OlanHicks.com

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC AND FELLOWSHIP

In 1982 Don Dewelt started the annual “Restoration forums,” in which leading men on all sides of the instrument question gathered for study and discussion sessions in an effort to resolve their differences. I was invited to be one of the speakers on Forum 6, to discuss “The law of silence, law of exclusion.” As long as Dewelt lived real progress was being made because the actual issues were being faced with Bibles open. I showed the history of that law, that it did not originate in the scriptures but with Daniel Sommer in the late 19th century. The presentation was received enthusiastically by those who were present. Several said, “Now we are getting somewhere!” 

But brother Dewelt died and things changed. Don knew that the procedure for settling disagreements is brothers going to brothers and sitting down together to study their differences in light of the Bible as the standard. He also knew that an issue is not resolved by one side simply declaring it resolved, without proving anything, and demanding that the other side accept that. Brother DeWelt was succeeded by a leadership which evidently does not know this. After his death the relevant questions were no longer discussed. The forums became little more than a preacher showcase and a bandwagon type movement developed toward simply declaring the issue resolved and the division ended, with nothing actually being settled. “Together again” became the theme for presentations on lecture programs and in local meetings which attempted to steam roll the acappella segment. The forum meetings continued for a few more years, but under a leadership which was not willing to talk about what had divided them for a hundred years. 

Meantime I published the small book, “Restoration Movement sidetracked,” in which I did discuss the real issues. I chronicled my own pilgrimage out of the anti-instrument position and explained what I found wrong with it Biblically. Many brethren have studied that book and changed their minds. The important thing is they changed their minds for Biblical reasons, not emotional reasons. This is important because it retains the scriptures as the only authority standard. If we lay that aside and start making decisions on some other basis, popular opinion etc. the whole movement will be corrupted  on many matters.

The right thing for us to do is identify the questions clearly which are at issue and search together for Bible answers to those questions. This division did not develop over night and it will not be resolved over night. There is no quick fix for it. But it can be resolved and that is worth doing. The Bible says some things about it that I believe we can all understand.“Receive him who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” (Romans 14:1) What is a “doubtful” thing? It is something on which God has not given a crystal clear ruling. Verse 4 says, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls.” What does it mean to “judge another’s servant”? Isn’t it obvious that God wants to command His people, and not have His people commanding each other? On this principle legalism and liberalism are both wrong and for the same reason. If we declare something approved, without Biblical support for the ruling, we make a judgment for God that He has not made. If we declare certain restricti0ns as a binding law without Biblical support for the ruling we make a judgment for God. Either way it is presumption. So we must determine whether the law in question has Biblical support. Each person must make judgments for himself, ie. decide what he will do. But we must not make judgments for others. Deciding a “doubtful” matter for myself is one thing. Making a ruling on it for everyone is another. Division is caused that way.

Basically the Bible sets forth God’s will in two ways. Express command is one way. Implication is another and is also a valid authority. There can be a matter on which God has not given an express command, yet His will on it can be seen as implied in other ways. For example, the scriptures often condemn or approve a whole category by using the phrase “such things.” In Deuteronomy 18 the practices of eastern mysticism are forbidden. There are a few practices in that ideology which are not mentioned expressly in the text. But they would be included, for the text says, “All who do such things are an abomination to the Lord.” But, just as with specific commands, the use of implication must also be handled rightly. It is valid only if the implication is clearly there.

I believe the restoration pioneers had this hermeneutical principle right. In the Declaration and Address they said, “Although inferences and deductions from scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may truly be called the doctrine of God’s Holy Word, yet they are not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection and evidently see that they are so. For their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power and veracity of God.” (Prop, 6) In the appendix Thomas Campbell stated their objective clearly: “That the great fundamental law of unity and love ought not to be violated to make way for exalting human opinions to an equality with express revelation by making them articles of faith and terms of communion.” In other words, one side must not steam roll the other side. Our question is then, Is either the pro-instrument view or the anti-instrument view an article of faith, a term of communion?

As concerns commands, no New Testament scripture says, “Play instruments in worship.” No passage says, “Do not play instruments in worship.” So we have no specific command either way. Therefore the only source of a possible ruling on this question is implication. In that category what we have is this: Every time God mentioned instruments of music in worship, all in the Old Testament, He lavishly approved them. David, after listing many instruments, then wrote, “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.” (Psalms 150:6) But someone says, “Instruments are approved in the Old Testament and in Revelation, but not during the church age.” This is not correct. In Revelation 5 the scene before the throne of God has 24 elders, each one with a harp, “And they sang a new song.” (Verse 8-9) We know this was in the church age because the “lamb” was there and the song was about Him who “redeemed us with His blood.” (Vs. 9) It does not seem reasonable that God’s people on earth would be condemned for doing something that is being done at that very time at the throne of God. By contrast to this, in the category of implication, there is no case where God in any way implied a disapproval of the use of instruments of music in worship to Him. This does not say that any of us must use instruments. But it surely says that this is not a practice over which fellowship should be broken and division practiced. Personally I apply the principle, “Where the Bible is silent we are silent.” It is not possible to be silent on something and at the same time make it a law and break fellowship over it. Anti-instrument brethren do not need to be out voted by popular opinion. They need to be faced with these Biblical facts and invited to give their view of them.

In our next article we will compare the “law of silence” with scripture teaching. Is it true that everything which is not expressly commanded in scripture is forbidden? How did Jesus feel about this?