The Church of Christ Ban on Musical Instruments
MY “GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT” AT THE REASONS THEY OFFER
I have always been intrigued by the Church of Christ’s preference for not using musical instruments in their worship services, I could have satisfied my curiosity at any time, but was afraid that my romantic suppositions about the matter might suffer a blow. I do not propose to mount a defense for the use of instruments in worship. I am in sympathy with the purity of their minimalist approach. If it does not contradict scripture, then “to each his own.” The Church of Christ is welcome to their acapela hymnody. It is their preference, predicated upon an all-embracing fundamental belief of the denomination. Their approach to interpretation of the Bible is the narrowest one possible.
I will take this opportunity to restate my opinion about the use of music in divine worship. It is secondary. It is peripheral. It is just a sideshow. It can even, at times, be a distraction. Even though my church’s pastors often make a blanket accusation about what motivates people to come to services, I can promise that I don’t go there to be entertained. I don’t even expect to be instructed, either, but I usually am, The main reason I attend church is this: Paul tells me that I have to go, in Hebrews 24-25: “And let us consider one another to provoke unto charity and unto good works, Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” These verses include the three main thrusts of my life right now: good works, church, and getting ready for the approaching “day.”
I had imagined a scenario in which either financial constraints or special circumstances early in the history of the Church of Christ had made access to musical instruments impossible, at least temporarily. Sole reliance upon the human voice for the execution of a hymn is a perfectly acceptable, even admirable technique. The persistence of the technique I had imagined to be simply the perpetuation of a hallowed church tradition, a characteristic feature that would distinguish the denomination, helping it to stand out in a crowded field. It would also mesh well with the lack of pretense that members of the Church of Christ display (the ones I have known, anyway, but it is probably safe to make this generalization).
A pretext to go ahead and either confirm or deny my conjecture presented itself the other day. I discovered a used book that promised to shed some light on the matter, one written in 1945. The title is “Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ” by Leroy Brownlow. Here is a LINK to a skeletal description of the Fort Worth company that published it. It is “Brownlow Publishing Company, Incorporated,” located at 6309 Airport Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas (that area of the nation I referred to as the true “buckle of the Bible belt). The back cover of this book lists several other works by the same author. Data on the company reveals that it was founded in 1945, the same year that “Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ” was copyrighted. This book seems to have marked the foundation of a dynasty, as the current president of the company is named Paul Brownlow. The 1973 copy I obtained represents the Forty-sixth printing. Even if it is printed in relatively small batches, the numbers would add up with this many editions.
The annual revenue of this closely held publishing house is estimated to be 5.3 million dollars, and it employs 41 people. “Brownlow Gifts” is located at the same address in Fort Worth, a conjoined operation founded by the late minister. As a pastor visiting the sick, he regretted the ephemeral nature of flowers, a traditional gift for convalescents. He postulated a more lasting alternative. This is how he became involved in the gift business. The possibility that employees may multi-task between the two companies, publishing and merchandising, obfuscates the extent of the publishing arm. A search for “Leroy Brownlow” on the web revealed that his book is still very much in print. Wikipedia includes the book as a reference for it’s general article on the Church of Christ, visible at this LINK, but he does not have an individual biography. But he was an influential member of his church, and some history of his preaching activity is available on this OTHER LINK.
Here is cause of my personal “great disappointment:” the lack of mention of musical instruments in the New Testament (excepting the “harps” in Revelation) is the salient reason provided for excluding musical instruments from the Church of Christ worship services.
Here is a brief history of the Church of Christ, one that shall commence with a mention of a major splinter-group, the Disciples of Christ. A secondary splinter has resulted in the “church of Christ (non-institutional)” which does not believe that colleges and orphanages are a legitimate church endeavor. The reason they cite should be familiar to the reader by now: it does not appear in the New Testament.
The Disciples of Christ denomination is not opposed to musical instruments. The Church of Christ frowns upon anything the New Testament does not mention, but the offshoot (since 1860) Disciples of Christ reason that, if the New Testament does not forbid something, it is OK. The notorious Jim Jones (whom, like Hitler, I would never furnish a link to) associated his church with the Disciples of Christ in 1960, but this move was an attempt to bolster the legitimacy of a previously existing operation.
