|
|||||
|
|||||
| NEWS: BRIDGE |Why Don’t You Have Music in Your Church?John Mark Hicks When you tell someone that you attend a Church of Christ, they may know very little about us. But if they are acquainted with Churches of Christ at all, they will probably know at least one thing—we do not use instrumental music in our worship assemblies. If they are a bit more knowledgeable, they will also know that we baptize (immerse) for the remission of sins and practice weekly communion. I suppose, from the perspective of an outsider, those are the three most distinctive things about the Churches of Christ. These three practices, that is, (1) immersion (baptism) for the remission of sins; (2) weekly communion around the Lord’s table; and (3) a cappella music in our worship assemblies, taken together, generally set us apart from others. We are considered unique or unusual because we practice these three public liturgical acts in the way we do. Indeed, sometimes we are regarded as rather odd and even stubborn about these practices. Because of these three customs, the Churches of Christ tend to stick out like a sore thumb. We break the mold of contemporary Christianity. Consequently, we are often perceived as an aberration with eccentric habits. It would surely surprise some to learn that these three practices are solidly rooted in the historic Christian tradition. Indeed, they are the most ancient traditions. Baptism for the remission of sins was not a new discovery by Alexander Campbell in 1823, but was, in fact, affirmed in the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 C.E. which states, “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” Weekly communion was certainly the practice of the second century church, and has been continued by various traditions throughout the history of the Christianity as, for example, in the Brethren Church. A cappella music is the original tradition of the church, as we will see, but even the etymology of the word indicates the historic character of this practice. The term a cappella means “according to the chapel,” or music according to ecclesiastical practice (church music) which was by ancient custom without instrumental accompaniment. Throughout the history of Christianity there have always been Christian groups which worshipped a cappella such as the Greek Orthodox Church. Consequently, far from being odd or out-of-step with Christian beliefs, these three distinctives of the Churches of Christ have solid rootage in the earliest known Christian traditions. Indeed, they reflect the teaching and practice of congregations in the New Testament. Nevertheless, we do seem a bit odd in our contemporary culture. After all, who, in their right mind, would oppose instrumental music in worship? This occasions the question, “Why don’t you have music in your church?“ Of course, the questioner means, “Why don’t you have instrumental music in your church?” Our culture tends to identify “music” with instrumental melodies and vocal music is described only in terms of “singing” rather than “music.” So, the questioner is confused that we believe in singing, but not “music.” But actually the Churches of Christ have always advocated “music,” that is, vocal music, in the worship assemblies of the church. In fact, we have an extremely rich heritage of hymnody and vocal music. Alexander Campbell published hymnbooks at the same time he printed New Testaments. Churches of Christ have never opposed music as a category—we have always sung hymns—but we have opposed instrumental music in our worship assemblies. The questioner wants to know why, and we need to be able to give a reasonable, relevant and biblical answer. Historically, the fundamental reason we have not used instrumental music in our worship assemblies is because they were absent from the worship assemblies of New Testament Christians. What did the Early Christians Do? While there are a few references to the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament prior to the reign of David (cf. Exodus 15:20-21; 1 Samuel 10:5; see also the role of trumpets in assembling the people, Numbers 10:2,8-10; 29:2), musical instruments, as an established part of the Israel’s worship assemblies, were introduced by King David himself. When he moved the ark of the covenant (and, consequently, the tabernacle) to Jerusalem, the people celebrated “with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals” (2 Samuel 6:5; cf. 1 Chronicles 13:8). David told the Levites to appoint from among their priestly tribe those who could sing and play instruments (1 Chronicles 15:16). The Levites instituted a choir of singers and a musical band (1 Chronicles 15:17-22, 27-28) for tabernacle worship. Temple worship followed this musical pattern throughout Israel’s history as Hezekiah’s reforms illustrate. Hezekiah placed Levites in the temple “with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed” by David, Gad and Nathan since “this was commanded by the Lord through his prophets” (2 Chronicles 29:25). They are even called “David’s instruments” (2 Chronicles 29:26; cf. 1 Chronicles 23:5; or, his invention, Amos 6:5). In the house of God, Hezekiah proclaimed, “we will sing with stringed instruments all the days of our lives in the temple of the Lord” (Is. 38:20). It is no wonder, then, that the Psalms are filled with references to worshipping God with instrumental music. The Psalms were the hymnbook of Israel’s temple worship, and many of the Psalms were written specifically for their liturgical use in the temple. Psalm 150 is a classic example where God is praised “in his sanctuary” (his temple) with the trumpet, lyre, harp, tambourine, strings, flute, and cymbals along with dancing (150:1,3-5). Another example is Psalm 149 where God’s people sing a new song to God “in the assembly of the saints” so that the people “praise his name with dancing, and make music to him with tambourine and harp” (149:1,3). So while the Psalms reflect the variety and use of musical instruments at the temple, the instruments also are closely tied to other aspects of temple worship such as incense and animal sacrifices. Incense, animal sacrifices and the altar are, of course, integral to temple worship (cf. 1 Kings 9:25; 1 Chronicles 6:49; 13:11; 2 Chronicles 2:4; and the institution of incense in Exodus 30-31,35, 40:5,27). Psalm 141:2 offers this intercession, “May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.” When David appointed the singers and the instrumentalists, he did so in the context of animal sacrifices and incense, that is, in the context of the altar of God (1 Chronicles 16:1-5,29,40,42; cf. 2 Chronicles 29:25-35; Neh. 12:27,43; Ezra 3:3-4,10). Sacrifices, incense and musical instruments are closely tied together in temple worship; they are closely tied to the temple’s altar. Psalm 43:4 reflects this association: “I will go to the altar of God, To God, my joy and my delight. I will praise you with the harp, O God, my God.” It would be safe to say that after the time of David, musical instruments, animal