For most of my life, one particular argument against the use of instrumental worship held a very strong sway over me. The historical assertion that for the first 500 years (or 300, 600, 800, or 1200, depends on which scholar is talking) of the early Church’s existence, it was vehemently against the use of instrumental music. As far as I can tell, this is true. The early Church deplored the use of instruments. Here’s proof:“Simply singing is not agreeable to children [referring to Jews], but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing.” - Justin Martyr, 139 A.D.
“Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they are more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.” - Clement of Alexandria, 190 A.D.
“Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days… We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.” – Eusebius of Caesarea, early 4th century.
“… Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship.” - Augustine of Hippo, early 5th century.
More could be given, however, for the sake of brevity, I will stop here because the tenor remains the same throughout the writings of the early Church. Given the intensity of the comments from our spiritual forefathers, this “historical” argument always had a powerful effect on me. If they opposed the use of instruments so strongly and didn’t use them, why would anyone else? However, a closer reading and further thought into what was actually being said is very revealing.
The Augustinian quote is particularly valuable here as it lays out the general reason for the animosity throughout those first centuries, and, consequently, why I no longer feel compelled to follow it. Instruments were associated “… so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries…” that it was “… easy to understand the prejudices against their use in worship.” While this is certainly understandable for the time, I will argue it has long since lost its relevance.
The Christians were trying to differentiate themselves from Roman paganism on the one hand while simultaneously separating from Judaism on the other. It was no easy task. Christianity was long thought of as just another of the many mystery religions rampant throughout the period and it was struggling to differentiate itself. Furthermore, it was some time before Rome would recognize Christianity as a wholly separate institution from Judaism. Therefore the Church’s disdain of anything that made the distinction they felt inherent in their faith harder to recognize was to be avoided at all costs.
“Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they are more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men.” - Clement of Alexandria, 190 A.D.
“Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days… We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.” – Eusebius of Caesarea, early 4th century.
“… Musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship.” - Augustine of Hippo, early 5th century.
More could be given, however, for the sake of brevity, I will stop here because the tenor remains the same throughout the writings of the early Church. Given the intensity of the comments from our spiritual forefathers, this “historical” argument always had a powerful effect on me. If they opposed the use of instruments so strongly and didn’t use them, why would anyone else? However, a closer reading and further thought into what was actually being said is very revealing.
The Augustinian quote is particularly valuable here as it lays out the general reason for the animosity throughout those first centuries, and, consequently, why I no longer feel compelled to follow it. Instruments were associated “… so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries…” that it was “… easy to understand the prejudices against their use in worship.” While this is certainly understandable for the time, I will argue it has long since lost its relevance.
The Christians were trying to differentiate themselves from Roman paganism on the one hand while simultaneously separating from Judaism on the other. It was no easy task. Christianity was long thought of as just another of the many mystery religions rampant throughout the period and it was struggling to differentiate itself. Furthermore, it was some time before Rome would recognize Christianity as a wholly separate institution from Judaism. Therefore the Church’s disdain of anything that made the distinction they felt inherent in their faith harder to recognize was to be avoided at all costs.
Christians didn’t want to appear Jewish because Jews didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. And they didn’t want to appear pagan because, well, because pagans had orgies and mosh-pits. All of which, of course, was inherently contradictory to the Christian faith and rightly viewed as something worthy of contempt.
Do we run the same risks today? Would the use of instruments make it difficult for the general public to differentiate our faith and beliefs from the revelry of a Satanist or the Messianic denial of an atheist? Surely the answer is no.
More importantly, notice what is missing from the quotes above. When arguing against the use of instrumental worship there is a general absence of scripture. They talk quite a bit about pagans and Jews, revelries and beasts, but not much about the Bible. In fact, as far as I am aware, it isn’t until the second millennium of Christianity (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that we get our first attempts at formulating an argument against instrumental worship based on scripture.
So here’s what I think... The fact that the early patristic fathers did not give scriptural reasons for their scorn of all-things-instrumental, is strong evidence that they DID NOT believe there were any scriptural reasons. They had reasons but they were not scriptural. And these guys loved using the Bible to support their assertions. It is said that the majority of the New Testament could be re-written if all we had available to us were patristic writings. However, centuries rambled by without mention of anything we would consider a scriptural argument. It seems only reasonable to assume that had they had one, they would have used it… relentlessly.
Also missing from patristic rhetoric was the often used argument that scriptural silence was sufficient to exclude IM from worship. Many today claim that a lack of New Testament authorization for instruments in worship should be taken as a prohibition of its use. While I am not trying to lay out a complete case against the “silence is prohibitive” hermeneutic, or Regulative Principle, (though I disagree with it), I am pointing out that the earliest leaders of the Church didn’t use this argument. It is hard to imagine them not employing it had they felt it was viable.
