Music in the New Testament Church

[Lewis]

Music in the New Testament Church


This is in 2 posts
Someone asked me about the use of stringed instruments in church services and I want to give some of my thoughts on music in the church today. I am very much a believer in using musical instruments as aids to worship. Even in the perfect worship of heaven they use harps to aid their praise to God (Revelation 14:2-3
). And, "the anointed cherub that covereth" (Ezekiel 28:13-14
) was created with the music-making aids of tabrets and pipes in him (v.13) to be used for the praise of God.
Unfortunately, when Satan (the anointed cherub) fell, he brought his musical ability with him. Since that time, music has been a powerful force in man whether used by God or by the devil. This forces us to use all of our spiritual discernment and God-given judgment to determine what is and what is not proper worship music.
Old Testament Practice the Standard?

We could just go back to the Old Testament standards for music for the Jewish people. Certainly these standards were quite liberal. Psalm 150 encourages the use of the trumpet, the psaltery, the harp, the timbrel, stringed instruments, organs and various kinds of cymbals--something that sounds to me a bit like Alexander's Ragtime Band. Many declare this as the standard for church worship today. However, if you carefully read this passage, you will see that it also encourages us to praise God with the dance. (Many churches are also beginning to do this.) Perhaps there is a reason that the churches of Jesus Christ have for 2,000 years rejected the national music of Israel as the standard for the New Testament church.
Music in the New Testament

Instead of listing instruments (the NT passages on the church never mention any musical instruments), God gives His churches a statement of purpose for music in this dispensation. It is found in Ephesians 5:19
and again in Colossians 3:16
.

• Ephesians 5:19
  "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord"
• 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."

Three Kinds of Church Music

In these verses, God establishes three kinds of music proper for New Testament worship.

1. Psalms are God's words (usually from the Psalms but not always) put to music.
2. Hymns are formal expressions of praise or declarations of God's truth.
3. Spiritual songs are songs that deal with the spiritual life and are the most personal of the songs.

English hymnody has emphasized these forms one at a time instead of balancing the three as God planned. The English reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries followed the lead of John Calvin and allowed only Psalms to be sung in the churches. The 18th century saw the introduction of hymns into the churches through the powerful poetry of Isaac Watts, John Newton and John and Charles Wesley. In the the last half of the 19th century, spiritual songs were made popular by people like Ira Sankey, Philip Bliss and Fanny Crosby. However, by this time, the singing of psalms had become a thing of the past. The 20th century witnessed the ascendancy and adulteration of the spiritual song and the decline of the hymn. Today, hymns are quickly becoming a relic of history. There needs to be a movement to bring godly, scriptural balance back to our music.

 

[Lewis]

The Purposes of Church Music

These two verses (Ephesians 5:19
; Colossians 3:16
) also give the purposes of Christian music.
First, our songs should teach us since we are to be “teaching…one another†with them. In order to do this, they should be doctrinally sound and should teach the basics of biblical doctrine. We use songs to teach the alphabet to our children and God used the song of Moses to teach Israel of their relationship with God (Deuteronomy 31:19-21
). We should use music to teach as well. As such, they should be speakable; that is, of sufficient quality that they can be spoken (Ephesians 5:19
). They should be good poetry with good content so that the words without the music still have a great message.
Second, our songs should "admonish" us. This means they should warn of sin or danger and urge to proper action in our Christian lives. I see very little of this in our music today. As a rule, modern church music neither teaches nor admonishes--a direct affront to the command of God in Colossians 3:16
.
Third, our songs should praise and exalt God. We sing them to the Lord and they are an integral part of our worship of Him. With them, we make melody to the Lord and sing to Him.
Fourth, our songs should speak to our hearts. We sing them with grace. That is, they help us. We make melody with them. They stick with us because they are a pleasure to sing. We sing them as we go about our business of the day. Modern music has emphasized (and perverted) praise and popularity while ignoring the teaching and admonishing ministries of proper church music.
Instruments in Church Music

With this as a backdrop, I want to make some comments about instruments in church music.

