Stoned-Campbell Disciple

An Explanation. Earlier this year a dear brother contacted me and asked me if I would read a “position paper” on instrumental music and offer him an “honest critique and feed back.” My brother, whom I love and respect, I was grateful and humbled he asked me to do this.

I state up front that my position on instrumental music is that it is adiaphora. It is a Romans 14 matter.

I once spouted all the classic arguments against them but for a myriad of reasons (more than can be listed) I think the claim that they are sinful is simply wrong. That the arguments supporting their rejection are extremely weak and rest upon a man (literally male) made hermeneutic and simply false readings of the Bible. But unity is gospel matter. Division over this is simply sinful. So I prayed before responding to my brother or even whether to respond. In the end I decided to reply. So in the spirit of “honest critique and feed back” I shared with my brother why I think his position fails to be persuasive.

My specific feedback has been shaped by the arguments he made. There are areas I could expand or add considerable like the distinction between “nonbiblical” and “against the word of God.” Jesus clearly participated in “nonbiblical” means of service/worship that were not against the word of God.

Me and my brother are still of One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism even if we disagree. So I sent him what follows. I have deleted any reference to his name or identity.
——————————————————————————

Brother [ ], thank you for sharing your “position” paper with me and asking me to review and respond to it. I consider it to be an honor to be asked by you “for the sake of understanding and unity.” I will try to be as helpful as you on this question. I will divide my response between Positives and Demurs 😊

I have actually spent more time than I ought to have over the years thinking about this subject. But in the Churches of Christ that is what we do.

Positives In Your Paper

First, I appreciate that you take the position that instrumental music is not a “salvation issue.” You confess that “opposition” to them is based on “a human judgment based on a hermeneutic that disallows everything not specifically named in Scripture.”  I agree it is not a salvation issue. It is seriously misguided on our part to think it is. You do not say whether or not it is a fellowship issue.

Second, I agree that the matters listed as the conclusion of your paper are matters of “more important” than instruments. (Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Atonement, etc).

Third, I think your summary of your position is a concise summary of that traditional position in opposition to instrumental music in Churches of Christ. 

Fourth, you do recognize that Jesus and the Hebrew Bible include instruments and the early church “gathered” in the temple courts.  You do not, at least explicitly, recognize that they worshiped in the temple. I don’t think you wrestle with the significance of this historical fact.

I do think that at least one or two sources could be recommended for “further study” that have a counter point of view.  The sources you recommend only give one side. Surely you are aware of works that offer coherent presentations supportive of instrumental music in worship. The unity position is advocated wonderfully by Rick Atchley and Bob Russell in Together Again: Restoring Unity after a Century of Separation. They may or may not agree with my own perspective which follows.

Demurs to Your Position Paper (Or Clarifications of My Dissent)

My demurs are offered because you asked for them.  I can sum up my position as follows: I do not believe opposition to instrumental music can be sustained from Scripture by itself, one must be taught it is wrong and then find grounds for that within assumptions placed on the text and the supposed “silences” of Scripture. Put another way, I do not believe a person can simply pick up the Bible, read from Genesis straight through to Revelation, and conclude that instrumental music in worship is sinful in any fashion. One must be told they are wrong by an outsider.

You correctly note that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever utter an iota of opposition to instruments anywhere under any circumstances. In fact, there is not one negative comment about instruments (as instruments) in either Testament. This alone, in my view, should caution us on any condemnation of those who use them. Are we actually opposing something that God never opposed?

In my view, the opposition to instruments is based on that man made hermeneutic that 1) assumes a doctrinal discontinuity between the Testaments; 2) Platonizes what constitutes “spiritual/spirituality”; 3) severs the connection between the Temple and Synagogue in ways that no Jew would recognize in the first century; 4) draws inferences from church history that they disallow on most any other subjects; 5) and rests on the fallacy of special pleading (song leaders are allowed but instruments are not though the text is silent on the former and in fact not on the latter.  And ironically, the NT is not in fact silent on instruments.

