Sectarianism: Church of Christ adds anti-instrument law

Olan Hicks on A Law of Silence: Instrumental Music in Worship

Kenneth Sublett, Piney.com, Hohenwald, Tennessee

"When Jesus was on earth He worshipped at the temple where instruments were used and said nothing." He identified the Jews as playing fertility rites of funeral and wedding and even trying to "triumph over" him musically as Psalm 41 prophesied when they "piped" trying to get him into the feminine or effeminate Dionysus choral dance and singing the "Lament" which would have confessed that the Jews had defeated Him.

See Al Maxey on the law of Silence

See Al Maxey on instrumental music

When the "musical mourning team" (religious) tried to help Him heal the girl, He cast them out "more or less violently."

He refused to go up to the opening ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles when all of the "men of note" or on the performance circuit competed. Jesus knew that while they were engaged in a giant fertility ritual they were saying "we will not listen to Jesus but we will murder Him." His unbelieving brothers wanted Jesus to go up and demonstrate his "magic" which would surely win the day and make Jesus famous.

Jesus inspired Paul to define the Christian "sacrifice" as the fruit of the lips and as the "Spirit saying to the churches" Jesus identified music with the end-time Babylon Harlot worship.

Sure, harps in Revelation? Predictable. Symbolic of the peace and lack of responsibility of the DEAD. For the "living" the angel came to "preach the gospel." The LIVING bring the harps to the DEAD as seen on the tombstones, but the LIVING are never playing the harps. Only the DEAD hold the harps.

Judas Bag at right on flutecase: Dionysus, New Wineskin Symbol: Dealing With Doctrinal Issues: Romans 14-15 and Instrumental Music. 10/20/01 Intro added

Rubel Shelly: Today's Sermon Today 10/14/01 10/20/01: John used "Philosopher's Sifters" to explain Jesus? The Bible is a product of Narrative Theologians with their personal agendas?

Sermon Part Two: Jesus made, drank wine? This is the slander of the Jews "anxious" to mar the holy image of Lord Jesus Christ.

Feedback Notes By Clicking Here.

Olan's comments will be in Red, our's will be in black and other quotations in blue.

BFL05-99 A "Law of Silence"?

"You can read remarks by Olan Hicks about "the law of silence" on this web site. The "law" of silence is an invention of men who suppose that God speaks best by what He chooses to NOT say.

We respectfully submit that this interpretation is made up out of "silence" and is not the view of churches of Christ about instrumental music which seems to be the focus of a revival of interest in how churches of Christ arrive at its view of music. This view did not originate with churches of Christ but represented the prevailing views of those who constituted the Restoration Movement.

And yet, Jesus said that God is silent to those who do not love the truth. He said that He spoke in parables "from the foundation of the world" to hide the truth from misuse (Matthew 13; Isaiah 48). The Israelites were blinded at Mount Sinai as a result of musical worship they had learned in Egypt. In return, the law given "because of transgression" is silent about the people worshiping with congregational singing and instrumental accompaniment.

Music in a ritualistic sense was added to the Temple but the temple was capital of the civil state and was primarily a "muster" place for mature males three times a year.

But the Temple was a concession to David (Acts 7) for the "like the nation's" civil state after Israel's elders repudiated God's rules and demanded a king "like the nations."

But God warned that the kings would lead Israel into destruction and within five years of Solomon's death, the slavery driven by the musical Levites as "overseers" or "excellers" caused civil war and the Egyptians got all of the gold hoarded in the temple.

First, this "law of silence" is well documented in the Bible along with "direct commands and examples." Furthermore, all of the early church Fathers knew that even God has the right to express His will by direct statements or approved examples. And they all knew that God's silence is not a "divine oversight" which must be corrected by our wisdom. All of the known founders of denominations were motivated by the absolute need to let God do the talking and let us do the listening. It is dangerous to read God's mind, it is unnecessary and it always sows discord.

Legalism demands a law which says "thou shalt not worship me with instruments." However, if we are going to enjoy Christianity "without laws"

> we have to be led by looking for what God has soundly condemned with examples.

> We see music as a "marriage partner" to animal sacrifices but then only for dedication or purification animal sacrifices in or around Jerusalem or for national convocations with sacrifices.

> And we must be dissapointed that God has never commanded music nor expressed any appreciation for it.

The non-instrumental position has a host of witnesses in its favor which most people have never researched but which were well recognized and documented by the early writers. Paul insisted that we can "all speak the same things" but only if we speak the Words of Christ or Spirit in the Romans-Ephesian-Colossian parallels.

The Essenes left a record showing the non-temple people understood musical instruments which, according to Numbers 10 were to signal war or panic the enemy. Therefore, in the Intertestament period "instruments" are allegorazied as they seem to be in many psalms. Notice the Parallel With Paul's only comments about "teaching" which is interpreted as "singing."

