Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Shortly before his death in 1878, the venerable Benjamin Franklin, editor of the American Christian Review (which one historian has called “the most influential Disciples journal” during this period of the Restoration Movement 1 ), wrote to the young preacher, Daniel Sommer. Eight years later, Sommer would assume the editorship of the Review. In the letter, Franklin urged his young protege to “write yourself into the affections and confidence of the brethren, while I am still at the helm, so that when I fall, you may be a necessity, as I am now.”2

Since I began preaching several years ago, some older preachers have offered similar advice to me, suggesting that I submit “short, simple articles” to the various “brotherhood journals” for the purpose of “writing oneself into the confidence of the brethren.” My inclination, however, has been to wait until becoming somewhat more experienced, and especially until I felt I had something to say instead of merely having to say something. Had I wanted to chop up a number of graduate and undergraduate term papers into article form (as some young writers apparently have done), I might well have been inscripturated by now into the brethren’s confidence. But I trust that the brethren will consider what is said on the basis of its merit rather than on the reputation (or lack of same) of the writer.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with brethren having confidence in someone based upon past experience. Nor is there anything sinful in a person using for good whatever influence he may have with others. Some of the present denouncers of “centers of brotherhood influence,” “power structures,” “paper and publishing combines,” etc., seemingly do not recognize that they are using the same type of “paper and publishing combine” to accomplish the same end (influencing brethren). Try as they may to piously disclaim any attempt to control or exert influence over other people, they cannot escape the fact that is exactly the effect they have and denunciations of others from such sources come with rather poor grace!

Additionally, some no doubt well-intentioned brethren recently have criticized human institutions (such as colleges and/ or papers which teach the Bible) using another human institution (a paper) to teach what they suppose to be the truth. One hears references to “classical Sommerism” and “the Sommer position” and wonders if those who use them realize what they refer to. There is something Brother Sommer apparently could never see-that in vociferously defending the Lord=s church from human institutions, he was utilizing a human institution (his paper, the Review) to teach what he understood the Bible to teach. Nor was he able, logically, to avoid the force of the argument by pleading that the Review was not “incorporated” or Aorganized” as such, but merely owned and operated by himself and his family. It yet remained a human institution, something other than the church.

It may well be that the brethren who are so vocally using human institutions (papers) to castigate other human institutions (such as a college), and who are quick to point to the “unwarranted influence” that a school might have. might profit from reading some history. For instance, an historical judgment which has been stated by more than one analyst of the movement is well stated by Earl West:

“Colleges, as a general rule, have not fostered the thinking of brethren on certain issues, but rather have reflected the opinion of the majority after the issues have arisen …. The charge, therefore, that the Bible schools have been the cause of digression is a generalization of very little historical accuracy. Rather, just the opposite is true. The chief sources of opinion and policy in the brotherhood have always been the brotherhood publications …. Digression in the restoration movement began not with colleges but with papers, which is to say influential editors and writers. It was not until after they had swung the opinions of the brotherhood into one line or another that the colleges began to take up the issues and become champions of them.@3

Of course, the cliche that the Restoration movement has had editors rather than bishops (as in, for instance, the Methodist church) has been repeated perhaps as often as almost any other phrase in the history of the movement. While this may be true, and while it is perhaps true that some have abused their influence over others, it is also true that some who criticize others are the worst offenders!

When one undertakes to write, he assumes the same responsibility as when he teaches in any other medium (James 3:1). However, by writing, he may be reaching an audience of thousands instead of tens or hundreds. Of course, one needs to teach the truth at all times-whether the audience consists of one or one thousand. But when the possibility exists for teaching so great a potential audience, one needs to pay strict attention to what he teaches. While religious error taught to one may have as its result the loss of a soul or, at the very least, confusion of scriptural concepts, the same error, taught before a large audience, by a sort of ” multiplier effect,” may have even more far-reaching consequences. Thus, one who teaches publicly, either orally or by written articles, should have no aversion to anyone questioning what he may teach. In fact, in view of the responsibility he bears, he should welcome such criticism. Some brethren seem to feel that they can write virtually whatever they please, without regard to the implications of what they may teach, and then withdraw to their ivory towers, behind a facade of piety, if someone disagrees with or even questions their assertions. I have even heard some brethren suggest that they should be able to teach what they please publicly, but all critics have the right to question them only privately! I suppose they feel that such is a “scriptural” (?) position.