sacrifices and incense were a stable triad in the temple as Israel worshipped before God’s altar.1 The use of instrumental music in the temple continued until its final destruction in 70 C.E. Jewish traditions, though their written form is third century C.E., reflect the continued use of instruments in temple worship as it was led by the Levites. It was a significant part of the worship for temple assemblies, but the context remained animal sacrifices and communal festivals.2 However, the situation was different in the synagogues. While the sources are difficult to decipher as to time and place, there is a general scholarly consensus that if there was music in the synagogue, it was only vocal. Instrumental music was not used in the synagogue. Indeed, some argue that the synagogue did not sing Psalms at all. Some believe that there was no vocal music in the liturgy of the synagogue.3 The earliest traditions of the synagogue may not have had any music at all. According to some scholars, it was the synagogue of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. which adopted Psalm singing without instrumental accompaniment. In contemporary rabbinic material of that period a clear distinction is drawn between temple music which involves the instrument and synagogue music which developed after the destruction of the temple. As these rabbinic traditions indicate, music in the synagogue, where there was music at all, was a cappella. It appears, whether by institution or by common practice, instrumental music was so connected with temple worship (including incense and animal sacrifices) that it was explicitly and intentionally excluded from the worship of the synagogue. Indeed, some think that vocal music was taken up by the synagogue in order to remember the hymnody of the destroyed Temple, but instruments were excluded because they were too closely tied to the temple’s altar.4 Consequently, at the time of the apostolic ministry, the synagogue probably did not have any musical liturgy, either vocal or instrumental. The singing of psalms was probably not part of the synagogue worship during the New Testament period, and it was only in the following centuries that Psalm singing without the instrument was added to synagogue worship. When we come to the New Testament texts which describe the worship assemblies of the new covenant people of God, we find references to singing, but we find no reference to the use of instrumental music in the assembly. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14, which is one of the few extended descriptions of a new covenant worship assembly (1 Corinthians 14:23, 26), we find references to singing, praying, praises of thanksgiving, teaching (1 Corinthians 14:14-17, 26), and the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17ff) but there is no reference to instrumental music in the assembly. Paul writes, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind” (1 Corinthians 14:15). Paul believes that singing and praying are both emotional and cognitive expressions of the worshipper’s praise of God. Indeed, Paul’s only comment on musical instruments is his illustrative reference to them as “lifeless” instruments (1 Corinthians 14:7; unless you also include “clanging cymbal” in 1 Corinthians 13:1). They are not the living voices of God’s people, but the lifeless sounds of a mechanical instrument.5 With Paul’s emphasis on edification and understanding, as opposed to irrational and disruptive outbursts of ecstatic behavior, Paul underscores the cognitive role of music in the worship of God’s people. These explicit references to singing within New Testament assemblies are confirmed by Paul’s call for Christians to praise God with song in two texts, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16—both of which include Psalm singing (unlike the contemporary synagogue). In these two texts the purpose of singing is tied to teaching and admonishing each other while at the same time expressing our gratitude to God. This is consonant with the call of the writer of Hebrews for believers to “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise” with their own lips (Heb. 13:15). It is clear, then, that singing formed part of the worship assembly of the New Testament Church. Given the presence of instruments in the Old Testament and in the firstcentury temple, the absence of musical instruments in these texts is notable. New covenant assemblies took up Psalm singing while the synagogue excluded music altogether, but, unlike the temple, the church took up Psalm singing without musical accompaniment, just like the synagogues of later centuries. Consequently, Christian assemblies followed neither the practice of the temple nor that of contemporary synagogues. As far as the records indicate, the temple sang with instrumental accompaniment and the synagogue did not sing at all, but Christian assemblies sang a cappella. Some have argued that new covenant assemblies followed the model of the synagogue rather than the temple, but this would not explain the distinctive character of the church’s Psalm singing. In fact, I think it might be more appropriate to say that new covenant assemblies followed the model of the Passover meal more than they did the synagogue though the two models are not mutually exclusive. The Passover meal is fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:15-16), and early Christians ate the Lord’s Supper as the central purpose of their assemblies (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17-22). The Passover meal involved prayers, thanksgivings, instruction (the haggadah), alsmgiving and psalm singing as well as the meal (the supper) itself (cf. Matt. 26:26-30). These are the basic elements we find in Christian assemblies according to the Corinthian letter. Indeed, it strongly parallels the traditional five-fold summary among Churches of Christ (preaching, Lord’s Supper, singing, prayers and giving). The Lord’s Supper is the Passover meal reinterpreted in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ. Passover meals were “house” (home) events, though the lambs may have been killed in the temple. The singing of Psalms at Passover meal appears to have been unaccompanied though the evidence is inconclusive and may have varied.6 If this reading of the evidence is correct, then whether Christians followed the synagogue model or the Passover model, it is not surprising that the New Testament is silent about instrumental music. The practice of the church in the first four centuries confirms our reading of the New Testament texts. As far as the extant record goes, Christians in the earliest centuries did not use instrumental music in their corporate assemblies. Not only do these early authors exalt vocal music as a pure means of worship, they explicitly reject instrumental music. They believed that instruments were either part of the old covenant, or too tied to immoral pagan assemblies (whether at temples or banquets), or too external to reflect the spiritual dynamic of new covenant worship (all three arguments can be found in Clement of Alexandria in the late second century).7 One of the clearest expressions of this attitude comes from the fourth century church historian Eusebius (Commentary on Psalms, 91:2-3):8
