aren’t trying to make their case in terms of “it’s God’s way.” Some do. One of our Christian college presidents — not the one where I teach! — once told me that he thought the use of instrumental music would send someone to hell. (Just when you thought no one really, really, really believed that . . . . “Yes, I know you served the poor, you lived an exemplary life of compassion, justice, and worship — but you used a piano in worship . . . .”) Most are talking about the strengths of the tradition — a tradition that is preserved by several tribes. See, for example, this conference being held next summer at Pepperdine.

Second: Why did we have to have a central focus of identity (a cappella music) that is so difficult to spell? Not a capella . . . or a cappela . . . but a cappella.

Third: Most people I know who express an interest in having instrumental music are not wanting to lose the a cappella tradition. It’s not an either/or. I seriously doubt that the Richland Hills Church will give up their a cappella heritage completely.

Fourth: As I said in the comments yesterday, just because something is a matter of opinion doesn’t mean it isn’t important how a church discusses and processes the issue. That’s what Paul is doing in 1 Corinthians 8-10. The topic is food sacrificed to idols: eat it or don’t eat it? Well, it’s a matter of indifference. Sure, go ahead and eat it. But that’s not all Paul has to say about it. For the way they approach the seemingly insignificant topic (at least insignificant from our historical distance) says a lot about how they are living out the gospel in community.

Fifth: The next generation has Christian music on their ipods. They go to Christian concerts. Rarely do they listen to a cappella radio stations. And they won’t buy the old arguments (from the few who are still making them). In many cases, it isn’t that they haven’t HEARD the arguments; it’s that they see how vacuous those arguments are.

Sixth: Those who yesterday pointed out that we should not obsess on this are right. We must discuss it in Christian ways — but we must not let such discussions detour us from joining God in his work in this world. (That’s what I love about RH. This is a church that is reaching out all over Tarrant County and the world. When our church discussed the ministry of women, some on the outside thought that had become our main topic. Hardly. It was almost a sidebar as we were making serious transitions to participate with God in what he was already doing in our neighborhood.)

Seventh: Just got to say it. The a cappella tradition is nothing to be ashamed of. The only thing to be ashamed of is the exclusivism and judgmentalism with which many defended it. I still find great joy in adding my voice to a chorus of voices of brothers and sisters in Christ. I love instrumental worship, but so often I find my head aching from the guitars and drums that are deafening and I realize I can’t hear anyone singing — except the faint sound of everyone singing unison. Nearly every time we have Christian speakers from other tribes come to the Zoe conference, they stop to mention how the four-part harmony they hear is such a powerful symbol of the unity-within-diversity of the gospel. (Admittedly, not all singing services sound like the Zoe conferences. But you get the point.) When I sing I remember that God is the audience, not me; and I remember that my job is to add my part — to participate with a grateful heart. Not saying that doesn’t happen in other settings; I just love that as a strength of my own heritage.

Eighth: Autonomous. Remember that word? Godly leaders making prayerful decisions. No brotherhood pope (unless we’ve elected Randy Harris to the post).

Ninth: The body of Christ is so wonderfully diverse. So much larger than any little groups. Celebrate the diversity of those who follow Christ!

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST

It is significant that the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth recently announced that it would soon have a service with instrumental music in addition to its usual services where the traditional practice of acappella singing will be preserved. It is significant not only because Richland Hills is one of our largest congregations, if not the largest, but also because it is one of our most influential churches, if not the most influential.

Unlike some of our avant garde churches, Richland Hills has been cautious and moderate in the changes it has made through the years. A number of churches have “progressed” beyond the point of any identity as Churches of Christ, and have more or less disclaimed any connection. They have not only gone “instrumental” completely, but they have taken some generic name in place of Church of Christ. They say that name is an impediment to their mission. And yet their leadership and membership are largely from Churches of Christ, and they are likely to practice communion and baptism as before. They are particularly “grace-oriented.”

When I discussed this with Rick Atchley, senior minister at Richland Hills, he said being “Church of Christ” was no problem to them. He appeared to agree with what I have long said: We should be busy being what we believe a true Church of Christ should be – unsectarian, unity-minded, Christ-centered, and faithful to our heritage both in Scripture and to our Restoration tradition. That is what reformation/restoration is about – not leaving and becoming rootless, but staying and effecting renewal from within.

This is what makes Richland Hill’s decision to go instrumental for even one service historic. It is something of an exemplary congregation, one that has kept its balance amidst decades of change, and it has remained loyal to its heritage in Churches of Christ. It has in fact through the years conducted workshops for our leaders on “how to do church.” Are they now showing their penchant for leading the way by going (partly) instrumental?

While there are several Churches of Christ that still wear that name that are now instrumental in one service, it is not yet a trend – perhaps no more than six or eight congregations. The Jenks Church of Christ in Tulsa has the unique arrangement of simultaneous services, one acappella and one instrumental, one upstairs and one downstairs. They supposed that the instrumental service would be for the youth, but to their surprise a number of oldsters attend as well.

The Farmers Branch Church of Christ in the Dallas area also has simultaneous services Sunday a.m., a “contemporary” service in the Family Center that uses instruments, and a traditional acappella service in the sanctuary. There is a second acappella service on Sunday morning.. There is also a contemporary service on Saturday p.m., with instruments. These contemporary services use keyboard, guitars, drums. The four weekend assemblies total upward of 1500 in attendance. Considering its background as a non-Sunday school congregation (It still has no Sunday school!), Farmers Branch is a phenomenon among Churches of Christ, with dynamic leadership.

As might be expected, this innovation of having even one instrumental service is viewed with concern, if not dismay, by many in Churches of Christ. It is probable that for the foreseeable future most of our churches will remain uncompromisingly acappella. But there will almost certainly be a continuation of some congregations –the larger and the more progressive – going instrumental for one or more services. Now that Richland Hills is among that number the pace could accelerate.

Churches of Christ have such a rich tradition of acappella singing that it is unlikely that it will ever be completely abandoned. Even our most progressive congregations will almost certainly continue to do some singing without instruments. And for good reasons, one being that we often do it well. It is common for visitors to our services to comment that we don’t need instruments. We can also believe that acappella music is more in keeping with the simplicity and beauty of New Testament worship.

Nor are Churches of Christ uniquely acappella, except in some American communities. Throughout the history of the church there has been a substantial presence of acappella singing, sometimes acappella only, as in the great Orthodox churches, the most ancient of denominations. All churches sometimes sing acappella, and some of the great choirs of the world use only the human voice. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland not only objects to instruments but to man-made hymnals as well. They use the hymnal that is in the Bible, the Psalms. The only scriptural hymnal! I don’t know how we missed that one!

This is why I questioned the thesis of a publication by a professor at Abilene Christian University some years back on The Case for Acappella Music. I pointed out that no case has to be made for acappella singing, for reasons noted above. Beside, insofar as Churches of Christ are concerned that is not the issue. The professor’s book should have been on The Case for Making Acappella Music a Test of Fellowship.

No one faults us for singing acappella. That has not been our sin. We erred when we made the use of instruments a test of fellowship and allowed it to be a divisive issue. We went wrong when we moved acappella music from being an opinion or preference to being an essential. We took it from our small t traditions, where it properly belongs, and made it part of our capital T tradition, the core gospel which we share with all believers.

And that, thank God, is what is changing – not in a trickle, but massively. Instrumental music is a dead issue in most mainline Churches of Christ. Many churches – that will adamantly remain non-instrumental — have gone on record of no longer making it a condition of fellowship. Even those who view it as a sin should they sing with an instrument no longer apply that judgment upon others.

It does not matter all that much whether Churches of Christ remain acappella or whether they become partly or completely instrumental. The church catholic has long labeled such questions as adiaphorous (matters of indifference). In our own Restoration heritage we have it in the motto: “In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love.” We got off track and betrayed our own heritage when we turned opinions and methods into essentials.

What is important, whether we are acappella or instrumental or something of both, is that we love and accept all other believers as equals in Christ. How they sing in their assemblies, or how they otherwise “do church” is adiaphorous, so long as they are devoted to Christ and hold to the essentials of the faith.

History could do an irony on us, a benevolent one. Churches of Christ could end up with both instrumental and non-instrumental churches, while we remain united. That would put us where our Stone/Campbell heritage was 150 years ago. For an entire generation we had “organic” and “inorganic” congregations without a rupture in fellowship. This was the case until editor-bishops appeared who insisted that “It can be only one way,” and divided us.

This transition we are going through – and remember the “law of change” is the “law of God – isn’t really about instrumental music. It goes much deeper and is much more complicated. It is the old issue of “form and substance” that goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Is reality and truth in the form (anything material or outward) or is it in the substance (the ideal, or what’s in the heart)? Or s it somehow both? Plato, for instance, held that material things are but a shadow of reality, which is mind or idea.

We are all exposed to this problem in one way or another. We know that unless baptism is a “circumcision of the heart” (Col. 2:11-12) one only gets wet. And we agree with Shakespeare in reference to prayer that “words without thoughts never to heaven go.” And unless it is an act of heart and conscience the Lord’s Supper is in vain. Form must have substance, and substance must have priority. Errors of the heart are far more serious than flaws in the form.

Our people are becoming more spiritually discerning, and this includes being more aware of what matters most, the heart. If the heart is right (substance) the form might be adiaphorous – or at least matters on which we can differ. Not that form is unimportant, for it is sometimes ordained of God, but our sincere responses to form might differ in detail. Foremost, God looks upon the heart, not outward appearance.

So, just how we do music — hymnals are only the Psalms, shaped notes or round notes, choirs or solos or congregational singing, acappella or instrumental – may not be that big a deal with God so long as the music is from the heart and glorifies Christ. And so we are to unloose and renounce the old fallacy that “It can be only one way.”

Now I’m ready. I’m going to try to start working on it during “spare time” (ha!), and then the elders have given me some time this June to finish it.

It’s very important to me, and I’d appreciate your prayers. I’ll tell you more about it later.

- – - -

You asked for it. You got it. (The antecedent of “you” is a few readers with a warped sense of humor.) “Mike Cope Sings the Classics” from the ’05 Zoe Conference.

Thanks to Matt Maxwell, my tech guru, for getting this on youtube. He and I filmed the whole thing in about an hour, and then Grant Boone added the impromptu voice-over later.