Music in the Church–How Important Is the Issue?
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword, 2001
David R. Pharr

Perhaps the easiest way to defend that which is indefensible is simply to declare that it is not an important issue. This is how some have coped with the lack of scriptural justification for such things as sprinkling and infant baptism. Rather than debate, their solution is dismissal. So also is the way some are making allowances for unscriptural music in worship. Instead of offering a defense for instrumental music, a verbal wave of the hand simply says it’s not a fellowship issue.

These authors are correct in their assessment of current attitudes. While they insist on their own objection to instrumental music in worship, at the same time they insist that it is not an issue of such importance as to disrupt fellowship.ⁱⁱ Their proposition is that the only crucial matters are those which they understand to be directly connected with the cross of Christ.ⁱⁱⁱ  This position will have appeal to many people because it seems to have a Christ exalting emphasis and because it provides an easy compromise. Rather than encouraging people to investigate the real issues involved, we are convinced that many will accept what should be unacceptable because they have been told such issues “are not at the crux of the matter.”

Ultimately, music is not the issue. The issue is the authority of the Bible. Actually, the issue is the authority of Jesus Christ, which can be ascertained only through the written revelation. This is not to say that those who approve of instruments may not sincerely believe they have authority for it, but the sincerity of their feelings does not supply the lack of biblical proof. The issue is not sincerity, or character, or effectiveness. Nor is it that its acceptance is so widespread. The question is whether instrumental music is authorized for worship in Christian assemblies. A most telling implication that it is not authorized is in the current assertion that the issue is not important. If authority could be cited, such an assertion would hardly be necessary.

Core Issue?

It is argued that instrumental music is not a core issue, that “is not at the crux of things."^iv  It would hardly be imagined that any would rank our concerns over this as equal with our convictions regarding the death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their neglect of the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23). If our emphasis on controversial issues has caused us to minimize any foundation principle of the faith, we are rightly subject to rebuke. However, Jesus did not say what many seem to think he said: that is, that if the weightier matters are practiced, it does not matter about the rest. Instead, he insisted on faithfulness in the other things as well. “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much” (Luke 16:10).

To say that certain issues supercede all others is not to say that none others matter. Paul outlined the foundation facts of the gospel in I Corinthians 15. The gospel which saves us stands on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4). The apostle’s commitment to this and its primary position in his preaching cannot be denied (I Cor. 2:2). Yet this same apostle is inflexible on various issues which he urged as “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. 14:37). His emphasis on what might be deemed the “core” did not minimize the importance of faithfulness in all things.

The fact is that all questions of what is authorized in Scripture are directly related to the death and resurrection of Christ. This affirms his place as Lord as well as Savior (Rom. 1:4). Hebrews 5:8-9 connects obedience to his teaching to the fact of his death. It is who he is and what he has done (and does) that gives him all authority (Matt. 28:18). The doctrines of the New Testament are rightly labeled “the doctrine of Christ” (II Jn. 9). As head of the church he alone can determine what the church should do (Eph. 1:22f).

Brethren Childers, Foster and Reese recognize the importance of worship.

This is certainly in agreement with our Lord’s declaration of the eternal principle of worship. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24; cf. Josh. 24:14). Everett Ferguson says it right as he discusses the criteria for what is done in the church’s assembly.

Here, then is precisely the point. What cannot be done in the name of Christ should not be done. And what cannot be approved by scripture cannot be done in the name of Christ. Worship in song is “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:16f). In the absence of biblical authority, it is a grievous error to claim instrumental music is in the name of Christ.

More Important Issues?

To question whether certain acts of worship are more significant than the worldwide AIDS epidemic will play well with people who are more concerned with pragmatic issues of the present world than with questions of doctrine. It is implied that surely what is done in worship is not as crucial as concern for suffering humanity.^vii  We have heard others belittle our opposition to instrumental music by saying, “We need to be more concerned about the needs of the poor.” They might also argue that giving food to the hungry is more urgent than eating the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. It should realized that unbelievers might as readily charge that helping the helpless is more important than any fundamental of the faith–including belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Certainly human suffering is an ever important issue. It is not necessary, however, to make this an either/or issue, nor to decide whether the one issue is more important than the other. Believers know that nothing is more important than pleasing God. Whether in how we minister to others or in the kind of music with which we worship, the only issue is what is the Father’s will.

Scriptural Issue?

We are told that instrumental music is not “an issue ever addressed in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.” Further, as such matters “were not a concern for the first-century churches, [they] should not become a litmus test for orthodoxy or grounds for disfellowship in our own day."^viii  The practical application of these assertions are not developed, but we are sure many will happily assume that what is meant is that the issue is hardly worth discussing. After all, if the Bible does not address it one way or the other, why debate it at all?

It is interesting that the authors say they oppose instrumental music and advocate a cappella music on “some theological, some historical, some practical” grounds.^ix  We wonder how they came to a “theological” conclusion on a matter which is not “ever addressed in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.”

