Instrumental Worship: Isolated Or Key Trend?
by Lowell Blasingame
(Editors note: The following article by bro. Blasingame deals with some very disturbing departures. Max Lucado is a very popular writer and preacher. Because of his popularity, his influence is widely felt among churches. I Corinthians 4:6 says, “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (KJV). Let us ever be vigilant mg)
This is the headline for an article carried in The Christian Chronicle, Vol. 60, No. 10, October, 2003 in which the announcement is made that Oak Hills church (formerly “of Christ”) has made the decision to include in its worship services one that includes the use of mechanical instruments to accompany the singing. The writer of this article goes on to point out that in doing this the Oak Hills church is following the lead of four other of the largest churches of Christ in the U.S. who have made the same decision since 2001.
Max Lucado has been “pulpit minister” of the Oak Hills church for 15 years and his association with denominations is legend. He has exchanged pulpits with the First Baptist Church preacher in San Antonio, been a featured speaker at Promise Keepers meetings and not long past engineered a lecture program for the Oak Hills church featuring speakers from different denominations in the area. Lucado is on record as believing salvation is by “faith only” and stating that baptism is an act of obedience after one has been saved, not in order to be saved. I have a preacher friend in Arkansas, who like I, grew up on a farm before the day of tractors and farm herbicides. In his homespun wisdom he made the observation that nothing broadens one's outlook on life like watching the sun rise over the back end of a mule as he follows a plow up and down cotton rows. His gem of wisdom that he passed along to me was, “When you quit plowing is when the weeds and grass take over!” The point that I'm trying to make in telling you this is, that Oak Hills ain't had no plowing for 15 years! That's why the weeds and grass are taking over there.
The writer of this CC article feels the pulse of some whom I suppose that he regards to be leading figures in the brotherhood to get their take or reaction on these large churches introducing instrumental music in the worship. Flavil Yeakley sees it “as five isolated tragedies.” John Ellas sees “a small trend related to music tied to a larger trend,” that being “the willingness to reevaluate previous theological positions” with many coming to different conclusions. Mac Lynn sees the shift in attitude on the instrument as being only one indicator and says, “Many churches are less concerned with historic markers that distinguished Churches of Christ.” He lists among these “historic markers,” (Mac needs to learn the difference between what is historic and what is Scriptural) singing, baptism for remission of sins, weekly communion, the organization of the church and men in the leadership roles of the church. He concludes that, “Most of the markers are still in place, but the attitude toward their essentiality has changed (emphasis mine, lb).” What is overlooked is the fact that apostasy begins in an attitude that looses respect for the authority of the Scriptures (I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 4:1-5). Earl Edwards says that the instrument seems to be added on the premise that “anything not expressly condemned in Scripture is acceptable – and since instrumental music is not specifically condemned, it is OK. Such reasoning assumes that all silence is permissive (never prohibitive).” He, then, makes the observation, “If that were true, infant baptism and many other things would be OK as well.” Edwards is correct for there are no passages expressly forbidding sprinkling for baptism, counting beads while praying or substituting ham for the bread in the service for the Lord's supper. The Hebrew writer argued that silence is prohibitive, not permissive (Hebrews 7:14). Rubel Shelly says that he is “deeply committed to a cappella music,” and that he would “oppose anyone's effort to introduce it into our congregational worship at Woodmont Hills” and that he is “not about to champion instrumental music for the Church of Christ.” However, if you think Rubel is going to be an outspoken opponent against its use in worship, forget it. Hear him, “But when someone wants me to go further and to condemn to hell someone who doesn't agree with my view, or to criticize congregations that choose to use instruments because they believe it will assist their outreach in a community different from mine, I have no interest in pursing the discussion.” Rubel concludes, “Instrumental music and the atonement are not of the same status or consequence to the human soul and its eternal welfare.” When it comes to determining what is Scriptural and what isn't, why does Rubel make a difference “a community different from mine” and his? Could it be that his community, Nashville, is where the Clubb-Boles and Hardeman-Boswell debates were conducted that sounded a death blow to the music question then and that too many memories of it remain there for him to get on the bandwagon at this time? And how did he arrive at the conclusion that the atonement and instrumental music aren't “of the same status or consequence?” The atonement comes by the blood of Christ (Romans 3:24-27; Ephesians 1:7) and is received by our “walking in the light” (I John 1:7), which equals obeying the “law of faith” of Romans 3:27. Since there is no divine authorization for instrumental music in worship, one cannot use it and walk in the light and when he ceases to do this, he no longer has the cleansing of the blood that is essential to atonement – so how does he arrive at the conclusion that they aren't of equal importance? One thing is certain, he didn't do it from the Scriptures.
The remainder of the CC article cites reasons given by churches who have introduced the instrument into at least one of their services and the author of the article concludes, “The churches who have added instrumental services cite a common motivation – evangelism and outreach. All report increases in attendance since the switch.” This is what happens when emphasis is put on numbers as the sign of growth. We cease to be interested in a “thus saith the Lord” and become more concerned about what will pack the pews. Following Constantine's conversion (?) and his issuing the Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D., which said that no longer could a person be persecuted because of his religion, a great influx of people came into the church. This massive growth (?) wasn't by conversion, but due to the popularity given Christianity by the Emperor's embracing it and what this unconverted mass did was furnish material for the apostasy that already was at work in the church thereby expediting the formation of Catholicism.
The article closes with Ellas' observation that a trend is at work among us and that those “who would like to blame evangelism, relevancy and meeting needs as the culprit for the introduction of instruments miss the real theological shift that has taken place” (emphasis mine, lb). Donnie Rader once related visiting with Guy N. Woods in Nashville not long before his death and as they talked about the church, Donnie asked bro. Woods what he saw as the greatest threat to the church at this present time. Bro. Woods replied, “Our loss of respect for the need of divine authority.” This shift began in the late 40's and 50's in the controversy over institutionalism. Can local churches build and maintain benevolent organizations for their work in this field? When the smoke from this controversy settled, N. B. Hardeman and G. C. Brewer pointed out that the same Scriptures that allowed churches to subsidize benevolent organization would allow the same for educational institutions and in came the colleges. After WWII a revival of interest in evangelizing nationally and internationally lead to the resurrection of the defunct Texas “receiving, disbursing and managing” cooperative church plan formed in 1867 to avert churches having to evangelize through a missionary society. In this plan many churches sent funds to one, whose elders oversaw sending preachers into different places for evangelizing. When it reappeared in the late 1940's it was called the sponsoring church plan, but worked the same way as the Texas plan. While this plan averted the mistake of forming another organization, as in the ACMS (American Christian Missionary Society) and the Texas State Missionary Society, it established an unscriptural cooperative arrangement in having the elders of the sponsoring church overseeing evangelistic work of churches in which they were not the overseers (I Peter 5:1-2). Little changes over a period of time develop into unanticipated trends that lead to apostasies. ACMS was formed in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1848 and the battle began in the restoration movement over whether other organizations could be formed to do the work of local churches in evangelism. It was conceded that the local church was the only organization given the church, however, it was argued that the Scriptures were silent regarding the organization of the kingdom as a whole, therefore we were at liberty to form another organization through which God's people as the kingdom could function. Hence, the erroneous conclusion that the silence of the Scriptures is permissive opened the gate for other innovations to follow.
As early as 1851 some began to advocate the use of instruments of music in worship but the earliest record of its introduction is in the Midway, Kentucky church where L. L. Pinkerton preached. Pinkerton had been a staunch advocate of ACMS and justified bringing the instrument into worship on the grounds that their singing had degenerated into such screeching and brawling that it scared the rats away from the church building. A melodeon was introduced to help in song practice and from that worked its way into the worship. The silence of the Scriptures and expediency were used for its justification. Youth and ladies groups were formed to promote and raise money for ACMS, titles such as “Reverend” began to be attached to preachers names, infant church membership and women preachers followed in some of the more liberal churches until finally in 1906 the bureau of religious census recognized a difference between churches of Christ and Christian Churches. The trend that created the division began sixty years earlier and the real culprit that caused it was a theological shift in attitude towards the Scriptures.
History is repeating itself and we are witnessing the same things again in churches of Christ. In the 1940's the door was opened for benevolent organizations and with them have come colleges and missionary societies such as Herald of Truth, World Bible School and a host of other medical and educational organizations as the best way for spreading the gospel. Now the instruments are coming, youth rallies and ladies conferences are legend and advocates, such as Jeff Wallings, are crying for women preachers. We have them as “missionaries” already. We're in the midst of a full bloom apostasy and while we are looking at the changes taking place, we're missing the fact that the real culprit causing it is “the theological shift that has taken place” in our emphasis on and need for Scriptural authority. “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, (do) all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).