There is no reasonable doubt that for the first eight or nine hundred years after the death of the apostles the assembled church sang their praises to God without instrumental accompaniment. Given this historical reality, it is no surprise that the New Testament is silent about the use of musical instruments in Christian worship. The historic practice of the church ought to give us pause to wonder why the early church did not use instrumental music. When musical instruments were so available and portable (ancient art reflects small hand-held instruments which were easily carried unlike modern organs and bands), when they were in such common use in the worship assemblies of Jewish and pagan temples,9 and when there were, no doubt, many gifted Christians who could play instruments, why did not the early Christians use them? The New Testament is silent about instruments in new covenant assemblies. But why is it silent? They are not silent about instruments in the same way that the New Testament is silent about television or microphones. Instruments were readily available to early Christians, but television, of course, was not. We recognize that the New Testament is silent about some things because their cultural context was different from ours. For example, they did not have the technology we now have. But the ancient world had the technology of musical instrumentation, and it was more accessible and affordable than it is today. So, why is the New Testament silent about instruments? It is certainly not because they were not available or that Christians were an impoverished community unable to buy them. Something else seems to have motivated the exclusion of musical instruments from the corporate worship of the church. It is possible that this silence is merely incidental. Silence does not necessarily imply prohibition. After all, Scripture is silent about church buildings, but we build them with money from the church treasury. It may be that instruments were used, but they are not mentioned, just like it may be that some congregation bought a home or building to dedicate to the use of Christian assemblies even though the New Testament is silent about that (Christians certainly did this in the third century). Consequently, it is possible that instruments were used, but since it was unimportant to the writers of the New Testament or they had no occasion to really comment on the practice, they did not mention their use. But then it would be difficult to account for the hostility of the second and third century church toward instruments if the first century church used them. If the first century church used instruments, the second and third century churches would have continued their use or at least not opposed them. The second and third century church was focused on following apostolic tradition and ascertaining the nature and character of that tradition.10 Historical memory and liturgical traditions were carefully preserved as well as developed. Given the prominence of instruments in the temple (both Jewish and pagan), the silence of the New Testament seems more significant than simply an historical coincidence. Another possible reason for the incidental silence of the New Testament concerning instruments may be the realities of the historical circumstances. In other words, the New Testament is silent because the early church did not use them, but there was no theological reason for their non-use. Rather, they simply followed the example of the Passover meal or some other model which did not use instruments, but they were not obligated to follow that example. It may be that they could have followed the temple model and used instruments, but they decided not to follow that course. But is it the case that early Christians sang a cappella out of habit rather than out of theological conviction? From where would this habit have derived? The early church did not derive this habit from the temple, synagogue, or pagan cultic worship. A cappella music marks a decisive break from Jewish and pagan worship traditions. To make the conscious decision to sing without the instrument when the religious culture so pervasively utilizes them reflects some rationale for the non-use of the instrument, and this raises the question of why the early church did not use instruments in their worship. What was the rationale of the early Christians? I think it is safe to say that the New Testament gives no evidence of their use, and this is confirmed by early Christian history in the centuries following the writing of the New Testament documents. Further, it is safe to say that New Testament Christians had a reason for not using the musical instrument. Given this historical reality, why did the early church not worship God with the instrument, especially since the Psalms are filled with references to such worship and they sang Psalms in their worship (Ephesians 5:19; Col. 3:16)? Why is the New Testament silent about instrumental music in new covenant assemblies? Now, it would be perfectly proper to stop at this point and affirm the biblical and historical ground for a cappella music in the worship of the church. Even if we cannot determine why the early church did not worship with musical instruments, perhaps it ought to be enough for us as restorationists that they did not and we ought to follow their example if we want to simply be a New Testament church. That is surely a sufficient reason for the existence of a Christian a cappella community, but is there more? Why did Early Christians Oppose Musical Instruments? At some point we must move beyond the merely historical argument that the New Testament is silent about something. Given the occasional nature of the New Testament documents, it is not enough to simply say, “The New Testament does not mention it, so therefore, we should not do it.” If this were true, then we could not purchase church buildings, earn interest on treasury money, sell a preacher’s home for profit, or offer benevolence to non-members out of the church treasury. Mere silence is not enough. Rather, silence must be combined with some theological rationale or some genre expectation that gives weight to the silence. For example, the literary genre by which worship is regulated in the Old Testament is different from the New Testament. Ephesians and Leviticus are not the same type of literature. We do not have a legal/ritual genre in the New Testament like Leviticus where the specifics, order and particulars of worship are detailed. In a legal/ritual document like Leviticus there is a presumption that silence would be significant. One must follow the exact prescriptions of the text and the text is written in order to be exact. It intends to lay out a prescribed ritual with a specified order. But in occasional documents like Ephesians or the Corinthian