RF-22 — Why Did Instrumental Music Divide the Restoration Movement?
SECTION 3 · THE REFORMATION
When Scripture tells Christians to sing, what does that authorize?
In RF-21, we examined the disagreement over missionary societies. Christians agreed that the gospel should be preached, but they disagreed about whether a separate organization should direct the evangelistic work of cooperating congregations.
Another disagreement concerned congregational worship.
Some Christians believed musical instruments could help a congregation sing. Others believed that adding instrumental music changed the worship the New Testament instructed Christians to offer.
The disagreement became one of the issues associated with the eventual separation of Churches of Christ from the Disciples of Christ and other congregations within the Restoration Movement.
But the question is larger than the history of one movement.
WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCTS CHRISTIANS TO SING, DOES THAT INSTRUCTION PERMIT INSTRUMENTAL ACCOMPANIMENT, EXCLUDE IT, OR LEAVE THE MATTER TO THE CONGREGATION’S JUDGMENT?
We will examine the history and then read the passages most often used on both sides.
Our purpose is not to defend a familiar practice simply because it is familiar.
It is to understand what the text says and what conclusions actually follow from it.
1. DID THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT BEGIN WITH AN ARGUMENT ABOUT INSTRUMENTS?
No.
The early Restoration leaders sought Christian unity through a return to New Testament teaching. They questioned inherited creeds, denominational authority, and practices they believed lacked biblical support.
The instrumental-music controversy developed later.
During the nineteenth century, some congregations introduced instruments while others continued singing without them. The issue became increasingly controversial and eventually joined disputes about missionary societies and biblical authority.
We should not imagine that every congregation changed its worship at the same time.
Nor did every Christian who accepted an instrument hold the same views about missionary societies, church government, or every other issue.
The history was gradual.
The biblical question is simpler to state:
WHAT DID THE APOSTLES TEACH CHRISTIANS TO DO WHEN THEY SANG PRAISE TO GOD?
2. WHAT HAPPENED AT MIDWAY, KENTUCKY?
One of the best-known early controversies occurred at Midway, Kentucky, where L. L. Pinkerton preached.
In 1859, the congregation introduced a melodeon, a small keyboard instrument, to accompany its singing. The singing was reportedly poor, and some members believed instrumental accompaniment would help.
Others objected.
The disagreement became serious. An elder named Adam Hibler opposed the instrument and arranged for it to be removed. Another instrument was obtained, and the controversy continued.
Why did something as ordinary to many modern Christians as a small keyboard create such a dispute?
Because the argument was not really about the quality of the singing.
One person saw:
AN AID THAT HELPED THE CONGREGATION SING.
Another saw:
AN ADDITION TO THE WORSHIP GOD HAD INSTRUCTED THE CONGREGATION TO OFFER.
That distinction became central to the argument.
3. DID THE EARLY RESTORATION LEADERS ALL SUPPORT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC?
No.
Alexander Campbell opposed introducing instrumental music into congregational worship.
John W. McGarvey also opposed it.
But notice something important.
McGarvey supported missionary societies while opposing instrumental music.
So we cannot divide nineteenth-century Restoration leaders neatly into two camps:
PROGRESSIVES WHO ACCEPTED EVERYTHING NEW
and:
CONSERVATIVES WHO REJECTED EVERYTHING NEW.
Individual Christians examined different questions and reached different conclusions.
That should remind us of something we have repeated throughout this study.
Alexander Campbell was not an apostle.
John W. McGarvey was not an apostle.
L. L. Pinkerton was not an apostle.
Their arguments deserve examination.
Their names settle nothing.
4. WAS INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC THE ONLY REASON THE MOVEMENT DIVIDED?
No.
Missionary societies, biblical authority, congregational independence, regional differences, and other questions developed alongside the instrumental-music controversy.
The Civil War also severely strained relationships within the movement.
The separation did not happen on one day or through one national decision.
