Truth Magazine

By Don Hooten

Hermeneutic Argument

The second argument is in hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the “science and methodology of interpretation” (Websters II). In other words, the argument against instrumental music is couched in the methodology we use to interpret things, namely the Bible. 
 
Simply put, our method of understanding God’s will must presuppose that God’s speech permits us to do things by his authority but that his silence does not. If God has not addressed something, it is thereby reasonable to conclude that he does not want that particular thing practiced. In fact, God’s silence regarding any religious action has never served as authority for anything.  
 
When God prohibited in Israel the “cursing of the Name of God or blasphemy” (Exod. 22:28), no punishment was given. Still, the people waited “so that the command of the Lord might be made clear to them” (Lev. 24:12). This shows they would not act on his silence. God had to authorize in speech what they were to do. 
 
When a man in the wilderness had violated the law of the Sabbath, already declared a capital crime (Exod. 31:14-15), Israel still waited for the Lord to “declare what should be done to him” (Num. 15:32-34). Even the method of executing a capital case was one in which Moses and Israel would not proceed in without “God’s word.” This was true in Old Testament law and worship (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6). 
 
What believers must be impressed with is that New Testament Christians who aim to worship God in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:24) cannot proceed in any endeavor “in truth” without the speech of God. This method of understanding God’s will (i.e., hermeneutics) is crucial. Only what God has spoken about can be said to be approved of him. The silence of God is not permissive. 
 
As a life illustration, if I send my son to the store to buy bread with the $2 I give him and he returns with a bottle of Pepsi, has he acted with my authority? Of course not. I authorized him to buy bread with the $2 and that is all. Even if he bought the bread and the Pepsi, he acted without my authority to purchase the Pepsi. If my silence permits him to change what I wish at his whim in one situation, it permits him to do it in any situation.  
 
So too, if God’s silence permits Christians to change what he willed in words at their whim, it permits them to do it with any situation or teaching. And as a result, no one belief system can ever be said to be out of harmony with the will of God. And that is completely inconsistent with the inspired Apostle John who wrote, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God” (2 John 9). 

In fact, even New Testament writers use this hermeneutic principle to demonstrate biblical truth, making the principle just as valid and binding in the N.T. as it was in the O.T. In Hebrews, the inspired writer, in an effort to urge followers of Jesus not to leave the Gospel and return to the Mosaic Law, showed they could not serve Jesus and benefit from his ministry under the Old Covenant. Why? Because Jesus could not be their Priest! Under the Mosaic Law, only Levites who were descendants of Aaron could be priests. The writer reasons that Jesus could not be a priest at all under the Mosaic covenant because “it is evident that our Lord has descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:14, my emphasis, dh). No one from Judah, even Jesus, could be a priest under the Mosaic Law — not because the Law explicitly prohibited it but because the Law spoke nothing about priests from any other tribe. 
 
Consequently, the writer builds his argument around the hermeneutic principle that God’s silence prohibited things because only his speech authorized something. God did not have to say “No Judahite” could be priest. In fact, God never said that. All he had to say was what tribe he wanted priests to descend from and that he did. Therefore, no one from any other tribe than Levi could be or chosen to be a priest. When one king did that very thing, appointing priests who were not Levites, God called it sin and punished him for his transgression (cf. 1 Kings 12:31;13:34). Since Moses “spoke nothing” concerning a priest from any tribe except Levi, the only conclusion was and is that a priest from any other tribe would be unacceptable to God. God’s speech permits. But anything else is prohibited by his silence. 
 
If God’s silence prohibited certain tribes from priestly service in the O.T., then under the N.T. things are just as rightly prohibited if God is silent. Peter says, “If any man speak, (let him speak) as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). 
 
The truth is that if the only things that are prohibited in worship, the work of churches, and even the life of Christians, must have a “Thou shalt not” explicitly stated, then there are heaps of things that could never be challenged. No Protestant could ever prohibit a Catholic clergy-laity distinction because the N.T. never explicitly prohibits a separation in terminology between worship leaders and worshipers. No Catholic could ever prohibit the “Protestant” use of “lay-ministers” in the assembly because the N.T. never explicitly prohibits it. And on and on we could go. 
 
