Musical Instruments: Denial of Christ's Final Sacrifice

[En Kristo]

As Dr. Duguid and Iain Murray both pointed out, there are other factors at play than simply instruments vs. no instruments. Just like everything we do in worship—singing, prayer, preaching, etc.—Scripture regulates not only the whether, but the how. Dr. Duguid did a good job explaining the edification principle above.

I am quite sure that this is not what Dr. Duguid had in mind, but might one of those factors be the physical location of the instrumentalists? I visited some old colonial era churches in Pennsylvania that had choir lofts behind the congregation. I think that they were on to something, the difference between participation in worship and, for lack of a better word, entertainment. A choir behind a congregation that participates unseen in worship is, I think, something different from one that is visible and draws the attention of congregants away from worship. After all, what is a choir that participates, unseen, in congregational singing but a group of worshippers? Regarding contemporary instruments, I'm not a fan for several reasons among which is that I think they fundamentally do not understand the distinction between worship and entertainment. They are distracting. I would still not be a fan of contemporary instruments, but at least if they were hidden in a choir loft, out of sight, I might find them less distracting. I haven't devoted any time to exploring whether or not there is scriptural support for this idea but at some level I think that people worshipping in spirit and truth intuitively distinguish between something worshipful and something distracting. The whole idea of many contemporary worship services, it seems to me, owes more to Elvis Presley than to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Dr. Duguid did a good job explaining the edification principle above.

True - but the OP is about the whether, not the how. Again (see #96 above), singing, prayer, and preaching are regulated (both whether and how) Biblically. It is the "etc." that is the issue. Everyone on this site should agree that prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men, that the reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching; and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God WCF Ch.21. So, in charity, why don't we stick to what we can all agree with is clearly commanded in Scripture rather than introducing that which appears to divide us? I could not in good conscience participate in public worship that contained singing uninspired verse accompanied by instruments. But no one should be able to say the same about participating in public worship that only sings acapella Psalms. Doesn't that say something about this issue? We need to be often reminded that a major purpose of our confessions and subordinate standards is, in the words of the SL&C (upon which the Westminster Standards stand) is to "endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD... to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." A similar sentiment is found at the beginning and end of the published Church Order of Dort ( https://reformedstandards.com/three-forms-of-unity/church-order-dort.html ).

 

[Northern Crofter]

I am quite sure that this is not what Dr. Duguid had in mind, but might one of those factors be the physical location of the instrumentalists? I visited some old colonial era churches in Pennsylvania that had choir lofts behind the congregation. I think that they were on to something, the difference between participation in worship and, for lack of a better word, entertainment. A choir behind a congregation that participates unseen in worship is, I think, something different from one that is visible and draws the attention of congregants away from worship. After all, what is a choir that participates, unseen, in congregational singing but a group of worshippers? Regarding contemporary instruments, I'm not a fan for several reasons among which is that I think they fundamentally do not understand the distinction between worship and entertainment. They are distracting. I would still not be a fan of contemporary instruments, but at least if they were hidden in a choir loft, out of sight, I might find them less distracting. I haven't devoted any time to exploring whether or not there is scriptural support for this idea but at some level I think that people worshipping in spirit and truth intuitively distinguish between something worshipful and something distracting. The whole idea of many contemporary worship services, it seems to me, owes more to Elvis Presley than to the Holy Spirit.

What is now considered a traditional instrument was once considered contemporary. Some Reformed congregations did have choirs in balconies behind the rest of the congregation to aid with the singing, and I have witnessed that in at least one current congregation in the US. But this is different than having a band or orchestra in the balcony.

 

[Wonderkins]

This is a serious question...wouldn't it be strange to be singing psalm 150 as a congregation while not allowing instruments? Do we skip that one?

There is no snark in my question (I'm sure it's always brought up). But I'm one who's never gone to church where there are no instruments. So this whole discussion is a struggle for me.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

This is a serious question...wouldn't it be strange to be singing psalm 150 as a congregation while not allowing instruments? Do we skip that one?

There is no snark in my question (I'm sure it's always brought up). But I'm one who's never gone to church where there are no instruments. So this whole discussion is a struggle for me.

Not any more strange than singing Psalm 51 (and others) while not laying whole burnt offerings and calves on an altar.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

As Dr. Duguid and Iain Murray both pointed out, there are other factors at play than simply instruments vs. no instruments. Just like everything we do in worship—singing, prayer, preaching, etc.—Scripture regulates not only the whether, but the how. Dr. Duguid did a good job explaining the edification principle above.

Again, you'll need to guide me to where Murray is saying that, I couldn't find anything to that purpose in the linked article.

Dr Duguid's point doesn't seem to me to rest on a conventional understanding of the RPW, but even giving the benefit of the doubt, on what basis are we saying that a piano is more to edification than a rock band?

 

[Romans922]

I enjoy reading Iain on his exegetical proposition that instruments fall into a “civil law” realm, but that seems like a relatively new approach that I need to spend more time pondering.

The idea that musical instruments are part of the civil law I have never heard of before. I would like to read more on that. Who would you recommend that would hold this view in history (non-modern)?

As Dr. Duguid and Iain Murray both pointed out, there are other factors at play than simply instruments vs. no instruments. Just like everything we do in worship—singing, prayer, preaching, etc.—Scripture regulates not only the whether, but the how. Dr. Duguid did a good job explaining the edification principle above.

This thread is geared toward whether or not. Instruments or not. This question must be answered before the question of how. If the answer is no instruments in public worship, then the question of how is moot. If instruments are edifying and edifying in worship, then it is the Lord alone who must show they are edifying in HIS worship, not man himself determining they are edifying. That would be how idolatry is legitimized.

 

[aaronsk]

Again, you'll need to guide me to where Murray is saying that, I couldn't find anything to that purpose in the linked article.

Dr Duguid's point doesn't seem to me to rest on a conventional understanding of the RPW, but even giving the benefit of the doubt, on what basis are we saying that a piano is more to edification than a rock band?

Right, a question I would raise is if instruments are to be used shouldn’t only their modern equivalents be considered? Is this not a similar issue (if a circumstance) to candles and modern lighting? Do older instruments create a "more spiritual" atmosphere (like a candle)? How are amplified guitars & drums less edifying than a piano or earth shaking organ? What scripture is used to guide this?

 

[Jake]

Unfortunately, this is the sad, sad truth for the OPC…

I think the OPC has a lot less diversity of practice here than the ARP which has less than the PCA, but in such Reformed denominations there are not a lot of "barriers" to more modern worship. I do agree this doesn't rule out instruments, but it shows the problem of leaving such things in the category of wisdom as each Session will rule differently.

 

[Northern Crofter]

But I'm one who's never gone to church where there are no instruments.

In all seriousness, you should seek it out and try it. I had never gone to such a church either. Once I went, I could not go elsewhere. Biblical and theological reasoning aside, I have long found the best argument for singing the Psalms unaccompanied in worship is singing the Psalms unaccompanied in worship.

 

[Northern Crofter]

wouldn't it be strange to be singing psalm 150 as a congregation while not allowing instruments?

Not if you understand what the psalmists is saying - see #74 above

 

[Rom]

Theological bases for banning instruments aside (since the thread is now dealing with the pragmatism of pianos vs. rock bands)... just attempt to remove the piano from a congregation that uses one and you will see the heart problem manifest straightaway. You might not have a congregation in a few weeks. They have become reliant on things without life (1 Corinthians 14:7) in order to praise God. And the problem infiltrates into families and family worship suffers because dad feels that someone needs to be able to play a piano or guitar to lead his family in worship. You might scoff. I have had OPC and PCA friends who fret and worry about this kind of thing. Because they think the instruments are necessary - how many of your pastors (non-RP/FCC/FPCS/etc.) have preached a message saying instruments are not what the Lord is after?

Baptists were brought up. But even THE Baptist was against instruments. Spurgeon, as only he could say it, "What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettinesses of a quartette, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 27-57, vol. 2 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 272.

If piano players think a rock band is bad - I say, a piano supplants the congregation about as much. I listened to a recording I made of the PCA church I was a part of before becoming Reformed Presbyterian and I was shocked at how poorly and half-heartedly our congregation sang. Why? Because the piano did the work. Give a man crutches and you make him a cripple. The Lord wants the fruit of our lips (Hebrews 13:15) not the piano or guitar. The piano does not help giving the fruit of our lips, but actually diminishes it.

 

[SavedSinner]

Exactly. I have not yet seen instrument use as circumstance. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I have not seen it. Further, for traditional hymns, why would they be needed beyond the first stanza for most hymns? We sing Acapella for family worship. However for new psalm selections we often hear the audio piano tune for a few sessions and then once we have it to memory, we don’t need it. This would seem to be a better fit for circumstance. Mostly, as we listen to more seasoned saints, their own voices can help correct our pitch mistakes.

I enjoy reading Iain on his exegetical proposition that instruments fall into a “civil law” realm, but that seems like a relatively new approach that I need to spend more time pondering. I think there are idolatrous attachments to instruments, even in confessional bodies, and if not AO, I hope more congregations consider trying Acapella from time to time, especially on the more popular Psalms selections.

Finally now, a post with good practical value in the first paragraph. Anyway, God hears only the psalms lifting out of the hearts of the Jones family. What comes out of the lips is for the brethren in the family or in the congregation, so that they can sing the Word of God in unison. A big organ might make some vibrations in the building and impress some people, but God hears only from the hearts of the living stones.

 

[Taylor]

Theological bases for banning instruments aside (since the thread is now dealing with the pragmatism of pianos vs. rock bands)... just attempt to remove the piano from a congregation that uses one and you will see the heart problem manifest straightaway.

Again, we need to stop asserting so confidently what every congregation would do under a given circumstance. None of us can possibly know this. As for this particular assertion, I think you would find our congregation to be an exception.

This thread is geared toward whether or not. Instruments or not.

Fair enough. I’ll bow out.

 

[Rom]

Again, we need to stop asserting so confidently what every congregation would do under a given circumstance. None of us can possibly know this. As for this particular assertion, I think you would find our congregation to be an exception.


Fair enough. I’ll bow out.

Brother - why don't you take me up on it. Suggest to your session a year without a piano. Get back to me on what they say.

 

[Taylor]

Brother - why don't you take me up on it. Suggest to your session a year without a piano. Get back to me on what they say.

My session has literally told me they are fine without it.

 

[Rom]

My session has literally told me they are fine without it.

What keeps them from putting it in practice, then?

 

[Taylor]

What keeps them from putting it in practice, then?

This is an odd question to ask someone who isn’t convinced by AO, for whom instruments are not an element of worship, but a circumstance. It’s the equivalent of asking, “Would your church be fine without meeting in a building? If so, then what keeps you from getting rid of it?”

I’m going to bow out, as I said a moment ago. It was made clear that I’m distracting from the intent of the OP.

 

[Romans922]

This is an odd question to ask someone who isn’t convinced by AO, for whom instruments are not an element of worship, but a circumstance. It’s the equivalent of asking, “Would your church be fine without meeting in a building? If so, the what keeps you from getting rid of it?”

I’m going to bow out, as I said a moment ago. It was made clear that I’m distracting from the intent of the OP.

Start another thread (not in A Capella) And the conversation can continue...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

As folks know I'm EP acapella in a church that isn't. However, my church has adopted the practice in this last year of having the piano drop out for the last half or final stanza of a psalm or hymn in the morning service. I'm not sure the reasoning that led to this (it wasn't me; I'd be the first person the piano player contingent would check if the piano vanished overnight), but it highlights the importance that it is the singing that is key not the 'help' of accompaniment. Folks seem to like the practice (it's not done for new or hard settings and every now and then it is played through once for something really unfamiliar). So even amongst those who do not hold to the a capella argument, the instruments are far less necessary than it may be thought and even undesirable in order to have the singing stand out.

 

[Rom]

This is an odd question to ask someone who isn’t convinced by AO, for whom instruments are not an element of worship, but a circumstance. It’s the equivalent of asking, “Would your church be fine without meeting in a building? If so, the what keeps you from getting rid of it?”

I’m going to bow out, as I said a moment ago. It was made clear that I’m distracting from the intent of the OP.

Since you are bowing out, I will not continue this line of inquiry further, brother. . Perhaps we can continue in another thread another time. Blessings.

 

[MChase]

Before I got to the point where I could not stomach it any longer, I would attend my parent's mega church in Dallas when I was back home from college on the weekends. One Lord's Day they sang In Christ Alone. The praise leader, or whatever you would call him, had the idea to sing without the use of instrumental accompaniment. It was incredible how much louder folks sang and how beautiful it was to hear 3,000+ souls singing a capella - my EP curmudgeonly self even saw it.

The same type of case happened on occasion at the OPC I used to be a member of. When the piano stopped, the congregation got louder. Folks tend to catch on to the tunes rather quickly - particularly if family worship is regularly practiced. Even pragmatically speaking, the piano is far more often a crutch than an aid. So even if the argument for instruments as circumstances were granted, it is on shaky ground. Circumstances are to be ordered by Christian prudence and the light of nature. If they so often hinder rather than aid, why keep them?

However, instruments cannot be circumstances. Instruments are an element of Old Testament temple worship. How does that which was elemental and essential become circumstantial and arbitrary? Further, circumstances are those things without which an element cannot be performed. Praying needs a posture. Public worship needs a time. Scripture reading needs a biblical text. Christians need proper attire for worship. The list goes on. No one will argue that praise needs instruments though. It cannot be a circumstance of worship because it does not fit the definition of what a circumstance is.

 

[Wonderkins]

Not any more strange than singing Psalm 51 (and others) while not laying whole burnt offerings and calves on an altar.

Fair enough point. I went and listened to that Robert Mccurley sermon. I noticed he answered my exact question. I found myself in agreement with him (or at least couldn't argue against him). I'm not sure if I'm there yet, but I understand the opposition to instruments now. I will have to spend some time considering it.

At the beginning of this year I introduced psalm singing to the congregation. The reception is actually really good. And I admit, when the pianist is gone, we sing a capella, and it's amazing. Probably my favorite Sundays.

The problem I see coming, is even if I take the stance of no instruments, getting the congregation on board will be difficult. When we did a psalm to the tune of a familiar hymn, I got the complaint that it caused confusion because the complainer could only think of that hymn. So, there are challenges.

 

[danekristjan]

As folks know I'm EP acapella in a church that isn't. However, my church has adopted the practice in this last year of having the piano drop out for the last half or final stanza of a psalm or hymn in the morning service. I'm not sure the reasoning that led to this (it wasn't me; I'd be the first person the piano player contingent would check if the piano vanished overnight), but it highlights the importance that it is the singing that is key not the 'help' of accompaniment. Folks seem to like the practice (it's not done for new or hard settings and every now and then it is played through once for something really unfamiliar). So even amongst those who do not hold to the a capella argument, the instruments are far less necessary than it may be thought and even undesirable in order to have the singing stand out.

Our session just recently voted to do the very same. Every hymn/psalm will have one verse without accompaniment. The goal is to have some entire psalms without.

 

[danekristjan]

For those interested, Girardeau's work, "Instrumental Music In The Public Worship of the Church" is a must read on the topic. If you are going to hold to instruments being permissible in the church's public worship, then you have to grapple with the arguments made in this book. I wrote a book report on this volume earlier in the year. I remained unconvinced by his work, but I understand and appreciate the position much better now.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Maybe this has been stated already, maybe not, but the reality is, most of us don't live around churches that are EP, no instruments anyway. So, even if we were persuaded, there is not much that could be done. As far as I know, there are none of these types of churches in Wisconsin. A question I would ask those who are for this position, how big is your church? My guess is it is quite small. This is not to make a dig at you or say this means you are doing something wrong, but simply to point out the reality that the type of church and polity are quite rare. So, while you can preach at us about what ought to be done, most of us don't have the option (even if we were convinced).

I also don't feel it is an issue to split from a church with good preaching, which I think is one of the most important parts of worship. The OPC isn't perfect, but it has a lot of good congregations and pastors, and I will bear with the issues.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The OPC isn't perfect

I was led to believe OPC means Only Perfect Church

I am a member of a church with a very warm sister church relationship to the OPC. Thankful for the good things they do.

 

[Grant]

The idea that musical instruments are part of the civil law I have never heard of before. I would like to read more on that. Who would you recommend that would hold this view in history (non-modern)?

This thread is geared toward whether or not. Instruments or not. This question must be answered before the question of how. If the answer is no instruments in public worship, then the question of how is moot. If instruments are edifying and edifying in worship, then it is the Lord alone who must show they are edifying in HIS worship, not man himself determining they are edifying. That would be how idolatry is legitimized.

Andrew,

I have not read this position from anyone but Iain’s post on PB. This was my point. I find Iain’s proposition to be interesting, but have hesitations because it seems new.

 

[Grant]

So, while you can preach at us about what ought to be done, most of us don't have the option (even if we were convinced).

True enough especially if you are not an Elder. But a good session will always be willing to learn as well when approached with the reverence they are due. There are also the examples, already given, of lessening instrument use in the congregation to have times of Acapella. Discussing a doctrine with mutual respect can often lead to changes small and big.

However, for the majority, understanding and holding the AO position in your circumstances (and mine) would have the most practical influence on family worship and closet worship.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A question I would ask those who are for this position, how big is your church? My guess is it is quite small. This is not to make a dig at you or say this means you are doing something wrong, but simply to point out the reality that the type of church and polity are quite rare

Don’t despise the day of small things!
I think it’s accurate to say that prevailing prayer precedes revival and reformation.