Music and History
By F. L. Lemley
[Page 168] |
There is no valid reason why one who seeks truth should convey false information, or withhold information on a controversial point. Fear of reprisal from wellmeaning but misinformed brethren should never cause us to hesitate in telling all of the truth we know. Honest mistakes should be corrected quickly and frankly without regard to personal consequences. The writer is neither a historian nor a scholar but a practical reasoner seeking for truth. He has no difficulty in accepting the truth wherever it is found.
Enough has been written on the historical aspect of instrumental music to lay to rest forever our old claim that it was first introduced into the church about 670 A.D. It is a bit vague as to whether we meant the church of Christ or the apostate church. If not the church of Christ our point is lost, for the doctrines and practices of the apostate church should have nothing to do with our doctrines or practices or the method by which we establish them. Perhaps we meant to imply this was but one more proof of apostacy but in the light of more recent evidence this claim needs to be investigated again.
Scholars of history do not always interpret the facts they discover in the same way, nor do they always agree on the significance of these facts, but it is obvious that a majority of the congregations did not use instrumental music in worship during the first two or three centuries. It is not conclusive that all declined its use. Our line of reasoning assumes that if we prove conclusively that the first century church did not use the instrument, it is therefore wrong and sinful.
While I am of the party which declines its use, and while I will never advocate its introduction into the worship of those who oppose it, I feel we must study the question objectively and evaluate our arguments correctly. Frankly, it is not conclusive to reason that because instrumental music was not used in the first century it is therefore wrong and sinful and against God's will. The fact that a practice was not in vogue in the first century is not proof that God disapproves of it. There is no approved example, direct command, or necessary inference for a congregation employing congregational singing as we do it, but this does not prove it is wrong or sinful.
For the purpose of impressing our point let us assume that instrumental music was not in use among any of the congregations in the first century. Has it ever occurred to history students to enquire why it was not used? Should not the reason why it was not used have some bearing on our reasoning? For example, why were individual cups, Bible classes, vacation Bible studies, radio and tele-
[Page 169] |
Why did Christians of the first three centuries decline to use the instrument? Why did almost every leader of the church decline to use it? Was it because God had spoken on it and condemned its use? No! There is not one word on the specific subject in the new testament scriptures. Our exclusion of it today depends upon a long process of reasoning in which we appeal to a so-called "law of exclusion," which is also a human device. Through this long process we arrive at the conclusion that it is against God's will.
But we use this so-called "law of exclusion" in a selective way. We do not apply it to the holy kiss (Romans 16:16); the wearing of veils by the women in the congregation (1 Corinthians 11); the love feast (1 Corinthians 11); foot washing (John 13), or to the singing of a solo or duet as every reference from Acts to Revelation indicates. We would find it difficult to be consistent if we used Revelation 14:3 and 15:3 for singing in the congregation on earth. Why are we not consistent with this so-called "law of exclusion"? Because to do so would upset some of our twentieth century traditions and prejudices. So we keep it to appeal to in certain cases, to object to that which we oppose.
Why did the early Christians decline to use the instrument? It was used under the old covenant. Whether it was by an edict of God, or by invention of David, may be a moot question, but the scriptures indicate that God certainly tolerated and encouraged it. Let us observe here that if the Jews since David freely used the instrument without any outside force to inhibit them, it would have taken a divine command in clear and unmistakable terms to have suddenly stopped its use with the coming of Christ. Certainly Jewish Christians did carry over their practices of circumcision, animal sacrifice, and law-keeping (Acts 21). It took some explicit teaching to turn them from these, but not one word is said about their music. It is evident that another force must have inhibited them on this point.
To find this other force we turn to secular history. There are some recent works by historians which reveal interesting facts. In the book, "The Sacred Bridge," by Eric Warner, Professor of Liturgical Music at Hebrew Union College, as published by Columbia University Press (1959-60), the author points out that Jews as well as Christians of the first two centuries declined the use of instrumental music, that all the church fathers objected to its use, and there was a great conflict between Hellenists and Jews over its use, until the third century proved a turning point with the Hellenistic attitude prevailing.
James William McKinnon differs with Werner a bit over the reason why the Jews did not use the instrument during this time. Werner says it was primarily because of Philo, a Jewish teacher who came on the scene shortly before Christ, and who taught the Jews that since the Greeks used the instrument in idol worship it was a corrupting influence likely to pollute and destroy Judaism. He also points out that after destruction of the temple it was banned as a sign of mourning over the loss, as was the occasion when they were exiled into Babylon (Psalm 137).
McKinnon attributes the non-use of the instrument to a Rabbinic tradition which taught the Jews that to play an instrument on the sabbath was a violation of the fourth commandment. Some also point out that early Christian leaders saw the instrument as a Judaizing influence on Christianity, and there was a severe reaction against anything Jewish in the very early centuries.
With these things before us, and allowing for the various interpretations of facts by historians, it is a safe conclusion that the non-use of the instrument by
[Page 170] |
It would seem wise to allow God to speak on the subject before we proceed to ostracize our brethren who differ with us on the question. If God regards the use of the instrument as a soul-damning sin, Jesus and the apostles would seem to be remiss in their duty in not making the thing clear in unmistakable terms. Salvation is not and cannot be dependent upon the inferences and deductions of fallible man, nor upon his long and delicate processes of reasoning.
If the word psallo or its derivatives demands the use of the instrument as some argue, the early Christians failed in their duty to enforce such and comply with the command. If Jesus had any will, one way or the other, he could have made it known. Seeing that some outside forces had caused the Jews to cease its use, it might have been that Jesus had no will on the matter and so was silent on the question.
With this evidence it would seem reasonable that Jesus appeared on the scene at a time when other forces had curtailed the use of the instrument. It is also a fair observation that the meaning of the word or words relating to playing and singing might have undergone a change in the two or three centuries involved here. Language has a way of adapting to practices of men. It seems that those who argue the question say that psallo once meant to sing and play, then came to mean to sing only, and then reverted to its earlier meaning, to sing and play. I say this change would correspond to the practice of the times involved.
This leaves us about where we started. We who oppose it ask, "Where is the authority for it?" This appears to be our strongest argument. The facts of history have about eroded our other arguments. But what about the question of authority? It is futile to answer questions no one is asking, and useless to make arguments that are no longer relevant. We must answer each man upon his own ground.
Some who use the instrument object to using it as worship as vehemently as we do. They justify its use as an expedient to help them stay on the tune while they obey the command to sing. We either must call those who argue such liars, or we must take them at their word. They are honestly and sincerely trying to follow the Lord as we, and if they do what they say (which I am not in a position to doubt), the necessity of producing specific authority is removed. None of us require this kind of proof for any expedient. No one needs to produce this kind of proof for any expedient. All expedients derive from human judgment and differ with the need of individuals. In those areas where God allows us to use human judgment we are free to use it, good or bad, and all expedients fall into this category.
This leaves us with the question of conscience. Some, because of various reasons as is evident from the history of those in the early centuries, are opposed to its use and it violates their consciences to sing with an instrument. Others feel they are compelled to use an instrument if they fulfill the demands of scripture. Right or wrong, both pro and con, they must abide by their consciences.
This leaves the question very much akin to the question of meats and days in Romans 14. It must be the basis for solving our difficulties on this question. We must love and tolerate one another for Christ has received us all. This error (of which ever side) did not prevent us all becoming children, and must not prevent us being brethren. As we come closer to Christ we will come closer to one another.
Our conclusion is that positive proof for or against the instrument is equally inconclusive. Both those who are pro and con depend upon a long process of human reasoning to reach their widely
[Page 171] |
(Editor's Note. F. L. Lemley can be addressed at Wheat Ridge Heights Church of Christ, 5925 West 32nd Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80212).