• Musical instruments are superfluous to proper New Testament church music. By that, I mean that church music can be just as pleasing to God without any musical instruments (other than the human voice) as it can be with a hundred-instrument orchestra. There is no inherent spiritual value in any musical instrument--including the piano.
• Neither are musical instruments prohibited (as the Church of Christ and Mennonites teach). And, since they were used in the Old Testament, there is obviously nothing inherently evil in them.
• However, the New Testament commands us to sing, not play. By the way, it also commands us to sing, not listen to others sing. The only required part is the singing (well, for some people God does allow "speaking" – Ephesians 5:19
  ). God designed New Testament singing for all believers. It is not to be relegated to a few professionals.
• Therefore, musical instruments should be used only inasmuch as they enhance the biblical purposes of music in the church.

Musical Instruments Not Spiritually Neutral

However, this is not to say that musical instruments are spiritually neutral in a total sense. Those who are deeply involved in music know the powers of specific instruments more than I. The drums can easily create a dance mood. This is much more difficult to do with a flute (though not impossible). The banjo has little capacity for sadness or meditative moods. The saxophone tends towards the sensual.
Yet, much of the power of the instruments is found in how they are played by the musicians themselves. I have seen all three of the above instruments used in godly music--though not often. I think the banjo may be limited to happy, upbeat songs, but there is a place for that in the "spiritual songs" of the church. Some instruments have a wider range of moods than others. The piano can match any mood. Perhaps the banjo cannot. But that does not necessarily keep it out of the church.
Some Dangers of Instrumental Music

Let me mention some of the dangers concerning instrumental music in the church as I see it:

1. Music has the ability to speak to every part of man: his spirit, his mind, his emotions, his will, his body and his flesh. I distinguish the body from the flesh in the biblical sense. My physical body is not evil in and of itself but my fleshly nature is. Music is fleshly when it makes me more open to sinful temptations and when it actually encourages me to partake of my lusts. It is possible for my body to react favorably to music without my flesh being incited to sin. However, the distance from the one to the other is dangerously small. Many churches defend the physical appeal of their music by making this distinction. The body likes it but that is not the same as the flesh so it is all right. But where in the New Testament does the church have a call to entertain the body? Perhaps the tapping of the foot is not sin but do we know how to keep the music from going on to the flesh? With spiritual insight, perhaps we can. But there are no scriptural grounds for reaching out specifically to the physical in our music. It should never be targeted in the music of the church. If music glorifies God and teaches good doctrine and incidentally, is a joy to listen to, perhaps this is fine. But we should always be wary of the danger of fun music becoming fleshly music.
2. A second danger comes in the exaltation of talent. How many secular musicians got their start in the church? Modern church music tends to exalt the talented and not the godly. I fear that the average church and pastor is not strong enough to take a stand against a talented but unfaithful musician.
3. Another danger I see is a longtime pet peeve of mine. Church music is more and more becoming a division between the spectators and the performers. As I said earlier, the New Testament emphasizes the singing of the believer, not the performance of an artist. We must get back to an emphasis on congregational music if we are to be biblical. Special music may have a place as a change in pace, but God wants to hear all His children sing praises to Him. Use instruments, but make sure that the message of the song and the singing of it by the congregation is king.

The use of music in the church is very dear to my heart. This is one area in which I wish I had enough influence to start a movement--a movement back to the Biblical pattern of church music. Perhaps God will send a man.
Music in the New Testament Church | Learn The Bible

 

[handy]

Interesting article, Lewis.

I agree with so much of it. Especially the part about music during worship not being about exulting talents and the fact that music in many churches is creating an atmosphere of "spectators" and "performers". As one who has been a part of a church choir that not only sang during worship each Sunday, but had also put on special performances, I know first hand that there is a difference between lifting up voices in worship in song...and putting on a performance for an audience.

It's a real pet peeve of mine as well.

Somewhere...and it seems to have happened during the 80's and 90's....worship services have somehow morphed into concerts where the emphasis is on the music and yes, the musicians...not the One whom the music is supposedly exulting.

 

[Webb]

There is what some understand to be the "law of inclusion and exclusion.'' Instrumental music was clearly excluded

 

[sburdine]

I am a member of the church of Christ so I thought it fair for me to give my understanding of the subject.

You stated:
"Neither are musical instruments prohibited (as the Church of Christ and Mennonites teach). "

I believe they are prohibited because of the fact that in the N.T. we are told which specific type of music to use in worship, singing. In specifying singing that prohibits all other types of music.

"And, since they were used in the Old Testament, there is obviously nothing inherently evil in them."

I will agree there is nothing inherently evil in them, however that does not mean we can use them in worship when God has not authorized them.

