Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
Everyone has the right and, in some cases the obligation, to petition their session.
Musical Instruments: Denial of Christ's Final Sacrifice
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
Amen. One thing I appreciate about the Free Church (Continuing) is they understand the need for true revival and reformation in the church. The article I posted by Iain Murray on worship is perceptive at this point. No doubt it stems from great revivals in Scotland in the past, but also the importance of 1 Cor 2:1-5 and 1 Thess 1:5 for the ongoing spiritual life of the church.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
As an officer in Christ's church, might I lovingly suggest you do devote some time to studying this issue, brother.
As you note, this question has been answered repeatedly, including in this very thread. See posts # 55 & 57. Good question though so I'm glad you asked it.
There is absolutely an option - two in fact I see. You could attempt to work with your local session and ask them to study the issue and pray for them to also become convicted so that changes might be made. You could also relocate and help out one of these small a capella congregations. After all, what is more important than obedience to God? Lastly, are a capella and EP congregations small in numbers? Yes, but to quote one of my beloved fathers in the faith, John Knox, one with God is a majority.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
If it is any encouragement, I have attended a non-EP, instrumental music-playing church for seven years. In such a situation, we can learn to wait patiently on the Lord and be faithful where we are.
aaronsk
Puritan Board Freshman
While you attended what did your participation look like? Did you simply withhold from hymns and sing Psalms despite the instruments?
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Appreciate the information, but as I mentioned, I am good with my OPC. Though not perfect, the preaching is faithful/biblical and the fellowship is very warm.
This is apples and green beans Taylor. Think about it. Sorry for bringing you back into the fray if you really want to stop.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
@Jerrod Hess
I am not sure, Jerrod, why you cite the RPCGA congregation in Sheboygan, WI.
I've preached a few times in this congregation, though it's been some years. When I preached there, and it was RPCGA then, they were neither EP nor a capella only.
Perhaps things have changed there; otherwise, I don't know why you cite them as an example of a congregation that presumably eschews all instrumental accompaniment to singing in divine worship.
I will also just add this about music more globally to this discussion. We don't know one single tune used in temple worship to accompany the psalms, if they even used tunes as we know them (as we have in Late Early music and that of the era of Common Practice). From what we do know, it may well be that the Hebrew was chanted or declaimed by the Levites.
Those who would argue that our tunes to sing psalms, as we have in our psalters, are circumstantial (I think they are) are hard put to argue in this way if they define circumstance narrowly as only that which is absolutely necessary (thus ruling out any instruments to help in singing). Tunes are not necessary. The psalms could be chanted on a single note or on several different ones as lined out by a presenter/cantor. We didn't have music written down for a long time and still, psalms were sung in the synagogue and the church. I think that the way circumstance is argued by many proves too much, not able to account for books that have (sometimes comparatively elaborate) tunes (with not just melodies, but harmonized--another non-necessity).
Having said this, I am quite sympathetic to those who don't want a musical production in worship and who are leery about misuse. I am quite wary about abuse in the musical service, but abusus non tollit usum (abuse of some practice does not forbid a proper use). I think the general principle of simplicity should be observed with respect to tunes and any potential accompaniment.
My concern here is whether we can properly rule out any and all use of instruments whatsoever as clearly sinful ipso facto, while granting that there are many cases of abuse of instruments. I do appreciate Rob McCurley's humility and gracious tone at the end of his sermon on the matter, but I am not convinced that his address means that instruments per se are necessarily less circumstantial than books of psalms for singing (with our comparatively modern tunes and ways of singing). I don't question that psalm books are circumstantial. But if circumstance extends only to what is strictly necessary, such books are not necessary for us to, in some fashion, sing the psalms.
I am seeking to be irenic here because I understand, and appreciate, where my brothers and sisters are biblically coming from (and the weight of history here) while I continue, as I have for years, to think and pray about these matters. I would say about Rob M. what he said about others. There are those on this board on the other side of the issue who I easily regard as my betters, mainly because I know my own wicked heart, and am glad that we can all strive together to walk in the way that God would have us walk.
And let me say, to my good EP and no-instruments friends, this, in closing, for your encouragement: the last number of years of my life have been spent, among other things, working to recover a hearty return among all (not simply RP churches), to vigorous psalm-singing, which I think has waxed in the thirty-five years of my service in the OPC. American Presbyterians are singing the psalms more than they were decades ago and are also more alert, in many corners, I think, to concerning musical practices, appreciating the sort of simplicity that WCF 7.6 describes.