An unbeliever would replace the Word of God with His/Her own song. They would violate the example of Jesus, the command of Jesus, the example of Paul and the commands of Paul. They would violate the universal practiceof the church for hundreds of years and they would be repudiated by the ancient scholars.

A legalist would make this into an organized PRAISE SERVICE. They would then qualify as "Lord, Lord sayers"

A Pharisee would rewrite it, organize a group and SELL CDs--right there in the most holy place! They would even sell their "gospel" in exchange for a widow's mite.

There is not a hint of silence about the nature of praising God with the "harps and pipes" He has given to everyone not of the sect of the Sadducees, at the Temple, in accordance with animal sacrifices, performed by politically selected priests.

If we "hear" the silence when it doesn't exist and then fill in the "silence" with our own messsages in song and sermon, the sowing of discord is automatic and pre determined.

Second, the law of silence is somehow not permitted for God but is for us.

> I tell Johnny to go buy a new hammer and put it on my credit card number.
> Johnny comes come home with a hammer and a new Edsel and I get huffy.
> But Johnny pleads: "You said buy a hammer. You did not say: 'thou shalt not buy a new Edsel.'"

That is the meaning of silence. If Johnny was a faithful son he would not even think of buying a new ball bat without express authority of his beloved father. Christianity is not about what we can get by with and have it covered by "grace."

If Johnny uses his father's silence to divide the family and "offend many of these little ones" we would have reason to lock little Johnny up.

Third, the non-use of instrumental music is not remotely based on the law of silence. On the other hand, the use of instrumental music is based on silence and no one attempted to defend it with the Bible or history until about 1878 after the pro-instrumentalists confessed that if instruments were part of the worship they were sinful. Click for the evidence. They used the "legalism" that the instrumental music was not a part of the worship.

Of course, a judge really insisted that instruments were part of the worship. However, he had no authority to prevent the instrumentalists from taking over the church property. That still happens where the "law of silence" speaks so loudly that instrumentalists will sow discord, divide the church, take over church property and then, as historically proven, blame the division on those whom they have just defeated.

After that, the psallo argument was adduced to prove that God actually commanded singing with instruments.

What follows are our quick take on Olan Hicks view of the Law of Silence. Again, Olan in RED, me in BLACK and other quotations in BLUE.

---

That is a fact: I used my Bible search looking for "law of silence" and I couldn't find it either!

But, let's not give up. Silence is found in the strangest places. The "familiar spirit" of the witch of Endor was an empty, hollow, dried-up wineskin. The translators took the "empty bottle which gave a hollow echo for the ventriloquest, connected that to the witch, and translated it familiar spirit."

After I was forced to get ripped off buying hearing aids I heard so much "silence" that I just plug 'em in and turn 'em off.

The familiar spirit as the home and voice of the "divining demon" has the same meaning as the "nebel" (a filthy thing) or the harp as well as the "sounding brass" of 1 Cor. 13. All musical instruments were the "homes" of the spirits or demons used to get a better message from God than the one written in His Word. That was Saul's problem prophesied by the musical prophesiers from the Philistine high place.

This is why God had Isaiah warn:

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter:

should not a people seek unto their God?

for the living to the dead? Isaiah 8:19

The name for the serpent in the garden of Eden is derived from the "whispering" voice of brass wind instruments used by the Assyrians as "the tallest tree in Eden."

XIV. TO THE MOTHER OF THE GODS (This was Eve or Zoe)

"Now Rhea, as Ceres, in Hymn XIV, is called 'brass-sounding' and 'drum-beating'. This has reference to the mystical results of certain sounds and rhythm, part and parcel of what the Hindus call Mantravidyâ.

And sometimes by means of melodies without words they cured certain affections and diseases, and this they said was the real means of "charming".

And it is most probable that the word "charm" (epode) came into general use from them. It was thus, then, that Pythagoras established a most salutary system of
........... regenerating the morals by means of "music"

[Mantravidyâ].' (Op. cit. Kiessling's text, pp. 245, 246; see also Taylor, Iamblichus on the Mysteries, 2nd ed., pp. 130, 131, n.)

"Music and Mantras, therefore, were used by the Orphics
........... to attract, or call down, the influence of the Mother of the Gods,
........... (G. R. S. Meade, The Orphic Pantheon)

This is why Paul wrote Romans 14 and why he prescribed teaching the revealed Word with "one voice" and not with "music."

Click to see how Singing Praises DOES THE WORK on earth like in heaven.

Speaking directly to the "mantic" behaviour of music and speaking in tongues in Corinth, it is noted from the Classical writers that:

"The spirits were thought to speak in murmurings or piping sounds (Isa 8:19), which could be imitated by the medium (witch or ventriloquist)...most spiritual and popular was the interpretation of dreams.

"It also was the case that mediums intentionally would convert themselves into a semi-waking trance. In this way the suitable mediums attained to a certain kind of clarvoyance, found among various peoples.

