Truth Magazine

By Michael J. Schmidt

Much has been written over the years concerning the acceptability of instrumental music in worship to God. Much, if not most, of what has been written has centered in the controversy over the Greek verb psallo. It would obviously, then, be quite presumptuous and fruitless for someone with as meager an academic background as myself to attempt to shed some great new light on the subject or dazzle the world with my brilliant conclusions. The position I hold has already been stated by hundreds, in greater detail and in a far more erudite fashion. It is my sincere hope, however, that the truth be explained and not hidden; that is why I have to limit the scope of this paper. I make no pretense to be comprehensive, even in the areas I include. I have chosen to examine the arguments surrounding the verb psallo because I feel that it is the strongest of all the arguments that have been made to try to justify instrumental music in worship. This subject, then, needs to be scrutinized, the evidence weighed, and the truth taught and lived by. A general knowledge of the arguments surrounding psallo is greatly needed by the “average” Christian. An instrumentalist with only a rudimentary knowledge of the Greek, or in many cases none at all, can seriously damage the faith of one who is not familiar with this particular approach to the subject.

In sifting through much material, I have tried to compile what I think are the most basic and valuable evidences to demonstrate that the verb psallo must be interpreted within its context to be properly understood. A corollary to this is that the verb does not inherently contain its object and therefore psallo does not justify the use of instruments in worship to God.

“Psallo” In Pre-New Testament Usage

First, and very fundamentally, it is necessary to examine he historical and linguistic background of the New Testament problem. Relative to Classical period of the Greek language, Liddell and Scott said that psallo meant “to pluck; to play on a stringed instrument.”1 The root meaning carries the idea of plucking or vibrating. The Byzantine period of the language covered the period from 300 A.D. to 500 A.D. Sophocles wrote a famous lexicon during this period (his work spanned from 146 B.C. to 1100 A.D.) in which he defined the verb as “to chant; to sing religious hymns.” 2 In modern Greek psallo has been shaped by ecclesiastical usage and means simply “to sing.”‘ We will analyze this shift in meaning later, but for now the conclusion is obvious that psallo has changed.

Another important aspect of this question to note initially is that in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), the instrument did not inhere in the meaning of the verb psallo. It is true that psallo refers to instrumental music when it translates the Hebrew word nagan (I Sam. 16:1618,23; 18: 10; 19:9), but in these cases there is reference to the instruments in the context. It is also probable, but not as clear, that the translator understood “playing” from the general context even in the cases where the instrument is not mentioned (2 Kgs. 3:15; Psa. 33:3; 68:25).4

Psallo occurs most frequently as a translation of zamar. It is defined as “make music in praise of God.”5 This is the case in these passages: Psa. 33:12; 71:22; 98:5; 144:9; 147:7; 149:3. Psallo is here translated “to play”. The Greek construction in each instance, however, is psallo followed by the preposition en (“with” or “on”) and the name of the instrument, and where the Lord is mentioned (as the indirect object) His name is in the simple dative case.6 The point isthe context here mentions the instrument.

Another interesting fact is that in nearly every case the Septuagint translators have paired psallo with a word that means “to sing” (Psa. 18:49-quoted in Rom. 15:9; Psa. 30:4; Psa. 138:1; Psa. 05:3; Psa. 146:2). The word is most often joined with ado-“sing” (Judges 5:3; Psa. 13:6; 21:13; 27:6; 57:7; 59:16ff; 68:4; 68:32; 101:1; 104:33).7 This usage of Hebrew parallelism. as understood by the translators, demonstrates that the ideas of “psallo-ing” and “ado-ing” are basically equivalent. Everett Ferguson, Professor at Abilene Christian College, pointed out that:

AUnless one is prepared to insist that in each instance of parallelism ‘psallo’ is meant to add a new dimension of playing, surely it is most natural to take these parallel expressions as synonomous statements.8

Thus, it is obvious that the object of the verb (instrument) did not inhere in psallo in the Septuagint because either the object is named, the context refers to instruments, or it is paired with a word meaning “to sing” in Hebrew parallelism.

