Instrumental Music

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 5]

     There are two great themes which engross my attention in these days. One is the restoration of the ancient order; the other the unity of all believers in the Christ. I consider that they are related. I doubt that the latter can be achieved without a sincere attempt to accomplish the first. I recognize that the church of God is fractured by schisms, and we have not achieved the ideal of God, so I am interested in any problem linked either to unity or restoration. The subject we are discussing may have a bearing upon both.

     Some of the arguments employed against the use of instrumental music in the public praise service have been very shallow and unprincipled. As an example, I mention Amos 6: 5, where a woe is pronounced upon those who "chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David." The prophet was condemning those who lived in luxury,

[Page 6]

spending their time in idle songs and musical entertainment, "but they were not grieved for the affliction of Joseph." A careful analysis of the context would demonstrate that on the basis of the argument commonly made, one could prove it was a sin to stretch out on a couch, eat lamb chops or veal steak, and use perfume or shaving lotion.

     An equally weak argument is often made by a cheap interpretation of Romans 14:23, a passage which becomes the last stand for every embattled faction in opposition to what someone else does, without realizing the idea the apostle had in mind. It is as sinful to misuse a scripture to condemn a thing we believe to be wrong, as to misuse one to uphold what we believe to be right. We need to be fair with God and our brethren, lest in differing with the latter we separate ourselves from the former. A great deal that has been written in favor of instrumental music ought to be scrapped, and an equal amount of what has been written against it should receive the same fate. In both cases, much of it should be charged off to ignorance and the party spirit. Either of these is bad, a combination of the two is especially so.

     The base of operations has shifted several times in the struggle over instrumental music among the heirs of the restoration movement. I am persuaded the instrument was introduced on one basis, but brethren now seek to defend it on a wholly different basis. As I compare the modern reasoning of some who retain it, with that employed a century ago by those who introduced it, I am persuaded that if all they had to commend it then was the basis of its present defence, they would never have brought it in at all. They would never have divided God's people over something in the same category as a tuning fork, collection basket, or bread plate, which is the category in which many brethren now place the instrument.

     There can be little doubt the instrument was brought in as a means of expressing worship. So far as I know, the use made of the instrument today is the same as it was then, and in the minds of the unskilled it occupies the same place. It is the preachers and seminarians who ordinarily make the keen distinctions and draw the fine lines, so the battle can be waged to greater advantage against the opposition. By this means the piano can be left in, but defined out of "the worship," and can be talked out instead of taken out. Many good brethren who employ the instrument now affirm they oppose it "in worship" or "as worship." Some take the position you could not put the instrument in the worship without putting it in the heart.

     I am very sorry that instrumental music was ever introduced to trouble our ranks. I am saddened over the division which resulted. I am grieved also by my own attitude in the past toward those brethren who employ it. We gain nothing for the Christ by an attitude of intolerance and partisanship. Tolerance is not unity. It must never be mistaken for unity. It is only the atmosphere in which we can labor and strive toward unity. I do not advocate tolerance for a thing which you believe to be wrong; I only plead for tolerance toward the person who sincerely believes it to be right. In such a spirit we can continue to explore avenues leading toward a closer walk with God and with each other.

     The brethren who use instrumental music are seriously divided over the question. They are not agreed as to the attitude they should manifest toward it, and it is variously defended even in the same school or congregation. Those who do not use it must not conclude that those who do, are inflexibly agreed, and have closed all further discussion among themselves. Many non- instrument brethren grind out the same old grist of argument, and deliver with gusto the same old sermon outlines (generally borrowed), not realizing that they are beating the air and firing at random, without touching the local situation. Of course

[Page 7]

these outlines have a familiar ring in the ears of members of "The Church of Christ." They have heard them often in every "gospel meeting" so they can sit back and relax, knowing just what is coming next. Yet these arguments, often delivered from a partisan level, do not meet the problem in the heart of many sincere students in the community. Nor do public debates, as generally conducted, meet the problem, for they tend to engender too much party spirit.

     Within recent months we have seen an argument in favor of instrumental music which seems to be pleasing to many. I would like for you to read it as stated by Bro. Given O. Blakely, of Dallas City, Illinois, in his paper "The Salt Shaker."

     "I want every one reading this paper to immediately read the 87th psalm. Does this apply to the church of Jesus Christ. If not, why not? Is not 'Zion' typical of the church? And is not 'Jacob' typical of Israel? If this is admitted, and it certainly should be, read that last verse once again. Are the two groups mentioned here in the body of Christ? Is not this what the psalmist is referring to? Who will deny this?.... 'The singers and the players of instruments shall be there,' said David. He spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! what spirit, I humbly ask, would influence anyone to say that instrumental music is a sin in worship services? What is the sense of having players of instruments if there are no instruments? What is the use of instruments if they shall not be played? And what is the use of playing them if it is not an expression of worship? The Holy Spirit said they would be in the church -- Zion. Amen! I take God at His word, ready to relinquish any stand that is not substantiated by God's word. Are you that sincere, that honest, that desirous to be right with God?"