1) BIBLICAL CONTINUITY & THE PSALMS

So, for Number 1. The New Testament writers, Jews one and all (if Luke is not an ethnic Jew he is a proselyte) assume continuity rather than discontinuity on nearly every matter conceivable. 

Grace,
Faith,
Covenant,
Holiness,
Kingdom,
Church
Worship.

The NT writers, including Paul, do not invent new vocabulary for any of these themes. These terms had been in Jewish vocabulary for hundreds of years before a single line of the “New Testament” had been written. They use words, themes, and motifs that come into the Greek NT via centuries of usage in the LXX (Septuagint). The Hebrew Bible is the substructure of the New Testament in every way imaginable. The authority of the New Testament rests upon the authority of the Hebrew Bible.

As a fascinating example of this authority of the Hebrew Bible for Christian praxis note how Paul argues for the authority to pay of preachers on the basis of the Law of Moses, 1 Corinthians 9.9 and 1 Timothy 5.8 citing Deuteronomy 25.4. Paul does not by virtue of his apostolic authority assert it is “legal” to pay Christian ministers, rather the apostle Paul finds authority in the Law of Moses for paying Christian leaders. Paul believed in the authority of the Hebrew Bible, in fact it was unquestioned.

Specifically, on Ephesians 5.19 Paul not only quotes the Psalter (usually unrecognized!) to tell them to “sing and make melody to the Lord” (quoting Psalm 27) but sends his Gentile converts to the Psalms so they can “understand the will of the Lord” (5.17). It is not some generic singing Paul directs but the Psalter itself. While the early church did compose other hymnody, the Psalms are the “pattern” for all of them. But in Ephesians itself Paul enjoins the Psalter on his Gentile converts. He quotes the Psalter and then uses the categories in the Psalter itself. 

“I will offer sacrifices with shouts of joy,
I will sing and make melody to the LORD {ᾄσομαι καὶ ψαλῶ τῷ κυρίῳ}”
(Psalm 27.6 = 26.6, LXX)

“Rejoice in the LORD,
O you righteous.
Praise befits the upright.
Praise the LORD with the lyre;
make melody {ψαλῶ} to him [the Lord]
with the harp of ten strings.
Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully on the strings”
(Psalm 33.1-3)

When Paul says ύμνοις. ψαλμός. Ωδή (songs/hymns/spiritual songs) he refer to contents of the Book of Psalms. They are in the “categories” in the Septuagint version of the Psalter and all three occur in the headings of Psalm 67 (66, LXX) and Psalm 76 (75, LXX).

Paul tells the Gentiles to sing the Psalter so they can discern the “will of the Lord” (v.17) and to worship in the manner depicted in the Psalter.  Take the word, “heart.” “Heart” is one of the most common words in the Psalms occurring a whopping 105 times. It is beat out by “hesed” (steadfast love in NRSV). Take as an example Psalm 57,

“My heart [καρδία] is ready, O God,
my heart [καρδία] is ready,
I will sing and make music [ᾄσομαι καὶ ψαλῶ].
Awake, my glory!
Awake, O harp and lyre!
I will awaken at dawn,
I will acknowledge you,
O Lord, among the peoples [i.e. Gentiles];
I will make music [ψαλῶ] to you among the nations [i.e. GENTILES!]”
(Psalm 57 [56, LXX], 8-10).

Worshiping God “in your heart” is an extremely Jewish, extremely “Old Testament” thing Paul is telling the Gentiles of Ephesians to do.

Paul assumes the Gentiles will learn to worship and learn the “will of the Lord” for living from the Psalter.  Now when they actually read Psalm 27 which he quotes to them, there is no evidence they would understand it or any of the Psalms in any way other than how they are written. Further, there is no evidence that Paul would direct them not to do what the Psalms actually say, especially since he said they will learn “the will of the Lord.”