That the early Church used neither scripture nor scriptural silence in their war on instrumental worship doesn’t settle anything. A person can still insist the Bible teaches against IM. Even if the early Church didn’t feel scripture prohibited the use of instrumental worship, they were, like us, uninspired people capable of making mistakes. True enough. But the fact that they didn’t use the Bible in defense of their non-IM position should give any non-IM’er pause the next time he or she wants to use the historical argument to bolster their scriptural position.
So in summary:
1. The early Church was against the use of instrumental worship only (as far as we know) to ensure their burgeoning faith community would not be confused with the non-Christian pagan and Jewish groups.
2. They did not have scriptural arguments that they felt disallowed the use of instrumental worship or they would have used them.
3. They did not believe in the argument that the silence of scriptures prohibited instrumental worship or they would have used it.
Hence the title of this article…
Early Church fathers unanimously agree, “There are NO scriptural arguments against instrumental worship!”
Okay, so maybe I shouldn’t put that last part in quotes. Sue me.
Do we run the same risks today? Would the use of instruments make it difficult for the general public to differentiate our faith and beliefs from the revelry of a Satanist or the Messianic denial of an atheist? Surely the answer is no.
More importantly, notice what is missing from the quotes above. When arguing against the use of instrumental worship there is a general absence of scripture. They talk quite a bit about pagans and Jews, revelries and beasts, but not much about the Bible. In fact, as far as I am aware, it isn’t until the second millennium of Christianity (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that we get our first attempts at formulating an argument against instrumental worship based on scripture.
So here’s what I think... The fact that the early patristic fathers did not give scriptural reasons for their scorn of all-things-instrumental, is strong evidence that they DID NOT believe there were any scriptural reasons. They had reasons but they were not scriptural. And these guys loved using the Bible to support their assertions. It is said that the majority of the New Testament could be re-written if all we had available to us were patristic writings. However, centuries rambled by without mention of anything we would consider a scriptural argument. It seems only reasonable to assume that had they had one, they would have used it… relentlessly.
Also missing from patristic rhetoric was the often used argument that scriptural silence was sufficient to exclude IM from worship. Many today claim that a lack of New Testament authorization for instruments in worship should be taken as a prohibition of its use. While I am not trying to lay out a complete case against the “silence is prohibitive” hermeneutic, or Regulative Principle, (though I disagree with it), I am pointing out that the earliest leaders of the Church didn’t use this argument. It is hard to imagine them not employing it had they felt it was viable.
That the early Church used neither scripture nor scriptural silence in their war on instrumental worship doesn’t settle anything. A person can still insist the Bible teaches against IM. Even if the early Church didn’t feel scripture prohibited the use of instrumental worship, they were, like us, uninspired people capable of making mistakes. True enough. But the fact that they didn’t use the Bible in defense of their non-IM position should give any non-IM’er pause the next time he or she wants to use the historical argument to bolster their scriptural position.
So in summary:
1. The early Church was against the use of instrumental worship only (as far as we know) to ensure their burgeoning faith community would not be confused with the non-Christian pagan and Jewish groups.
2. They did not have scriptural arguments that they felt disallowed the use of instrumental worship or they would have used them.
3. They did not believe in the argument that the silence of scriptures prohibited instrumental worship or they would have used it.
Hence the title of this article…
Early Church fathers unanimously agree, “There are NO scriptural arguments against instrumental worship!”
Okay, so maybe I shouldn’t put that last part in quotes. Sue me.
Did you read the Wineskins articles written on this subject..Very informative. And Al Maxey does the best job at countering the "silence" hermenuetic with "specificity"...But, yeah, the churches are finally realizing that the argument against IM isn't scripturally supported. But, I hate to loose a capella singing entirely. Not only is it great to listen to and participate in except when sung badly, it really is a form of classical education. Just about anybody growing up in the CoC could read music by the time they were teenagers and nearly all have some sort of appreciation for music in general.
ReplyDeleteReally, the wineskins articles written by several were excellent and informative...Happy New Year
Yeah Price, I still prefer acapella too. And yes, I read at least some of the NW articles.
ReplyDeleteI've had this 'conversation' with my former COC minister, who now lives in Texas and plays in the church band. The book "The Other Side of the Keyboard" was very enlightening to me. I really appreciate your provoking articles and questions - they make me squirm a bit. Coming from a super super conservative and legalistic COC background, it is VERY difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that my beliefs might be a tad bit...wrong... :D
ReplyDeleteAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even IF they never used the same arguments is not proof they are invalid.
ReplyDeleteConcerning silence, I hope your pharmacist follows it the next time your doctor gives you a prescription. Be sure to remember what you order (and don't order) the next time you go to a restaurant.
The prohibitive nature of silence is everyday common sense. No one goes to the extreme lengths of listing what they do not want when they have already specified what they do want.