Let me conclude these random reflections on writers and their influence by offering for your consideration some remarks made by a venerable soldier of the cross who preached for about three quartrs of a century. Brother W. W. Otey made the following observation:

A. . . it is very likely that they (non-writing preachers – SW) would do the cause as much good as a preacher whose name frequently appears in print. The mere fact that a man=s name appears often in print is no proof that he will give you satisfaction as a preacher. Nor is the fact that a man’s name is seldom seen in print any proof that he is not a good preacher. I have known of churches sending long distances for a preacher to hold a meeting and then say, ‘We were disappointed. He does not preach as well as he writes.’ I have known of churches sending for. preachers whose names seldom appear in print and then say, ‘Why have we not heard of you before? “4

It may be that, there are some today who are infatuated with those who write. There have been instances of preachers moving to a new work and then “lining up” solely influential writer-preachers and / or editors to hold meetings. Some brethren seem to think that if a brother does not write that he may not be able to preach! One capable preaching brother, who is probably as well informed as anyone on subjects such as evolution, Catholicism, and current religious thinking, but who has not written extensively in “brotherhood periodicals,” told me several years ago that some brethren had expressed amazement at his being asked to work with a certain church because “they had never heard of him!” And surely most of us have had the experience of hearing a preacher who is not nearly as effective in “Pulpit work” as in “editorializing.” Each one has his own place and should use such talents as he has-but such typecasting and stereotyping of brethren is not conducive to the most effective use of available talent.

May we all use whatever influence for good we may have, and encourage others to do likewise. Let us not develop an “Elijah complex” when others do not work exactly as we do, or as we think they ought to. Let us listen to what our brethren are saying-and accept truth, wherever it is taught, Without respect to who may teach it. “Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Timothy 2:7),.

Footnotes:

1. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: The Disciples of Christ and American Society, Volume II (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 17

2. Letter from Franklin to Sommer, May 30, 1878; letter from Sommer to Review owner Edwin Alden, October 30, 1878; Daniel Sommer “History,” American Christian Review, (March 3, 1887), p. 65; see Eari Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order. A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume 11, 1866-1906; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), pp. 299-302, 306-315.

3. Ibid., II, 461-462.

4. “Facts and Reflections,” Octographic Review, XLVIII: 43 (October 24, 1905), pp. 4-5.

Preacher Needed

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 4-6
August 8, 1974

By Cecil Willis

There have been a good many rumors, and a considerable stir, about the fact that I added the word “doctrinal” into an article written by Lindy McDaniel in the last issue of Pitching For the Master to be published by the Cogdill Foundation. It is true that I added the word “doctrinal” to Brother McDaniel’s discussion of the differences that occasioned us mutually to decide that Pitching For the Master should be separated from the Cogdill Foundation.

Lindy is quite up-set because our “doctrinal” differences are paraded before a goodly number of non-Christian people who receive the paper. However, Lindy should not have sought to give any explanation at all as to why the paper would thenceforth be published elsewhere and by others. The mere fact that he had been traded to the Kansas City Royals would have been enough explanation, if any at all was to be given to these non-Christians.

I seriously doubt the wisdom of making any statement at all about our “differences,” but if Lindy was going to tell the non-Christian public (as well as the Christians who receive his paper, who probably would constitute 50% of his subscription list) about, these “differences,” I insisted that something more definite than “differences” be told them. In an accompanying letter, Brother McDaniel offered me the opportunity to make a statement also as to why the Cogdill Foundation no longer would be publishing Pitching For the Master, However, Lindy left me exactly three lines in which to make my statement. So rather than try to state anything about the problem in just three lines, I thought the explanation that our, “differences” were doctrinal rather than personal would be an improvement in the statement.

As long as we have published Lindy’s paper, I have had the entire responsibility of correcting his manuscript before sending it for typesetting, then of proofing it, and pasting it up for photographing. On occasions, I have had to delete several paragraphs in order to make an article fit the space available. On other occasions, I have had to write or “borrow” an article to fill the available space. I have had completely free reins to attend to these matters, at Lindy’s specific authorization.