A universal application can be found in what we use as elements of the Lord’s supper. If God must specify what he does not want, then we could use lamb, T-bone steak, pizza or Kool-Aid and Coca-Cola as elements of communion because the N.T. nowhere explicitly prohibits it! The truth is all of them are prohibited because God’s word nowhere authorizes them! The Lord tells us what he wants in the communion by saying it was unleavened “bread” and “fruit of the vine” (cf. Matt. 26:26-29). To change his will is presumptuous and sinful, whether we are discussing the Old Covenant to appoint someone other than a Levite as priest or the New Covenant and discussing the elements of the Lord’s supper.

Therefore, since God nowhere speaks approvingly of instrumental music in the New Testament, the same hermeneutic principle teaches us that instrumental music today is likewise unacceptable to God. 
 
Scriptural Argument 

This brings us to the third line of reasoning we call the Scriptural argument since it takes what the Scriptures say Christians did or were commanded to do in musical worship of God. And just as intentionally, the Lord, through his Apostles, tells us what he wants in musical worship. The same Lord who described the communion to the Apostles has through the Holy Spirit used only one word to describe how Christians praise God in music: “sing.”  
 
And speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19). 
 
Let the word of Christ richly dwell in you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your heart to the Lord (Col. 3:16). 
 
I shall sing with spirit and I shall sing with the mind also (1 Cor. 14:16). 

 For the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, Therefore I will give praise to Thee among the Gentiles, and I will sing to Thy Name (Rom. 15:9-10). 
 
In the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise (Heb. 2:12). 
 
Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises (Jas. 5:13). 
 What God has authorized for the worship of him and his  Son according to the Scriptures is singing or vocal music not instrumental music. 
 
We are commanded to sing psalms, not play them (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Psalms, the liturgy of the O.T., was the most available inspired text early Christians had. And the Scriptures commands Christians to “sing” them — nothing else. That is just as clear as what the elements of the Lord’s supper were to be. 
 
We are commanded to sing hymns, not play them (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Hymns, single melody poems to God of praise or thanksgiving in strophic form (Grout, History of Western Music 18), were simple, comparatively easy to sing and “originally for the congregation” (ibid.). And Scripture commands Christians to “sing” them — nothing else. 
 
We are commanded to sing spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). These songs, likely inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:15, 26), were the newly growing collection of songs appropriate for the praise of Jesus and God. And how does the Spirit say Christians are to do them? “Sing.” 
 
Answering Challenges 

Still, people use the following arguments to justify its use today.  
 
“The Bible doesn’t say not to!” See the “hermeneutic” argument for a fuller discussion. But simply put, God has never explicitly prohibited everything he disapproves. He states what he wants. If using instrumental music pleases God, then so does pizza and cookies in the communion. 
 
“David used harps — therefore, so can we!” Yes, David did use harps because it “was the commandment of the Lord” under the Mosaic Law (2 Chron. 29:25). But so was circumcision “a commandment of the Lord.” And Paul clearly says that it does not belong to the Covenant of Christ (cf. Gal. 5:2) and is therefore unacceptable. In fact, Paul says if we use the Law to seek justification in our practice as Christians, “we are debtor to keep the whole Law” (5:3). Even if David worshiped with instruments with God’s approval, it does not mean that God approves of it in his worship today. 
 
“There are harps in Revelation!” Yes. And there are beasts too! Just because something is in the Bible does not mean God approves it! The “harps” of Revelation (5:8; 15:2) are being played by angels and “twenty-fours elders” “around the throne” of God (5:11) “in heaven” (15:1) on a “sea of glass mingled with fire” (15:2).  
 
First, this incident is in heaven not on earth. And Jesus tells us that God commands some things on earth like marriage that he does not permit in heaven (Matt. 22:30). Therefore, it is not conclusive to say if it is in heaven it is acceptable on earth. Besides, what God revealed in “the faith . . . delivered to the saints” here on earth (Jude 3) was that when “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” were brought to praise the Lord, Christians are to “sing.”  
 
Second, the language is obviously figurative: “sea of glass mixed with fire.” If the language surrounding the harps is figurative, why would the harps not be figurative too? 
 
Conclusion

So then, that is why you will hear no pianos when we worship God. It is not because we dislike them. It is because we like and are committed to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). All God’s truth tells us to do is to “sing” with grace in our hearts” (Col. 3:16). What more appropriate way for a child of God to honor God in worship than to worship him the way he said?  
 