The premises are true and the argument is arranged correctly, the conclusion stands. Just because someone has not employed a particular argument before does not mean it does not work.
PS. The ECFs are not our authority. The apostles' doctrine and example do not give us faith to use instruments. To use them is presumption. It is infantile to claim, "Well, He didn't say we couldn't!" I never let my children get away with such foolishness.
Johnny,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the patristic fathers are not authority. And I don't mean to claim that I think instrumental worship is okay because they said it was okay.
The point of the article was to focus on the historical argument only. I did not lay out a case against the silence of scripture or Regulative Principle, I merely was pointing out that the ECF's didn't use it. And they didn't use scriptural proof-texting to condemn instruments either.
This isn't proof that instruments are okay. It isn't meant to be. But growing up in the CofC, I was told that since the early church didn't use instruments it only makes since that there was something to their condemnation that we should pay attention to. I heard this countless times.
This article only points to the absurdity of using the ECF rhetoric as a defense of the non-IM position. There defense, so far as I have seen, was cultural and not scriptural. This is telling though not authoritative.
About the pharmacy analogy:
I guess I would argue (though I don't think a pharmacy is a good analogy to begin with) that this could work against your position...
God says sing so I sing. I can sing to the accompaniment of instruments without changing the singing one bit. Just like I can sing and scratch my ear without changing the singing.
Now, if I tell the pharmacist to bottle up some codeine and he adds some other ingredient it is no longer codeine. It is a completely different product through and through. It isn't codeine plus something, it is a new compound altogether.
A better pharmacy analogy would be to consider whether or not I would have a problem with the pharmacist playing a harmonica while he filled my prescription. As long as he gave me codeine I could care less. I imagine God looks at our intrument bickering about like I would at a pharmacist humming while filling my codeine bottle... he could care less too.
@Johnny The pharmacy example does not support silence as prohibitive as you expressed it. It is understood from direct teaching at their schools that you only fill what is directed. It did take a direct command, so to speak, for them to know you do not add or take away from the written prescription. So, the only way silence kept them from doing anything else is because of how pharmaceuticals work.
ReplyDeletePlus, common sense is not always reliable when it comes to interpreting God's word.
God has specified the instrument to be "plucked," and it's the human heart. Any addition is precisely that, an addition. As you implied, if the worshiper adds an additional ingredient the result in an entirely different "product," not what was ordered. Scratching your ear while singing is not an act of worship. It just means that your ear itched while you were worshiping.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I'd like to see anyone play the harmonica and sing at the same time. Your analogy should prohibit all wind instruments for this reason. Do you?
@coffee God's school has always taught that you are to fill only what is directed. Just ask some of the early students like Nadab, Abihu, Uzzah, etc.
@anonymous it is interesting that you only choose a few examples that support your approach. How have you addressed the multitude of examples in the O.T. that do not "school" us the same way as you have concluded about Nadab, Abihu, and Uzzah.
ReplyDeleteMy heart grieves for the myriads of my brethren who writhe in agony at the fact that God's word contain strictures. They are hopelessly enslaved to the ideology that escape from regulation equals freedom. The Bible teaches that enslavement to God is true freedom. The world will never understand this!
ReplyDelete@anonymous Just because some brethren do not reach your conclusions in scripture does not mean they "writhe in agony at the fact that God's word contains strictures."
ReplyDeleteI have grown up in the cofc all my life and have heard these arguments too.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is the early church did use scripture, but not direct commands. They used the principles of scripture to make the judgment to avoid IM. But I would say that it WAS scriptural to avoid IM.
The reason may have been the command of love, especially as described in I Corinthians 8;
"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
It's not a direct command to not offend, the command is to love your neighbor. Not offending a weaker brother is indirect. It all leads to the same place, love.
Applied today, would it offend some brothers if we brought in a guitar? Yes. So is it wrong to bring in a guitar? Yes, because it would offend, even if the guitar in and of itself may not be "wrong". And that IS backed up by scripture.
I have a different view of scriptural interpretation now days. I don't see example, necessarily, as command. I don't see silence, necessarily, as limiting. I'm still trying to figure a lot of that out, but that is where I've been heading in a way.
I am seeing scripture more as descriptive of principle rather than prescriptive of practice.
Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it.
I would add, that I don't really know where I stand on instrumental music right now. I haven't got around to looking at that yet. I have been studying a lot of other things that seem to me, to be "weightier matters". (not to say IM is not an important issue, I just don't know)
ReplyDeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteI can understand your reasoning that they may have been using Biblical principles. The problem for me, however, is that in their discussions of other issues they routinely gave direct scriptural reference. I agree they were following a principle but they seem to explicitly state the princple... which was, "don't look like the pagans and Jews."
