Does Instrumental Music Matter?
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword, 1996
David R. Pharr

The proposition stands: There is no biblical authority for instrumental music in Christian worship. Numerous have been the quibbles and excuses, but no authority for instruments has ever been shown. There is no principle, no command, no precedent, no logical implication that will show scriptural approval for the practice.

Opposition Unchanged

It is significant that those who oppose instruments have always occupied essentially the same ground. It has not been necessary to shift from one position to another. The original opposition was that it lacks biblical authority and that is where the matter still stands. While there are differences in presentation, those of us who oppose instrumental music in worship all hold to the same basic objection. Our position has not shifted to accommodate the arguments of others. Back in 1865 J.W. McGarvey wrote in the Millennial Harbinger “. . . that every man who bows to the authority of God’s word, must oppose the use of instrumental music in the church."ⁱ His position was valid then, we hold that it is still.

Discussions about the hermeneutic of silence, or whether there is a principle of exclusion, are simply nuances of the authority issue. The inspired writer of Hebrews applied the hermeneutic of silence when he argued that the law did not authorize a priest from Judah by the simple fact that “Moses spake nothing concerning” a priest from Judah (Heb. 7:13-14). Things not authorized are excluded. Otherwise, authority is not authority. When Nadab and Abihu offered “strange fire,” it was a ritual which was not commanded (Lev. 10:1-2). It was not “strange” because there was a specific prohibition, but because there was no instruction by which it was permitted.

On the other hand, defenses of instruments have been rearranged frequently. Arguments are advanced along certain lines, only to be replaced by very different positions. Some seek authority from the Old Testament, others from visions in Revelation. This has the implication that authority is needed, but also admits that authority cannot be found in the New Testament church model. Others aver that instruments are only aids, mere expedients, and therein effectively deny any need for biblical authority, assuming they have a right to employ anything that seems helpful.ⁱⁱ  This fails in that a thing cannot be a legitimate expedient unless it is first authorized. Then others renew the search for authority by seeking to prove that instruments inhere in the Greek word psallo (“making melody” Eph. 5:19).ⁱⁱⁱ

Apparently thinking that the psallo argument would stand, a convention of the Christian Church in the early 1920s resolved that debates in defense of instruments should be held throughout Tennessee. Subsequently the famous Hardeman-Boswell Debate was held in Nashville in 1923 with Ira A. Boswell defending instruments on the basis of this Greek word. N.B. Hardeman answered so thoroughly that the desire for similar debates over the state vanished.^iv  More recently J.W. Roberts observed that most leaders in the instrumental churches no longer endorse the psallo and psalmos arguments.^v  Amazing, however, is that while leaders in the Christian Church have abandoned the argument, brother Bill Swetmon argued at a Freed-Hardeman University forum that early Christians had no reason to understand psallo in other than its etymological meaning of plucking on an instrument.^vi

The futility of efforts to find authority for instrumental music was evident when Given O. Blakely debated Alan E. Highers in 1988 in Neosho, Missouri. Instead of showing that instruments are authorized in Christian worship, Blakely pursued the radical notion that items of worship are not defined by the New Testament and that therefore there are no specific regulations.^vii  Such a position surrenders the New Testament plan of worship in order to salvage a music box.

Indifference and Compromise

While serious students have debated the issues and while conscientious Christians have sought to follow the Bible in all matters of faith and practice, the reality is that many people regard such matters with indifference. Most denominations have long since shelved any discussion of it. As late as 1888 a Presbyterian professor published in opposition to instruments,^viii but few among denominations today would question its propriety? The resurgence of discussion among independent Christian Churches may be because they detect softening of opposition within our own ranks. The sad reality is that many are indifferent and some have compromised.

The 1991 preachers’ and elders’ forum at Freed-Hardeman University was on “Instrumental Music: Faith or Opinion.” Two of the participants, brethren Larry James and Bill Swetmon, advocated that it ought to be left in the area of opinion, that it was not a matter of faith.^ix

Dr. Carroll D. Osburn, a highly acclaimed professor at Abilene Christian University, argues in his book, The Peaceable Kingdom, for unity through compromise on various issues, including music. In a bold mixture of “apples and oranges,” he writes:

There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on whether more than one cup in communion is acceptable, whether the communion bread is to be pinched or snapped, whether one can eat in the church building, whether funds can be used from the church treasury to support orphan homes; whether the Lord’s Supper must be taken every Sunday, or whether instrumental music is used in worship.^x

There was a time when Rubel Shelly was zealous in opposition to instrumental music, but with his other changes has also come a weakening of that opposition. In his book, I Just Want to Be a Christian, he asserts that the acceptance of instrumental music does not repudiate any of the seven essential items named in Ephesians 4:4-6.^xi  Since his thesis was that the seven things are the only essentials for unity, it would seem that he implies that instrumental music should not be a hindrance to unity. But hear him again as he spoke to a group from the Christian Church in 1985.

