Instrumental Worship - is it Biblical?

Interesting article, IFB. Thanks for sharing this with us.

I am the church organist and I believe that God wants us to use our talents to glorify and worship Him.

I like all musical instruments, except maybe that bass horn in the orchestra that hurts my ears.

 

When instruments were introduced into Hebrew worship through David, they were intended for use in the tabernacle to accompany sacrifice. They were used later in Temple.

It was after the destruction of the first temple during the Exile that the synagogal and rabbinical tradition began. Unable to sacrifice, or to perform any of the Temple rites, their worship focused on teaching. Feasts and other celebrations requiring sacrifice were observed through vicarious rites which represented the "true" ones.

As far as their instruments?

That's not to say that some fringe jewish sects, thinking themselves to be somewhat more than they were, may have taken greater liberties than were commonly observed, but there is no truth in the statement that the use of instruments in the synagogues was historical or even normal.

Besides, the most eminent commentators are agreed that instruments were never used in the synagogues.

Unless the church fathers were almost universally uneducated liars and charlatans, we have it on good authority that the early church did not use instruments even prior to 70 AD. You try in your article to make something big of the span of a century or two between their ealiest extant writings and those of the Apostles, but what is a hundred years? Just as we are perfectly capable of understanding the reasons people did things in 1905, or even 1805, so were the Fathers in things between 33 and 70 AD. We have near perfect understanding of the main events of the Reformation, and that was nearly 700 years ago. If instrumental music in church was something sanctioned by the Apostles, those teaching against them only a century later would have found small audiences, and the span of two millennia would have witnessed against them. We would be reading of Clement the Apostate, not St. Clement of Alexandria.

 

Christ was not only the Sacrifice, but He was also the Priest and the Altar. He was the Shewbread, the Table, the Candlestick, the Golden Censor AND the Incense.

He was the Veil, the Door, the Curtains, the Boards, the Sockets, the Ark, the Testimony, Aaron's Rod and the Manna from Heaven.

Shall I go on, or is it now clear to you that Christ was the Temple and everything associated with it? What you are attempting to do is to build again those things that have been destroyed, i.e. fulfilled in Christ.

And this proves what? Your presupposition that anything mentioned in Revelation is permissible to the Church is only the most blatant non-sequitur I have ever seen. This was already pointed out to you by others, and you have failed to answer it.

1 Cor. 11 and 14 are not orders of service? Paul said it straight out that all things in worship were to be "in order," yet you're trying to say it's a free-for-all?

Huh?

What is the acceptable sacrifice?

 

Thankful, we should do all that we do as if to glorify God, but all that we do should not be done in the church, whether we can glorify God with it or not.

God wants to hear His children sing praises to His name in church. He does not care if the pianist can play sheet music. Playing a piece of music without the praise-words attached is not glorifying God, but rather pleasing mens' ears.

The words to our songs of praise are what is important. Accompaniment is completely unnecessary.

When a piano can start singing praises to God, then I will be more than happy to allow one to sing.

Just like the early American fathers set up things for a reason, many of which some want to change because they don't understand them, so it is with the order set up by the early church fathers. People just can't understand why they only allowed a capella singing in the early church, so they would just assume do away with it for "a more modern sound".

A corruptible, man-made invention is of no use in allowing me to better praise my God.

If one of you feels that a single piano can allow you to better praise God, then you would be remiss in your duty to Him by not purchasing every instrument you can get your hands on. In fact, just do away with the singing all together and offer your praises only with the instruments, after all, it is pleasing to God, right?

For people who claim that they want to stay as far away from Catholic teachings as possible, yall sure have picked up one of their bad ones.

 

Oh, but this just an allegory, right, there were not really saints who had harps given them by God to sing to him. God really did not have pleasure in harps - right?

Allegory, or literal passages like this drive a steak through the heart of your position.</font>[/QUOTE]As much as I enjoy a good steak, I have to say, No it doesn't. If God gives you a harp made with His own hands, then I'll concede you have a duty to play it in church. I'll promise you, there is no way you could hold a spiritual harp in your hands.

But it is indeed allegorical. Here's what you don't understand. Harps are not made, tuned and played by the power of the Spirit. It was the descendants of Cain that first made instruments, therefore, anyone, saved or not, can play one and play beautifully. In fact, what we call talent has very little to do with one's ability to play an instrument. There is not one virtuoso who has not given his life to that instrument and worked to become as great as he is. In short, one's ability to play an instrument is 99% perspiration. (See Musical Talent: Real or Myth? in the Summer 2001 MuSICA Research Notes. MuSICA is the MUsic and Science Information Computer Archive formerly under the auspices of the University of California, Irvine, but now of the International Foundation of Music Research.)

What this means is, that there is nothing more to playing the harp than there is in laying bricks. It's something that is accomplished by the power of the flesh, and no flesh will glory in His sight.

 

By the very same token, you must apply this thinking to song as well. When one sings, one is using his voice as an instrument to make melody in the exact same manner as a harp or any other musical instrument.