About the issue of not offending a brother. I don't want to offend anyone either. However the CofC doesn't seem to use the principle consistently. What most CofC's want to do is use this principle only when it suits them. For instance, there are many CofC's who believe it is sinful to use multiple cups during the Lord's supper (since Jesus said "take this cup"). Couldn't they make the claim that the brother who is bringing in the multiple cups is being divisive? The same could be asked by congregations who don't believe in located preachers, sunday school, orphans homes, fellowship halls, etc. These churches will say that we could all fellowship in complete unity if we just removed all of these things.
I understand the situation you find yourself in. I have been "trying to figure a lot of that out" myself.
I recommend a site by Jay Guin that has tons of biblical studies centering around many of the most controversial issues within the cofC...
oneinjesus.info
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
ReplyDeleteI had a question about your pole at the top. What do you mean by "place membership"?
Who decides the acceptance of members?
Membership into what?
Do you mean, if an atheist was allowed to "meet with you on Sunday"?
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI am not happy with the way I did the pole. It is just too confusing and can be taken in different ways. When talking about membership I am referring to the particular membership practices of CofC's in my area. It may not be the same everywhere.
Elders will usually ask you to place membership... meaning you wish to become a member of the flock overseen by that Eldership and they now hold themselves responsible for your spiritual development. I am not sure if this practice is readily backed up in the NT but it is how it is done around here. So, most CofC's would not allow a Satan worshipper to be a "member" although I doubt they would refuse to let them come to services. There reasoning would be that if they allowed them to place membership it would be like they were supporting their views. Does that help?
That does help clear up the pole question. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIn the cofc I've grown up in, I remember hearing people placing membership with a congregation, and I never really paid attention to what that meant. For one, maybe its because we never had elders, so it usually seems like placing membership with a social group, or a promise to be there every Sunday.
My opinion now is that the important membership is placed at belief and baptism, which I'm sure you agree. But I don't really see the importance of "placing membership" with any group in an official way. (I do appreciate letting the elders know your intentions in this system, but I personally think that would be pretty evident, and possibly backwards. The elders maybe should be the ones to approach a newcomer, and start a relationship of leadership with that believer, or Satan worshiper.)
If they worship Satan, the are not members of the body of Christ,and therefore cannot "place membership", but they can come to an assembly of the saints. I just think it unnecessary to ban membership to unbelievers, because that is implied. Having two different membership qualification doesn't seem consistent with scripture.
Wrong? I don't know. Confusing? I think so. I know I don't understand all the ins and outs, and sometimes people understand word definitions differently, and that might be my disconnect.
Thanks for the explanation of the pole. I am enjoying your blog.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound like there is any disconnect to me. I think we agree. I really liked the line... "The elders maybe should be the ones to approach a newcomer, and start a relationship of leadership with that believer, or Satan worshiper." Well said.
And I am glad you are enjoying the blog. Keep in touch
Scott
Galatians Chapter 3 discusses rule-keeping and it does not naturally evolve into living by faith, but only perpetuates itself in more and more rule-keeping, a fact observed in Scripture: "The one who does these things [rule-keeping] continues to live by them."
ReplyDeleteIf we were able to "do" the entire law—in the letter and the spirit—we could then "live" by that means. Paul shows that it does not require faith to keep the law in the letter—anybody can compare an action against a list of do’s and don'ts and see if the action is allowed. It requires much more to keep the law in the spirit perfectly. It requires a full measure of God's Spirit working within the person. But simply to abide by a law does not require any faith in a Savior, so if this life were just about strictly adhering to a list of requirements in their letter, Christ would have died in vain.
Romans 8:7 says that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God—that is, it will not submit itself to God's law. But there is ample evidence that unconverted man can live according to regulations in a Pharisaic manner. Romans 7:14 adds more to the equation by showing that God's law is a spiritual law—there is an intent behind it, as well as the most direct application. This was what Christ was endeavoring to show in Matthew 5:20-48. So for us to be justified before God, we would have to completely fulfill the law—live according to the letter and the spirit. But that is a logical impossibility without means of the Holy Spirit.
This is why justification by faith is a necessity: We need God's Spirit to fulfill this spiritual law, but God will not give His Spirit to someone who does not willingly submit to Him and obey Him. This is why God would not allow Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life after they had sinned, because He knew that their natures had become corrupt, and He was not willing that a corrupt being be given His Spirit—His power. A paradox results, and the only way out of the deadlock is for God to bring a person into alignment with Him by substituting the perfect life of His Son for ours in a legal action. Once that justification has taken place, then a measure of His Spirit can be given, and the person can begin to keep His law in both the letter and the intent.
The churches of Christ are not the only ones whom do not use instrumental music in worship. The Greek Orthodox Church does not use intrumental music in worship. In most Orthodox Jewish places of worship instrumental music is not used.
ReplyDelete