|
Home
Email
About Us
Services
Articles
Bulletin
From God's Word
Area Events
Announcements
Calendar
Prayer Requests
Plan of Salvation
Audio Sermon Library
Photographs
|
Standing Strong on the Authority of God’s Word
By
Doug Post
Oct
29,
2006
This year (2006) marks a peculiar “anniversary.” It has
been 100 years since the “formal division” with the Christian
Church. That’s right, in 1906 there was division in our brotherhood
and it was over the use of instrumental music in worship to God.
Churches
seeking to restore the “ancient order” were once one
but the introduction of instrumental music brought division among
brethren. By 1906 we were no longer one people but two: Churches
of Christ and the Christian Church.
Of course, the “split”
began long before the official government census of 1906. In 1859,
in Midway, Kentucky, L.L. Pinkerton
carved himself a
place in our brotherhood history when he introduced a melodeon into
the worship of the Midway Church. He and a few others caused much
heartache and divided this little country church. Hearts and
Fellowship were broken.
From
1859 to 1906 there were little “uprisings” like the one in Midway,
throughout the brotherhood. It was always a minority few who
insisted on the use of instruments in the worship, even at the
expense of fellowship with loved ones. Division, sadly, was
occurring.
In 2006
there has been much discussion about the subject of instrumental
music. Some on both sides of the issue have been discussing unity,
but the Christian church will not give up the instrument. And, once
again some in the churches of Christ are teaching that instrumental
music is not a matter of faith because they so strongly want to
fellowship with the Christian church. I have one question: Where is
the New Testament authority for instrumental music in worship? We
may share the same heritage but UNTIL that question is answered,
there can be no unity.
|
|
What does “a cappella” mean?
By Doug Post
The
term "a cappella " means "of the chapel“ or “as in
the chapel or church.” It literally means "as in chapel.”
While it may literally be translated "in chapel" (Not "in
a chapel" which would be “nella cappella” or ”nella
una cappella”) its idiomatic (common) use would be "in
the style of the chapel" referring not to the physical space,
but to the singing of sacred music in the assembly. “A cappella”
was a common expression used to describe the music of the church
around 400 AD (when Latin was replacing Greek in the West). From
that time forward “a cappella” always meant “in the style
of the church” and ALWAYS referred to the vocal music of
sacred songs, unaccompanied by an instrument. This is still
understood today. Unaccompanied always meant without
accompaniment/without instrument.
IMPLIED:
the church did not use instruments!!
|
The Push is on
By Doug Post
In the
August edition of the (un)Christian Chronicle, a Christian Church
preacher/professor was quoted as saying that members of churches of
Christ are no longer in opposition to the use of instrumental music. Of
course, his “observation” grow out of the strong push (and sometimes
pressure) for churches of Christ to extend fellowship to the
instrumental Christian Churches who originally caused the division over
the instrument more than hundred years ago. The push is on – especially
at the ACU Lectureship last February and at the North American Christian
Convention in June (held in Louisville by Christian Churches). Jeff
Walling (the Manchester Church of Christ welcomed and extended
fellowship to him) was one of the main speakers for the Christian Church
event. He stated “he once believed ‘a cappella’ singing was the only
way to worship” (Christian Chronicle, August 2006), but now has
learned better. Dear reader, don’t you think it would have bee helpful
if brother, Walling cited the Scripture that caused him to change his
views? I guess he overlooked that “small” detail! Walling has become one
of the main apologists for Christian Churches and one of the most
aggressive spokesman for fellowship with those who introduced the
instrument. Instrumental music in itself may not be so important, but
what it represents is important. Much more is involved than “house
rules” or “tradition.” The dividing line is this: must we have express
biblical authorization for what we do in worship? Or, does the bible
authorize it either by direct command, example or by implication? This
is often referred to as the “regulative principle.” For instance, the
Christian Church refuses to add meat and potatoes to the Lord’s Supper.
Why? They correctly tell us there’s no authority for it. They also tell
us there is no authority for the burning of incense, prayers to Mary,
and sacrifices in the worship either, and are correct in doing so. Then
why will they not tell us where the authority is for instrumental music?
No new arguments have been advanced in favor of instrumental music in
worship in the assembly. The issue remains where it stood 100 years ago.
The facts have not changed, attitudes have. If anything, the case for “a
cappella” music is even stronger as a result of linguistic and
historical studies. However, both sides agree that “a cappella”
is certainly authorized, so if fellowship is desired, why won’t they
give up the instrument? The apostle Paul said, “If eating meat causes
my brother to stumble, I shall never eat meat.” If instrumental
music is simply a matter of opinion and not one of faith, and they
desire fellowship, then why not do as the apostle Paul and give up the
instrument? Of course, instrumental music is just the tip of the
iceberg. You see, my brethren, they also advocate women preachers and
elders and maintain openly gay and lesbian preachers. They advocate
homosexuality! When one advocates that the Bible does not regulate
worship and introduces unauthorized innovations into their worship, it
will not be long before they declare that the Bible does not regulate
moral behavior, as is evident with the Christian Church. Some of my good
brethren need to wake up!
|
|
Being Silent Where the Bible is Silent
G.C. Brewer (1884-1956)
Everyone should know the meaning of this well-known motto is
that we practice that which the Bible authorizes and we decline
to practice that which the Bible does not authorize. Surely
everybody should know that that is what the words “speak” and
“silent” mean! Surely no one thinks that we will only talk where
the Bible speaks, and not practice; that we will just teach a
thing and then fail to observe the teaching. Likewise, surely no
one will suppose that being silent where the Bible is silent
means that we could not preach against unscriptural practices.
To remain silent means that we will stop practicing where the
Bible stops teaching - that our practice in matters of religion
is limited by the word of the Lord - restricted by divine
revelation. That is what the motto means, as everyone should
know; and, therefore, the man who introduces something in the
worship that the Bible does not authorize is the one who is
speaking where the Bible is silent – he is practicing that for
which he has no scriptural authority. When we protest against
this unscriptural practice, we are not speaking where the Bible
is silent because we are not introducing or sanctioning any
practice that the Bible does not authorize. We are still
remaining within the limits of divine revelation in our
religious practice, and we are only protesting against the
practice of others who go beyond the limits of divine authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is
amazing to me how some refuse to understand this principle or
willingly reject it. Rick Atchley, an instrumental music
sympathizer, spoke at ACU and arrogantly said: “Where the Bible
speaks, we speak; and where the Bible is silent we have more to
say.” This was advocated and reprinted in the (un)Christian
Chronicle, April 2006. Most people understand what it means to
be “silent where the Bible is silent.” Rick Atchley is not one
of them. In the above quote, the late and lamented G.C. Brewer
thought any person should be able to understand what it means to
“speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible
is silent.” Then again brother Brewer never met Rick Atchley.
1.
“do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
2.
“Whoever
transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does
not have God” (2 John 9).
“Speak as the oracles of God”
(1 Peter 4:11).
(Doug Post)
|