Having traveled with Juan, I hear his voice as I read the book. It’s quintessential Juan: amazing stories, almost unbelievable ones, as well as a story or two that will offend some sensitivities. Juan even says a time or two: “Christians in America won’t understand this.” He’s not writing a story to convince anyone of anything. It’s not a researched history book. These are Juan’s memoirs.

I’d never heard a lot of these stories: the time Juan spent in prison because of his faith, his address to the first meeting of Amnesty International, his expulsion from Morocco, the details of his meeting with the king of Spain. I can’t imagine anyone not being fascinated by the stories Juan has to tell.

Juan is a strong-willed man and comes across as arrogant to some. I know, however, that a man of lesser will wouldn’t have been able to do much that Juan has done.

In addition to the text, there are some great photos in the book as well. (Too bad we didn’t get any pictures of the translator… she’s quite good looking!)

I want to leave you for now with one big question: how do we deal with the Old Testament passages on worship?

The traditional argument I always heard was that the Old Testament was nailed to the cross and has nothing to do with the practices of the New Testament church. Or as Thomas Campbell eloquently put it in his Declaration and Address:

That although the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the church; and therefore in that respect cannot be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members; as the Old Testament was for the worship discipline and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members.

Others say that the Old Testament moral law is still in effect, but all of the ceremonial law was abolished.

Another view is that the Old Testament shows us what is pleasing to God; unless a practice is specifically said to be discontinued, it should be a part of our worship.

And there’s a multitude of nuances from there.

What’s your view? In what ways should worship in the Hebrew Scriptures inform the worship of the church?

(Some missionaries have translated the New Testament into Hebrew, adding marks to allow the text to be canted.)

Many feel that the cantillation marks come to be a commentary themselves on the text, emphasizing musically ideas considered to be important. The marks are called ta’am, which means “taste” or “sense”; the idea is that the accents bring out the sense of a text. (The Jewish Encyclopedia points to Nehemiah 8:8 as the basis for this)

It’s interesting, then, to note that those who essentially chant scripture in their worship consider the basic music they use to be a commentary on the text. How much more could be said for modern melodies and harmonies?

If you argue for church music that emphasizes the text, if you want to avoid the sensationalism and sensuality of modern music, if you feel the need for a theological basis behind every aspect of your church music… shouldn’t you be chanting? Or canting?

Consistency would demand it.

(Since some of this discussion has been prompted by the subject of instrumental music, you might be interested to read what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about instrumental music in the synagogue)

There were other ancient music forms, so I’m not arguing that all the early church did was chant. But as I listen to people discuss the benefits of singing, it seems that most of those benefits are better served by chanting.

We do know that the early church wouldn’t have used the four-part harmony that is so common in the U.S. And our modern melodies would have definitely had a foreign ring to their ears. Undoubtedly, our singing is very unlike what the early church knew. I sometimes think that people envision the Ephesian church sitting in pews, holding Songs of the Faith and singing “I’ll Fly Away.”

Don’t chants better emphasize the idea of speaking to one another? Don’t they put the emphasis on the lyrics? Wouldn’t they avoid a lot of the sensationalism that we are concerned about?

Is there any theological justification for intricate melodies and part singing? Is there any benefit in those things, beyond the way they stir human emotions?

Why do you suppose we haven’t put more emphasis on the chant?

And major thanks to all who have commented. So far the discussions have been respectful, especially considering the baggage that most people in our brotherhood bring to this issue: baggage of past experiences, baggage of past online discussions, even the baggage of concerns for the future.

Have a great weekend!

What that suggests to me is that the case against instrumental music is not clear in the Bible. That is, the average person isn’t going to pick up the Bible and say, “Oh, look… God doesn’t want us to use instruments in worship.” Please note, that does NOT prove the instrumentalists case. God never promised that every doctrine would be simple to understand, nor that we could understand everything without some help.

But it does mean that those of us who oppose the instrument need to stop acting like other people are refusing to see something that’s obvious in the Bible. If it were obvious, the early Christian writers would have referred to New Testament texts when explaining why they didn’t use instruments. If it were obvious, everyone would be able to say basically the same thing when explaining their opposition to instrumental music in the public worship of the church.

It’s not simple. It’s not obvious. It’s not apparent to anyone and everyone who is honest and sincere. Until opponents of mechanical instruments can reach a consensus as to why they oppose such, they have no room for pointing fingers at those who disagree with them.

