It
would be of some curiosity to a student of religion that there was ever a
religious community that would have cause to lock and cover a piano or
organ, not unlike the way a body is covered at the scene of an accident or
crime. It implies something sordid and heinous. A locked and covered
instrument in a house of worship! Even when one is apprised of the pros and
cons of its use in singing, he is likely to wonder why it is such a big
deal. If Christians were meeting in a pagan temple, it would be
understandable that they might cover the offending idols and statues, but
must a musical instrument be rolled out of sight or locked and covered so
that it can be neither seen nor heard?
An
anecdote out of our history illustrates this mentality. When the Murch-Witty
unity meeting was held in Indianapolis in 1940, Daniel Sommer was asked to
lead the prayer. For half a century Sommer had been a force in those events
that led to the separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian
Church, but in more recent years he had called for peace and unity, a move
that isolated him from his erstwhile followers, including his own family who
had withdrawn fellowship from him.
Now
aged, frail, and blind, Sommer makes his way to the front to lead the prayer
at a unity gathering between the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches.
The inimitable old warrior rested against the piano - locked and covered -
as he addressed the heavenly Father, praying for the unity of all God's
children.
If
one is acquainted with those turbulent times among our people, when a unity
movement was being shattered by internecine conflict, that scene of old
brother Sommer praying for unity while leaning against a piano, locked and
covered, well symbolizes the frustration and agony our folk suffered in
those days. Some wit picked up on the drama of that scene and wrote an
article in the Christian Standard entitled
"Leaning on the Piano: How the
Mighty Have Fallen," noting that the piano, which had long been an
object of dispute, was locked and covered and was neither seen nor heard.
Is
the piano or organ really that big a deal? Even in the 1980's the Churches
of Christ will fire a preacher who equivocates on the proposition that the
instrument is a sin against God, even though it is the rare preacher among
us who really believes that anymore. Usually he just doesn't talk about it
unless he has to.
And
we still have books issued on the subject by those who will not allow the
issue to die, by the pros and cons alike, and after a century of
counter-productive debating we still have an occasional debate. Recent books
out of both Nashville and Abilene have such a title as The
Case for Acappella Music, which only begs the issue, for no one questions
the place of acappella singing. All churches sometimes sing acappella. The
issue is whether using an instrument is a breach of the law of God, a sin
that will damn one's soul. The issue is whether we are to treat our sisters
and brothers in Christ who use an instrument as less than our equals in
Christ, as "digressives" or "brothers in error" or some
such degrading epithet. The issue is not whether we ourselves are to sing
acappella, according to our good conscience, but whether we are to make it a
test of fellowship and draw the line on all other Christians.
It
can even be argued that the issue is the nature of the gospel, as to whether
we are preaching "another gospel" when we add acappella music to
faith, repentance, and baptism. This was the contention of Ernest Beam of
Long Beach, Ca. back in the 1950's. He
published a journal in which he challenged the "powers that be" in
his own Church of Christ, whom he identified as college presidents and
editors, to defend the practice of making instrumental music and missionary
societies a test of fellowship, thus putting them on equal footing with
belief in and obedience to the gospel. He charged that they were preaching
"another gospel" and challenged them to debate. They tried to
ignore him, but he persisted, charging them with disloyalty to the gospel by
making opinions and methods tests of loyalty to Christ. G. C. Brewer, the
most eminent preacher of the Church of Christ of that generation, signed on
to debate Beam on the issue, but afterwards backed off. The debate was never
held.
These
books tell us, as well as the debaters, that the real issue is not so much
the instrument per se, but an
attitude toward the Bible. They insist that the instrumentalists do not
respect the authority of the Scriptures like they do, especially the silence
of the Scriptures. They do not seem to recognize that people who equally
respect the authority of Scripture can and do honestly differ on such things
as instruments and societies. As for the silence of the Bible, we all adopt
methods wherein the Bible is silent, only about different things.
History
is replete with examples of how good, intelligent people, dedicated to the
task of reforming the church, have differed over methods of doing the
church's work or conducting its worship. If we limit ourselves only to the
question of music, the diversity of opinion is amazing. There was Ulrich
Zwingli, for example, the Swiss reformer, who sincerely sought to restore
pure worship to the church. He not only removed choirs and organs from the
churches but singing as well. He understood Eph. 5:19 to mean that we are to
speak to one another in psalms and
hymns rather than to sing, which is what it says, and making
melody is to be in the heart, not on the lips. So, the great Zwingli
read the same passages that we do and came up with not only a non-instrument
position but a no-singing position as well. Are we to say that he did not
respect the authority of Scripture?
