The Richland Hills Church of Christ (Dallas, TX area) has decided to incorporate instrumental music in their services. I hope you follow this link to Mike Cope's blog where he has posted an essay pertaining to the situation. HERE
The essay grapples with not only acappella vs. instrumental issue, but looks at baptism and communion as well. You and I are living in a time when the traditional CofC, as we have known it, is negotiating an identity crisis (the word "crisis" might be an overstatement). I think in many ways we are negotiating it well and in other ways, not so well. For me, Richland Hills is an example of successful negotiation. I am curious as to how you see it. You are genuinely welcome to disagree with me on this point. It would make for a productive discussion, even if we never see it the same way.
I think we need to look at flagship congregations like Richland Hills, and discuss trends like this, because we are, in all actuality, looking into our own future. It may take several years, but what goes on in these CofC centers, eventually trickles down to us. Of course, we are not determined by what other congregations do, but if you look back over history, I think my point could be validated.
Please take time to read this essay and post a comment expressing your reaction.
One more thing...most contemporary thinkers of our day, informed by postmodern developments, would assert that objectivity is an impossibility. In other words, no one is or ever can be completely impartial about anything. I tend to agree with that assertion. What do you think?
Monday, December 04, 2006
A brave new world
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I believe it only fair and honest that those of us who are sincere about serving God in all truth consider carefully our every teaching and doctrine. Is it backed by the Word? If not, let there be latitude given.
Blessings and joy,
Shirley Buxton
www.writenow.wordpress.com
When we start thinking differently about the church, its essence and outward form, I am reminded of the #1 rule of wing-walking: Never let go of something until you have got a hold of something else! Clearly, there is a need to proceed with caution. Nevertheless, proceed we must!
The challenge, as I see it, is to come to grips with the essence of the Church. We must strain ourselves to understand what is the Church without simply describing its outward form and structure. If all we can say about God's Church is that it is headed by a plurality of elders, it practices weekly communion, it baptizes converts immediately, and it sings without instrumental accompaniment; we must admit that our understanding is superficial.
My question is this: Does Richland Hills' incorporation of instrumental music stem from a deep appreciation and understanding of what it is to be Christ's Church? I tend to think it does. However, I am not intimately acquainted with the Richland Hills congregation, so I cannot speak with any authority. But, I can ask the question of myself and of the congregation of which I am a member. Do I possess a deep understanding of Christ's Church or am I simply regurjitating traditional and superficial statements of form and structure.
If this sounds accusational or harsh, I do apologize. These are not questions I am using against you but ones I am genuinely asking of myself. The great concern, as I see it, is not whether or not Sunshine becomes instrumental, but whether we can continue to move deeper into an understanding of what God's purpose is for us as a group. I suspect that what we see happening in Richland Hills is a by-product of that congregation's movement toward greater depth.
Again, please feel free to disagree.
I am a lifetime member of the CofC and grew up thinking that people that worshipped with instruments were heathans and would not be going to heaven with me. Over the years I have grown to know the LORD and see what is important to him in my life and I honestly think this is not one of them. I think this is an issue because we make it an issue. It is something that the CofC has owned and has a hard time letting go of, and something that has defined "us" from the outside looking in. I do not particually like being known as the "church that thinks it is wrong to have instruments in the worhip". I envision a day when we can be known as a church "that Serves a Risen Saviour and Shows the Love of the LORD through its actions." The encouraging thing is that I think Sunshine is on this path and I do not think we need instruments to do this.
Whether someone has instruments or not should not be the issue. We have Childrens Church, a projector, do services in a certain order, serve grape juice instead of wine, etc... things that I am pretty sure are not mentioned in the Bible, but we have interpreted them to be O.K. This tells me instruments are such a big deal because we make them a big deal.
The LORD has laid out what our purpose is on HIS earth through scripture and has entrusted us with carrying this out.
If our leaders who the LORD has placed before us send us in a direction of adding instruments to our services then I will have FAITH that HE is leading us in the direction he feels we need for spritual growth. I personally think instruments drown out the power of hearing us join together with the voices the LORD has given us to sing praises to HIM. I definitely would not be in favor of adding music just to add music to be like others. We need our own identity as a congregation and the LORD has definitely blessed us with a congregation that shows its praises to HIM through our wonderful worship.
There seems to be one vitally important item left out of the comments and the essay. That is the concept of Authority. Negotiation of the scripture is nothing new but is as dangerous and wrong as it was in Paul's time. Paul tells Timothy in II Tim. 4: 1-5 "1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry." From the beginning of the scriptures man has wanted to change them to say and mean things that are better suited to the way they feel. But, the Hebrew write tells us in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."
Yes, the world changes but God, Jesus and the Word do not change. Why must we try to conform to the changing of the world on matters that are doctrinal and outside of our authority to change? If we simply do as God's Word tells us and speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent, we can easily tell the difference between matters of opinion and matters of doctrine.
We need to be careful that we do not let the world move us from the unmovable positions that God's Word directs us to do. Phillip opened the scriptures and preached Jesus to the Eunich. Preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified is what will save souls. Not changing doctrinal positions to suit the world.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment here. I believe the more we discuss and study, the more of God's word we will learn and the stronger the church will become.
Sincerely,
Sam Turner
Woodsfield, Ohio
Great conversation! Welcome Sam, feel free to contribute.
If you'll allow me to play the role of prophet--
I don't think the instrumental issue will ever be all that big of a deal with us at Sunshine. I am not predicting whether we will incorporate instruments into our worship, or not, I am just saying that whatever we do, it will not deeply effect our congregational unity. The issue I do think will be a big deal when it finally comes, is the role of women. I believe that we are raising a crop of girls that will challenge the traditional "limited" role of women in our congregation. This, I believe, will be a titantic struggle with passionate people on both sides. Time will tell.
Ok, let's review:
Sam has raised the primary issue when it comes to any doctrine: Authority-specifically an authority from God versus an authority of human origin.
However, Taylor has noted the inconsistency with our application of the principles of biblical authority. Taylor has noted our tendency to be vigilant on one point, yet very relaxed on another. Many, many authors within our brotherhood have made this same point.
We all desire to be true to God's will for Christ's Church. Yet, at the same time, we strive to be free and relevant not only to ourselves but to the world we are commanded to reach. This tension will never be resolved, it must be negotiated. My personal approach is to pray often, asking God to guide my thinking and work. I sincerely believe He will. Secondly, I try to be as gracious as possible to others who, too, are struggling with these negotiations. However, I do struggle with those folks who offer hard-line, black-and-white responses to what clearly is complicated, difficult questions of life and religion.
Sorry for the profusion of comments, I cannot help myself. I am not alone with this problem given that Mike Cope's blog now has back-to-back articles on acappella music with near 150 comments.
I have often wondered why it is that we have placed such an emphasis on singing in contrast to the many other issues of life and religion. A while back I was reading some books addressing Stone-Campbell history. I think I found my answer.
The "Reconstruction Period" following the Civil War was a critical time in the development of the Stone-Campbell Movement. There was tremendous and deep-seated animosity between the North and the South. Religious groups were not immune to this hatred. Though there was no formal division among our religious ancestors, there was division nonetheless. The northern congregations were doing well. Their basic needs were being met and they could even afford some of the luxuries of congregational life. Around this time, pianos as aids to congregational singing was coming into vogue. Many northern congregations were willing and could afford the addition of a piano. Meanwhile, congregational life was different in the South. Congregations were struggling to eke by. Many southerners felt ignored, even opprossed by northerners. Again, the churches were not immune from this thinking. In short, the piano came to symbolize the materialism and consequential hyprocrisy of the North. Out of this sociological dynamic arguments against the use of pianos, as well as a few other things, began to emerge. The issue of instrumental music was so important, not on its own merits, but because it masked an intense animosity just beneath the surface. The northern congregations eventually evolved into the present day Disciples of Christ. The southern congregations became Churches of Christ. The split became official in 1906 when David Lipscomb directed the U.S. Census officials to list the groups separately.
An appreciation of the historical, sociological dynamics that support the instrumental issue has helped me to understand our obsession more than anything else.
Most all of us listen to "instrumental" Christian music whether it's on the radio, or CD's or Christmas carols -- all of which is praising the Lord. All most no one has a problem with this. Yet, somehow on Sundays when we all come together, instrumental music becomes a "bad" thing.
Taylor raises the most salient points regarding this issue. We take so many liberties with buildings, worship structure, ministry directions, classes, etc...yet the issue of music becomes doctrinal?
Sunshine does not need instruments -- the singing is excellent. However, opening the doors to music down the road, would allow many folks the opportunity to use their talents to honor God that otherwise would have to employ them elsewhere.
Great post-- Thanks for the comments and the thought provoking material!!
Thanks for the welcome Jason. I do feel strongly that good debate is necessary to our growth as Christians. Instrumental music, the role of women in the church, one cup, wine, or any other issue that can be though of are things that have been debated since apolstolic times and as long as there are human beings on this earth, will continue to be debated.
In my years as a Christian, I have changed my outlook on different issues. Study and more importantly prayer have increased my knowledge and my awareness. But, there is one thing we can never compromise and that is God's Word. Do I do everything correctly? Am I right on my understanding of every concept in God's Word? No. But, it is through prayer, study and a determination that I am doing what is pleasing to God that leads me to the way I live. What I want does not always agree with what God says but do my best to di it God's way.
I see a trend in the religious and political world that concerns me deeply. We need to ask ourselves a question. Is it better to be liked or right? Sometimes we are too concerned with being liked that we compromise what is right. Jesus said in Luke 6:22 " 22Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake." Please do not misunderstand, I am not saying we should be without compassion and do things just so the world hates us. I am saying we need to understand that by following God's Word, the world, because it is against God, will be against us.
Jesus sums it up best when he says in John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Jesus means all of them. Be right doctrinally and do so with love.
Sam--
I feel strongly that a discussion about doctrine, in order for it to be truly fruitful to all participants, must move to the realm of biblical hermeneutics. In other words, before we can discuss the biblical authority (or lack thereof) for a particular practice, we must examine our manner for determining biblical authority itself. You used the expression "be right doctrinally." I would assume that all (evangelical) Christians would acknowledge that as their goal. However, we might differ greatly in how we arrive at the conclusion that something is right (or wrong). Often, when we discuss an issue, we speak as though our hermeneutical assumptions are above reproach and shared by all. Rarely, do we take a hard look at the presuppositions that support our conclusions. As you can imagine, I have come to loathe the expression, "the plain teaching of Scripture." If the past 2 centuries of Christian debate have taught us anything, it has taught us that interpretation of Scripture is a complex business.
Does this make sense?
Christians look to the Bible to see what is acceptable practices in worship. What I find is Jesus and the apostles worshiping and participating in worship at synagogues. There is no Biblical authority for a synagogue, but men of God sought to worship Him and I do not find Jesus denouncing the use of or worship at such a place. I believe this is where we get our modern day church buildings.
King David had no Biblical authority to add instruments to the worship practices of his time, however, he did and God did not denounce or punish him for it. Men used God given talents to praise and honor a high and holy God without condemnation and God seems to have accepted their practice. Is it possible that man could think of his own ideas and apply them to worship and be acceptable? Are we looking for Biblical examples of such or are we ignoring them?
Perhaps the New Testament is silent because it doesn't matter one way or the other. Perhaps they didn't use instruments because it was inconvenient and unnecessary to carry a harp from house to house while enemies sought to kill you for being a Christian.
Perhaps they did use some types of instrument but the writers didn't find it necessary to mention it. I watched Jesse Norman sing one night and described my wife how she sang with such enthusiasm and feeling, I didn't mention the 150 piece orchestra playing in the background. Doesn't mean they weren't there, I was focused on the singer.
Another thought, the Richland Hills congregation has it's own leadership of elders as prescribed in the Bible. We have our own leadership to follow. What they do is not for me to condemn.
As someone who was raised in a church that used instruments, choirs, solos, etc in worship and then who came to be part of the accappella church, I have made an observation. Those of us who were raised in the accappella church and who were subjected to years of lessons on why the instrument was wrong, are the ones within the church today who cannot leave this issue alone, and I think in most cases are anxious to forsake accappella music and get on with the instrument. Those of us who have come from an instrumental background have a much deeper appreciation of the simplicity of singing and are not nearly as anxious to abandon the apostolic tradition of singing and singing alone. Why is this?
The whole issue of instruments versus no instruments may seem like a very small thing with many in the church today, but it is the tip of a much larger issue which affects our teaching in many areas. The same principle which condemns instruments and establishes accappella music is the one which establishes the rule of elders over a congregation and the autonomy of congregations. If substance is all that matters then why be cumbered with this form of leadership? The same is true with baptism by immersion and for the remission of sins. Another form. But if substance is all that matters then let us forget about immersion versus sprinkling and accept all forms that are currently practiced or even forget the form of baptism altogether. The same is true with the Lord's Supper. If the remembering is all that matters, then why bother with the form at all. Form and substance are related and both are issues of obedience. Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for tithing their mint, anise and cummin. He had no problem with that kind of devotion to law. The thing that bothered Jesus was their neglect of the weighter matters of the law while they got the tithing of the herbs exactly right. I am all for making and keeping "the main thing the main thing," but I have no desire or interest in abandoning the forms of scripture simply because they are not "the weightier matters of the law." Behind my observance of small things is an attitude that I think is essential: An obedient heart.
Now we are discussing the role of women in worship, that it will be challenged in the future, which I am sure it will. Which makes another important point. The same spirit which disregards the small matters will also find a way to ignore or get around (sorry, Jason)the plain statements of scripture: I Corinthinans 14 and II Timothy 2. This one is not an argument from silence but is a straight out prohibition. But as someone has already pointed out, it's probably the next thing to be challenged. Funny how one thing leads to another. I am with you, Jason. Before you let go of where you are, be sure what you are going to is solid and of God. Steve Miller.
Jason,
The interpretation of the scriptures can at times be complex. But the correct interpretation is possible. In order to get it as correct as possible, we must completely accept the fact that God has set the standard and it is His law. We must work diligently to not let our own personal opinions or philosophy enter into the equation. 2 Timothy 2:15 says "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." It is possible to interpret God's Word. Notice Paul says "needeth not to be ashamed." Paul is saying that other people will question you and at times make fun of you but if you follow God's Word you will be pleasing to God and that is more important than being loved by the world.
I preached a sermon a couple of months ago on extremes and how the world, and the Church, in many ways take extreme positions. We must be careful to not do that. Look at politics. Few of our politicians stray from the extreme positions of their leadership. Look at the Church. You have extreme positions of strict fundamentalist and some who believe if it feels right it is ok. I fear we are losing the delicate balance between the "letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law." Following the law is paramount to pleasing God but doing so in love if just as important. Paul makes it clear in I Corinthians 13 that doing everything according to the letter of the law means nothing if we do not have love. But, it is also clear that if we do not keep His commandments, we can love all we want and it will be of no benefit to us. Jesus said in the sermon on the mount in Matthew 7 "15"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
20Therefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
21"Not every one that saith unto Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in Heaven.
22Many will say to Me in that Day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?'
23And then will I profess unto them, `I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity."
My overall point is we have to do both, get it right and do so with love. In Christian love, Sam Turner
Steve & Sam--
I think both of you are basicly advocating for caution and especially, BALANCE. Sam worded it as a balance between "the spirit of the word" versus "the letter of the word"; Steve contrasted substance with form. Honestly, I agree with you both! I want to avoid playing the role of the liberal devil's advocate.
However, I still think that a doctrinal discussion among believers (who uphold the authority of the Bible) must migrate to the realm of biblical interpretation. Not that I naïvely believe we could all arrive at some exact consensus on all matters hermeneutical, thereby paving the way for us to see all doctrinal issues exactly the same. Of course, that will not be the end result.
The fruit of such an effort is to be INSIGHT. By insight, I refer to one's conscious awareness of the beliefs, assumptions, presuppositions, etc. that in large part determine the conclusions one forms. Sam stated that we must work diligently to not let our personal opinions and philosophies enter into the equation. I do not know how it is humanly possible not to allow such things to enter our thinking processes. What we can do, is be open and honest about these underlying forces. This is not easy. It takes constant study and seem to require a good dose of abstract thinking skills. Its not just thinking about something, its thinking about how we are thinking about something (meta-thinking). Frankly, many people have no tolerance for this type of conversation.
The more I become aware of my own "set" of underlying factors the more I can be tolerant of yours, the more I can truly understand you! And, if we must debate. At least will be debating at the root of the issue rather than playing around in the leaves.
When it comes to instruments or not, I really do not give a flip. BUT, the thought of exploring the limits of "pattern theology" and how it has shaped our movement and thinking since the days of Campbell--now that gets me excited. (Not that I would seek to undermine Campbell or anything else of our heritage-I just want to recognize it for what it is, find its limits) If all we are talking about here is instrumental music, we are wasting time. But, if we can utilize the instrumental music issue to help us understand what is really driving our congregational life, then this could be time well spent.
Please tell me if this makes sense to you--whether you agree or not.
Jason,
First, let me say that this is my first time discussing things on-line and I am truly enjoying the interaction between people that are concerned about their souls and the souls of others.
There are things that you have said that I agree with and some things that I do not. I do agree that it is difficult not to let our personal opinions or the way we would like to see things enter in to our decisions on spiritual matters. And, in a sense that is not only difficult but virtually impossible. But, since we are going to be judged by God's Word, God would not have made it impossible for us to understand it. That may sound like simple thinking but often times, we as human beings, try to think too deep. I have made the point before that whether we like something or not, it depends on what God says.
I also agree that this discussion is not about instrumental music. As Steve said, it is just a part of the overall issue of authority. We must be careful though, to not let something slide because it seems to be a small thing. Let me tell you a quick story (and if you knew me you would know I have a lot of them.) When I was growing up (and I am 41 years old) we were not allowed to watch "All In The Family" because Archie Bunker swore in it. Today, that would be the show with the cleanest language on it. How did we progress to the filthy language on TV now? We let it slide. Same way with homosexuality. We have said as long as it does not affect me I will just let it go. We could go on and on here. But, the same thing has happened in the Church. We have let things happen because we did not want trouble or because we did not want to be bothered with it. We can not afford to let that happen in the Church.
In your last post, the one statement I disagree with is when you say "When it comes to instruments or not, I really do not give a flip." James tells us in James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." Every issue, every doctrine, every "thou shalt" and every "thou shalt not" is important.
Jason, I would enjoy sitting down with you and talking to you on a variety of subjects. I should have come down to the hayride with my son Joshua. Hopefully some time we can sit and talk. I am two things that some people consider contridictory, I am open minded yet firmly grounded on my principals. Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to hear your opinions and to also express mine. Just as Jesus said, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness."
In Christian Love,
Sam
You seem to have hit a "hot button" topic here, Jason. :)
I was raised in a non-CofC church setting that was instrumental and there was not ongoing dispute over the issue. I didn't start attending Sunshine until my early adult years and I first considered the acappella music just a "quirk" and not really a significant issue. Since that time, I have grown to appreciate it's beauty and simplicity.
In congregations that do use instruments, the people barely sing at all...they let the instruments overpower them. In a small congregation with just a piano and an amateur player, it can be a bit hard on the senses. If the piano player gets sick or doesn't show up, they're up the creek without a paddle. Very few members are comfortable singing acappella if they aren't used to it. In large congregations with a pipe organ or multiple instruments, it's not done as worshipful to God but more for entertainment of the congregation.
Either way, I have come to prefer non-instrumental music, not as a "scriptural" requirement so much as an "aesthetic" one. Were Sunshine to make a decision to permit instrumental music, I would be saddened by the move, but I don't think it would drive me away.
Thanks to Sam and everyone else for your participation in this discussion. This type of discussion is a realization of one of the goals for this blog.
As Al noted, the instrumental issue is a "hot-button" topic. It has always been that way among our people. This issue's energy is generated by its symbolism. As I stated earlier, it is my understanding that the instrumental music issue originated as a symbol of the powerful emotions related to our Civil War. Today, this issue symbolizes something very different. It is now a symbol of pattern theology. The question of authority for instrumental worship is anchored in the conviction that it is our duty to uphold the pattern of the 1st Century Christians. This notion was not original with Alexander Campbell (and company), but he did employ it in some unique ways. Important to note is his focus on the form and structure of worship. When one brings into question our traditional stance on instrumental music, one is simultaneously questioning the validity of pattern theology. Thus, Steve's earlier point is quite valid. If we disregard instrumental music without sufficiently addressing the theological implications, then an avalanche of changes might ensue leading not to reform but to chaos.
To reiterate, we in the CofC's have a wonderful heritage. A heritage that should make us all proud. However, we must also be willing to acknowledge the limits, and consequential pitfalls, of our movement. Many people have grown tired of instrumental music discussions. Nevertheless, the discussions will continue until we finish the work, by addressing the real issue at hand; not instrumental music per se, but pattern theology.
I am not suggesting we do that here and now. I long to see such discussions taking place more often within our brotherhood. I truly believe that the end result will be a stronger brotherhood, and a brotherhood more open to other Christian perspectives.
Post a Comment