"This approaches the condition of an ecstatically aroused pseudo-prophet.. In Greece, too, oracles were pronounced by the Phythian prophetess who by vapors and the like was aroused to a practice of the mantic art. (Int Std Bible Ency, p. 2466)

[Burning poppy seed or chewing laurel leaves to make them appear insane. This was what Paul condemned in 1 Cor. 14)

Mutter gave rise to the musical term:

Higgayown (h1902) hig-gaw-yone'; intens. from 1897; a murmuring sound, i. e. a musical notation (prob. similar to the modern affettuoso to indicate solemnity of movement); by impl. a machination: - device, Higgaion, meditation, solemn sound.

Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound. Psalms 92:3

Thou hast seen all their vengeance and all their imaginations against me. Lam 3:60

Thou hast heard their reproach, O Lord, and all their imaginations against me; Lam 3:61

The lips of those that rose up against me, and their device (h1902) against me all the day. Lam.3:62

Behold their sitting down, and their rising up; I am their musick. Lam 3:63

A satire from:

Nagan (h5059) naw-gan'; a prim. root; prop. to thrum, i. e. beat a tune with the fingers; espec. to play on a stringed instrument; hence (gen.) to make music: - player on instruments, sing to the stringed instruments, melody, ministrel, play (-er, -ing..

Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

They have overtaken me in a narrow pass (gap) without escape

And there is no rest for me in my trial.

They sound my censure upon a harp

and their murmuring and storming upon a zither." Ps.41:11

Now, it is still a fact that one cannot find a legalism which says: "Thou shalt not use mechanical devices to worship Me."

But wouldn't the "Spirit of Christ" lead us not to need to be legalistic and demand it?

The musical rituals (daily) in Israel performed the same "rising up to play" which lost Israel the Covenant and imposed the Law. Rising up to play was musical idolatry just as they had worshiped in Egypt and would continue to in Canaan. These were "feast for and with dead ancestors" and "there is no other tradition" but that Satan taught mankind how to take the glory from God and His Word with instruments. The Book of Enoch quoted by Jude eloquently explains this clar fact.

Therefore, God issued a form of "the law of silence" when He warned:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

God's silence gives us legalistic authority to say anything we want to say or play any instrument we wish to play. However, "religion" or preaching or singing is done "in the name of Christ" or by the authority of God. The Scriptures clearly do not give us that liberty.

If I speak as an ambassador for George Bush then I have no liberty to change the message which I deliver as his ambassador or "herald."

In pretty clear language, God said that if He has not spoken then we should be silent. Now, He didn't say that He was going to send them to hell. However, He warned us that when the law of silence is not observed it is because there is no light in the speakers.

The Scriptures Leave No Silence Loop-holes About Music

Now, in detail: First, a lot of the New Testament is devoted to teaching what is true and rejecting what is not revealed by Christ.

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things John 8:28

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do alway those things that please him. John 8:29

As he spake these words, many believed on him. John 8:30

The "law of silence" was observed by God Incarnate to teach us not to go beyond what is written. Furthermore, once we claim that we are not bound to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent then no one is going to believe us. Why should they? Dr. Rubel Shelly, for instance subscribes to the Post-Denominational or Post-Modern view. He makes the essentials five facts about Jesus. All of the rest is inconsistent opinions of confused apostles. This provides a truly large "silence" which the Post-Moderns are not reluctant to fill. However, the Core Gospel was preached in Corinth simply because they still need milk and were still carnal. As far as we know, the church of Corinth never truly turned to Christ and were never able to "eat meat."

To speak from silence means that you have to "speak of yourself." However, Christ said:

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. John 12:49

And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 12:50

Now, we dare approach Jesus and say: "Silly man, you know that there is no law of silence." No. Jesus said, where the Father is silent you simply have nothing to say in a spiritual sense.

> God has not spoken in the affirmative about instrumental music. Therefore, it is to speak with the law of silence to claim that God wouldn't really mind if we took more authority than the Son.

> However, God has defined music in many negative passages and we are not left with silence. Scripture and the Dead Sea Scrolls show music as the way to "get God" and defeat his commands so that we can speak our own songs and sermons. This is the definition of a Pharisee.

> Paul defined in a positive way the use of Psalms to teach or preach, and he defined the first-choice "instrument" as the human voice. Going further, he restricted the melody (grinding you to bits) to the heart.

> Therefore, to add instruments you have to reject Paul's first choice of the first meaning of instrument in the word psalmos as the "voice." Going further, you have to substitute a mechanical instrument for the "harp of God" which He gave us for that purpose.

> > Therefore, adding instrumental music uses the "law of silence" to substitute for what the Holy Spirit has clearly specified.

We are left with "but He established no law which said: 'thou shalt not offer me spiritual worship with a mechanical device.'" But this is not the way Jesus handled God's Word.

