Thread: Instruments in Worship?

Far be it from me to try to start another controversy after the EP discussions, but what are your views on this?

Just state your view and maybe give a explaination why you feel that way. Links to articles you feel are good would be very much appreciated as well!

Brian Schwertley on Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God

R.L. Dabney's Review of Girardeau's "Instrumental Music in Public Worship"

Some views on instrumental music in worship from men in the past

It makes no sense to sing about praising God with instrumentation and all the while refuse to use the very things you are singing about. "Psalm" after all means "pluck" as in a stringed instrument.

I am still looking for the verse(s) that tells us not to use instruments when we praise God. In fact, many verses that refer directly to praising God involve the use of instruments to accompany the singing and even have interludes of the instruments playing with no singing (the Hebrew term "Selah" in the Psalms denotes such a time, where the singing stops for a time but the instruments continue to play).

Phillip

Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!

The Congregational church I grew up in used to have these elaborate choruses of chimes and bells during the Christmas ministry. neat-o...

A cappella

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!

And the goats and bulls, and we can party like the Levites!

instruments

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!

And the goats and bulls, and we can party like the Levites!

Unless of course it is a pitch pipe - that doesn't count.

Wow. The vote is closer than I thought it'd be. Some of ya'll are burnin' the old organs, are ya?

Question: is voice an instrument? Perhaps we should sing in our heads. Oh wait, is the mind an instrument? Yikes.

I agree with Phillip. I've read literature from the opposing view (from Dabney to modern writers) but I just dont see it in scripture.

Mike

No instruments (Except the pitch pipe )

Matt

Acappella psalmody as opposed to acappella hymnody (which was held by Dabney, Girardeau, Peck, Thornwell and other Southern Presbyterians).
Girardeau's treatment is online in html and PDF at my church's website.
HTML
PDF http://www.fpcr.org/FreeEbooks.htm
Also something short on Psalm 150 is at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/psalm150.htm
Something akin to what we do here on the PB is at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/org1.htm]
which is a mid 19th century "chat" pro and con against the introduction of the organ into Presbyterian churches at the time.

God loves it when we play the pipe organ to him with grace, melody and understanding in our hearts.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Peter]


[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Peter]

Organs
Crucifixes

If you are going to be consisten you will have to throw out the pitch pipe. I was raised in an acapella setting. The pitch pipe is a musical instrument - period. It is no more than a round harmonica. To be consitent you will haver to learn to use a tuning fork either a 'C' or 'A 440'.

I disagree with the argument that acapella worship is commanded for the Christian. (Somehow I knew this was to be the next debate following EP.)

Originally posted by LawrenceU
I disagree with the argument that acapella worship is commanded for the Christian. (Somehow I knew this was to be the next debate following EP.)

I really wasn't expecting the "no instruments" argument. I assumed we had moved on to "Pews or Chairs: Which violates the RPW?"

Regarding the use of hymns and/or instruments during worship, does it in some way break/violate one of the 10 commandments, or does it 'just' violate the RPW? Can worship violate the RPW without breaking one of the 10 commandments?

Calvin's Commentary on Psalm 98:

"When he speaks of musical instruments the allusion is evidently to the practice of the Church at that time, without any intention of binding down the Gentiles to the observance of the ceremonies of the law."

Cavlin on Psalm 148:

"The musical instruments he mentions were peculiar to this infancy of the Church, nor should we foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God´s ancient people."

Calvin on Psalm 150:

Praise him with sound of trumpet. I do not insist upon the words in the
Hebrew signifying the musical instruments; only let the reader remember that sundry different kinds are here mentioned, which were in use under the legal economy, the more forcibly to teach the children of God that they cannot apply themselves too diligently to the praises of God "” as if he would enjoin them strenuously to bring to this service all their powers, and devote themselves wholly to it. Nor was it without reason that God under the law enjoined this multiplicity of songs, that he might lead men away from those vain and corrupt pleasures to which they are excessively addicted, to a holy and profitable joy. Our corrupt nature indulges in extraordinary liberties, many devising methods of gratification which are preposterous, while their highest satisfaction lies in suppressing all thoughts of God. This perverse disposition could only be corrected in the way of God´s retaining a weak and ignorant people under many restraints, and constant exercises. The Psalmist, therefore, in exhorting believers to pour forth all their joy in the praises of God, enumerates, one upon another, all the musical instruments which were then in use, and reminds them that they ought all to be consecrated to the worship of God.

Calvin on Psalm 32:

I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law:I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the Law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews.

Calvin on Psalm 71:

We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spiri, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue.