letters, the issues discussed are the ones raised by the historical circumstances involved. Instead of detailing a pattern (as in Leviticus), the epistles of Paul respond to specific problems within the congregations he addresses. Silence is not always prohibitive in such a context. Just because Paul is silent about a particular thing such as abortion or instrumental music does not imply prohibition or permission. It may be that the topic never arose. When the New Testament is silent we must seek out the theological principles which may lay behind that silence if there are any. Unless the genre indicates otherwise, silence can only be prohibitive if it functions in relation to a command or theological principle. There must be some theological principle which gives weight to silence or provides the reason for silence. Silence alone, in the context of an epistolary or narrative genre, cannot have the weight of prohibition. In other words, we must provide some theological reason which permits us to interpret the silence as intentional rather than incidental. For example, the New Testament is silent about infant baptism, but the theological principle of a faithresponse to the gospel through baptism excludes infant baptism (cf. Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:20-22). Silence alone does not exclude infant baptism. Rather, an explicit theological principle excludes infant baptism. Further, to baptize an infant would be to contradict the command to baptize believers. It is not simply a matter of silence in the case of infant baptism. Rather, when we baptize infants (non-believers) we contradict the very thing that Scripture tells us to do, that is, baptize believers. An Old Testament example of this principle is when Nadab and Abihu took fire from somewhere other than where God commanded, they were punished. They contradicted God’s command. Instead of getting their fire from what the Lord provided, they got it from a different place. They substituted one fire for another (Leviticus 9:23-10:2). Nadab and Abihu were not destroyed because they added something to the liturgy, but because they contradicted the command of God. Unless one refuses to sing or where instrumental music substitutes for singing, instrumental music does not contradict the command to sing because when we sing with instruments we are still singing. The analogy with infant baptism or Nadab and Abihu does not hold in this case. Playing does not contradict singing (it only adds to singing), but this does not mean that the New Testament is indifferent to instrumental music or that instrumental music does not somehow pervert singing. Rather, given the New Testament’s silence, we must ask if there is a theological principle which excludes instrumental music from the worship of New Testament assemblies, and how explicit is it? Scripture can be silent about something and still prohibit it by virtue of a theological principle, such as on the topic of abortion (e.g., the prinicple which forbids taking innocent life forbids abortion). So the question becomes: Is the command to sing rooted in a principle that excludes instrumental music even though instrumental music does not contradict singing? I believe that Ephesians 5:18-20 offers such a theological rationale within the redemptive-historical context of Scripture. In the context of a series of ethical imperatives (beginning at 4:25), Paul calls his readers to orient their lives to the praise of God in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians are people who fill their lives with expressions of thanksgiving for what God has done in Christ. In Ephesians 5:18-20, Paul writes (NRSV):
I believe this text offers two theological principles which may illuminate the reason why early Christians did not use instrumental music, and these two principles provide the ground upon which a cappella music is legitimately maintained as an apostolic tradition in the contemporary church. The first principle is rooted in the nature of Christian worship. Worship is offered to God the Father through Jesus Christ or in the name of Jesus Christ. We have access to the Father through the Son (Ephesians 2:18). But this is not the full statement of the nature of worship. Rather, we have access to the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). The Spirit is the one by whom we draw near to God through Christ. The Spirit is the one by whom we come into the presence of the Father because the Father inhabits his church through his Spirit (Ephesians 2:22). The church, then, as the body of Christ is the temple of God by virtue of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:21; 2 Corinthians 6:16). Or, as Paul writes in another place, the corporate church, as well as physical bodies of individual Christians, is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16,17; 6:19). It is no wonder, then, that Paul characterizes Christians as people who “worship by the Spirit of God” (Philippians 3:2) and who pray “in the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:18). The nature of Christian worship is linked to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church as the one through whom we offer worship to God and his Christ (we sing to the “Lord” Jesus as well as to God the Father, as in Colossians 3:16). Ephesians 5:18 reflects this Spirit-oriented understanding of worship with the imperative: “be filled with the Spirit.” The imperative is followed by five participles which modify the imperative. We are to be “filled with the Spirit” as we speak to one another, as we sing and make melody, as we give thanks, as we submit to each other. In other words, our worship in song and thanksgiving is an expression of the fullness of God’s Spirit within us. By means of the presence of the Spirit that we offer our worship to God. Our Worship arises out of being “filled with the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is the one by whom worship is offered to God by the people of God. Worship is offered to God; it is God-centered by means of his Holy Spirit. Worship is Spiritual, that is, worship is offered to God through his Spirit. This is consistent with Jesus’ discussion of worship in John 4. In contrast to whether one should worship at the altar on the Samaritan mountain or worship at the altar on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, Jesus announces that worship in the new age will not be associated with a place, but with a person. Worship will be according to the nature of God himself. Since God is Spirit, everyone who worships him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:20-24). This worship focuses on the personal relationship between God and his people which surpasses the temple typology. Jesus himself is the new temple (John 2:19-21). Now the people of God will worship God through his Holy Spirit and through Jesus Christ (who is the Truth, John 14:6). The worship of God will not focus on sensual elements such as holy cities or sites, sacrifice, incense, special holy people and temples, but now the worship of God will arise from the fountain of living water that wells up inside the people God through the Holy Spirit (cf. John 4:13-14; 7:37- 39) on the basis of what God did in Jesus Christ who is God’s Truth (his glorification in John 7:39). We worship the personal God who is present to us through his Holy Spirit and in the reality or truth of his Son’s grace. While the law (type or shadow) was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). We no longer worship by the typological shadows of the old covenant, but we worship in the reality of God’s truth. Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit form the necessary context for the proper worship of the God who is Spirit. We worship God through the presence of his Holy Spirit according to the reality revealed in Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5:19, there is also a contrast to what often (though not always) took place in pagan temples and Greco-Roman mystery cults. Paul’s prohibition against drunkenness should be seen on the background of pagan worship, and Paul is here implicitly contrasting the nature of pagan worship with Christian worship. Pagan worship is rooted in sensuality, in drunkenness, but Christian worship is an expression of the Spirit of God who lives in our hearts. While pagans are worked up into a worship frenzy by sensual stimuli (e.g., wine), Christians worship God when the Spirit who fills our lives brings us into the presence of God. Is it too much of a stretch to think that the contrast between instrumental and vocal music, so apparent in early Christian thought, is the same kind of contrast Paul is making here? Christian worship is characterized by the presence of God’s Spirit and is offered through the Spirit who lives within us rather than through sensually-based temples, drunkenness and instruments. Paul’s contrast with pagan worship here is similar to his Areopagus speech in Acts 17. There he rejects the pagan notion that God needs a temple and needs to be worshipped through human hands. God is the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, and he “does not live in temples built by human hands, and he is not served by human hands” (Acts 17:24-25). The worship of God is not sensually based, but Spirit-prompted. God does not live in temples built with human hands. On the contrary, he lives in the hearts of his people by his Spirit. God wishes to be worshipped with the lips of his people rather than with the strings of their harps. New covenant worship is focused on the spiritual rather than the sensual. The second principle is rooted in the typological fulfillment of Old Testament temple worship in Christian worship. Typological interpretation is a legitimate method. Paul himself draws upon this method in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 in order to offer a warning about Corinthian idolatry. Colossians 2:16-17 states that the food, drink, festivals and days of the Mosaic order were “shadows of things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” This parallels Jesus’ statement in John 4:24 that God’s people worship according to the Truth, that is, they worship according to the reality found in Christ as opposed to type found in the Mosaic law. Further, the book of Hebrews draws heavily upon typological interpretation as it compares the old and new covenants, particularly as it compares the sacrifices of the old covenant and its attendant tabernacle worship with the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 9:23; cf. 8:5). Ephesians 5:19 contains a phrase which may reflect a typological understanding of music. Paul links together two verbs which are sometimes found together in the Greek translation of the Psalms. In the Psalms the two verbs “singing” and “making melody” reflect the temple worship of Israel. They allude to the Levitical singers, the choir, and to the Levitical instrumentalists, the players (cf. Ps. 68:25). In Israel, they sang and played on harps to the Lord (Ps. 33:2-3; 144:9; cf. Ps. 21:13; 27:6; 56:8; 97:4-5; 104:33; 105:2; 108:1; 147:7). Israel made melody to the Lord on harps or lyres in temple worship (Ps. 33:2,3; 71:22; 98:5; 144:9; 147:7; 149:3). Paul’s language stands in explicit contrast with the language of the Psalms. While the Psalms envision a temple service with a Levitical choir and band by which God is thanked, Paul envisions congregational (the probable though not exclusive meaning of “one another”) singing which arises out of the playing of the heart rather than the harp. Paul’s contrasting language appears intentional. In contrast to playing the strings of a harp in the Psalms, Paul calls for the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit by praising God with the strings of their heart. Instead of “sing and play your harp to the Lord” as it appears in the Psalms, Paul writes “sing and play your heart to the Lord.” Paul implicitly contrasts the playing (psallontes) of our hearts in Christian assemblies with the playing (psallontes) of the harp in the Old Testament temple. Early Christians, as well as others like John Calvin,11 argued that the harp instruments in the Psalms were typological of the heart instrument in new covenant worship. While the temple worship played on the harp and used instrumental voices, Christians play the heart and use living voices. When we remember how integral the musical instruments were to temple worship, along with incense and animal sacrifices, it is most likely that Christians did not use instrumental music because of its association with the temple. Temple worship has been fulfilled in the new covenant. We no longer pray to a holy place like the temple (cf. 1 Kings 8:33,35,41,48), but we worship God anywhere through the Spirit. We no longer offer animal sacrifices because Christ is our sacrifice. We no longer offer incense because our prayers are our incense. We no longer play with the harp because our living voices are our praise to God. It may be that early Christians would no more return to instrumental music than they would return to animal sacrifices or offering incense to aide their prayers. All were associated with temple worship. While Christians sometimes went to the temple to pray (Acts 3) and gathered in the temple as a group (Acts 2:46), the contrast between old and new covenant worship holds. We do not know what these temple gatherings specifically involved. However, it is doubtful that Christians participated in the daily sacrifices of the temple where Israel gathered for worship as the old covenant people of God. More probably they used the temple as a place of prayer and a large meeting area, and individual Christians may have continued some vow rituals (as Paul did in Acts 21:20-26). Specifically, we are fairly ignorant of the details of the relationship between Christians and the temple worship, but the theological understanding that Christians are the new temple of God within a new covenant cannot be doubted. The typological interpretation I have offered is consistent with the imagery of harps