Or am I missing something?

Knowing that some of you are too contrarian to go read Paul’s post, I’ll summarize a bit. Paul pointed out how often we judge worship by how it makes us feel. If a song stirs our emotions, we consider it to be a valid worship experience. If the song doesn’t please us, we feel that the worship was of no value. Paul notes that this subjective observation is extended to instrumental music; some consider it to be valuable (or not) because of its effect on their emotions.

He goes on to say, “I suddenly realized that all too often we use our songs and hymns to create a worship experience in our hearts, when we should be communicating to God the worship experiences that we have had all week long.” Worship shouldn’t begin in the assembly; the assembly should reflect the worship that goes on daily in our lives.

Paul went on to consider sacrifices in the Old Testament:

At what point was the ancient Israelite sacrifice actually considered worship? Was it when the carcass of the animal was burned? Was it when the throat of the animal was cut? Was it when the animal was being led up to the altar? Or was it when the farmer or shepherd walked out to his field, looked over his group of yearling sheep or bulls and selected the best, most fit animal for the offering? The actual sacrifice took place when the farmer removed that prize animal from the lot and he knew he would not have its services to strengthen his flock. Then, as he watched that animal die he could make the connection (or not) to his relationship with God. Was it a fellowship offering, a sin offering, a thank offering? The sacrifice came first – the emotion could only come as a result of the sacrifice.

Good thoughts. I carried this thinking about sacrifices a bit further. Most sacrifices didn’t end at the altar. They extended to a community meal, the table of the Lord, an “eating and drinking in the presence of the Lord.” The worshipers’ enjoyment was part of the worship.

Might that still be true today? Could our pleasure be pleasing to God, could our emotional response actually be part of what God’s after? Or are our emotional responses irrelevant to true worship?

Last week I had someone approach me and say very sternly, “I hope you come out on the conservative side of this issue.” Not “I’m interested in learning more.” “I’m anxious to look more at what the Bible says.” Not even, “I’m curious to see what you’ve got to share.” No, this almost felt like a threat (though I know this brother well enough to know that’s not how he meant it). It seemed to all be about the conclusion, not the means of getting there.

Arguments presented for and against the use of instruments are all over the place. They say that politics make for strange bedfellows, but it seems that this issue is even worse. People who normally vilify John Calvin love his anti-instrumental music quotes. They cite early Christian writings, even though they disagree with much of what those writers wrote on other subjects.

At some point, you have to ask yourself “Why?” Why the vehemence? Why the angst? Why the determination to take a minor issue and make it a major one? (And yes, this is a minor issue) What’s the deal?

We can talk about the regulatory principle of worship versus the normative principle. We can do Greek word studies, pro and con. We can quote Clement of Alexandria in favor of instruments and Clement against them. We can appeal to unity, the unity that comes from strict adherence to a single doctrine versus the unity that comes from diversity of beliefs. We can argue about whether vocal-only or vocal-accompanied singing is more pleasing to man and God.

I’m just not sure why. Why it’s such a big deal. I’m open to any and all insights. Why does this issue matter so much to so many?

Music is then to be handled for the sake of the embellishment and composure of manners. For instance, at a banquet we pledge each other while the music is playing; soothing by song the eagerness of our desires, and glorifying God for the copious gift of human enjoyments, for His perpetual supply of the food necessary for the growth of the body and of the soul. But we must reject superfluous music, which enervates men’s souls, and leads to variety, — now mournful, and then licentious and voluptuous, and then frenzied and frantic.

Stromata, Book 6, Clement of Alexandria

According to an article by David VanBrugge, Greeks saw music this way: the gods made musica mundana (the universe) and then, a little lower, musica humana (humans). Clement saw musica humana as the crown of all musica mundana, being created in the image of God.

In the quote above, according to VanBrugge, music represents musica instrumentalis, while musica humana is referred to as manners. So Clement is saying, instruments are to be used only as an embellishment of the human voice, not merely as “superfluous music.” If that’s right, Clement’s distinction would address some of what I commented on last week, the tendency in so many churches to move from accompaniment of singing to full-blown praise bands. It would seem that that trend is nothing new, or Clement wouldn’t have seen fit to address it. (Note: If I’m not mistaken, Clement is referring to the use of instruments in any setting, not just church.)

