Preface To The Second Printing
1. Must God Plead With God?
   
2. How The Spirit Leads
   
3. Physical Reinforcements of Faith
   
4. Jesus' Physical and Spiritual Death
   
5. Is There Merit in Pain?
   
6. The Six Days of Creation
   
7. Adding Guilt to Anxiety
   
8. Wine and The Disciple
   
9. Revolution or Evolution
   
10. I Am That Disciple
    
11. When People Disagree
    
12. Is Unity Based Upon Seven Doctrines?
    
13. Our Seven Sacraments
    
14. Instrumental Music
    
15. The Mood of Worship
    
16. Justified Then Sanctified
    
17. Is Christian Our Name?
    
18. The Lord's Table
    
19. Righteousness That Exceeds
    
20. Neither Destroyed Nor Nailed To The Cross
    
21. The Right of Self-Protection
    
22. A Tree of Error
    
23. God is Limited
    
24. You Are Here
    
25. God is In Charge
    
26. Hook's Points
    
27. Lamentations of A Mediocre Preacher
    

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

The introduction of instrumental music in worship was one of the issues which caused us to distinguish ourselves in a separate body; hence, a cappella singing has been one of our identifying marks. To deal favorably with this subject in the Church of Christ is to stir emotions and to labor against strong conditioning.

As I was growing up, any "gospel meeting" included a lesson against the use of instrumental accompaniment in singing. Countless other lessons in the regular teaching program had points against such music thrown in. This was in reaction to the bitter disputes which had resulted in division, all of which was still fresh in the minds of that generation.

Now, much of the old animosity has subsided. The great­grandchildren of the division cannot understand how such a matter could have been allowed to divide. So, this generation hears little teaching on the subject because there is lack of conviction against its use.

Condemnation of the use of instruments in worship has been one of the emphatic points of my "gospel" also. Relaxation of my former conviction about it has not come out of my desire, for I have had strong prejudice against its use, and I still am restrained by years of emotional conditioning. My change has come through my conviction that I must be intellectually honest in my approach to the scriptures. In this effort, I shall set forth some points that I formerly overlooked or evaded in my dealing with the subject.

For best effect, this essay should follow Chapters 14, 15, and 16 of my book, Free In Christ. Please read those chapters before you read this in order to better understand the content of this chapter.

Chapter 14 calls attention to the fact that the whole life of one committed to Christ is an offering / service / worship. Such a person is an indwelt temple whose whole function is a worship offering through acts of devotion addressed to God, through acts of service to his fellowman, and through all the more mundane activities of daily living which are necessary to the upkeep of the temple. These are all parts of the whole-life daily offering. One does not go to worship, but the whole life is worship.

In Chapter 15 we sought to emphasize that we do not serve a God who binds arbitrary whims, demanding exactness of his children, in order to satisfy a divine ego problem. We have turned our assemblies into vertical services in an effort to obey detailed commands rather than to accomplish the intended purpose of edifying disciples.

Then, in Chapter 16, we observed that persons gave homage to Jesus in ways that he had not authorized, specified, commanded, or even suggested. He did not reject this devotional worship but, rather, he openly accepted it and called attention to their loving, spontaneous acts.

After writing those chapters and subjecting them to the scrutiny of a private study group, I went through my old lessons, tracts, and other literature on the subject and made a list of the texts and arguments generally used against the use of instrumental music. Our study group found little relevance of those texts and arguments to the subject. For the remainder of this essay, I shall deal briefly with the chief texts and main points.

2 Peter 1:3: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness..." We have interpreted this to say that the scriptures have guided us into all matters of worship and, since they do not guide us to use instrumental music, it is sinful. Does Peter really say, or imply, that? The things that pertain to life and godliness are far more than "worship services." These include all the blessings received "through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence"-his "precious and very great promises."

2 John 9: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." The traditional argument is that, since Jesus did not authorize instrumental music in worship specifically, it is not the doctrine/teaching of Christ; hence, the person who uses it has not God.

Such an explanation ignores the contextual meaning of that passage inexcusably. Much of John's writing warns against the prevalent Gnostic teaching/doctrine that Jesus did not come in the flesh. In verse 7, John identifies the offenders as "men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." This doctrine/teaching of/concerning Christ is basic to the gospel. To deny that he became flesh is to undermine the basis of the gospel without which no one could have Christ or God. It is inexcusable to apply this text to the use of music.