Like the Church of Christ, the Disciples do not promulgate a rigid creed, so there is some “wiggle-room” in regard to individual beliefs. The denomination’s membership peaked at 2 million in 1958. Current membership stands at less than half that number. Here is a LINK to the Barna survey that reveals that 51% of Americans simply don’t care. (Digression: “Barna” is a Hungarian name. Once log home manufacturer Jim Barna hired my former employer in order to get a cabin approved for construction in NC. My old boss spoke some Hungarian to him on the phone. Mr. Barna pretended to not understand a word, just as if he were the old Appalachian he affects to be. I calculated the thermal performance of Mr. Barna’s log home, and verified a little-known fact: log homes are so badly insulated as to not even be legal without a special exemption.)
17 colleges and 8 seminaries are affiliated with the Disciples of Christ. President James A. Garfield was an ordained Disciple’s minister. He was an early advocate of black suffrage and improvement, a hallmark of both his denomination and the Church of Christ, but stopped just short (like Lincoln) of a belief in the full equality of the races.
If I find myself in fundamental disagreement with the “exclusionary” approach to scripture, it is because I choose to consume the entire canonical “enchilada.” Here is a LINK to a statement of official Adventist policy on this position, one which supports this approach. I have been confronted by people who ask me, if this is the case, then why don’t I sacrifice animals? I cite Hebrews 7:26-27 (concerning Jesus): “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” This is a clear case of the New Testament superseding the Old. You might ask me why I don’t wear fringes on my garments. I don’t have a pat answer for that one, I suppose because I feel that this is one of those points that is not worth arguing about. The musical instrument controversy seems like an equally irrelevant issue to take an intransigent stand upon. If one does not buy into the Church of Christ “exclusionary” attitude in regard to scriptural interpretation, then no firm case can be made for an “exclusionary” attitude toward musical instruments. This is all a matter of opinion. It resists rational analysis. But M.C. Kurfees struggled to make his point under the aegis of “logic.”
I have heard the following statements regarding the differences between “English Common Law” and the “Napoleonic Code.” Under Common Law, “things that are not expressly forbidden are permitted.” Under the Napoleonic Code “things that are not expressly permitted are forbidden.” I am sure that this is a gross oversimplification, but is useful in furnishing a parallel to the differences between mainstream and Church of Christ attitudes toward scripture.
This White Estate LINK contains a reference to what Ted N.C. Wilson mentioned in his recent sermon at Berean: we should “compare scripture with scripture.” My Old Testament/New Testament attitudes are shaped by the following verse, an “Adventist” favorite (Matthew 5:17): “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” It is not possible to refute Church of Christ preferences, as they are, in fact, a thing that they themselves go to great lengths to deny: simply an “opinion.” Their view is not easy to defend with scripture. They refer, instead, to a profound silence that they assert speaks volumes. You either buy into the Church of Christ’s fundamental premise, “lack of scriptural notice,” or you don’t. It constitutes 99% of the case for the defense.
The preeminent statement of the Church of Christ position is a 1898 tract by M.C. Kurfees entitled “Walking by Faith: Origin of Instrumental Music in Christian Worship.” Leroy Brownlow is heavily indebted to this source for the content he provides in Chapter 24 of “Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ,” the title of the chapter being one of 25 answers to the question that the main title of the work proposes: “Because It Has Scriptural Music in the Worship.” Mr. Brownlow has proved to be an effective disseminator of the M.C. Kurfees prototype.
The tract by M.C. Kurfees was originally published in Nashville in 1898. Long before it was associated with country music, Nashville was a center for religious publishing, When I was a kid, I would fly there to visit my grandmother. The lobby of the airport featured an elaborate display about The Upper Room, a publisher of Christian periodicals. The former home of the Grand Old Opry, Ryman Auditorium , was originally a tabernacle built for revivalist Samuel Porter Jones (he thought baseball was a sin. He was the Billy Graham of his era). Thomas Nelson publishes in Nashville. If you have never heard of them, you may not be native to Earth. They don’t produce Adventist literature, as the demand for this is satisfied by in-house operations like Pacific Press. Ellen White’s son Edison established a publishing house in Nashville, the “Gospel Herald Publishing Company.” In “Testimonies, Volume 7 (page 232), Ellen White expressed admiration for the colleges for “colored people” in the Nashville area (Fisk University being a notable example, founded one year after the end of the Civil War). White wrote this six years after helping to establish Oakwood Industrial School in 1896.