Once we begin to listen to someone tell us what Christ should have said, he or she becomes the center taking the place of Jesus. Then, we get into battles over who is the Top Gun Preacher of the Brotherhood. Rather than looking for loopholes shouldn't our spirit be like that of Paul whose spirit automatically accepted the words of God:

"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written,

I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 2 Cor 4:13

Isaiah 58 defined the true Sabbath which was not the "traditional" Sabbath.

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him,
........... not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own
........... pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Isaiah 58:13

There are lots of clear statements of The Law of Silence by clicking here.

The instrumentalists were the first to use the Law of Silence in order to add instruments knowing that they were sowing discord. However, it is not possible to compete with buildings as phallic symbols with steeples (Asherah poles) promoting personal and civic price. Here is how the Law of Silence is used by Instrumentalists. Non-Musical people do not see Scripture as silent!

The Corinthians tended to make favorite men into idols and this led to them going beyond what is written:

"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit,

so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,
Do not go beyond what is written then you will not take pride in one man over against another." 1 Corinthians 4:6

The problem was not respect of persons totally but that respect of persons led others to believe whatever they said. For instance, fans of Brother Hicks will use that respect to believe that the church Fathers approved of instrumental music. But that is the danger. However, if we just read the church Fathers we will understand that they were 100%, as far as we have been able to grasp, opposed to the appeal to the flesh for authority in worship. They base their opinion on the nature of instruments in paganism and in the Jewish Monarchy which is clearly defined as a "like the nations" system of a people who "fired God."

There is little "singing" in the fathers as we know it but the general message is that the church used only the Biblical text for teaching and admonishing one another.

The only way around this is to be totally skeptical about sermons and web pages and understand that human opinion always floats to the top. Therefore, if we just remain silent about what God has been silent about we will have no trouble.

However, the Bible is assuredly not silent about instrumental music. The ability to make the statement that the God commanded instruments for 'congregational worship under the law' proves that the "theology" has been gleaned from like-minded people and not from a minimal study of the Word of God. The people's congregation did not "sing congregationally with instrumental accompaniment." If you want to burn a bull calf then it might be acceptable but Jesus died once for all and there is no longer any sacrifices except the "fruit of the lips" or the "calves of the lips."

We don't have to look for absolute "laws" and establish a legalistic anti-silence law. All we have to do is listen to Paul's commands. They were not to sing and therefore they did not call for instruments. The command was to "teach or preach" and instruments are automatically excluded. Instruments speak "an unknown tongue" and Paul excludes that from the assembly.

Paul was very explicit by commanding speaking and went further, as the Old Testament does, to define the instrument of melody. That instrument inherent as the first meaning of psalmos is the human voice.

Psallo at that time excluded instruments perhaps because the universal idea in the Greek world was of the "Judas" characters trying to pervert the "worshipers" with singing, dancing naked and playing the flute or harp. Remember that the Jews "piped" trying to induce the Dionysus song and dance into Jesus.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit went beyond the word "psalmos" to be very explicit in proving that the mechanical instrument was excluded.

All church fathers agree with this along with all modern lexicons and dictionaries. Nevertheless, people still quote an outdated Arndt-Gingrich who spoke of the Attic Greek and not the Koine.

We don't have to go legalistic and demand a "law of silence" when the principle is so clear. It seems that when the whole Bible excludes as necessary and Jesus established the "pattern" of the law of silence that would be good enough.

But then, it is the instrumentalistic who says "the Bible does not say don't use instruments" who absolutely need the Law of Silence to introduce instruments. There is no "law" which says: "sing and make melody with a harp" therefore, the law of silence is essential to the use of instruments.

But, the question is whether silence "permits" us to do something without an expression of the Will of God. We know what Paul said: 1) speak to one another with the Word of Christ to teach and admonish and, 2) leaving the singing and melody in the heart. In the Romans 14-15 story this is to prevent judging or despising by those who may not agree with our human teachings or songs.

So, Paul has told us explicitly what we are to do with one another.

It remains for the instrumentalists to use the "Law of Silence" to add instruments even when it is known beforehand that it will "sow discord" and divide the church. This becomes a truly heavy-handed Law which is so important that it must be obeyed at the risk of violating Paul's use of the Word for "singing" to make sure that the unity is not destroyed.

The Law is so powerful that it not only forces instruments into churches and takes property but is always accompanied with non scriptural text. For instance, modern "praise songs" which are an outgrowth of what is believed to be an "instrumental praise service" under the law are sentimentally silly and often erotic.

It is a fact that instrumental music is the unspecified detail supplied when the entire Bible associates instruments with telling God: "We will not hear you."

This is not a pro-legalistic or anti-legalistic issue. The point is that there is not never was a MUSIC concept which was not connected with Satan or some evil, destructive effect or to telling God "we will not listen to your words."

Blowing 120 trumpets with all of the shouting is not music. It was intended to "break the ears" and create such a noise that the entire city could hear and fall on their face.

Music was not a part of the "people's" worship and they were excluded from the temple precincts during sacrifices.

Music was not a part of the synagogue (school) and was not a part of the "church" where the people did 'synagogue' and not 'ekklesia' when they met. Teaching and admonishing one another cannot take place if the assembly falls into the madness and sense of lostness implied by loud noise being made "in the holy place."

We know of one group which forced instruments in a church by distorting the Word and all of known history. Then they removed the Lord's Table to give moving room and visibility to the Musical Worship Team. However, using a plate, a wooden board or a silver chalice does not change the meaning. We don't eat the "plate" even as we DON'T DRINK THE CUP BUT THE CONTENTS.

We will see below that it is elementary that adding instruments adds something called WORKS to the singing. Having an Acoustics background it is simple that when you add two sounds you get four loud tones and dozens of lesser "voices." The oringinal voice is distorted by instrumental sounds.

When the musical groups tried to forcefully evangelize the non-musical churches in the South following the uncivil war, they confessed to the Judge that "if the instruments are part of worship then they are sinful." The judge considered it pretty silly to argue that the instruments were just an aid. Therefore, when instruments are now used a part of the worship their own ancestors brand them as sinful.

The "Spirit of the prophets" (1 Peter 1:11) was the Spirit of Christ. The Sabbath was a type. Jesus defined the spiritual nature of the day of rest which was not a day of worship. Jesus was not teaching the law of liberty to violate the law even though emergencies were part of the law.

The Law of the Sabbath was to serve the people. It restricted them because the common Babylonian system kept the Sabbath as a day of rest for the "gods" but the people were forced to work to feed, clothe and house them. The "fathers" had added many restrictions when the Sabbath always recognized necessities. Jesus had the authority to define the spiritual nature of the Sabbath but we do not have the authority to redefine His Word.

We quoted part of Isaiah 58 above which defines the spiritual Sabbath in opposition to the Sabbath type.

If Jesus tells us that we can fill in the "hole in the donut" of His divine oversights then we might be justified is making Paul's very loud command silent in order that we might add instruments by filling in with a new silence which turns into what the Old Testament identifies as "noise." Jesus couldn't do that without violating the fact that as Spirit He would guide the Apostles into all truth. He guided Paul into defining away "lifeless instruments" and defining a new, spiritual form of "music."

Jesus also said:

But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the childrens bread, and to cast it to dogs. Matthew 15:26

Do we now have the liberty of identifying those not of our "sect" as dogs? I believe not.

When the woman gave the correct answer, Jesus said:

Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. Matthew 15:28

Jesus also said that He didn't speak to the people except in parables. We do not believe that Jesus used the Law of Silence to change His own will but to test the woman. If this is not true then Jesus meant it when He implied that the Gentiles were dogs. The prophecy was that He would come for all nations. Paul quoted Joel on the day of Pentecost to that effect.

Jesus defined the Pharisees and Scripes by:

> They followed the law of silence and quit following the will of God in the Bible.

> They did this in order to get people to follow their own "doctrines taught by men."

> Their method was to make long ceremonies out of prayer which Jesus said should be private or in the closet.

> They did this in order to take money including taking the houses of widows.

> Non-instrumentalists do not use the law of silence but just do what Scripture commands.

> They do not substitute songs and instruments "made by human hands."

> There is actually a financial dissadvantage NOT to use instruments.

> > > Therefore, not playing instruments as "the doctrine of men" simply does not qualify one as being a Pharisee.

But Jesus told them to take care of the weightier matters but not leave the minor items undone. Not even the Pharisees ever fell for the temple worship or its instrumental music. Jesus used the Pharisees to say that the most spiritual people can be hypocrites but they were mortal enemies of the Temple system which, for its entire history, had been political capital of the nation. The synagogues did not have instruments or "praise service" so they understood the universal meaning of the people's assembly for the general population who were not permitted in the temple.

---

WE have not been able to find The Law of Silence in the Sommer documents. We believe that this may have been in the Supreme Court's ruling.

The architect had done business in peace since 1834 as The Church of Christ although when the brick building some became architects and put The Christian Church on the building. The wrecking crew began in the late 1800s to join others who were "going up town" by attempting to attach the lean-to of denominational organization with local sunday school controlled by an outside agency and by adding instrumental music. Their innovations were truly based on The Law of Silence.

What he said was that unless it is in the Bible we can't know that it is the will of God and therefore have to INFER :

"But on the other hand, whatever is not revealed in the divine testimony no one can possibly believe to be the divine will. In other words, whatever the word of God declares with approbation we can believe has been or now is the will of God;

but whatever the word of God does not thus declare we not only DO NOT but we CANNOT believe has ever been or now is the will of God.

This discrimination between testimony and inference, and thus between faith and opinion has been the peculiar strength, clearness and power of the position occupied by the disciples of the Christ, as every disciple present today will doubtless confess.

In respect to the organ, he assigned the use of INFERENCES and undoubtedly SILENCES to those who added the organ knowing that it would deliberately sow discord.

"I read 1 Cor. 8:12, "But when ye sin so against the brethren and wound their weak conscience ye sin against Christ." I also refer you also to Matt. 25th chapter where the Savior said, "Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these my brethren ye did it unto me."

This shows beyond controversy that multitudes are in danger of being finally rejected because in this life they have persistently sinned against Christ in sinning against his brethren.

In conclusion on this point I mention again that in favor of the organ in the worship there may be inferences, opinions, views, nothings, preferences

but there is not faith that it is the will of Christ that it should be used in connection with the worship. But "whatever is not of faith is of sin."

Daniel Sommer and others insisted on "direct commands" to keep the peace and repudiated The Law of Silence. If he was an architect it was in resisting The Law of Silence as authority to add old Roman appendages to the "building" even when they knew that it would drive out those who did not obey the new legalism: The Law of Silence.

Daniel Sommer is not the authority for anyone I have ever known and David Lipscomb, speaking for those who would resume the historic name Church of Christ used throughout church history, repudiated division and most people don't know who Sommers was. Perhaps attitudes were hardened when the innovators used the same psychology they used on Calvin and others: only the ignorant would reject our views:

"But this is not all. If those who are offended at the organ were the weakest, most ignorant and least to be esteemed in the church (which they are not), yet even then it would be a sin to offend them by

making an unauthorized instrument a test of fellowship, as is done whenever the organ is put into the meetinghouse and used in connection with the worship,

since none can then worship there without seeing it and hearing it-

I say, when such a course is pursued, even if those opposing the organ were the least and the most ignorant, yet that course would be sinful in the sight of heaven." An Address

His arguments were based on the fact that the innovators USED THE LAW OF SILENCE to introduce things they could never gain by faith.

Do not infer that I mean it has been abandoned by them in every particular, but rather in relation to their innovations.

While dealing with their religious neighbors they declare the difference between testimony and inference, and the difference between faith and opinion.

But when they come to the worship and work of the church they make matters of inference, and thus matters of opinion,

tests of fellowship by thrusting them in upon peaceable churches, so that none can worship or work with them except by practically adopting their devices.

They have in some instances even gone so far as to exclude men and women who would persist in opposing their matters of opinion."

It seems that the Church of Christ believed that the Christian Church faction preached "direct commands" but when it came to their own worship they decided that "inference" or opinion was good enough to force the introduction of instruments.

I will correct if I have not read the evidence correctly.

You can take a look for yourself

According to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Church of Christ who had remained unchanged against the Christian Church who had tried to force a denominational structure using inference or The Law of Silence to add--

such as to the propriety of having instrumental music in the church during church services, the employment by the congregation of ministers of the gospel for a fixed time and for a fixed salary, the organization of missionary societies and Sunday schools as separate organizations outside the regular church organizations, the raising of funds for the support of the gospel by holding church fairs and festivals, and perhaps in other matters of a similar character

The innovators and progressives created the sect and then sued to take over the church property even though they were in the minority.

The Illinois Supreme Court understood it:

When the members of a religious congregation divide and one faction breaks away from the congregation and forms a new organization,

the title to the property of the congregation will remain in that part of the congregation which adheres to the tenets and doctrines originally taught by the congregation to whose use the property was originally dedicated.

Sand Creek congregation and the lawful owners of said property (Church of Christ);
and the plaintiffs (Christian Church) in error having seceded from the Sand Creek congregation

and effected a new organization where the innovations are taught and practiced,
were properly held by the court to have abandoned all interest in the property which belonged to the Sand Creek congregation
........... at the time they left the organization and effected a new organization.

Doesn't this sound like the Christian Church faction disfellowshiped the non-instrumental group and left?

It should come as no surprize that we rebel against those who intend to rule or ruin. Because we weren't there it is impossible to be the judge and overturn the Supreme Court and brand the Church of Christ (known as such since 1834) as the sowers of discord rather than the Christian Church sect. From the beginning the church had "done business" as The Church of Christ.

The view that the innovators and progressives are the sectarians has perhaps a universal historical precedent: The Supreme Court of Illinois thought so, so I won't try to retry the the case and brand those who still resist instruments as somehow the spawn of Daniel Sommer.

Jack Guess, Baptist, The Argument From Silence is Used by Instrumentalists

"Some, in trying to get around the plain New Testament teaching on the type of music to be used in the church, have endeavored to argue from silence.
"According to this method, because the New Testament does not say,

"Thou shalt not use the instrument,"

and since there is no express condemnation of the practice,

it must be acceptable to God.

"This is a false conclusion derived from the erroneous premise that the silence of the word of God is as much a guide for men as its positive commands. In other words, some wrongly believe that a thing is all right for worship unless explicitly forbidden. But it can easily be demonstrated that this type of reasoning will not work.