New Testament Usage

The second major area of consideration is the New Testament usage of psallo. Some preliminary considerations are in order. First, the idea of plucking, pulling or twanging can be traced throughout the entire history of the word, but it did not originally involve music as such. 9 It could be used of plucking a bowstring, a carpenters line, a beard, or some such thing. But that does not mean that Paul authorized all of these in Ephesians 5: 19. As Hugo McCord stated in a letter to J. D. Bales on November 16, 1962:

AIf one grants that the three meanings (strike strings as of a harp or bow-literal meaning; strike strings of the heart-figurative meaning; sing-resultant meaning) may be used by anybody in any age, then the only pertinent inquiry is: which of these is in the New Testament? Examination shows no instance of the literal, once of the figurative (Eph. 5:19), four of the resultant (Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13).10

Certainly psallo in the New Testament does not have all the meanings which it has ever had, and one must determine from the context how it is used.11

Another thing to keep in mind is that words do change meanings. A striking example of this is our word “lyric.” It was once entirely associated with the lyre a musical instrument. It became associated with a song accompanied by instrumentation, and now simply means the song itself.

On page 94 of his book Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, James D. Bales illustrates how important the context is in determining the meaning of a word. He stated:

AThe meaning of a word must not be considered only in the light of its history, but of the context in which it is used. In the view of most religious people today, the word ‘baptism’ conveys the meaning either of sprinkling, pouring or immersion. They view them all as baptism. However, when I use the term ‘baptism’, I have reference to New Testament baptism which is immersion, unless the context indicates otherwise.12

Mr. Bales is saying that if someone read his works and did not realize that he used “baptism” in a restricted sense, they would likely misunderstand him. He could, however, use the term in a figurative sense, as Jesus did in Mk. 10:38, and only the context would tell one this. Thus in the case of the verb psallo, the context most naturally indicates that we are to psallo with the heart (as the object of the verb) to the Lord (Eph. 5:19).

Much has been made by the instrumentalists of a statement by Lucian to the effect that “One cannot strum (psallien) without a lyre.”13 As Bales points out, “unless one considers the context, it would have to be concluded from Lucian that to ‘psallien’ one must- not only use an instrument, but that it must be a lyre.14

It is obvious that one must consider the context of Lucian’s statement. But, then those who try to place inherent, a-contextual meanings on psallo must either be illogical or admit that the context is crucial in interpretation. Lucian named his instrument in the context. The only instrument in the context in Ephesians is the heart.15 The plucking is inherent in the verb, the instrument is not. Martin H. Cressy summed up this point when he said that “only within their syntactical environment do words function.”16

Since we have seen that psallo is used in many ways and that the context of a word has an important bearing on its meaning, let us examine the specific context of the New Testament. It should be clear that the early Christians did not use the Greek Old Testament as their standard of authority in determining the significance of words. Acts 2:42 points out that they continued in the apostles’ doctrine. When examining the New Testament, however, it should be noted that the apostles used Old Testament figures to explain the new concepts. For example, the Ephesians were accustomed to using the word ekklesia to refer to a mob, however they knew that Paul used it in a different sense. They did not think that the church was old physical Israel. Terms such as “priesthood” lost their physical meanings and took on a spiritual significance. We do not “praise” God in the same way as the ancient Jews did, even though the same term is used in both Testaments. We must put the worship and all other aspects of the New Testament into their proper, broad context of being a part of a better, spiritual covenant. It should then be clear that understanding the broad context of a word is essential, and that “the words ‘psalmos’ and ‘psallein’ in the New Testament do not afford evidence of the use of instrumental music in the early church.”17 Perhaps one of the most striking evidences concerning the context of psallo in the New Testament is the fact that if the verb included instruments, the early church did not understand it that way. Bales points out that “church historians, historians of music and others usually agree that it (the instrument) was not used.”18

In summary of the entire affair, let us draw some conclusions and make some closing observations. The purpose of this work has been to demonstrate that psallo must be taken in light of its specific, and broad, New Testament context to be properly interpreted. The New Testament is a spiritual covenent and so it is reasonable that the Old Testament figures should be interpreted figuratively. This is especially true of psallo because of the nature of the word and the fact that it is most logical to conclude that the heart is the instrument. It was also an objective of this paper to demonstrate that the verb itself does not inherently contain the object of the instrument. The historical background was touched upon to show this, with special emphasis upon the Septuagint as evidence. I feel that it is clear that much evidence supports the conclusion that if the use of instrumental music in worship to God is acceptable, it is not justified by the Greek verb “psallo.”

