HALF OF US ARE “OFF” ON INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

To our growing number of readers who are not members of Churches of Christ-Christian Churches I need to explain that our folk have made an issue of instrumental music in worship for over a century now. Two-thirds of our Movement (Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches) use the instrument, believing that they have the liberty in Christ to do this, while the other third (Churches of Christ) not only do not use the instrument but believe it to be wrong and make it a test of fellowship.

But that is the point of this article. Do the Churches of Christ really believe that the use of the instrument is a sin, or is this some kind of habit that they are keeping in good repair? And it makes for a good way to ask what we mean by sin, whatever be our religious background.

Guy N. Woods is a Church of Christ authority of some reputation. While I had not thought of him as a statistician, he comes up in an article in the Christian Chronicle with some statistics about what Church of Christ folk really believe about instrumental music. He says that 50% of our members do not know why we do not use instrumental music, and of that number 35% would not object to its use.

Now he is not saying that the Baptists or Roman Catholics do not understand why we do not have organs in our churches, which would be understandable enough. We ourselves, our own crowd, do not understand why we do not have the instrument, half of us that is. And a substantial percentage would not mind at all if we started moving organs and pianos into our churches. That is what brother Woods says, and I say that those are facts that should cause us to stop and think. If after a century of arguing, debating, editorializing, and disfellowshipping, our own folk are “off” on instrumental music, what kind of an issue is it, after all? Brother Woods’ point is that our people should know why the instrument is a sin, and he is charging the preachers with neglect in this regard.

I do not know what kind of method brother Woods used in reaching his conclusions, but I venture to say that he would come up with vastly different percentages if he should ask such questions as: Is it a sin to hate? Is adultery wrong? or even Is it a sin to exclude a man because of his race? Or if we ask more positive questions: Is mercy a Christian grace?, Should we love even our enemies? or if we want to be more “doctrinal”: Is there but one Body or church in the scriptures?, Is baptism a command of God?, Is the Lord’s Supper part of the Christian’s worship?

My guess is that brother Woods would get a 100% ringer from such questions—all our people would agree that adultery, hate and racism are wrong, and all would say that the church is one, that baptism is a command, and that the Lord’s supper should be part of our worship.

Why then the poor response on whether it is a sin to have an organ? It is hardly because our preachers have talked more about hate and adultery than they have instrumental music.

It just may be that our members are increasingly becoming a thinking people, and that they want their beliefs to be no stronger than the evidence for them allows. The pioneers who got our Movement started insisted that nothing should be made a test of fellowship except that which is clearly set forth in the scriptures. Never mind about deductions. Never mind about necessary inferences. Never mind about examples that mayor may not apply (We all have a way of taking what we want and leaving others). Never mind about opinions. Sin and wrongdoing is to be measured only by what is clearly set forth in the Bible.

Adultery is clearly set forth as sinful. So with hate and racism. That is why all our people would agree to their being wrong, and if you want to make something “a test of fellowship,” this would be the place to start.

The truth is—and let’s be honest enough to face it—instrumental music is not clearly set forth in scripture as a sin. To argue that it is a sin because the New Covenant scriptures do not explicitly authorize it is to beg the question. Neither do they specifically authorize a lot of other things that we choose to practice, such as Sunday School, the resident pastor or minister.

I claim the right to be non-instrument, which I am, and I think my reasons are good enough to remain that way. I have several reasons, but I’ll name just one, which I often refer to among instrumental Christian Churches, and that is the cause of unity. The instrument question goes far beyond our own ranks. The Quakers, the great Greek Orthodox Church, the Scot Presbyterian, to name but a few, all object to instrumental music for one reason or another. If we take the plea for unity seriously, then we had just as well think in terms of being non-instrument, especially since it usually makes for better singing anyhow (see, I gave another argument).