Also, I think your logic is faulty. Just because something was authorized or prohibited in the O.T. does not make it "inherently" good or bad. If so then would you say that all things listed as unclean in the O.T. are inherently unclean? We know this is not the case because in the N.T. we are told that we are free to eat some unclean animals that were prohibited in the O.T.

"Therefore, musical instruments should be used only inasmuch as they enhance the biblical purposes of music in the church."

The problem with this statement is that when we add instrumental music to worship we are adding to God's word.

One other point, you alluded to the reformers of the 17th and 18th century but have you ever thought about this point.

We know that in the O.T. that God instructed man on the use of instruments in worship, so those first Jewish converts would be very familiar with having instruments in worship also the Gentile Christians would be familiar with them because of their pagan worship, however we also know that it was many centuries after the start of the church and even after man started forming their own denominations before we have any history of instruments being introduced into the worship.

 

[Lewis]

I am a member of the church of Christ so I thought it fair for me to give my understanding of the subject.

You stated:
"Neither are musical instruments prohibited (as the Church of Christ and Mennonites teach). "

I believe they are prohibited because of the fact that in the N.T. we are told which specific type of music to use in worship, singing. In specifying singing that prohibits all other types of music.

"And, since they were used in the Old Testament, there is obviously nothing inherently evil in them."

I will agree there is nothing inherently evil in them, however that does not mean we can use them in worship when God has not authorized them.

Also, I think your logic is faulty. Just because something was authorized or prohibited in the O.T. does not make it "inherently" good or bad. If so then would you say that all things listed as unclean in the O.T. are inherently unclean? We know this is not the case because in the N.T. we are told that we are free to eat some unclean animals that were prohibited in the O.T.

"Therefore, musical instruments should be used only inasmuch as they enhance the biblical purposes of music in the church."

The problem with this statement is that when we add instrumental music to worship we are adding to God's word.

One other point, you alluded to the reformers of the 17th and 18th century but have you ever thought about this point.

We know that in the O.T. that God instructed man on the use of instruments in worship, so those first Jewish converts would be very familiar with having instruments in worship also the Gentile Christians would be familiar with them because of their pagan worship, however we also know that it was many centuries after the start of the church and even after man started forming their own denominations before we have any history of instruments being introduced into the worship.

You really need to read this article below.

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Read the full article at the link below
Question:
"My friends say that musical instruments are forbidden in church. Is that Scriptural?"

Answer:
Several years ago I briefly attended a church which does not use musical instruments for praise and worship. I found that they made up for the lack of instruments with wonderful harmonies coming from all over the sanctuary. It was quite beautiful to hear!

Since some people believe that instruments are allowed in church, and other people believe that instruments are forbidden in church, I wanted to find out what the Bible says about this. After all, these two views are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of them can be right.

It turns out that the New Testament never commands us to use instruments in church, so I see nothing wrong with singing in church without using musical instruments. On the other hand, the New Testament neither forbids nor condemns using instruments in church, so I also see nothing wrong with using musical instruments (or recorded music) to assist in worship.

"The New Testament is silent concerning musical instruments"

One of the main arguments against using musical instruments in church goes something like this: [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The New Testament is silent about using musical instruments in church, and therefore musical instruments are forbidden in church."[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica] Those who use this argument are usually not against musical instruments in general, they are simply trying to be true to the Scriptural principles that they see in the New Testament. But we should be careful about assuming that something is forbidden just because it is not directly mentioned in the New Testament. For example, if you visit churches where they believe that musical instruments must not be used to assist in worship (because of the above argument), you will find that they usually use microphones, hymnbooks, song leaders, and so on, to assist in worship. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but the irony is that we can use their own argument to "prove" that these things are forbidden in church: [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The New Testament is silent about using microphones in church, and therefore microphones are forbidden in church."

"The New Testament is silent about using hymnbooks in church, and therefore hymnbooks are forbidden in church."