---

But, then, Sommer didn't invent the view:

Tertullian of Carthage (Quintus Septimius Florens Terullianus, b. 155 - 160 Carthage - d. 220? AD)

"Fortified by this knowledge against heathen views, let us rather turn to the unworthy reasonings of our own people; for the faith of some, either too simple or too scrupulous,

demands direct authority from Scripture for giving up the shows,
and holds out that the matter is a doubtful one, because such abstinence is not clearly and in words imposed upon God's servants.

"Well, we never find it expressed with the same precision,

"Thou shalt not enter circus or theatre, thou shalt not look on combat or show; "
........... as it is plainly laid down, "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not worship an idol;
........... thou shalt not commit adultery or fraud." Ex. xx. 14.

"But we find that that first word of David bears on this very sort of thing: "Blessed," he says, "is the man who has not gone into the assembly of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of scorners." Ps. i. 1.

Though he seems to have predicted beforehand of that just man, that he took no part in the meetings and deliberations of the Jews, taking counsel about the slaying of our Lord,

yet divine Scripture has ever far-reaching applications:

after the immediate sense has been exhausted, in all directions it fortifies the practice of the religious life,
so that here also you have an utterance which is not far from a plain interdicting of the shows. Tertullian, De Spectaculis

Gregory of Nyssa on Scripture as Authority

b. c. 335, Caesarea, in Cappadocia, Asia Minor [now Kayseri, Turkey]

d. c. 394, feast day March 9

And in this assertion they do not go beyond the truth; for we do say so.
But the ground of their complaint is that
........... their custom does not admit this,
........... and Scripture does not support it. What then is our reply?

We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine.
For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom;
........... and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs.

Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and
........... the vote of truth will surely be given to those
........... whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.

John Locke in The Reasonableness of Christianity noted that:

He that any one will pretend to set up in this kind, and have his rules pass for authentic directions,

must shew, that either he builds his doctrine upon principles of reason, self-evident in themselves, and that he deduces all the parts of it from thence, by clear and evident demonstration;

or, must shew his commission from heaven, that he comes with authority from God, to deliver his will and commands to the world.

In a Letter of Toleration Locke wrote:

But since men are so solicitous about the true church, I would only ask them here, by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ
........... to make the conditions of her communion consist in such things, and such things only,
........... ........... as the Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in express words,
........... ........... to be necessary to salvation; (Thomas Campbell D&A compare with John Locke)

By some twist of logic this engineer's brain cannot follow, this it turned around and made to say that if WE have already "imposed" theatrical performance to our worship, you are too late to take the high ground. Now, if YOU try to impose the NON-use of instruments on US then you are adding that which is not necessary to salvation. Therefore, YOU shot Cock Robin even though the arrow came from our twanging bowstring!

Don't you get it? NOT playing instruments is NOT necessary to salvation. Therefore, from now 'till evermore, NOT playing instruments violates the the freedom of those who are just trying to EXPERIENCE music as a GIFT OF GOD. For instance, Dr. Rubel Shelly asks:

"Have we sometimes overextended our worship practice

so as to violate the freedom of our members to experience and enjoy instrumental music as a gift from God? Yes.

But to IMPOSE SOMETHING you have to ADD something which does not exist and which you know sows discord because you are doing it with a high hand over the objections of others.

If you have never USED instruments then it is illogical to think of IMPOSING something which has the Bible and all of church history to support its view.

Overextend: "to extend beyond reasonable limits or beyond one's capacity to meet obligations or commitments." Webster

I would interpret this to mean that if we don't allow our members in their worship service to enjoy musical instruments if they so desire to mean that we are not complying with God's Will that WE "enjoy" as a way to worship HIM.

Because WE don't "mole into" instrumental churches and try to impose our worship practices perhaps God will not burn us!

Locke continues to defend your rights not to play instruments:

I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ

than for men to impose their own inventions and interpretations upon others as if they were of Divine authority,

and to establish by ecclesiastical laws, as absolutely necessary to the profession of Christianity, such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not mention, or at least not expressly command?

Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not require in order to life eternal, he may, perhaps, indeed constitute a society accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage;

but how that can be called the Church of Christ which is established upon laws that are not His,

and which excludes such persons from its communion as He will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven, I understand not.

Imposing instruments excludes from fellowship those who disagree. And those who have used stealth techniques and false teaching to impose instruments without a doubt exclude others from ever teaching against instruments again in your-now-our church house.

In D&A Thomas Campbell noted: 11. That (in some instances)

a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God,
and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion,
by introducing them into the constitution, faith, or worship of the Church,

are, and have been, the immediate, obvious, and universally-acknowledged causes, of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.

---

The unstated fact is that the pro missionary society and pro instrumental music group sent out evangelists to forcefully introduce the society even taking churches to court to take their property. The goal was to get everyone signed up to the Missionary Society, not for missions but for a headquarters to define faith and practice, send out selected preachers just like the methodists and in general to establish, according to J. H. Garrison, a society to "include all of Christendom." It was based on aggressive and forced conversion to the society and instruments which created the reaction.