Peace,
Alan
I am not sure, Jerrod, why you cite the RPCGA congregation in Sheboygan, WI.
I've preached a few times in this congregation, though it's been some years. When I preached there, and it was RPCGA then, they were neither EP nor a capella only.
Perhaps things have changed there; otherwise, I don't know why you cite them as an example of a congregation that presumably eschews all instrumental accompaniment to singing in divine worship.
I will also just add this about music more globally to this discussion. We don't know one single tune used in temple worship to accompany the psalms, if they even used tunes as we know them (as we have in Late Early music and that of the era of Common Practice). From what we do know, it may well be that the Hebrew was chanted or declaimed by the Levites.
Those who would argue that our tunes to sing psalms, as we have in our psalters, are circumstantial (I think they are) are hard put to argue in this way if they define circumstance narrowly as only that which is absolutely necessary (thus ruling out any instruments to help in singing). Tunes are not necessary. The psalms could be chanted on a single note or on several different ones as lined out by a presenter/cantor. We didn't have music written down for a long time and still, psalms were sung in the synagogue and the church. I think that the way circumstance is argued by many proves too much, not able to account for books that have (sometimes comparatively elaborate) tunes (with not just melodies, but harmonized--another non-necessity).
Having said this, I am quite sympathetic to those who don't want a musical production in worship and who are leery about misuse. I am quite wary about abuse in the musical service, but abusus non tollit usum (abuse of some practice does not forbid a proper use). I think the general principle of simplicity should be observed with respect to tunes and any potential accompaniment.
My concern here is whether we can properly rule out any and all use of instruments whatsoever as clearly sinful ipso facto, while granting that there are many cases of abuse of instruments. I do appreciate Rob McCurley's humility and gracious tone at the end of his sermon on the matter, but I am not convinced that his address means that instruments per se are necessarily less circumstantial than books of psalms for singing (with our comparatively modern tunes and ways of singing). I don't question that psalm books are circumstantial. But if circumstance extends only to what is strictly necessary, such books are not necessary for us to, in some fashion, sing the psalms.
I am seeking to be irenic here because I understand, and appreciate, where my brothers and sisters are biblically coming from (and the weight of history here) while I continue, as I have for years, to think and pray about these matters. I would say about Rob M. what he said about others. There are those on this board on the other side of the issue who I easily regard as my betters, mainly because I know my own wicked heart, and am glad that we can all strive together to walk in the way that God would have us walk.
And let me say, to my good EP and no-instruments friends, this, in closing, for your encouragement: the last number of years of my life have been spent, among other things, working to recover a hearty return among all (not simply RP churches), to vigorous psalm-singing, which I think has waxed in the thirty-five years of my service in the OPC. American Presbyterians are singing the psalms more than they were decades ago and are also more alert, in many corners, I think, to concerning musical practices, appreciating the sort of simplicity that WCF 7.6 describes.
Peace,
Alan
Our church has had only a piano for over 40 years now.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I still attend the same place. I do not sing uninspired hymns. On the rare occasions that there are any psalms, I sing them despite the instruments as I am commanded to sing psalms and am not responsible for someone playing an instrument.
Rev. Ruddell’s congregation and Rev. Van Leuven’s congregations are EP, and some others in the denomination may be, but there is variation within it.
Yes, it was a general statement. It’s what has happened in the majority of the visible church in the West, I’d say.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
The RPCGA congregation in Texas is EP, but not all of them.
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Brothers, thanks for this discussion. While our church is in Affiliate (not yet full fraternal) relations with the RPCGA, we are EP and acapella (significant reasons we were connected via our mutual friends in the EPC Australia).
My experience in the New Geneva Presbytery is that much deference is given to acapella psalm singing at presbytery meetings, and quite a bit at our recent General Assembly. I think I correctly observe our Wisconsin congregation is very friendly to EP and acapella at least I'm confident some elders and deacons are. I'm not officially representing the RPCGA or the WI church (especially as we're new and still working on joining) but that is my observation and sense of things while attending Presbytery (including in WI).
I thought I'd also share our recent membership class supplemental study on acapella worship during our study of the WCF Chapter 21, "On Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day": https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5522454562870
Though EP is not the subject of this string, since it is addressed here's the supplemental study on exclusive psalmody the week before: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=42822411184374
Referenced in the suggested resources of the overall study on worship of our class is this brief video I worked on with and under Dr. Jeffrey Stivason at Grace RPC in Gibsonia, PA, during my ministry internship (while a student at RPTS and under care in the RPCNA at that time):
Hope these prove useful.
My experience in the New Geneva Presbytery is that much deference is given to acapella psalm singing at presbytery meetings, and quite a bit at our recent General Assembly. I think I correctly observe our Wisconsin congregation is very friendly to EP and acapella at least I'm confident some elders and deacons are. I'm not officially representing the RPCGA or the WI church (especially as we're new and still working on joining) but that is my observation and sense of things while attending Presbytery (including in WI).
I thought I'd also share our recent membership class supplemental study on acapella worship during our study of the WCF Chapter 21, "On Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day": https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5522454562870
Though EP is not the subject of this string, since it is addressed here's the supplemental study on exclusive psalmody the week before: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=42822411184374
Referenced in the suggested resources of the overall study on worship of our class is this brief video I worked on with and under Dr. Jeffrey Stivason at Grace RPC in Gibsonia, PA, during my ministry internship (while a student at RPTS and under care in the RPCNA at that time):
Hope these prove useful.
This looks great! Thank you! I have benefitted greatly from your sermons and teaching on sermon audio.
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for your kind encouragement.
Also, I realized my comment of EPC Australia wasn't clear. Though not significant to the post, they didn't introduce our church and the RPCGA; rather, they introduced me and the church and among other things these worship commitments were at the top of the list for the church to call me and me to receive it. So I really appreciate these posts on an important topic to us.
If I could engage in some argumentation.
1. Christ by His death, resurrection, and ascension has purchased and secured a people for HImself.
2. Those Who Christ brings to Himself are sanctified progressively by His Spirit to put away folly.
3. Elders are expected to be those most mature in their speech and conduct and engage in sober, kind, and grave speech. In their dealings with the confused, they are expected to be longsuffering and patient.
Therefore, Elders who post titles that "Those who use instruments deny the finished work of Christ" deny the finished work of Christ by exhibiting character qualities not consonant with the Office itself.
Now, am I willing to grant that a violation of the RPW is sinful? Yes.
Yet, notice the tone and character of the author of Hebrews. He doesn't ever condemn them on the basis that their activity bears with it the full import of what they are doing. If ever a case could be made for Paul (if he's the author) to state, unequivocally, that persons are denying the finished work of Christ as a direct conclusion then this is the place. He doesn't do so because he is a sober man and not an unstable teacher given to foolish conclusions that could be inferred but are not yet in the mind of those who are shrinking back.
He urges them forward. He cajoles. He warns.
Even in Galatians he does not charge them with the full import of what their trajectory may entail. He wans them that they are in danger of denying the Gospel. Why? Because he is sober and is not given to unstable arguments that already leave them condemned. He is urging them back from the brink.
Again, let me be clear. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits of a GNC argument that excludes the use of instruments. As an Elder, however, I am called to sobriety and gravity and not foolish conclusions that cannot be sustained by a possible inference of the activities of those who might be engaged (ignorantly perhaps) in violating God's Word.
That said, I appreciate the Godly character of Ian Duiguid as an exemplar of Godly speech and writing expected out of Elders.
1. Christ by His death, resurrection, and ascension has purchased and secured a people for HImself.
2. Those Who Christ brings to Himself are sanctified progressively by His Spirit to put away folly.
3. Elders are expected to be those most mature in their speech and conduct and engage in sober, kind, and grave speech. In their dealings with the confused, they are expected to be longsuffering and patient.
Therefore, Elders who post titles that "Those who use instruments deny the finished work of Christ" deny the finished work of Christ by exhibiting character qualities not consonant with the Office itself.
Now, am I willing to grant that a violation of the RPW is sinful? Yes.
Yet, notice the tone and character of the author of Hebrews. He doesn't ever condemn them on the basis that their activity bears with it the full import of what they are doing. If ever a case could be made for Paul (if he's the author) to state, unequivocally, that persons are denying the finished work of Christ as a direct conclusion then this is the place. He doesn't do so because he is a sober man and not an unstable teacher given to foolish conclusions that could be inferred but are not yet in the mind of those who are shrinking back.