"The New Testament is silent about using song leaders in church, and therefore song leaders are forbidden in church."[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica] People who use the above argument against playing musical instruments in church are sincerely trying to do what they believe is right, but they might not recognize that they are often being inconsistent in their application of this argument. Notice that when we selectively apply this argument in one area (such as musical instruments) while ignoring other areas where this argument also applies (such as hymnbooks, song leaders, etc.), it shows that we really don't believe that this is a valid argument after all. For example, at the church I attended which does not use musical instruments, they did use pitch pipes to get the right key for singing, they had a song leader who used arm movements to direct the singing, the song leader used a microphone, and so on. I totally support their right to do these things because I don't see anything unScriptural about them. But notice that these things are done for the purpose of assisting in worship by helping people find the proper key and maintain the proper timing, the proper rhythm, and the proper melody. Yet those are the very same purposes for using musical instruments to assist in worship. The argument that instruments are not allowed in church (because the New Testament is "silent" about instruments) also applies to pitch pipes, microphones, hymnbooks, song leaders, etc. (because the New Testament is "silent" about these things as well). So people are sometimes inconsistently applying their own argument against using musical instruments in worship.

Read the full article here[/FONT] Christian Music - Musical Instruments

 

[stovebolts]

I am a member of the church of Christ so I thought it fair for me to give my understanding of the subject.

Hello Brother within the church of Christ :waving

You stated:
"Neither are musical instruments prohibited (as the Church of Christ and Mennonites teach). "

I believe they are prohibited because of the fact that in the N.T. we are told which specific type of music to use in worship, singing. In specifying singing that prohibits all other types of music.

The Orthodox also do not use musical instruments in their worship. However, in response to how we are to worship, I believe Jesus spoke most clearly about this.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

How this looks in a corporate setting will vary between congregation and congregation, and most certainly between cultures. I would be so bold, as a member of the church of Christ who holds a preference toward Capella, to state that there are those who have musical instruments within their corporate worship who are worshipping in spirit and in truth. I would also be so bold to state that there are those within the Capella movement that hit every note perfectly, yet miss the mark. Thanks be to God who accepts our worship based on spirit and truth which is rooted in our hearts.

"Therefore, musical instruments should be used only inasmuch as they enhance the biblical purposes of music in the church."

The problem with this statement is that when we add instrumental music to worship we are adding to God's word.

.

My friend and Brother in Christ, we cannot put our yoke upon other believers. What we can do is urge them to worship in spirit and in truth whether they are using instruments or not.

This being said, I do find a certain danger within the worship setting when there are more spectators than participants and the spectators show their appreciation for the band through applause as this type of worship seems to me to be focused inward towards the spectators enjoyment, and not upward toward God with a joyful heart for what He has done.

So it seems to me that the role of a worship leader is to have the right music available that both lifts up praise to God, while building up the body while he leads as many as he can into true worship which is always led in spirit and in truth.

 

[handy]

This being said, I do find a certain danger within the worship setting when there are more spectators than participants and the spectators show their appreciation for the band through applause as this type of worship seems to me to be focused inward towards the spectators enjoyment, and not upward toward God with a joyful heart for what He has done.

I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. And, I've seen much applause after a capella performances in churches as well.

So it seems to me that the role of a worship leader is to have the right music available that both lifts up praise to God, while building up the body while he leads as many as he can into true worship which is always led in spirit and in truth.

I have a question and I don't want to sound as if I'm being snitty...Jeff, you and I've sat across the table from one another over tea and coffee, so I'm sure you'll understand that this isn't meant to be mean-spirited, I'm honestly wondering...

"The role of a worship leader"...since the basis of the a capella movement is that the New Testament doesn't specifically mention musical instruments...I'm wondering where the role of "worship leader" comes from? The NT doesn't mention such a role as far as I know. "Worship leader" isn't one of the gifted persons in the church such as apostle, pastor, teacher, prophet or evangelist.

And yet, "worship leader" or "worship team" has morphed (in many modern congregations) as being one of the most vital roles within the church, in many congregations surpassing even the pastors and teachers.

Are there "worship leaders" in the Church of Christ? If so, how does the church explain this?

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Dora,

I never take what you have to say toward me as snitty. You're good people and I hope I've never come across as snitty toward you.

Just to clear one thing up, I find a distinction between the Church of Christ, and the church of Christ. I believe that the true Church of Christ can be found among the many denominations that span the Globe. When I say church of Christ, I am speaking about the churches of Christ across the globe that share some common, and core beliefs. Most predominately Capella singing and baptism which both seem to be hot topics in never ending debate.

Do we have a worship leader? We sure do, and he's also an elder. An Elders primary job is to teach, and as worship leader / coordinator it's his job to lead us in songs that generally prepare our minds for the coming lesson, and certainly before we take communion. Certainly we can grow in praise to our Lord through song, and somebody has to know which song to sing next etc. I believe that as a worship leader, he is teaching us by uniting us together in song toward one another, and upward to God.

