Competing Views of History
We have asked how others can ignore history, yet they might have the same question for us.
What many would appreciate, I have thought, is a sort of digest of what we believe and why historians outside of our tradition have disagreed.
You would be hard pressed to find someone who opposes the use of musical instruments in praise who does not at the same time grieve the division of the church over this issue. Many wish that they could find peace with musical instruments and move on. They’ve studied the scriptures, and they could almost be persuaded that the New Testament at least allows musical instruments, but there is one final roadblock on that path, one last hurdle they cannot get past. What holds many back is their understanding of early Christian opposition to musical instruments.
We might think of it this way. If we did not think that church history opposed musical instruments, then we would likely not think that scripture was opposed to musical instruments in praise. Without our understanding of early church history, we might conclude that the Greek word for “sing” in every New Testament command to sing (Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) would have communicated the same meaning found in every New Testament example of that word (Revelation 5:8 - 9; 14:2 - 3; 15:2 - 3).1 Without our view of history, we might conclude that the Greek word for “make music” in Ephesians 5:19 welcomed the literal playing of musical instruments, a first-century usage attested to even by pro-a cappella scholars2 and just as it is found throughout the Jews’ Greek translation of their scriptures.3 History as we know it has tempered our view of scripture. Without history – or with a different understanding of history – we might conclude that scripture is no enemy of musical instruments.
To put it another way, if someone among us should question whether the scriptures truly demand a cappella praise only, then it would be our view of history that would take him or her to task. Our books opposing instrumental music turn to history as an ultimate proof preventing any other reading of scripture. These examples are typical of our perspective:
- The greatest theologians throughout the history of the church have been convinced that musical instruments are to have no place in Christian worship. What can we say to this massive evidence from church history on this issue? Do we really believe we have more light than did the Reformers and the Puritans and so many others who have followed in their steps? Are we willing to oppose the collective testimony of the brightest lights that Christ has ever given to His church? – John Price, 2005 4
- …the earliest Christians did not use instruments in their assemblies, their knowledge of the Old Testament notwithstanding…. how does one explain convincingly the absence of instruments from their worship for hundreds of years? Apparently they understood the language when used in reference to their worship to involve vocal music but not instrumental music. – Thomas C. Alexander, 2010 5
- Although professing Christians disagreed on virtually every doctrine in the Christian system, one belief and practice that was universal was that the music offered to God in worship was to be singing unaccompanied by instrumental music. Nothing less than a command of God could have been sufficient to account for such a radical reversal in belief and practice. – Milo Richard Hadwin, 1998 6
For some, it hardly matters how strong your scriptural arguments may appear to be unless they are shown to take into account the testimony of history. In a manner of speaking, our understanding of history has given us a unique perspective, leaving us no other way to interpret scripture. One might even say that our understanding of history fostered a scriptural mandate for vocal music only. As I demonstrated in my earlier book (Missing More than Music), the New Testament gives us the vocabulary of accompanied praise, prophecy of accompanied praise, and examples of accompanied praise, and yet it is our view of history that demands an anti-instrument perspective for all those passages. Thus, word usage in the New Testament examples takes a back seat to history in interpreting the New Testament commands. The harness for our scriptural exegesis on instruments steers us toward something that explains our understanding of history.
A typical book from us about musical instruments also spends a fair amount of time talking about the importance of obedience to God. It is as though the main difference between us and those who disagree with us is that those on the other side put their preference for musical instruments above an honest understanding of God’s desire for us. If we would listen to them, though, we might learn that the difference lies in our competing views of history. We have seen what believers inside our movement say about the weight of history, but what do people hear outside of our movement?
One example comes from James McKinnon, arguably the most respected Church Music historian of our time (and often cited by us):
Thus men were compelled by their allegiances to construct revised versions of the past; the simple chronicling of events was replaced by history that was selective and interpretive. And certainly there is much of this in the 19th century development of a cappella doctrine. – James McKinnon, 1998 7
McKinnon concluded that the “development of a cappella doctrine” in the 1800s was dependent on “history that was selective and interpretive.” Opposition to instrumental music, he contended, was forged on “revised versions of the past.” If we believe that those who disagree with us about musical instruments are failing to give weight to history, then Christians on the other side answer that we are the ones who misunderstand – or misrepresent – history.