Perhaps an illustration will help. I compare it to a Dad giving his daughter in college a vehicle.  He further gives her an owner’s manual so she can “discern” they ways of caring for a vehicle.  Is she actually supposed to just read it? Is she actually to do what it says to maintain the vehicle (about changing the oil?).  Does not the giving of the manual imply following it for the care of the vehicle. When the vehicle’s motor blows up after the engine light has been on for a semester because it has no more oil, and the father says “didn’t you read the owner’s manual?” What do you think his response will be when she says, “you only told me to READ it, you did not tell me to do what it says.” Would not the parent say “why would I have given you that book if I did not expect you to learn to take care of your car from it?” And if Paul gave the Book of Psalms to discern the will of the Lord and worship, does that not imply following them to know that will and to worship? Surely it does. 

Paul assumes the doctrinal authority of Scripture and states it quite clearly in 2 Timothy 3.14-17 and Romans 15.4 and by his over one hundred citations of those Scriptures to proclaim doctrine.

The anti-instrument position begins with the assumption that the Hebrew Bible is practically useless as a source of knowing the “will of the Lord” as disciples of the King, especially in terms of worship. The NT will not sustain this.

2) REJECTING PLATONIC DUALISM/SEMI-GNOSTIC SPIRITUALITY

Number #2. Those who reject instruments have to, and do, Platonize what they consider to be  “spiritual.”  The Platonic worldview posits a sharp dichotomy between the “interior” “non-material” and what is bodily and material. They even use (historically anyway) pejorative words like “carnal” to describe the latter and reserve “spiritual” for the former. The roots of this rejection of the Hebraic worldview is found in the Greeks who became believers. It mushroomed into Marcion and has been a poltergeist in varying degrees in Christianity since.

This Platonic (pagan) dualism lies at the bedrock of what the Church Fathers did when they baptized ant-Judaic (even outright anti-Semitic) views. You are right many Church Fathers (after the 3^rd century btw) rejected instruments because “of the Jews.”  They were unspiritual, according to Platonic definitions of “spirituality.”  I believe when you say, “they [i.e. instruments] are not appropriate in the spiritual devotion and reverence of worship” this in fact reflects that Platonic worldview that is so problematic. You mention this in connection with the Greek Orthodox churches so whether it represents your evaluation I do not know. This Platonic dualism impacts far more than just how one thinks about whether or not instruments can be Spiritual or not. It impacts how we view the human body, sexuality, the sacraments and just about every dimension of the faith.

But I reject such a view (from the last paragraph). The first reason for my rejection of this faux “spirituality” is the Jesus Factor. If Platonic dualism is in fact right the Incarnation would never have happened. But not only did it happen, Incarnation of deity in flesh is forever. Incarnation is God’s Eternal Yes to the Spirituality of the material. Matter – stuff – is holy and can be dedicated to God (the very meaning of “holy”).

The second part of the Jesus Factor is no less important. Unless we want to claim that Jesus’s worship was “carnal” rather than truly “spiritual” worship and not “reverent” we need to seriously rethink this pagan definition of “spirituality.” Jesus clearly worshiped with instruments every time he was in the Temple (and according the Gospel of John, Jesus is at the Temple frequently). Let’s ignore for the moment that the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired of the Holy SPIRIT and recall that Jesus explicitly endorsed not only Jewish worship but the temple: “You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know, WE [Jesus & his fellow Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (John 4.23). When Jesus “cleansed” the temple he chased out the money changers but not the musicians and their instruments (Mk 11.15-19).

Platonic understandings of “spirituality” do not exist in the Hebrew Bible nor in the NT, especially Paul, James, Revelation. The body and soul are so united they are theologically practically indistinguishable. What one does with his/her body one does with his/her spirit. In Paul the term “spiritual” never means “pious,” “mental,” “interior as opposed to body.” It never refers to opposition to the matter of creation. Never. In the NT, “Spiritual” is an adjective and always means “of the Spirit” “by the Spirit” or “from the Spirit.” Spiritual gifts are not mental or interior, non-material gifts. Rather they are gifts that are of, by, and from the Holy Spirit of God. Celibacy is a Spiritual gift and it expressly something done with a physical body. I typically use a capital “S” to indicate the word’s connection to the Holy Spirit of God. Gordon Fee has a very good discussion of the term “Spiritual” in Paul, The Spirit and the People of God.