     Our brother asks, "Does this apply to the church of Jesus Christ?" I quote from Two Thousand Hours in the Psalms, by Dr. Marion McH. Hull, Dean of Atlanta Bible Institute, and Professor of Bible Exposition and Prophecy. He says, regarding this psalm, "The heading given in the Authorized Version is wholly misleading. Zion, the city of God, is not the church." Our brother says, "I hastily say that I may be wrong, but it does appear rather obvious to me that this Psalm is referring to the church." Yet, in closing, he writes: "The Holy Spirit said they would be in the church -- Zion." The Holy Spirit did not say that. Brother Blakely said that, but yet admits he may be wrong, and it only appears rather obvious that the church is intended. Brethren, regardless of what we seek to justify, we ought not to handle God's sacred revelation so recklessly and charge the Holy Spirit with our interpretations. There is a vast difference in one thinking that Zion may typify the church, and saying that the Holy Spirit said so!

     "His foundation is in the holy mountains. The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God" (Psalm 87: 2). Our brother concludes that Zion is typical of the church; and Jacob is typical of Israel. He says this should certainly be admitted. But I do not agree. I do not think that God is trying to show he will love the church more than he loved Israel. That may, or may not, be true, but this passage has nothing to do with it. "The holy mountains" as the sons of Korah who rendered the psalm would understand, and as the congregation at the temple which heard the song would agree, were the hills upon which Jerusalem was built. "Zion" was Jerusalem; "the dwellings of Jacob" were the other cities of Judah. Jerusalem was superior to all of these, because God had selected it as the place to write his name, it was

[Page 8]

the location of the temple, and the center of worship. It was the capital city of the theocracy, and its very gates were hallowed unto God.

     Since Jerusalem was the dwelling place of God through the Shekinah, the nations of the earth were blessed by contact with this city. Verse 4 mentions Egypt (Rahab) on the south, Babylon on the east, Philistia on the west, Tyre to the northwest, and Ethiopia, representative of the nations afar (Cp. Isa. 18:1, 2). As a result of this, it was a distinct honor to be born in Jerusalem, and verse 6 declares that when God makes a register of the nations, he will record the names of those who were born there.

     Verse 7 says, "As well the singers as the players on instruments shall be there: all my springs are in thee." Brother Blakeley, and others, conclude that since "The players on instruments shall be there" that the "there" is the New Testament congregation of the saints assembled for worship. But there are several things these brethren overlook. The marginal rendering in the King James Version, substitutes "the dancers" for "the players on instruments." The RSV reads, "Singers and dancers alike say, 'All my springs are in you.'" This seems to be the view of scholars generally. The commentary edited by J. R. Dummelow M. A., with many scholarly contributors, agrees with the Revised Version, "They that sing as well as they that dance, shall say In view of this, we are inclined to think that the psalm, instead of regulating the worship of the church, records the attitude of those who engaged in triumphal processions, and entered the city through the gates, dancing for joy and shouting, "My springs (fountains of joy) are in thee."

     May we suggest a word of warning to those who would be interpreters of the psalms. The only authorized interpreters are the apostles of Christ. "He opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Luke 24: 45), which the context shows included the psalms. Is it not dangerous for us to go back to the law, the psalms and the prophets, for authority for worship under the new covenant, in those matters where the apostles have not interpreted these scriptures as applicable? If Psalm 87: 7 was intended to install instruments of music in the primitive churches of the saints, the apostles whose minds were opened to understand the psalms, remained blissfully unaware of the fact, for no such instruments were used in the church until it began to borrow from Judaism those items which would contribute to pomp and pageantry, and pamper a growing pride.

     James Pierce, an erudite scholar of the Presbyterian faith, who died in 1726, in A Vindication of the Dissenters, sums up the case: "I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of musical instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent... From what has been said, it appears no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the church." Even Thomas Aquinas, the man most responsible for the present day doctrines of the Roman Church, writes, "In the old law, God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices. But the Church does not use musical instruments lest she should seem to Judaize. Nor ought a pipe, nor any other artifical instruments, such as organ, or harp, or the like be brought into use in the Church, hut only those things which shall make the hearers better men. Under the Old Testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder, and more carnal, and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something." How far modern Catholicism has drifted since the days of "The Angelic Doctor" can easily be seen by even a casual observer; and how far many of our brethren are yet from the primitive simplicity of worship, may just as easily be detected.

     Bro. Blakely asks the question, concerning the instruments, "What is the

[Page 9]

use of playing them if it is not an expression of worship?" Many instrumental brethren now deny that it is right or proper to play instruments as an expression of worship. They say it would be wrong to do so, and a violation of the principle of God's authority. We shall allow them to answer Bro. Blakely on their justification for playing them since they do not do so as an expression of worship, and because this treatise has been extended to such length, that we be not further tedious, we will reserve until next month, our presentation of reasons why we oppose the use of instruments as presently practiced by many of the brethren. You may be sure we will write in love.