THE MILITANT INSTRUMENTALISTS

Before I make some comments about the new aggressiveness on the part of some of our brothers in the Christian Church, which should be of interest to you, I want to state once more my own position about the use of instruments in Christian worship.

I am unequivocally a non-instrumentalist, but I am not an anti-instrumentalist. The difference is very important. It is my opinion, and one that I hold firmly, that the corporate worship of the saints is more in keeping with the spirit of the New Covenant scriptures, which I consider a norm, if not a pattern, if it is kept free of such trappings as instrumental music. But I have a similar view about ornate architecture and large congregations.

But I am not an anti-instrumentalist, for I do not make this issue a matter of fellowship. I do not call my brothers who worship with the organ such things as digressives or erring brothers. I do not hesitate in the least to accept them as fully my brothers in Christ as my own “non-organic” brothers. I do not measure brotherhood in terms of agreement or disagreement on such matters.

Nor can I believe that the question of instrumental music is nearly as important to God as it seems to be to many of my brothers. I have no interest at all in debating it or of making any further extended study of it, not now at least, for I simply do not believe it is that important, either to the Lord or to a troubled world.

This should be a defensible position, for it is a subject that our Lord did not say one word about that we know of, and there is no information either way about instrumental music in the New Covenant scriptures. That is why my view can be nothing more than an opinion. I may think it a reasonable opinion, and one that can be defended, but it is still an opinion, and cannot be made a matter of faith.

It is my judgment therefore that there is but one way for Christian Churches and Churches of Christ to be of “one heart and one mind” on this matter, and that is for all of us to recognize that instrumental music is a matter of individual or congregational conscience, and to have a “to each his own” attitude about it. We can all be one united church, with some congregations having the instrument and others not, just as we can have some supporting Herald of Truth and others not, and still be a united people.

It is utterly futile to suppose that we will ever see eye-to-eye on this question, as well as many other questions, and it is wrong for us to remain a separated people because of such differences. We can be one even when we go our own organic and non-organic ways, for we can recognize each other as brothers and treat each other as brothers. We can visit each other’s services (with some perhaps choosing not to sing with the organ, which should be respected by the others) and use each other’s ministers, and cooperate in missions to the lost and the deprived.

Imagine something like a music box keeping children of God separated. It is utterly ridiculous. And it is absurd for us to stand apart from each other until we agree on this matter, for we’ll still be waiting when we are all dead and standing before God in judgment.

It would be a simple matter of course if I could persuade all the rest of you to accept my interpretation of what would be closer to the ancient order of things, for then we could auction off all the organs (and buy wheat for India with the money) and all of us would be of one mind on the matter. Some of you would then begin to learn how to sing! But I know that will not and cannot happen. Nor can I insist that this must be the case before there can be fellowship, for I have no right to make anything a test of fellowship that God has not made a condition for the salvation of the soul. So, I cannot point to the scriptures and say, “Now read this and give up your organ,” for there is no clear injunction about the subject, some of the wild affirmations of some of my brothers notwithstanding.

I might point to the scriptures, and to history, and to our Restoration plea, and to the fact that other Christian communions have scruples against the instrument, and make a plea that our witness to divided Christendom not be marred by either our own internal fissions or by the presence of trappings that are offensive to numerous Christians. Such a plea I can indeed make, and do make, but that is all that I have the right to do. I cannot “disfellowship” those who disagree with me. And certainly my plea will be better heard if I say it to people that I accept as brothers in Christ than when I say it to those I am rejecting as false or digressive.

It might interest our readers to know that these efforts we are making toward unity and brotherhood, at least those of Carl Ketcherside and myself, started a decade ago when he and I debated the question of instrumental music with Seth Wilson and Don DeWelt of Ozark Bible College, brothers of the Independent Christian Church. Carl and I were in regular communication with each other in those days, just as we still are, but we said not one word to each other about what the other would say in that discussion. We wrote to each other before that debate that we accepted Don and Seth as much our brothers in Christ as we did each other, and that our fellowship with them in the Lord was not dependent on our agreement on the instrument. It was in this spirit that the discussion was held, with Christian Church folk and people of the Church of Christ enjoying each other in the Lord.

I recall saying in that debate that I considered the organ an evil but not a sin, which is still my position. To be a sin it would have to violate the will of God, and we have no evidence that this is the case. But it is an evil in that it is allowed to divide Christians unnecessarily and to be a source of dispute among those who should love each other.