It may be, however, that his conscience was not so sensitive in 1994, as he participated with the Pentecostal Christ Church in Nashville, wherein various instruments were prominent. During the same year the Woodmont Hills church, where brother Shelly is the preacher, joined with several denominations for “worship and fellowship”—worship which included piano, organ, and brass instruments.^xiii

The popularity of musical performers which vocally imitate the sounds of instruments appears to have prepared the way for the acceptance of the actual instruments.^xiv  This is to be expected when people have not been taught on the issue and when the criterion is little more than that people are entertained by these rhythm and rock sounds. A group called “Full Access” started performing a cappella, but soon added a four piece band. Their apology was that they were not “trying to bring instruments through the back door of the church.” But their first concert with “a full band” was at Otter Creek Church of Christ in Nashville. Perhaps they used the “front door”!^xv

It Matters

Instrumental music matters because it matters how we worship God. The eternal principle that governs worship is that it must in spirit and truth (John 4:24). Some seek to evade the force of “truth” by saying that to worship "in truth" simply means to be genuine in what we do. But in verse 23 Jesus had already used an adjective for genuine ("true worshipers"). If "truth" is also to be understood as genuine, the words of Jesus contain a superficial redundancy. He would be saying that genuine worshipers worship in a genuine way. This would be a truism, like saying, "Red cars must be red"; or, "Real things must be real." Truth is defined in John 17:17: “Thy word is truth.” Worship that has only the authority of men is vain (Matt. 15:9) and is not “in truth,” but according to man’s will—“will worship” (Col. 2:23).

Instrumental music matters because we must respect the authority of the Scriptures (I Pet. 4:11; II Tim. 3:16-17; cf. Isa. 8:20). In the Christian Standard, a Christian Church publication, Rubel Shelly wrote: “It is simply incorrect for those of us with non-instrumental convictions to say (as I have!) that the use of instrumental music among those with a different conviction in the Christian churches stems from a lack of respect for the authority of Scripture."xvi Our rejection of his assessment is not to impugn the sincerity of those who use the instrument, but we must insist that the issue is indeed one of authority. This is the emphasis of I Thessalonians 5:21.^xvii  “Prove [test] all things; hold fast to that which is good.” Beliefs and practices are to be tested to determine whether they are good. The only legitimate examination is by the scriptures. “Good,” that is, acceptable things, will always be approved by the word of God. Authority can be found for them. But things which are not “good” because they cannot be proven—things for which there is no authority—must be rejected. What would be the point of saying to hold to what is good (proven) if we may also hold to that which is not good (not proven)?

Instrumental music matters because the inspired writers of the New Testament were guided and guarded to include only such things in the pattern as were consistent with the purposes of God. They bound what was bound in heaven and omitted what heaven omitted (Matt. 18:18), and furnished us completely unto every good work (II Tim. 3:16-17). They taught all things Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:20), being guided into all truth (Jn. 16:13). To suggest that they overlooked so obvious an item of worship would imply a failure in their teaching and practice.

Instrumental music matters because there can be no restoration of New Testament Christianity if we abandon the principle of authority which excludes it. The canon that includes certain things (Lord’s Supper, prayer, baptism, etc.) must be equally respected in reference to things which are excluded (sprinkling, infant baptism, instrumental music, etc.). Keeping the traditions of the apostles (II Thess. 2:15; I Cor. 11:2) requires not going “beyond the things which are written” (I Cor. 4:6 ASV). Instrumental music is a tradition of men and falls into the same category as the Jews’ washing traditions (Mark 7:1-13). The whole concept of restoration stands or falls with whether we draw the line where the apostles drew it.