Revelation 22:18-19: This passage warns against adding to the prophecies given to John and recorded in Revelation. It takes some artistic twisting to make that apply to instrumental music.

Galatians 1:6-9: I have quoted this (and the above passages) hundreds of times in an effort to condemn the use of mechanical music in worship. But in so doing, I was not only misusing the passage, but I was also jeopardizing myself by making a legal system out of the gospel, which very thing this text warns against! Even if instrumental music were wrong, its acceptance would not be a perversion of the gospel, or the preaching of another gospel. But efforts of justification by keeping details of law is such a violation.

1 Corinthians 4:6: Here Paul writes, "I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us to live according to scripture, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

Here Paul is dealing with the party spirit which was dividing the church in Corinth. Paul put his and Apollos' names in place of the guilty, divisive leaders and applied the lesson in a figure as though they were the guilty ones. He did this to teach them not to violate the scriptural admonitions to be united in purpose and judgment. It is far­fetched to make this apply to practices of worship.

Matthew 15:9: Jesus was confronted about his violation of traditions. He responded by asking them why they kept tradition which evaded law in preference to keeping the law. He applied Isaiah 29:13 to them, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Continuing his comment, he explained that the heart is defiled by impure motives rather than by violation of traditions. It is difficult to see how this can apply to singing aided by instrumental accompaniment.

Colossians 3:17: To limit the concept of worship, this passage has been used countless times: "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus." I once applied that to our exercises in the assembly, and there alone, as a demand for specific authority for each activity. However, the context is about the kind of life we should lead, with special directives to wives, husbands, children, and slaves. Then, in verse 23, he sums up, "Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men." He calls for whole­life honoring of our Lord as we wear his name. This is the context for instructions to teach and admonish one another in song. Compare Ephesians 5:15-20. Assemblies are not under consideration here.

Romans 14:23; 10:17: We have also coupled "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" with "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" in a misapplication of scripture to limit the concept of worship. In the first passage, Paul is speaking of a person violating his conscience by going against his conviction. In the second, Paul is arguing for the acceptance of the Gentiles and the universality of the offer of salvation proved by the fact that Christ sent his message and messengers to the Gentiles. Worship is not under consideration in those texts. We must not (mis)apply this to Abel's offering.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: To see the context to this much quoted prooftext, let us begin with verse 14: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Let us examine this passage a bit. It was directed to a "man of God," an evangelist who spoke for God, not to all generally. The scriptures were to make him complete, equipped efficiently for every good work, not for worship as we traditionally apply it. These scriptures were the Old Testament writings which he had been taught from childhood, not the New Testament writings, which were non­existent in his childhood and still very incomplete and uncollected. To say that this passage anticipates the completion of the New Testament scriptures puts them out of reach of Timothy. How, then can this be a proof­text against the use of instruments in praise of God?

Our great stress has been on the need for authority for all that we do in worship. We have emphasized the ritualistic worship aspect. But where is our authority for segmenting worship from our daily and constant offering of self in whole­life worship? Where do the scriptures say that our assemblies for edification are to be changed into "worship services"? Where do we read such expressions as "go to worship" (regarding Christian assemblies), "begin our worship service," "after the worship is over," and "missing worship"? Where do we read of the "five acts of worship" or a list of things specified for our assemblies? Where do we find a limitation of the means whereby we may praise God and edify one another, either in or out of assemblies? Has our privilege of praise been granted in only a few activities? Do we worship only in rituals? Are assemblies for the purpose of performance of rituals?

In various ages we see persons offering unspecified acts of worship that were accepted. All people of all ages have been granted the privilege of praise. God has expected, and accepted, sincere worship even from those who had no direct or written revelation. He has looked upon the heart of the worshipper more than the technique of his praise. Men have been permitted to worship in methods that expressed the feeling of the worshipper's heart so long as it accomplished the purpose of praise while avoiding sacramental and idolatrous concepts and the veneration of objects. Let us look at some Biblical precedents that give basis to this premise. We usually overlook or misapply these.

There is no indication that God gave instruction to Cain and Abel about their worship. I, like many others, have long misapplied a combination of Hebrews 11:4 and Romans 10:17 in an effort to prove that Abel's faith was by hearing instructions from God. But what the Hebrews passage reveals is that Abel, who was already righteous and a man of faith, offered a more acceptable sacrifice: "By faith, Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts..." God bore witness to his faith and righteousness by accepting his offering.

