Views: 10<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The fuller reading of the title of this manuscript would be, \u201cIs Instrumental Music an Aid or an Addition to the Singing prescribed by the New Testament in Christian Worship?\u201d By this I mean, does it somehow assist the singing itself or the singers in the worshiping of God and His Son? Should we grant that it does in some way aid the singing and\/or the singers, we would still need to ask further if it is merely<\/strong> an aid. Beyond this we must also ask, \u201cWhether or not it is an aid, is it an addition to the worship of God?\u201d These questions were thoroughly discussed as an outgrowth of the introduction of the instrument into the worship of the churches of Christ in the middle part of the nineteenth century. They have continued to be discussed to some degree from that time to this as this and related issues continue to trouble the Lord\u2019s people. To properly appreciate the question of our title some historical perspective is necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n Historical Notes on the Introduction of Mechanical <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Instruments of Music into the Church of Christ<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n About the beginning of the nineteenth century various devout men in our young nation became weary of the multitude of Protestant religious creeds and the strife and division produced by them. Independent of and unknown to one another at first, they began to raise the cry for a return to the Bible and a restoration of primitive Christianity. The spirit of the plea was perhaps best and most fully captured in the words with which Thomas Campbell closed his address in the farm house of Abraham Altars near Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1809: \u201cWhere the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent , we are silent.\u201d He had only two years before sailed from his home in Ireland as an ordained preacher in the Old Light Anti-Burgher, Seceder wing of the Scottish Presbyterian Church. His credentials were recognized by the Presbyterian authorities in his new nation soon after his arrival, but as he preached the Bible more and the Confession of Faith<\/em> less, he was appreciated the less by his synod. He was first warned, then stripped of his credentials. On September 13, 1808, he was ushered out of the Presbyterian clergy, even as he was studying himself out of Presbyterian dogma.<\/span><\/p>\n Ere long his family joined him from the Old Country, and he and his son, Alexander, rejoiced to learn that they had, though separated by the Atlantic, and without knowing the other had done so, arrived at a shared distaste for denominational creeds and divisions and a desire to follow the Bible alone. They began preaching religious unity solely based on the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n Six years before Campbell\u2019s break with Presbyterianism, Barton W. Stone, a preacher on the Kentucky frontier, had withdrawn himself from the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky because of the conflicts he saw between the Scriptures and the Confession of Faith<\/em>. He was appealing to men to simply take the New Testament and become Christians.<\/span><\/p>\n Through the efforts of the Campbells, Stone, and others who rallied to this unimpeachable plea, tens of thousands broke their sectarian bonds and escaped into the glorious freedom of New Testament Christianity in only a few decades. A marvelous unity and harmony characterized those hardy souls in the Lord\u2019s church through the first half of that century and a bit beyond. A general unanimity of doctrine and practice prevailed, and a wonderful spirit of love reigned among brethren. Many sacrificed almost every material comfort and convenience in their zeal to sound forth the primitive Gospel so that souls could be snatched from the fire and the cause advanced. In many a case not only sectarian preachers gave up their error, but many of those in their respective congregations also came with them\u2014sometimes entire congregations. The church of the Lord appeared to be in position to literally sweep the nation and to gain an advantage in this new land that it had perhaps never before known in a single nation since Pentecost.<\/span><\/p>\n But the devil never sleeps. He may have had reason to fear he was about to be driven from these fair shores. It was time to mount an offensive against the Lord\u2019s host, but how would he do it? Outward and open opposition to the forces of Heaven had experienced defeat in every pitched battle. The Lord\u2019s valiant soldiers had met champions among the infidels, Catholics, Protestants all and had left them bruised and bleeding from accurate and deadly thrusts of the Sword of the Spirit. No, this would not work. He must find another way to attack this foe which was so rapidly growing in influence and number. There was but one other way\u2014he must bore and attack from within. He must do something to get them at one another\u2019s throats; he must find some way to drive a wedge that would divert them from their evangelistic fervor, while he worked to divide their forces. He must find someone or ones who would open their hearts to his master plan and some item that would become the divisive wedge. Indeed, he must\u2014and he did. But it did not happen overnight (the devil has always been shrewdly willing to take short steps when necessary, as long as he eventually captures the desired ground).