It developed gradually.
By the time the United States religious census reported Churches of Christ separately from the Disciples of Christ in 1906, a recognizable separation had already developed.
The census recorded that separation.
It did not create it.
And it certainly did not decide which side interpreted Scripture correctly.
Our concern is the question beneath the history:
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT AUTHORIZE CHRISTIANS TO DO WHEN THEY WORSHIP GOD TOGETHER?
5. WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY INSTRUCT CHRISTIANS TO DO?
Begin with Ephesians 5:18–20.
Paul says:
“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” — Ephesians 5:18, KJV
Then:
“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” — Ephesians 5:19, KJV
Now read Colossians 3:16:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” — Colossians 3:16, KJV
What is explicitly stated?
Christians sing.
But notice what else the singing does.
They speak to one another.
They teach.
They admonish.
They praise the Lord.
The words matter.
Paul is not merely discussing whether the music sounds beautiful.
HE IS DESCRIBING THE SPIRITUAL WORK CHRISTIANS DO THROUGH THEIR SONGS.
6. WHAT DOES EPHESIANS 5:19 MEAN BY “MAKING MELODY”?
The expression translated “making melody” includes the Greek verb psallō.
The word had a history that included plucking strings and playing a stringed instrument. It also came to be used for singing or making praise.
That history is relevant.
But we must be careful with word studies.
A word does not necessarily carry every meaning it has ever possessed into every sentence where it appears.
In Ephesians 5:19, Paul says:
“singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”
Some interpreters understand this as emphasizing heartfelt praise rather than specifying an external musical instrument.
Others argue that the musical language is compatible with instrumental accompaniment.
The Greek word by itself does not settle the entire question.
We should not argue:
PSALLŌ ONCE REFERRED TO PLUCKING STRINGS, THEREFORE PAUL COMMANDS AN INSTRUMENT.
But neither should we argue:
PAUL MENTIONS THE HEART, THEREFORE THE HISTORY OF THE WORD IS IRRELEVANT.
Words receive their meaning from context.
So keep reading.
7. DOES “IN YOUR HEART” MEAN CHRISTIANS MUST SING SILENTLY?
Obviously not.
Paul says Christians are:
“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” — Ephesians 5:19, KJV
The activity involves communication.
So “in your heart” describes the inward character of the praise. It does not eliminate the outward singing.
But notice the other side.
The phrase does not explicitly command an external instrument either.
So we should not force “in your heart” to carry an argument Paul does not make.
Instead, read the entire instruction.
Christians sing.
They communicate with one another.
They teach.
They admonish.
They give thanks.
Their praise comes from the heart and is directed to the Lord.
Any discussion about musical accompaniment should begin there.
8. DOES COLOSSIANS 3:16 DESCRIBE SINGING AS TEACHING?
Yes.
Paul says Christians are:
“teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” — Colossians 3:16, KJV
That tells us something important about congregational singing.
THE WORDS MATTER.
A song is doing more than creating a mood.
Christians are communicating truth to one another.
That helps us understand another passage.
Paul says:
“I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” — 1 Corinthians 14:15, KJV
First Corinthians 14 concerns spiritual gifts and the need for understandable communication in the assembly. It is not primarily a chapter about musical accompaniment.
But Paul’s concern for understanding is clear.
So here is a legitimate question about any musical arrangement:
DOES IT HELP THE CONGREGATION SING MEANINGFUL WORDS TOGETHER, OR DOES IT MAKE THOSE WORDS HARDER TO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND?
That does not settle the entire instrumental-music question.
But it comes directly from the purpose Paul gives singing.
9. WHAT DOES 1 CORINTHIANS 14:15 TELL US?
Paul says:
“I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” — 1 Corinthians 14:15, KJV
The congregation at Corinth had a problem.
People were using spiritual gifts without enough concern for whether anyone else understood what was happening.
Paul insists on intelligibility and edification.
Notice what the verse says.