Cain, it is implied by antithesis, was neither faithful nor righteous; hence, his rejection was due to the condition of his heart rather than what he offered. God bore witness of this by rejecting his offering. John urges that we be not "like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous" `1 John 3:12). By his subsequent actions, Cain demonstrated what God had witnessed as true, that his heart was evil. There is no record of God ever rejecting humble and sincere efforts of devotion and praise of anyone.

When it is stated that, in the time of Enosh, "men began to call upon the name of the Lord" (Gen. 4:26), and when Abram "built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord" (Gen. 12:8), there is no indication that they did this in response to a command or specification of God.

Jacob took the stone he had used for a pillow, made an altar of it, and poured an offering of oil on it in spontaneous worship without "authority" from God (Gen. 28:18).

Without instruction from the Law of Moses, the Jews had added wine to the Passover (Luke 22:1418; Matt. 26:26­28), dancing before the Lord (2 Sam. 6:12f; Psalms 149:3), and the entire synagogue service. They were not condemned for those unauthorized activities of worship. They were privileged to serve/worship in those ways.

Nadab and Abihu were killed for offering strange fire, but they had been given complete instructions which they defied. In the other examples above, except for Cain, there was sincere effort to honor God rather than to defy him (Lev.10: lf; 16: 12). Wholesale abandonment of God's specified law, rather than an innocent infraction concerning the Ark of the Covenant, brought Uzzah's death (2 Sam. 6:3).

Israel, in the time of Samuel, "gathered together at Mizpah, and drew water, and poured it out before the Lord" (1 Sam. 7:6) as an act of homage. Even though the action was unspecified, it brought no disapproval from God.

In Chapter 1 of Romans, Paul declared that the Gentiles were without excuse because, having known God as revealed in nature, they "did not honor him as God or give thanks to him. . ." (v. 21), "and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). How could they have properly honored God, given thanks of praise to him, and worshipped and served the Creator since they had no revealed law? God has given all men, even the uninstructed, the privilege of praise and worship!

Paul commended the Athenians, declaring, "For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23). Although their understanding of God's nature was very limited and they knew not any code of laws from him, they had the privilege of worship. Paul did not condemn their devotion to the "unknown god" but enlarged on their understanding about his identity.

In the New Covenant writings we see numerous "unauthorized" actions of worship which were undemanded, unrehearsed, spontaneous, and extravagant; yet they met with approval. Although these were not done in Christian assemblies, they were expressions of approved worship and they illustrate the principle of acceptable worship.

The Wise Men offered birthday gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to Jesus without instructions to do so (Matt. 2:1-11). It was their privilege to praise through that means.

Mary was neither rebuked for anointing Jesus without authorization nor considered presumptuous in using nerd without instruction to do so (John 12:1f).

The sinful woman was not commanded to wash Jesus' feet with tears nor to use her hair as a towel (Luke 7:36-50). She was exercising her privilege of spontaneous worship.

According to the rules we have made, Paul sinned in cutting his hair in a ritual relating to a vow (Acts 21:23-26) and when he purified himself ritually and arranged for an offering in accordance to the Law of Moses. We would also have to censor the Judean disciples who "are all zealous for the law" (Acts 21:23-26).

With the sacrifice of Jesus, God did not suddenly come to hate the worship rituals of the law. Disciples could still keep those rituals of worship so long as they did not seek justification by that means. Neither should we assume that, when Jesus died, God began to hate praise which was accompanied by instruments, which thing he had accepted for centuries.

We have contended that the silence of the New Covenant writers on the subject of instrumental accompaniment IB evidence that God does not want us to use it. However, since singing was commonly accompanied in all societies, and since the Jews had used it under the law, the failure to mention it would only seem to indicate that it was of no matter with God.

In view of these examples, can we not say definitely that God has given the privilege of praise to all men at all times? Can we not agree that men offered acceptable worship without specific command or instruction in various instances? Have we not been authorized to glorify him in all things that we do and granted the privilege of using methods which utilize our talents in expressing it-through spiritually oriented art, drama, songs, literature, jewelry, plaques, bumper stickers, signs, and architecture?

Traditionally, we have argued strongly that, when a thing is specifically authorized, it excludes everything not specified. We have called that "the law of exclusion." As with most man-made rules, we have applied that one very selectively. If we let someone else select the activities to be measured by our rule, we are devastated. Let me list some illustrations which should convince us that we don't take our "law of exclusion" seriously.

1. Since the holy kiss is specifically "commanded" five times, that would eliminate the handshake as a greeting.

2. James tells the sick person to call the elders to his bedside. That would make it sinful to call the preacher or the doctor. They were told to use oil, not Ben Gay or penicillin, which would have been excluded by silence.

3. It is specified that elders were ordained with fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. That would eliminate any other method, but I have never seen the exemplified method used!

4. In the assemblies of disciples, "let all things be done for edification" (1 Cor. 14:25). That chapter is emphatic on this point. Are we right in making it a "worship service" instead?

5. Applying the rule to our actions, when we baptize someone with the baptizer stating the purpose "for the remission of sins," does that not exclude by silence all unspecified purposes-to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, to be born again, to be in the one body, etc.? (Actually, a man cannot baptize another for the remission of sins. He is told to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not for the remission of sins. The person being baptized is submitting to it for the remission of sins, but the purpose is in the one being baptized, not the baptizer. The baptizer might have that in mind, or say it, but it is ineffective unless it is the purpose of the one being baptized.)

6. In the communion, since the cup is specified, does that make the non-specified glass improper for use?

7. Women are excluded by the law of silence from participation in the Lord's Supper!

8. An evangelist was directed to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). In the only example of appointment, elders were appointed by evangelists (Acts 14:19-23). No church is instructed to appoint elders. Does that make appointment by persons other than evangelists unauthorized and illegal?

9. Paul specifies that the evangelist, Timothy, was to try offending elders and to rebuke those who would persist in sin (1 Tim. 5:17-20). Such a specification would exclude anyone besides an evangelist for that task.

These illustrations clearly reveal that we do not believe or follow our own formulated rule that, when a thing is authorized, it excludes every thing not specified. We use the law of exclusion only when it serves our prejudicial purpose.

Our old slogan insists that "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent." From this approach we have developed another law-"the law of silence." By this law we forbid anything that the scriptures do not authorize by command or example. This law overlaps the law of exclusion. Both laws are devices to enforce legal concepts. They are efforts to enforce ritualistic details more than to fulfill God's purposes.

Our first standard example relates to the Lord's Supper. Since bread and fruit of the vine are specified, milk and cookies are eliminated by the laws of silence and exclusion. If we disregard these two laws, we are warned, we could add/substitute milk and cookies to the Lord's Supper.

Most churches do not follow our laws of exclusion and silence, yet I have never heard of one adding milk and cookies to the Lord's Supper. Have you? That dulls the edge of our argument a bit. Why do none add other elements in the communion since they operate free of our two "laws"? It is because they seek to accomplish the purpose of the Lord's Supper, and they can see that milk, cookies, etc. have no representational value to remind one of the basis of our atonement and the oneness of the body.

There are those, however, in countries where rice is the staple food and bread is unknown, who have used rice instead of bread. Rice, in such a culture, would mean the same thing to them that bread means to us; hence, its representational value would fulfill the purpose of the Lord's Supper. The purpose of the Supper to remind us is to be accomplished rather than the performing of a ritual "well­pleasing in Thy sight." To demand the importing of matzos for the Supper would be to place sacramental value on the bread.

Nothing that would be venerated, or promote idolatrous or sacramental concepts, should be associated with the Lord's Supper or any other activity, either in or out of our assemblies.

We have tried to reinforce "the law of silence" by use of the illustration of Noah building the ark. We have said that God's instruction to use gopher wood would have made it sinful to use any other kind of wood. Here our legalistic inclination becomes evident again.

Some scholars are suggesting that the mysterious gopher wood was a generic designation. That would really spoil our argument!

When God instructed Noah to make the ark of gopher wood, did he specify gopher wood (1) in order to test Noah's faith, (2) to test his willingness and ability to follow instructions, (3) because God hates all other kinds of wood, or (4) because it was the most practical material for the purpose?

Because of our legalistic orientation, we have usually gone with the first three options, thus making gopher wood an arbitrary choice of God intended to test Noah against any deviation. The "law of silence" would forbid so much as a peg for his raincoat made from the cedar in the yard of his old home place. It would reflect that God was more interested in testing Noah than in his building a seaworthy ship to save his family. But Noah had already met God's approval. If God instructed the use of gopher wood (maybe cypress) because it does not decay or weaken in water, then the use of more plentiful fir to make an interior stall for the goats would not have been out of order.

Did God specify dimensions for the ark for practical reasons or to test Noah's willingness to follow instructions? If Noah's foreman and work crew had miscalculated the expansion by swelling and found the finished ark to be 301 cubits long, would it have sunk because of that? A legalist would have feared to get on it! But for practical reasons, the extra cubit would have been of no consequence.

Let us imagine them approaching the ark building project with the same legalistic concept that we have had. Their arguments would have sounded like ours. Can't you imagine the whole project being delayed dangerously by their arguments? The two beams serving as brackets for the loading ramp extended over the side by half a cubit. Was that to be reckoned as a part of the 50­cubit width or not? There was open disagreement as to whether an anchor, which God was silent about, could be allowed. And Noah's wife disrupted things by making a banner to fly over the ark which read: "Glory to God, Our Salvation!" Such a fly or inscription of praise was not specified.

Some members of the family wanted to use a few pieces of oak furniture from their homes in their cabins. This caused heated debate. Were they eliminated by silence? Were they parts of the ark or of the cargo?

Mrs. Shem created a storm of controversy. She wanted to hang a wind chime on the deck so that the same breezes that brought the rain would create beautiful musical tones as an expression of her praise to God. Ultimately, she was ruled out on this because such unauthorized praise would be too dangerous and might sink the ship. She was so hurt that she refused to get on board until the last moment.

By the time the ark was completed, because of so many disputes, some of Noah's family members were not speaking to the others.

You can see the point of my imaginative illustration without further preachment. If Noah and his family had been as legalistic as we have been, there would have been so many divisive disputes over incidentals, like we have had in the church, that the ark probably would never have been completed.

The question is: Did God give a list of arbitrary, legal specifications, or was he giving practical guidance to a man who had never built a boat before? I go with the practical. I do not serve a God who imposes arbitrary whims to test us.

Noah did not build an ark to attain or prove his righteousness by his ability to pass on a meritorious test. He was righteous when God called him. He built the ark because he was already righteous. The ark project was an effort to save Noah and his family, not to prove them unworthy because of their lack of merit in overcoming arbitrary tests.

By the way, Noah was not 120 years in constructing the ark. He was 500 years old before he had his three sons (Gen. 5:32), and he was 600 years old when the flood came (7:6). When Noah received his instructions about the ark, his sons already had wives (6:18), and Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood (11 :10). So Shem was only 97 years old when the flood came and he was already married when the original instructions were given.

Now, back to our subject. Were activities of the assemblies of saints devised (1) to test our faith, (2) to test our willingness and ability to follow instructions, (3) because God hates other kinds of activities in our gatherings, or (4) because those activities are practical for strengthening us?

I go with the latter choice. God loves us and wants us to be strong in faith and endurance. Whatever builds man up accomplishes God's purpose. He is not trying to weed us out by arbitrary tests like an elite university making it hard on freshmen so as to weed them out. That would enable us to be saved only by our merit. We do not have merit -only praise for his grace. We do not serve to achieve righteousness but as a response to his grace by which we are accounted as righteous.

In no thought or action may we ever defy God without his disfavor. When instructions are given, they are not to be defied. However, generalized instructions give us freedom to exercise our best judgment to fulfill the purpose of the instructions. In areas where God has neither specified nor prohibited, he has given all men in all ages the privilege of spontaneous praise and sincere worship. Both in and out of our assemblies, he has given us freedom to involve ourselves in any activity that will build up one another in faith and endurance. This is whole-life worship / service / offering. All activities of life become holy, dedicated to God, in our commitment to live according to his will and to accomplish his purposes.

This essay is not an attempt to convince you that you must sing with instrumental accompaniment. If you are convinced that that would be sinful, then you should not do it. You must not violate your conscience. Another brother, however, cannot violate your conscience, and you sin when you seek to bind your scruples on him and become divisive because of it. You are not compelled to sing with him as he uses an instrument, but you are compelled to respect him as your brother. It is not necessary for you to meet in the same assemblies with him, but it is necessary that you not be sectarian or divisive in attitude toward him. He is serving the same Father with the same sincerity that you feel, and neither can rightly afford to reject the other or conveniently blame the other for causing you to reject him.

Each person has his likes and dislikes, but we cannot bind these on others. I dislike hearing the "pounding on the piano" or "grinding away at the organ," thus, "drowning out the singing" (prejudicial, disparaging expressions) which give little time for meditative silence. Other than for giving everyone the pitch, I do not see that instrumental music generally improves congregational singing. I agree that it would be helpful for solos, quartets, etc. But these are my opinions which you are not obligated to share. We must share a common Father and a respect for all his children.

I'm blessed to be your brother!

<