I understand the arguments surrounding instruments in corporate worship, and I don't buy into many of them. Neither does our eldership. We sing Capella because we choose to, not because we feel it's unauthorized etc. Call it tradition if you will, but I also don't see anything wrong with tradition as long as we don't force our yoke upon others, and certainly though many find it odd that we don't use musical instruments, it's not wrong.

Anyway, I'm not an elder, nor am I deacon etc, but I trust our eldership.

 

[sburdine]

You really need to read this article below.

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Read the full article at the link below
Question:
"My friends say that musical instruments are forbidden in church. Is that Scriptural?"

Answer:
Several years ago I briefly attended a church which does not use musical instruments for praise and worship. I found that they made up for the lack of instruments with wonderful harmonies coming from all over the sanctuary. It was quite beautiful to hear!

Since some people believe that instruments are allowed in church, and other people believe that instruments are forbidden in church, I wanted to find out what the Bible says about this. After all, these two views are mutually exclusive, and therefore only one of them can be right.

It turns out that the New Testament never commands us to use instruments in church, so I see nothing wrong with singing in church without using musical instruments. On the other hand, the New Testament neither forbids nor condemns using instruments in church, so I also see nothing wrong with using musical instruments (or recorded music) to assist in worship.

"The New Testament is silent concerning musical instruments"

One of the main arguments against using musical instruments in church goes something like this: [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The New Testament is silent about using musical instruments in church, and therefore musical instruments are forbidden in church."[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica] Those who use this argument are usually not against musical instruments in general, they are simply trying to be true to the Scriptural principles that they see in the New Testament. But we should be careful about assuming that something is forbidden just because it is not directly mentioned in the New Testament. For example, if you visit churches where they believe that musical instruments must not be used to assist in worship (because of the above argument), you will find that they usually use microphones, hymnbooks, song leaders, and so on, to assist in worship. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but the irony is that we can use their own argument to "prove" that these things are forbidden in church: [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The New Testament is silent about using microphones in church, and therefore microphones are forbidden in church."

"The New Testament is silent about using hymnbooks in church, and therefore hymnbooks are forbidden in church."

"The New Testament is silent about using song leaders in church, and therefore song leaders are forbidden in church."[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica] People who use the above argument against playing musical instruments in church are sincerely trying to do what they believe is right, but they might not recognize that they are often being inconsistent in their application of this argument. Notice that when we selectively apply this argument in one area (such as musical instruments) while ignoring other areas where this argument also applies (such as hymnbooks, song leaders, etc.), it shows that we really don't believe that this is a valid argument after all. For example, at the church I attended which does not use musical instruments, they did use pitch pipes to get the right key for singing, they had a song leader who used arm movements to direct the singing, the song leader used a microphone, and so on. I totally support their right to do these things because I don't see anything unScriptural about them. But notice that these things are done for the purpose of assisting in worship by helping people find the proper key and maintain the proper timing, the proper rhythm, and the proper melody. Yet those are the very same purposes for using musical instruments to assist in worship. The argument that instruments are not allowed in church (because the New Testament is "silent" about instruments) also applies to pitch pipes, microphones, hymnbooks, song leaders, etc. (because the New Testament is "silent" about these things as well). So people are sometimes inconsistently applying their own argument against using musical instruments in worship.

Read the full article here[/FONT] Christian Music - Musical Instruments

This article is good, but states out on the wrong premise so it is flawed for the most part. I do not content that we cannot use instruments because nothing is said about them in fact I do believe something is said about them. When singing is specified as the type of music to use it also says that we are not allowed to use other types of music. Unless, there is another passage which would mention that we can use another type of music. For example, If I said here is some money go and buy me a blue car. Although, I did not make the direct statement "Do not buy me a red car" when I specified which color I wanted I was basically saying do not buy me a red car or any other color for that matter.

The second thing I see differently from the article is that there is a difference between an aid and an addition. For the most part what the writer lists are things used as aids to the signing and we do have authority for aids. However, where we disagree is that I believe that instruments cannot be considered an aid. When we use a song book we are not using another type of music other than the one which was specified, that makes a song an aid. However, when we start playing instruments are we not adding a different type of music other than singing? Yes, we then have two types of music, vocal music and instrumental music and have added a type of music that God has not authorized.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi sburdine

I see that we are both members in the church of Christ, and both worship expressed through Capella, though for slightly different reasons. I worship Capella because I believe our voice is the best instrument we have, and we should give nothing less than our best when we come to God in worship. I also respect the traditions of the churches of Christ when it comes to Capella and have no desire to bring musical instruments into the church.