Therefore, it is God himself in his word that should compel all of us to stop the “hearing of pianos” in worship of God. That is what God wants in his worship. And “true worshipers” Jesus says, worship him in “spirit and in truth.” So sing my brother and my friend! 

By Larry Ray Hafley

Before we deal with the question as to the advisability of using the designation, “church of Christ,” perhaps we should establish that it is a scriptural label. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14, the Spirit cited “the churches of God.” However, when he wanted to speak of one such church, he spoke of “the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2). Thus, the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God.” In Romans 16:16, the Holy Spirit mentioned “the churches of Christ.” Since the singular of “churches of God” is “church of God,” what is the singular of “churches of Christ”? (If you do not know the answer to that question, there will be no need for you to worry, or to read further. Bless your heart, God will take care of you.) 

Over the years, some have said it would be best if we ceased to put the name, “Church Of Christ,” on our meeting houses. Various reasons have been given. “It’s confusing.” “People with a negative view of the church won’t attend when they see the name.” “It’s too traditional.” What shall we say to these objections?  

If we drop the name “Church of Christ,” and replace it with “Christians meet here,” we will confront the same set of problems and objections. The name “Christian,” too, is “confusing.” When we use it to tell folks what we are religiously, many wonder “what kind of Christian” we are — Baptist-Christian, Methodist-Christian, Catholic Christian? Others have a “negative view” of it (cf. Jas. 2:7 — “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”). It is a very traditional term, used widely and loosely around the world. Since the name “Christian” is greatly abused and misunderstood, shall we, therefore, cease to call ourselves “Christians”? 

Shall we quit referring to “elders” because certain ones may link us with the Mormons and their “elders”? Obviously, we dare not call our elders, “pastors,” for that would certainly confuse most people (even some of our own brethren!). 

Shall we drop references to “baptism” since it is a traditionally used and often misunderstood term? “Baptism” makes some think we approve of “sprinkling,” for that is their concept of it. Thus, they are misled about what we believe. Does that mean that 1 Peter 3:21, like the name, “church of Christ,” must go by the way side, for it employs that confusing, traditional expression, “baptism doth also now save us”?  

Neither can we speak of being “born again,” for that designation is misunderstood and misrepresented. To use it would identify us with Protestant churches. 

Obviously, we dare not speak of the Holy Spirit, or “Holy Spirit baptism” or “tongues,” for those are “buzz words” of wild-eyed faith healers in particular and Pentecostalism in general. Of course, we absolutely must not even breathe the word “miracle,” for everyone knows what would be assumed of us! 

If we must cease references to “churches of Christ,” to be consistent we must do away with these other terms — Christian, elder, pastor, baptism, Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit baptism, tongues, and miracles. However, the truth is that we need not dispense with any of them. Rather, without shame or apology, we must teach the world the truth and use every opportunity to show the distinction between the words of men and the word of God (Acts 17:23; 1 Pet. 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521

By James P. Needham

Recently, 67 brethren signed a letter to the administration of Florida College opposing the erroneous teaching of one of its faculty members and a brother who appeared on the annual lectureship. These brethren interpret the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time, maybe millions of years, rather than six contiguous solar days of 24 hours. Rather than repudiate such teaching, the president has skirted the issue and assured us that he does not so view the days of Genesis 1, and the head of the Bible department has said he prefers to believe that the days are solar days, but leaves room for others to interpret them differently (unity-in-diversity). It appears from this that some believe we can’t see the Bible alike. He uncharacteristically proceeds to reflect unfavorably upon the motives of those who signed the letter, calling it a creed, etc. Others of like persuasion have also joined that chorus. Now, to the question, when is a creed a creed? Or when is a creed not a creed?

That depends upon what one means by “creed.” The word is derived from the Latin credo, meaning “I believe.” One can find this information in any good English Dictionary. But he also will find this modern usage definition: “A brief authoritative formula of religious belief, a set of fundamental beliefs.”

