Singing With Instrumental
Music and Sin
"As a Christian I understand the Church's reasoning for not using instruments in Church worship, and whole heatedly agree.
"I am now looking for an answer to the question of whether it is sin to play piano and sing hymns at home or at Nursing Homes or other public places. I've been informed by one Church of Christ that it is sin anytime, even at home. I and my family have done this all our lives. My Mother, a great Christian played and we all sang at home, in the car and elsewhere. I and all my children play piano, organ, keyboard. We play all types of music. While entertaining at the Nursing Homes, which I have done on a volunteer basis for 30 years plus, when a resident requests "In The Garden" or "What A Friend We Have In Jesus" or any other song or hymn, I comply and do so with joy. I can't imagine on what grounds I could refuse since this is not a Church Service but an informal sing a long. Sometimes, I receive these requests as "last requests" from dying patients, in which case I will take a keyboard to their bedside and play, sometimes sing and pray for and with them.
"I have been in contact via the internet with
someone from a Church of Christ in Miss. He claims that it is a
terrible sin for me to play and sing hymns at home or elsewhere with
piano or organ. Betty Sue.
The quick answer is no. If sin is innvolved, the preacher is sinning by promoting secular (none inspired) poetry for what Paul calls "the Spirit" in Ephesians 5 or "the Word of Christ" in Colossians 3. The loss of the Bible as teaching resource in song was contested more bitterly than instruments in Catholicism. The word is SPEAK to one another: you CANNOT speak (preach) and sing at the same time. Therefore, believe Paul: sing and make melody in the PLACE of the spirit (John 4) or heart which is the ONLY Place God seeks worship.
Click to understand that God's Mind is to God what man's spirit is to mankind (1Cor 2). The mind and spirit are identical in the Bible. Therefore to sing in the spirit is to sing in the mind: Paul said SPEAK to one another with the Biblical material and then sing AND make melody in the heart. See also Romans identity between MIND and SPIRIT. Then grasp that God's Spirit is never ANOTHER person of a polytheistic "god."
Hello, Betty
First, let me tell you that I do not even slightly endorse the use of even contemporary music in "para-church" meetings or on church property as a "venue" for Rock, Rap, CCM or even "gospel songs." I cringe at those in the Seeker-Movement who will and have done anything to attract the outsiders. I am dealing only with your private practices. For instance, a new cult is the "All Things To All People" which doesn't grasp or care that Rock is an explicit sexual word in the underground of Voodoo influenced "gospel" music. Those who most detest slavery and "poor" nevertheless are always captured by the slaves and the "barbarians." Thus, we see the "mountain music" gaining victory over teaching the Word, and the music of slavery dressed up as a "tippy toeing" into charismatic chaos.
The MUSIC thing becomes an issue because when the group meets, gathers or assembles the word means SYNAGOGUE. Now, there was no "praise service in the synagogue." That was not because strumming a harp and singing to your sheep was a sin: it was because it shows contempt to sing and play when you synagogue for GIVING HEED to the Word of God.
It is not a sin because singing and playing is wrong but because to do so in the fact of Jesus when He promises to be with us to teach us through His Words would insult him and PREVENT Him from teading His "songs and sermons."
On the contrary, if you sang the Biblical text with instruments you would tell people that it didn't bother you to play an instrument while God is speaking.
However, if you sing self-composes songs (a very early heresy) you would tell Christ the Spirit that His songs had no value to you. That is, you put the FEELING and psychological impact of singing (a pagan practice) ahead of TEACHING the Word: you CANNOT teach and sing at the same tim. The AOIDing is equivalent to Aiero or trying to LIFT YOURSELF up into the presence of God. The songs must not just be IN ACCORD with Scripture but they must BE Scripture or you repudiate the sole reason Paul used for "synagoguing" or assembling which was to give heed to the Words of Christ, the "spirit" or "that which is written."
Please take this seriously: which secular singing is not condemned the MUSIC word is never used in the Bible to speak of "worship." On the contrary, music is the MARK which tells God: "We will not listen to your words. The word exegesis, hermeneutics, musica, cantus was and is a form of MAGICA, soothsaying or charismatic prophesying.s
I suppose that if your adversaries are busy worrying about what you do for a dying patient they won't have to worry about the neo-paganism flying the flag of either "gospel songs" or "praise songs" or "contemporary Christian" (an oxymoron) on the one extreme; and "ganging up" on the audience with worship "teams" and theatrical performance in song or sermon or band or "musical minister" on the other extreme. This can happen possibly easier when A Cappella replaces the "square" sequence of song or instrument.
In short, contemporary emphasis upon "worship ritual" has stolen secular songs to be used as "gospel" songs.
However, you have not stolen sacred songs to be used in a non-sacred place.
There is as much or more warning down through the pages of history about adopting the sentiment of the world in self-composed songs to replace the Word of God as there is warning against instrumental or mechanical approaches to God.
Betty, I have heard the sermons and read the books and I don't believe that most of our people have a remote clue about the Bible and the instrumental music issue. I just get the impression that as long as the sermon outlines hold out the "Bible will remain chained to the pulpit" and the paying "audience" chained in utter darkness and that is the way it is going to be until Jesus removes them as He did during His first advent. Their only tool is to so frighten people that they must do exactly what they are told as the only way to keep out of trouble and be a happy, in-fellowship member. Unfortunately, this meets much of the definition of a cult. However, in fairness it would be abnormal for a literate preacher or a church of Christ to make such claims since they are assuredly aware that what prohibits instruments also prohibits songs out of the human "spirit" unless the writer is a prophet selected and inspired by the Spirit Christ.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 1 Co.14:2
And Bruner, in The Holy Spirit calls "gospel" music "low-level glossolalia" -- just speaking in tongues.
Therefore, you need to work out your own system of faith and practice because some key-removing preachers will not stand up for you on judgment day if playing for dying patients gets you barred from the food pantry.
First, notice that everything I hear except from some primitive Baptists and Presbyterians finds the clergy defending unlawful turf and therefore are driven to one extreme or the other on the music issue.
Your critic makes several assumptions: the first is that there is a law of singing. Your spiritual adviser would probably say that playing Rock and Roll with a piano is not a sin. Furthermore, he would say that singing hymns on the street corner is not wrong. His problem is that playing and singing "sacred songs" at the same time is a terrible sin of one is going to claim to "speak where the Bible speaks." This is the first clue that he has read the books but not the Bible.
The preacher may in fact play the piano or guitar and may entertain people with secular songs or sick humor. He might even play at a funeral.
G. C. Brewer notes that the piano player and song leader in a luncheon club were missing: two "gospel" preachers rose to the occasion and made themselves "human." (A Medley on the Music Question, p. 11-12, Gospel Advocate, 1948)
But Brewer says: "Singing is the law, you have to perform it."
In ancient paganism especially among the Canaanites and Hittites a poem or song was the personal property of the composer. After they died the song was put into the "catalog" of sacred songs and placed in the public domain. Thereafter, you could sing it as your own attack upon the gods. I am afraid that once poems have been put into the "catalog" and filtered through the money changer's hands they become sacred songs. Blue books are more sacred than the gold books--or is it the gold books are more sacred than the red book?
Unfortunately, without knowing it, sentimental poems find their way into the "blue" book or the "red book" or the "praise book" and becomes more inspired than the Word of Christ which Paul called "Spirit." Because this is identical to ancient paganism it may be modern paganism because "things equal to the same things are equal to one another."
Then you can be "sat on the back pew" if you suggest singing a genuine, Spirit-inspired psalm.
The second assumption is that vocal music is an act of worship or "the law of singing" and that law is being fulfilled to the letter in his church. Therefore, he is not a sinner. Alexander Campbell saw singing as a legalism and it didn't matter much what was sung--as long as you bought his song book. The Disciples got Alexander Campbell's book -- which originally had no notes -- pretty close to his death bed. Then every church must buy the establishment song book or there could be no unity in the church!
"Isaac Errett who influenced Campbell to sign over his copyright, had argued that itwas absolutely necessary to the unity of the church to have unity of worship,
and the latter could not be maintained
unless the brethren all used one hymn book--Campbell's.
Accordingly, the Standard and the Society opposed vigorously the publication of any other hymn book. Lipscomb by selling a hymn book printed in Canada had been visited by some of the ire of these men." (West, Life and Times of David Lipscomb, p. 171)
The third assumption is that singing secular songs -- which have their "second incarnation" as "spiritual songs" because they are in the "blue book" -- with the piano is a terrible sin. This is based on seeing "singing as the operative word" rather than Paul's emphasis on speaking and teaching the Biblical message.
However, by "singing for doctrine the commandments of men or women" we perform a magical act. And that is identical to the ancient and modern Pagan view.
Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men
However we might love the sentiment of Fanny Crosby she was not a prophetess. Like Miriam, god didn't select her to deliver His Word to mankind. And if she wasn't inspired then nothing that came off her pen is inspired. However, Fanny over Paul may be selected because we like Fanny's doctrine better than Paul's. Paul still commanded that we sin "The Word of Christ."
Inculcating doctrine which is either contrary to the Word of Christ or different is really based on the Old Testament where mouth religion was "taught to the tune of the hickory stick" through the use of cultic songs sung over and over to drive home some point:
And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote; Isaiah 29:13RSV
NIV Note: b13 Hebrew; Septuagint 'They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men'
This teaching was with the rod -- the oriental incentive to learning -- the pedagogue. We say, "you will listen over and over even though we know that after about five times you can perform the act while thinking about the football game.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jeremiah 31:34
Jesus outlawed the "official" teachers or preachers except in the mission field when He absolutely commanded:
But be not ye called Rabbi (by age or rank): for one is your Master (guide, teacher, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Matthew 23:8
Anyone who can read can teach the "Word as it has been delivered to you" and when you violate this most explicit warning and command you will get nothing but the "commandments of men learned by rote." That is patently paganism.
And the command was followed by most believers for a long time and by Presbyterians and others even today:
A.D. 360
"But considerable prominence was given to the hymns by the Gnostic, Bardesans, who composed a psalter of 150 psalms. However, the 59th canon of the Synod of Laodicea, 360 A. D., enjoined that 'No psalm composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the Church, but only... the Canonical Books of the OT and NT." Int Std Ency., p. 2494
"In competition with pagan musical art, congregational singing began to wane. Basil states that he had 'the Psalms rendered by skillful presentors after the manner of the triumphal Odes of Pindar, the congregation joining at the closing verse, with the accompaniment of lyres." Int Std Bible Ency., p. 2494A
Ephraem also addd his own songs--which were very Biblical--in a musical form in the year 373.
This urge to use professional art to compete with others quite naturally led to the use of professional presenters. It is important to note the earlier statement that the use of music was often in the professionals.
"Psalmody thus came to be increasingly the monoply of trained singers, and the 15th canon of the Council of Laodicea, 360 AD, proscribed that 'no others shall sing in the church save only the canonical singers...who go up into the ambo and sing with a book." (Int Std Bible Ency, Psalms, p. 2494a)
They called them Precenters or Cantors and we call the Musical Worship Leaders. However, McClintock and Strong called it the first heresy largely pervading the church.
"We render our hymns with a living psalterion and a living kithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety, we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms" (Eusebius, 4th Century, Commentary on Psalms 91:2-3).
Melody speaks of unison singing which the early churches clearly understood. Harmony is not melody and serves the same purpose as instruments. If there is no command for instruments, there is no command for harmony. Harmony, in fact, as we know it in "church" is called "organum" or "after the organ." Therefore, it becomes doubly legalistic.
While only about one third of the Psalms were used in the synagogues to be chanted or spoken (religious) rather than sung (secular) the objection to some judgmental Psalms (most of the harped psalms) is based on ignorance that what we have turned into cultic singing was teaching. Therefore, you could speak about bashing out the heads of babies in the context of understanding the Old Testament text. Singing the songs without the historical context will, perhaps deliberately, keep people ignorant.
The fourth assumption -- assuredly false -- is that the songs you mention are the same "songs" Paul commands. "In the Garden" is a secular song and is not one of the three forms Paul defined. I just don't knew whether "the dew was on the roses" or what the "better-than-scriptrue" message is intended to be.
As far as I know my father who died at over 94 never carried a tune in his life. He asked his "pastor" if he thought that he was sinning. The response was: the law demands singing, you do not sing, therefore you are breaking the law and you are a sinner and you know where sinners go.
This is exactly why we have no credibility when denouncing instrumental music as worship.
The assumption is that "singing is the law and if you don't sing you violate the law." If you attend faithfully but do not sing you are still a "drag" on the spirit and are somehow spoiling the "worship" ritual and violating the law just as surely as not listening to the sermon skips one of the "acts" of worship. This, of course, is pure, distilled paganism. And the actual revealed definition by Paul doesn't matter.
The justification for unlawful instruments is very often based on the unlawful "act" of singing secular songs with a token Biblical or even anti-biblical sentiment by non-instrumental groups. That is, if you can sin by singing secular songs then we can sin by using the instruments. And the actual revealed definition by Paul doesn't matter.
Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another: modern "gospel" singing is called "organum" or "after the organ" and was invented to get the benefit of the pipe organ without "breaking the law of singing." Knew a Jew who had computerized his kitchen: get things ready on Friday and lets the machinery cook his Sabbath lunch--observed the Law and didn't miss a calorie.
The "law of singing" is based on the false belief that Paul commanded singing anything which rouses your flesh and which can be peddled as "spiritual fire" but which is rank, raw, unadulterated paganism.
The Spirit of Truth says that:
The LAW is to teach or preach: "speaking" is not "singing" and melody is not harmony. Therefore, harmony is just as much human invention as instruments. Both have their place but not in worship.
The Resource is the revealed Word of Christ the Spirit
The purpose is to teach and admonish with the Word of Christ
The RESULT is singing and melody IN THE HEART
And the direction of flow is unto God. Pagan singing was external but spiritual singing was "in the heart" or even "speaking to yourself." The sign of paganism is that it is entertainment -- directed to the flesh and making us "enjoy" it while learning no true doctrine and often learning false doctrine.
If you put the singing first and refuse to teach the inspired Words of the Spirit then you are violating the LAW as totally as it can be violated.
In Acts 1:20 psalmos is the book of Psalms and in Rom. 15: sing is psallo.
- "Psallo is best translated by chant,
- not sing.
- The Greeks sharply distinguish chanting (psalmodia)
- from singing (tragoudi).
- The first is a sacred activity;
- the second (singing), a secular one. In English, unfortunately, the distinction is not sharp.. Constantine Cavarnos