The M.C. Kurfees tract consists of two sermons, followed by a “response to objections.” The introduction to the fifth edition touts the “logical merits” of the presentation. Included is a comment about the work by an Episcopal bishop (reader beware! Episcopal bishops are prone to irony!): "a prominent Episcopalian bishop writes, 'if the premises you lay down are true, your conclusion is irresistible.'" I don't have any problem discerning that this statement is hardly an unqualified endorsement.
The tract consists of two sermons, and some answer to objections (either real or imagined). The groundwork is laid for the non-negotiable fundamental premise, the one that the aforementioned Episcopal bishop may have had trouble swallowing. It invokes the powerful word “faith,” and quoted Romans 10:17: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” If we have not “heard” something (read it in the New Testament), then we ought not do it. The existence of neutral activity as a component of worship is not recognized. If the New Testament does not mention it, it is not allowed. Some scriptural incidents are initially provided to bolster the case, but they describe egregious violations of the will of God. They possess universal application only if one accepts that all extra-scriptural activity is equally obnoxious to God. There exists no neutral ground, no innocuous activity. Actions are either good, and pleasing to God, or they are evil, and extremely upsetting to God. This intransigence is softened a little later in the sermon, but preliminaries seem to be setting up a designation of instrumental music as downright “evil.”
M.C. Kurfees notes, quite correctly, that the Scribes and Pharisees were engaging in forms of worship that God did not sanction. Jesus criticized this class for their greed, their pride, their hypocrisy, and all of the onerous addenda to the Law of Moses that they enforced. The author is inferring that the sin of church music is comparable to the sins of the Pharisees and Scribes. The argument thus commences in an unbalanced manner.
As an example of the dangers of partial compliance with the will of God, M.C. Kurfees refers to the incident in the Bible where Saul is instructed by God to “utterly smite” the Amelekites. Saul disobeys this direct order by God, reserving some plunder. This is a case of not following the will of God when that will has been distinctly stated, sort of like disobeying one of the ten commandments. To build upon this reference, Kurfees would be obliged to find a commandment from God for us to “playeth not upon thy sackbut,” or something to that effect. (Kurfees feels that Saul was pandering to the people by preserving some Amelekite booty, and it affords Kurfees the opportunity to use the term “latitudinarianism.” I chanced upon the post-game throng departing Andy Stanley‘s popular operation, Buckhead Church , this morning. It does not look like a church, The thousands of congregants did not look like typical church-goers. I hope to take a closer look at this non-denominational group someday, as I an confident that this will afford an opportunity to use the word “latitudinarianism” as many times as I may care to.)
Ted N.C. Wilson was going to make a point in his sermon at Berean Church about the rebellion of Korah, but did not have enough time to do so. M.C. Kurfees cites the episode as an instance of what happens to people who have the effrontery to “take council against God’s rule.” Or the absence thereof. It is a little disorienting. I know this, though. I sure don’t want the earth to “swallow me up,” the way it did murmuring Korah! Any departure from the will of God (implying, M.C. Kurfees’s perception of it) is disobedience, and thus worthy of censure.
Four short jabs are delivered by the tract in quick succession. (1) Is it wrong to wash your hands? Jesus said it was. His meaning is that it is wrong to do this in the context of a religious service. Even though hand washing is a very nice thing to do, it was not commanded as part of worship. So don’t wash your hands while worshiping! (2) Is it wrong to eat meat? (or, similarly, Brownlow’s citation of “biscuits and gravy”) God does not say that we should place it on the communion table, so we do not. I am struggling right now not to add my own facetious foodstuff to this inventory. (3) There is no divine authority for infant baptism, We do not, therefore, baptize infants. (The baptism of infants is widely recognized to be an unsound practice. No one advocates that we engage in such unsound practice. The stream of logic seems to be tending toward a climax, but jab #4 fails to land where intended. The whole edifice may be parodied in the following half-syllogism: “It is not good to commit murder. Therefore, we should not chew gum.)
Thrust (4) is the payoff: “Is it wrong to play on musical instruments?” It appears to be analogous to hand-washing. Even though playing instruments is a very nice thing to do, it was not commanded as part of worship. So don’t play musical instruments while worshiping! The description of instruments in heaven is acknowledged. M.C. Kurfees’s scholarly rejoinder? So what! They got incense too! You want incense? These Church of Christ folk really seem to have a thing against incense. Thus concludes Sermon 1.