in the book of Revelation. In the throne room of God, where there is no temple, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders surround the throne while each holds a harp and a bowl of incense (Revelation 5:8; note how difficult it is to play a harp while holding a bowl of incense--a significant pointer to the metaphorical character of this expression). The incense is explained as a symbol of the prayers of the saints (cf. Revelation 8:3), and the harps represent the musical, vocal praise of God’s people (cf. Revelation 15:2-3). This is especially vivid in Revelation 14:2-3 where the singing of the 144,000 is like the sound of thunder, roaring waters and harpists harping. The harping of harpists, like the sound of thunder, is a metaphor for the vocal praise of God’s people. The people of God offer prayer and praise to God in his throne room, in his presence, with their own voices. No temple exists there because God is the temple himself (Revelation 21:22). Christian worship fulfills the typology of the old covenant temple worship and anticipates the full presence of God in his heavenly dwelling-place. The Lord’s Supper fulfills the Passover and anticipates the messianic banquet (cf. Matt. 8:10-12). Prayer fulfills the incense of the altar and anticipates heavenly communion with God. Singing with the heart fulfills the singing with the harp and anticipates the fullness of our praise to God in heaven. The Christian worship assembly is a fulfillment of the old covenant one, which yearns for a further fulfillment in the heavenly presence of God where God dwells among his people (Revelation 21:1-4). Actually, at heart, these two principles reflect a single principle: God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24). In contrast to temple sanctuaries (whether Jewish, Samaritan or pagan), the worship of the new covenant community is rooted in the indwelling Spirit through whom we have access to the Father by Jesus Christ. We are the temple of God. Our bodies are living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2). We offer the sacrifice of praise with our lips and our bodies. Anything which detracts from this central idea or diverts our attention violates the fundamental principle of Christian worship: we worship God by the Spirit of God who lives in our hearts. Our worship must arise out of our hearts and be offered with our lips as we offer God our bodies as a living sacrifice. Given the above understanding of Christian worship and the typological character of temple music, instrumental music is out of character with the nature of Christian worship, just like holy places (a temple), a priestly tribe, animal sacrifices, election by physical birth, and incense are out of place. Instrumental music has the same kind of typological and redemptive-historical meaning that incense, holy places and animal sacrifices have. Just as we no longer offer incense to help our prayers, and we no longer pray toward a special holy place (like Jerusalem), neither do we any longer worship with mechanical instruments. I believe Ephesians 5:19 provides the theological rationale for the silence of the New Testament about instrumental music in Christian assemblies. Consequently, I regard the silence of the New Testament on this point as intentional. As a result, when Paul calls us to sing and play with the heart to the Lord, he implicitly excludes singing and playing with the harp. Paul consciously points us to a covenantal shift. The nature of worship in New Testament assemblies is a fulfillment of the old covenant and transcends it. As part of this covenantal shift, the New Testament only mentions vocal singing in Christian worship assemblies, just as it points to the holy place of our hearts, the sacrifice of Christ and the incense of our verbal prayers. Our worship arises out of our Spirit-filled hearts and is expressed with our own lips as a living sacrifice before God’s spiritual altar who is Jesus Christ. Three Related Comments First, I believer there are some broader theological principles that contribute to the preference for a cappella music though none of these principles necessitate it. Primarily, a cappella music is participatory, communal and expresses the priesthood of all believers. It involves the whole body as a body. Further, the content of the words is what makes music Christian, not the style of music. Christian music has a cognitive character rather than simply expressing worship emotions. Vocal music reflects both qualities. Instrumental music has no cognitive character. Also, a cappella music is universal, that is, it can be done anywhere at any time (such as Paul and Silas in a Philippian jail, Acts 16:25). But instrumental music locks one into a specific cultural form. Second, I wish to offer an argument for the expediency of a cappella music in the gathered Christian assembly. I have offered historical and theological arguments to exclude instrumental music. However, if recent Christian history is any indication, these arguments will not be persuasive for many. Nevertheless, I think there is sufficient reason to pause before we employ the use of musical instruments in our assemblies. Instrumental music is often justified by noting how it helps the singing or aids the worship of the church. It provides a melody which improves the singing aesthetically. There may be circumstances in which this is true, but it is more likely that musical instruments will be the occasion of stumbling for a congregation. They may become the focus of the worship when they should be clearly secondary. They may dominate the vocal voices of God’s people rather than assist them. They may be the occasion of pride and self-fulfillment, or they may become an end in themselves, as when a church employs unbelievers for their church orchestra just so they can have the best music in town. They may be the occasion for the pride of performance rather than the submission of hearts in worship (as in Matt. 6:1-18). Even these tendencies may never manifest themselves in any particular setting (and they are not necessary tendencies), they are open doors for the devaluing of Christian worship where we refocus our attention on ourselves and our performances rather than on the God whom we worship with our own lips through the Spirit who lives in our hearts. It would refocus on attention on the sensual rather than the spiritual. a cappella music derives its emotional and spiritual vigor from the heart which sings rather than from the instrument which generates emotional response from external sources. This is the contrast between extrinsic and intrinsic generation of worship emotion. It is in this context that the famous comment by Alexander Campbell is appropriate:12
Along the lines of expediency, consider the following points which may ground the expedient use of a cappella music over that of instrumental music. These points are not conclusive. They only suggest that for Churches of Christ the most practical, expedient and sensitive course of action is to remain a cappella.
Third, I wish to comment on the prevalent use of contemporary Christian music among our young people and young adults. My attention has been focused on Christian worship assemblies. How one uses the instrument outside of that context is not something the New Testament addresses. Certainly in the Old Testament musical instruments were used on occasions other the temple, that is, outside of worship assemblies (cf. Ezekiel 33:32), and even in the early church musical instruments were appropriate at banquets which were not liturgical assemblies (according to Clement of Alexandria who was a main opponent of musical instruments in worship13). My arguments do not apply to anything that falls outside of the typologically-fulfilling and gathered nature of Christian worship assemblies, particularly the assembly which gathers for the Christian Passover, the Lord’s Supper (as in 1 Corinthians 11). Paul himself notes that there are some things one can do at home, but would be inappropriate when the church is gathered as a body (as in 1 Corinthians 11:34; 14:34- 35). Paul himself participated in temple worship, old covenant vows and animal sacrifices, but I doubt if he thought this would have been legitimate for the Christian assembly (Acts 21:23-26; 22:17). I think it is quite legitimate to pursue contemporary Christian music as an alternative to some of the sexually-charged and sensual rock, country and rap music presently dominating our culture. I would encourage our young people to breathe this music rather than that of the secular culture though I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with secular music. But I would also remind us that when the church gathers for the praise of God and for the Lord’s Supper, there is something theologically significant about worshipping a cappella. When we worship together a cappella we fulfill (and honor) the past and at the same time anticipate our glorious future with God. Conclusion The absence of instrumental music from our assemblies occasions many questions from our friends, children and members. In our technological and entertainment-oriented culture, it may seem odd that we continue this practice, but I think it is theologically appropriate and biblical to continue to exclude instrumental music from our worship. As we continue our practice, we must also be willing to provide good reasons for it. I hope I have just given some. However, I think this question must be put into perspective. When we are questioned about our opposition to instrumental music, I think it is important to be clear that we do not regard this as a fundamental gospel issue. Instrumental music is not about the gospel. The gospel is the incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospel is God’s work for us. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are intimately connected to that gospel because they both bear the symbolism of and are a means of communion with the work of Christ. We are baptized into his death and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. We eat his body and drink his blood as he is present at the table as the living host. Those elements, water, wine and bread, represent the gospel and offer the communion of the gospel to us when we are baptized and when we eat and drink. The New Testament is explicit about the gospel character of these rituals. Further, our ethical lifestyle is connected to the gospel. We should live “worthy of the gospel” (Philippians. 1:27) in accordance with the ethical example that the gospel offers (1 Peter. 2:21). We are to follow Jesus, as he imitated God (Ephesians 5:1-2). Instrumental music, however, does not receive this kind of attention in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament is silent, and the importance of that silence is determined by discerning and applying legitimate theological principles as they are implied by the text of the New Testament. I have made my judgment about instrumental music on the basis of the historical reality of early Christian usage and theological inferences about spiritual and typological fulfillment. We do not proclaim the gospel on the same basis. The New Testament is not explicit about instrumental music in the same way that it is about the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper and ethics. The gospel is explicitly taught, and there is no misunderstanding the gospel character of baptism, the Lord’s Supper and our ethical lifestyle. But there is no explicit connection between the gospel and opposition to instrumental music. All our judgments about instrumental music are inferential and grounded upon the historical silence of the text. The New Testament does not explicitly address this issue nor does it explicitly draw out the principles upon which I think instrumental music ought to be excluded. Consequently, it cannot rank as something of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4), nor can it be regarded as important as baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Christian ethics. Rather, it is at least a tertiary concern. While the gospel itself is the most important thing we believe, those beliefs and practices which are explicitly and directly rooted in the gospel are the second most important aspects of our faith. Below that level, at a third level, come issues like instrumental music. It must be remembered, however, that those issues can rise to the level of a gospel issue when they are pressed in a divisive manner that violates the unity of the body as in the case of forbidding certain foods (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Rom. 16:17-18 with 14:2-3). I am opposed to instrumental music in Christian worship, but I will not equate that opposition with the gospel. Nor will I make it a mandatory belief for baptism