Fifty years ago, some brethren took a digressive path justifying church-supported institutions, sponsoring church arrangements and social gospel programs despite a lack of New Testament authority for such. Instead of turning to the book, chapter and verse that authorized their practice, they said, "We do many things for which we have no Bible authority." Though faithful brethren warned against the dangerous precedent being set by their unscriptural practices, the more liberal-minded brethren dismissed the warnings and marched on oblivious to the disaster before them. In the years since that time, institutional churches have seen innovation upon innovation added in their journey to the point that many among them state alarm at the "liberalism" evident in their midst. The effects of the "no pattern" philosophy that approved "things for which we have no Bible authority" are plainly seen in the following article, "Instrumental Worship: Isolated or Key Trend?," by Lindy Adams in The Christian Chronicle (Sept. 19, 2003) published by Oklahoma Christian University:
What does it mean that five urban churches affiliated with churches of Christ have added instrumental worship services since the spring of 2001? Do such actions, which violate a long-held and deeply-revered doctrinal tenet of churches of Christ, represent the beginning of an avalanche? Or are the actions of five churches inconsequential in a fellowship of 13,200 congregations? Could such reflect even more important shifts in attitudes within churches of Christ toward Scripture and doctrine?
The discussion was brought to the fore in late August by the decision, reported Sept. 6 in the San Antonio Express-News, that the Oak Hills church, the nation's second-largest congregation led by prominent author and minister Max Lucado, will add an instrumental service in coming months.
Other churches known to have added instrumental services -- besides 3,800-member Oak Hills -- include Northwest, Seattle, the largest in that region; Amarillo South, Texas; Farmer's Branch, Texas; and Southlake Boulevard, in the Dallas/Forth Worth area.
Do these churches' actions signify the beginning of a ground swell away from traditional views? Leaders in church growth and church statistics are not of one mind on the matter.
Flavil Yeakley, director of the Center for Church Growth Studies, Harding University, says no. "Is this a trend? I would think of it as five isolated tragedies," Yeakley says. "I wouldn't call it a trend or a movement. Each church is unique. They do have this one thing in common, but there are lots of ways they differ."
However, John Ellas, director of the Center for Church Growth, Houston, sees a small trend related to music tied to a larger reality. "A much larger trend," he says, "is the willingness to reevaluate previous theological positions, and a growing number of members are coming to very different conclusions about numerous church practices."
Mac Lynn, longtime church statistician, sees a shift in church attitudes of which instrumental music is only one indicator. "Many churches are less concerned with historic markers that distinguished Churches of Christ. A half century ago, those indicators of true Christian practice included a cappella music, baptism for remission of sins, weekly communion, church organization and men in leadership. Today, the distinctives are eroding, as the culture impacts the churches. Most of the markers are still in place, but the attitude toward their essentiality has changed."
But such conjecture is irrelevant to the doctrinal error of instrumental music itself, many church members and leaders believe. Culture aside, the issue must return to Scripture.
Earl Edwards, director of Graduate Studies in Bible, Freed-Hardeman University, Henderson, Tenn., says, "From the evidence I have seen, those who are adding the instrument are approaching it on the basis that the use of it is 'not sinful.' The trouble with that approach is that it forces one to embrace a hermeneutic (approach to Scripture) which basically says anything not specifically 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). If that were true, infant baptism and many other things would be OK as well."
Howard Norton, executive director of the Institute for Church and Family, Harding University, says, "My heart is broken because of the unscriptural changes that are taking place in a small number of churches of Christ. The introduction of instrumental music into the public assemblies is but one example. Such changes are neither casual nor cosmetic. They are based on a fundamental shift in attitude toward the New Testament as the authoritative divine guide for the church today. Those making these changes have decided to introduce instrumental music even though there is not a shred of justification for it in the New Testament or in early church history. These people then tell us that they have made no significant change in the church's core values. What a falsehood!"
Rubel Shelly, minister of the 2,200-member Woodmont Hills church, Nashville, Tenn., explains his congregation's rationale. "I am deeply committed to a cappella music," he says. "I do my best to make a strong, reasonable, biblical case for it. I would oppose anyone's effort to introduce it into our congregational worship at Woodmont Hills. In my view, it would be divisive and therefore wrong for anyone to attempt to do so. I'm not about to champion instrumental music for the Church of Christ. I do plead, however, for a more creative, passionate, and worshipful use of vocal music. Human voices compelled by hearts zealous for Christ are capable of producing powerful, God-honoring, and participant-inspiring praise. I am an unabashed defender of our a cappella legacy. 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 pursuing the discussion. Instrumental music and the atonement are not of the same status or consequence to the human soul and its eternal welfare."
The churches who have added instrumental services cite a common motivation -- evangelism and outreach. All report increases in attendance since the switch.
A few observations seem appropriate when one considers the above article:
(1) When one action is approved despite the lack of Bible authority, others are sure to follow. The same number of passages authorize instrumental music in the New Testament church's worship as authorize the church to support institutions, engage in sponsoring church programs and build gymnasiums and other recreational facilities -- ZERO! We either follow the pattern of truth in all things or continually digress (2 Tim. 1:13 cf. 3:13).
(2) When one opposes an unauthorized action, but denies it will affect the salvation of those engaging in such, their unauthorized action will not be deterred. Rubel Shelly and those of his ilk have abandoned the defense of the truth by denying that it makes any difference. God says it does (2 Jn. 9-11; Col. 3:16-17; 2:6-8; Matt. 7:21-23; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 11:19; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; etc.).
(3) When the effect on attendance size is one's guiding principle in determining what action for the church to take, the continual march of digression is assured. The majority of people has always and will continue to reject the narrow way of truth (Matt. 7:13-14). Nevertheless, we must preach and practice God's way without alteration (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 2 Cor. 4:1-5).