|
Music, The Biblical Precedent
Reprinted from The Carolina Messenger
David R. Pharr
John Mayo sent an article from a bulletin he
received and asked that something be written on
the proper use of silence in the Scriptures. The
article in question exhibits the kind of fuzzy
thinking and hermeneutical confusion that has
caused many to abandon the old paths. The author
states:
| Consistency tails off when one leaves the arena of
scriptures and begins speaking in areas where the
scripture are silent. For example, the New Testament
is silent concerning song leaders and worship leaders.
If we're are going to use the argument of silence we
need to be consistent and do away with this human
invention. The song leader and/or worship leader is
identical to the functions of an instrument. Both aid
in the quality of the singing. And, an aid is an aid
whether human or mechanical. |
The aid argument fails because of the obvious
principle that what proves too much proves nothing.
The issue is not whether aids are authorized, but
whether there is authority for additions. A song
leader does not add another element of worship;
instrumental music does. Such music may aid, but is
more than an aid. As foolish as it might seem, the
above argument favoring instrumental music could as
logically defend jelly on the Lord's table, burning
incense, counting beads, and a host of other
unauthorized acts of worship. (That instrumental music
is more than an aid, that it constitutes worship, is
evident from the Old Testament usage.)
The article continues:
| The
argument from precedent says that 1st century
Christians sang exclusively a cappella music. Any
change would be foreign to the example set by the
early church. Yet the first-century church was without
church buildings and Sunday school classes. Are we in
violation of first century practices? |
There is indeed a precedent in the a cappella music
of the first-century church. It is a precedent that is
more than a mere approved example. It was their
practice under apostolic directives. It is, therefore,
a precedent which establishes what is acceptable music
in Christian worship. The attempt to parallel this
precedent with things incidental and secondary shows
misunderstanding of the difference between specific
and generic authority. Yet, too many have not
considered the principles involved. Those who so
argue, whether from sophistry or sincerity, do a
tragic disservice toward those who are uninformed. Our
rejection, on the one hand, of instrumental music and,
on the other hand, our acceptance of meeting houses is
not arbitrary. The two things are not in the same
class. There are valid reasons, based on biblical
principles, that show them to be different issues.
Because of the importance of such questions, we are
reprinting an article from The Spiritual Sword
(April, 1990) on "Generic and Specific Authority." We
hope that every reader with study through the material
presented, learn it, and faithfully apply it. (See p.
4.)
The bulletin article further confounds the music
issue by arguing a distinction between things
"unscriptural" and things "anti-scriptural." The one,
he says, "means not mentioned in scripture." Whereas
"anti-scriptural" means, "prohibited by scripture."
But what value is there in this exercise in
linguistics? The bottom line is that instrumental
music in worship is "unscriptural" in that it is "not
mentioned" in connection with the worship of the New
Testament church. And it is also "anti-scriptural" in
that it violates fundamental principles of biblical
authority.
Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword
|