THE MUSIC CONTROVERSY 

During a recent lectureship at Abilene one of the professors presented a paper on the case for acappella singing in public worship. I dropped the brother a note to suggest that the topic was quite beside the point, for no one questions that there is a case for congregational singing without an instrument. The issue he should deal with, I suggested, is whether there is a case for making acappella music a test of fellowship. No one is going to quarrel with us for choosing to be non-instrumental, or even for concluding that it would be wrong for us not to be. The problem comes when we insist that everyone else must see it our way and when we make sinners of all those who use the instrument.

Another of our professors, this one serving at David Lipscomb College, wrote in the Gospel Advocate to the effect that our young people should not be ashamed that we do not have instrumental music in our churches. It seems that some of them were being apologetic over its absence within their peer group, and he was assuring them that their case was such that they need not apologize. While I can't imagine many of our youth being that much concerned about instrumental music pro or con in a world with so many real problems, I must again insist that the professor is not touching the real issue. Shall we go on teaching our youth that other Christians are sinning and are under the threat of damnation for having the instrument? True, they should not be ashamed of being acappella, but that is not the whole story. Should they be ashamed because we do not accept our brothers in other churches as within the fellowship of Christ because they use an organ? I say yes, we should all be ashamed of that, and a short review of the history of this controversy should help to bring this into focus.

One thing is certain. There could be no controversy over instruments in worship until instruments were available on the far-flung American frontier where our Movement had its birth and early growth, and this was not until around 1850-60. Since Alexander Campbell died in 1866 he was not around to share in the controversy, and he said almost nothing on the subject. There is his statement to the effect that an organ would be to the believer in worship like a cowbell in a symphony and yet another quote to the effect that piety consecrated the harp and the organ to the praise of God. The second-generation leadership also had a divided opinion, with some of them, like the stalwart John F. Rowe, not knowing what to say. He stated that he did not object to a good instrument, but that surely those that grunted and wheezed were unscriptural!

J. W. McGarvey in 1864 was the first to argue seriously against the instrument on scriptural grounds. Since the instrument is not explicitly authorized it is without divine authority. This argument from the silence of scripture has continued to be the position of the anti-instrument churches to this day. McGarvey was reminded that the Bible is not all that silent, and so he was asked to explain how instruments could be so wrong since they are referred to both in the Old Testament and are a part of heavenly glory. McGarvey replied that angels and saints in glory may be granted favors not available to men in the flesh. But McGarvey was irenic in his views and there is no evidence that he advocated making the issue a test of fellowship. He cast his lot with a non-instrument church but always considered himself a Disciple of Christ. He favored the missionary society, which was another issue that finally led to the separation of Churches of Christ.

So far as we can determine Moses F. Lard, one of our sons of thunder, was the first to make the instrument a test of fellowship or threaten to. In his Quarterly in 1864 he insisted that brethren should stay away from church rather than to attend where there is an organ. If an organ were introduced, he advised the faithful ones to withdraw.

C. L. Loos, a colleague to Campbell and perhaps the most scholarly of the second generation leaders, studied the matter with some care. He doubted if there should he any music other than the human voice, except perhaps trumpets such as blared forth from Solomon's temple! We assume he was serious.

David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate and "bishop of the South," if we had bishops, was unequivocally opposed to the instrument. He did not however make it a test of fellowship, not for a long time at least. When "pro-organ" preachers came to Nashville, he would go to hear them, and he advised the churches to draw no lines on this issue. He was strongly opposed to any move that would lead to division. After upwards of a generation of this kind of forbearance, he at last surrendered this position and shared in the separation of Churches of Christ.

Benjamin Franklin was also strongly anti-organ but just as strongly pro-unity. He advised the non-instrumentalists to meet separately in the same building and sing only acappella but not to organize a new congregation or create a split. Isaac Errett, first editor of the Christian Standard, favored the instrument for sonic churches, but he insisted that none should be introduced if there was even a small minority that objected. His advice was not generally heeded.

There are some amusing stories along the way. It is told for a fact that a sister in San Marcos, Texas stole into the building where an organ had been imported and blasted it into Kingdom Come with a hatchet. And where else for an organ except Kingdom Come?

The church in St. Louis bought a building that had an organ already in it, but it was kept locked and unused. The "organ element" became dissatisfied and withdrew so as to start a church of their own in a nearby hall, where there was no organ. So the anti-organ group had an organ but would not use it while the pro-organ group had no organ!

In 1887 in a Springfield, Mo. church pandemonium broke out when the pro-organ and anti-organ factions tried to sing each other down. The preacher sought to restore peace by way of a smooth talk, but a lively hymn by the organ group soon silenced him. I was such a furor as to make the columns of the local newspaper.

While we can't be certain, the first church in our Movement to install an organ was probably in Midway, Ky., around 1850, where Dr. L. L. Pinkerton was the preacher. He stood ready to defend the practice when it was challenged by the likes of Benjamin Franklin. The organ continued to be adopted through the 1850's and 1860's especially in the more affluent urban churches, but the total number of instrumental churches at the close of the Civil War would be few, probably less than 50. They became far more numerous in the 1870's and 1880's. But through all these years the Movement did not divide over the question even though there was controversy and discussion, but no formal debates. There were "liberals" and "conservatives" on this question, just as with societies, the imported "pastor," and cooperation with other churches. But still no open splits. For a generation we had churches with organs and churches without organs, and most brethren did not pay much attention to the difference. A few agitators not only kept the issues alive, but were able eventually to use them in bringing about our first division around 1888.

The genius of the Movement from the outset was that no theological interpretations or opinions would be made tests of fellowship. The basis of unity was loyalty to Christ, not deductions and opinions from scripture. In all such opinions there would be liberty, even with congregations. One church could differ with another, for their oneness was in Jesus, not in uniformity of doctrine or practice. There could be "liberal" and "conservative" churches if need be, for they would still be one in Christ through faith and baptism. The first two or three generations of our people were faithful to these principles. We have since divided into numerous sects because we have betrayed our great heritage.

Even folk like the Free Methodists have practiced our own principles better than we. They too were threatened with division over instrumental music, but they resolved the issue by leaving each congregation free to make its own decision. Why can't we do the same? We become sectarians when we exalt our preference or our interpretation (or the way we handle scriptural silence) to the level of a clear and distinct law of God.  —the Editor