Granted, it is true that good history should align with a correct understanding of scripture. McKinnon, however, says that there is a problem with our foundation. He contends that our guiding view of history has been “selective and interpretive.” This explains how our modern-day brothers and sisters can study the practices and teachings of the early church as we do and yet praise God with musical instruments. We have asked how they can ignore history, yet they might have the same question for us. If we are going to separate ourselves from Christians who accept musical instruments, then we need to be sure that our understanding of church history is not “interpretive” or “selective,” but is rather (1) correct and (2) complete.
First, we should be sure that our understanding of early church history is correct. One example is where most of our websites and papers cite Justin Martyr as proof that Christians opposed musical instruments as early as the second century A.D. Historians, however, have known since the mid 1800’s – since long before our Restoration Movement split in 1905 – that this statement our fellowship still attributes to Martyr was actually made by a Christian ascetic centuries later.8 It may be tempting to copy and paste citations that agree with our conclusions, but one must wonder how we could lift up mistaken information like this still today, over a century and a half after it was disproven. Before we divide the church over musical instruments, our “interpretations” must come from history that is correct.
Second, we should be certain that our understanding of early church history is complete. Because we pride ourselves in honoring scripture alone, we risk knowing only enough history to be dangerous. For example, when we learn that certain fourth- and fifth-century Christians opposed musical instruments in praise, a shallow depth of historical knowledge can mean that we are not only unaware of historical influences for this change (outside of scripture), but also unaware of the actual arguments opposing instruments given by those very Christian writers themselves and unaware of how they wrestled with the introduction of singing itself in their assemblies at that time. If we assert, with some, that only the Bible could explain a practice of the early church, then we have little incentive to consider outside influences. If early Christian writings are to contribute to the division of the church, however, then our understanding of history cannot be “selective” and incomplete.
In my previous book, I noted that Biblical scholars have not lined up to write books on our issue: instrumental music. The eminent Greek scholar F.W. Gingrich said that he considered the issue to be “unimportant.”9 The same is true of historians. Volumes have been written on the subject of church music, but modern historians have not been inclined to create works that are narrowly focused only on our slice, on the one musical issue that is of interest to us. Books on either the Biblical or the historical arguments surrounding instrumental music are niche works, common from those who oppose instrumental music, but typically only broached from the other side by those who have been personally involved in our tradition. If you are reading this book, then it is likely that in some way you, as I, have been personally impacted by this issue.
It has seemed to me, then, that our movement would entertain a book on music in church history that focused on the issue we care about, instrumental music. What many would appreciate, I have thought, is a sort of digest of what we believe and why historians outside of our tradition have disagreed. It would be an opportunity to go into greater detail than I did in my previous book, where the primary focus was scripture. In this day of the internet, a writer on this topic would have the opportunity to share links so that students of this subject could read the writings of the early church and Reformers and sometimes even modern historians online for themselves. If someone could show people where to look, they would see for themselves. This book, then, is my offering. If the honest men and women who went before us had had this opportunity we have today, then I believe they would have found peace regarding musical instruments. They would want nothing less for us.
Please understand. Finding peace with musical instruments doesn’t require anyone to take up a musical instrument; it just gives us the freedom to take down the walls.
I can say that I have found this study of history to be fascinating, and I’ve tried to convey what I’ve found in a relatively concise and interesting way. Nevertheless, some may say that this study of history is not an “easy read.” Let me suggest that if you find some topic here to be too difficult for you to follow, then you might try skipping ahead to the next chapter or section. The bottom line, though, is that we are the ones who make these arguments from history. If they are to form a dividing wall around Christ’s church, then we simply cannot complain that examining our arguments is too difficult.
On a separate note, if eBooks are new to you, allow me to offer a couple of suggestions. You may want to read this book on your computer on the free Kindle for PC or Kindle for Mac software. That way, when you follow links to web addresses, you will have more screen space to read and to navigate between book and browser. Also, many Kindles (including the free computer Kindles) have a feature called “text-to-speech” that will allow your Kindle to read to you. This would allow you to listen on your commute, or in the gym or kitchen, or with your eyes closed. I have formatted this book with text-to-speech in mind, so that scripture and date references, chapter breaks, etc., are spoken clearly.