Instrumental Music

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     For almost a century those congregations which resulted from the restoration movement have been disturbed over the question of instrumental music in the public praise service of the saints. Next year will mark the centennial of the introduction of a melodeon into the worship of the church at Midway, Kentucky, by Dr. L. L. Pinkerton. During the past ninety-nine years countless reams of paper have been devoted to treatises on the theme, heated debates have been held, congregations have been rent asunder, families have been divided, and communities disrupted by the issue, and yet, the cleavage continues as great as ever.

     Those of us who live in this generation have inherited the problem and its consequences. Have we the courage to face up to it in the spirit of Christ and to seek for a proper solution in calm humility, and not inflamed by the same passions and animosities which characterized previous generations? Is it possible for us to admit mistakes in attitude which only served to widen the breach, and now to labor together in mutual love for Christ and with respect for each other, that we may, by His help, eliminate the cause of the division? It is evident that our Father does not want His children divided over use of instrumental music in the corporate worship. He wills that we be one, and that we endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. We are divided, and since such division is contrary to His will, we must work toward a healing of the breach, and strive for unity.

     It will not do for those who do not believe in using the instrument to wash their hands of the problem, and profess an unconcern about it, or declare that it is no affair of theirs. Regardless of who must bear the blame for the creation of the problem, or the responsibility for perpetuating it, not one of us dares to be insensible to the fact that the family of God is torn and rent, and the divine will is that "there be no schism in the body" (I Cor. 12: 25). If I dare not set at naught my brother, then I can never be callous toward, nor unaffected by, those things which act as walls to separate us.

     The methods employed in introducing the instrument served to focus upon it an importance it probably does not deserve. In almost every congregation there were strong protests. Older brethren tearfully besought that it not be forced upon them. Locks were installed upon meetinghouse doors. These were often broken at night with an axe or sledge hammer and the organ brought in under cover of darkness. Congregations were split and lawsuits for the property were instituted. In many cases those who insisted upon having the organ regardless of consequences were younger men and women. Those

[Page 2]

who opposed it were designated "mossbacks," "old fogies," and "antis." The ones favoring the instrument labeled themselves "Progressives." They thus made it appear that the progress of the kingdom of heaven depended upon having the instrument. In turn, they were called "Digressives" by those who opposed them.

     In many areas the two groups built meetinghouses in proximity to each other. Although both proclaimed the gospel and immersed the believing penitents who accepted it, there was no recognition and no common ground. Members often refused to employ common courtesy, not even deigning to speak to or greet those of the opposition. Both proselyted from the other with vengeance and diligence; both hailed it as a signal victory when one left the other group to take a stand with them. Through the years, the instrument came to be the party standard around which the battle was waged in fury.

     Recently, in Charleston, West Virginia, I visited two congregations within a few blocks of each other. Both bore the label "Church of Christ." One used the instrument, the other did not. The minister of the non-instrumental congregation was asked how he regarded those who attended at the other place. He replied that he regarded them just as he did any other sectarians. He said he would not call upon one of them to pray or to comment in a Bible study. He did not regard them as brethren and he felt if they "came over" they should be re-baptized.

     In Birmingham, Alabama, during a debate held between two factions of "The Church of Christ" the writer took occasion to query a number of preachers from the Southland as to their attitude toward those who use the instrument. None of them recognized them as brethren; some said they would just as soon accept a Baptist on his "Baptist baptism" as a Christian Church man on "Christian Church baptism." They would insist that he submit to "Church of Christ baptism." It was a vain effort to try and show these men that their position was extreme party-ism. They were the products of David Lipscomb College, Harding College, Freed-Hardeman College, and Abilene Christian College, and in their seminary training they had been taught an arrogant exclusivism, and shown how to "handle the instrumentalists." It is worth remarking that when the division first occurred, the organ was only one of several issues placed in the same category, others being the hired minister, parsonages, and human institutions to do the work of the church. Now that the church in the south has "outprogressed the Progressives" on all of these other matters, the only issue left is the music question and around it the forces rally.

     It is not unfair to state that since "The Church of Christ" now has bigger cathedrals, better parsonages, and greater ministerial salaries, a number of preachers in Texas and elsewhere have suddenly decided that instrumental music is a sin, some even submitting to re-baptism in order to assure the congregations offering them a job that they are orthodox, and now look upon the instrumental brethren as being "of all men most miserable." This does not imply that all who reach the conclusion that instrumental music has no place in the corporate worship do so from mercenary motives, for many suffer greatly for such conviction. Yet it is a known fact that a comfortable job at a good salary has been dangled as bait before some in order to "convert" them to the wrong of using the instrument.

     There have been some notable changes wrought in the past several years among those who use the instrument. Whereas, it was introduced by the younger element over the protest of older brethren; now a great many sincere young people would be willing to abandon it to secure peace and unity, but they are restrained by the older ones, who would consider any such move as "a surrender to the antis." In the seminaries the budding ministerial students are taught how to meet the argu-

[Page 3]

 ments of "the antis" and in many communities it is felt that the organ or piano is a veritable symbol of freedom in Christ, so that just as some men die for freedom, some would die for the instrument. It is altogether possible that if a calm appraisal of the situation could be made, and if it could be shown that liberty in Christ does not need a material symbol as a bastion of defence, in not a few communities the breach could be healed. It is evident that many non-instrument groups have liberty in Christ, with a freedom to think, speak and act; whereas, many who use the instrument have little freedom in either respect. The reverse is likewise true. It is a consideration of this fact which prompts me to say that the instrument has been elevated to a position of importance it does not deserve. So long as a material thing is regarded as the embodiment of intangible rights and privileges it will be elevated in our thinking to a position not commensurate with its real value.

