Christian Worship and Instrumental Music Jack Cottrell Jack Cottrell, Princeton, New Jersey Part I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Restoration Herald February, March 1966 OUR PLATFORM The Bible: God's revelation to man. It's authority and finality, man's only rule of faith and practice. The Christ: The only begotten son of God. man's only Saviour and lord. The Church: The true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, end not man. The Gospel: The power of God unto salvation, its proclamation and defense. The Unity of Believers: In the "unity of the Faith," as prescribed in the New Testament The Liberty of the local Church: In Christ, and under His law as revealed In His word, the Now Testament. The Fellowship: Of brethren of "like precious faith," in the furtherance of the Gospel and the building of churches of Christ according to the Bible pattern. From the Editorial Outlook by Harvey Bream, Editor An ultimate parting of the ways among brethren in Christ was becoming apparent following the Civil War. A factor involved was the attitude toward the use of a musical instrument in worship. The silence of the scriptures was one of the chief arguments used in opposition to the practice. Subsequently division came. This matter has been the subject of many a debate. In some instances there was "more heat than light." Debaters, in their partisan zeal, became guilty of using the same tactics they condemned in others, namely, the using of proof texts. Analogy was one of the chief tools. Much of the discussion was on the periphery of the real issue. Brother Jack Cottrell, a doctoral candidate at Princeton Theological Seminary, presents on page 6, in the first of two parts, a most sensible and scriptural approach to this question. The application of the principle he sets forth is making possible increasingly the renewal of a splendid fellowship between those who prefer to use an instrument and those who prefer not to. When the principle is not applied there is too frequently a bitter and factious spirit that mars fellowship. How much better the former way. The Interpretation of the Scriptures’ Silence Christian Worship and Instrumental Music Jack Cottrell Jack Cottrell, Princeton, New Jersey Part I A question which has long divided Christian brethren is whether it is wrong to use a musical instrument in a service of Christian worship. The purpose of his paper is to discuss this question and to show that such use is not wrong. Two points should be noted. First, the purpose is not to show that the use of the instrument is necessary; it is simply to show that it is permissible. Second, the discussion deals with public worship rather than worship in general. An affirmative conclusion regarding the former, however, will necessarily involve the latter. It is my judgment that much of the discussion of the instrument is either irrelevant or inconclusive, and that the only point which has any direct and decisive bearing on the problem is the Scriptures' silence on the matter. To establish the fact of this silence and to interpret it correctly is the plan of this paper. It is necessary first of all to show that the Scriptures are silent regarding the use of the instrument There is no positive precept or precedent which expressly commands or sanctions its use; neither is there a precise prohibition or principle which expressly forbids its use. No Requirement Several attempts have been made to find an express warrant for the use of the instrument. Probably the most popular of these is the argument from the word psallo in the New Testament, which is used, for example, in Ephesians 5:19, where it is translated "making melody." The point of the argument is that the word means by definition "to play on an instrument" or at least "to sing while being accompanied by an instrument" There are two main objections to this argument, one of which is valid and one of which is not;' The invalid objection grants that the word means "to play on an instrument," but insists that the only legitimate instrument is the one named in the text itself (Ephesians 5:19), namely, the heart. This objection is invalid for several reasons. First of all there is a textual difference at this point. Some ancient manuscripts read "with your heart," while others read "in your heart(s)." The objection depends upon the former reading, the genuineness of which can not be established to the necessary degree of certainty. Even if it be granted that the former reading is the genuine one, this Is still insufficient to demonstrate that the heart is the instrument which God intends for us to use with our singing. The fact that the grammatical construction involved in this reading is known as a "dative of instrument" has apparently led many to this unwarranted conclusion. They fail to see that the connotation of the term instrument is not the same in the field of music as it is in the field of grammar, and if it is, then 1 Corinthians 14:15 adds two other "instruments" which must accompany singing: the spirit and the understanding. By this time, however, good judgment leads us to reject the impression that Paul is prescribing a spiritual orchestra and to admit that he is simply describing in various ways the acceptable manner of our singing. The valid objection to the argument from psallo disputes the actual meaning of the word. Those who argue that the word means at least "to sing while being accompanied by an instrument" present lexical evidence to show that the word was actually used in this sense before, during and after New Testament times.1 Others, however, present the same kind of evidence to show that by New Testament times the word was also widely used in a weaker sense, simply "to sing."2 This forces us to conclude that in New Testament times the word could have been used in either sense, and that the argument from psallo is therefore inconclusive. M. B. Books3 attempts to find express sanction for the use of the instrument in Psalm 87, which describes the Messianic "city of God" and declares that "as well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there." Old Testament Messianic prophecy, however, often does not distinguish between the church age and the eschatological age. One might object therefore that Psalm 87 refers to the latter and perhaps to the harpers of the Apocalypse, which would make the force of the argument from Psalm 87 depend upon the validity of the following one. Many would find in the harpers in Revelation a positive sanction for the use of the instrument But it is objected that harps in heaven give no definite warrant for instruments during the church age. It is also pointed out that Revelation is filled with symbols and figures, the harp being allegedly a figure representing the musical organ of God's formation: the heart, larynx and articul- atory faculty of man.4 Despite their legalistic and arbitrary nature, these objections are valid enough to make the argument from the harpers (and therefore the one from Psalm 87 inconclusive. No Prohibition The above arguments being fairly representative and equally inconclusive, it appears that there is no Scriptural precept which definitely sanctions the use of the instrument. On the other hand, it is just as apparent that there is no express prohibition against its use, though several are suggested. For instance, Amos 6:5 is often quoted, with complete disregard for the context as a condemnation of the instrument. Those who use this argument commit all the errors of interpretation which they denounce in arguments on the other side (e. g. the situation is not during the church age). Some interpret the second commandment as expressly forbidding the instrument, on the grounds that it forbids the use of any human invention as an object or medium of worship, the instrument presumably being an example of the latter.5 Again we must object that such exegesis is not warranted by the context The only kind of "medium of worship" which is prohibited here is the image which is used to represent the deity and to which worship is actually offered with the hope that the worship will somehow be transferred to the deity itself. The Law Several other attempts to find an express prohibition of the instrument must be dealt with at greater length. The first of these is the appeal to the abrogation of the Old Law. The argument is that the instrument was a part of the Old Testament ceremonial law; the ceremonial law has been abrogated; therefore it is wrong to use the instrument in New Testament worship. There are two objections which nullify the force of this argument. First, granting for the moment that the instrument was an integral part of the Old Law, we must insist that-the abrogation of a law governing a practice does not forbid the practice per se. The use of a house of worship is a case in point. The Old Law regulated the construction and furnishing of the house of worship in great detail, and that law has been abolished. But we do not refrain from building houses of worship simply because the Old Law governing this item is no longer in effect. A second objection is that in Old Testament times the use of the musical instrument in worship was not something inseparably connected with the temporary temple ritual, a fact which is implicit in the Psalmists' exhortations to praise God "with the psaltery and harp." The abrogation of the Old Law simply means that the ritual use of the instrument in worship has been abolished along with the ritual itself.