Recent Arguments On Instrumental Music

by Johnny Elmore

1988 PSN

12 Nov 2020**

My commission in this study is to address recent arguments being made for instrumental music in the church. As I began to review the debates on instrumental music, the truth of Solomon's statement that "there is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesates 1:9), was brought home to me. There may be some arguments that are new to us, but I have failed to find an argument currently being made that has not been made previously. In our study, I want to review the historic attitude toward instrumental music, the excuses given for its introduction into the church, the history of arguments for instrumental music and then take up the current arguments.

The Historic Attitude

It is a fact beyond cavil that the New Testament is positively silent on any use of instrumental music in the church. It is also a fact that not only did early Christians sing, unaccompanied by instrumental music in worship, but they opposed instrumental music in worship. This can be substantiated by numerous quotations from early church historians. Everett Ferguson quotes several of them in the book, The Instrumental Music Issue. Although these are not our authority, it does indicate that if something was present in a New Testament church, there should be some trace of it later in the practice of the church.

Testimony from later times also indicates the historic attitude toward instrumental music. Thomas Acquinas, declared by Pope Leo XIII to be the formulator of the "official Catholic philosophy," said in 1250: "Our church does not use musical instruments as harps, psalteries, in the praise of God, lest she should seem to Judaize" (Quoted in Firm Foundation, Vol. 95, No. 21, p. 323). The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, p. 651, says: "The first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice." Fessenden's Encyclopedia, on p. 852, under the article, "Music" said:

“Instrumental music is also of very ancient date, its invention being ascribed to Tubal, the sixth descendent from Cain. That instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history.”

The American Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, p. 688, says:

“Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of western Europe, about 670; but the earliest trustworthy account is that of one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of the Franks, in 755.”

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. 2 p. 1702 says:

“In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth century it became more and more common in the Latin church; not, however, without opposition from the side of the monks.”

John Calvin, in his commentary on the 23rd Psalm said:

“Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of candles, 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. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to Him. The voice of man assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music.”

John Wesley, quoted in Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 686, said: "I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels provided they are neither seen nor heard." Adam Clarke said in the same commentary: "Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor." Charles H. Spurgeon, a great Baptist preacher who preached to 10,000 every Sunday in Metropolitan Tabernacle in London said with reference to 1 Cor- inthians 14:15, "I would just as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." Alexander Campbell wrote in the Millennial Harbinger in 1851, pp. 581-582, "But I presume, to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert." Many more could be given.

Excuses For Its Introduction

Historians credit L. L. Pinkerton with being the G. C. Brewer who introduced the first instrument of music into the church of Christ, or as Guy N. Woods puts it: "on whom rests the obloquy of corrupting the worship of God." Pinkerton employed a small melodeon in the church at Midway, Ky in about 1859. His excuse was that the singing had degenerated into screeching and bawling that would "scare even the rats from worship." According to Earl West, in The Search For The Ancient Order, they first met on Saturday night to practice songs. Later, someone brought in a melodeon to be used in getting the right pitch. West says, "Before long, one of the sisters was accompanying the singing with her playing on the melodeon" (Vol. I, pp. 311, 312). Another excuse, given by Isaac Errett, was that in many non-instrument churches, no more than one in ten took part in the singing. Robert Richardson wrote in the Millennial Harbinger in 1870 that he had warned the churches that if they did not do something about their woeful singing that they would one day have to face the question of instrumental music. In the 1870's, a portable organ was in many homes and, according to historians, the young people were clamoring for it in the churches, at least in the Sunday-school. 

However, Guy N. Woods sees a difference in attitude toward the Scriptures as the main cause of division over instruments of music, Leroy Garrett to the contrary, notwithstanding. Woods says that the difference in attitude was the same as the controversy between Luther and Zwingli. Zwingli thought nothing was allowed unless it was authorized by Scripture; whereas, Luther believed that nothing was wrong unless it was condemned by Scripture. In his book, Questions and Answers, p. 195, Woods says that the real reason so many unauthorized things came to be practiced was the same as that given by Henry Ward Beecher, an eminent denominational preacher, who frankly said that he practiced infant baptism for the same reason he used an ox yoke — he had tried them and both worked. I think we should learn from history that if we want to oppose such innovations as instrumental music, then we must do our best to make God's plan work. We should never be satisfied with poor singing and think that just anything will do.

History of Arguments For Instrumental Music

There has been quite an evolution in arguments in defense of instrumental music. As the advocates of instrumental music found that their arguments would not work, different approaches were used, and these were often inconsistent with arguments previously used. This did not seem to deter the advocates of instrumental music. As one argument was seen to be inadequate, another was taken up which was equally inadequate. One of the first arguments seems to have been: "We like it; we want it; and we shall have it." This could hardly pass current with people who had been schooled in the necessity of authority in religion.

Some of the early proponents of instrumental music fell onto the defense of expediency. Isaac Errett came to be the chief advocate of this defense. Although he counseled against the use of the instrument, he set forth the view "that the real difference among us is a difference of opinion as to the expediency of instrumental music in public worship, and therefore, it is wrong to make this difference a test of fellowship, on one hand, or an occasion of stumbling on the other." J. B. Briney made essentially the same argument, and both of these men eventually wound up on the side of the organ. Surprisingly enough, Robert Richardson, viewed by many as one of the "big four" of the Restoration Movement, set forth the correct view of expediency when he wrote:

“As it regards the use of musical instruments in church worship, the case is wholly different. [He had argued that expediency determines such things as the place, time and posture in prayer.] This [instrumental music] can never be a question of expediency, for the simple reason that there is no law prescribing or authorizing it.

If it were anywhere said in the New Testament that Christians should use instruments, then it would become a question of expediency what kind of instruments was to be used, whether an organ or melodeon, the "loud- sounding cymbals," or the "light guitar"; whether it should cost $50 or $500 or $1,000, and what circumstances should regulate the performance.”

Thus, Richardson correctly pointed out that nothing is expedient which is not first of all lawful.

One of the oldest debates in my possession on instrumental music is between J. Carroll Stark and Joe S. Warlick. Stark affirmed that "the Word of God authorizes the use of instruments of music for praise in the church of Jesus Christ." Warlick had earlier met Clark Braden on instrumental music, and chided Stark that Braden had affirmed that "the instrument was only an aid, and not any part of the worship, and that those who said it was a part of the worship were fools." Stark spent his time arguing that instrumental music was authorized in the Old Testament, and Warlick beat him to death with infant membership, incense, polygamy, and dancing. Stark argued that singing implied instrumental music, being inherent in the word psallo. Warlick called his authorities, Alvin E. Evans and Clinton Lockhart, in question and countered with testimony from Sophocles and Thayer. It is said that Warlick always believed that this discussion in 1903 in Henderson, TN saved West Tennessee.

A second debate which was important was between J. B. Briney and W. W. Otey. This debate, held in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1908 was important because both the societies and instrumental music were discussed. Evidently Briney had learned something because he affirmed that the society was authorized in the New Testament Scriptures but he would not affirm that instrumental music was authorized. He denied that instrumental music is opposed to New Testament teaching and sinful. Briney's chief arguments were that there was no law against instrumental music, and that he did not care anything about instrumental music but it was a matter of expediency, and that the use of instruments inhered in the word psallo. Although Otey had the handicap of affirming a negative proposition, he acquitted himself quite well, because of Briney's weak defense.

In the 1880's, 0. E. Payne, a Christian Church preacher, analyzed the Greek word psallo, used in Ephesians 5:19, and for the next fifty years this was probably the most used defense for instrumental music. Payne argued that the word meant "to strike" or "to hit," and implied the use of an instrument. This was printed in a book in 1920 by Payne entitled Instrumental Music Is Scriptural. In this book, Payne said "We must unite in agreeing that if we forego musical instruments we cannot conform to the divine injunction to “psallein" (p. 172). This was a departure from previous arguments on the question since it made instrumental music a command and also included it as an act of worship, whereas before advocates of instruments had only affirmed it permissible and argued that it was an aid. The circulation of this book ultimately resulted in Dr. Ira M. Boswell and N. B. Hardeman debating the issue. The advocates of instrumental music refused to affirm the irresistible conclusion of Payne's book, that is, that instrumental music is commanded in worship. The proposition affirmed and denied was: "Instrumental music in church worship is scriptural." The debate, which Guy N. Woods has called "the greatest debate ever held on the use of instrumental music in worship," was held May 31-June 5 in the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tennessee, with six to seven thousand present at each session. Boswell came, armed with a great array of scholarly evidence, the design of which was to show that the Greek word psallo includes the idea of an instrument.

Brother Hardeman traced the etymology of the word psallo, showing that it once signified the twanging of a bowstring, then the twitching of a carpenter's line, and later the touching of the strings of an instrument; and finally, in the New Testament, to sing. He conceded that metaphorically, the instrument is in the word. But, he asked, "What is the instrument that accompanies the singing?" He showed that Paul settled the question when he affirmed that we psallo with the heart, therefore the heart is the instrument that accompanies the singing. Boswell continued to produce a vast array of evidence to prove what no one denied and to disregard Hardeman's only contention — that in the New Testament, Paul declares that the instrument is the heart, thus rendering Boswell's evidence useless. 

Hardeman introduced Thayer, Bagster and Sophocles to show that psallo in the New Testament means simply to sing. He showed that the forty-seven scholars of the King James Version and the one hundred and one scholars of the Revised Version were members of churches which use instrumental music, yet when they relied upon their scholarship, they translated psallo "to sing and make melody in our hearts." The Payne book and the Boswell debate showed that there were serious defects in the "psallo" argument, but it is still being relied upon by such men as Dwaine Dunning.

Other Arguments

A variety of arguments have been used to attempt defense of instrumental music, including its use in the Old Testament, its use in the Jewish temple, its mention in Psalms, including the contention that Psalms were no part of the law, and mention made of it in the book of Revelation. A thorough refutation of these arguments can be found in Part Two of Bulwarks or the Faith, by Foy E. Wallace. Wallace pointed out that none of these arguments furnished what the proponents needed, namely authority for the use of instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church.

In later years, there were two young preachers, Burton 0. Barber and Julian 0. Hunt, who engaged in several debates, contending that instrumental music was only an aid. I know of three of these that were published: The Hunt-Inman Debate, in 1942; the Wallace-Barber Debate, in 1950; and the Wallace-Hunt Debate of 1952. Essentially their contention was that every part of the human body is imperfect and is therefore subject to need an aid in order to be presented acceptable unto God, and God will accept these aids and be pleased with them. Ear-phones aid worshipers in the command, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Revelation 2:7); eye-glasses aid worshipers in carrying out the command, "I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle by read" (1 Thessalonians 5:27); the radio aids in carrying out the command, "Preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2); false teeth aid in the command "For as often as ye eat this bread" (1 Corinthians 11:26); gloves and tools aid in the command "to work with your hands" (1 Thess- alonians 4:11); crutches and canes aid in carrying out the command, "Go into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in" (Luke 14:23); therefore, a tuning fork may be used in getting the pitch, and an organ or piano in maintaining the pitch thus aiding in the command, "Singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19).

In answering this, it was shown that other senses come into play and since "every part of the human body is imperfect," incense would aid the sense of smell, and a little jelly on unleavened bread would aid the sense of taste! Also, it is usually pointed out that all of the things mentioned, except instrumental music, are subordinate to the command, but when playing on an instrument is introduced, it is a coordinate — a different kind of music! I might mention that G. K. Wallace had a bit of trouble with individual cups in his debates with Hunt and Barber.

Current Arguments For Instruments

In 1985, Don DeWelt, an influential preacher and educator of the Independent Christian Church, dropped what he thought was a bombshell. In a letter to the editor of the Gospel Advocate, Guy N. Woods, DeWelt wrote: "There is no command, apostolic example of necessary inference in the New Testament for congregational singing with or without an instrument." The argument seems to be that since there is no authority for singing in corporate worship, there can certainly be no exclusion of instrumental music in corporate worship. Since singing is permitted for Christians, however, he reasons that they may do it in the assembly, but the instrument is also allowed since neither singing nor playing is specifically authorized. Some have thought that this argument unanswerable. Alan Highers has likened this argument to the boyhood argument where one says, "You're a liar," and the other says, "You're another." In other words, "It is true that I am a liar, but so are you." Similarly, this argument says, "It is true that instrumental music is unauthorized, but so is congregational singing." If it were true, it might prove that we should discontinue congregational singing, but it would not prove instrumental music scriptural.

Guy N. Woods replied, initially, "Whatever else may be said about DeWelt's amazing affirmation, in this unprecedented pronouncement, he sweeps forever away every defense every Christian Church preacher has ever attempted, to justify the use of the instrument in congregational worship, on the ground that it is authorized in Ephesians 5:19, by the word psallo! Neither here, nor elsewhere in the sacred writings, he avers, is congregational singing commanded; hence, neither here, nor elsewhere in the New Testament is there authority for instrumental accompaniment for such use. Gone, then, according to him, because they never existed, are the grounds on which Briney, Boswell, Payne, Walker, and all other scholars among them, for a hundred years past, sought to show that the Greek word psallo signifies the use of a mechanical instrument accompanying singing in congregational worship" (Gospel Advocate, May 16, 1985).

In the June issue of One Body, DeWelt takes up the passages used to sustain the cause for congregational singing and mentions them one by one. I will notice the passages, and his reply and then see what response can be made.

1. Acts 16:25. DeWelt says, "Paul and Silas sang a duet; or did they sing individ- ually? No reference here to congregational singing."
2. Romans 15:9. DeWelt says this refers to David, singing in the midst of the Gentiles and confessing the name of God, and adds: "Congregational singing is not in the text."
3. 1 Corinthians 14:15. DeWelt: "Paul here speaks of his own individual singing. There is no reference here to corporate singing."
4. 1 Corinthians 14:26. DeWelt: "The church was to be strengthened by individual expression. The body or church or assembly does not sing but is strengthened by individuals who do."
5. Ephesians 5;19. DeWelt says: "In the context this verse refers to reciprocal singing. No congregational singing is involved. We can indeed 'speak to one another' in congregational singing but this is certainly not a proof text for congregational singing. There is no necessary inference to group singing here!"
6. Colossians 3:16. DeWelt: "The singing here, like the Ephesian reference refers to reciprocal singing. In the context is one of several expression of our personal devotion to our Lord. Nothing is said about congregational singing."
7. James 5:13. DeWelt: "This is a straightforward reference to individual expression."
8. Hebrews 2:12. DeWelt: "This is a prophetic reference to our Lord singing a solo. A congregation is present but it does not sing."
9. Hebrews 13:15. DeWelt: " 'The fruit of lips' could include singing but by whom and where is at best inferred. Such an inference is hardly a proof text for congregational singing."

On Matthew 26:30 (and the parallel passage, Mark 14:26), DeWelt says: "We could infer or imagine the Christians followed His example—Bur since there is no example of their doing it such an inference would not be a necessary inference. We could just as well imagine they didn't, for some unknown reason."

In answer to DeWelt's ridiculous contention, Guy N. Woods showed that it was a departure from the great scholars of the Restoration movement, including Alexander and Thomas Campbell, W. K. Pendleton, I. B. Gruggs and J. B. Briney. He showed that the early "church fathers," the ecclesiastical historians, and the ancient commentators, as well as writers of this and preceding centuries, bear witness to the fact of congregational singing.

Woods shows, with reference to Colossians 3:16, that the participial terms (teaching and admonishing) done by singing, are coordinate in usage, and reciprocal in significance, that is, they are all performed at the same time. The participles are imperatives, therefore specifically commanded. Since they are reciprocal, in both Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, as shown by the Greek word heautou, more than one must be present! One person cannot carry out either Ephesians 5:19 or Colossians 3:16; if two, then two hundred, and this is corporate or congregational action. Thayer says, of the Greek word heautou, "It is used frequently in the plural for the reciprocal pronoun," and renders it to mean "reciprocally, mutually, one another" (p. 163). He also specifically cites Colossians 3:16.

To show the force of the reciprocal pronoun, look at Colossians 3:13, where we are commanded, "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another." Does this mean we cannot do it at the same time? No, the reciprocal nature of the command demands mutual action. The same is true of Ephesians 4:32 and 1 Thessalonians 5:13. Obviously there must be an interaction. Paul was not commanding the Colossians to forgive themselves.

Besides, we wonder where else we would teach and admonish and speak reciprocally besides in the assembly? Does this mean we have to search out one another and sing a solo to them, and then they sing a solo to us? The very idea is ridiculous.

Do we have an example of corporate or congregational singing in the New Testament? Woods points out Mark 14:26 and Matthew 26:30, "And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives." The apostle Paul gave this event as an example to the Corinthian church to follow in his teaching regarding the communion, (1 Corinthians 11:23, 24).

Can we establish authority for singing in the congregation? (1) It is right to offer united praise to God in an assembly of saints (Acts 2:47; 4:23-30). (2) Singing is a form of praise to God (Acts 16:25). (3) Therefore offering united praise to God in song is authorized in the New Testament.

I have not dealt with all the passages of Scripture DeWelt cited but that does not mean that I accept his analysis of them. Hebrews 13:15, for example, says: "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." In this passage, the verb "let us" is said to be in a Greek hautatory subjunctive plural, and that the number of persons involved above the minimum of two cannot be determined. Although the language does not demand that it be done musically, it can be done by singing, because it is to be done with the lips.

I said a few minutes ago that there has been an evolution in arguments in defense of instrumental music. It is striking to note that every new defense made in behalf of instrumental music is a repudiation of all others that have been made. With the abandonment of the old arguments, they thereby concede that they were not any good to begin with. Let me explain. When Barber and Hunt began to argue that instrumental music is merely an aid, they effectively negated all who had previously argued that instrumental music in worship is scriptural. Obviously, an aid is not a part of the worship. When Boswell argued that psallo means to sing "with or without" an instrument, he negated what his own scholar, Payne, said when he affirmed that the instrument "unavoidably inheres" in the word psallo. When Don DeWelt says that congregational singing itself is unauthorized, then there is no authority for such singing with an instrument. In fact, DeWelt states that the debaters of years gone by assumed that the references to singing were related to congregational expression and he told Guy N. Woods, "They were wrong and so are you." Yet, the greatest debaters among them went to their graves contending that congregational singing accompanied by instruments was authorized.

That brings us to the latest new argument by Given 0. Blakely, of the Independent Christian Church, who met Alan E. Highers, of the church of Christ in Neosho, Missouri last April 12-15, 1988. Blakely was endorsed by Don DeWelt, and was supported in the debate by nearly every living debater of the Christian Church, including Julian 0. Hunt, Dwaine Dunning, and Don DeWelt and such renegades in the church of Christ as Ervin Waters, Buff Scott, and Olan Hicks. I was able to hear two nights of the debate, and several of our preachers attended.

The first two nights Highers affirmed, "The use of mechanical instruments of music as an element of Christian worship is without scriptural authority and therefore sinful." Blakely denied. The last two nights Blakely affirmed, "The employment of instruments of music in the singing of praise does not transgress the law of God, is harmonious with the faith of Christ and is inoffensive to God; hence, it is scriptural and in harmony with the word of God." Highers denied.

Highers did a masterful job of showing that we must have authority in religious practice and must not exceed what is written, according to Colossians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Matthew 4:4. He showed that instrumental music was not authorized in the New Testament and could not be done by faith (Romans 10:17). Blakely countered by saying that "in the name of Christ" stands for his person or character, into which we are baptized, and that everything we do is to be done out of that union with Christ, and that this was the point of Colossians 3:17. Highers showed by Thayer's definition that to do something "in the name" of another person is to do it by his power or authority. Throughout the debate, Blakely admitted: "We have no authority, we give no authority, and we need no authority."

Blakely complained that Higher's proposition was not stated correctly, and was neither apostolic nor godly, and that his proposition and questions did not address reality. He repeatedly said that there is no liturgy, no such thing as approved acts of worship, and no such thing as corporate worship. He finally "out-heroded" Herod, to borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, when he said that the wise men, the leper, a certain ruler, and the women of Canaan all worshipped Christ in an unauthorized act of worship, and Christ received it. He demanded Scripture to show that there is such a thing as corporate worship, that worship can be regulated, and that God can be served. He demanded to know a single reference where those in Christ are instructed on how to worship or where a group of believers worshipped. He charged that such was creed-making and leads to the "have I done it right?" syndrome. He said worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it, no regulations, no meticulous routine.

A telling effect was produced when Highers produced a chart with a quote effectively denying and negating all that Blakely had said, finally revealing that the author was Fred 0. Blakely, Blakely's father, and closing with the terse statement of Jesus that "a man's foes shall be they of his own household." He produced quotes from Don DeWelt, Dwaine Dunning, and Blakely himself which showed that they had taught that worship was prescribed, must be authorized, was corporate and that there were acts of worship, the very thing that Blakely said was unscriptural and ungodly.

He showed from a footnote on Matthew 2:2 (ASV) that the meaning of the word "worship" denotes "an act of reverence." He introduced Matthew 15:9 to show that acceptable worship is inseparable from teaching and obeying the truth. He showed from John 4:24 that worship is regulated and stated that if Blakely's position is correct then we may burn incense in worship, observe the Lord's Supper on Monday, use tea and meat in communion, employ rosary beads, do a holy dance and handle snakes. Blakely did not say that such would be wrong. Highers showed that Blakely 's introduction of those who he said had offered unauthorized acts of worship thereby conceded that all the Christian Church preachers in the past who had argued that the instrument was authorized were wrong. There are only two ways to prove instrumental music: (1) give New Testament authorization, (2) show that it does not matter.

Blakely argued that instruments were used in the past with God's approval and will be used in heaven with God's approval, but Highers showed that this proved too much for it would allow incense and other parts of the law to be brought in, and that if what is done in heaven is authority for what we are to do on earth, it would outlaw marriage, according to Matthew 22:30. He reminded Blakely that his proposition obligated him to prove what "is" scriptural, not what has been or what will be.

Blakely repeatedly referred to Thayer as "Brother Thayer," and finally confessed that he did not know if Thayer was a member of the church or not because he was not familiar with Thayer, thereby losing any credibility to deal with any original New Testament term.

Highers made a telling point at the end of the debate when he said that if the debate accomplished nothing else, it helped some who are engaged in unity efforts with the Christian Church to see that the only difference between the church of Christ and the Independent Christian Church was not an instrument of music.

The debate between Highers and Blakely has been printed by Valid Publications (Denton, Texas) and should make a valuable contribution to all who are interested in this subject.

Box 110 A, Rt. 6, Lebanon, MO 65536