Instruments were Spiritual worship in the temple and out of the temple. Instruments themselves, when dedicated to God, were vehicles for pure worship. The inspired Chronicler says that the “instruments were made for praise” of the Lord (1 Chronicles 23.5, RSV). Humans offered their bodies, Paul says, worship to the Lord. This is a doctrine he learns straight out of Psalms and the liturgical calendar of Israel. Both God and John clearly thought instruments were Spiritual enough to be in the very presence of God as vehicles of Christian worship. They are even called “the harps OF GOD” or the “harps FROM GOD” (Revelation 15.2).

One offers to God everything: heart, mind, soul, strength. Worship is the Shema in 3D.  An Israelite simply would not comprehend the Platonic/pagan dichotomy between so called “spiritual” and body in worship. God is the Creator of all and all is given back to God in praise. That is why Psalm 150 is the crown of the Psalter.  Psalm 150 is the Holy Spirit’s culmination of Spirit inspired worship. Surly the Holy Spirit knows something about Spiritual worship.

3) FALSE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN TEMPLE AND SYNAGOGUE

Number 3. Synagogue vs. Temple. First there is considerable irony in this historic Reformed branch of Protestantism objection to instruments. The claim is Christian worship gets more from the synagogue than the temple. The shocking irony here is that they claim this as the pattern for a more “spiritual” worship (see #2) but there is not an iota of biblical authorization for the institution of the synagogue in any biblical text, including the Apocrypha. They claim the NT is silent on instruments (so prohibited) but then claim that the entire worship of the church is grounded in an unauthorized institution.

I have no problem with the synagogue. But I do reject this false argument. Jesus clearly endorsed the institution of the synagogue (just as he does the Temple!) which has no “authority,” just as he endorsed the Feast of Dedication which has no “authority,” and he endorsed “cups” in the Passover for which there is not an iota of “authority” for in the Hebrew Bible.

The heart of this false argument which builds upon the pagan notions of spirituality discussed in number 2 above. It has long been a Protestant prejudice to pit the Temple against the synagogue and vice versa.  Protestants have argued that the church developed out of the synagogue because its services were more “spiritual” (this again is rooted in that Platonic dualism that is a cancer on Christian theology) or “rational” but the temple was “ritualistic.”  Now frankly much of this Protestant rejection of the temple stems from anti-Roman Catholic prejudices that were projected backwards upon Judaism. 

However, this pitting of synagogue against temple is historically inaccurate. What Jewish scholars, biblical scholars and archeologists have taught us (especially in the last 40 yrs) is that this Protestant view is pure fantasy. There was no conflict between Temple and Synagogue. The leadership in many synagogues were the Levites. Synagogue was understood to be an extension of the sacred space of the temple itself. Ritual purity was required in the synagogue and this is attested by the many mikv’ot that have been discovered attached to synagogues. With the wonderful discovery of the synagogue in Magdala we know it was conceived of as sort of Temple itself (see Mordechai Aviam’s “Reverence for Jerusalem and the Temple in Galilean Society,” in Jesus and the Temple: Textual and Archeological Explorations, ed. James H. Charlesworth, pp. 123-144).

Peter Leithart has shown the misguided attempt to ground Christian worship in the Synagogue as opposed to the Temple (hardly alone on this). “Synagogue or Temple: Models for the Christian Worship,” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2002): 119-133. The literature here is quite extensive.

The shadow of the Temple falls on almost every page of the NT. Paul, the Pharisee, understands the ekklesia (a term that peppers the Psalter btw) as an extension of or the embodiment of the Temple just as other Jews understood the synagogue to be an extension of the Temple.  God dwells with the ekklesia. The Temple motif is “enshrined” prominently in Ephesians itself where Paul tells his Gentile converts to sing a Temple text, the Psalms (see, Ephesians & the Temple: A Conceptual Framework, Afternoon Thoughts and Worshiping Through Ephesians: Dwelling in God’s Temple) It also underlies Paul’s discussions in 1 Corinthians regarding the Table. It is everywhere in Revelation. What happens in the Temple on earth mirrors or replicates what is happening in the heavenly Temple. Christian worship participates in the worship of heaven and for myself, I believe that includes the instruments of heaven.