The instrumental group at Sand Creek tried to take the property from those who had never--for 1800 years--ever believed that instruments could be used to worship IN SPIRIT or to worship a Spirit God. Therefore, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the INSTRUMENTALISTS could not steal the property from the non-instrumentalists. The instrumentalist became SECTARIAN and legalistic by claiming that music helped there worship. However, in a Tennessee court case the instrumentalists confessed that IF the instruments were part of the worship then it would be sinful. The AID agrument rejected by the Judge was a LEGALISTIC DODGE.

See the findings of the Illinois Supreme Court which shows why Sommers might have been happy to get rid of the stealers of "church houses of widows."

> Inconsistencey does not violate all views held. For instance, I might reject drinking alcohol and even preach against it.

> However, I might be a caffeine addict and upset my physical health and nerves.

> You cannot negate my view against alcohol and thereby give yourself authority to drink just because I am inconsistent.

Another for instance:

> I might reject instrumental music and preach against it without sending the thought police to get you for trying to worship a Spirit God with a machine.

> However, I might violate Paul's many-pronounced commandments that the "singing" is really teaching the revealed Word of God. I might not like a 200 horsepower pipeorgan damaging my body but I might enjoy "four different groups singing four different sets of words at four different times to four different tunes." And I just hang the logo "Christian" on it.

> While MY practice violates the letter and spirit of Paul's direct commandments, my practice does not give you aid and comfort.

It is also a fact that this was primarily a tussle between all churches in the North. David Lipscomb did not agree with the decisions of Sand Creek and spoke against it.

Of course, once the mess was stirred up it was common to blame those who would not surrender to the world-wide denominational movement for causing the problem. They still do that in politics.

The musical churches originally sought no Scriptural authority. They simply wanted to add instruments in order to compete with other churches. Churches of Christ depended on clear statements of Scripture and did not change what it had believed for almost two thousand years.

The Disciples claimed in court, and probably under oath before a judge at Newbern, Tennessee that if "instrumental music was used AS worship then it would be sinful." But they, legalistically, claimed that it was only an AID. The Judge ridiculed the idea but had NO power to keep them from stealing the "church house of widows." Therefore, no one in history according to David Lipscomb and confirmed by our search ever tried to justify music by the Bible prior to 1878. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia still confirmed that fact and urged the return to congregational singing.

Lipscomb wrote as late as 1878 that:

We do not think anyone has ever claimed authority from Scriptures to use the organ in worship. They only claim it is not condemned. It is used as an assister in worship...Prayer, praise, thanksgiving and making melody in the heart (mind) unto the Lord are acts of worship ordained of God, but no authority do we find for for the organ." Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, J. E. Choate and William Woodson". (p. 78).

That does not make it immune from demanding a "handle" because everyone knows that a one cup has one handle. However, that has nothing to do with the illogic of adding that which appeals to every nerve ending in the body as substitute for the "peace and quiet" Jesus died to give as "gospel."

One suspects that Christ will permit us to remember Him in the Supper and not get worried that our brother wants individual cups.

However, that does not mean that Christ accepts as honoring Him the singing of our shallow, sentimental poetry. Nor does He accept ignoring His Words in teaching. Nor, would Jesus appreciate it if He stood up to read the Scriptures and you insisted that "I" must gild the lilly by accompanying Him with a Rock Band.

Division resulted when instruments were forced into congregations, the non-instrumentalist were forced out because they were not as well funded or aggressive and therefore the division over music was caused by the instrumentalists.

Again, most of this happened in the north which was never a hotbed of non-instrumental churches of Christ. Rather, this was a battle brought about by the "high church" movement inherited from Anglicanism.

However, we understand the politics for blaming the guy just mowing his yard for getting run over by a bus. J. W. McGarvey had to leave his own group and was branded as sowing discord because he could not continue to worship after instruments were added. They were so insensitive that they played the organ at his funeral.

But, we have to repeat the clear Biblical and historical facts: Even if you ignore the universal association of instrumental music with paganism including the "like the nation's" temple God allowed Solomon, Paul's directions are not silent. They clearly define one way of teaching or preaching as the chanting or cantillation of the inspired poetic text written in metrical form. The melody which defines the instrument define "the human voice and heart."

If Paul had defined the "instrument" inherent in psalmos as a harp he would have excluded the human voice. But the "voice" is the only instrument which was ever allowed in the Holy Placees where we come boldly before the throne of Grace. Paul assuredly knew that any levitical musician who tried to enter that sacred precinct would have been killed. And yet musicians according to Dr. Rubel Shelly "help lead us into the presence of God." I hope they are ready for blood.

If the first instrument of choice is specified by a direct command, there is no silence needed for the non-instrument churches of Christ.

You have to use the Law of Silence to go beyond what is written and add the second