He urges them forward. He cajoles. He warns.
Even in Galatians he does not charge them with the full import of what their trajectory may entail. He wans them that they are in danger of denying the Gospel. Why? Because he is sober and is not given to unstable arguments that already leave them condemned. He is urging them back from the brink.
Again, let me be clear. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits of a GNC argument that excludes the use of instruments. As an Elder, however, I am called to sobriety and gravity and not foolish conclusions that cannot be sustained by a possible inference of the activities of those who might be engaged (ignorantly perhaps) in violating God's Word.
That said, I appreciate the Godly character of Ian Duiguid as an exemplar of Godly speech and writing expected out of Elders.
Mr. Great-Heart
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul's tone in 1 Corinthians 15 could also be noted, as he responded to some in the church who apparently denied the resurrection of the dead (v.12)!
Well noted. Those who *directly* denied the resurrection of the dead. Not those who used musical instruments and, by some twisted, unstable logic said: "Therefore, you deny the resurrection of Christ."
It's like if I point out that David was gentle with his sheep and someone says: "But he also cut off the head of Goliath."
Yes. An Elder knows in what context he ought to be cutting off heads.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
In light of Rich's posts, I recognize the tone in some of my posts on this topic was also less than edifying. For that I sincerely apologize. I am still incredulous at the main (and titular) assertion of the OP, and I must stand by the substance of my responses to it, but I know I need to do better when expressing myself. I can get overly incensed when I see certain things, and too often this wrongly spills over into my communications. Again, I sincerely apologize for this, and will endeavor, with God's help, to let my speech, though seasoned with salt, be more gracious. Pax.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
This is definitely me, as well.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Our family visited a Dutch congregation last summer on our cross-country trip. The brethren there worship using psalms only, yet they use an organ for musical accompaniment. I instructed my wife and children not to join their voices aloud with this organ, but to sit quietly, read along with the words being sung, and make melody to the Lord in the heart. Some may call this extreme, but I made vows affirming the sinfulness of "all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself" (LC 109). Now, I'm thoroughly convinced that God did not institute this old Dutch woman's playing of the organ as a part of his worship and that it is not simply a circumstance of otherwise instituted worship. In fact, my conscience bothered me somewhat for sitting quietly during this pollution of God's worship without expressing disapproval in some way there on the spot. I told the elder we were glad to worship with them that day, all except for the organ. He told me he would love nothing more than to remove it and worship God free of its droning, but that discussion would basically be a non-starter with the church government located in the Netherlands.
I hesitate to involve myself in this discussion, but, really, is this necessary? Is it not sufficient to say, “I disagree with your conclusions”?
The OP lays out the case plainly enough, I think:
Musical instruments, like animal sacrifice, belong to the Old Covenant ceremonies; therefore, to make use of musical instrumemts in New Covenant worship is an implicit denial of the finished work of Christ, by which the ceremonies were abrogated.
Now, you may argue against some part of that. You may disagree that musical instruments are necessarily bound to ceremonies. You may think there is room for some form of musical instrumentation in the church’s worship. You can make your case, and you can make it without playing the offended party (or whatever it is you are aiming to do with your post).
The OP says specifically that those who employ musical instruments in the church’s worship are not for that cause unsaved, only that their worship, in reverting to a species of now-abrogated ceremony, is errant, and incongruous with the gospel. The author of the OP, contrary to how you seem to read him, is not leaving anyone condemned; he is calling no one apostate for advocating musical instruments in the church.
Also, please note, since you have apparently missed it, the OP’s stated purpose (quoted below), which is to briefly lay out, for the benefit of those who are convinced of it, the arguments for a capella worship in the church. It is not, as your post would suggest, an uncharitable attack on those who still prefer to make use of organs and guitars and worship bands and whatever else. Therefore your charges of improper tone, of a lack of sobriety, etc. appear misplaced.
I didn't miss anything. I followed the argument.
The conclusion was foolish. I read it. I wasn't inflamed by it as much as shaking my head in disbelief at the folly of the title and wondering at the maturity of those who write in approval that the conclusion so easily follows from the arguments made that those who play instruments are denying the finished work of Christ.
It's not that I can't follow the argument. It's that I'm given to other principles of charity regarding how people think.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