This is deeply Jewish theology that permeates Ephesians and Revelation just because many don’t recognize that fact does not change the fact that it is a fact.

4) CHURCH HISTORY (The First Century Way DID Worship with Instruments, in the Temple)

Number 4. Church history. I find this the weakest of all arguments though most seem to think it is the strongest. So many use this argument as a basis on this matter that they refuse to allow on other subjects/practices.

But as far as I am concerned any position that does not and cannot include the first century Way in that history has to be suspect. You note, dear brother that the church met in the Temple. But the Book of Acts does not show that the Way simply met at the Temple. Acts declares The Way worshiped in the temple. They even gathered at the hour of sacrifice itself according to Luke (Acts 2.42; 3.1, 11; 5.11-12). They had to be ritually pure to enter the temple, they assembled with the crowds as the priests offered their sacrifices (that is the hour of prayer btw) and the Levites in the Court of Women (over 200 of them) playing their cymbals, lyres, harps, horns. And they worshiped. The Jerusalem church worshiped with instruments in the Temple. The apostles James and Paul have unity over sacrifices (!) and Paul quite explicitly states his purpose from coming to Jerusalem was to “worship” and “offer sacrifices” (Acts 24.11&17). Did James, Paul, the brothers in vow, tell the priests that they would offer their sacrifices but they would not sing with the instruments!? But both Protestants and Restorationists refuse to deal with the Jerusalem Church nor Paul.

Post-First Century history. While it is true that many Church Fathers are vociferously vocal (but many say nothing) about instruments, two facts are largely overlooked regarding this opposition. First, it is not true that this is early. That is right. It is NOT early. There is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament itself of a peep of opposition to instruments. Everett Ferguson, probably the most articulate opponent of instrumental music makes this stunning statement, “Before leaving the New Testament references, we may note in passing that the New Testament gives no negative judgment on instrumental music PER SE.” (A Capella Music in the Public Worship, p. 42, his emphasis). That beloved is worth reading and rereading and meditating upon for a very long time.

In historical reality it is not until the third century that one finds any polemic on instruments. As far as I can tell before about AD 200 not an iota is stated in opposition to instruments. Chrysostom (fifth century!) voices some opposition as he rants against Jews. Second, when instruments are opposed after the third century (and most actually is located in the fourth century AD) it is rooted in anti-semitic prejudice against the Jews (with the Platonic dualistic definition of “spiritual”) and concern for being confused with pagan lifestyles.  But there is precious little discussion of instruments as vehicles of worship even in the midst of the rants against Jews. This is hardly a biblical argument against instruments.

On the other hand, almost universally ignored are numerous positive images of instruments in the first 200 years and perhaps in the first century itself.  Revelation pictures Christian worship but does so in very Old Testament images (in fact Temple images). Your position paper left out Revelation 5.8-10. Now these texts (5.8-10; 14.2-3; 15.2-3) may be “symbolic.” Contrary to the oft repeated saw that the New Testament is silent on instruments in worship, we see these explicitly positive, even sacred images of instruments.

“When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.They sing a new song …” (Rev 5.8-9a).

“And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they sing a new song” (Rev 14.2-3).

“And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mixed with fire and those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name standing beside the sea of glass with harps OF GOD in their hands. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb …” (Rev 15.2-3).

These texts are usually gainsaid or we pretend they don’t exist. They are dismissed with “they are symbolic.” Oh, the irony. Literal fire in hell but imaginary instruments in heaven!

But the objection falls flat. Revelation is awash in worship.  And the worship “smells” much more like the Temple than the synagogue.  Here in these three texts those loyal to the Lamb of God are depicted as “singing and making melody” to the Lord and the Lamb! The ritual command in the Psalter “sing a new song” (6x) is the very basis of the “new song(s)” in Revelation. These texts in Revelation are rooted in the Psalter itself. Psalm 33, Psalm 96 and Psalm 98 are John’s sources and make for illuminating reading alongside the “worship” in Revelation.