<\/span><\/p>\n Even as early as 1839 tell-tale signs of a denominational drift could be observed among the saints. When that year Alexander Campbell called for brethren to adopt the name, \u201cDisciples of Christ,\u201d As Earl West observed, \u201cThis was the beginning of a denominational nomenclature that would only mark the beginning of a denominational structure.\u201d1<\/sup> By 1844, Walter Scott, the fiery evangelist, in Pittsburg at the time, was announcing his conception of the church as a denomination and began urging brethren to join ecumenically with the denominations. Through the 1840s and into the 1850s the idea of denominational status of the church became more widespread, pastor<\/em> and reverend<\/em> began to be applied to Gospel preachers, and some of these modern \u201cpastors\u201d and \u201creverends\u201d began to boast of their pulpit swaps with their sectarian counterparts. A landmark event that would fasten a denominational structure upon the church occurred in 1849 when the American Christian Missionary Society was born in Cincinnati.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1860 Robert Richardson wrote James Wallis, editor of The British Millennial Harbinger<\/em>, expressing his sadness and concern over the sectarian shift he could so plainly see among the saints. After listing such symptoms as those earlier mentioned, he said: \u201cBut what surprises me more than all of this is to\u2026see how easily churches can slide back again into the error from which they have been so recently delivered.\u201d2<\/sup> As it turned out, such developments and drifts as these would prove to be merely the groundbreakers for the introduction of the devil\u2019s most devastating device.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0At least as early as 1851 the inclination to incorporate instruments into the worship by some brethren is evident. In February of that year a man identified only as \u201cW\u201d wrote to J. B. Henshall, associate editor of The Ecclesiastical Reformer<\/em>, suggesting that instruments be used and asking him to reply in the paper. He did so in opposition to the practice, chiefly on the ground that they belonged to an inferior age of types and shadows and were not appropriate for the enlightened Gospel age.3\u00a0<\/sup>While preaching in Millersburg, Kentucky, Aylette Raines entered the following note in his diary on April 27: \u201cBro. S[aunders] wishes to introduce the melodeon into the church.\u201d4<\/sup> Raines opposed it and kept it out. In October of that same year, in response to a request from John Rogers in Carlisle, Kentucky, to write something on the instrument in The Millennial Harbinger<\/em>, Campbell penned his famous statement that \u201c\u2026to all spiritually-minded Christians such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.\u201d5<\/sup> (Rogers\u2019 request implies that some brethren already foresaw the introduction of the instrument and perceived such as a potential danger). L.L. Pinkerton is generally credited as the first to introduce an instrument into the worship of the Lord\u2019s people by beginning to use a small melodeon in the church in Midway, Kentucky, in 1859. However, Earl West documents an earlier use of it by a congregation in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1855.6<\/sup> Furthermore, it is likely that the aforementioned flare-up of discussion on the subject in 1851 was precipitated by the introduction of instruments somewhere, although not documented.<\/span><\/p>\n While the missionary society apparatus would produce a large measure of grievous division between and digression among brethren, and eventually brethren would come to see that the society and the instrument must stand or fall together, more than any other item or innovation, the introduction of the instrument into the worship assemblies has proved to be both the most destructive and enduring issue. The adversary had found his agents (though they were likely unconsciously so in the beginning) and he had his devastating device. Now it was just a matter of time.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0The earliest responses to the introduction of the instrument were all but unanimously opposed to it and continued to be for some years. We have already noted Campbell\u2019s statement in 1851. The subject seems to have lain rather dormant until 1860. In his January 31 edition of The<\/em> American Christian Review<\/em> (the foremost brotherhood journal at the time), editor Ben Franklin admitted to being \u201cpressed from several quarters\u201d to state his views on the employment of instruments in worship. The fact that Franklin was being thus pressed evinces the increasing anxiety among brethren over this question. He responded to the requests by writing a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, but unmistakable in its import, note. He conceded that a church might be permitted to use an instrument under certain conditions, namely:<\/span><\/p>\n History buffs will note how nearly the earliest introductions of instruments into our worship assemblies coincided with the outbreak of our great Civil War (1860). While the war was a distraction and at times halted the distribution of periodicals through the mails, the subject continued to be discussed during the conflict (1860\u201365). In 1864 several men of great influence wrote articles on the subject. W.K. Pendleton, who had succeeded Campbell as editor of The Millennial Harbinger<\/em>, answered a querist about instrumental music in worship by writing a lengthy essay in the paper in which he concluded that instruments were \u201cquestions of mere expediency,\u201d classifying them with a meeting house.8<\/sup> Also that year, Moses E. Lard began to lift his powerful voice on the subject as editor of Lard\u2019s Quarterly<\/em> in a lengthy article titled \u201cInstrumental Music in Churches.