Footnotes

1 . Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 2018.

2. Ferguson, Everett, A Capella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, (Abilene: Biblical Research Press), p. 5.

3. Ibid, p9 1.

4. Ibid, p. 5.

5. Ibid, p. 5.

6. Bales, James D Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, (Searcy: James 6. Bales), p. 88.

7. Ferguson, p. 6.

8. Ibid, p. 6.

9. Roberson, Charles Heber, “The Meaning and Use of Psallo (Part I)” Restoration Quarterly, (Abilene, Texas), Vol. VI, No. 6, p. 31.

10. Bales, p. 92.

11. Ibid, p. 92.

12. Ibid, p. 94.

13. Ibid, p. 94.

14. Kurfees, M. C., “Review of John B. Cowden’s Tract on ‘Instrumental Music in the Church’ and reply to J. B. Briney’s Friendly Criticism”, Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville, Tennessee, January 25,1917, p. 7.

15. Ibid, p. 49.

16. Cressy, Martin H., Christianity Today, August 3, 1962, p. 154.

17. Smith, William Shepard, Musical Aspects of the New Testament, (Amsterdam: Utgeverij, W. Ten Have N.V.), 1962, p, 47.

18. Bales, p. 100.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 10-12
July 11, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

I always thought Brother Leslie Diestelkamp lived in Nigeria even while he was in the United States. I could not appreciate his fondness and devotion to the work in that country as I do now. Whereas I only spent a few, short weeks in the Philippines, Brother Diestelkamp has spent years in Nigeria. At least, now there is some understanding by me of his love and labors that was not there before. This is referred to in order to underscore the feelings that stir my soul in regard to the work in the Philippines. But the work of the Lord will not get done if we bog down in subjective sympathies. And this report is written to prompt, provoke, and promote greater effort in the gospel.

This shall not be a detailed diary-like account of our travels. This shall not be a sociological interpretation or a cultural dissertation on either the Philippines or the Filipinos. I was not on a tourist excursion, and I am not a social scientist. It was enough trouble for me just to go as a simple preacher of the gospel, so I shall give my perspective of the journey as a preacher who went to preach the word and having done so, returned.

My Companion

Earl E. Robertson and I traveled together. No better co-laborer could have been found. Together we laughed, sweated, fretted, ate, slept, preached, rode, flew, got sick, moaned, hoped, worshiped, and prayed. Never a cross word crossed our lips. We worked together in perfect harmony. Earl’s work was superb. His teaching was beneficial to all who heard him. It was a thrill for me to have the opportunity to learn from him. The churches and brethren who supported Brother Robertson financially should not begrudge a single penny. It was money well spent, well used.

Reflections

Earl and I were greatly assisted by several good brethren and by Rodi Tan, the nephew of Brother Levy Maravilla of the Hazelwood church near St. Louis. The warmth, friendliness, and sacrificial treatment accorded to us by our Filipino friends was heartwarming. Vic Tibayan and Billy Hayuhay went everywhere with us. Brethren Azcarraga, Villamor, Salvatieffa and Ben Cruz went numerous places with us also.

Generally Speaking:

We spoke at lectures in Dian, Makati where Carlos Azcarraga preaches, at Pagadian City where Eduardo Ramiro labors, at Kidapawan where the beloved Romulo Agduma lives and works, and at Baguio City where Andrew Gawe strives for the faith. I was favorably impressed with these works, though the lectures at Baguio City seemed to be the weakest with regard to attendance. We preached in numerous other places also.

