-
Your
editorial in the 11 June
Firm
Foundation
about
instrumental music, particularly in reference to claims recently
made by some of our brothers in the Christian Church, reminds me of
how long we have discussed that issue without resolving it. It is
unlikely that you and those to whom you are responding will see the
matter alike. We have discussed it and debated it for over a century
now, still to no avail.
-
-
It
is the same with other issues of a similar nature, and we all seem
to be on both the
pro
side
and the
anti
side,
depending on the issue. Our good brother across town from you at the
Main St. Church of Christ in South Houston, the highly respected G.
B. Shelburne, Jr. would make the same argument from the silence of
the Scriptures in reference to the Sunday School that you make on
instrumental music. As you said in your recent editorial, “We
do not use mechanical means of making music in the worship of the
church because the Bible is silent with reference to the practice!,”
he would say the same thing, inserting the Sunday School where you
have instrumental music. That makes you the
pro
or
the liberal and he the
anti.
-
-
But
then brother Shelburne becomes the liberal when it comes to a
plurality of cups for Communion, for the anti-cups brethren will
take your same proposition and argue that since the Bible is silent
about cups they do not use them. On and on it goes. It is difficult
to move so far to the right that there is not someone who will be
more
anti
than
yourself and thus oppose what you approve, and the argument is
always the silence of the Bible.
-
-
Because
of this impasse I think we would do well to examine this argument
from silence. I suggest a different proposition:
that
the Scriptures are silent on any given subject means only that the
Scriptures are silent on that subject, and no other conclusion can
be drawn.
Silence
neither proves nor disproves anything. There is no such thing in
either the law of God or man as “the authority of silence”
or “the law of silence,” terms our people sometimes
resort to on the matter of biblical silence. How can a law be a law
when it says nothing (silent)? How can we say that God enjoins his
will upon his church in reference to instruments, literature,
communion cups, Sunday Schools, etc. when he says nothing about
these things in the Scriptures?
-
-
Do
we not have to conclude that since no law can be imposed when the
Bible is silent, we must leave it to each one or to each church to
decide what disposition to make on such matters? In our church here
in Denton we choose not to use the instrument, but can we not allow
the Christian Church across town from us to make a different
disposition and thus use the instrument without violating the bounds
of Christian fellowship? Can we not agree to disagree on such
matters and go on and accept each other and work together as sisters
and brothers in Christ ought?
-
-
Or
must we go on forever separated, arguing and debating over an issue
that can never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction? May I
submit to you that this was J. W. McGarvey’s conclusion, even
though he objected to the instrument as much as anyone in our
history? Historian Earl West quotes him as saying, “I have
never proposed to withdraw fellowship from brethren simply because
of their use of instrumental music in the worship”
(The
Search for the Ancient Order,
Vol.
2, p. 441).
-
-
Brother
McGarvey would not have said this about something clearly enjoined
in the Bible. While he interpreted “silence” one way, a
position he strongly held, he nonetheless extended fellowship to
those who differed with him.
-
-
Why
can’t McGarvey’s attitude be our attitude in reference
to instrumental music and our brothers in the Christian Church?
Brother Shelburne is like brother McGarvey in this regard, for even
though he interprets “silence” on the Sunday School
differently from you, he does not make this a test of fellowship but
accepts you nonetheless. Why can’t we all be like McGarvey and
Shelburne and go on fellowshipping each other despite these
differences?
-
-
Now
that I have read your 11 June editorial in reference to your
disagreement with Lynn Hieronymous and Don DeWelt, I want to ask you
if you cannot accept these men as your brothers in Christ and treat
them as equals in the Lord in “the fellowship of the Spirit”
despite these differences? As McGarvey would, even though he opposed
the instrument as much as yourself. And as the apostle Paul would,
who insisted that we should “Accept one another even as Christ
has accepted you” (Rom. 15:7).
-
-
This
is the real issue at stake. We can always debate such issues as
instrumental music one more time, but it is utterly useless. But how
you treat your brothers who differ with you in reference to
acceptance and fellowship is as crucial as the unity of the Body of
Christ itself.
-
-
Because
of your influence among us your answer to this is more important
than you might think. At stake is whether we move toward being a
united people in Christ or whether we continue as a dividing and
subdividing sect. Can we take the course McGarvey did or must we now
deal with him as a “liberal” and arrange for some
post-mortem withdrawal of fellowship from even him.
Sincerely,
Leroy Garrett