\u201d His method is neither subtle nor oblique, but explicit and direct. He began by reminding brethren that the restoration of the New Testament church was rooted entirely in having New Testament authority for all that we do. After reviewing how such authority is ascertained, he then came out with \u201cboth guns blazing.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n He who ignores or repudiates these principles, whether he be preacher or layman, has by the act become an apostate from our ranks; and the sooner he lifts his hand high, avows the fact, and goes out from amongst us the better, yes, verily, the better for us. Now in the light of the foregoing principles what defense can be urged for the introduction into some of our congregations of instrumental music<\/strong>? The answer which thunders in my ears from every page of the New Testament is, none\u2026. Soberly and candidly we are pained at those symptoms of degeneracy in a few of our churches. The day on which a church sets up an organ in its house, is the day on which it reaches the first station on the road to apostasy\u2026. Indeed, when a church has once introduced an organ\u2026they will suffer its Bible to be torn to shreds before they will part from their pet\u2026. These organ-grinding churches will in the lapse of time be broken down, or wholly apostatize, and the sooner they are in fragments the better for the cause of Christ. I have no sympathy with them, no fellowship for them, and so help me God never intend knowingly to put my foot into one of them.9<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n J.W. McGarvey was another leading voice who became involved in the discussion that year and proved to be one of its most stalwart opponents until his death in 1912.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0When the war ended, the industrialized northern states reaped a great harvest of wealth and prosperity, and individual brethren and congregations fell heir to these bounties. Large and prosperous churches built and\/or bought grandiose buildings and gradually more and more of them thought it only apt to use an organ in such marvelous edifices.10\u00a0<\/sup>The devil had been \u201csoftening up the trenches\u201d by the aforementioned perceptible denominational leanings in the 1840s and \u201950s in preparation for his great assault upon the elect. Many brethren had been left defenseless by their adoption of a sectarian vocabulary, a sectarian view of the church, and a sectarian concept of \u201csuccess.\u201d It was but another small step to such brethren to move in an organ on Saturday and fire it up for worship on the Lord\u2019s day.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1868, Ben Franklin estimated that while there were ten thousand congregations of the Lord\u2019s church, only fifty had brought the instrument into the worship.11\u00a0<\/sup>However, more congregations were doing so all the time, and as they did so the issue began to receive an increasing amount of attention in the brotherhood journals. Correspondingly, the controversy became more intense. Influential men who had not spoken out before now entered the conflict. During the war years The Gospel Advocate <\/em>ceased publication, but David Lipscomb, as sole editor, resumed its publication in 1866. Although he was ever opposed to both the instrument and societies, believing them to stand equally condemned as unauthorized innovations, he did not enter the fray editorially until 1871. He did not write at length against the instrument until 1878.12<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n As resistance to the instrument increased, those who had introduced it began to feel the heat. They had only three options:<\/span><\/p>\n Isaac Errett assumed a leadership role among those who were drifting ever deeper into denominationalism and liberalism after the war. While he was influential as an ardent advocate of and officer in the missionary society and promoted it through his preaching, his chief arm of influence was as editor of Christian Standard<\/em>, begun in April 1866. At least in part Christian Standard<\/em>was begun to try to offset what certain liberal-minded, irenic, and ecumenical brethren considered to be the harsh, dogmatic, and unbending influence of Ben Franklin through his popular and influential American Christian Review<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n While Errett counseled against the instrument for the sake of peace, he and The Standard <\/em>became champions of the view that it was a mere expedient or aid, thus optional, a mere matter of opinion. As the line of fellowship between the instrument advocates and their opponents became ever clearer, The