Does It Really Matter?

Does It Really Matter?

(Instrumental Music in Worship?)

2006022

Topic # 1884 (Instrumental Music)

Introduction:

A. A popular idea that we hear in defense of IM today is that it does not matter one way or the other to God, and neither should it matter to us.

1. In some circles, this position has been called “divine indifference.”

2. In other words we are led to believe God is too “big” or maybe too “busy” to be concerned with such matters.

3. We are told that the IM issue is not at “the crux of the matter”; it is just a tradition of churches of Christ.

4. Is there truth in this?

B. Tonight, we’ll discuss this & a # of things concerning IM in worship.

C. Subject is one of continuing importance as every generation must grapple with it, and reach scriptural conclusions on it.

I. An ever-changing list of arguments.

A. Over last 150 years, wide variety of arguments made in favor of IM.

1. Midway, KY, 1859, IM needed to improve the singing. “Unbearable.”

2. 1870’s-1900 – church needed to keep up with the times.

B. More “scriptural” arguments:

1. OT & Revelation used in favor…

2. IM is an expedient, an aid, not an addition to worship.

3. Greek word psallo in Eph. 5:19 is used to claim IM OK in worship. But...scriptural arguments have been shown that counter these arguments, and proponents of the psallo argument have diminished.

4. The point? Champions of IM have never settled on what exactly is their proof for the practice.

C. In striking contrast, those who teach against IM have consistently maintained the same ground.

1. Not necessary to shift from one ground to the other.

2. The position has been that IM lacks biblical authority & that is where the matter still stands.

a) 1865 – J.W. McGarvey: every man who bows to the authority of God’s word must oppose IM in the church.

b) His position was valid then and is still valid today.

3. Scriptures do not authorize IM in worship & in the absence of biblical authority it must be rejected.

4. We can quote scriptures that authorize singing in worship and explain biblical principles that exclude what is not authorized.

II. Is it just a matter of “divine indifference?”

A. Some now tell us that the only crucial matters are those directly associated with the cross.

1. Matters such as worship, church organization, and financial dealings are open to compromise.

2. We are told insisting on biblical authority for these amounts to nothing more than “legalistic wrangling” and are not important…because they are not at the “crux of the matter.”

B. Jer. 5:31. How does this apply to us?

1. Consider the willingness of many to accept compromise.

2. David Pharr: people are willing to think God is indifferent because they are indifferent.

C. Why the indifference?

1. Lack of teaching on the matter.

a) No teaching has led many to opinion that IM is just a quaint tradition of the COC.

b) Elders/preachers need to do more preaching/teaching on it.

2. worldliness

a) Consider desire to be sophisticated, to fit in, to no longer be different.

b) Subtle danger: to fall into the mega-church mentality.

1) Appear to be growing exponentially…while growth in COC much slower…

c) Pressure to be in step w/the times; speak w/”religious correctness.”

3. What has been your answer when friend/neighbor asks “why no IM?”

a) Lack of biblical authority?

b) Or just a COC tradition…

III. What matters…?

A. Music is not the issue.

1. Issue is authority of the bible, i.e., Jesus.

2. Authority comes from God’s word.

B. Issue is not:

1. The sincerity or character of those who worship w/IM.

2. That the acceptance of IM is so widespread.

3. The question is whether IM is authorized for Christian worship assemblies.

C. Think…if authority for the practice could be citied, it would have already.

1. But because it cannot be authorized, we are told the issue not that important.

D. IM matters – because it matters how we worship God.

1. John 4:24 – eternal principle: must worship in spirit & truth.

2. John 17:17 – truth is found in God’s word.

3. Mt. 15:9 – worship that has only the authority of men is vain & is not worship in truth.

E. 1 Thess 5:21. 4 things are taught here or necessarily implied:

1. We are commanded to prove all things.

2. All acceptable (or good) things can be proven.

a) Only legitimate examination is by the scripture.

3. All proven things are to be accepted and practiced.

a) Acceptable things will always be proved by God’s word, either specifically or in principle.

4. All things not proved are to be rejected.

a) What would be the point of saying hold to what is good, if we may also hold to that which is not good?

IV. Consider the NT writers:

A. Guided to include only such things in patter as consistent with the purposes of God.

1. John 16:13; Mt. 28:18-19; Mt. 18:18.

2. They were to bind what had been bound in heaven & omit what heaven omitted.

B. In view of the frequency of IM in the OT, there would be no doubt the apostles would be very familiar with it.

1. Their failure to include it in NT worship forcefully demonstrates that it had not been authorized in heaven.

V. Where compromise leads:

A. Compromise w/IM leads to an endless list of innovations.

B. If it is right to have IM, on what grounds will we oppose:

1. Burning incense in worship?

2. Wed PM communion?

3. Drama/dance/entertainment driven worship?

C. Only thing that holds the line against endless innovation is respect for apostolic standard.

D. Deliberately disregarding heaven’s direction on this one point reveals an inclination of disobedience/rebellion.

1. We must guard against any tendency to willfully ignore the word of God.

2. When we add IM in absence of divine authority, we demonstrate indifference to God’s rule.

3. to encourage it or compromise compounds error – Mt. 5:19

Conclusion:

A. IM matters.

B. Respect for God’s word matters. It is how we respect God.

C. Are you living in a way that respects God?

D. I N V I T A T I O N



Does It Really Matter? (Instrumental Music in Worship?) 2006022 Topic # 1884 (Instrumental Music) Introduction: A. A popular idea that we hear in defense of IM today is that it does not matter one way or the other to God, and neither should it matter to us. 1. In some circles, this position has been called “divine indifference.” 2. In other words we are led to believe God is too “big” or maybe too “busy” to be concerned with such matters. 3. We are told that the IM issue is not at “the crux of the matter”; it is just a tradition of churches of Christ. 4. Is there truth in this? B. Tonight, we’ll discuss this & a # of things concerning IM in worship. C. Subject is one of continuing importance as every generation must grapple with it, and reach scriptural conclusions on it. I. An ever-changing list of arguments. A. Over last 150 years, wide variety of arguments made in favor of IM. 1. Midway, KY, 1859, IM needed to improve the singing. “Unbearable.” 2. 1870’s-1900 – church needed to keep up with the times. B. More “scriptural” arguments: 1. OT & Revelation used in favor… 2. IM is an expedient, an aid, not an addition to worship. 3. Greek word psallo in Eph. 5:19 is used to claim IM OK in worship. But...scriptural arguments have been shown that counter these arguments, and proponents of the psallo argument have diminished. 4. The point? Champions of IM have never settled on what exactly is their proof for the practice. C. In striking contrast, those who teach against IM have consistently maintained the same ground. 1. Not necessary to shift from one ground to the other. 2. The position has been that IM lacks biblical authority & that is where the matter still stands. a) 1865 – J.W. McGarvey: every man who bows to the authority of God’s word must oppose IM in the church. b) His position was valid then and is still valid today. 3. Scriptures do not authorize IM in worship & in the absence of biblical authority it must be rejected. 4. We can quote scriptures that authorize singing in worship and explain biblical principles that exclude what is not authorized. II. Is it just a matter of “divine indifference?” A. Some now tell us that the only crucial matters are those directly associated with the cross. 1. Matters such as worship, church organization, and financial dealings are open to compromise. 2. We are told insisting on biblical authority for these amounts to nothing more than “legalistic wrangling” and are not important…because they are not at the “crux of the matter.” B. Jer. 5:31. How does this apply to us? 1. Consider the willingness of many to accept compromise. 2. David Pharr: people are willing to think God is indifferent because they are indifferent. C. Why the indifference? 1. Lack of teaching on the matter. a) No teaching has led many to opinion that IM is just a quaint tradition of the COC. b) Elders/preachers need to do more preaching/teaching on it. 2. worldliness a) Consider desire to be sophisticated, to fit in, to no longer be different. b) Subtle danger: to fall into the mega-church mentality. 1) Appear to be growing exponentially…while growth in COC much slower… c) Pressure to be in step w/the times; speak w/”religious correctness.” 3. What has been your answer when friend/neighbor asks “why no IM?” a) Lack of biblical authority? b) Or just a COC tradition… III. What matters…? A. Music is not the issue. 1. Issue is authority of the bible, i.e., Jesus. 2. Authority comes from God’s word. B. Issue is not: 1. The sincerity or character of those who worship w/IM. 2. That the acceptance of IM is so widespread. 3. The question is whether IM is authorized for Christian worship assemblies. C. Think…if authority for the practice could be citied, it would have already. 1. But because it cannot be authorized, we are told the issue not that important. D. IM matters – because it matters how we worship God. 1. John 4:24 – eternal principle: must worship in spirit & truth. 2. John 17:17 – truth is found in God’s word. 3. Mt. 15:9 – worship that has only the authority of men is vain & is not worship in truth. E. 1 Thess 5:21. 4 things are taught here or necessarily implied: 1. We are commanded to prove all things. 2. All acceptable (or good) things can be proven. a) Only legitimate examination is by the scripture. 3. All proven things are to be accepted and practiced. a) Acceptable things will always be proved by God’s word, either specifically or in principle. 4. All things not proved are to be rejected. a) What would be the point of saying hold to what is good, if we may also hold to that which is not good? IV. Consider the NT writers: A. Guided to include only such things in patter as consistent with the purposes of God. 1. John 16:13; Mt. 28:18-19; Mt. 18:18. 2. They were to bind what had been bound in heaven & omit what heaven omitted. B. In view of the frequency of IM in the OT, there would be no doubt the apostles would be very familiar with it. 1. Their failure to include it in NT worship forcefully demonstrates that it had not been authorized in heaven. V. Where compromise leads: A. Compromise w/IM leads to an endless list of innovations. B. If it is right to have IM, on what grounds will we oppose: 1. Burning incense in worship? 2. Wed PM communion? 3. Drama/dance/entertainment driven worship? C. Only thing that holds the line against endless innovation is respect for apostolic standard. D. Deliberately disregarding heaven’s direction on this one point reveals an inclination of disobedience/rebellion. 1. We must guard against any tendency to willfully ignore the word of God. 2. When we add IM in absence of divine authority, we demonstrate indifference to God’s rule. 3. to encourage it or compromise compounds error – Mt. 5:19 Conclusion: A. IM matters. B. Respect for God’s word matters. It is how we respect God. C. Are you living in a way that respects God? D. I N V I T A T I O N