MUSIC IN WORSHIP: ANOTHER LOOK
Vernal E. Richardson

Many Christians in recent times are taking a second look at the attitudes toward music in worship which have been so carefully fostered during the past fifty years or so of the Restoration Movement. The following article contains some thoughts which may be of benefit to those who are seeking something of value in the confusion and disintegration which often surrounds this subject.

The typical position of members of the Church of Christ regarding instrumental accompaniment to singing in worship is properly criticized because of several important weaknesses. These include at least the following:

1. A frequently unscholarly or out-right dishonest interpretation of the word “psallo” to mean unaccompanied singing. (The full meaning of the word is available even to children in the public schools, but respectable Greek scholars in the Church of Christ colleges are careful to avoid discussion of the term, retreating to the position that “psallo” does not necessarily exclude the possibility of unaccompanied singing.)

2. Refusal upon the part of many ministers to study what the Bible says about music in worship and to attempt to formulate a logical position upon that basis. The attitudes demonstrated often amount to a claim to latter day revelation, something which most members of the Church of Christ would hesitate to claim. Two examples may be helpful here: First-a prominent and highly respected minister of the Church of Christ was asked why he did not preach a sermon upon this subject, tracing the development of music in worship according to the Bible in the same manner as the subject of marriage and divorce is often treated. His reply was “Such a sermon could not support the traditional teaching of the Church of Christ upon this subject.” Second - a freshman music class in a prominent Church of Christ college was given an entrance examination in which they were asked to estimate the number of references to music (singing, etc.) which could be found in the Bible. Estimates ranged from none to just a few, with some rather indignant replies to the effect that such an unscriptural term could not be found in the Bible at all!

3. Selfish commercial exploitation of the ignorance prevalent in the Church of Christ because of lack of teaching in this area. (A prominent publishing house uses strong economic and social pressures to keep its own incredibly inferior hymnal in circulation, refusing to allow the use of a better hymnal which is published by a rival “Christian” publishing house. Such exploitation leads to the incongruous spectacle of congregations of wealthy, socially prominent people driving in expensive, air-conditioned cars to expensive, air-conditioned architectural monstrosities to sing “I’ve got a mansion just over the hilltop” (and they do have!) in worship to God.)

4. General misunderstanding of the spiritual value of music as worship. The “songleader” is often selected at random as a sort of political recognition and he is expected to serve as straight man for the questionable jokes of the preacher. Any musical talent or training is considered as a secondary matter, if at all. (Several times the song “The Great Physician” has been used as a sort of commercial after a medical doctor-elder had given a sermon. This principal carried to its logical conclusion could have congregations singing “I’m Pressing On” after a sermon by the local tailor, “Bringing in the Sheaves” to climax a message by the local salesman of farming equipment, and other interesting, but inappropriate, variations of the same idea.)

5. A more subtle, but equally damaging, connection between the guilt-feelings of many people concerning the natural bodily functions and the use of instrumental music. This is a matter for psychiatrists to discuss fully, but whether this association exists can be readily judged by a casual reading of the first few chapters of Curt Sachs’ History of Musical Instruments. This matter may be more important as an indicator of the mental and emotional hygiene of members of the Church of Christ, but it is certainly important relative to expression of worship in music. (Relative examples: Is it mentally healthy for Christians to pray in song for “more strivings within”? What is the psychological significance of the song-prayer “Purer Yet and Purer”? Is there any important difference between tapping toes to catchy, burlesque-like hymn tunes in the assembly and doing the same thing in a dance-hall, disregarding other factors in the surroundings?)

We are admitting in the above paragraphs to several important weaknesses. These could, and should, be overcome. But are there any redeeming strengths in the practices of the Church of Christ concerning worship in music? I believe there are.

A conservative interpretation of the Bible holds that there must be authority for everything done in worship, and, since there is no command, necessary inference, or approved example for instrumental music in worship, it is safest to leave out this activity. (We often quote the Old Testament in support of this view regarding instrumental music, at the same time completely disregarding this source in its direct teaching upon the subject of music. This is a particularly glaring inconsistency.) There is nothing basically wrong (and much that is right) about this conservative interpretation provided that we do not then use it as the basis of our own law upon the subject. (Extreme example: “Vocal music is the only music allowed in worship; therefore, it must be somehow better than instrumental music, and it would follow that professional choruses and singers must be supported by members of the Church of Christ but not symphony orchestra or instrumental soloists. For the same reason, an instrumentalist is not likely to be very influential in the Church of Christ colleges. This type of logic is all too prevalent in High Places at the present time, unfortunately.)

Without becoming involved deeply in the idea that Christians who use instrumental music in worship should be “dis-fellowshipped”, we can say that congregational singing is a particularly appropriate avenue of worship (assuming that such singing meets at least minimum standards of quality) for several reasons:

1. It is “democratic.” The congregation must work together, accepting the limitations of the people involved and producing something beautiful and acceptable to God. Is this not a symbol of Christian fellowship? (We defeat this purpose when a song-leader bellows into a microphone just as effectively as when an organist plays molto fortissimo in “accompaniment” of a hymn.)

2. The “words” and “meditation” are emphasized, as they should be. Many ideas may be expressed better in music without words than in music with words, but singing is usually a very appropriate pathway of communion with God. (This obviously has no direct relationship to music performed at concerts, etc.)

3. Singing of even fairly respectable hymns forms an invaluable basis for further musical training, both vocal and instrumental. (What music teacher would not like to have students who have learned phrasing, intonation, and genuine expression of emotional feeling, as well as basic musical form, counterpoint, and harmony? What school of music does not draw upon the rich resources of Christian hymnody as a basis of much of its teaching?)

4. While many Christians who base their beliefs upon aesthetic values may prefer to include instrumental accompaniment in their worship, no religious body known to the author objects to the idea of unaccompanied singing in worship upon religious grounds. We should be able to sing in worship without being sectarian or denominational at all! Isn’t this the only sound basis of the whole Restoration Movement?

Mr. Richardson holds the B.M., B.M.E., and M.M. degrees with violin major from Indiana University. He is Assistant Professor in Music at Southeastern Louisiana College where his duties include performance as a violinist and conductor and teaching of strings and theory.