Sermon 2 starts with a notice of the “perfect obedience” of Christ to the will of His Father. We are to follow this example. This is a premise no one can dispute, not even an Episcopalian bishop. But what is the will of God? New Testament worship includes, (1) Reading the scriptures. (2) Prayer. (3) Exhortation. (4) The Lord’s Supper. (5) Singing, AKA “psallo.” (6 ) Contributions for the poor and evangelism. M.C. Kurfees cites the Lutheran authority Johann Lorenz von Mosheim regarding the purity of worship until the fourth century.
In the fourth century, the seeds of human tinkering with the divine model, already in the ground, began to sprout, engendering tendencies to modify worship techniques into whatever capricious forms that suited the whims of church leadership. This observation also qualifies as an indisputable premise. Mosheim is again quoted on the matter of the degeneration of worship. A passing reference to a statement by “Fisher” (perhaps American theologian and historian George Park Fisher) hints at a possible Church of Christ tradition that my church definitely does not share, as it implies strong disapproval of the act of applauding a good sermon. Mosheim returns as go-to authority, and is cited for his remarks about the total degeneracy of the mainstream (read “Roman Catholic) church by the sixteenth century. M.C. Kurfees does not mention the Reformation, which came to fruition in the sixteenth century. It would not suit Kurfees’s theme to insinuate that Protestant worship was not also degenerate, at least in regard to question of musical instruments. The Mosheim comment no doubt serves as an introduction to the historian’s treatment of the Reformation.
Three points about instrumental music are now provided. Points one and two highlight the silence of the New Testament and of early church fathers on the subject. (Here is an interesting, and possibly relevant, digression. I read an analysis by a commentator on Islam to this effect: “The fact that camels are not mentioned in the Koran serves as proof of their ubiquity.”) Point three is educational, as it unearths the earliest references to church instrumental music, the first being a record of the presentation of an organ by a Byzantine Emperor to one of the Pepins in 755, presumably Pepin the Short. Another ten references are provided.
A minor dispute (the remaining 1% of their defense) arises over the proper translation of the New Testament Greek word “psallo.” There is some disagreement over the exact meaning of the word “psallo,” and if you search it in the internet, you will discover lots of commentary on the exact meaning of the term. The majority of this commentary consists of defenses of the Church of Christ position by Church of Christ apologists. “Psallo” initially meant either “sing” or “pluck.” The Church of Christ submits that the word had evolved in meaning from “twang” and “pluck” to “sing” at the time the New Testament was written. This accessory LINK (one that represents the Church of Christ viewpoint) admits that 4 out of 30 linguists are not sure about the exact meaning of the term. Here is a second LINK about the controversy (Aside: everyone knows of the folk tales collected by the Grimm Brothers , but few know of their work as philologists, They considered grammar to be the purest manifestation of a culture, and did not appreciate revisionists who tinkered with the original wording of a folktale).
The “harp” is mentioned in Revelation 5:8: “And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” In Revelation 14:2 (the “Adventist” chapter), the King James Version places extreme emphasis upon the “harp” in what may be the most redundant verse in the Bible: “… And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: “… and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: … ”
The exclusion of “harps” from Church of Christ worship is justified by stating that incense, too, is a heavenly accessory. Mr. Brownlow asks “Is it right to have incense in the worship just because it is mentioned as being in heaven? No!” He thus extends the prejudice against instruments to incense as well, but, whereas many words are marshalled to make a case against instruments, the proscription of incense is not justified by anything beyond a statement of “No!” I perceive some anti-Catholic bias in such a vehement dismissal of what I consider to be a superficial liturgical observance. My denomination takes exception to many of the theological errors that Catholics esteem as truths. The Church of Christ are also Protestants, and their objections to Catholicism are also more than skin-deep. The reformation touched the church through the medium of John Knox (the “Campbell” and “Stone” contributions), and underwent it’s own post-reformation when it shucked it’s Presbyterian chrysalis and credo, deciding to rely solely upon the Bible itself as a procedural guide.
The Church of Christ argument is embroidered by citations of the opinions of distinguished luminaries such as Calvin, Wesley, and Luther, authorities who share the anti-instrument bias. The contribution of this to the “defense” is questionable. Counter-citations could be easily provided (not just quotes from ecclesiastics, but also plenty of Old Testament references like this one, from Psalm 98: “Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody! With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord!”). It would be fun to scratch up some authorities who hold opposing views (including Ellen White), but this exercise would prove nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment