Mechanical Instruments of Music in Worship

 

            Letters from listeners encourage me to work even harder at my reading and studying, at preparing lessons for the International Gospel Hour and at delivering them in the most effective way of which I am capable.  That is especially true when my correspondents disagree with some point I have made in a radio lesson.  I am grateful that my listeners feel free to disagree with what I have preached.  Their objections to my radio sermons do not embarrass or trouble me in the least.  I take all questions and disagreements seriously and strive to deal with them to the best of my ability.  Because of my busy schedule, I cannot answer every letter I receive, but I do try to respond on the radio to many of the ideas my listeners express in their letters and in e-mail.

 

            A few weeks ago I received a letter expressing concern for my opposition to instrumental music in the worship of the church.  I shall read as an introduction to this discussion of “Mechanical Instruments of Music in Worship” two brief paragraphs from the letter.  “I have heard it stated by some persons that it was commanded in the Bible that musical instruments not be played in a church service while singing hymns.  I would greatly appreciate it if you would write to me and tell me what book, chapter and verse (where) it states ‘Thou shall not play any musical instruments in a church while singing religious songs.’  While I do agree some musical instruments are not in good taste, and should not be played, I am of the belief that it is more or less a personal preference.”

 

            I must say as plainly as I am able that I do not for one second question the honesty and sincerity of my correspondent.  His views are in agreement with those of millions and millions of people worldwide.  In fact, the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians see nothing wrong with using mechanical instruments of music in worship to God almighty.  But religious differences are not settled by counting noses.  If I can show from the scriptures that instrumental music in worship is wrong, it does not matter how many people disagree with that view.  Our position on any biblical topic must be, “Who is on the Lord’s side?”  You probably heard preachers quote these words: “One on the Lord’s side is a majority.”

 

            My correspondent says he has “heard it stated by some persons that it was commanded in the Bible that musical instruments not to be played in a church service while singing hymns.” I believe I know what he is seeking to convey, but frankly, I never heard anyone use that kind of language.  I have heard dozens of sermons and have read some of the most scholarly books on the unscripturalness of mechanical instrumental music in worship, but I never heard anyone say the Bible commands people not to play instruments in a church service while singing hymns.  So if the Bible does not command people to refrain from using mechanical instruments of music in worship, why do churches of Christ and some other religious groups object to their use?

 

            My correspondent kindly asks me to provide book, chapter and verse that state: “Thou shalt not use any musical instruments in a church while singing religious songs.”  I need to ask him and you: “May we engage in any activity in the work and worship of the church that the Bible does not specifically forbid?”  Will you join me in our investigation of what God authorizes and what he forbids?

 

            Please think about the following question: When the Lord specifies what we must do, does he have to delineate what we must not do?  Do you remember the Lord’s instructions to Noah?  “And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.  Make an ark of gopher wood; rooms shall you make in the ark, and you shall pitch it within and without with pitch” (Gen. 6:13-14).  Do you believe Noah understood what the Lord wanted him to do?  Would Noah’s use of some other kind of wood have been a “more or less personal preference?”  “Thus did Noah; according to all God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22).

 

            When God instructed Noah to use gopher wood in the construction of the ark, would it have been permissible for Noah to have used any other kind of wood?  The Lord did not say and did not have to say, “You shall not use pine or oak or hickory or walnut.”  Those other kinds of wood may have been just as good, from a human viewpoint, but the Lord specified what Noah was to use.  My friends, Noah recognized the law of inclusion and exclusion.  When God included gopher wood, he excluded all other kinds of wood.  Noah understood that principle even though many modern theologians do not and have no intention of doing so, especially on matters they like.

 

            The apostle Paul outlined what Christians are to do in taking the Lord’s supper.  “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.  That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:23-25).  Is there any room for disagreement on the elements in the Lord’s supper.  Actually, there is one religious group that adds a third element to the Lord’s supper.  The Church of the Brethren add broth to that sacred meal.