Instrumental music matters because compromise on this point would justify an endless list of innovations. If it is right to add an instrument in the absence of authority, what objection can be made to burning incense, counting the rosary, Wednesday night communion, etc.? The only thing that holds the line against endless fads in liturgy is respect for the apostolic standard.

Instrumental music matters because disregarding heaven’s directions on this one point (or any other point) betrays an inclination of disobedience. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10). This warning is not directed at incidents of human weakness, but at any tendency to willfully ignore the will of God. When in the absence of divine authority one adds musical instruments, or any other innovations, he demonstrates indifference toward the Lord’s rule. To encourage it or to compromise with it further compounds the error. This is the principle of Matthew 5:19, applied to the New Testament as well as to the Old (Heb. 2:1-3).

Instrumental music matters because there is no room for fellowship when the worship is corrupted. Bringing instruments into the assembly involves every participant. Those who seek to worship “in truth,” (Jn. 4:24) and who know there is no truth that allows the instrument, cannot with good conscience participate and thus fellowship must be broken (II Jn. 9-11; Rom. 16:17).

A touching example of this was the case of J. W. MCGarvey and the Broadway Christian Church in Lexington, Kentucky. McGarvey had assisted in the founding of the congregation in 1870, but in 1902 he had to move to another congregation because, in spite of all of his teaching and protests, the church voted in the organ. This great Bible scholar saw it as both unscriptural and divisive, and as a cause for withdrawing fellowship.

Conclusion

It is not expected that the world will understand or appreciate why instruments do not belong in worship. Few, even among religious people, understand the parameters of biblical authority. We can expect that instrumental music, as well as other innovations, will be popular and that objections will be dismissed and even ridiculed. But Christ is still Lord over his church, the Bible is still right, acceptable worship still requires submission to heaven’s will, and singing remains the only music ever authorized for Christian worship.

Endnotes:
i. Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1986), Vol. I, p.315.

ii. The aid argument was discussed the Wallace-Barber Debate (1950) and the Wallace-Hunt Debate (1951).

iii. This issue was treated extensively by M.C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship (first published in 1911). O.E. Payne argued the other side Instrumental Music Is Scriptural (Cincinatti: Standard Publishing Co., 1920). Though out of print, there is an excellent refutation of the psallo argument in G.C. Brewer, A Medley on the Music Question, (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1948).

iv. N.B. Hardeman, Hardeman Tabernacle Sermons, (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1975), Vol. IV, p.224.

v. J.W. Roberts, “Instrumental Music is Unauthorized and Unprecedented,” Gospel Advocate, May 1992, p. 40. One notable exception is Tom Burgess in Documents on Instrumental Music (privately published, 1966), in which he tries to demonstrate that psallo retained the idea of accompanied singing.

vi. David L. Lipe, “Instrumental Music—Again,” Freed Hardeman Lectures, (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 1994), p.238.

vii. Given O. Blakely & Alan E. Highers, Highers-Blakely Debate on Instrumental Music, (Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1988).

viii. John L. Girardeau, Columbia [SC] Theological Seminary, reprinted in Foy E. Wallace, Jr, The Instrumental Music Question. Girardeau recognized that his efforts might be useless “as the tendency which is resisted is invincible, and is destined to triumph throughout Protestant Christendom.”

ix. Lipe, Ibid.

x. Carroll D. Osburn, The Peaceable Kingdom, (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives, 1993), p.90.

xi. Rubel Shelly, I Just Want to Be a Christian, (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1984), p.113.

xii. Rubel Shelly, recorded speech at Hillboro, Ohio, August 14, 1985.

xiii. William Woodson, Change Agents and Churches of Christ, (Athens, AL: School of Biblical Emphasis, 1994), p.170.

xiv. See my article regarding such groups, “An Expression of Concern,” Spiritual Sword, July 1990, p.41.

xv. http://www.fullaccess.com (1/8/98).

xvi. Rubel Shelly, Christian Standard, Oct. 21, 1984, quoted by J. Noel Merideth, “Instrumental Music: Restoration Controversy,” Freed-Hardeman Lectures, (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 1986), p.242.

xvii. Excellent of treatment of the passage in this connection is in Howard Winters, Up To Bethany, (Greenville, SC: Carolina Christian Pub., 1988), pp.86-88.

xviii. J.W. McGarvey, quoted in J. E. Choate and William Woodson, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 1990), pp.129f.
 

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword