WHAT IS YOUR STAND? (PART II)
hold this position say that instruments are not, in themselves, intended as an act of
worship. They argue that just as we use a song book to aid our singing, and just
as we use a loud speaker system, an electronic device, to project the song leader’s
voice, we can use a piano or organ to help people sing the right notes.
The issue in this argument is whether the playing of instruments in worship is, in
itself, an act of worship offered to God, or is simply done to help us to do more
effectively something God has told us to do in worship. First, it must be admitted
even by those who take this position, that in many instances, instruments are
played in worship services intended as an offering of worship to God. Many
churches use instruments to play entire pieces of music with no singing at all.
Such could hardly be called using instruments as an aid to singing.
Others who use instruments argue that just as a singer gets to use his/her talent in
music to praise the Lord, so should one with an instrumental talent should be
allowed to use that talent to praise the Lord. The point is, then, that many who
believe in the use of instruments consider their use a means of worship on their
own and not an aid to anything. To make the aid argument, one would have to
confine the use of instruments to the role of aiding the singing and nothing more,
and that is not the typical practice.
But let us examine this argument in a different way. Can the use of instruments
be considered in the category of aids like a hymnbook, or an air conditioner or a
speaker system? There is a strong reason, in addition to what is stated above, why
this is not an acceptable position. We must recognize that instruments can be and
have been a means of worship on their own. In the Old Testament, instruments
were viewed as a means of worship when no one was singing. “Praise Him with
the tambourine and the harp” (Psalm 150:3). A hymnbook cannot in any sense be
a means of worship on its own, nor can a loud speaker system. Thus, something
incapable of being a means of worship on its own might be considered as an aid to
worship—a building, pews, a heating system, even a song-leader. But
instruments do not belong in this category. Many use instruments today as an act
of worship even while others claim the use of instruments is only an aid. It
cannot be both. The aid argument takes an element of Jewish worship, just like
offering an animal sacrifice or the burning of incense, and seeks to use it “only as
an aid.” At the least, it is highly questionable to take what, on its own, can be a
means of worship, and to consider it only an aid even though many others have
intended it as worship. Can one take what is often used as a means of worship on
its own and, simply by declaring so, change that use into just an aid? Surely such
is not a wise course when following God’s directions for worship is so important.
Those who take the position that instruments are only an aid, often couple that
view with a statement that instruments are nowhere forbidden in Christian
worship. So we move next to examine that position.
5. Instruments in Christian worship are acceptable because they are nowhere
forbidden. According to this argument, if God had not wanted us to use
instruments He would have specifically forbidden them. God told us not to lie or
to commit fornication. Since God, in a similar way, did not forbid the use of
instruments in worship, then we may use them without any violation of scripture.
I sometimes wonder if those who make this argument have thought through it
carefully. Do they really believe that one can do anything in worship that is not
specifically forbidden? Has God forbidden using brownies for the bread of the
Lord’s Supper? Has God forbidden milkshakes for the cup? I sure like brownies
and milkshakes. They would taste good to me. If one takes the position that we
can use instruments because they are not forbidden, how would he explain that we
would be wrong to use brownies and a milkshake for communion? We all
understand, of course, that when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He used
unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine and said to take these elements in
memory of Him. He did not, of course, have to give a list of all the foods not to
use in the Lord’s Supper. When He specified what to use, that settled it. He did
not have to provide a list of five hundred things not to use; He only had to specify
what to use. This is how language works. If the doctor specifies a particular
prescription for you, you don’t expect the pharmacist to say, “I know the doctor
said Zocor, but he didn’t say not to give you Milk of Magnesia. Since it is
cheaper, I thought you’d like me to substitute it.” You would say, “Look, the
doctor said Zocor, and that is exactly what you should give me. Anything else is
an unauthorized substitution.” And you would be right.
The New Testament specifies “singing” as the type of music for Christians to use
in worship. Paul mentions singing as he describes what happened in the
Corinthian assembly (1 Corinthians 14:15). Paul mentions singing “one to
another” in Ephesus 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These and other passages describe
what we are to do when we are with each other, when we come together. Romans
15:6 speaks of our glorifying God “with one heart and mouth.” As we sing
together, then, we sing with one mouth and one heart. Hebrews 13:15 says our
sacrifice of praise is the “fruit of lips that confess his name.” When one type of
music is specified for worship, all other types of music are necessarily eliminated.
The Bible is replete with examples of this principle. God prescribed one way to
move the ark of the covenant. When David chose another way, he could not
justify that by saying, “But you didn’t say not to move it on an oxcart” (1 Samuel
6). In another case, when God specified a particular way the priests were to
obtain the fire for offering incense, Nadab and Abihu were not permitted to “bring
strange fire” derived in another way (Leviticus 10). Their father Aaron didn’t
say, “But God didn’t say they couldn’t get their fire somewhere else.” They were
stricken dead because they used “unauthorized fire.” When the Corinthians were
making the Lord’s Supper into a common meal, Paul told them He had received
from the Lord the instructions he had given them about how to take the supper,
and they were to partake as they had been told and were not, therefore, to invent
new ways of doing it (1 Corinthians 11:24).
If my wife asks me to go to the grocery and get a bottle of de-caffeinated, diet
coke, she does not give me a list of all the things not to buy. Just specifying what
I am to get is sufficient. That is how language works. And so it is with God.
When He tells us to sing as part of our worship to Him, we are not at liberty to use
anything not forbidden; we are, rather, permitted to do in worship only what He
has specified. Since instruments are not specified as a means of Christian
worship, we should regard them as forbidden.
6. Some say using instruments in worship is not “a salvation issue,” so whether we
use them or not is a matter of little importance. Those making this argument say
that those who like instruments can use them, and those who oppose them can
refrain. The use of instruments, they say, is just a matter of preference. After all
Paul said that on “disputable matters,” we should let people do as they choose
(Romans 14:1-3). We are not to judge each other in such matters.
There certainly are “matters of preference” about which we should not raise an
issue or judge one another. The specific cases Paul mentions in Romans 14 are
eating meat that had been offered to idols and observing special days. On such
matters, we should allow each person his own personal opinion and not treat this
difference as a “salvation issue.” Paul’s explanation of these issues makes it
clear, however, that there are other issues which cannot be treated in this fashion.
Paul certainly does not recommend that personal choice be allowed in every
matter on which we differ. So the real question here is whether the use of
instruments falls in the category of “matters of preference” or do instruments fall
in the category of things about which Paul would say some “are turning to a
different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). Peter described some as those who “have left
the straight way and wandered off” (2 Peter 2:15). The New Testament is filled
with admonitions like the one from John: “See that what you have heard from the
beginning remains in you (1 John 2:24).
So the question is this: Does the use of instrumental music in Christian worship
belong among those issues on which we can and should grant liberty, or does it
belong among those issues on which we must take a firm stand? How do we go
about answering such a question? What guidance does the scripture give in
deciding what is “a matter of opinion” and what is “a matter of faith.”
Since Romans 14 is a passage often cited in such discussions, what light would
that passage cast on this matter? The prime issue in Romans 14 is eating meat
offered to idols. Certainly Paul would never have approved eating meat offered to
an idol as worship to an idol. He is here discussing, rather, the extent to one must
take special precautions to avoid eating such meat in a non-worship setting.
There is no question of worship here for Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 10:18-
21 that no one can eat at an idol’s table and at the Lord’s table too. The question,
then, is only a matter of how far one must go to avoid the appearance of eating
meat offered to idols. One man eats everything, asking no questions, because he
knows an idol is nothing. The other goes to great lengths to find out about the
meat so he can avoid eating the meat if it has been sacrificed to an idol. His
conscience is still tender on this issue. In 1 Corinthians 10:25, Paul says one does
not have to check out the meat he buys in the meat market. In Romans 14 he says
that if someone wants to take such care, it is not wrong, and all should be willing
to accept the brother who does it differently than himself. So those who take
special care should not condemn those who do not take such special care. Neither
one is worshipping an idol. Also in Romans 14, Paul makes a similar point about
keeping special days. It is not wrong, for example, for a Jew whose national
custom is to refrain from work on the Sabbath to continue to do this. Those who
choose to continue such a custom may do so but should not bind it on other
Christians who do not wish to participate in it.
What do we learn from this examination of the issues on which Paul insists there
must be liberty? They are matters of personal practice, not something all the
church does in their solemn assemblies. These matters of liberty do not involve
moral questions or doctrinal differences. Paul is not speaking here of allowing
liberty on what the whole church does when they come together for worship. He
is only dealing with what meat a person puts on his table at home or the way in
which a family deals with a national tradition. On matters like these we should
allow liberty and not expect all to follow the same practice.
When we come together in our assemblies to worship God, however, we are
dealing with an entirely different type of issue. On matters of worship God has
always given very specific teaching, and if there is any lesson to be learned from
God’s dealing with people over the span of the Bible story, it is that when God
tells His people how to worship Him, He expects them to follow His instructions
exactly. From the very first occasion of worship recorded in scripture, the case of
Cain and Abel, it is clear than one can worship unacceptably. God wants His
specific instructions about worship to be followed. While we do not know all the
details of what Cain did wrong, we learn from him that it is possible to worship
improperly. Later, the Israelites disobeyed by worshipping a golden calf when
God had said to worship only Him. The priests Nadab and Abihu brought
“unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command” (Leviticus 10:1-2.).
What did they do wrong? God had told them how to obtain the fire for offering
incense and they got their fire in some way that was “unauthorized.” God does
not permit in worship what He has not “authorized.” Saul offered a sacrifice and
Samuel told him he had “not kept the command the Lord your God gave you” (1
Samuel 13:13). What command did Saul disobey? God never told Saul directly
he could not offer a sacrifice. The command he disobeyed was God’s command
authorizing the tribe of Levi to offer sacrifices. When God told the Levites to
preside at the sacrifice, He was also commanding all others not to do it.
Saul disobeyed this implied command and was severely punished for it. In 2
Chronicles 26:16-20, we read of Uzziah entering the temple to offer incense.
Eighty courageous priests confronted him saying “It is not right for you, Uzziah,
to burn incense to the Lord. That is for priests, the descendants of Aaron, who
have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary for you have been
unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the Lord.” Uzziah, the king, became
angry, but the Lord struck him with leprosy which he had until he died. Thus,
another case showing that when God designated certain people or certain things in
worship, He is, by that statement, excluding other people or other actions.
Hebrews 7:14 states that when Moses “said nothing about priests” from Judah,
that was equal to stating that priests from Judah were excluded. So when the
command specifies only one possibility out of several in a category, the others in
that category are excluded.
But these are all Old Testament cases? While we are told to learn from such
examples (1 Corinthians 10:11), is God as strict in the New Testament age about
worshipping only as He commands? If God expected strict obedience to His
worship instructions in both the Patriarchal Age and the Jewish Age, the
presumption would be that He would expect strict adherence in the Christian Age.
And that is exactly what we find. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, Paul gives a strong
rebuke to the Corinthians about how they were partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
They had made of it a time of a common meal, a time which created divisions and
insults to those who had less to bring. Paul reminds them in verse 24, that what
he had told them about how to partake of the supper had come directly from the
Lord, and he calls them back to the instructions he had given them before about
how to partake. Note that Paul got the instructions about how to worship from the
Lord and had passed these to the Corinthians. They, however, had added
unauthorized things to their partaking of the communion. Paul urges them to
return to what he had taught before. He further charges that those who have
added these things would be worshipping “in an unworthy manner” and so are
guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27).
Clearly this makes worshipping according to what has been revealed to us a
matter of highest importance.
In view of what God has said in both the Old and New Testaments about how
important it is to worship only as He has revealed, and in view of the
condemnation that falls on those who do not, surely adding a kind of music not
used by early Christians when under apostolic guidance must be viewed as a
matter of importance. Does this raise it to the level of a salvation issue? Clearly
there are worship errors that do reach that level. And here is the clincher: How
can anyone be absolutely certain that God does not care whether one adds
instruments or not? One may say he thinks God does not care, but there is no
way, in view of all the Bible says about not departing from the revealed plan of
worship, that anyone can be certain. Since we can be certain that singing without
instruments is in harmony with God’s revealed plan, but cannot be equally certain
that using instruments is acceptable, surely it is wiser not to use them.
So is the use of instruments a “salvation issue?” Since God has shown us that
worship is to be done only as He commands and He has not commanded
instruments, surely it is wiser to offer Him singing, which He has authorized,
rather than the instruments, which He has not authorized. Exactly how God will
deal with this unauthorized addition in the judgment day, He has not said
specifically. And that is just the problem; we don’t know. So let’s offer vocal
music, which we know pleases Him, rather than instrumental music which we
cannot know will please Him. Since one cannot know for sure that offering
“unauthorized” music is not a salvation issue, we are clearly on more certain
ground to sing “a cappella,” in the manner of the early church. What we bring to
God in worship matters to God. Let us, therefore, bring to Him what He has
asked us to bring.
Should those who oppose the use of instruments, then, extend their fellowship to
those who do? Fellowship implies approval. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses
the question of fellowship with the man who has his father’s wife. He says that
even the pagans do not approve of such behavior. For the Corinthians to continue
to fellowship him would be to send a message of approval for something even
pagans condemn. Paul then commands them to withdraw from him. Paul also
writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 that “if anyone does not obey our instruction in
this epistle, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he
may feel ashamed.” To associate with those who have strayed, Paul says, is to
send the message of approval of what they do. In the same way, John tells
Christians that if someone “comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not
take him into your house or welcome him” (2 John 10). Again the point is clear,
to extend fellowship implies approval. This does not mean, of course, that we can
have no contact with such people, but does mean that we do not extend to those
who are engaging in a practice which is not in harmony with scripture the same
fellowship we would to those who are in such harmony.
If those not believing the use of instruments is God’s plan for Christian worship
extend full fellowship to those who do, by such fellowship they indicate that they
consider the matter of no consequence. For them to extend their fellowship,
indeed, is an encouragement to use the instrument. If it makes no difference in
fellowship, then it really makes no difference. While, as indicated above, we
cannot predict exactly how God will deal in judgment with those who use the
instrument, the very fact that we do not know that God will approve of it should
be sufficient reason not to give it our support. Extending fellowship to those who
use instruments in worship is certainly an encouragement for them to continue its
use and, eventually, a discouragement for anyone to oppose it. Surely no one
would believe that churches who fellowship those who use the instrument will,
over the long term, not have pressure to begin to use it themselves. To fellowship
those who use the instrument in worship is but a way of saying that the issue is of
no significance.
To be Continued>>>
Joseph Khati
Comments