Musical Instruments in Worship

[melinky]

I found this on the web and wondered what you all thought about it.

By What Authority Do Men Teach The Use Of Instrument Of Music In Worship?

Introduction:      

1.     Co.3:17 Whatever we do in word or deed we must do in the name of the Lord.

Discussion:

1.     They Do Not Do So With The Authority Of God.

     A.     God authorizes by express statements in the Scripture.  He expressly says “sing’.

     B.     God authorizes by implication. Singing can be done with instruments, so it is not implied.

     C.     God authorizes by approved accounts of action.  There isn’t  example of Christians doing it.

     D.     Mt.26:30; Ac.16:25; Ro.15:9; 1Co.14:15,26; Ep.5:19; Co.3:16; He.2:12; 13:15; Ja.5:13

2.     They Do Not Do So With Specific Authority From God.

     A.     By specific authority God has authorized singing for worship. See passages above.

     B.     Argument on psallo-to pluck. God specifies strings of heart & voice/lips. Co.3:16; He.13:15

3.     They Do Not Do So With Generic Authority From God.

     A.     By generic authority God may authorizes a broad classifications of things.

          1.     He tells us to “go” into all the world to preach.  But He has not specified how we go.

          2.     But God has not just said, “make music in worship”. Specified the heart & singing.

     B.     When God specifies as He has concerning worship music by song, this eliminates all else.

     C.     There are two classes of commands in the Bible--generic and specific.

          1.     A specific command is one where God has specifically identified a  desire.

          2.     An example of a specific command would be that we preach the Gospel. Mk.16:15

               a.     It doesn’t authorize us to preach politics, social themes, philosophy, or humor!

               b.     A generic command or aspect of the great commission is the command to "GO”.

               c.     God hasn’t legislated how we are to go.  We may go by foot, flight, or motor bike.

               d.     However when it comes to our message, He has specified the "Gospel".

          3.     God hasn’t specified the means of our teaching, only the subject-the Gospel!

          4.     The command to teach is generic as to the manner.  We may teach by tract,  bulletin, radio/TV, newspaper, orally, chart, and so on.

     5.     In reference to music in worship, He has specifically requested singing.

          a.     Each New Testament command & each verse in reference to music refers to singing.

          b.     They never command, infer nor give example of playing of any mechanical instrument.

     D.     Why could Israel not offer a dog or a hog at the passover  Ex.12.  God specified a lamb!

     E.     Why did Noah not use pine in building the ark?  God specified gopher wood. Ge. 6:14,22

     F.     A friend of Christ's will respect what He requests & won’t tamper with it. Jn.15:14

4.     Some Attempt To Justify Their Practice By Old Testament Authority.

     A.     But God has taken away the Old and now binds His New Testament.  Co.2:14-17; He.10:8-9

B.     Instrumental music was introduced by David.Am.6:5; 1Ch15:16; 2Ch.29:27

     1.     A modern introduction of the instruments by Catholicism took place in the 1600's.

2.     In the United States the instrument was first introduced into the worship of God's people at Midway, Kentucky and at St. Louis, Missouri in 1869.

3.     The Use of An Instrument As They Practice Is Not Simply An Aid.

     A.     If it were an aid, it could be left off.   A walking stick can assist; song book help with words.

     B.     If as it is claimed to be simply an aid, then for unity’s sake, it should be left off.

4.     While Many May Use It Because They Like It, It Is A Sin.

     A.     The practice may please men but is disrespectful to God’s wishes.  God told us His desire!

     B.     It is divisive to introduce that which confuses souls & divides up His followers. 2Tm2:23-24

     C.     We should be willing to leave off things that may harm or mislead others. 1Cr.8:9-13

5.     Those Who Use It Do So Contrary To The History Of Their Own Religion.

     See quotes below.

Conclusion: Those Who Do This Contary To God’s Authority.

1.     We are only to observe those things that Jesus has taught. Mt.28:20

2.     Innovation in worship is will worship, vain, and thus sin. Mt.15:8,9; Ga.5:4; Co.2:23

3.     Instrumental music isn’t a part of truth! The Spirit never revealed it! Jn.16:13;  8:32

4.     It is not a good work, because it is not taught in the New Testament scriptures. 2Tm.3:16,17

5.     It doesn’t pertain to life & godliness. 2Pt.1:3

6.     It is to add to the word of God. Re.22:18; Ga.1:1-9

7.     It is not of faith and cannot please God. Ro.10:17; 14:23; He.11:6

8.     One can’t do it in the name or by the authority of the Lord. Mt.28:18; Co.3:17

###

Quotes From Key Denominational Leaders Against Using Instrumental Music:

     John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church...I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard or seen. (Clark's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 684

     Adam Clarke, a Methodist commentator...I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music in the Christian church is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion and that they are sinful. If there was a woe then for them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no woe, no curse to them who invent them and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian church? (Clark's commentary, Vol. 4, p. 684)

     Charles Spurgeon, a prominent Baptist...What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it… (Spurgeon Commentary on Psa. 42)

     James Hasting, Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics...Pope Vitalian introduced an organ in the church in the 7th century to aid the singing but it was opposed and was removed.