Historically, how do you believe this verse would have been taken?

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

When Paul wrote this, what was the norm for the psalms? What I mean is this. If I were to say to you something that was normative of our culture, surely I would have no need to further outline my statement for redundancy. This being the case, how were the psalms performed in Paul's day. In other words, what was normative of the psalms as Paul / Saul understood the psalms?

Grace and Peace.

Jeff

 

[sburdine]

Hi sburdine

I see that we are both members in the church of Christ, and both worship expressed through Capella, though for slightly different reasons. I worship Capella because I believe our voice is the best instrument we have, and we should give nothing less than our best when we come to God in worship. I also respect the traditions of the churches of Christ when it comes to Capella and have no desire to bring musical instruments into the church.

Historically, how do you believe this verse would have been taken?

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

When Paul wrote this, what was the norm for the psalms? What I mean is this. If I were to say to you something that was normative of our culture, surely I would have no need to further outline my statement for redundancy. This being the case, how were the psalms performed in Paul's day. In other words, what was normative of the psalms as Paul / Saul understood the psalms?

Grace and Peace.

Jeff

I believe what you want me to see is that under the O.T. the psalm would probably be accompanied by a musical instrument. O.K. I agree with that. However, is that what Paul was implying and is that the way the early church understood it? I do not think so. Paul specified singing, he could have used another term that would have included instruments but he did not. The early church did not understand it to mean that instruments could be used either. While I do not weigh heavily on the written history of the church I do think it interesting that, as you point out yourself, the Jewish converts were so used to have instruments in their worship but when we look at church history they cannot be found until years after the church started and many deviations from from the true church. Also the term "a cappella" is evidence that church did not use instruments. The term is Italian and means "in the manner of the church" or "in the manner of the chapel" A cappella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Why would singing without the use of instruments come to be known by this term if the churches had instruments? It would not.

 

[Free]

It is error to conclude that instruments should not be used in church just because the NT remains silent on the matter as it pertains to the church. Revelation seems to show that at least angels have instruments in worshiping God, and given that they were used by the Jews in the OT, there really is no reason to think that the Jews would have stopped using them in the church.

There is far too much of this argument from silence that goes on in Christian circles and it is wrong.

 

[Nick]

As someone who is part of one of three music teams in my congregation, I know firsthand the challenges of being a musician in church. The music is not challenging, but it is very tempting to make it more complex than it needs to be to put on a show.

I often liken music teams to floorboards - they hold up the congregation, but should hardly be noticed. But if they break or are too decorative, then people notice them.

Music teams should be solid musicians in that they should be able to play the music, but not to draw attention to themselves.

One my peeves is when people call the music team the worship team. To me it implies that other 'teams' are not worshipping. It just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[handy]

As someone who is part of one of three music teams in my congregation, I know firsthand the challenges of being a musician in church. The music is not challenging, but it is very tempting to make it more complex than it needs to be to put on a show.

I often liken music teams to floorboards - they hold up the congregation, but should hardly be noticed. But if they break or are too decorative, then people notice them.

Music teams should be solid musicians in that they should be able to play the music, but not to draw attention to themselves.

One my peeves is when people call the music team the worship team. To me it implies that other 'teams' are not worshipping. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Oh, how I share that peeve, Nick.

Our church does something rather unique...at least I've never seen it before...the music is played (mostly organ, sometimes piano and every now a then a violinist) from the balcony of the church in the back. The organ pipes are up front and the speakers are pretty much "surround" so you really don't get any kind of sense of where the music is coming from. None of the musicians or singers are even seen by the congregation. It's very rare that there are any soloists...sometimes but not often. The liturgy music is great...I find myself singing the liturgy throughout the week...the hymns... well, our pastor chooses the hymns based upon the doctrine found in them and how it brings out the particular lessons for the day. Many of the hymns are beautiful...but sometimes singing something that was translated from 500 year old German is a little hard and discordant.

I'm not saying that the musicians should be out of sight per se...but it certainly keeps the focus on the act of worshiping God through song as opposed to "watching a performance".