Lindy has a good “fast ball,” and an excellent “fork pitch,” but I think even he would admit that spelling and grammar are not his forte. I suspect he would have been more than a little irritated if, after every correction I made, I had insisted (CW), indicating that I had made the change. Can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if I had deleted two or three paragraphs of Lindy’s article, in order to insert the one he authorized me also to write in that final issue? Had I written such an article, I will guarantee you that it would have spelled out specifically the points upon which we differ, and they pertain to “grace” and ‘fellowship.” Lindy himself admits that we do have “doctrinal” differences, but he says that it is our attitude about, these differences that necessitated the separation of Pitching, For,, the Master from the Cogdill Foundation. But whether we fellowship “instrumentalists” and “institutionalists,” to me goes a good bit deeper than just attitude. And that is what our “differences” were all about.

An article is in my hand from Brother McDaniel regarding my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his article. Perhaps I should have initialed “doctrinal@ (CW), but I doubt that, he would have been any happier. And I refused to let the paper go out under the auspices of the Cogdill Foundation, and with my name listed as “Associate Editor” without some further explanation. The issue already was a month late when I received his article. I had never contacted him before for corrections I made in his articles, nor has he ever before objected to any correction, addition, or deletion that it has been necessary for me to make. Without the least trepidation, I fully and completely accept the responsibility for adding the word “doctrinal” to his statement about our differences, for he knows that we did have Voctrinal” differences, which we discussed for twelve or-fourteen hours ip February at Conroe, Texas in the home of Brother Roy E. Cogdill. I have no apology to make for doing so, and would do it again, if he proceeded to tell the Christian and non-Christian public about our “differences,” without revealing the nature of those differences.

I am writing Brother McDaniel to see if he really wants the article he sent to me published, for if I publish it, I must write a reply to it, and in my reply it will be necessary that I document his vacillation on the subject of “grace@ and Afellowship@ for at least two years. Lindy has wobbled around more on these subjects in the last two years than has the best “fork pitch” he ever served up to a batter! If he continues to insist that his article be published about my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his statement about our “differences,” in which article he demands that I apologize for the insertion, and for misrepresenting his position, and insists that we have never discussed these matters until very recently, then I see no alternative but to publish his article (out of fairness), but also to reply to it (in order to present the whole truth on the matter).

Until I hear from Lindy, this article will suffice to tell you that I did insert the word “doctrinal,” and why I did so, and if you want greater explanation, let Brother McDaniel ask for it, and it will be forthcoming, in ample supply. I am sorry to see Lindy line up again with an element that seems determined to turn the Lord’s church into a sort of ecumenical conglomeration, and I have sought diligently for about two years to prevent this from happening, as a considerable host of brethren already know, including Brother Lindy McDaniel. To borrow Robert Jackson’s favorite expression again: “We shall see what we shall see!”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 3
August 8, 1974

By James R. Cope

Six hours of daily Bible study for 36 years is the background of The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, 274 pages, cloth bound, by Franklin Camp. This production. lays the axe to the root of every aspect of “Pentecostalism” inside and. outside the church. Unlike many writers, the author ignores no difficult passages. For example, he devotes a full chapter of 43 pages to the Eighth Chapter of Romans. The basic thesis of this work is that Joel 2:28-32 is the background of every New Testament reference to the Holy Spirit from Acts 2 forward and inferentially includes every statement Jesus made about the Holy Spirit in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and is, therefore, “the key to understanding the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.”

The author points out that revelation, inspiration, and confirmation always go together. He declares that the Holy Spirit miraculously revealed God’s mind to man, guaranteeing the purity of the truth, and then miraculously confirmed the revelation lest it be “impossible to distinguish between a genuine revelation and a counterfeit one.” Since revelation is completed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing which the Holy Spirit now reveals or does apart from or in addition to the written Word. Camp unequivocally denies that saint or sinner receives the Holy Spirit miraculously or non-miraculously or that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian miraculously or non-miraculously.