Without a doubt, the ablest man in the Philippines is Romulo B. Agduma. He is a good and godly man and is not afraid of the devil himself. Brother Agduma is a man of unimpeachable character and integrity. I do not say these things to exalt Brother Agduma. Indeed, he will not want me to say what I am saying, but his many friends in the United States and in the Philippines will gladly attest to his faithfulness. Brother Agduma is blessed with a lovely family, a devoted wife, three daughters, and a son, Reuben. Reuben Agduma will be remembered by many Americans. He attended Florida College from 1970-1972. Reuben is a splendid young man. He is an excellent teacher and preacher of the gospel. The Lord has no finer young evangelist than Reuben.

“But aren’t some Filipino preachers lazy, dishonest troublemakers?” “Don’t a few of them smoke?” “I have even heard some are guilty of adultery.” Yes, that in a few instances is true, unfortunately. But isn’t it also true of American preachers? You cannot name a single sin among the Filipino preachers that I cannot point out the very same thing here. Let us not have a dual standard. Not all Filipino or American preachers are deadbeats, just because a few are. Let us not cease to support all good men just because of some bad eggs.

Specifically Speaking:

I spoke to a large gathering in Tondo near where the faithful Ben Cruz labors. There was a group who had come out from a conservative Christian Church in the audience. They were not satisfied with their baptism in the Christian Church and subsequently had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. They called themselves the church of Christ-Matt. 16:18. After 1 1/2 hours of preaching and open forum discussion, 15 were restored and identified with the brethren. I came down hard on the mechanical instrument and other human doctrines and traditions accepted by denominationalism. They received the truth. Since they had been scripturally baptized, that is, separate and apart from any sectarian taint or stain, we received them as brethren.

I also spoke before a liberal Christian Church (Disciples). Our discussion was pointed. I accepted questions for 1 1/2 hours, mostly on the Ainstrument” issue. The “visible” results were apparent, but there was some invisible good done that I trust will bear fruit. There is more openness to the truth in the Philippines. Denominations will allow open forums. There are many debates. Victorio R. Tibayan is perhaps the ablest debater in the country. His mind is analytical, and he is quick to pierce an argument. He was a great help. His son, Vic, Jr., it is hoped, will follow in his father’s footsteps.

Debate with Alan Highers?

At the lectures in Kidapawan, the institutional brethren successfully disgraced themselves. They attempted to upset the lecture program. Their leader was an aged man for whom I felt a good bit of pity. Propositions for debate were handed to Earl and me with the assurance that Brother Alan Highers would meet us in debate. Below is the copy of the propositions submitted by the institutional brethren with the amendments which I added:

“PROPOSITIONS:

1. RESOLVE. That it is in accordance with the Scriptures for the church to relieve non-church members from the church treasury.

/ s / Earl E. Robertson / s / Larry Ray Hafley

ALAN E. HIGHERS Affirmative

EARL ROBERTSON Negative

or LARRY RAY HAFLEY Negative

2. RESOLVE. That it is in accordance with the Scriptures for funds from a church for evangelism or relief to be passed through another church.

/ s / Earl E. Robertson / s / Larry Ray Hafley

ALAN E. HIGHERS Affirmative

EARL ROBERTSON Negative

or LARRY RAY HAFLEY Negative

AMENDMENTS:

1) Each proposition shall be discussed for at least two (2) nights. L.R.H.

2) The propositions shall be discussed in Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. L.R.H. Other sites may be agreed to but Memphis must be the first place agreed upon. L.R.H.

3) Propositions agreed to by Larry Ray Hafley as amended in ink. L.R.H.

/ s / Earl E. Robertson

NOTE: We will come to Kidapawan Central Elementary School Grandstand at 4:00 P.M., May 3, 1974 (Friday), to receive a signed copy of the propositions, for transmittal to Bro. Alan E. Highers.”