 

            Most people believe the Lord’s supper consists of the bread which symbolizes the Lord’s body and the cup or the fruit of the vine which symbolizes the blood of the Lamb of God.  For us to be able to partake of the Lord’s supper in a manner well pleasing to the Lord, was it necessary for the Lord to say: “You shall not have steak and eggs on the Lord’s table” or “You shall not have buttermilk”?  When the Lord included the bread and the fruit of the vine, he excluded all other possible elements.  Why did the Lord specify those two elements and no others?  That was what the Lord wanted his people to eat as a memorial feast.  If we respect his will, we are not going to add to nor take from nor substitute for what he has authorized.

 

            There are two kinds of music--vocal and instrumental.  The Holy Spirit included singing in our worship to God.  “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess: but be filled with the Spirit: speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18-19).  “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.  And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:16-17).  Does the expression, “in the name of the Lord,” mean we must do in worship only what God authorizes?  How can we perform an act in the name of the Lord if the Lord has not given authority for doing it?

 

            Did my correspondent know that instrumental music is never mentioned in the New Testament?  Vocal music and only vocal music is specifically authorized?  Was it an oversight on the Lord’s part to mention vocal music and not instrumental music?  Did the Lord have to say, “You shall not use instruments of music in worship to me under the new covenant?”  When he included singing in worship, did he not exclude instrumental music?  Did he have to specifically exclude dancing, stripping, wrestling, lifting weights and breaking concrete blocks?  Are these activities more or less matters of personal preference?  Is it possible to have unity among the professed followers of Jesus Christ when churches add whatever they like to their worship services?

 

            In 1888--over a hundred years ago--Dr. John L Girardeau, a professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina, wrote an outstanding book with the title, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Wiggins, Mississippi: Apologia Press, reprinted in 2000).  Dr. Girardeau, a Presbyterian scholar, opposed the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship.  His students asked him to explain his reasons for his opposition to instrumental music.  The book I have just mentioned was his response to their questions.  I do not have time to examine the full text of Dr. Girardeau’s book, but I do want to read some statements from the book.  Included in this small volume is a review of the book by R.L. Dabney.  Before I read some statements from Dr. Girardeau, please listen to a few observations from Dabney.  Dabney affirms that Dr. Girardeau was “supporting the identical position held by all the early church fathers, by all the Presbyterian reformers,” by Chalmers, Mason, Breckenridge, Thronwell and Spurgeon, the famous English Baptist preacher.  According to Dabney, Dr. Girardeau argued: “God is worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word” (p. ii of the review).

 

            Under the section, “The General Argument from Scripture,” Dr. Girardeau wrote: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden” (p. 1).  That is the point I have been stressing in our study today.  Dr. Girardeau further argues: “This truth operates positively to the inclusion of everything in the doctrine, government and worship of the church which is commanded, explicitly and implicitly in the Scriptures, and negatively to the exclusion of everything which is not so commanded” (pp. 1-2).  I hope you noticed Dr. Girardeau’s use of the terms “inclusion” and “exclusion.”  Time will not allow a full examination of Dr. Girardeau’s arguments and examples, but it is significant that he mentions Cain and his offering, Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, Moses’ smiting the rock, Saul’s offering a burnt-offering at Gilgal and Uzza and the ark as examples of those who engaged in unauthorized practices and had to suffer the consequences (pp. 3-7).  I close our reference to Dr. Girardeau’s book with this excerpt: “The jealousy of God for the principle of a divine warrant for everything in his worship is most conspicuously illustrated in New Testament times, by the tremendous judgments which befell the Jewish people for perpetuating, without such a warrant, the typical ritual of the temple-service.  Until the great atoning sacrifice was offered, they had a positive warrant from God for the observance of that order.  But when that sacrifice had been offered, the veil of the temple had been rent in twain, and the Holy Ghost had been copiously poured out at the inauguration of the new dispensation, the positive warrant for the temple-worship had been withdrawn” (p. 8).  When the divine warrant was withdrawn, no one was free to worship God according to the dictates of the law of Moses.  Incidentally, the Mosaic covenant allowed the use of mechanical instruments of worship, at least, on some occasions; the new covenant under Christ does not.

