ACAPPELLA MUSIC: THE REAL ISSUE

In the very beginning of this effort to reform religious society, the subject matter of a saving or essential faith was distinguished both from the uninspired deductions of human reason, and from those divine teachings which, however necessary to enable the believer to make proper advances in Christian knowledge, are by no means necessary to the Christian faith. —Robert Richardson, Millennial Harbinger, 1848, p.698.

I urge you to study this statement with care, for it comes from the man that Alexander Campbell described as knowing more about the unity movement he had launched than anyone else, Robert Richardson, who was Mr. Campbell's physician as well as a fellow professor and associate editor. Once I discuss some things being said about acappella music, I want us to come back to this statement and evaluate it, for it states the essence of what we are supposed to stand for as heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. And all in one sentence, even if it is a cumbersome one.

Some years back a professor at Abilene Christian University published a book on The Case for Acappella Singing, and this year the 20th Century Press in Nashville is issuing the title Sing His Praise! A Case for A Cappella Music As Worship Today. It is a subject we will not let die even if there is not much said about it anymore from our pulpits. To many if not most of our folk in Churches of Christ "the instrument question" is a dead issue, but there are some who will not allow it to go away.

If we are going to discuss it, we should make it clear what the issue really is. And the issue is not whether there is a case for acappella singing as these books imply. The universal Church of God has been singing acappella all these centuries, long before what we call the non-instrument Church of Christ existed. All denominations sometimes sing acappella, and there are some choirs that are exclusively acappella. Someone outside our circles would surely think it strange that anyone would write a book on making a case for acappella music. His response could be, "A case for acappella singing? I didn't know anyone questioned it."

If the books were titled A Case for Making Instrumental Music A Test of Fellowship, they would at least point up the real issue. But our scholars will not write such a book, for they know they would be on shaky ground. We can opt for acappella music as our opinion or our preference. We could even say that for us instrumental music would be a sin, for it would violate our conscience. But for us to insist that it is a sin for others to use an instrument and that it will damn their souls to hell is a judgment we have no right to make. And that is the issue: do we have the right to make the instrument a test and thus reject our sisters and brothers in other churches, even the Christian Church, because they use a piano?

A professor at David Lipscomb wrote in the Gospel Advocate some years back to the effect that our young people should not be ashamed that we do not use instruments. It seems that some of them were embarrassed with their peer group that we do not have instruments like other churches do. I can't imagine many of our young people having that much concern over the instrument, pro or con, but the professor's admonition again dodged the issue. Of course our young people should not be ashamed of the absence of an organ, but should they be ashamed when their church preaches that all other churches are not true churches because they do have an organ? It is not our practice that is the issue, but the judgment we make of others who differ with us. Can't we believe we are right without believing everyone else is wrong?

Let us now examine Richardson's statement on what our "founding fathers" were trying to do. Is he not identifying two propositions that were recognized as valid from the very beginning of what came to be called "the Plea"? I will reduce the statement to plainer language.

A difference was made between saving or essential faith and the deductions of human reason or opinions.

A difference was made between saving or essential faith and those other teachings of the Bible, which, however important they are in advancing one in Christian knowledge, are not essential to being a Christian.

Our position in the Churches of Christ on instrumental music violates both principles laid down by our pioneers, which they in turn deduced from the freedom in Christ as set forth in Scripture. The question of instrumental music is obviously not a matter of saving or essential faith, but rather our own deduction from human reason, based not upon what the Bible says but the silence of the Bible. So we fail to make the vital distinction that our pioneers did between faith and human reason.

Even more devastating is our failure on the second proposition, for even if we believe that instrumental music is part of "the divine teaching" that builds us up in Christ once we are saved, we must distinguish between such teaching and the essential faith that makes one a Christian. This means that one might be innocently wrong on something the Bible actually teaches, such as the ministry of the Holy Spirit — or instrumental music if indeed it is in that category — and still be a faithful Christian in that he has saving or essential faith. This means that we must recognize that one might be wrong about instrumental music and still be a faithful Christian.

Richardson could have said, as he does elsewhere, that our forebears distinguished between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ongoing teaching of the apostles. The gospel was proclaimed in its fullness on Pentecost, and this is the basis of saving or essential faith, to believe in and obey Jesus Christ in baptism. The apostles went on for years to come to build up the didache, the teaching of the church, inspired as they were by the Holy Spirit. It is the gospel that saves; it is the teaching that builds up those who are saved. The gospel enrolled them in school; the teaching was the curriculum they were taught in school.

But God's children are sometimes slow learners. Some are even retarded. Some are far in advance of others. So we are all at different points in our development or at different levels in the school of Christ. So, along the way we will be mistakenly in error about some things. But this does not affect our essential faith in Christ, saving faith. If we cannot be wrong about some things and still be saved, then we are all doomed.

All this means that our pioneers are trying to show us that we must make the distinctions that the Scriptures make. When we do this we will have a more moderate view on instrumental music. In fact, we will come to concede that "the music question" has nothing to do with being saved and is a non issue when it comes to accepting other Christians as equals. Instrumental music can be made no more than a matter of one's own conscience and congregational preference. And when we come to that position we will be freer in Christ, more loving and accepting Christians, and a more responsible part of the Body of Christ at large. —the Editor