Christian Standard <\/em>became the mouthpiece of the loud defenders of the instrument and continues to be such to the present day under the control of the apostate Independent Christian Church. Errett and others of his ilk gave yet others who wanted the instrument an excuse to adopt it, thereby encouraging its proliferation. So the liberal attitude toward Scriptural authority that rationalized and justified adding the instrument to the worship of the saints attracted more and more followers. The discussion through the papers was frequent and sometimes vigorous, especially in the last quarter of the century. Numerous oral debates were conducted on the practice, but most of them in the twentieth century. One of the earliest was in 1903 in Henderson, Tennessee, between Joe Warlick and J. Carroll Stark which some credit with preserving West Tennessee from widespread digression.<\/span><\/p>\n In spite of the best efforts of the best men of their time, digressive and denominational thought patterns had so captured the hearts of many brethren that they would not be dissuaded by either Scripture or love of the cause. It became the rule rather than the exception in countless congregations between 1875 and 1906 that liberal brethren, although often in the minority, would become powerful enough to bring in the instrument. When conscientious brethren objected, regardless of how lovingly and patiently they did so, they were treated as old guard, obstructionist troublemakers and shown the door, and often quite rudely. In thousands of congregations, from country communities to the hamlets, towns, and cities, the same sad drama was played out. Brethren who stood on the solid ground of both Scripture and history had to start all over again.<\/span><\/p>\n Although the instrumentalists still make a futile attempt to blame the resultant division upon those who resisted the introduction of the instrument, truth and history are not on their side. A peaceful and harmonious brotherhood had the instrument driven like a stake into its heart. The original practice of brethren who studied themselves out of sectarianism rightly rejected the instrument as lacking in Scriptural authority. Peace and harmony generally prevailed among brethren until its forced insertion. Division followed its insertion. Surely, fair and objective observers will agree that those who wielded the wicked weapon of Satan were to blame for the disaster that ensued, rather than those who resisted the foreign and fractious element. In the 1903 debate between Joe Warlick and J. Carroll Stark, in the first speech of the debate, Stark blamed the division in the church on those who resisted it. He probably regretted doing so after Warlick finished his response:<\/span><\/p>\n If we inquire as to what or who is responsible for the present sad state of affairs, well may we ask: \u201cLord, is it I?\u201d But the wonder is why Brother Stark, or any one else, should seem to fail to find the easy answer. Every one knows that those who have introduced and brought in the divisive things, including instrumental music, into the worship of the saints are alone and altogether responsible for the division\u2026and any effort upon the part of any man to place the responsibility upon those of God\u2019s saints who still worship as we all did before instrumental music was introduced, which was and is to worship just as the new Testament directs, is really amusing to all sensible people, and even disgusting to many\u2026. Everybody knows in advance that there is not one word of truth in such a claim, but that the charge is perfectly absurd.13<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0 In 1937, in a plea for unity directed at the instrument advocates, G.H.P. Showalter, editor of The Firm Foundation<\/em>, observed: \u201cThe wedge that split the log were the religious societies and the introduction of instrumental music in the church. When these things were driven in, they divided the church. They are the wedge that split the log.\u201d14<\/sup> Earl West said it well: \u201cFiction rather than fact thrusts the blame for the division that followed the introduction of the instrument at the feet of those who opposed it.\u201d15<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n By 1906 the division was so widespread and undeniable that even the U.S. Census for that year recognized it by making separate counts of the two religious bodies, the Church of Christ and the Christian Church (the latter of which would split again in 1926, producing the Disciples of Christ and the Independent Christian Church, respectively). Although the division was a reality and those in the Christian Church were commonly called the \u201cdigressives\u201d by their alienated brethren, the issue of the instrument did not die. During the first third of the 20th<\/sup> century numerous debates occurred with stalwarts of the faith such as Joe S. Warlick, W.W. Otey, S.H. Hall, N.B. Hardeman, A.O. Colley, F.B. Srygley, H. Leo Boles, Foy E. Wallace, Sr., and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. defending the Truth. Many hundreds, perhaps even a few thousand, were reclaimed from the Christian churches between 1920 and 1940, principally through the debates. The debates also continued through succeeding decades. Men such as Roger Inman and G.K. Wallace engaged advocates of the instrument more than once in the 1940s and 1950s. Before his tragic apostasy into liberalism, Rubel Shelly ably defended the Truth on this subject in an oral debate with Dwaine Dunning in 1976. The latest major debate on the instrument was conducted in Neosho, Missouri in 1988. Alan E. Highers severely embarrassed Given O. Blakely and his instrumentalist brethren with his solid and effective affirmation and defense of the Truth.16<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Various attempts at unity have been made through the 20th<\/sup> century, but only two of them are noteworthy. From 1937 to 1939 such an effort was spearheaded by Claude F. Witty (church of Christ) and James DeForest Murch (Independent Christian Church), and it produced considerable interest. These were brought to an end almost single-handedly by H. Leo Boles, then editor of The Gospel Advocate, when he delivered a \u201cblock-buster\u201d sermon in May 1939 at one of the \u201cNational Unity Meetings,\u201d reminding the Christian Church folk that they introduced the instrument which produced the division. He drove home the point that the churches of Christ were still where they were in Scriptural doctrine and practice before the division and if the Christian Church wanted unity all they had to do was to return to where we yet remain, and they once were.17<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n A new round of \u201cunity forums\u201d began with a misnamed \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d in Joplin, Missouri in August 1984. These have continued in various locations into the late 1990s. While a few doctrinally strong brethren attended the first few of these discussion sessions with those from the Independent Christian Church, our brethren who have attended the last several of them have been almost altogether liberal compromisers who view the instrument as a mere matter of personal conscience that should not be made an issue of fellowship. In fact, some of these brethren apparently have far more tolerance, forbearance, and respect for those in the Christian Church than they do for those of their own brethren who are steadfastly opposed to the instrument on Scriptural grounds. As for the Independent Christian Church fellows, they remain adamant on the instrument. Their defiant cry continues to be: \u201cWe\u2019re not about to give it up!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Is the Instrument Merely an \u201cAid\u201d?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Fundamental Implication of the Instrument Issue<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The explanation of why this issue is so enduring lies not only in the issue itself, but in the implications of it. The use or refusal of man-made musical instruments in the worship of God in the Christian era takes us directly to the subject of authority in the Christian religion. What is our authority, and are we content to respect and abide within that authority? There is no authority for the use of the instrument in the worship of the New Testament church, either by precept, apostolic course of action, or implication. The New Testament is utterly silent concerning the use of any mechanical instrument with the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs that are to be offered in praise to God. The only sort of music that is authorized is singing and, when it pertains to worship in the assemblies of God\u2019s people, it is congregational singing whereby we speak to and teach and admonish one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The plea that we and our spiritual forebears have made for the past two centuries is that we restore, and once restored, maintain the primitive doctrine and practice of the apostolic church. \u201cRestore\u201d implies bringing back the original condition that had been lost. Admittedly, worship with instruments cannot be found in the practice of the primitive church (although some have desperately tried to do so). It is appropriate to ask relentlessly how the instrument can be a part of restoring the New Testament church, since it was never there to begin with. This issue, more than any other, has served as a sort of spiritual \u201clitmus test\u201d of whether or not we are going to be content to do only that which the Lord authorizes in His Word.<\/span><\/p>\n The instrument advocates not only insist on worshiping with<\/strong> instruments, but we are driven to the conclusion that they practically worship the instrument itself (\u201cinstrumentolaters\u201d?). (When the controversy waxed warm in the last quarter of the 19th<\/sup>century, brethren who opposed the instrument often depicted it as an idol in the hearts of its advocates. The same inclination is yet evident in them.) What else would drive them to sacrifice fellowship, destroy unity and peace in the church of God, show contempt for Scriptural authority, and defraud their faithful brethren of countless churches which they had helped establish and nurture, and of properties which they had helped to procure, and all of this over something they almost universally agreed (at least in the beginning of the contest) was unnecessary to the worship of God?18<\/sup> Anything dear enough to generate such blind zeal and extremely destructive behavior deserves only one description\u2014A GOD<\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Since the instrument was not in the primitive church (nor even in the apostate church until several centuries past the apostles), the burden of proof to justify its introduction and use is entirely upon its advocates. Instrument defenders and practitioners have used numerous and varied arguments during the more than one and one-half centuries of this controversy in modern times.19<\/sup> (I say \u201cmodern times\u201d because church history reveals the all-but-universal adamant abhorrence of even the suggestion of this practice through several centuries after the apostolic age. When some became so bold as to introduce instruments in the apostate church it occasioned a considerable and heated controversy even from most of those who had apostatized in various other practices.) The desperation of their cause may be measured by these varied and often contradictory defenses and arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n The Motivation Behind the Clamor for the Instrument<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It is important for us to understand that those who were determined to thrust the instrument upon the church did not do so because they discovered compelling evidence that it was necessary for the church to have instruments in order to please God. They did not first<\/strong> cite either Scriptural, historical, or philological evidence to justify, much less necessitate the employment of instruments in Christian worship and thereupon lay the case before a united brotherhood. Quite the contrary. History clearly shows that they thrust the instrument upon the church out of entirely personal and carnal motives and that all their arguments of justification were contrived \u201cafter the fact.\u201d The aforementioned letter from \u201cW\u201d to J.B. Henshall in 1851 is a representative statement of this motivation:<\/span><\/p>\n Should not the Christian Church have organs or Bass Viols that the great object of Psalmody might be consummated? Would not such instruments add greatly to the solemnity of worship, and cause the hearts of the saints to be raised to a higher state of devotion while the deep toned organ would swell its notes of \u201cawful sound\u201d? I think it is high time that we awaken to the importance of this subject. We are far in the rear of Protestants on the subject of church music.20<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n When we analyze this statement, we see at least two motives revealed, both utterly selfish and carnal:<\/span><\/p>\n (1) The desire to please the ears with the sound of instruments.<\/span><\/p>\n (2) The desire to keep pace with the denominations.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, only when faithful brethren resisted them upon Scriptural grounds did these \u201cprogressive\u201d brethren begin casting about for various ploys to justify their practice. The evidence is irrefutable: The desire of the \u201cinstrumentolaters\u201d dictated their doctrine and they sought justification for their idol ex post facto<\/em>.<\/strong> Jack P. Lewis makes this point well:<\/span><\/p>\n Defense of the use of instrumental music in worship has moved through three arguments and their variations\u2026. None is the reason why instrumental music was introduced; each is an afterthought to justify what was being done when the instrument was challenged\u2026. The merit of his [i.e., one who denies that congregational singing is authorized in the New Testament] position is that it finally puts at the center of focus the argument that should have been there all along\u2014the unexpressed position: \u201cWe want it and will have it without scriptural authorization.\u201d21<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Earl West, the foremost authoritative historian of restoration history, makes the same observation:<\/span><\/p>\n No one ever sat down to devote hours of Biblical study to the issue only to come away with the conviction that God wanted His people to use the instrument, and unless they did, they could not please Him. No one ever accepted the instrument because driven by a Divine compulsion to do so. It was adopted because it fitted comfortably into a religious society structured around denominational styles and patterns of thought.22<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAid \/Expedient\u201d Argument Stated<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The aid argument is the earliest argument I have been able to find which brethren used in an effort to defend their introduction and employment of mechanical instruments in worship. They have been justified both as innocent \u201caids\u201d to the worship and to the worshiper, and sometimes to both. This argument may also be identified as the \u201cexpedient\u201d argument because an expedient is that which expedites (helps, aids, benefits, provides an advantage for) a given action or the one acting.23<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n I remind the reader of the aforementioned letter from \u201cW\u201d to Henshall. At least four years before we have any historical record of the actual use of an instrument in any congregation (1851), \u201cW\u201d was urging such use as an aid to both the worship and the worshiper. Remember, he asked, \u201cWould not such instruments add greatly to the solemnity of worship and cause the hearts of the saints to be raised to a higher state of devotion while the deep-toned organ would swell its notes of \u2018awful sound\u2019?