Observation of Needs

1. The Filipinos need American financial support. That may sound materialistic, but it is true. The conditions there are not the same as ours. Poverty, by our standards, exists on a large scale. In some areas, $100 will support a preacher. Of course, location and family size determine to a great extent the needs of any given preacher. There are many churches in this country that could easily part with $50 per month. I know men who need as little as $13 per week or $50 per month. Surely, there are churches who will not allow a poor, faithful, sacrificing Filipino to go and work hungry. Brethren, blacktop on the parking lot or shingles on the roof do not seem so important when you see a dear brother wearing all the clothes he has in this world on his back. If I ever thought I had sacrificed a little to preach the gospel, I shall never so think again. The faithful Filipino brethren turn my feeble needs into covetousness by comparison. Yes, I saw brethren and their families who were physically hungry because they preached the gospel without support. Two families in Russellville are supporting men from their own pockets. Can you do the same? Will you?

2. The Filipino brethren need books, tracts, and Bibles. Many expressed their desire to receive gospel papers. They are starving for the materials many of us allow to collect dust or burn. Would you be willing to subscribe to a magazine of gospel teaching for some preachers? Believe me, they read every article, every line, every word many times over. Nearly every preacher expressed a desire to receive Truth Magazine. Would you like to send Truth Magazine or some other paper to a worthy brother who will read it?

3. The Filipino brethren are in need of special “in depth ” studies. This is not alone my judgment. It is theirs also. Several mentioned the need for some training in the meat of the word. Though this applies to all, it is particularly true of preachers.

4. Of course, the brethren need our prayers. “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” (Eph. 6:18)

Thanks

I want to express my thanks to all who supported and encouraged me and my family in this work. The separation from home, the long hours and long miles were not all joyful, but the work was rewarding in many ways. To all, thanks.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 8-10
July 11, 1974

By Roy E. Cogdill

A Letter Dated January 25, 1974

San Marcos, Texas 78666

“Dear Mrs.

“The university furnished a list of students who mentioned that their religious preference was Church of Christ. Your name was on the list. That is the justification we have for writing you a letter.

AAs you probably know, there are two congregations of the Church of Christ in San Marcos. If you are a regular attendant at the University Church on Guadalupe, and are happy in the fellowship of the fine members of that congregation. we congratulate you. If, on the other hand you rarely attend, or have serious doubts about the views expressed by the brethren at University, please do not automatically become a religious dropout. ‘Copping out’ is not the answer.

“We suggest, for example, that you give some thought to the views of the Holland Street Church. Often we have been asked what we stand for, or what is the difference between our approach to religion and that of most Churches of Christ. Recently we have given a great deal of thought to this question and have tentatively reduced our answer to writing.

“One problem with answering such a question is that many questions about religious faith cannot be definitively answered, You have observed in some of your university classes that most education is like that also. In fact it is doubtful if you will know all the answers even when you graduate, Our approach to religion is some-what similar. We don’t know all the answers, but are trying to keep open minds and ‘grow in knowledge and wisdom.’

“But as we mentioned, we have put in writing some of our tentative answers. Since we think you might be interested, we propose to send you a series of letters, enclosing in each a short statement of our approach to a particular aspect of religion. You might want to file each away as you receive it, so that at the end you would have a fair knowledge of our viewpoint. If it interests you we would of course invite you to meet with us Sunday mornings at 10:30 and share with, us in the searching for answers.

Sincerely,

John Ballard

Victor Bowers

Russell Cooper

Elders, Holland Street Church of Christ

This letter is rather subtle in a number of aspects. It gently suggests that there is some difference between what the Holland Street Church stands for and what the University Church stands for. If so, why? Does one of them not accept the teaching of the Bible on some point or has one of them departed from the faith? If both accepted the Bible as the standard of faith and teaching as well as practice, would they not be agreed? Is there more than one faith (Eph. 4:5)? If these brethren differ in what they believe and teach, they need to get together and see if they cannot resolve the difference or both of them cannot be the Church of our Lord.

The implication that there is room for serious doubts about what the University Church teaches is definitely implied. Have the Holland Street brethren pointed out to their brethren in the Lord, University Church, what these doubts are about and made any effort to straighten them out in their false teaching? If not, do they not feel a Christian obligation to make an effort in that direction?

This writer would suggest that there is serious room to doubt the attitude of the Holland Street Church toward the Word God and we base this charge upon what their letter said. They very definitely admit that there is a “difference between our approach to religion and that of most Churches of Christ.” They propose to state in severai letters to the students to whom they wrote this letter just what that difference is.

They warn in advance that many religious questions cannot be “definitively” answered. This means that there are many religious questions, according to these Elders, that cannot be explicitly and positively answered. This sounds not like the answer of those humbly admitting they do not know revealed truth, but rather like those who have the attitude that truth is “relative” and cannot be determinate or limiting. This is the broad view of revealed truth. There are many things unrevealed, of course, but in this realm they could seek until eternity and would never know the answers. It sounds though that they are implying that even with reference to many revealed matters, truth cannot be positively determined and that therefore each individual is to reach his own conclusion based upon and guided by his own “approach to religion.” When you hear people talking about “our approach to religion” it speaks of everything else but simple faith in those things to be “most surely believed” as they are revealed in the Word of God.

We cannot print the whole article that accompanied this letter but we must give you some quotations from it that highlight their “approach to religion.”

“We believe that God inspired the writing, preservation, and collection of the Holy Scriptures. We are not disturbed when scholars conclude that the formulation of this remarkable book was far more complicated than our small minds had previously supposed. Nor does it unsettle our faith when scientists find evidence that the creation of the physical universe was more complex than previously thought. The God we worship is so great that he could inspire the production of a book or create a universe in any way whatever.”

The above paragraph is the best preparation possible for a modification of the meaning of revelation and inspiration of the scriptures and a rejection of the simplicity of the Bible account of creation in favor of theistic evolution. We strongly suspect that this group of elders, and those whom they guide spiritually with their “approach to religion,” are guilty of both attitudes.

Here is another remarkable statement: “The Church existed and prospered for two hundred years before the New Testament as presently known was accumulated; therefore, Christians may very well be pleasing to God without understanding of or complete agreement on the exact meaning of every verse of Scripture.”

“As presently known” is a loop hole they have left for themselves. Do they mean by this with reference to the truth it reveals or in its arrangement? If the church could exist for two hundred years without the truths of the New Testament ‘ then it can exist now without the New Testament and this is just about the conclusion that must be drawn from all the article and letter say.

Now listen to this statement: “The Holy Scriptures are not, in our judgment a book of rules. Attempts to substitute a ‘law of Jesus’ for a ‘Law of Moses’ have been sources of division rather than unity. They have furthermore, served to narrowly restrict the flow of God’s grace through the Church. The love of God for human beings is no more expressed through a manual of rules than could hunger be assuaged by stones.”

We are hearing this from many different sources; denominationalism has always preached it. Calvinism is built around the idea. Ketcherside would have nothing to talk about if it were not for this idea. Many of the liberal brethren and a larger number of those who claim to be conservative than we would like to think, are advocating this idea through every medium they have. They seem to think there is some necessary conflict between law and grace. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Paul states, “being not without law to God, but under law to Christ” (I Cor. 9:21). There is no greater fallacy in religion today than the idea that we have no law to govern us today because we are under Grace. Grace has provided “the law of faith,” in divine revelation – “the gospel of the grace of God.”

But here is the “cap to the climax”: “We doubt that such passages as Acts 20:7 (AOn the first day of the week when we were assembled to break bread . . .@ ) and I Corinthians 16:2 (AOn the first day of the week, let everyone lay by in store as he has been prospered…@) should be any more used for legalistic formulations than I Thessalonians 5:26 (ASalute all your brethren with a holy kiss@) or John 13:5 (AYe ought also to wash one another’s feet@). In fact, we question the whole method, often used, of looking upon the Bible as a compilation of Acommands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.@ We look upon the Bible as a source of principles rather than a rule book, and upon the Gospel as good news about Jesus rather than a series of commands to be obeyed.”

Read it over again, brethren and weep! These men are purported elders of a purported Church of Christ! They are writing to young people who are being sent to one of the state universities in Texas and they are writing invitations to young people who are Christians, from Christian homes. telling them that if they want to worship as they please and live like the devil wants them to live, and yet call themselves members of the “Church of Christ” – “Come with us – for we do not believe the Bible is a divine law – it is more like a history book – full of principles but with no laws that have to be obeyed.” What a damnable doctrine to propagate concerning the “Scriptures breathed of God.” These people are not faithful to the Lord. They cannot be with such an. attitude. Their hearts are full of “spiritual adultery” and they are playing the harlot after the world.

There is no reason any longer to believe that because a congregation calls itself “Church of Christ” that it necessarily recognizes any duty of allegiance to Christ or necessity of submission to Him. Many of them are propagating infidelity and have thrown the Bible out of the window. Someone needs to paint out the sign “Church of Christ” and in its stead inscribe “The Synagogue of Satan.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 7-8
July 11, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

A problem that young people from Christian families meet in school concerns dancing. Dancing is so universally accepted by society as being wholesome entertainment, that a young person who does not dance is off beat. Especially one who refuses because of conviction. I want to keep this article short, so I shall get immediately into the reasons why it is wrong for Christians to engage in the modern dance.

(1) Dancing is not the harmless, wholesome entertainment it appears to be at first glance. When a mother is interested in her daughter’s popularity more than in her soul, she thinks of the dance as a well chaperoned little group of well behaved neighborhood youngsters enjoying an evening together in somebody’s home. She doesn’t think of the noisy crowd of half drunken revelers that frequent the “Breeze Inn and Stagger Out” night club. But people who learn to dance, love to dance, and not many stop with the neighborhood party and the high-school prom. It is like drinking. There is not a wino on skid row that didn’t take his first drink just for kicks or to be with the crowd, and probably in some nice neighbor’s living room. A survey in a home for wayward girls revealed that most of them started their journey down the path of shame from the dance hall. And whether the dance is in the night club or the home of a respected citizen, the embrace, the step and the closeness of the bodies are all the same.

2. Dancing brings the opposite sexes into a familiar embrace that, in normal people, produce lasciviousness. The things that make petting both sinful and dangerous are also true of dancing. The Bible says, “The works of the flesh are . . . adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft … drunkenness, murder and such like. Of which I have told you before and tell you even now, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” (Gal. 5:19-23) The Bible puts lasciviousness in the class with adultery and murder. Why? Because both are sin, and both will cause one to miss heaven.

It is sometimes hard for young ladies to understand, I think, the significance of lasciviousness, because the embrace of a dance does not stir in them the baser emotions that it stirs in a man. But whether she feels the same fleshly desire herself or not, she is partly responsible for his feeling and thoughts, and therefore a partaker of his sin.

3. If for no other reason, the Christian should refrain from attending the dance for the sake of his influence. You would not look for a spiritually minded person on a dance floor. “A praying knee and a dancing foot do not grow on the same limb.” The story is told that a man was stricken with a heart attack and died while on the dance floor. The Lord came to claim him because he was a Christian. But the devil was also there, and he said, “he might be yours, but he died on my territory, so I am here to claim him.” If you think this is absurd, answer me this question: If you should be stricken while on the dance floor, would you say, “Lord I am ready. Take me home.” Or would you ask the Lord to forgive you for your sins? Honor bright? In either case, I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for your chances. If you want to die right, you must live right. A worldly person, not a member of the church, or any church, once asked me why I preach against dancing. I said, “I will let you answer. If you saw me on the dance floor next Saturday night, knowing that I am a preacher of the gospel, what would you think of me?” She answered without hesitation, “I wouldn’t think you were much of a preacher.” Well, if it isn’t wrong, it isn’t wrong for the preacher. The Bible says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (I Thess. 5:22).

Don’t be afraid to be different, young people. Every worthwhile achievement was accomplished by someone who was not afraid to be different and to fly in the face of public opinion.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:35, p. 6
July 11, 1974