Jeff and sburdine, thanks for the insights into the views of the CofC on this subject.

As I mentioned to Nick, I share the peeve of this rather new attitude that I've found in many churches today...that "worship" is when musicians and singers are up front playing and singing. 2

"Worship team" and "worship leader" are new terms, but I believe very wrong terms...that's why I asked about it, Jeff.

 

[Nacho]

If Jesus didn't want us worshiping him with musical instruments wouldn't it be safe to say that he wouldn't show up to those services using instruments to worship him?

But guess what......he does show up in the presence of the Holy Spirit sometimes in a very moving and powerful way.

Now here is my question.......he wouldn't show up to a service if you were singing blasphemy towards him, so why does he show up when we use instruments if we are not supposed to use them in worship?

 

[stovebolts]

I believe what you want me to see is that under the O.T. the psalm would probably be accompanied by a musical instrument. O.K. I agree with that. However, is that what Paul was implying and is that the way the early church understood it? I do not think so. Paul specified singing, he could have used another term that would have included instruments but he did not. The early church did not understand it to mean that instruments could be used either. While I do not weigh heavily on the written history of the church I do think it interesting that, as you point out yourself, the Jewish converts were so used to have instruments in their worship but when we look at church history they cannot be found until years after the church started and many deviations from from the true church. Also the term "a cappella" is evidence that church did not use instruments. The term is Italian and means "in the manner of the church" or "in the manner of the chapel" A cappella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Why would singing without the use of instruments come to be known by this term if the churches had instruments? It would not.

Thanks for your reply.

One thing I try to keep in mind, is that in Paul's day, the only scripture they had is what we now call the Old Testament. Would you agree with that being the NT. wasn't really cannonized until I believe the 4th century.

With that in mind, what scriptures would Paul be refering to when he told Timothy this?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The issue of Musical instruments is clearly a doctrine. A doctrine not supported by the entire cannon of scripture or we would be able to make a solid case for not using them based on the OT, since this is where Paul not only derived his understanding, but where Paul also pointed Timothy to for Godly instruction.

Again, I am not trying to bring musical instruments int the churches of Christ. Actually, I prefer Capella. Simply put, it's beautiful and the first time I attended a church of Christ I fell in love with the worship, although I do wish we'd sing some newer songs a bit more often.

Like Free, I'm not a big fan arguments based on the silence of Scripture. To tell you the truth, my wife has deep roots in the church of Christ and her family is well known in TN etc. Based on this rule of silence, her great great grandfather took on the church because he didn't think that Sunday School was authorized. I have the debate... it's ugly, but he had a point. The NT is silent on the issue of Sunday School. Clearly, anyone who reads the debate which I believe is about 100 pages will agree that he won the debate based on the principle of silence where there is no mention of a Sunday School program etc in the NT. It's not even supported by the first century church anywhere... Yet I'll bet you have a Sunday School class at your church, and we don't bat an eye... yet some still argue about having a clock in the auditorium, or a kitchen in the church....

So why do we take such a hard line on one issue based on a principle, yet look the other way on other issues using the same principals?

God is serious about worship. We both agree on that and with the same back ground we would be in agreement all the way through the importance and seriousness of worship. We would even agree that worship must be done in both Spirit and Truth to be acceptable to God.

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts, if you care to share them.

Grace and Peace.

Jeff

 

[Nick]

Oh, how I share that peeve, Nick.

Our church does something rather unique...at least I've never seen it before...the music is played (mostly organ, sometimes piano and every now a then a violinist) from the balcony of the church in the back. The organ pipes are up front and the speakers are pretty much "surround" so you really don't get any kind of sense of where the music is coming from. None of the musicians or singers are even seen by the congregation. It's very rare that there are any soloists...sometimes but not often. The liturgy music is great...I find myself singing the liturgy throughout the week...the hymns... well, our pastor chooses the hymns based upon the doctrine found in them and how it brings out the particular lessons for the day. Many of the hymns are beautiful...but sometimes singing something that was translated from 500 year old German is a little hard and discordant.

I'm not saying that the musicians should be out of sight per se...but it certainly keeps the focus on the act of worshiping God through song as opposed to "watching a performance".

Jeff and sburdine, thanks for the insights into the views of the CofC on this subject.