Calvin on Daniel Chapter 3:

Hence the immense heap of ceremonies in the Papacy, since our eyes delight in such splendors; hence we think this to be required of us by God, as if he delighted in what pleases us. This is, indeed, a gross error.

Calvin on Psalm 92:

In the fourth verse, he more immediately addresses the Levites, who were appointed to the office of singers, and calls upon them to employ their instruments of music "” not as if this were in itself necessary, only it was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in these ancient times.

Calvin on Habakkuk 3:

"...but also with instruments of music, as we know it to have been the usual custom under the Law."



The crux of this is to determine whether the instruments are part of OT ceremonial worship or not. Don't waste your time arguing about anything else. If they are, then they are out. If they are not, then thay are in. But this is the question to discuss.

I really wasn't expecting the "no instruments" argument. I assumed we had moved on to "Pews or Chairs: Which violates the RPW?"

That got my funny bone. The said thing is I've actually heard that argued.

Bob, I can see no reason why it would violate either the 10 commandments or the RPW.

posted by Matt
The crux of this is to determine whether the instruments are part of OT ceremonial worship or not. Don't waste your time arguing about anything else. If they are, then they are out. If they are not, then thay are in. But this is the question to discuss.

If we throw out everything that was part of ceremonial worship then what have we left to offer to God?

Was not singing part of ceremonial worship? Praying? Reading the Word of God? Having it explained (expounded)? Confession of sins? Etc.

If we argue that any element used in ceremonial worship is out then frankly, worship is out.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-6-05 by pastorway]

It does my heart good to see that my position is winning.
Because as I learned from Clinton, polls mean everything!

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
It does my heart good to see that my position is winning.
Because as I learned from Clinton, polls mean everything!

Ben, PastorWay, and I agree. That warms my heart, too. I always get nervous when I disagree too much with the status quo on the board. People might think that I am really argumentive and such in real life, when it is far from being the case. Just ask Patrick, Josh, Fred, I am really not that bad a guy in person!

Seriously, ditto to PastorWay.

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Bob, I can see no reason why it would violate either the 10 commandments or the RPW.

...I'm guessing that to an EPer it might be considered breaking the 2nd commandment?

I would hope that everyone holds to the position that scripture and conscience dictate and not the majority. We are all in the quest of becoming more like Christ and less of ourselves. These discussions do us good; they do warm the heart, and hopefully draw us into a deeper relationship with our King.

PS; I voted 'middle' choice as I am split on the position.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]

The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.

I find that it is a huge strain (traditional formulations notwithstanding) to make such a case. That would make instruments the only element of worship that accompanies another element (i.e. singing). Every other element (prayer, preaching, reading, etc) stands by itself.

In addition to links given above, I failed to mention J. B. Adger's article
A Denial Of Divine Right For Organs In Public Worship, which is available in
PDF http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/Bluebanner12-3.pdf
Adger was also a Southern Presbyterian.

Just in case someone need to know, the 'C' fork is much easier to find pitch. Just solfetch from the fork to the key you need. I learned to lead singing this way. Many hymns contain first and second note intervals that will take you to the proper pitch.

eg. To find 'F' you in your head sing, 'Stand up' as in 'Stand up, stand up for Jesus. . .' The first 'up' will be and 'F'.

Oops, I gues you couldn't use them though . . .

That was meant to be a joke by the way, although that is how I learned it. It is much easier than using the scale.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.

I find that it is a huge strain (traditional formulations notwithstanding) to make such a case. That would make instruments the only element of worship that accompanies another element (i.e. singing). Every other element (prayer, preaching, reading, etc) stands by itself.

I don't dare disagree with Fred, but I think I need to say this. This sentiment, I believe, is quite right if what Matt insists on for the argument is true. But I think the thing that needs to be proved is a whole lot more than that. I would think that anyone who plays an instrument would wonder why he is wasting his time on something that has a special aura all its own, if God is not at all pleased with this part of His creation being used in praise of Him.

We all know that words are not enough, we need lyrical rhyme; that expression is not enough, we need crafting of words, sometimes words that are not real words in any other context; we all know that normal voice is not enough, we need tonal harmonies, cadences, triads, arpeggios, and single clear notes. There is so much to God's creation that we have only just tapped, and every musician explores it afresh.

If this is not praiseworthy, then I may just as well waste my time in bars trying to make money at it, because no matter where I play, even 'round the campfire with a bunch of my Christian friends, it does not please God. And if it doesn't please Him, how can I be pleased to do it myself?

The instruments I play are extensions of myself. They don't play on their own ( well, the only almost exception was that L'Arrivee that I tried once ) Its not the instrument but my hands and heart doing something very natural to me. It took a long time, but yet it was in me all the time.

If instruments are excluded from the worship of God, then it cuts deep. I feel the same about hymns freely offered in praise of God.

So the bottom line for me is the question of whether or not it is praiseworthy to play an instrument. Because if it is, then it is also in praise to God. It is a logical impossibility that playing an instrument, even poorly, is praiseworthy to some degree but not be in praise of God.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by JohnV]

The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.

Better worded: The instrumental position must show not only that instruments were not just part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of Christian worship equally binding on the Gentiels and Church for all ages...a positive Biblical case is so required.

Originally posted by webmaster

The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.

Better worded: The instrumental position must show not only that instruments were not just part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of Christian worship equally binding on the Gentiels and Church for all ages...a positive Biblical case is so required.

Actually, no. Brush up on your RPW Matt.

Unless you want to start finding a "positive Biblical case" that is "equally binding on Gentiles and the Church" for amplification (for preaching), light (for reading the word) and the use of plates/cups (for the sacraments), then there is no reason to find a "positive Biblical case" for instruments. It's called a "circumstance."

The task here is clearly for the EP crowd to show texts that prove that: (1) instruments are an element of worship, and (2) that two elements can co-exist in such an overlapped fashion (instruments and song). I know of no other example of two elements co-existing in such a fashion (especially since the EPers deny that we can sing any non-Psalter Scripture, so that strikes out reading and song).

As the EPers have insistently stated: there must be a command from the Bible for something to be an element of worship. The non-instrumental position is that instruments are an element (like drama) NOT a circumstance. So I will await the Scriptures that (a) state that instruments are commanded - OUTSIDE of the context of song, and (b) then state that such an element is no longer commanded - because even EPers state that such an element WAS commanded previously (which makes it different from the "only psalms were ever commanded argument).

Go ahead Matt. I won't hold my breath.

Psalm 43: 3,4:
"Oh send out Thy light and Thy truth; let them lead me, let them lead me to Thy holy hill and to Thy dwelling! Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; and I will praise Thee with the lyre, O God, my God."

These verses have in them reference to the Trinity, to the temple, to worship, to sacredness of place and worship, to an instrument used in worship, etc. But overriding these is the sense of communion between God and man, a holy communion involving praise and worship.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Peter

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!

And the goats and bulls, and we can party like the Levites!

Unless of course it is a pitch pipe - that doesn't count.

... that's so Churches of Christ, Fred

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by BrianBowman]

That observation by Lawrence that a pitchipe is nothing but a round moutorgan has got me in stitches.:bigsmile:

Actually, as one who grew up in the Churches of Christ, the argument that Matt is positing and Fred is showing the fallacy is the exact argument that they (and I) used.

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
It does my heart good to see that my position is winning.
Because as I learned from Clinton, polls mean everything!

Ben, PastorWay, and I agree. That warms my heart, too. I always get nervous when I disagree too much with the status quo on the board. People might think that I am really argumentive and such in real life, when it is far from being the case. Just ask Patrick, Josh, Fred, I am really not that bad a guy in person!

Seriously, ditto to PastorWay.

Finally, something I can be in the majority with, unlike baptism.

Fred,

Maybe I'm just not following you. An element is something that we cannot do without. A circumstance is something like the time we meet for worship, which is not "set in stone."

You said:

"The non-instrumental position is that instruments are an element (like drama) NOT a circumstance."

This is reversed in my thinking as a result of the ceremonial law. If instruments are non-ceremonial and an element, then they would be required. If they are part of the ceremonial law (which as I said is the question at hand) then then are an element only for the Jews, and abrogated at the fulfillment of Christ.

So as I noted, what has to happen is that non-instrumentalists have to show why instruments are not part of ceremonial worship. We all agree that the ceremonial law was abrogated in Christ (fulfilled).

EP and non-instrumentalism are really based on how one views OT worship in general, and how they view the ceremonial law.

People quote the psalms "Praise the Lord with with the harp," etc. It sounds to me like they are, as Dabney said, "reasoning shallowly." This is the same plea (exactly) which would draw us all back to human priests and bloody sacrifices. The Psalms also tell us to "bind your sacrifices with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." They want to use instruments, but do not seem to feel obligated to do this. Why? "Oh," they say, "such things were abrogated with the coming of Christ." I concur. So were the horns, altars, cymbals, harps and lyres when the temple was removed. We should not be borrowing, in this way with instruments, from the temple cultus of the Jews. If we do, then we are as obliged as Rome is to continue with all sorts of popish nonsense. Open the door, and it all comes sweeping in. Choirs are in too then (and how many times do we have to explain to ministers of the Gospel the RPW on choirs?) If instruments are in, the all of the OT temple cultus for worship is in.

Dabney press the point, in the congregation, each person is to offer their own personal homage and worship to God. Anything detracting from that during worship is a division. In this was, worship is to be didactic (which is the point of it all). Paul settled this quite conclusively in 1 Corinthians that worship is to be done in a known tongue, otherwise it does not edify. Those speaking in an unknown tongue are to be silent, even though that person could claim being moved by the Spirit. Such a tongue, though, is not a vehicle for didactic teaching of truth. And what does he use as an example? 1 Cor. 14 - the clanging cymbal of temple worship.

Instead, it should be the faculty of the human voice used. Though it is musically inclined, it can propagate the divine truth of the character and work of God in the singing of psalms, in singing His praise. For the Christian, says Dabney, the non-appointment of musical instruments (mechanical accompaniment) is the prohibition.

It is not the burden of proof of the non-inst, or EP to deal with this. It is those who, in attempting to change the RPW, to allow such things, to prove it is so.

The only place even remotely speaking of instruments after the abrogation of the ceremonial law is in Revelation where the saints hold in one hand a harp, and in the other a bowl of incense. Obviously, they are not playing the harp since they are holding bowls. It is completely symbol on both accounts.

Instrumentalists must prove why the ceremonial law, in certain respects and not others, continues. Now that is feat which I am sure I will not hold my breath on. :P



[Edited on 8-6-2005 by webmaster]

Matt,

It really is this simple:

It matters not (in the first instance) if instruments are are part of ceremonial worship. The initial question is to determine whether instrumental worship is an element or a circumstance. If an element, THEN we go to the next step, and see whether they have been done away with by the passing of OT ceremonial worship.

What you have done is skip the initial, fundamental line of inquiry (as do all EPers). That (IMO) is the only way to forbid instrumental accompaniment. It is a kind of Animal Farm, "Ceremonial bad, non-Ceremonial good!" mantra, folled by the assertion that because something was a part of ceremonial worship, it must have been done away with in the temple. Well, guess what? So was reading Scripture. So was prayer. But we don't do away with them?

Anyways, that is ALL BESIDES the point. For something to be forbidden, it must be an element. Only elements are forbidden by the RPW. Commanded elements MUST be done (your point taken there) - there is no option here. Prayer MUST be included. Preaching MUST be included. Non-commanded (as opposed to the Lutheran/Anglican view - forbidden) elements are impermissible. But we do not need a command for a circumstance. It is beside the RPW. We never even have that line of inquiry. It is a matter of liberty. We cannot forbid lights, because it might "distract some from attending on the preached word." We cannot forbid amplification, because it has some other negative effect. We can say that the use of lights or amplification in a certain situation or circumstance is unwise, according to Christian prudence, but we cannot say that lights or amplification are per se impermissible for all churches at all times.

So likewise with instruments. In order to take the position (consistent with the RPW) that instrumental accompaniment is per se impermissible, you must first show that it is an element. The way (consistent with the RPW) that one shows something is an element is by showing that it is commanded by God in Scripture. To fail to do that is to allow for elements that God has not commanded - and hence a violation of the RPW.

So I am asking for a simple command (or even good and necessary consequence) that instrumental accompaniment is an element of worship in and of itself. Like we have for prayer, for song, for reading Scripture, for preaching. Exactly like that.

Then, if you can show such a command (again, I will not hold my breath), because you have shown a command from God to have instrumental accompaniment as an element of worship, you must show a positive command from God that retracts that element. Not a logical inference from Calvin, Owen, or any divine. A Biblical command.

You see, my position is simple - which you have conveniently missed in order to paint me into a corner - instrumental accompaniment is a circumstance of singing, like lights or amplification. Thus instruments are neither required, nor forbidden. But you must show that they are an element, in order to bind men's consciences. And unlike other elements (say, drama), you must show that it is an element from Scripture, because you have admitted that instrumental accompaniment was once commanded by God (i.e. in the temple).

Psalm 150

1 Praise the LORD!

Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty firmament!

2 Praise Him for His mighty acts;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness!

3 Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet;
Praise Him with the lute and harp!
4 Praise Him with the timbrel and dance;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes!
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with clashing cymbals!

6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.

Praise the LORD!

It seems to me that verse 6 is indicating that the previously mentioned instruments should not be thought of as the only "sanctioned" instruments for praising God. To me it is saying, "God can be praised with a trumpet; He can be praised with a cymbal; He can be praised with a Stratocaster/Twin Reverb combo."

It is also unfathomable (to me) to think that under the old covenant musical praise could be expressed in such broad and glorious terms "everything that has breath", and under the new covenant it is restricted to the human voice alone.

And the New is better?