     Martin Luther, from whom the Lutheran Church sprang...The organ in the worship is an insignia of Baal.

     Joseph Bingham, of the church of England...Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music is not.

     The Council of Trent met in 1545. This indicates that the introduction of instrumental music was one of the latter inventions of the Catholic church. Even among Catholics, around 800 years passed before the instruments were widely accepted.

     John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian church...Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law…  The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews.  Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that  noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more  pleasing to him.  (Calvin commentary on Psa. 33 & 1 Sam. 18:1-9)

[rgrove]

Looks like a poor effort at establishing one aspect of the regulative principle of worship to me. Although they may have espanded this out since they quote Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican sources who don't practice the regulative principle. Perhaps it's just someone who just really doesn't like musical instruments. If you're interested in a better expression of this understanding of what's known as "The Regulative Principle of Worship" then might I suggest this article as a starting point:

www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonRegulativePrinciple.htm

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[fairbank]

Interesting Ron. A puritan's mind is a site that belongs to my friend and brother in Christ Matt McMahon. Matt and his wonderful wife were members of the first church I pastored, in Topsfield MA. A few years later, Matt and I were both pastoring churches in South Florida. It was great to have another young, reformed guy pastoring a Baptist church so close by. We have not spoken much since then, but I have great regard for Matt McMahon and his insight. He is a very smart man who truly loves the Lord. Bless you brother.

Eric

[rgrove]

Small World! ;D

[Soulfyre]

I understand what is referred to as the "regulative prinicple" of worship, but have always thought that it strains at a gnat to swallow a camel. It is clear that temple worship included the use of instrumental music, and the psalms speak of using musical instruments (although perhaps strict adherents to the regulative principle would require us to use the lyre and the sackbut). It seems to me that much of the "regulative principle" hearkens back to a ceremonial rigidity of the Law (although they still used musical instruments and choirs). Now that Jesus Christ has set us free from the yoke of bondage to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, how is it that we should be entangled again with a regulative principle that is even more stringent than that of the Law?

I believe that much of the Puritan and Reformed reaction to "ceremony" and "instrumental" or "choral music" stems from a reaction to the High Mass of the Roman Catholic church, which was essentially a "spectator sport", and the theology of the Roman Catholic church, in which engaging in sacremental worship was in an effort to gain merit before Christ. In the Old Testament, people tithed from their crops and from their cattle...people also tithed from the wages of their labors. Can people not share their God-given talents as well? (Or must they simply go out, perform music, and bring a portion of the financial proceeds to the church?) I understand the desire to avoid coming before God on the basis of human merit or works (even though it is assumed that the Christian will persevere in good works). But when comes before God among His people in a right spirit, such talents are shared with joy in response to God's love and grace.

Also on the basis of this, we would preach ONLY the gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-8). After all, the Bible doesn't say to preach the Bible....just "the Gospel", and the Gospel is pretty well identified by the passage I listed. Anything else would evidently NOT be commanded, and thus must NOT be done. It would be inappropriate to read from the Old Testament, Gospels, Epistles...it would be inappropriate to sing (except in "your hearts to the Lord"), since it specifically says "SPEAKING to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs"--it does not specify singing. Clearly this could be pressed ad absurdam, but I believe you understand what I am saying. And what did the church do before the New Testament was written? Did they gather in stony silence waiting for the clear teaching to allow them use psalms and hymns and spiritual songs? Now one could argue that they would have followed the practice of the Apostles. But we know that for a period of time they gathered in the temple to worship. Do you suppose they rushed out screaming when musical instruments and choirs and liturgical chant were used?

For a long time the practice of the early church included at least a variety of musical expression (although largely vocal). Have we now reached such a time that we can accept what the early church concluded regarding such things as the Trinity and the nature of Jesus Christ, but may assume, from our perch aloft, to look down upon the early church practices in worship as primitive, superstitious, or theologically repugnant, as though the Holy Spirit were dormant in the church from the end of the Apostolic era until the fullness of Reformed Theology? Must we assume that Martin Luther and Jean Calvin were hopelessly muddled, since they venerated the Virgin Mary (although they certainly did not consider her to be worthy of worship, to be the queen of heaven, or to be the mediatrix of salvation)? I know that both were concerned regarding instrumental music. Even the Orthodox Church does not generally use instrumental music (although they certainly use choirs, chant, and congregational singing...of course, they also use incense...ooops!). But there is clearly much that had been done that would have been in opposition to the "regulative principle."

Much of church history is littered by actions and over-reactions. And often the reasoning used was Biblical, theological, and from church tradition. But I am far more likely to say that what God has not specifically forbidden, while it must be approached with caution, is not necessarily to be avoided. Our liberty should not be used as license, but neither should we rebuild the "fence" around the Law. I respect the leaders of the Reformation, but I also respect the life of the church prior to the Great Schism, and do not assume that the Reformation (which was, in itself, a reaction against apostasy within the Western church), was the restoration of true religion, for the Eastern church had been in existence since the apostles, and the Holy Spirit had not been dormant among them. The early church did not so much see the use of musical instruments as sinful, as they viewed the human voice as preferable. It is considered a part of Holy Tradition that the Orthodox not use instrumentation now, following the practice of the early church. But it is not the imposition of a "regulative principle" that if followed rigidly, would forbid far more than just instrumental music.

God bless and keep you always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[mpethe]

As a worship leader and guitarist my view on this should be evident.

I have come to see however, that insruments can both help and hinder true worship.

First we could note that music - whether instrumental, vocal or a combination - can be quite 'powerful'. Powerful in the sense that it can invoke a reaction. It can inspire, amaze, frustrate, anger, sadden, create a sense of joy - along with many other emotions.

Second, we should note that none of these reactions necessarily have anything to do with worship. Music can cause the same effects in a church service or in a completely secular environment.

When instruments (or vocals for that matter) are used in a worship service - they should be used to the extent that they help people truly worship. We must guard against a style that turns the instruments themselves, or the musicians/singers into the focal point.

But there is something else to ask ourselves. Can worship happen in the listening? Some of us would rightly call hearing a sermon 'worship' - as our hearts are centered back on God and love is inflamed for Him. We do not participate in this sermon (typically), but it is fair to say that worship is still happening.

In the same way, can worship also happen in listening to music that lifts our attention to God?

I would say 'yes' - except that it is not merely "listening". There is a response going on in the heart.

I would say that there is no hard and fast rule as to what aids we can or cannot include in our worship. Rather, I would say that we really need to discern whether those aids are in fact 'aids'. Are they helping to allow the right response in our hearts?

[fairbank]

Matthew and MPETHE, well said. As a "high Baptist" I have my opinions about worship as well. I am prone much more toward formality than what you might see in a typical "contemporary" church.

In orthodox (small 'o' in the general sense) Christianity, salvation is by God's grace through faith in Christ. There is no room for variance, or accounting for personal taste there. With worship, I don't believe there is just "one form" toward which we all are to be striving. I don't believe that what we are ultimately discussing are moral imperatives but are more like unto denominational distinctives and personal preferences when it comes to worship.

For those who are drawn toward the boundaries provided by the regulative principle, I am certain that they gain comfort from the thought and execution of such carefully structured worship. On the other hand, those who express so freely the joy of the Lord in a more spontaneous manner also gain comfort in worshiping as an expression of their freedom in Christ.

Most churches are probably somewhere in the middle, but I think it is beneficial to learn from our differences and thereby gain appreciation of one another, and either be inspired to try something new, or further solidify our conviction of what is satisfying worship to us. In all cases, I pray that God will be glorified by the heart of worshippers that are earnestly seeking Him.

[melinky]

fairbank said:

Matthew and MPETHE, well said. As a "high Baptist" I have my opinions about worship as well. I am prone much more toward formality than what you might see in a typical "contemporary" church.

In orthodox (small 'o' in the general sense) Christianity, salvation is by God's grace through faith in Christ. There is no room for variance, or accounting for personal taste there. With worship, I don't believe there is just "one form" toward which we all are to be striving. I don't believe that what we are ultimately discussing are moral imperatives but are more like unto denominational distinctives and personal preferences when it comes to worship.

For those who are drawn toward the boundaries provided by the regulative principle, I am certain that they gain comfort from the thought and execution of such carefully structured worship. On the other hand, those who express so freely the joy of the Lord in a more spontaneous manner also gain comfort in worshiping as an expression of their freedom in Christ.

Most churches are probably somewhere in the middle, but I think it is beneficial to learn from our differences and thereby gain appreciation of one another, and either be inspired to try something new, or further solidify our conviction of what is satisfying worship to us. In all cases, I pray that God will be glorified by the heart of worshippers that are earnestly seeking Him.

Eric,

I don't think I could have said it any better!

The quote in my initial post came from the web site of the church my father attends. While I have some major issues with the some of the doctrine of his church, like musical instruments in worship, those are my issues.

I've never really understood why we tend to concentrate on the differences between denominations instead of looking at the similarities. I think we'd all get along much better if we did.

Thanks for all of the insight from you all,

Melinda

[fairbank]

Bless you Melinda. I agree. While I have a passion for doctrinal purity, and maintaining high standards for Christ, my crusade is to win the lost, and love and disciple those who are found in Christ. A ministry defined by correcting the errors of other believers or rescuing them from their doctrinal deficiencies tends to lose them, not win them.

[Soulfyre]

fairbank said:

Bless you Melinda. I agree. While I have a passion for doctrinal purity, and maintaining high standards for Christ, my crusade is to win the lost, and love and disciple those who are found in Christ. A ministry defined by correcting the errors of other believers or rescuing them from their doctrinal deficiencies tends to lose them, not win them.

Of course I do believe that somewhere in the Bible the "cult of the overhead" is strictly forbidden...

God bless and keep you all,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[mpethe]

Of course I do believe that somewhere in the Bible the "cult of the overhead" is strictly forbidden...

That's right. All those "high places" that those Kings of Judah always neglected to remove? Most likely should be translated from Hebrew as "Overhead projectors".

;D

[fairbank]

Mpethe and Soulfyre, bless you both...good belly laugh!

Eric