The following expresses the author’s sentiment very clearly:

“In the study of the Holy Spirit and His work, it is vital to remember that at one time there was no written revelation. The Spirit revealed the Word directly to the apostles and others that had received miraculous gifts. It is easy for one to read passages that belong to this period of time and equate these passages with the time after revelation had been completely revealed and confirmed. This is obviously a fatal mistake because now we have a complete, written revelation. It is difficult for us to think in terms of a time when there was no written revelation. When passages that have to do with this preceding period are confused with the time afterwards when revelation was completed, it results in a complete misunderstanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification . . . . It is absolutely necessary to keep clearly in mind passages and their contexts which have to do with the miraculous while revelation was being given, and not apply them to present-day when we have a written revelation …. We have no problems generally in leaving miracles in the apostolic age. Since the reception of the Spirit and the miraculous belong together, why not leave the reception of the Spirit in the apostolic age with miracles? Someone may ask, But what do we receive today?

We receive the gospel, the teaching of the Spirit. Is the gospel complete? If so, what could the Spirit supply today apart from the gospel? If the Spirit supplies something apart from the gospel, then it must be evident that the” gospel is not complete. If the gospel is complete, and the Spirit does not furnish anything apart from the gospel, would not the reception of the Spirit be a useless reception? It seems to me that our problem has come from the attempt to make a distinction where there is none in the New Testament. We can leave the miracles in the apostolic age where they e ong, but then we attempt to make a distinction between the miraculous and the non-miraculous reception of the Spirit. This is a distinction that the New Testament does not make. This is the source of the confusion.”

The author points out that every reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts, yea, in the entire New Testament, specifically states or infers the miraculous. Convincingly he argues that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38 was miraculous just as miraculous as was “the gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 10:45. He distinguishes between “the gift of the Holy Spirit” and “baptism” in the Holy Spirit but believes both terms express supernatural power. He denies, therefore, that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” was immediate upon baptism for remission of sins and was in every instance except upon the apostles (Acts 2) and the house of Cornelius (Acts 10,11) imparted by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17; 19:6). Camp takes the position that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not only proof of the New Testament’s inspiration and God’s final witness to the divinity of Jesus but that this event also marks the cessation of miracles and the end of the “age” (world) of Matthew 28:20. He further argues from the Book of Revelation and other scriptures that Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Time and again the reader finds himself asking, “But what is Camp’s answer to ‘this or that question?@ only to find as he reads on that the author overlooks few, if any, objections which have been or may be filed against his position.

One may not agree with all of Franklin Camp’s conclusions, but he who reads his book on the Holy Spirit will have a stimulating mental exercise and a refreshing spiritual experience. I consider it the outstanding book on the subject ever to come to my attention. Maybe I like it because the author says many things I have believed for many years. If, however, I disagreed with most of it, I would still say that it is the most thought-provoking work on the Holy Spirit that I have seen. I believe that any person who wants a simple detailed analysis of many difficult-to-be-understood scriptures can profit greatly from a careful study of this work. I predict for it a wide distribution. Order from Truth Magazine Bookstore, Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952. Price: $6.95.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 2
August 8, 1974

By Daniel Petty

One of the greatest battles ever fought during the Restoration Movement of the nineteenth century was the controversy over the introduction of instrumental music in the worship of the church. It is the purpose of this paper to 1)resent the controversy as it first began, to notice the arguments concerning the silence of the scriptures and the question of expediency, and to show how it finally became with many a test of fellowship, which ultimately led to division within the Movement.

An Innovation

The origin of the controversy goes back as early as 1851, when there was a brief flare-up of the issue in Kentucky. On February 22 of that year, a man who signed his name “W” wrote a letter to J. B. Henshall, associate editor of the Ecclesiastical Reformer. In that letter, Henshall was asked to state his views on the subject of instrumental music, in view of the fact that all of the denominations were using them. Henshall replied by saying that when people begin to desire such “helps” in their devotion to God, then this is a sign of worldly mindedness and a lack of real spirituality on the part of such people. This particular article is indicative of others to appear in the Ecclesiastical Reformer during these early years. All of these articles show a trend that was beginning to exist. On the one hand, there were some who felt that the denominations were using instruments, and the brethren were falling behind in the “progress” of the day. Others felt that instruments belonged to those lacking real spirituality.

John Rogers, an old preacher from Kentucky, became greatly concerned over these articles, and in August of 1851, wrote to Alexander Campbell, urging him to commit himself on the subject of instrumental music in the worship in the churches and dancing in the home. Concerning the past efforts of the Restoration, he asked the question: “Has the object of this warfare, for more than a quarter of a century been to introduce instrumental music into our meetinghouses, and the elegant, healthful, inoffensive, improving practice of social dancing into our families?”1 Later that year, Campbell wrote a short essay on the subject in which he attributed the use of the instrument by the denominations to their “carnal hearts” and their lack of Aspiritual discernment.” He than said: “But I presume, to all spiritually-minded Christians such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.” 2

The subject arose briefly in Millersburg, Kentucky. Aylette Raines, who kept a diary for many years, made the following entry April 27, 1851: “Brother S(aunders) wishes to introduce the melodeon into the church.”3 However, Raines was bitterly opposed to all innovations, so the melodeon was not introduced. This was the prevailing attitude during the 1850’s. Instrumental music was not a strong issue, and most of those men who ever spoke out on the subject considered it an innovation which was brought in by those destitute of spirituality, and as a mockery of those things which were sacred. In an 1856 issue of the Gospel Advocate, Tolbert Fanning said that he “regarded the organ and violin worship, and even the fashionable choir singing of our country, as mockery of all that is sacred.”4

Very little was said about the subject until 1860. At this time, a letter was written to Ben Franklin, asking him to express his views on the use of the instrument. Franklin was then editor of the American Christian Review, a paper which came to play an important role in the controversy. His first article against the instrument appeared in the Review in January, 1860. Ironically, he suggested some cases where the use of the instrument might prove to be an advantage; for instance, “Where the church never had, or have lost the spirit of Christ,” or “If the church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusement.” 5 Shortly after the appearance of Franklin’s article, he heard from L. L. Pinkerton of Midway, Kentucky. Pinkerton said in that letter:

So far as is known to me, or, I presume, to you, I am the only “preacher” in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it. The calls, for your opinion, it is probable, came from these regions.6

The church at Midway is the first congregation on record to use the instrument, though it is impossible to state whether it was the first congregation among the Disciples to do so. It is generally accepted that the instrument, a melodeon, was introduced at Midway, about the year 1859.7 This case marks the beginning of the controversy. Up to this time, as we have seen, the instrument was almost universally rejected among the Disciples, and would continue to be considered by many as “a grievous innovation in the Christian Church that our Heavenly Father does not approve of.” 8

Silence of the Scriptures

In the 1860’s, the issue began to grow hotter. Men began to reject the instrument for other reasons than because of its offensiveness. In 1861, Isaac Errett spoke out in an article in which he seemed to oppose the instrument. He said the instrument was “born of pride, begets pride, and tends to formalism.”9 The melody in the heart was to be sought rather than that which would appeal to the sensuous attractions. He thought the instrument would be a hindrance rather than an aid in the worship of the heart. But he made a rather significant statement when he said “the New Testament knows nothing of choir singing and instrumental music.”10 This statement formed the basis for most argumentation of those opposed to the instrument.

J. W. McGarvey was one who based his objections on this principle. In 1864, he spoke out, saying that if the Bible taught instrumental music, he wanted to have the scriptures. In one article, he dealt with the common attempts at justification of the practice through the Old Testament. His argument was as follows:

How, then, are we to decide whether a certain element in Jewish worship, or in the worship of heaven, is acceptable in the Christian church? Undoubtedly we are to decide it by the teaching of the New Testament, which is the only rule of practice for Christians. Whatever is authorized by this teaching is right, and1whatever it condemns is wrong. in us, whether it belongs to the service of the Jews or the service of angels.11

McGarvey held that in the Christian dispensation, the New Testament is the only rule of practice for Christians. Any attempts to justify instrumental music from the Old Testament were, as he saw it, made of no account by, virtue of the simple fact that the New Testament said nothing of the practice regarding Christians. He continues:

We cannot, therefore, by any possibility, know that a certain element of worship is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation, when the Scriptures which speak of that dispensation are silent in reference to it. To introduce any such element is unscriptural ana presumptuous.12

The first to answer McGarvey was A. S. Hayden. Hayden said that he was not advocating the use of the instrument, but considered it to be in the realm of expediency. His objection was rather because he objected to McGarvey’s argument on the silence of the scripture. He maintained that this argument was “suspicious” and that the silence of the scripture was not sufficient ground for rejecting it.