Can we make a distinction between instruments used to enhance singing and “superfluous music” used to “enervate men’s souls”? Is it possible for churches to have one without falling into the other? (I was trying to ask that last week… maybe Clement will help me ask it better.)

We know that. We do. We feel comfortable substituting the holy kiss with the warm handshake. We look at John 13 and say that Jesus was teaching about service, not creating a new act of worship through washing feet. Many people feel that “raising holy hands” can be accomplished with the heart. [Sometimes we misuse the word "cultural" by saying "That's just cultural."]

There are other areas where we feel that the form and function are inseparable. Most feel that pizza and Sprite aren’t suitable replacements for the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Most members of the churches of Christ feel that water is an intrinsic part of baptism, to such a degree that the term “water baptism” sounds foreign to our ears.

How do we decide? How do we know when fulfilling the function is enough and when to insist on the exact form?

How fair is that? How do we avoid turning grace into law while still seeking to have an obedient faith? Are statements like Dan’s no more than an attempt to avoid law altogether?

What makes a McDonald’s kosher? Well, among other things, there are no dairy products on site. Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21 say, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” Broad interpretation of these verses forbids all mixture of meat and dairy.

The prohibition about cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk seemingly had to do with a fertility rite that was common in Canaan. The Law was addressing a specific practice from a specific historical context. It really wasn’t written to keep you from having cheese on your Big Mac.

As we look at biblical texts, we need to remember that they have a context, they have an original purpose which may not be identical to our purposes.

We need to remember that laws about not cooking baby goats in their mother’s milk shouldn’t be applied to cheeseburgers.

The Law addresses everything from routine matters of daily life to specific ordinances for worship. We see an example of this in Leviticus 2:

“When anyone brings a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it and bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests. And he shall take from it a handful of the fine flour and oil, with all of its frankincense, and the priest shall burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “When you bring a grain offering baked in the oven as an offering, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers smeared with oil. And if your offering is a grain offering baked on a griddle, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mixed with oil. You shall break it in pieces and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. And you shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to the LORD, and when it is presented to the priest, he shall bring it to the altar. And the priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings. “No grain offering that you bring to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the LORD. As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the LORD, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma. You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.” (Leviticus 2:1–13)

No guesswork is involved here. No reading between the lines. No necessary inferences. No Encyclopedia Brown hermeneutic.

When God wants to specify something, He knows how to specify.

• How Great I Art
  
• Now I Lift My Name on High
  
• I Exalt Me
  
• I Need Me Every Hour
  
• I Love Me Lord
  
• Just As I Want
  
• Just a Little Talk With Myself
  
• O, To Be Like Me
  
• Praise Me! Praise Me!
  
• There is None Like Me
  
• Let Me Have My Way With Me
  
• Have Mine Own Way

This of course plays off of an old list of “honest songs” that has made it around the Internet:

• A Comfy Mattress Is Our God
• Above Average is Thy Faithfulness
• All Hail the Influence of Jesus’ Name
• Amazing Grace, How Interesting the Sound
• Be Thou My Hobby
• Blessed Hunch
• Blest Be the Tie That Doesn’t Cramp My Style
• Fill My Spoon, Lord
• Go Tell It on the Speed Bump
• God of Taste, and God of Stories
• He’s Quite a Bit to Me
• I Lay My Inappropriate Behavior on Jesus
• I Love to Talk About Telling the Story
• I Surrender Some
• I’m Fairly Certain That My Redeemer Lives
• It Is My Secret What God Can Do
• Joyful, Joyful, We Kinda Like Thee
• Just As I Pretend to Be
• Lift Every Voice and Intellectualize
• My Faith Looks Around for Thee
• My Hope is Built on Nothing Much
• O, God, Our Enabler in Ages Past
• Oh, for a Couple of Tongues to Sing
• Oh, How I Like Jesus
• Pillow of Ages, Fluffed for Me
• Praise God From Whom All Affirmations Flow
• Self-Esteem to the World! The Lord is Come
• Sit Up, Sit Up for Jesus
• Special, Special, Special
• Spirit of the Living God, Fall Somewhere Near Me
• Stick Nearby, It’s Getting Dark Outside
• Sweet Five Minutes of Prayer
• Take My Life and Let Me Be
• There Is Scattered Cloudiness in My Soul Today
• There Shall Be Sprinkles of Blessings
• We Are Milling Around in the Light of God
• We Give Thee but Still Think We Own
• What an Acquaintance We Have in Jesus
• When Peace, Like a Trickle
• When the Saints Go Sneaking In
• Where He Leads Me, I Will Consider Following

Want to add to the list?

I’ve planted a cappella churches, though one of the groups went through serious debate on the matter. In my work, I work with some who have strong feelings against the use of instruments and others who feel it’s not a salvation issue. I worship at a church that uses no instruments and has no intentions of doing so soon.

I have no desire to be part of a church that uses instruments. I grew up preferring a cappella music, and that hasn’t changed.

Because I know that personal history and preferences can affect these discussions, I thought it would be helpful if I shared that. Feel free to lay out your own experiences, as some of you already have.

If we want to clap while singing, we can find scriptural support. If we like the way we feel when singing with instruments, we can find biblical evidence as to why they should be used. If we don’t like modern praise songs, we attack their theology. In other words, if you don’t agree with me, you’re disagreeing with God.

If we don’t turn to the Scriptures, we make “objective” statements that support our views. Singing without instruments promotes unity. Singing with instruments attracts non-churched people. Singing too many new songs will cause some of the old-timers to leave. Singing too many old songs will cause the young people to leave. In other words, if you don’t agree with me, you don’t care about people.

We can find scholarly studies that support our views. Anecdotal evidence from growing churches (or dying churches!). We can point to faraway lands where they’ve done what we like and, behold!, their churches have achieved a utopian bliss.

Most of it’s hogwash. It’s a focusing on externals rather than internals. It’s ignoring all that the Bible says about what makes for true worship and what makes for vain worship. If you can’t worship God without an instrument, you can’t worship him with one. If you can’t be edified by singing Isaac Watts, you’ll eventually find that Casting Crowns leaves you cold as well. If people come to your church because of your praise band, they’ll leave when the church down the street has a better one.

Worship is about the heart. And a big sign of a heart not right with God is the unwillingness to consider your brother’s needs ahead of your own, your brother’s preferences instead of your own.

I recently read a quote that said church leaders should aim to have one hundred percent of the people happy eighty percent of the time. If that’s true, we need to be ready to not get our way twenty percent of the time. (And the “stronger brother” should expect to give in more often than that!) Are you ready to not be satisfied one fifth of the time?

It’s time to take the “I feel”s and “I like”s and put them in a drawer. It’s time to seek what’s best for the body as a whole.

(I know “druthers” goes back further, but I picked the word up from the musical L’il Abner. There’s a song called “If I Had My Druthers”)

I realize that I’ve embraced the tar baby. I’ve jumped into this with a few things in mind and am now seeing so many more issues that need to be addressed. Some would organize and plan out where they’re going from here; I’ll just keep writing and see where we end up.

One concept that came out in yesterday’s comments was the difference between performance-oriented worship and participative worship. Is it mutual edification or are their gifted people whose role is to edify the rest of the body during the assembly? Is it okay at times to sit and listen or should everyone be a part?

We need to recognize that this is not a black/white issue. There’s an entire spectrum out there. On one end, you have the “high church” model, where many functions in worship can only be performed by people ordained for that task. On the other end, you have the “unprogrammed” meetings of Friends (Quakers — They call this “expectant waiting”). There are congregations where only those approved by the church may lead singing, direct prayers, wait on the table, etc. There are other congregations where everyone is expected to come prepared to do something.

I could go on, but I hope you see what I mean. There aren’t just two approaches to this question, nor three or four. There is a whole gamut of responses. However, we can focus in on one thing: some feel that it is imperative that every member be active in singing or they will not have worshiped.

So here’s another set of questions: should a congregation have the goal of 100% audience participation in singing? Is it sinful to be present and not sing? Should the goal of the church be edification through song, even if that means limiting the participation of some members and emphasizing the participation of others?

In our fellowship, one of the key areas of struggle has been over instruments. That is, can we use them. A number of congregations have chosen to add instruments to their singing.

From my limited observation, I see a funny thing happening. What was brought in as a “tasteful accompaniment” tends to become the center of attention. The lightly strummed guitar and gentle flute give way to the full-out praise band that “rocks the sanctuary.” That’s interesting to me, because that’s been a major battleground in churches that were already using instruments. They’ve struggled over musical accompaniment of singing vs. vocal accompaniment of instruments playing. Best I can figure, those in our brotherhood that have chosen to go the instrument have sided themselves with the “progressives” in other churches.

There are churches that have used instruments for many years that haven’t moved past a piano accompanying the congregation. Why do you think our churches tend to jump from “no instruments” to “full instrumentation” so quickly? It’s hard for me to see how this can do anything but hurt congregational singing. Am I off base? Have you seen churches with loud “praise bands” that still had strong congregational singing?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I appreciate Tim taking time with Deceiving Winds. We have had a positive and enjoyable chat since this review was published, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate Tim for allowing me to comment regarding his review.

First, I hope Tim reconsiders the statement he initially makes in the review: “He has taken some issues that he feels deeply about and made them the primary concerns of these letters.” And that is the “loosing his way” exegetically that Tim suggests I am guilty of and that mars the book.

I am not sure that Tim’s suggestion gets at all that Deceiving Winds is about. Indeed, he is referencing the content of six of the seventeen chapters and appendices of the book when he says I primarily focus on “feminism and instrumental music.” I hope he will take a further look and note that most of the book has nothing to do with “feminism and instrumental music.” Other subjects that are given attention are the resurrection of Jesus, Christian hope, adoption by God, materialism, characteristics of Christian identity, living as children of light, raising children, elders, the reality of spiritual darkness and a focus on reading and speaking the Word of God in a time when the Word is getting lost. So, I am not convinced that I suggest that “feminism and instrumental music” represent the primary concerns of Paul’s letters to Roman Asia and its capital city. However, the subjects of song and gender roles do get Paul’s attention in the first century – just as they get ours 1950 years later.

Tim also suggests that I stumble by taking an “occasional” teaching and applying it in our day. The subject of application is particularly thorny – since the topics of music and gender roles carry with them much emotion. I hope Tim and others who choose to read the book will look closely at the parallelisms in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. Paul’s parallelisms “bring together” the background and the application for our day. All that Paul writes about music (Ephesians 5:18-21) parallels his statement in Ephesians 5:11. Paul is guiding the Ephesians to “expose darkness” by their unified song. Further, I continue to believe quotes of others within the section are justified – since their focus is on song (cf. Stephen Guthrie). While Guthrie should have gone further, what he does say is excellent. He calls Christians to the importance of song in a time when much of a younger generation is more comfortable with listening to music than singing. That “concert mentality” is hindering the growth of faith.

Finally, I will note that Deceiving Winds is not suggesting that “Progressive” thought within churches of Christ is inseparable with the “emerging church movement.” Indeed, I can think of numerous topics where the two paths diverge. However, at points they do intersect. I will leave readers of the book to take a look at specifics here.

Thank you for considering the comments.

Anthropologists see singing as a cultural universal, practiced throughout the world. Many consider it one of the oldest community activities. Yet the type of singing featured in the United States is not common everywhere.

I do a lot of work in Latin America. It’s my opinion that we’ve spent too much time focused on developing preachers in Latin America and not enough on developing song leaders. Almost anyone can be taught to preach. It’s harder to identify and develop good song leaders. I’m thankful for the work of men like Carlos Gonzales and Omar Corpus, among others, who are seeking to strengthen congregational singing in Spanish-speaking churches.

A challenge for the church going forward is how to present its music to the world in a way that doesn’t sound American. That is, much of our church music is based on the style enjoyed and appreciated by Americans in the 20th century. As the church has spread from the U.S. to other countries, we’ve often exported this style, leading people in other countries to believe that’s the way church music is supposed to sound: foreign and strange.

Much of the “worship wars” in this country have arisen from the fact that music styles changed. Just as Isaac Watts was a bit scandalous in his day, so innovators face pushback from traditionalists. And just as Mr. Watts didn’t hesitate to push the fight, so some will look to provoke their brothers over music styles.

It’s my opinion that church music needs to regularly be studied, in every time and every place. Completing ignoring context, I would adapt Paul’s words from 1 Thessalonians 5: “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” I also think that we need to accept the fact that we are part of a body; some of the music used isn’t going to fit our tastes, our preferences, and possibly even our beliefs.