PAUL SINGS.
Notice what it does not say.
It does not mention an instrument accompanying the singing.
That absence is a fact.
But what follows from the fact?
That is where interpretation begins.
Paul is not giving a complete inventory of every physical object that might be present when Christians assemble.
So we cannot simply say:
“THERE IS NO INSTRUMENT IN THIS VERSE. CASE CLOSED.”
But neither should we ignore what Paul actually specifies.
The question is whether his instruction to sing defines the musical act Christians are to offer or whether instrumental accompaniment may be included as a means of carrying it out.
We need to make that reasoning clear rather than pretending our conclusion is written directly in the verse.
10. WHAT ABOUT THE PSALMS THAT MENTION INSTRUMENTS?
They certainly do.
Psalm 150 says:
“Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.” — Psalm 150:3, KJV
It continues:
“Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.” — Psalm 150:4, KJV
And:
“Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.” — Psalm 150:5, KJV
Other psalms also describe instrumental praise.
Those passages are Scripture.
We should not ignore them.
Supporters of instrumental worship may argue that Scripture itself presents instruments as legitimate means of praising God and that the New Testament nowhere explicitly revokes their use.
Opponents respond that those passages concern worship under the old covenant and that the church must look to Christ and His apostles for its worship under the new covenant.
That means the real question is not:
ARE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE?
Of course they are.
The question is:
WHAT DO THOSE OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES AUTHORIZE FOR THE CHURCH UNDER THE NEW COVENANT?
11. DOES THE NEW COVENANT CHANGE HOW WE USE OLD TESTAMENT WORSHIP PRACTICES?
Yes, but we need to say precisely what that means.
Hebrews explains that Christ brought a new covenant and a changed priesthood.
Read Hebrews 7–10.
Christians do not offer animal sacrifices because animal sacrifices appear in the Old Testament.
We do not maintain the Levitical priesthood because God once commanded it.
We do not rebuild the tabernacle because God once specified its construction.
But that does not mean:
EVERYTHING FOUND IN OLD TESTAMENT WORSHIP IS NOW FORBIDDEN.
The Old Testament also contains prayer.
Thanksgiving.
Teaching.
Praise.
Giving.
So each practice must be examined in light of the New Testament.
For instrumental music, the question is:
Does the Old Testament example establish an obligation for the church?
Does it establish permission?
Or does it tell us what Israel did without determining how Christians are instructed to worship?
We cannot simply move a practice from one covenant to another without asking that question.
12. DID DAVID’S INSTRUMENTS HAVE A PARTICULAR PLACE IN TEMPLE WORSHIP?
Yes.
The Old Testament connects instrumental music with organized worship associated with the tabernacle and temple.
David appointed Levites for musical service.
Read 1 Chronicles 15:16–24 and 23:1–5.
Second Chronicles describes instruments and singers functioning together in temple worship.
Read 2 Chronicles 29:25–30.
These were not merely stories about someone playing music at home.
They belonged to Israel’s organized worship.
Now move to the New Testament.
Christians are described as:
“a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” — 1 Peter 2:5, KJV
Does that change mean every physical element associated with Israel’s temple worship must disappear?
Peter does not say that.
Does the temple’s use of instruments automatically establish instrumental music in Christian assemblies?
Peter does not say that either.
Again, the covenant setting matters.
13. WHAT ABOUT INSTRUMENTS IN HEAVEN?
Revelation contains harps.
John sees:
“harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” — Revelation 5:8, KJV
He also hears:
“the voice of harpers harping with their harps.” — Revelation 14:2, KJV
And Revelation 15:2 describes people with:
“the harps of God.” — Revelation 15:2, KJV
We should read those passages exactly as John presents them.
They occur in visions.
Revelation also contains a slain Lamb, golden bowls of incense, an altar, beasts, dragons, and many other images.
So does a harp in a heavenly vision establish a command for congregational worship on earth?
Not by itself.
But does the symbolic nature of Revelation prove that instruments are forbidden in earthly worship?
No.
The first question should be:
WHAT DOES JOHN’S IMAGE COMMUNICATE IN ITS CONTEXT?
Only then should we ask whether the passage gives instructions for Christian assemblies.
A vision of heavenly worship and an apostolic instruction to a congregation are not the same kind of passage.
14. DID JESUS OR THE APOSTLES EXPLICITLY FORBID INSTRUMENTS?
The New Testament does not contain a sentence saying:
“DO NOT USE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.”
That fact needs to be acknowledged.
But it does not end the discussion.
Why?
Because the disagreement concerns how biblical instructions authorize.
One Christian reasons:
God specified singing. Therefore we should offer the kind of music He specified rather than add another kind.
Another reasons:
God commanded singing. An instrument may accompany that singing unless Scripture forbids it or the accompaniment interferes with the command.
Both positions have work to do.
The first must show why the command to sing excludes instrumental accompaniment.
The second must show why instrumental accompaniment is legitimately included within carrying out the command.
So neither of these statements settles the question:
“THE BIBLE DOESN’T SAY NOT TO.”
Or:
“THE BIBLE DOESN’T MENTION IT.”
We must determine what follows from what Scripture does say.
15. DOES A COMMAND TO SING INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT HELPS PEOPLE SING?
Consider a songbook.
It contains words and perhaps musical notation.
Christians use it while singing.
A screen may display the same words.
A pitch pipe may provide the starting note before the singing begins.
A tuning fork can do something similar.
These things help people carry out the instruction to sing.
Now consider a piano.
Supporters of instrumental accompaniment may say:
“THE PIANO DOES THE SAME THING. IT HELPS US SING.”
Opponents respond:
“NO. THE SONGBOOK DOES NOT PRODUCE MUSIC. THE PIANO DOES. IT ADDS INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC TO THE VOCAL MUSIC GOD SPECIFIED.”
Now we have reached the actual argument.
Calling all of these things aids does not prove they are identical.
But calling one of them an addition does not prove it is forbidden either.
We need to ask what each thing actually does in relation to the instruction.
16. IS AN INSTRUMENT ALWAYS JUST AN AID TO SINGING?
That depends partly on how it is being used.
A single starting note may help singers find the pitch.
An instrument played quietly during congregational singing may help some people stay together.
But an instrument can also become the center of a performance while the congregation becomes an audience.
Those are not identical situations.
An instrumental solo contains no words by which Christians teach and admonish one another as Colossians 3:16 describes.
A band may accompany a congregation that is singing enthusiastically.
Or the band may become so loud that the congregation can scarcely hear itself.
So even Christians who believe instrumental accompaniment is permissible may still ask whether a particular use fulfills the New Testament purpose of congregational singing.
And Christians who oppose instruments may say the question goes deeper: even quiet accompaniment introduces a kind of music the New Testament never authorizes for the church.
Before deciding whether something is an aid, ask:
WHAT IS IT ACTUALLY DOING?
17. DOES A PIANO CHANGE THE COMMAND TO SING?
Here is the disagreement in its simplest form.
One Christian says:
“WE ARE STILL SINGING. THE PIANO HELPS US SING.”
Another says:
“WE ARE SINGING AND PLAYING. THE NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCTS THE CHURCH TO SING.”
Neither statement becomes true merely because it sounds reasonable.
We need to return to the text.
Does Paul specify vocal music as the form Christians are to offer?
Or does he describe what the congregation itself is to do without addressing possible accompaniment?
Does instrumental accompaniment introduce another act?
Or does it function as a means of carrying out the commanded act?
These are questions of interpretation.
They cannot be settled by taste.
A Christian who enjoys instrumental music cannot make enjoyment the authority.
A Christian who prefers unaccompanied singing cannot make preference the authority either.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE TEXT AUTHORIZES.