or admission to the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. While I oppose instrumental music in worship, I cannot make it a gospel issue. I believe it is a New Testament truth that the early church did not use instrumental music in their worship, and I want to follow and practice that truth. But it is a truth which is neither central to the gospel nor the kingdom of God. It is a New Testament truth like “all foods are clean” (Mark 7:19) which also reflects the redemptive-historical change in covenants (under the old covenant all foods were not clean), but does not reflect the heart of the gospel or the essence of the Kingdom of God (e.g., Romans 14:17). We can permit diversity of belief on this point without condemning others to hell, but we can also continue to proclaim the truth that the new covenant assemblies of the New Testament did not use instrumental music. David Lipscomb and T. B. Larimore, prominent leaders in the Restoration Movement at the turn of the century, did not press the instrument issue to the division of the body, and they preached in instrumental churches where some others would not. They did not believe that this issue alone should divide the fellowship of churches. When Lipscomb was asked in 1871 whether we should disfellowship or condemn to hell those churches which used the instrument, he responded: “While we condemn the organ certainly as wrong, unauthorized, corrupting, we have never decided that it is Christian to go to this extremity. Churches became corrupt in primitive times and yet no such advice is given in the scriptures.”14 For many years Lipscomb continued to hold meetings and preach for churches that used the organ.15 But nevertheless Lipscomb also continued to oppose the use of musical instruments in the worship of God. We too can press this truth with our friends and with fellow-Christians without condemning them to hell. We can make our case and seek to persuade them. When we do so, we may appear to be a modern aberration or oddity, but we also reflect the most biblical and the most ancient practice of the church. 1 For a thorough discussion of how music was integrally connected to the temple sacrificial system, see John W. Kleinig, The Lord’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 100-31. His conclusion: “The choral service did not exist by itself as a separate entity within the worship at the temple but was closely coordinated with the public burnt offering. It had no independent ritual function but was part and parcel of the sacrifical ritual” (p. 131). 2 For example, see the accounts of temple sacrifices and religious festivals in E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 63 BCE-66CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), chs. 6-8. 3 James W. McKinnon, “The Exclusion of Musical Instruments from the Ancient Synagogue,” Proceedings of the Royal Music Association 106 (1979-80), 84-85. 4 See Abraham Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Music in Its Historical Development (New York, 1929), 93-97, and Eric Werner, Sacred Bridge (New York, 1959), 318. 5 See Eric Werner, “’If I Speaking in the Tongues of Men...’: St. Paul’s Attitude to Music,” Journal of the American Musciological Society 13 (1960), 18-23, for a fuller discussion. 6 Philo, On Special Laws., 2.148, states that the Passover was celebrated “with prayers and hymns,” and his opposition to instrumental music is well-known. Cf. On Special Laws, 1.28f; 1.272; 2.193; 3.125. Cf. Everett Ferguson, A cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, rev. ed. (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press, 1972), 37-42. 7 Clement of Alexandria (ca 200 C.E.), Protrepticus, i, 5, and Instructor, ii, iv, as cited by James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 30, 32-33. 8 As cited and translated by McKinnon, 97-98. The earliest typological interpretation comes from Sibylline Oracles viii, 113-21, 487-500 (ca. 180 C.E.), as cited by McKinnon, 26. 9 For evidence of pagan temples and mystery cults, see Johannes Quasten, Music & Worship in Pagan & Christian Antiquity (Washington, D. C.: National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983), 1-50. 10 Even the puritanical Tertullian argued that though victory crowns were associated with idolatry, he would permit their usage if apostolic tradition permitted it. For Tertullian, The Crown, 3, wherever Scripture is silent, apostolic tradition carries the deciding weight: “If there is no Scripture which settles the matter decisively, it has certainly gained strength from established usage, which in its turn undoubtedly originated from tradition” (as cited by Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, Documents in Early Christian Thought [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], 135). Thus, what is unwritten is forbidden unless established usage (public tradition) demonstrates otherwise. 11 Calvin on Psalm 33:2, “But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson, 6 vols [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963 reprint], 1:539). See also his comments on Ps. 71:22, 92:1 and 150. 12 Millennial Harbinger, 1851, 581. 13 Cf. Instructor II.iv, as cited by McKinnon, 33: “This is our grateful revelry, and if you should wish to sing and play to the cithara and lyre, this is not blameworthy; you would imitate the just Hebrew king giving thanks to God. ’Rejoice in the Lord, O you righteous! Praise befits the upright’ (Ps. 32:1) says the prophecy. ’Praise the Lord on the cithara, make melody to him on the psaltery of ten strings! Sing to him a new song’ (Ps. 32:2).” However, McKinnon, 33, suggests that this passage should be read allegorically. 14 Gospel Advocate, 1871, 276. 15 He defends this practice in Gospel Advocate, 1894, 414. |