McGarvey wrote again in order to reply to Hayden’s objections, and essentially repeated his position,

The scriptures, however, which speak of the acts of worship under the Christian dispensation are silent in reference to this element; they furnish no authority for it; therefore it is will-worship to make use of it.13

To McGarvey, the silence of the scripture on instrumental music answered the arguments made by some that it was practiced in the Old Testament, or that it was a matter of expediency.

Moses E. Lard was also very quick in voicing his objection to the instrument. His argument was also the silence of the scripture. He says:

….. what defense can be urged for the introduction into some of our congregations of instrumental music? The answer which thunders into my ear from every page of the New Testament is, none.14

To Lard, anyone who would attempt to introduce instrumental music into the church should be considered “an insultor of the authority of Christ, and as a defiant and impious innovator of the simplicity and purity of the ancient worship.”15 It is evident that these men who opposed the instrument on the grounds of silence of scripture had come to accept this silence as being just as authoritative as a direct command, and to violate this authority was to break the law of God, just as much as breaking a positive, direct command.

Isaiah Boone Grubbs objected to the instrument on the same grounds as the above men. He noted that Christians are to keep the ordinances of the apostles, namely Paul, as though they were the ordinances of Christ. To Grubbs, singing was one of these ordinances, and must be preserved just as we received it from the apostle. Nothing should be instituted that would be a substitute or an addition to this ordinance. He wrote:

As all things in Christian worship, as in every other department of the Christian religion, are thus to be done “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or by his authority, it follows that “inflexibility extends to public worship.”16

The sentiment seen in Grubbs, and all the other men above mentioned who opposed the instrument, was the sentiment inherent in the slogan of the Restoration Movement, first initiated by Thomas Campbell: “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”17

Expediency

On the other side, those who favored the instrument based their whole apology for its use upon the matter of expediency. They did not consider silence sufficient reason not to use the instrument. Though he later came out stronger against the instrument, W. K. Pendleton in 1864 looked upon it as a matter of expediency. He admitted the silence of the scripture and the fact that the early-church did not practice it. Yet he did not consider this as being a conclusive argument against it. He said,

But this does not settle the questions after all-for there are many things established and right, in the practical affairs of the church in this 19th century, that were not introduced in the days, nor by the authority of the apostle-questions of mere expediency.18

Pendleton thought of the instrument in the same sense as using a meeting house or a song book. J. S. Lamar, in response to the previously mentioned article by I. B. Grubbs, said in 1868 that “what the Scriptures declare. or necessarily imply, is law, anything not inconsistent with law, belongs to the domain of freedom.”19

The champion of this line of reason came to be Isaac Errett. In his paper, the Christian Standard, he stated:

The New Testament furnishes no standard of music, the melody of the heart being made emphatic. But the requirement to sing, implies whatever is necessary to the performance of it. Hence’we have hymn books, tune books, tuning forks, choirs, etc., not because these are commanded, but because we are commanded to sing, and these are necessary to enable us to sing to edification. 20

He insisted that the difference between the two parties was not a difference of faith or of walking in God’s law, but a difference of opinion as to the means necessary to obey the precept to sing. But though he considered it an expedient, proposed to aid in carrying out the duty of singing, he 11 advised against it as not necessary to that end, and as tending to create strife in many of our churches.”21

We have seen one view of expediency; there was no law against the use of instrumental music, so it was permitted by expediency. But there was another view of expediency. Robert Richardson pointed out that expediency was not without the law, but within it. Before there could be expediency, there must be law. In 1869, J. B. Briney wrote an article in Apostolic Times entitled, “The Doctrine of Ex. pediency.” He said in this article that expediency did not give the prerogative to say in what manner an ordinance should be carried out. As to singing, this should be done with the human voice. Expediency could determine whether the person sung bass or tenor, but it could not go further to add to or subtract from the ordinance. To Briney, the instrument could not be called an expedient because it was such an addition to the ordinance. Briney also denied the expediency of the instrument on the grounds that it was “an accompaniment of pride, and of fashion, and vanity, and of dancing, and theater going, and the like,”22 rather than an appeal to one’s true spirituality. C. L. Loos said that the question of the expediency of the instrument had been tested by experience. It could not be considered an expedient, because of the division and strife which it had caused, and because it attracted the idle, irreligious “runabouts” who assembled for no other reason than to hear a musical performance.