As I mentioned to Nick, I share the peeve of this rather new attitude that I've found in many churches today...that "worship" is when musicians and singers are up front playing and singing. 2

"Worship team" and "worship leader" are new terms, but I believe very wrong terms...that's why I asked about it, Jeff.

in my church we have a band, not an organ but we take a similar attitude that your church seems to - the pastor chooses the songs based on the doctrine and how they relate to that night's sermon.

Some churches choose songs just because they sound good, and sometimes seem to conveniently forget that a particular song may have a phrase that the church doesn't agree with. I am of the view that if we wouldn't pray these lyrics then why sing them?

My church has the band out the front, but they're off to one side, away drom the projectors, where everyone should be looking. The singers are in front, on the two feet raised platform where the pastor and others address the congregation from.

 

[sburdine]

First let me point out that just because the N.T. was not canonized until the 4th century does not mean Paul would not be referring to the N.T. letters and teachings as scripture. Notice:

2 Pt. 3:16 “as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.â€

In this passage it should be clear that Paul includes the N.T. epistles that had been written at that time as scripture.

Now, concerning the use of silence as authority for or as an argument against something I will be honest I cannot say that I fully know how we are to apply the principle. I do not think we can make the blanket statement that silence either approves everything or disproves everything.

One of my friends made a good observation one time when we was talking about the same subject on a different forum (It is a forum that some of us from the church of Christ started. I still attend and believe conservatively while others attend what would be considered a liberal church of Christ. If you are interested I could email you a link so you could see the whole thread.) He stated that,

"I suppose it depends on a person's fundamental outlook. If we assume that everything is authorized unless specifically prohibited then we have to look to the scriptures to see where our limits are. On the other hand, if we assume that everything is prohibited unless specifically authorized we go to the scriptures to see what our liberties are. I guess this statement is just a summation of this entire topic isn't it."

I believe that unless one thing is specifically mentioned you have to look at it on a case by case basis. (But do not hold me to that.)

 

[stovebolts]

First let me point out that just because the N.T. was not canonized until the 4th century does not mean Paul would not be referring to the N.T. letters and teachings as scripture. Notice:

2 Pt. 3:16 “as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.â€

In this passage it should be clear that Paul includes the N.T. epistles that had been written at that time as scripture.

I'm not sure how you make the connection that Peter is refering to Paul's epistles as sacred scripture and I would appreciate your insight.

The way I see that verse, is that the only Scripture Peter was addressing would be that of the TANAK from which Paul wrote about. The word epistle is none other than a letter. Thus, Paul was writing letters in regard to the Scriptures and Peter is simply stating that since people don't understand Scripture (TANAK), they are not only twisting the TANAK to their own destruction, but also the letter Paul writes which reference the TANAK.

Now, concerning the use of silence as authority for or as an argument against something I will be honest I cannot say that I fully know how we are to apply the principle. I do not think we can make the blanket statement that silence either approves everything or disproves everything.

One of my friends made a good observation one time when we was talking about the same subject on a different forum (It is a forum that some of us from the church of Christ started. I still attend and believe conservatively while others attend what would be considered a liberal church of Christ. If you are interested I could email you a link so you could see the whole thread.) He stated that,

"I suppose it depends on a person's fundamental outlook. If we assume that everything is authorized unless specifically prohibited then we have to look to the scriptures to see where our limits are. On the other hand, if we assume that everything is prohibited unless specifically authorized we go to the scriptures to see what our liberties are. I guess this statement is just a summation of this entire topic isn't it."

I believe that unless one thing is specifically mentioned you have to look at it on a case by case basis. (But do not hold me to that.)

I'd be interested in the link. You can either post it here, or send it to me in PM.

You know, we all have a different perspective because we've all experienced things differently in life and the experiences we've had shape how we view the world around us and form our bias toward this or that.

When I was 13 and came to Christ, I was a wreck and in Juvenile, and when I read the N.T., especially the gospels and part of the stories really resonated deep within my soul and drew me toward Jesus. I suppose I've never really looked at Scripture as a rule book as what's authorized and what's not, though I know some do. But for me, I look at parts of it as this living story about people who did some really stupid stuff, while others did some really fantastic stuff. Either way, we can each learn from their success and failure.

From scripture, especially in the O.T., we see some pretty stupid stuff when it comes to worship, and the words of Jesus ring loud in my ears, "If you knew what it meant, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" and it causes me to reflect on how serious God really is about worship.

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there for ya so maybe you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Thanks for conversations. I appreciate it.

Grace and Peace,
Jeff