     I think that I can detect throughout the whole world signs of a rising interest in restoration. Letters cross my desk from almost every continent on the globe. Many of these indicate a fervency of spirit, a degree of consecration, and a yearning for oneness in the Master such as I have never observed in any previous period of my life. Of course, some evince a spirit of timidity and fear, and many shrink back from contacts with those whom they have regarded as enemies. There is a belief in some circles that the Cause of Christ is being betrayed, and that the church is being "sold down the river," but brethren in general are able to see that our attitude in the past has driven away as many as have been led to Christ, and the narrow factional spirit is decried as unworthy of those who "seek peace and ensue it." It is now possible to discuss differences without rancor, hatred or animosity. This alone can only betoken good for the future.

     My own personal views about the place of instrumental music in the public praise service of the body have tended to crystallize more fully as I have examined the question anew in the light of the arguments of those who defend it. I find myself more opposed than ever, if possible, and my conscience forbids my participating in corporate worship in conjunction with it. But those believers who use it are my brethren. They are children of my Father. Jerusalem, which is above, is the mother of us all. They are in my fellowship in the scriptural import of that term. I do not hesitate to go among them. I invite them to my home, not as enemies, but as brethren in Christ. Those who oppose instrumental music are not my brethren because they oppose it, those who use it are my brethren in spite of the fact. We are brethren not because of our position but because of our parentage. We have been born into the same family, and in that family we have inherited certain conditions which produce friction. We must work on these problems and seek a solution which will glorify God and maintain the human dignity which belongs to those who are in Him.

     I do not recognize the instrument as a symbol of degeneracy, dishonesty, or apostasy. To do so would hinder a proper approach to our problem as much as to regard it as a symbol of freedom. Those who employ it may as honestly think that they worship God with it, as others honestly think they cannot. In most cases, in this generation, we were born and reared under one influence or another. Many do not know anything about the original disruption over introduction of the organ. They either have it, or they do not have it, but they could not give a sensible answer why in either case. They are content to leave such matters to the preachers and to follow the lead of the theologian who is most friendly and a good mixer. There are thousands who worship where the instrument is used who are blissfully unaware that anyone opposes it. To say that they have maliciously and deliberately conspired to violate God's command is the height of folly. It is possible that we have bombarded

[Page 4]

each other with slogans and symbols until the truth has been obscured.

     Not long ago I was invited by the elders of a Christian Church to speak one night on "Restoring the Restoration." I readily agreed to go. I did not make any demands or issue any ultimatums, nor did they place any restrictions upon me. At the outset of the meeting, one of them announced that because of my personal convictions they would desist from use of the instrument in the service. I would have spoken in any event, but I hail such overtures as indications of a new day for restoration, as we learn mutual respect for one another.

     A goodly number of young preaching brethren, reared in instrumental congregations, have told me that if they were planting new congregations, they would urge the brethren not to use the instrument, not because they oppose it as an innovation of Satan, but because they would not want to be responsible for creating a state of things which would debar brethren like myself from participating in every phase of the public devotions. This indicates real magnanimity of character. Of course, some of the noninstrumental brethren might demand that they make a public confession that the use of the instrument was a sin before they would have anything to do with them. I would not do so, for to me that would be an exhibition of party spirit, and one should not be forced to confess a thing is a sin against his conscience.

     I am of the opinion that this question will be worked out, if ever solved at all, upon a local level. There will never be, nor should there ever be, a top level meeting of representatives of the two groups to decide the course of action which must be taken by all the churches nationally. We must not be frightened by our differences into creation of an ecclesiasticism which would be far more harmful in its effects than what we seek to overcome. Above all, we must not expect the problem to be solved for us by editors, or papers, for these can dominate the brotherhood if they become dogmatic and arbitrary interpreters of God's will for His people.

     The one thing essential to provide the proper atmosphere is love. With it we can achieve things above what we ask or think; without it we will accomplish nothing. We must remember that Jesus teaches us that the nail of love is the one from which is suspended all the law and the prophets. It would gain us nothing, if in our zeal to keep one commandment, we pull out the nail on which all hang, and let them all fall to the earth.

     We must not assume that this is a closed question and that nothing further should be done about it. No question is closed for those who love God, so long as it keeps His children apart. There must never come a time when our hearts are so hardened we will not resume negotiations in love with the hope of lessening the barriers. We must never slam shut the door on further study of the issue. Even though progress appears imperceptible and it appears we are making no gain, God may be working through us as His humble instruments to lead mankind to a brighter day. The long days and weary nights spent in consultation and prayer must produce fruit if we grow not weary in well-doing. Only Satan can gain when we cease to love each other, and become stubborn and adamant.

     This is enough for this time upon this problem. Next month, God willing, I will present some of the reasons for my own personal conviction upon this matter, and at the same time I will notice

[Page 5]

one of the more recent arguments which is being made in behalf of the use of instrumental music. I solicit the prayers of all who love the Lord that what I say may be spoken in love, and that it will not worsen, if it does not help, our present status. Since only the peacemakers can be called the children of God, I want to be numbered among them if possible, and to that end I shall dedicate my feeble efforts and limited talents. May He help us to be kind and forbearing.