DENOMINATIONAL DOCTRINES: “No Musical Instruments Allowed”

There are a few groups that do not use musical instruments in their churches— notably the Greek Orthodox Church which has in excess of 1 million members in America alone. But the main group known for this in the United States is the Church of Christ. One of the most important of all doctrines for many in that denomination—one that in many people’s minds is required for salvation—is the singing of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” without instrumental accompaniment.

It is a notorious doctrine, for it is the first thing many people think of when they hear the title Church of Christ. Many conservatives among them believe that there is no “true congregation of the Lord’s church” that uses instruments. People who play guitars and pianos in their assemblies, in other words, will go to hell for it. I once argued that “there are good reasons not to use instruments” but I never was so insane as to condemn people over it. At least not past the age of six.

I regard the anti-instrument doctrine as among the silliest and most legalistic in all the religious world. Of course, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. Pretty much everyone outside the “Church of Christ” knows it is a ridiculous doctrine. It is based on completely man-made ideology and depends upon using Scripture in a fully irresponsible manner.

There is an important distinction to make here, though, because not all Church of Christ groups are the same. There are plenty of progressive ones who do not condemn anyone over what kind of music they make. These churches, while singing without instruments themselves, do not condemn those who do it differently, in other words.

There’s nothing wrong with being non-instrumental. People are certainly free to sing a cappella praises to God. But anti-instrumental, to the point of condemning others, is a doctrine of demons and those who condemn other believers over something so childish will likely be judged very harshly if they do not repent.

Many arguments are employed by this group to argue against the use of instrumental music. I do not want to deal with these in the present article, because one thing is certain among them: all that matters is that you are opposed to instrumental music. They do not agree among themselves why it is wrong. But as long as you believe it’s wrong, that’s the important thing.

For example, some of them believe it is wrong because “it is not mentioned in the New Testament.” It is, but they don’t believe it is. Others, using an argument that they got from Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, believe it has always been wrong and that even the Old Testament condemned it. Some believe it is wrong based on what they call the “law of silence,” i.e. the New Testament does not directly authorize it. Others believe it is wrong based on the “law of exclusion.” That means that God specified singing which excludes every other kind of music.

Some even claim to believe in both “the law of silence” and “the law of exclusion,” which is a logical impossibility. The New Testament cannot employ both “laws” on the subject. If the command to sing excludes instruments, then the New Testament is not silent on the matter. If the New Testament is silent on the matter, then you can’t claim that what the New Testament “says” (“saying” is the opposite of “being silent,” you see) excludes what is “not said.”

It’s a big, confusing mess, but, again, as long as you wind up on the right side—that instruments are sinful—you will be a respected, “sound” brother. It doesn’t matter how you get there, as long as you get there. Like most man-made doctrines and all man-made religion, it’s a bunch of silly nonsense.

There are so many ways that the folly of this position could be demonstrated. Here, we will do it this way: we will show how one of their own arguments against instrumental music can be turned on its head and used as “authorization” for it. The argument of which I am speaking is the one that says, “Instrumental music is an addition to what God has commanded.” Then the verses about not “adding” to the word of God are used—Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22:18-19, etc.—none of which have anything to do with music or the issue under consideration at all.

Instruments are called “additions” to distinguish them from an “aid.” You see, when a Scripture-twisting “Church of Christer” condemns someone for having a piano in their worship to God because it is “unauthorized” by the New Testament Scriptures, the recipient of their abuse will sometimes point out things which the Church of Christ denomination has in its assemblies which are not “authorized.” They have “church buildings” and pews and lights and microphones and pitch pipes and song books, etc. Since these things are not “authorized” in the New Testament either, it is wrong to have them based on Church of Christ reasoning.

That is where the “aids vs. additions” doctrine came from. There is no way the Church of Christ is going to give up those things—church buildings, song books, etc.—but they needed a way to distinguish these things from the things they oppose, like instrumental music. So they argue that song books are an “aid” to carrying out the command to sing, They do not “add” anything to what God has commanded, supposedly, they simply “assist” (“aid”) the carrying out of the command. Church buildings are called an aid. “God commands Christians to assemble, and if we are going to assemble, we must have some way to do that. So the building aids the command to assemble.”

Most everyone in the conservative COC believes this principle is valid. They have to. Aids to commands are always authorized, but additions are not. So all we have to do is demonstrate that the instrument can be an aid, and we will have destroyed the idea that anyone who uses one is sinning. Can an instrument be an aid?

Suppose a little church does not have a good song leader. The singing is always dragging along and uninspiring for that reason. I have been in many churches whose song service was not inspiring. Remember that the “command of God” concerning singing is to sing from the heart (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Our hearts are to be in it.

We all know that when singing is dull and out of tune and it drags, it is hard to keep one’s heart in it—that is, it is hard to obey that command. So suppose a church decided to bring in a piano to “aid” the singing. Anyone who doesn’t believe that a piano can aid the singing of the song has evidently never sung with one. A good piano player can aid congregational singing far more than microphones or songbooks can. I could lead the singing in any Church of Christ with my guitar and the singing would automatically be better and it would be easier to sing “from the heart.” So this little church in our example brings in a piano and it helps them obey the command to sing from the heart.

Then it is automatically okay. Remember, aids are always authorized. And who decides what is an aid? Only the one seeking to obey the command. It may not be an aid to you, but if it is an aid to me—that is, if it helps me to obey a command from God—then it is an aid. There is no inspired list of “acceptable aids.” There is actually no list of aids at all and the Bible doesn’t even deal with this kind of foolishness. But we are, for the moment, reading the Bible the way Church of Christ people do. So only the one using the aid can determine if it is an aid to them or not. If it is an aid to them—that is, if it helps them obey the command—then it is “authorized.”

Isn’t it sad that Church of Christ churches build or purchase “church buildings” to assemble in and justify them as an aid. “God told us to assemble so we must have a building.” And that “authorizes” them to go into deep financial debt to build a fancy edifice so they can be comfortable and respected in the community.

But just down the road is a small Baptist church, where a man pastors part time and works a secular job to support himself, because his brethren can’t or won’t support him. He and his little band of believers use a piano because it helps their singing—at least to them it does. And the ones in the big million dollar facility, authorized as an aid to the command to assemble, would look at him and his church and say they are sinning because they have a piano.

I know that is an emotional argument, which normally should be left out of a work that seeks to be a logical presentation of a particular view. But in this case, I think it is valid because I have seen it happen. The COC condemns others for their “aids” while they excuse their own, no matter how outrageous they become.

Few can twist the Bible, major in minor things, engage in the silliest, man-made religious arguments based on man-made doctrines, like the Church of Christ can. Every single one of their distinctive doctrines—the doctrines unique to the Church of Christ denomination—is wrong. Every single one.

By that I do not mean it is necessarily wrong what they practice. But what they believe about their doctrines being in the Bible and being “the Bible way”—they are wrong on all of them. What they believe about the “right name” believers must go by, baptism, “church music,” marriage and divorce, church elders, the Lord’s Supper, having to be “right” doctrinally to be saved, “restorationism” itself—they’re wrong about all of that. And the anti-instrument doctrine is not only wrong, it is absolutely preposterous—one of the silliest doctrines to be found in the religious world.

There are some good people in the progressive wing of the ”Church of Christ,” some of the best people you will meet, who love Jesus likely as much as any. And I’m sure there are some in the conservative group too. But the leaders and preachers in the conservative “we’re God’s one true church” side of the “Church of Christ” are as much like the hypocritical Pharisees of Jesus’ day as any you will find.

Dewayne Dunaway