Nothing in the history of the first-century church indicates that instrumental music was ever an issue. As far as we know, no one ever tried to introduce it, so the apostles never had to oppose it. Apostolic instructions regarding music that is “to the Lord” was sufficient (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

However, does this mean the issue is not important today? The same reasoning could be applied to infant sprinkling. Infant sprinkling was not “a concern for the first-century church”–for the same reason instruments were not a concern. Will it be assumed that infant baptism “should not become a litmus test for orthodoxy or grounds for disfellowship”?^x  In the same category would be numerous other things, such as the mass and other so-called sacraments of Catholicism.

Consistency?

There is some inconsistency in all of us. None would be so bold as to claim perfect conformity to every principle he espouses. Our personal or collective failures do not, however, nullify the validity of correct principles. It is especially disappointing, therefore, that any would disparage the necessity of seeking Bible authority by pointing to what they suppose are our inconsistencies.

The sad reality is that some who read such will think it makes sense. It would be hoped that scholarly authors would not be reduced to such. Apparently this kind of fuzzy thinking is widespread. A recent bulletin article offered the same examples as justification for instruments, even saying: “For example, the New Testament is silent concerning song leaders and worship leaders. . . . The song leader and/or worship leader is identical to the functions of an instrument."^xii  Instead of their considering the follies into which such reasoning would lead, we fear that many who are “unlearned and unstable” will say, “Yeah, that sounds reasonable.”

In the first place, human consistency is not what validates a spiritual principle. Our inconsistency (and/or hypocrisy) can be an adverse influence. It can cause others to violate the principle, but the principle will still be correct. For example, we reject infant baptism because it is not authorized by “thus saith the Lord.” Will the inconsistencies charged above mean that the principle upon which we reject infant baptism is no longer valid?

In fact, however, while we confess that we may not always be consistent, the issues cited hardly make the case. To put the issue of acceptable worship practices in the same category as youth minister, buildings, pews, etc., is mixing “apples and oranges” and fails to distinguish between generic and specific authority. Some things are authorized by generic authority. “Thus saith the Lord” is implied for things which are incidental to the instructions given.^xiii  The authors attested to their own “theological” opposition to instrumental music. Surely they do not put pews and song books in the same category.

The Crux of the Matter gives heavy emphasis to the importance of knowing history. They doubtless know the history of the issues they have named. Whether they agree with the conclusions or not, they do readers a disservice by failing to note that the issues named have all been carefully examined. We have reasons for not practicing foot washing in the assembly of the church. Do these authors practice it? Would they be as ready to lay aside a cappella singing as they have foot washing? (Surely many Christians do practice the kind of humble service Jesus taught in the foot washing occasion.) The same is true of holy kissing and holding up hands. We suspect that the authors may have come to the same conclusions. Regardless, the right or wrong of our practice in these matters in no way authorizes instrumental music in worship.

Conclusion

Some are asking whether instrumental music is a “salvation issue”? What is meant by the question? If it is how the only Judge will deal with one who in weakness or ignorance worshiped with instruments, or who did not understand the principle involved: we will leave that to his justice and mercy. If it is whether one may willfully violate the boundaries of divine authority, we answer with II John 9. If the question is whether it is right to fellowship that which is without the Lord’s approval, the answer will be found in the next two verses.

Raising the question of whether this is a “salvation issue” is more likely to inflame passions than to face the sincere question of whether there is Bible authority. Years ago a tract in favor of instruments had the title, “Does the Bible Teach That a Person Will Be Damned if He Uses a Musical Instrument in Worship?” G. C. Brewer reviewed the tract and stated clearly what is the real issue:

Endnotes:
i. Jeff W. Childers, Douglas A. Foster, Jack R. Reese, The Crux of the Matter, (Abilene: ACU Press, 2001), p.117.

ii. Ibid., pp.246f.

iii. Ibid., pp.248ff.

iv. Ibid., p.246.

v. Ibid., p.116.

vi. Evertt Ferguson, The Church of Christ, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996), p.247. See also pp.272f where brother Ferguson briefly and effectively answers the common claims in favor of instruments.

vii. Childers, et al, ibid., p.247.

viii. Ibid.

ix. Ibid., p.246.

x. Brother John Crosslin told of finding a tract on infant baptism which was produced by the Christian Church. On the front there was a title which said (as best I recall), “Where the Bible Teaches Infant Baptism.” The inside of the tract was completely blank. The message was vivid. There is no scripture that authorizes infant baptism and it must therefore be rejected. Brother Crosslin called their attention to the fact that exactly the same format would demonstrate the error of instrumental music.

xi. Childers, et al, Ibid., pp.247f.

xii. Fred Peatross, Norway Avenue Church of Christ, Huntington, WV.

xiii. See my article, “Generic and Specific Authority,” The Spiritual Sword, April 1990, pp.25ff. See also “Does Instrumental Music Matter,” April 1998, pp.31ff. See also G.C. Brewer, A Medley on the Music Question, (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1948), pp.36-40 for a discussion of the difference between expedients and additions.

xiv. G.C. Brewer, A Medley on the Music Question, (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1948), p.33.
 

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword