The Stone-Campbell Movement, Biblicism, and the example of musical
instruments.
What does this Restorationism I
propose look like? Usually when people speak of Restorationism they think of
the Stone-Campbell movement, better known as the Churches of Christ. This group
is worthy of much admiration. I greatly appreciate their Biblicism, their
determination to adhere to the text of Scripture. Many of their positions are
akin to my own though we often arrive in a different manner.
For example, they refuse to use
musical instruments in their worship services or meetings. This position is in
accord with historic Reformed theology[i]
and one with which I agree.
But why? I would argue musical
instruments are not found in New Testament worship and appealing to the Old
Testament represents a hermeneutical error. This claim or charge is not due to
some kind of hostility or rejection of the Old Testament. I believe there are
many points between Old and New that exhibit a strong continuity, or as it
might be put, a unity in substance. However, there are stark differences in
form.
For example the Old Testament
employs types and shadows, forms and symbols which according to the New
Testament have been fulfilled in the person and work of Christ. What are some
of these types? They're numerous. The sacrificial system, the land, the offices
of prophet, priest, and king and many more.
Musical instruments were part
of the temple apparatus and they were played by Levites thus granting them a
sanctified status and role. Now if someone were to suggest that we should offer
sacrifices in New Testament worship they would rightly be criticized as not
understanding the person and work of Christ. They would be accused of failing
to grasp what the sacrifices pointed out and why they are no longer necessary
or even desirable.
To suggest that we need to
return to expiatory (or otherwise) sacrifices would demonstrate a
misunderstanding or even a denigration of Christ's work on the cross and at the
very least is a rejection of his pronouncement that 'It is finished'.
The veil of the temple was rent
at the death of Christ and it is rightly argued this signified the termination
and fulfillment of the Old Testament order. Though God in his mercy allowed for
another forty or so years until the entire order was literally and physically
swept away, theologically and in terms of Redemptive History (the history of
Salvation) the Old Testament ended at the cross.[ii]
The Old Covenant operated as an
integrated unit ordained by God through mediators. The system stands or falls
as a unit. We can't go back and selectively extract liturgical elements we wish
to re-use or re-cast for Christian purposes. This is a key component to Roman
Catholicism. They are consistent in that they go ahead and re-use and re-cast the
whole Old Testament system.
Their Church buildings are
indeed temples. Their leaders are a priesthood, garbed in holy vestments,
performing sacrifices on an altar[iii],
and they bring all the elements forward, from thrones to candles and incense
etc...
Many Protestants have adopted
the Lutheran position which says we ought to retain good traditions and only
reject that which is harmful or brings about theological contradiction and
confusion. This is against the position of the Reformed who argued against all
traditions and demanded the Bible alone as the sole authority. This led the
Reformed to seriously question and revise the means and methods of worship.
Statues were ripped down, altars removed, crosses and crucifixes were put to
flame and many an organ was met with an axe.
Today many Protestants will
simply argue musical instruments are helpful for ambiance or something to that
effect. They're a key part of the Church's ministry. Those a bit more
thoughtful will detect problems with this argument and instead will try and
argue they're circumstantial rather than elemental. That is to say, instruments
are simply aids to help us sing, like chairs to rest our legs, or a building to
keep the rain off of our heads. They're not 'elements' of worship, specific sensory
items that are sanctified...such as the elements of the Lord's Supper, the
water of Baptism, prayer, the Word etc...
I would argue against this and
say that that's not how the Old Testament viewed them. If instruments are okay,
then so is incense, so are candles, so are vestments. But I would also say, we
have a problem....where can we find Levites to play these instruments?[iv]
Their use was tied in with the Old Covenant system. If it's permissible or
desirable to go through and extract portions of the Covenant, to borrow mere
elements...then why stop there?
This is not to say that we
can't enjoy music and musical instrumentation. I assure you that I am a big fan
of music, but that's not the issue here. Zwingli also enjoyed music and was
proficient musician but these skills (I do not call them talents) were not
employed within the Church meeting.[v]
What does this matter? Why am I
focusing on something as unimportant as musical instruments? Is this what makes
the Church? Of course not. While I'm against musical instruments being employed
in New Testament worship it's certainly not a mark of the Church and I'm not
going to leave or abandon a congregation over this issue.
But.... it's interesting
because this question provides a window into larger issues concerning the
application of the Bible, how we think, and to what degree the Scriptures
govern our conduct as a Church. And it also touches on one of the great
theological questions of all time.... How does the Old Testament relate to the
New?
Look at the massive focus of
today's church on the issue of music. Aside from all the so-called music
ministries, the issue is considered one of the primary questions each
congregation needs to wrestle with. Music is tied in with worship, its
validity, weight, and worth and it's considered essential in terms of
evangelism etc...
But the New Testament has next
to nothing to say about it. Nowhere do any of the Apostles put weight or
emphasis on this issue. It's foreign to the New Testament. We're told to sing
Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in our hearts and there's a reference to a
congregant bringing in a psalm or hymn to sing.
Music is indeed quite powerful
and therefore it needs to be treated with great carefulness and
caution....especially within the church meeting, in terms of how we approach
God.
As Bible believing Christians,
the totality of our lives are governed by Scripture, and our conduct is to be
determined by and evaluated by His Word. However as I've argued elsewhere, if I
hear a folk song on the radio that's one thing. I'm evaluating that for what it
is....lost people singing about the world. Sometimes it can be moving,
sometimes it can be insightful. Sometimes I can (to some degree) participate in
and share feelings with the lost, though my perspective will always be
different. Sometimes it's all a waste of time and I shut it off.
But now throw the words
'Christian' or 'Sacred' in front of music....now I have to evaluate it in
different terms. My criteria is different. The lost folk singer may mix truth
and error when it comes to speaking of love or loss....but if I'm going to sing
or in any way employ music when it comes to worshipping God....then it had
better be right hadn't it? My criteria is different and much more severe.
While I'm against the notion of
'hedging' and arguing (as many do) that the safer road is 'avoidance' rather
than to wisely consider the pro's and con's, to sometimes partake and to
sometimes reject...when it comes to this issue of music within the Church, I
want to rely on the Bible itself.
I'll leave it to individuals to
determine the right and proper role of music in their daily lives. Whether they
wish to listen to secular, 'Christian', both or none is up to them...but within
the meeting, within the gathering of the saints, our conduct, our approach to
God must be regulated by His Word alone.
For me the issue is
Redemptive-History and the question of Biblical Authority. Redemptive-History
does not call for New Testament saints to use musical instruments within our
meetings. We sing hymns, a form of corporate prayer and praise...but we're not
there to be entertained nor do we want instrumentation to help us create 'a
mood'.[vi]
I would argue the Bible itself
defines and regulates our worship and our Christian life. We need to rightly
understand the types and symbols of the Old Testament and their fulfillment in
Christ. And if we understand the Authority-claims of the New Testament then we
must reject attempts to improve or innovate what is given to us.
That's my approach to these
questions. What does this have to do with Restorationism? This about thinking
through the Bible and learning how to reject tradition. I'm looking at the
issues in terms of Redemptive History and the history of the Church. For the
denomination known as the Church of Christ, it's much more simple. It's not in
the New Testament...period, full stop.
They don't spend a lot of time
working out all the implications. They wish to simply follow the New Testament.
I would probably wish for a bit more depth and sophistication. Their position
is unable to rightly interact with and understand the relationship between the
Old and New, the overarching unity of the Bible itself. But....I still
appreciate their fidelity to the text and their willingness to follow through
on the issue.
They're much the same when it
comes to issues like Christmas. It's patently not in the New Testament and thus
they reject it.... in the Church. If you walk into a Church of Christ meeting
in mid-December, there's no evidence that it's the Christmas season.[vii]
We have certainly visited them during the holidays as a respite, a breath of
fresh air in order to escape the religious and social crush brought on by the
holidays.
Now if you talk to the
congregants they all celebrate Christmas, but they know that since it's not in
the New Testament it has no business being introduced within the Church
meeting. Some critics might rightly point out some of their inconsistencies,
but again....I appreciate the attempt at being faithful to the mandates (or
lack thereof) and structure of the New Testament.
This doctrinal trend extends
beyond just this one issue. It plays out in their views of the Lord's Supper.
The theology is undeveloped but they have Communion every week as clearly the
New Testament worshippers had it every time they met.[viii]
It plays out in how they
formulate their doctrines of Baptism....they don't shy away from the salvific
language used in the New Testament.
They reject Justification by
Faith Alone (Sola Fide) because the New Testament never formulates the doctrine
in that way and there are many other verses which speak of justification
applied through instruments other than Faith. Again, this doctrine is largely
undeveloped and we might wish for more synthesis and the harmonization of
texts...but that raises other issues doesn't it?
That said, the Churches of
Christ as much as they would like to be in accord with the New Testament are
not free from the same Enlightenment Rationalism that has penetrated every
aspect of our thinking. At times they too employ rationalistic arguments and
Enlightenment notions of 'fairness' and 'common sense' when it comes to issues
like Free Will and Predestination.[ix]
When it comes to the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount and issues regarding
violence and the state.... they've proven to be nothing more than mainstream
Americans.[x]
I appreciate their commitment
to Biblicism, Restorationism, and non-Denominationalism...but they're not
perfect. They are however a facet, a window into part of the equation I am
arguing for.
Go To Part 5
[i] Interestingly Eastern Orthodoxy also rejects the use
of musical instruments.
[ii] Swept away by the Romans in the year 70 when the
temple was completely destroyed. Sadly many are deceived into thinking we as
Christians would somehow wish to see the temple rebuilt and sacrifices made
once more. Some are motivated by a terrible misunderstanding of Biblical
Prophecy wherein they believe the temple's existence a necessary element to
their misguided prophetic chronology.
[iii] Transubstantiation is technically a bloodless
sacrifice.
[iv] A similar problem arises with the tithe, something
foreign to the New Testament
[v] Few realize that not only did Zwingli and Calvin
reject musical instruments, a whole host of voices from Thomas Aquinas to
Wesley...and the whole Eastern tradition can also be cited.
Instrumentation in
worship arose specifically in the West, largely during the Carolingian era.
Most Reformed Churches today have instruments and yet some of the smaller
denominations still reject them. In mainstream Presbyterianism you only have to
venture back a little over a century to find voices of protest at the
introduction of organs which at that point where the only instruments anyone
was considering. I'm with Dabney on that issue....organs do not evoke sacred
feelings, instead I feel like I'm at a carnival. It's rather distracting. But a
change in instrument does not resolve the larger issue.
Sure I've been in
European cathedrals where the organ is being played. Hearing a Bach fugue in
that context is very impressive but it has nothing to do with Christian worship.
Neither the keys, pipes nor the building are in any way holy nor in any way can
they 'assist' in our worship of God. If they do, then Sola Scriptura is a
fallacy and I'm going to convert to some form of High Church Christianity for
in the end that is what my flesh prefers. Personally I love 'high'
worship....smells, bells, kneelers, candles, processions etc... See my
'Temptation of the Tactile'.
[vi] Some churches will use a simple keyboard to merely
play the melody....to assist with keeping the tune. While I still disagree, I
can appreciate that position a little more than what most Churches are doing
today. Most Churches are engaged in entertainment or trying to create an
worship-like atmosphere. But is that New Testament worship?
Years ago my wife attended
an OPC which happened to have a professional pianist in the congregation. Her
playing was beautiful but while she whipped through scales between stanzas and
verses creating an impressive and rather grand ambiance I was often
distracted....not focusing on the hymn and the object of the hymn, but on the
pianist and what she was doing. I love piano and will often put on a YouTube
video of Horowitz playing Rachmaninov or Chopin. I like not only to hear but to
watch. There's nothing wrong with that but when I'm worshipping God and singing
a collective hymn my focus shouldn't be on the music.
Even the congregation we
recently attended was starting to fall into the trap. It's easy to do. They
used a simple keyboard placed in the rear of the auditorium. Again, I
appreciate the thought though I still disagree. But I noticed as time went on,
when we would sing the last stanza the pianist would cease to play the melody
and just hit the chords...changing the mood...kind of a feeling a drama, grand
finality as we ended the hymn.
Again, no big deal. It's
not something to get upset about or leave a Church over. But, it all points to
questions regarding the Sufficiency of Scripture with regard to our gatherings
and worship. Because if the ambiance being created by the chords was okay, then
why not the rolling scales by the professional pianist? And if that's okay,
then why not an orchestra? And if that's okay, under either the argument of Old
Testament continuity or even just a sanction of innovation....aren't candles okay
too? If an attempt to create ambiance is valid, if we can employ means to
create a mood, if this aids our worship...then why not go further? I sure
would.
I recall another time
having this discussion with a pastor of a Bible Church. He insisted the candles
they used were not part of the worship. They were just nice incense candles.
But then week after week I noticed how they were always lit just before the
opening music. I suppose in his mind that was better than having an acolyte
march forward and light them, but ceremony or not....they were being used to
create an ambiance, a mood....they were trying to augment the worship. And then
for him to rail against Catholic innovations...was just absurd. At that point
he's in principle agreement, the argument is over degree, style, taste and
preference.
[vii] Apparently this is changing as the Church of Christ
is starting to lose its identity in the face of cultural pressures. But the
congregations I've attended would be in accord with what I'm presenting here.
[viii] In fact I would argue it's pretty much inconceivable
that the New Testament Church met without having Communion. It was a central
part of their meeting. Centuries of theological missteps have led most
Protestants to a position of infrequent communion.
[ix] I think they also exhibit a Rationalistic strain in
their ecclesiology and how that plays out in terms of salvation. They reject
the dynamic, dialectical structure of New Testament ecclesiology when it comes
to the Already-Not Yet and typical of Baptistic theology they wish to create an
Eschatological Church in the pre-consummate era. Some of this comes from the
fact that the movement arose during the revivalist (experiential v. means) era
of the 2nd Great Awakening which also generated many other
sects....most less worthy than the Stone-Campbell movement.
[x] There's some interesting lectures available online
about the relationship between the Stone-Campbell movement and the Mennonite
theology of John Yoder.