But all this is my opinion or deduction, drawn from what I believe the scriptures imply for Christ’s church. I also happen to believe that congregations should be kept small, so as to better preserve the family-like atmosphere and so that the shepherds can know and be with each of the sheep extensively. I also object to the professional minister in the pulpit (but not to a teacher or evangelist out amongst the people!) since he interferes with the mutual sharing that I believe to be every congregation’s right.

All these are my deductions from long years of study, and I believe them to be right. But, as old Thomas Campbell put it, “such deductions, when rightly inferred, may properly be called the doctrine of Christ, but they cannot be required of others except as they see the connection.” I cannot therefore make such deductions, whether the instrument or the pastor system, a test of fellowship. I cannot say that they are sins (period). They may be for me, but they become binding upon others “only as they see the connection.”

This is why I distinguish between being non-instrument and anti-instrument. I choose that our churches not have it for what I believe to be sound reasons, but I am not an anti in that I reject a brother, excluding him from the fellowship, because he has it.

This is what ails Guy Woods. He wants our people to be anti-instrument, to believe that it is a sin, and to draw the line of fellowship in reference to it. Apparently our folk are not buying it. By his own admission half of our members disagree with him—and, I presume, agree more or less with what I have just said. That means, according to brother Woods’ way of labeling people, that half of us in the Church of Christ are heretics or liberals or something. But I disagree with one of brother Woods’ conclusions, that a lot of our people would have no objection to the introduction of the instrument. I think that they would rather see it as “no issue” in reference to accepting those Christians who use it.

The question we have before us, which is really the nature of sin, is relevant to all believers of whatever background. The Baptists in Texas make a lot of fuss about gambling and liquor-by-the-drink. People are told that it is a sin to have a cocktail with the evening meal. The “holiness” groups make the cinema (TV?) and dancing a sin. Some see sin in everything from makeup and shorts to card playing and working on Sunday. And some (half the Church of Christ!) make a piano in church a sin.

There are those things that are clearly set forth in the Bible as sinful, and upon these we all agree. A brother may try to excuse his adultery or thievery, but he never tries to prove that they are not sinful. And we all admit that evil thoughts, deceit, pride, envy, exploitation, jealousy, abuse, shamelessness and senselessness are sins even when guilty of them. These are what Jesus calls sins in Mark 7:21, and he says pointedly that it is not what goes into a man from the outside that makes him unclean. Like a cocktail?

When I talk this way, someone always zaps me with that question, “Are you saying that something has to be specifically mentioned in scripture as a sin for it to be a sin?” I suppose I am saying something like that, but I would put it this way: the scriptures must clearly teach that something is sinful for us to say that it is a sin. For instance, it clearly teaches that “Whatever does not spring out of faith is a sin” (Rom. 14:23). That means that if I cannot drink a cocktail in good faith (believing that it is right for me), then it would be a sin. But the other fellow may be able to do so with a good conscience. (I do not, by the way, drink cocktails; but neither do I judge my brother who does.)

The scriptures clearly teach that drunkenness is a sin, but not drinking; they clearly teach that reveling is a sin, but not dancing, just as gluttony is a sin, but not eating! Indecency is a sin, but not short dresses, not necessarily. Quarreling is a sin, but a debate may not be. Lasciviousness is wrong, but kissing your boy friend or girl friend is not necessarily wrong. Profligacy is a sin, but not necessarily gambling. Some people gamble with matches or pocket change, all for fun. My kids and I sometimes gamble on who does the dishes! Even those who go to the track and put two dollars on a nag will have to decide for themselves as to whether it is proper. I have no word from the Lord on that subject!

The Bible clearly teaches that “Sin is breaking the law” (1 Jo. 3:4). If we have no word from the Lord, a clear-cut Thou shalt not or a distinct implication, we’d better let it be. Let God legislate as to what is sin, not ourselves. And that is the best way to treat instrumental music in church. “If a man thinks it unclean, to him it is unclean” is the apostolic rule in Rom. 14:14. We have all too much taken it into our own hands to say what is clean or unclean for the other person. This is to go against our Lord’s instruction about not judging our brother.—the Editor