 

Yes, but we are commanded by scripture to sing praises to God.

 

Brother James Reed, I respectfully disagree. Just last Sunday, our pianist played His Eye is on the Sparrow. No words. You could have heard a pin drop in our church and there were many tears and the pastor immediately led the congregation in prayer. I really can't describe the awesomeness of it with mere words. But we were praising God.

I'm not debating or arguing and there is no way that one will ever change my mind about the value of musical instruments in worship. God never did forbid us from using musical instruments in church.

Soft music is a wonderful background for praying and praising our God.

Joyful happy music, traditional hymns, praise songs, all contribute to worship and praising God. Why should we limit our praises?

 

That's not the point. Skillful singing doesn't glorify God any more than instruments do. Worship is not belting out a pretty tune. Worship is an attitude and action of the heart.

Once one realises that...

 

Whoever said anything about skillful singing?

The whole point are the words coming out.

Pretty music, whether by playing an instrument or just humming the correct tune, is nothing to God.

He wants to hear the words that will relate our feelings for Him.

 

We are to yield all our members as instruments of righteousness unto God. We did not make our own voices, they were made by God and for God. The singing of praises is something that is commanded, as James pointed out, but the playing of instruments isn't. Instruments are merely things without life, giving sound. No matter how beautifully played, they are no more to Him than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. Words without love. There is no comparison with the human voice.

Besides, though singing is commanded, the Scriptures do not give it the priorty in worship that they give to reading, doctrine and exhortation. There isn't even a "balance", a catch-phrase of the modern worshipper. Like tongues, because singing is a tongue of sorts, it is the least of the gifts. Where music is given a predominant role in worship, the worship is out of order, and the use of instruments has done much to contribute to disorderly worship just as the Early Fathers warned that it would.

In fact, I would venture to say that if not for the use of instruments in worship, there would be no division in the church at all over musical styles or its place in the worship service.

 

Bro. James Reed, What do you think about a person singing a solo in church?

Is that for praise or just to please man's hear?

 

Sure there is. The human voice is just as much a material phenomenon as any other instrument. There are computers which emulate the human voice quite well and I suspect one day technology will render a computer generated voice indistinguishable from a human one.


There is nothing magical about the human voice. As I said to James, worship is an attitude and action of the heart. It is not singing.

 

I have been to churches where the singing--with or withOUT instrumental accompaniment--seemed to be done simply for the "pleasure" of those listening. But who am I to say? The pleasure of that song may have produced a worshipful state within the mind and heart of the hearer that was NOT induced by the sermon the preacher chose to give that morning.

I have also been to services where the "special singing" was MOST of the service, simply because the Spirit moved through THAT mechanism, and the pastor yielded his "podium time" to the Spirit's leading. The singers had voices of angels--and were accompanied by at LEAST four musical instruments. It WAS a truly glorious sound--pleasing to every ear there--but I daresay it was all the MORE pleasing to God, because within that music as it was offered up to God as WORSHIP, it seemed every soul there joined in that worship as fully and completely as if they themselves were singing the hymns of praise. There were three souls saved that morning and I have never felt the Holy Spirit "move" in a service so tangibly. It was truly worship. How can this be condemned by anyone?

 

Oh, and Travelsong--I'm NOT implying that YOU are condemning singing--I just happened to finally get this posted AFTER yours.

 

I'm just stating that singing isn't worship. It can be a manifestation of worship, but it isn't the thoughts and intents of the heart. I believe you are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

Definitely!

 

I no more agree with solo performing than I do with instrumental performing in church.

That must be qualified though. If there is only one person who sings a particular "part" of the music (soprano, alto, tenor, bass), and if it is a song that has the parts singing at different times and such, then I would expect for there to be a "solo" of sorts. It happens fairly frequently with us because I am usually the only tenor.

If it is a song no one knows, except for maybe one person, then I would expect to practice the song either before of after services begin, so at least everyone will have an idea of their parts.

I would wholeheartedly object to having a soloist performance just for the sake of having a soloist performance.

We are to raise our voices together in praises to the Lord.

Unless one is physically unable to sing, and I don't mean they just can't carry a tune, then they are the only ones who have a reason not to sing. It would also be understandable for a person who didn't know the song.

Such is the same reason that we do not have choirs as well.

As I've said before, I could very well be praising God with an ability to shoot skeet, but I doubt anyone here would go for me bringing that into the worship service.

Thankful, do you have CCM in your services? A lot of people who hold your position about instruments being used to praise God would say the same about CCM. If you don't, then why not?

Just as I said before, we should do all things as if we are doing them for God, but we should not bring all of those things into the church.

 

Sure there is. The human voice is just as much a material phenomenon as any other instrument.

...

There is nothing magical about the human voice. As I said to James, worship is an attitude and action of the heart. It is not singing. </font>[/QUOTE]The human voice is commanded to praise him. Instruments are not. [Before some spectator cites Psalm 150, please read the whole thread ]

Your statement about worship is only half true. The outward demeanor of Christian worship is just as important as the inward qualities.