Then
there was John Cotton, a Puritan preacher, who believed the church should
sing only from the hymnal that the Holy Spirit included in the Scriptures.
After all, why should we sing hymns written by uninspired men when we have
the inspired Psalms to sing? And so he sought to "restore" the
true church by using the Psalms as the church's only hymnal, and these were
sung only acappella We surely can't accuse him of not respecting Biblical
authority! There are two tiny Presbyterian denominations today, both in
Scotland I understand, who hold this view, using only the Psalter for their
hymnal and singing only acappella. At Princeton I had a professor who grew
up in this tradition. He could claim a stricter background than I. While we
both grew up in the acappella tradition, I sung hymns composed by Catholic
bishops while he sung only the inspired Psalms. Who is closer to the Bible
after all? I have often wondered how we failed to produce a sect among us
with that persuasion, for it is so impregnably rooted in Scripture.
When
I write along these lines, I think of my old professor at Harvard, who,
quite conscious of my conservatism, once said to me, "If ever you find
anyone more conservative than yourself, you should examine his position."
He was right! Can you imagine how the Church of Christ would fare in a
debate with John Cotton on whether we should sing from the Psalter God has
given or the hymns written by men?
Then
there was Martin Luther who not only believed in organs and choirs and
ritual, but went to the barrooms for the tunes for his great hymns, such as A
Mighty Fortress Is Our God.
Who
is right? Why can't they all be right? It is right to sing acappella and
right to sing with instrumentation. It is right to sing Luther's hymns, even
if they were drawn from barroom ballads, and it is right to sing only the
Psalms. And Zwingli was probably right as well, if his conscience so
dictated, when his church would chant hymns to each other rather than put
melody to them. In logical terms these positions are not contradictory to
each other (where one has to be wrong) but only contrary to each other
(where both may be right). Just as if you said Mary
is at the door and I said Jane is at
the door. I have spoken contrary to you but I did not contradict you,
for both Mary and Jane could be at the door.
Interpretations
drawn from Scripture, especially in reference to methods, are often this
way. There may be several ways to serve the Supper or to collect the
offering or to appoint elders, and they could all be right
It
is not wrong for us to have different opinions about such things. What is
wrong is for us to make them contradictories and insist that it has to be
done our way and that it is a sin against heaven to do otherwise. That makes
us see sectarians. We might say that it would be a sin for us to do otherwise
in that it would violate our conscience, but we cannot impose our scruple on
others as if it were the absolute will of God.
One
last point about making a big deal out of a piano or organ. Sometimes those
who use an instrument graciously offer to forego its use when I am in their
church and on their program. This is eminently Christian, and while I
appreciate such a forbearing attitude I don't believe brethren should change
their way of doing things for the sake of the scruple of the speaker. If he
thinks its wrong to sing with an instrument, he does not have to sing. He
has no right to expect an entire congregation to yield to his own
preference. It is a different matter if two churches are having a service
together.
This
is why I insist when I am visiting with a church that it do as it usually
does and not change its service on my account. Besides, to me a piano or an
organ is a non-issue, wholly beside the point. The point is to praise God.
When I am at home I sing acappella, and I am convinced we are right. When I am
away I often sing with an instrument, and I do not believe that is wrong. It
is no big deal. How can it be to one who has any vision at all of the church
universal. It is all right for a church to be acappella, but it goes too far
to make acappella music a mark of the church catholic.
If
a speaker has to demand that the piano be locked and covered or otherwise
silenced before he will speak, it would be gracious of him to decline the
invitation. The people will likely survive without his wisdom. He would also
do well to ponder the old motto handed down by our forebears, one rooted in
Scripture: "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty;
in all things, love. For many years the old Christian-Evangelist
carried that motto as part of its logo and put it this way:
In matters of
faith, unity;
In methods and opinions, liberty;
In all things, love.
—the
Editor
The Sole Purpose of the
Campbell Movement
To anyone familiar with the writings of Alexander Campbell, it ought not to be a matter of surprise that one reared in that tradition should give himself to a study of the doctrine of the church, for that was a major concern of early Disciple teachers. The first proposition of the Declaration and Address, issued in 1809 by Thomas Campbell, was "That the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one." The main interest was in the visible church, and the sole purpose was that the scattered forces of Christianity might be gathered into "one holy catholic apostolic church." Schism, wherever it existed, was sin.--William Robinson, The Biblical Doctrine of the Church, p.7.