But suppose we grant the objection (which I do not).  The references in Revelation still teach something.  For example, there is no symbolic ritual adultery presented to God as worship (Jezebel’s worship is rejected), there is no unspiritual worship in God’s presence (and these instruments are from God himself). They are accepted as holy.

But why is what is called “Old Testament” worship used to frame Christian worship in Revelation, including incense and instruments? The instruments are said to be “from God.”  I do not think the one book of the NT (Revelation) that speaks to the matter of worship more than all of Paul’s letters combined can simply be tossed aside when worship is arguably its central theme. 

In the Odes of Solomon, which scholar James H. Charlesworth calls it the “first Christian hymnbook” (after the Psalter itself). The Odes have a strong Jewish Christian casting and breathe the same kind of “air” that the Gospel of John and Revelation are fashioned in. The Odes give us a wonderful window into non-Greek speaking Christianity in the same region it began. Instruments are mentioned several times. This composition dates before AD 120 and some place it considerably earlier. At the very least many of the compositions within date to the first century AD. Some again claim them to be metaphorical (Ferguson simply dismisses the Odes in a few lines).  There is debate to be had.  Some are easier to make such than others. But either say they are viewed as holy.   

“To announce to those who have songs of the coming of the Lord,
That they may go forth to meet Him and may sing to Him,
With joy and with the harp of many tones” (Odes 7.17)

“I poured out praise to the Lord,
Because I am His own
And I will recite His holy ode,
Because my heart is with Him.
For His harp is in my hand;
And the odes of His rest shall not be silent“
(Odes 26.1-3)

It is difficult to read these (and other passages) as if they are a rejection of harps. It is even hard to make them “metaphorical.”

5) SPECIAL PLEADING

Number 5. Special Pleading. Near the opening of your paper brother, you confess that Ephesians 5.19 says nothing about “a song leader.” It also says nothing about hymnals, pitch pipes, tuning forks, etc. Later you say opposition to instruments rests in a hermeneutic that “disallows everything not specifically named in Scripture.” And yet our “tradition” allows song leaders, pitch pipes, notes on the page etc. (you will recall that Campbell was honest enough to say he would rather have instruments than notes on a page!). Apparently such a hermeneutic does not in fact disallow everything.

We disallow what we have been taught was unspiritual and to allow what does not matter to us.

I think you impose or assume an exclusive patternism that specifies vocal singing only (that includes your traditions just listed) but excludes the idea of playing (which would be easily sustained by the ‘source material’ Paul sends the Gentiles to learn from). This essentially turns Ephesians into a legal document rather than an epistle. And I think the mere fact that Paul sends the Gentile readers to the Psalter simply obliterates that idea.

6) FINAL THOUGHTS

Final Thoughts. I appreciate you expressing your convictions in a kind way. I appreciate that you see a clear difference between your understanding and the word of God. I hope to hold my own convictions graciously too. These thoughts express my own human understanding of the text too. I do not think you have to agree with my understandings of the matter as they exist today.

But I am too convinced of the continuity of the Story of God to embrace what I see as a position that is at odds with anything said in that Story. But I, like you, believe that instrumental music does not even come close to the weightier matters of the law.  As such, in my view, it is a sin to break fellowship over it rather than a sin play or not to play.  If we play we do it “to the Lord” and if we do not play we “do it to the Lord.”

Related Articles

“Soul” … Moses vs Plato: The Biblical Worldview

The Gospel is about the Stuff of the World

What are the Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs of Ephesians 5.19

“Making Melody to the Lord” Paul’s Debt to the Psalter

Making Melody, Making Zamar, Making ψαλῶ

The Worship of God: Insight from the Apocrypha

Revelation’s Ignored Message of Worship

This entry was posted on Monday, July 8th, 2024 at 2:44 pm and is filed under A Gathered People, Church, Church History, Unity, Worship. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.