 

            The man who wrote the letter to me lists a number of passages which, at least, in his mind, seem to justify using instruments of music in New Testament worship.  I cannot read and examine each of these passages, but I shall discuss some  of them briefly.  He records these words from Isaiah: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of God shall stand forever” (Isa. 40:8).  Does that verse mean that whatever the Jews practiced under the old covenant we must include in our worship?  If that were true, we would have to burn incense, offer animal sacrifices, keep the sabbath, observe the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and other Jewish rituals.  The law that authorized these practices has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17).

 

            My correspondent also quotes: “I know that, whatsoever God does, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it nor anything taken from it: and God does it that men shall fear before him” (Eccl. 3:14).  If that passage applies under the new covenant, we must have Levitical priests who offer sacrifices according to the law.  But we know that priests from the tribe of Levi are not allowed under the new covenant.  Please listen to the author of Hebrews.  “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron?  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also in the law” (Heb. 7:11-12).  Did God actually change his law?  That truth is not really open to debate.  We know there was a change in the law.  Does God’s changing the law mean that God has changed? Absolutely not!  “For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Mal. 3:6).

 

            Every serious student of the word knows that God cannot change.  But we also know that he has changed his laws.  Otherwise, it would be foolish to speak of the gospel and the law of Moses.  The apostle John wrote concerning Jesus: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).  The great Old Testament prophet Jeremiah predicted the coming of a new covenant.  The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah’s words and then added: “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old.  Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:7, 13).  The same author teaches further: “Then he said, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.  He takes away the first, that he may establish the second.  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9-10).  Since God took away the first covenant, does that mean he has changed his nature?  If you still have doubt about the cancellation of the old covenant and the institution of the new, I urge you to read 2 Corinthians 3.  After reading that powerful chapter, you should no longer have any doubts.

 

            One of the favorite verses of those who imagine that God has not changed any of his laws is Hebrews 13:8 which reads: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever.”  If God and Christ are the same yesterday, and today, and forever, does that mean no laws have been changed?  If they approved of instrumental music under the Jewish covenant, does that mean they approve of it under the Christian dispensation?  If you listened to the verses I have read to you from the book of Hebrews, you know it does not mean that no laws have been changed.  There have been hundreds of changes in the law from the time of Moses until today.  No, man has not changed those laws; God did.  For example Christians’ worship must be on the Lord’s Day--the first day of the week--not on the Jewish sabbath.  And Sunday is not the sabbath!  As I have already stated, we do not keep the Passover, the feast of Pentecost and other Jewish feasts and festivals.  They had great meaning under the law of Moses.  Their meaning today is purely historical.  But we are not to observe those regulations.

 

            My correspondent makes reference to these words from the Old Testament: “You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Dt. 4:2).  There is no doubt the principle applies to the new covenant, but this is the wrong verse to use in trying to justify the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship under the new covenant.  Instruments of music are not mentioned one time in the New Testament.  Who has the right to add any act to the worship that God has authorized in his word?

 

            In a letter to the editor of The Tennessean (Wed. July 25, 2001), a man from Nashville responded to an article about music that had appeared earlier in the same paper.  I did not read the original article, so I have no way of knowing exactly what it said.  He asks, “When will these people understand that things will not always be as the so-called conservative members think they should be” (p. 14-A)?  What if the conservative members think they should follow the teaching of the scripture, would that make a difference?  He asserts that as more young people become members of the church, the church will have to accept the change that comes along with it.  No church has to accept unscriptural doctrine or practice, regardless of who the members of the church are.  We should not be trying to please the members.  We should strive to be like Jesus Christ and do always those things that please God (John 8:29).

 

            The author of the letter says he cannot understand what is so bad about music in the church.  “Can they show me a scripture where music should not be played in the church?”  He accuses those of us who oppose musical instruments in the worship as being narrow-minded, “not to mention a lack of respect for the wishes of others” (p. 14-A).  I confess to being narrow-minded, that is, as narrow minded as the Bible.  I believe we ought to respect the wishes of others so long as those wish are in harmony with the word of almighty God. Should we respect the wishes of others if they want to introduce dancing into the worship? Where do we draw the line in our respect for others’ wishes? We must not fall in with the fleeting fashions of world, even if our young people demand it (Rom. 12:2).  That truth should be too plain for anyone to deny.

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

 

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles