Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Instruments in worship?

The other pamphlet I have with me is one arguing against the use of instruments in worship. It is written by Robert B. McCracken and published by Crown & Covenant Publications. I have decided to do a short review of this, as this is an issue which those who are fascinated by the scriptural soundness and maturity of the saints in former times like the Puritans would probably have to encounter. (And yes, I do know that means pobably 99.9% of my blog readers would not be interested in this)

Anyway, the argument against the utilization of instruments in worship is rather convoluted. In this missive, the main points of the arguments would be stated and summarized here, followed by a response to the argument presented.

ARGUMENT AGAINST USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP

Introduction of Instruments into the worship of God:

  • Instruments were first introduced as utilized in worship when the Jewish temple worship were institutionalized. Such were done by the direct command of God.

  • Such use of instruments were directly associated with the ceremonial rituals, that is, the offerings and sacrifices

  • In 2 Chron. 29: 25-30, the first part of the worship before and during the offering of the sacrifice were with instruments. The second part of the worship after the sacrifice however, were without instruments.

  • All of this suggests that the use of instruments in the worship of God is directly related to the temple service.

  • Therefore, when Christ came and the ceremonial system came to an end, the use of instruments for worship would then cease.

Removal of Instruments from the worship of God

  • 'There is not a trace in the complete New Testament of the use of instruments in the Church of Jesus Christ or in the worship of the Apostles. This seems strange if God intended this practice to continue'

  • In the early church there were no instruments used in the churches, quoting Justin Matyr and Chrysostom to that effect.

  • This continued until the 7th century. In the year 666 A.D., Pope Vitalian, brought into his worship Latin singing to the accompaniment of the organ

  • In the Reformation, in order to purify the worship, godly leaders cast out the instruments from their worship services.

Reasons why Instruments were not continued in the N.T. Church

  • Firstly, the perfect sacrifce of Christ did away with all the ceremonial ritual and thus the instruments also, as they were connected with the sacrificial system

  • Secondly, the New Testament specifically tells us that the joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians is to be expressed from the heart through our lips (cf Heb. 13:15)

  • Thirdly, 'we are to "make music in [our] heart" (Eph. 5:19). The Greek word for "make music" is psallo, which means originally "to pluck the strings of an instrument." ... Since the word psallo cannot be seperated from the word "heart", it literally means "plucking te strings of your heart to the Lord." When the music of of the heart is expressed through lips that confess the Lord's name, there is no need for supporting instruments.'

  • Fourthly, 'archaelogists have found no instruments of music among the furniture of the ancient synagogues. And even today in the Orthodox Jewish synagogue no instruments are used (confirming the idea that instruments were tied to the ceremonial system and temple worship). The Christian Church in its original state was patterned after the synagogue, and therefore the instruments had no place in their worship.'

BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL REFUTATION

After looking at the various points of their argument, let us analyze their position biblically and logically, and even historically.

The first point that we would analyze is that instruments were first stated as being used in the temple worship, as instituted by Moses and then David, under the direct command of God. This fact, while true, does not hold any significance at all for the argument at hand however. The Bible moves over the first few centuries of human history very quickly to focus on the story of Abraham and his descendents. Gen. 1-11 thus are a framework, while very important and must be held to be historically correct, for the narrative of Abraham to flow. As such, even if instruments are to be used for worship in such a period, they would not be mentioned. Before Moses, there was nothing that can be remotely called corporate worship, and the captive peole of Israel were hardly in spiritual health while they were in bondage down in Egypt. Therefore, when Moses was said to institutionalize the worship of God, the fact that he introduces instruments does not necessarily mean that instruments are tied to the ceremonial law. Moses institutionalize proper corporate worship also, so therefore this fact bring nothing to the discussion at hand.

This brings us to the second point — of instruments being directly associated with the ceremonial rituals. However, is that the case, or is it rather the case that corporate worship in the Old Testament always comes together with the performing of the ceremonial rituals? The fact that corporate worship always comes together with ceremonial rituals and sacrifices thus introduces another factor into the equation. As such, it is disingenious to simply state that instruments are directly associated with the ceremonial rituals when there is another possibility that instruments are always together with the ceremonial rituals because both are present in Old Testament corporate worship.

Nevertheless, let us proceed to consider 2 Chron. 29:25-30. When we look at this passage, it can be seen that to use this passage to say that instruments are absolutely linked to the cermonial rituals is straining at gnats. The passage is not explicitly clear either way, for although it is true that there are two parts of the worship, it cannot be proved that no instruments were used in the second part. The singing and playing of instruments would naturally stop when the king and his company bow down and worship, as we in our modern context would stop singing and playing our instruments when it comes to a very solemn moment in worship. However, what makes such an argument from silence ridiculous, is that earlier on it was mentioned that the Levites were stationed around with cymbals, harps and lyres (2 Chron. 29:25), but these instruments were never mentioned at all after that. Are we to infer that the Levties brought these instruments into the temple just to display them without playing them? But yet, this is what such an argument from silence would lead us to. It is thus far more likely that these instruments were used together with the singing of the people, while the trumpet were used only initially since they are typically used to herald the beginning.

As such, we have seen that the linking of instruments to the ceremonial system is pure conjecture founded on no biblical basis. Furthermore, since the use of instruments were never stated explicitly in the Scriptures to be part of the ceremonial system, it is ridiculous to say that Christ did away with their usage. As an aside, what are we to make of the fact that there are instruments in heaven (Rev. 5:8)? Are there ceremonial rituals up in heaven which are to be made obselete when Christ comes, but then Christ is always there!?

Wit regards to the New Testament, it is true that there are no mention of instruments in the New Testament, but then there wasn't any detailed description of a New Testament church service either, just that believers praised and worshipped God then. Knowing that those who are typically against the usage of instruments in worship are Covenantal Theologians and Exclusive Psalmodists, how then can they sing a Psalm such as Ps. 150:3-5 without 're-interpreting the words' so that the plain meaning of the psalm becomes irrelevant to them?

McCracken then goes on to a short history lesson. Of course, we must remember that Christians in the early days were generally poor and definitely persecuted. Therefore, that there were no instruments among them in general does not mean that instruments were banned, but more that they either could not afford them, or they are more pressing concerns like supporting missionaries etc. It is always a risky venture to argue from history, because it is more subjective and generally it proves nothing much of value, only in validity a point. In this case, the point has not been validated, so such would be an exercise in futility. With regards to the Reformation, generally there was an over-reaction to the abuses of the Roman clergy and this led to the removal of instruments as well. However, this proves nothing unless it can be shown that the prohibition of instruments is biblical.

In answer to the last part of the reasons given on why instruments are not continued, the fact that we are to have joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians, which is to be expressed from the heart through our lips, does not negate the use of instruments. Ditto for the fact that we are to make music in our hearts to the Lord. Worship must always comes primarily from the heart, but to use that fact to prohibit instruments is to prohibit the eating of oranges because we need to eat apples.

With regards to the comparison with ancient synagogues, such a comparison is wrongfully made. Synagogues were originally more of a house of prayer than a true place of worship (which the temple in Jerusalem was). As such, no true coporate worship would originally be done in a synagogue, and therefore the comparison is in error.

From all of this, it can be seen that the linkage of instruments to the ceremonial system of the Old Testament, and therefore of the phohibition of instruments in worship, is severely misguided. The arguments have been shown to be more of grasping for straws and making invalud inferences and arguments from silence rather than true biblical exegesis. What makes it very ridiculous is the fact that people who call themselve Covenantal Theologians, who are supposed to believe in the continuity between the Old and New Covenants; the Old and New Testaments, who are promoting this sharp discontinuity and thus behaving more like Dispensationalists in this regard. As I have said before, such people can never in good conscience sing Ps. 150:3-5 because they prohibit the usage of any instruments in worship. Of course, I would like to know whether they think instruments can be used for personal worship, because David did play the harp in his own worship to God.

4 comments:

  1. "I do know that means pobably 99.9% of my blog readers would not be interested in this"

    I am interested, but would you allow anyone (incl. me) to critique your post?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Sir,

    I am writing in response to your web essay “Instruments in Worship?” In this essay you call the argument for a cappella singing in New Covenant worship “very ridiculous.” What is ridiculous about belief in the following:

    1. The Regulative Principle of worship
    2. The ceremonial laws have been abrogated
    3. The Levitical priesthood has been abrogated

    You imply that a cappella singing makes some kind of Dispensational error. This is not Dispensational Theology but Reformed Theology. The Westminster Confession of Faith is clear on this,

    Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; (Heb. 9, Heb. 10:1, Gal. 4:1–3, Col. 2:17) and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. (1 Cor. 5:7, 2 Cor. 6:17, Jude 1:23) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. (Col. 2:14,16,17, Dan. 9:27, Eph. 2:15–16) (WCF 19:2)

    Hebrews 7:12,18 teach that the levitical priesthood and ceremonial law is abrogated. Commenting on Hebrews 7:12 John Owen wrote,

    And this I look upon as the greatest trial the faith of men ever had in the concerns of religion; namely, to believe that God should take away, abolish, and leave as dead and useless, that whole system of solemn worship which he had appointed in so glorious a manner, and accepted for so many generations (Exposition of Hebrews, p.430).

    The priesthood was changed, in that one kind of it was utterly abolished, and another introduced (ibid, 431)

    It is the highest vanity, to pretend use or continuance in the church, from possession or prescription, or pretended benefit, beauty, order, or advantage, when once the mind of God is declared against it (ibid, 435).

    The Reformed conviction that instruments are not to be used in the public worship of God is based upon belief that use of instruments in the tabernacle and temple was according to ceremonial law. Instruments were played only by the Levites in the tabernacle and Temple. The ceremonial law and Levitical priesthood have been abrogated. We therefore do not use instruments in New Covenant worship because we do not have Divine Institution.

    On what basis do you use instruments in the public worship of God?

    Your appeal to Psalm 150 is most fascinating. On the one hand you can say that a cappella singers “can never in good conscience sing Ps. 150:3-5 because they prohibit the usage of any instruments in worship.” Elsewhere you make clear you are against “any form of drama and dancing in the corporate worship of God's people.” (Exclusive Psalmody? Part 2)

    How do you sing Psalm 150:3-5 in good conscience while you are opposed to the dance it commands?

    Why are you for the instruments of Psalm 150 but not for the dance of Psalm 150?

    Furthermore, are you really for the instruments of Psalm 150? Are you really obeying the commands of this Psalm by using harps and lyres and loud symbols?

    Hopefully these questions will help you understand that a cappella singing is not as ridiculous as you mock it out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello J,

    of course you are welcome to critique my post. Just don't engage in ad-hominem rhetoric and all would be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agoerner:

    Actually, my post wasn't saying that a cappella singing is "very ridiculous". What I was saying is that to make a cappella singing either a "superior" or THE biblical form of worship is ridiculous.

    I agreed with the 3 points that you have stated: the Regulative Principle of worship, the abrogation of the ceremonial laws and the Levitical priesthood. None of this however states anything for or against the use of musical instruments.

    You said: "belief that use of instruments in the tabernacle and temple was according to ceremonial law." And this is the thing which separates us. You affirm this statement while I deny it. I do not believe that the use of instruments in the tabernacle and the temple was according to the ceremonial law. One very good counter-example is King David, who surely worships God with the harp for once. As I have attempted to show, and hopefully shown, in my post, the coupling of usage of instruments to the cermonial laws is biblically untenable. And that has been my point.

    With regards to Ps. 150, you are right only if I am using ONE criteria alone in determining what can or cannot be utilized in corporate worship; namely the mention of it in a Psalm. Also, fact is, I have no problem with dance etc when used within personal and non-corporate worship. And that is why Ps. 150:3-5 with its mention of dance is ok with me, for the simple reason that corporate worship is only one form of worship, albeit the most important one. Do anti-instrumentalists acknowledge the different forms which worship can take, or maintain that worship is only coporate in its focus?

    And with regards to the instruments of Ps. 150, we do know that the mention of all these instruments is not to suggest that only these instruments are to be used. By mentioning so many instruments, the psalmist was using such a figure of speech to indicate all instruments available. And of course, since this was written in ancient Israel, only instruments which the ancient Israelites use would be mentioned. You can't expect them to mention instruments such as the piano, guitar etc when they were not invented then, right?

    ReplyDelete

This is my blog, and in order to facilitate an edifying exchange, I have came up with various blog rules. Please do read them before commenting, as failure to abide by them would make your post liable to being unapproved for publication. Violation of any of the rules three or more times, or at the blog owner's judgment, would make one liable to be banned from posting unless the blog owner (me) is satisfied that such behavior would not occur again.