The Authority Questions
By F. L. Lemley
[Page 138] |
It is being argued by some among us that the basic difference between brethren who use the instrument in worship and those who do not, is basically one of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures. I think this is nothing but a poor rationalization. It is the claim of every faction regarding every other faction, with all trying to justify their sinful division. It is true there was a difference between Luther and Zwingli on this point but I deny that this difference exists generally among the heirs of the Restoration movement.
There may be exceptions but almost all Bible believing churches, whether in the Restoration family or outside, accept the scriptures as the inspired word of God, and seriously attempt to use the scriptures as inspired authority in all things pertaining to faith and morals. We of the Restoration family accept the scriptures as an all-sufficient guide. Let us quit kidding ourselves! We must look to other sources to explain our schismatic and sectarian state.
Proponents of the foregoing rationalization draw their conclusion from an old Restoration slogan that we must be silent where the Bible is silent, insisting that the silence of scripture is tantamount to prohibition. The claims of such brethren are difficult to take seriously in view of the fact they freely violate their own rules to use song directors, congregational singing, invitation hymns, youth ministers, campaigns for Christ patterned after those of Billy Graham, individual cups, Bible classes, vacation Bible schools, orphan homes, radio and television projects, and a hundred other things, none of which can be justified either by a direct command, approved example or necessary inference from scripture. The scriptures are as silent as a tomb on these things and a lot of other things!
To compound the confusion, these same brethren freely discount positive commands, and the prohibitive qualities they say are built into them, to change the holy kiss into a hand-shake, discredit and refuse to practice footwashing, ignore the mandate for women to wear veils in worship, and completely disregard the ancient love feast, to mention a few items. We might add that these brethren do not take literally and seriously the command to admonish one another in psalms (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Feature if you can one of these rationalizing brethren meeting with the church at Ephesus for worship. The song leader (2) arises and announces, "It is now time to begin our worship. Will you please get song books (pardon me, Psalm Books) and turn to Number 150." Wow! What a time our modern brother would have trying to show the Ephesians how to render Psalm 150 a capella. He might also have trouble with Number 47, or were these psalms edited out by a vigilance committee, and excluded from Ephesians 5:19?
It is evident that the silence of the scriptures is not always prohibitive since none of the Restoration family can start a service without intruding upon an area of silence. We cannot execute commands until we have some freedom to move in the domain of silence. It would be impossible to conduct a Sunday worship service if we limited ourselves to only those things specified. What should we do first? What should come next? And where is our ritual spelled out? God does not execute his own commands. He depends upon men to do this. Men must take the word of command, and allow God to use their human minds and human hands to execute the commands. God allows man to extend His will into areas of silence where men use their own judgment and own power. While these human extensions of divine will may be more than human opinion, they certainly are not scripture either. God allows men to take his word, and
[Page 139] |
He also knows that men will differ in this area. That is what Romans 14 is all about. While man may be bound by his own conscience, God is certainly not so bound. We must understand that inferences, deductions, and conclusions from God's word, even where they are correct, are human and not divine. They must be held as personal convictions which must 1 not be bound upon the brethren (Romans 14:22, 23). All such conviction (faith) falls within the silence of scripture and with God's permission.
The brethren who use the instrument are just as sincere as we are. So are the brethren in all of the factions. They are just as scrupulous in respecting the authority of the scriptures as we are. The conclusions on both sides of this question are human conclusions drawn from a command to sing. There is not one word in the whole New Testament about instrumental music in worship. The difference is not one of respect for the authority of scripture, but of deciding if the command to sing includes or excludes the instrument. It is not a matter of substituting a different kind of music, but one of implementing a command using unspecified expedients. Many who use the instrument never think of offering it as worship. They simply see it as a help in executing the command to sing. It is not a matter of disrespect for scriptural authority, but a matter of respect for our brethren, of allowing them the latitude which God allows.
There is also another possibility. We may conclude from most recent research by scholars such as Werner and McKinnon that Jesus was born into a Jewish world that did not generally use instrumental music in worship. This came about, not as a command from God, or by a change of covenants, but by the influence of certain scholars who saw the instrument as a Hellenistic influence and wanted to widen the gap between themselves and pagans. Neither Jesus nor the apostles had one word to say on the question. Could it be that they were indifferent to the instrument question? Certainly if it was to send everyone to hell who uses it, they were remiss in their duty to warn the world on the subject.
If Jesus and the apostles were so indifferent to the question as to command the use of the Psalms in worship without some warning against Psalms 47 and 150, why should it be such an issue with us? Wouldn't it be something if we should discover that God is indifferent toward all of our issues, since they all derive from human judgment which he allows us to use? If we should ever discover this we would quit fighting the brethren and concentrate on the devil a little while!
Now let us say for the benefit of those who find it hard to reason, that there is an area where the silence of the scripture may be prohibitive. God does not allow man to originate commands and attribute them to him. In this area silence is prohibitive. This intrusion into prohibitive silence is done in two ways: by inventing doctrines and commands not found in the Word, and by enforcing or trying to enforce a human conclusion as though it were the word of God. Eternity is not long enough for us to sit down together and all agree upon every issue before the brotherhood. It never has been so. It never will be so. But God never required it to be so in order for us to have that unity for which Jesus prayed.
F. L. Lemley can be addressed at 312 Hance Avenue, New Shrewsbury, N.J. 07724, where he labors with the Monmouth Church of Christ.