Well, that is my position on the organ, which, I realize, is very unorthodox for most Church of Christ leaders. I am persuaded, however, that the rank and file of our people agree with me more than with the orthodox position. Most people are peace-loving, and they do not like to reject each other over things that preachers fuss about. If it were not for the preachers keeping it alive, the organ question would have died long ago.

That brings me to what I want to say about our militant instrumentalist brothers, who are reviving the debate in its reversed order, for while it was once our folk that pressed the organ question, it is now the organ brethren that are pressing the issue. All this may turn out to be a blessing, for it may take this kind of development to make our folk realize how untenable their position is.

Some of the instrumentalists are challenging the Church of Christ powers that be for a defense of the position that the instrument is a sin and that it should be made a test of Christian fellowship. They are ready to defend the position that the scriptures allow the instrument, and they are calling the hand of the non-instrumentalists that has long been extended in defiant accusation, only to find that hand quietly withdrawn. It is indeed an interesting development in our history. I am not surprised that we have grown quieter about the instrument as we have grown more sophisticated, but I am surprised to see those awful “digressives” calling on us to pur up or shut up, only to find us unwilling to do either.

The article in this issue by brother Stults is a case in point. Read his article and observe the confidence with which he holds his position. Already he has had several debates on the music question with folk on my side, which he claims to have won, and is eager and ready for all comers. And he is a very able man, eminently Christian, and is positive that we are all wrong in our objections to the organ.

My file on material written in defense of the organ is now rather bulky. One brother, Robert E. Gulledge, has issued a mimeographed job on “What the Bible Teaches on Instrumental Music,” which he concludes by saying: “The non-instrument group (not all of them) makes the musical instrument issue a condition of fellowship. The truth of the matter is, we have more of a right to make a test of fellowship our of instrumental music than they, but we do not.” He finds the instrument in the Greek word psallo.

Another such document is by Bob Haddow, entitled “Instrumental Music Can Be Justified,” and he quotes eminent Greek scholars to substantiate his position that psallo allows the instrument. He gives a number of renditions of Eph. 5:19, one of which is the Amplified New Testament, which reads: “Offering praise with voices (and instruments), and making melody with all your heart to the Lord.” He concludes: “It seems to me very safe to conclude that singing with an instrument is doing nothing more than the Lord commanded—singing and making melody—and teaching the tune component of the song.” In this same paper brother Haddow is analyzing some of the arguments made by brother Roy Cogdill, an anti-instrumentalist.

On and on this could go. In one anti-instrumentalist journal Robert Gulledge is debating the issue with Irvin Himmel, and one must admit that brother Gulledge shows reasonable cause for his position in favor of the organ. If the organ is as sinful as we say it is, we should have little difficulty in convincing these good brothers of ours, who are as intelligent as we and who love the lord as much as we do.

The most interesting of all the developments is the challenge of a professor at a Christian Church college to one of the prominent professors at Abilene Christian College, calling upon him to defend his position on instrumental music as set forth in the Firm Foundation. The Christian Church brother was specific in his challenge, wanting the ACC brother to show cause for making the instrument a test of fellowship, and he was quite willing to rest his case on the Greek words involved. Both men are Greek professors. The ACC brother found himself too busy, and from the tone of his replies, which his correspondent made public, he had no interest in finding the time now or later.

All this sounds rather strange, doesn’t it? What are we to make of it? I have no reason to believe that the instrumentalists are going to be any more successful with their aggressiveness than we were in our antagonistic era, but something important may come of it. It looks as if this issue is going to have to be thrashed out before we can turn our efforts (united efforts, we hope) to more important matters. And I am convinced that the more the folk on our side lay their position open for investigation, and make an honest effort to evaluate all the evidence, the position that makes the use of an organ a sin will appear more and more untenable. I am saying that I do not think our orthodox position will stand up to the grueling of the abler instrumentalists, for it attempts to prove too much.

The militant instrumentalists are not, of course, after one with my position, and they recognize my right to my opinion and honor my liberty in Christ not to use it. They are justified in resenting the orthodox position that they are sinners and erring brothers because they use the organ, and it looks as if they are going to press their cause until this position is surrendered. This will be good.

It appears that my own position of non-instrumentalist, instead of anti-instrumentalist, is the only position that our side can defend. And it is the only position that can make unity possible between us.