18. CAN WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE COMMAND TO BUILD THE ARK?
Yes, but only if we use the illustration carefully.
God told Noah:
“Make thee an ark of gopher wood.” — Genesis 6:14, KJV
God specified the material.
Noah obviously could use tools to obey the command.
A tool used to work the gopher wood would help carry out the command.
Replacing the gopher wood with another material would be different.
Some Christians apply that distinction to music.
They argue that a songbook, screen, or starting note helps Christians perform the specified act of singing, while instrumental accompaniment adds another kind of music.
Others respond that the command to build an ark with specified material is not the same kind of instruction as Paul’s teaching about Christian singing.
That objection deserves consideration.
An illustration can clarify an argument.
IT CANNOT PROVE THE ARGUMENT.
Genesis 6 does not tell us what Ephesians 5:19 means.
We still have to determine that from Ephesians 5 and the rest of the New Testament.
19. WHAT ABOUT MOSES STRIKING THE ROCK?
Read Numbers 20:7–12.
God told Moses:
“Speak ye unto the rock before their eyes.” — Numbers 20:8, KJV
Instead:
“Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice.” — Numbers 20:11, KJV
God held Moses accountable.
The account certainly teaches us to take God’s instructions seriously.
We are not free to substitute what we prefer for what God has told us to do.
But be careful.
Numbers 20 does not tell us whether a piano is an aid to singing or an additional kind of music.
That is the very thing we are trying to determine.
If we first assume that instrumental accompaniment is equivalent to Moses striking rather than speaking, we have already assumed our conclusion.
So the lesson from Moses is important:
DO WHAT GOD SAYS.
Our responsibility is to determine accurately what God has said about the matter we are studying.
20. WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT ADDING HUMAN REQUIREMENTS TO WORSHIP?
Read Mark 7:1–13.
Jesus rebuked religious leaders who elevated human traditions in a way that displaced God’s command.
He said:
“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” — Mark 7:9, KJV
Read Colossians 2:20–23.
Paul warns against humanly imposed religious regulations that appear wise but do not possess the spiritual power claimed for them.
These passages warn us against turning human rules into divine law.
But they do not mean every practical arrangement Christians make is wrong.
A congregation chooses a time to meet.
It arranges chairs.
It decides which song to sing first.
It may print the words or display them on a screen.
The question is whether an arrangement contradicts God’s instruction, changes what He required, or is made binding as God’s law when He did not make it law.
And that warning cuts both ways.
WE MUST NOT REQUIRE A PRACTICE MERELY BECAUSE WE LIKE IT.
And:
WE MUST NOT FORBID A PRACTICE MERELY BECAUSE WE DISLIKE IT.
Either conclusion needs biblical authority.
21. DOES THE HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH HELP US?
Yes, but history and biblical authority are not the same thing.
Historical evidence indicates that unaccompanied vocal singing was prominent in early Christian worship. Early Christian writers also discussed instruments, sometimes figuratively and sometimes negatively in connection with forms of entertainment or worship they rejected.
But the surviving evidence does not give us a recording of every congregation in every century.
And early Christian writers did not always agree about everything.
So the history is worth examining.
If Christians living relatively near the apostolic period generally worshiped without instruments, it is reasonable to ask why.
Perhaps their practice helps us understand how early Christians interpreted apostolic teaching.
But an early practice is not automatically an apostolic command.
Christians in the centuries after the apostles could misunderstand Scripture too.
So keep the questions separate:
WHAT DID EARLY CHRISTIANS DO?
And:
WHAT DID CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES TEACH?
The first may help us investigate the second.
It cannot replace it.
22. WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIANS WHO STILL WORSHIP WITHOUT INSTRUMENTS?
Unaccompanied singing is not unique to Churches of Christ.
Eastern Orthodox worship has generally maintained a strong tradition of vocal music without instrumental accompaniment, although practices are not absolutely uniform everywhere.
Some Protestant traditions have also practiced unaccompanied singing because of their understanding of biblical worship.
But those groups disagree among themselves about many other things.
They may disagree about baptism.
Church government.
Sacraments.
Tradition.
The authority of bishops.
So their common practice of unaccompanied singing does not prove that they arrived there through the same reasoning.
It does establish one historical point:
CHURCHES OF CHRIST DID NOT INVENT UNACCOMPANIED CHRISTIAN SINGING.
But age does not establish biblical authority either.
Once again:
History can tell us what Christians did.
Scripture must be examined to determine what Christians should do.
23. CAN A CONGREGATION SING IN FOUR-PART HARMONY?
Yes.
The New Testament does not specify that everyone must sing exactly the same notes.
Soprano, alto, tenor, and bass voices can sing different notes while singing the words together.
But that raises a useful question.
If Christians may sing different vocal parts, why is an instrument different?
Those who oppose instruments answer that four-part harmony is still singing. Every part is produced by human voices carrying out the instruction to sing.
A piano produces instrumental music.
Those who permit instruments answer that accompaniment may support the singing without changing what the congregation itself is doing.
Again, we need to ask whether that distinction comes from Paul’s instruction or from a tradition we have inherited.
There is another practical issue.
Four-part harmony can become so complicated that ordinary Christians feel they cannot participate.
That misses something important.
THE CONGREGATION IS NOT A CHOIR AUDITION.
Paul’s concern is that Christians sing meaningful words together.
24. DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO BE A GOOD SINGER?
No.
Paul instructs Christians to sing.
He does not say:
ONLY THOSE WITH GOOD VOICES MAY PARTICIPATE.
Someone who struggles to carry a tune can praise God.
Someone who cannot read musical notation can sing.
Someone who has never learned harmony can participate.
Return to Colossians 3:16.
The Christians are:
“teaching and admonishing one another.”
That instruction is not limited to professional musicians.
A congregation may use practical methods to help people sing.
But we should be careful about turning congregational worship into something ordinary Christians believe must be left to trained performers.
THE QUALITY OF THE PERFORMANCE IS NOT PAUL’S STANDARD.
The spiritual participation of Christ’s people matters.
25. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MUSIC BECOMES A CONCERT?
This question applies whether instruments are present or absent.
A congregation can sing a cappella and still turn its music into a performance.
A highly trained group can sing beautiful four-part harmony while everyone else listens.
A congregation using instruments can keep the words clear and encourage everyone to sing.
Or a band can become so dominant that most of the congregation becomes an audience.
So return to the text.
Paul says:
“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” — Ephesians 5:19, KJV
And:
“teaching and admonishing one another.” — Colossians 3:16, KJV
Ask:
Are Christians actually singing?
Can they hear one another?
Are they teaching and admonishing through the words?
Are they praising God?
Or have they become spectators watching musicians perform?
The presence of an instrument does not automatically answer those questions.
Neither does its absence.
UNACCOMPANIED MUSIC CAN BECOME A CONCERT TOO.
Whatever our conclusion about instruments, we should not lose the congregational purpose Paul gives singing.
26. WHY DID THIS DISAGREEMENT BECOME A QUESTION OF FELLOWSHIP?
Because both sides believed something more serious than musical taste was involved.
For Christians who opposed instrumental music, the issue was not:
“I DON’T LIKE ORGANS.”
They believed they were being asked to participate in an act of worship for which the New Testament had given no authority.
For Christians who accepted accompaniment, the issue could appear very different.
They believed they were still obeying the command to sing and that opponents were turning silence into a prohibition Scripture had never made.
So the disagreement affected conscience.
When instruments were introduced into congregations, Christians sometimes had to decide whether they could participate, whether they should leave, and who had authority to determine the congregation’s practice.
Some congregations divided.
We should not assume everyone who left was stubborn.
Neither should we assume everyone who introduced an instrument intended to disregard Scripture.
The better question is:
HOW DOES EACH CONCLUSION FOLLOW FROM THE TEXT?
27. DOES ROMANS 14 SETTLE THE QUESTION?
Not by itself.
Read Romans 14.
Paul discusses disagreements involving food and the observance of days.
He says:
“Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.” — Romans 14:3, KJV
He also warns Christians not to pressure someone into violating conscience.
Some Christians apply Romans 14 to instrumental music.
They reason that if accompaniment is not prohibited, Christians should not divide over a matter of judgment.
Others respond that Romans 14 cannot make disobedience to God a matter of opinion. If instrumental music changes the worship God authorized, they argue, Romans 14 cannot make it permissible.
So Romans 14 brings us back to the question we already had:
IS INSTRUMENTAL ACCOMPANIMENT A PERMISSIBLE CHOICE WITHIN THE COMMAND TO SING, OR DOES IT ADD SOMETHING GOD DID NOT AUTHORIZE?
Romans 14 tells us to take conscience seriously.
It does not relieve us of the responsibility to determine what Scripture teaches.
28. WHAT SHOULD WE ASK BEFORE DRAWING A CONCLUSION?
Start with the passages, not with the sign in front of our church building.
Read Ephesians 5:18–20.
Read Colossians 3:16–17.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:15–19.
Then ask:
What are Christians instructed to do?
What purpose does their singing serve?
Does the language specify vocal music as the musical expression Christians are to offer?
Or does it describe the congregation’s participation without addressing possible accompaniment?
What relationship does Old Testament instrumental worship have to Christian worship under the new covenant?
Does an instrument help carry out the instruction?
Does it introduce another activity?
Can it do one in one circumstance and the other in another?
And most important:
IF WE SAY A PRACTICE IS REQUIRED OR FORBIDDEN, CAN WE SHOW HOW THAT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS FROM THE TEXT?
That question protects us in both directions.
It keeps us from turning preference into permission.
And it keeps us from turning preference into prohibition.
29. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
Instrumental music became a major point of disagreement within the Restoration Movement during the nineteenth century. It contributed to a gradual separation that also involved missionary societies, biblical authority, regional tensions, and other historical circumstances.
The New Testament explicitly tells Christians to sing.
Their singing praises God.
It teaches.
It admonishes.
It expresses thanksgiving.
Christians disagree about whether instrumental music may accompany that singing.
Pointing to instruments in the Old Testament does not, by itself, settle their use in the church.
Saying:
“THE NEW TESTAMENT NEVER FORBIDS THEM”
does not, by itself, settle the question.
And saying:
“THE NEW TESTAMENT NEVER MENTIONS THEM IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP”
does not, by itself, finish the argument either.
Each conclusion must be shown to follow from the text.
And whatever conclusion we reach about instruments, we should not overlook what Paul explicitly says congregational music is supposed to accomplish.
Christians are to sing.
To praise God.
To teach.
To admonish.
To give thanks.
And to do it from the heart.
30. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?
The Restoration Movement sought unity by calling Christians away from denominational divisions and back to the New Testament.
Yet Christians within that very movement eventually divided.
Missionary societies became one dividing issue.
Instrumental music became another.
Different understandings of biblical authority stood behind both.
Eventually separate church bodies became recognizable.
That creates an uncomfortable question for a movement that began by pleading for Christian unity:
HOW DID A MOVEMENT THAT WANTED TO END DENOMINATIONAL DIVISION DEVELOP DISTINCT NAMES, INSTITUTIONS, AND BOUNDARIES OF FELLOWSHIP OF ITS OWN?
And there is an even more personal question.
Can we recognize traditions that have developed within our own churches as readily as we recognize traditions in someone else’s?
That takes us to our next study:
HOW DID A MOVEMENT FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY BECOME SEPARATE CHURCH BODIES?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: HOW DID A MOVEMENT FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY BECOME SEPARATE CHURCH BODIES?