A Test of Fellowship

Thus we see that there were two attitudes toward the instrument. One insisted that it was a matter of expediency, while the other insisted that it was an unauthorized, human innovation into a divine worship, and therefore, sinful. The inevitable result was the question of whether. the use or nonuse of the instrument should become a test of fellowship. Of course, to those who considered the instrument a matter of expediency or opinion, it would not be a test of fellowship. Isaac Errett held this opinion, and at the same time counseled against its use because it was to some a stumblingblock. In an 1870 issue of the Christian Standard, he said.

Before proceeding to give our reasons against instrumental music in public worship, we desire to elaborate more fully the thought presented in our last article on this subject, namely, that the real difference among us is a difference of opinion as to the expediency of instrumental music in public worship, and therefore, it is wrong to make this difference a test of fellowship, on one hand, or an occasion of stumbling, on the other. 23

Though Errett held this view, it is commendable that he was opposed to forcing it on those who objected to its use, thus causing division. Those who favored the instrument on the grounds of expediency readily admitted that they could worship just as well without it-But those who opposed the instrument could not say that it did not matter to them. With them, it was a matter of faith, and thus a sin to use it. Many began to draw the line of fellowship with those who continued to force the instrument into the churches.

Ben Franklin strongly wrote against the views of Errett:

We put it on no ground of opinion or expediency. The acts or worship are all prescribed in the law of God. If it is an act of worship, or an element in worship, it may not be added to it. If it is not an act of worship, or an element in the worship, it is most wicked and sinful to impose it on the worshipers. It is useless to tell us, It is not to be made a test. If you impose it on the conscience of the brethren and, by a majority vote, force it into the worship, are they bound to stifle their consciences? Have you a right to compel them to submit and worship with the instrument?24

Clearly, to Franklin instrumental music was no matter of opinion. Man had no-,right to add an element of human origin into the, worship. In reference to these, he felt that the brethren should “mark them who cause division.”

Isaac Errett and Ben Franklin are representatives of the two principal views. These views are poles apart. It was evident that there was no compromising or midway point between these two positions. As many churches continued to use the instrument, while others continued to oppose it, the division became greater, and the hope of reconciling the matter became smaller. The instrumental music Controversy eventually became one of the main factors causing the division among the churches of Christ.

Footnotes:

1. John Rogers, “Dancing,” Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, I (Aug. 1, 1951), 467-468.

2. Alexander Campbell, “Instrumental Music,” Millennial Harbinger. Fourth Series, I (Oct., 1851), 581-582.

3. Alonzo Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky (Lexington: Christian Churches, 1932), p. 373.

4. John T. Lewis, The Voice of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 19321, p. 120.

5. Joseph Franklin and J. A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, 1879), p. 409.

6. Franklin and Headington, pp. 409-410.

7. Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences of the Restoration Movement (Rosemead, California: Old Paths, 1952), p. 201.

8. Selina Campbell, Home Life and Reminiscences of Alexander Camp bell (St. Louis: John Burns, 1882), p. 420.

9. Isaac Errett, “Church Music,” Millennial Harbinger, Fifth Series, IV (Oct., 1861), 558.

10. Ibid., 558.

11. J. W. McGarvey, “Instrumental Music in Churches,” Millennial Harbinger. Fifth Series, VII (March, 1864), 511.

12. Ibid., 512.

13. J.W. McGarvey, “Instrumental Music,” Millennial Harbinger, XXXIV (Jan., 1865), 89.

14. Moses E. Lard, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing,” Lard Quarterly, I (March, 1964), 331.

15. Ibid.. 332.

16. Isaiah B. Grubbs, “The Generic Principle of the Christian Religion,” Millennial Harbinger, XXXIX (Nov., 1868), 628-633.

17. Earl West, The Search for the Ancient Order (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1965), 1, p. 47.

18. W.K. Pendleton. APew-Renting and Organ-Music.@ Millennial Harbinger, Fifth Series, VII (March 1964), 12b.

19. J.S. Lamar. AInstrumental Music,@ Millennial Harbinger, XXXIX (Dec. 1868), 666.

20. J.S. Lamar. Memoirs of Isaac Errett (Cincinnati: Standard, 1893), II.p.39.

21. M.C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1950), p. 224.

22. Lewis, p. 144

23, West, II, p. 88

24. West, II, p. 89.