\u201d24<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The introduction of the instrument into the worship of the church at Midway, Kentucky was done in an attempt to aid the singing that was so awful that L.L. Pinkerton said it would \u201cscare even the rats from worship.\u201d25<\/sup> W.K. Pendleton accepted editorial duties of The Millennial Harbinger<\/em> from an enfeebled Alexander Campbell in 1864. In that same year he responded to a request for enlightenment on the Scripturalness of using instruments in worship from one signing his name, \u201cAncient Order.\u201d Pendleton argued that they were not in the primitive church nor in the apostate church for several centuries. Nonetheless, while he admitted that his conscience was not offended by their use, he would gladly forbear them rather than have them interfere with congregational singing. He drew his lengthy response to a close by arguing that instruments are an expedient or an aid:<\/span><\/p>\n But this does not settle the question after all\u2014for there are many things established and right, in the practical affairs of the church in this 19th century, that were not introduced in the days nor by the authority of the apostles\u2014questions of mere expediency, that involve neither moral nor spiritual principle or teaching\u2026we have no evidence that in the apostolic days, the disciples owned houses, such as we would now call churches, at all\u2026.26<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Isaac Errett, who carried the banner of the instrument\/missionary society faction for some twenty crucial years (cir. 1866\u20131886) as editor of The Christian Standard<\/em>, stated his view and the policy of the paper toward the instrument as follows: \u201cThe Standard<\/em> regards it [i.e., instrumental music] as an expedient, proposed to aid the church to perform, in an edifying way, the duty of singing\u2026.\u201d27<\/sup> When Lipscomb wrote some comments in 1873 concerning why the use of the instrument was wrong he mentioned the common excuse for it at the time: \u201cIt is used as an assister of the worship.\u201d28 <\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Near the turn of the century, the indefatigable evangelist and debater, Joe S. Warlick, debated Carl Braden in Dallas, Texas, on the following proposition: \u201cDo the New Testament Scriptures authorize, or permit, the use of instrumental music as an aid to the singing that is part of the worship of God?\u201d Braden thus affirmed the instrument to be a Scripturally authorized aid.29 <\/sup>In 1908 W.W. Otey and J.B. Briney engaged in a notable five-day debate on both the society and the instrument question in Louisville, Kentucky. In earlier years Briney had been a forceful opponent of the instrument but had sometime before the debate become its defender. He stated his defense of the instrument as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Now a thing may be authorized in various ways\u2026. Well, the doing of that thing authorizes me to use whatever assists me in doing it, unless I propose something that contravenes expressly the Word of God. I claim the use of an instrument is authorized from that view. It aids me in the matter of singing.30<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAid\/Expedient\u201d Argument Illustrated<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Numerous comparisons have been proffered by instrument advocates over the years in an attempt to illustrate their claim that an instrument is merely an aid. As early as 1864, W.K. Pendleton, as quoted above, compared the instrument to a church building\u2014not specifically authorized, but allowed as an expedient. M.C. Kurfees is best known for his monumental book, Instrumental Music in the Worship<\/em>, published in 1911, but in 1894 he had published a 30-page booklet, titled Walking by Faith<\/em>, which was widely circulated and was reprinted numerous times. In it he mentioned that instrument defenders then argued that instruments, tuning forks, notebooks, and hymnbooks stand or fall together.34<\/sup> Stark, in his 1903 debate with Warlick, listed such things as standing to sing, kneeling to pray, using a pulpit, singing from a note book, using multiple cups and a plate for communion, and using a basket or bag for the contribution as comparable to using the instrument.35<\/sup> In 1908, Briney, in his debate with Otey, argued that the instrument was parallel with the tuning fork by which a song leader obtained the correct pitch for the beginning note of a song.36<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n In his 1923 debate with Hardeman, Boswell argued that the instrument is an innocent aid to singing in worship as a walking stick is to walking, in executing the great commission.37<\/sup> When Hunt debated Wallace in 1951 he classed communion sets, collection baskets, and song books with musical instruments as innocent aids and expedients. He also asserted that tuning forks, radio stations, and recording machines, along with musical instruments in worship, were all mere aids, and asked why it was permissible to use the former \u201cmechanical instruments,\u201d but not the latter.38<\/sup> Doubtless others have suggested additional things which they parallel with the instrument, but the ones cited should be sufficient to give the flavor of them all.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cAid\/Expedient\u201d Argument Answered<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n There are many things which can be and are employed to aid and expedite the execution of various Scriptural obligations (e.g., church buildings, tuning forks, baptisteries, song books, public address systems, et al.). Although these aids or expediencies are not explicitly named in Scripture, yet by implication brethren have all but universally conceded that there is implied authority to use them. But upon what grounds? Is a musical instrument such an aid? How do we determine with consistency what constitutes an authorized aid or expedient? Such questions constituted the early battleground when the instrument began to be introduced and its advocates began casting about for some defense of it. In response to the assertion that mechanical instruments in worship are merely innocent aids in carrying out a Scriptural obligation we give the following answers:<\/span><\/p>\n Paul says: \u201cAll things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.\u201d From this language it is clear that the expedient things must come within those things that are lawful. It must first be shown that a thing is lawful; and then if it is not inexpedient, we may use it\u2026. Let the advocates of the organ first show that it is lawful to use it, and then by its results we may determine whether it be expedient to employ its use in the worship of God.42 <\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Foy E. Wallace, Jr., commented on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 6:12\u201313 and 10:23 as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The apostle simply declares that not all things lawful are expedient. But expedient things must come within things lawful. Then it may be expedient, but even if lawful it may not be expedient\u2014thus to be expedient it must first be proved lawful and having been shown to be lawful it must edify\u2026. The innovators of instrumental music in the worship are in reverse, attempting to prove that a thing is lawful by trying to prove that it is expedient, which is an inversion of the New Testament principle. Nothing is expedient that is not lawful.43<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In his debate with Julian Hunt, G.K. Wallace argued: \u201cLet him find the command for mechanical music and then we will talk about what is expedient under it.\u201d44<\/sup> Thus, these brethren correctly saw and argued that for anything to be an aid or expedient, there must first be Scriptural obligation or authority, arrived at either explicitly or implicitly, for its use. If the New Testament authorized the use of instruments in worship, then we could apply the principle of using aids or expedients in their use. Assuming that we were allowed, but not obligated, to use instruments in worship, we would then be at liberty to determine such matters as what kind of instruments, how many instruments, when the instruments would be played in the assembly, what songs would be played on them, and such like. However, the instrument must first be authorized before any idea of an aid or an expedient can apply to it.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No authority (either permissive or obligatory) for the employment of instruments in the worship of the church of Christ exists in the New Testament and thus they cannot be expedients because they are unlawful (1 Cor. 10:23). Therefore, the principle of aids and expedients does not apply to musical instruments in worship.<\/span><\/p>\n God\u2019s command that we assemble implies a place of assembly suitable for the number assembled. In order to assemble we must have an assembly place, whether built, borrowed, rented, or bought. Human judgment would be involved in selecting the meeting place, but this does not alter the acts of worship performed in it.45<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The command to \u201cGo\u2026preach the gospel\u2026\u201d (Mark 16:16) authorizes and obligates us to go. It implies some means of going, but does not specify, thus does not limit, the means. Since the New Testament preachers went by foot, by ship, by chariot, and perhaps by other means (obviously, every means available to them), it follows that any honorable means that aids or expedites the going (that does not conflict with some other principle of Scripture) is authorized to carry out the command. It is thus permissible to ride an airplane to go, but it would not be permissible to steal a plane ticket in order to do so, although this might aid one in the going.<\/span><\/p>\n In the same manner, any method of proclaiming the Gospel that does not infringe upon some other Gospel Truth is permissible, since no specific way or ways of preaching are specified. Thus such things as public address systems, tape recorders, video cameras, radio and television stations and receivers, computers, printing presses, and such like are legitimate aids which expedite the command to preach. Just so, the command to baptize implies sufficient water to carry out the command. A river, a pond, an ocean, or a specially constructed baptistery all constitute mere aids or expedient arrangements to execute the command and are therefore authorized in the command itself.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n