Here is what we have done: We have condemned denominational creeds to the point that the word carries certain prejudicial connotations. So, realizing this, the brethren who called the open letter a creed were appealing to this known prejudice whether or not they realized it. With some anything labeled a creed is bad news. I’ve even known brethren to deny that we have a creed. That is saying we don’t believe anything. It is bad for Christians to pander to prejudice. Prejudice is the lock on the door of a closed mind. This is similar to what has happened to the word “gay.” It is a perfectly good English word, meaning cheerful, or happy. But, it has been used so often to describe the homosexual community, that it is a gross insult to say that one is a gay person.
 
If the letter is a creed, meaning it contains what is sincerely believed by those who signed it, it is not a creed in the same sense as a denominational creed. It is not authoritative in the sense that it is bound on anyone. A denominational creed is an authoritative document legislated by the organization that contains more or less than the Bible to which one must subscribe to become a member of the organization.

Nobody can truthfully say that the open letter was such a document. It was not legislated by a human organization, and nobody was threatened with expulsion or exclusion for not signing it. It is a creed in the sense of the original meaning of the word, that is, a statement of belief, but it is not a creed in the sense of a denominational creed. Those who signed the open letter did so voluntarily, and those who preferred not to sign it suffered absolutely no negative consequences. This cannot be said of any human creed known to me. There was no human religious organization from which the no signers were excluded as a penalty for not signing. Those who have called the open letter a creed need to answer this question: If the open letter had stated that the signers believed that baptism is for the remission of sins, or that instrumental music in worship is sinful, or that it is sinful for the church to do its work through a human institution, would they have signed it? If they were to do so, would it be a creed in the denominational sense?

A denominational creed is the authoritative official statement of belief of a human organization and sets the conditions of membership; the open letter was a statement of the individuals’ belief who signed it and set no terms of membership, or rejection. Surely, these brethren know the difference between an individual and an organization; if not, where have they been the last 40 years? If the open letter is a creed, let those who make that charge tell us the name of the organization that legislated it and bound it upon its members. Let them also tell us who has been excluded from that organization or suffered other negative consequences for not signing it.

It is extremely sad that a sincere effort to correct a bad situation has received this kind of response. It has only made a bad situation worse by skirting the real issue and tends toward strife and polarization. In the minds of many brethren it has done serious and immediate damage to Florida College. Several good brethren have said they planned for years to send their children to FC, but will not do so under the present circumstances. One family known to me had planned to send their son to FC this year, but now has sent him elsewhere because of this matter. This will be repeated many times over to the detriment of the school. It is difficult for me to understand how the protection of one teacher and his erroneous position is worth the price the school is paying and will pay down the road.

It is saddening to see these good brethren at the school act out of character. It does appear that the winds of change are blowing at FC. Sad indeed! It is not too late to deal with the situation properly, but time is running out. The college is at the crossroads. The choice is theirs and if this matter is not handled properly, Florida College will have a different image in the years to come, and will be deprived of the patronage of many of the good brethren who have been her lifeblood over the years. Calling the open letter a creed is like calling a cat’s tail a leg; that doesn’t make it one.

This whole thing is a tragedy that easily could have been prevented had it been properly handled. I think it is even possible at this late date to stop the bleeding. First, the administration needs to stop trivializing the issue as a tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing. Second, they need to ask brethren of good will and sound judgment who signed the open letter to come to a meeting and discuss the situation as brethren, and stop the name calling. Third, every effort to portray the signers of the open letter as enemies of the school, out to “get” someone needs to stop. I have confidence that if this is done, it will have a positive effect, and we can put this behind us as a bad chapter in the history of the school.

“Taken out of Context”

One of the first rules of quoting others is “keep it in context.” That means one must not lift a quotation out of its setting and cause the author to say something he neither said nor meant. To deliberately do this is to act dishonestly. To do it honestly may indicate a lack of comprehension or proper analysis. In either case the author is unfairly treated.

There are different ways to take a quotation out of context. (1) By quoting only part of a given passage, leaving off the author’s complete thought or explanation of his meaning. (2) Applying what an author says on one subject to another subject when it may not be applicable. (3) Making an unnecessary inference from what a writer says. There are at least three kinds of inferences: (1) Reasonable, (2) Necessary, and (3) Unnecessary. A reasonable inference often is not necessary. An unnecessary inference often is just a presumption without proof, and a necessary inference is undeniable due to the facts stated.

“Taken out of context” is sometimes a false defense of error, and an effort to divert attention from a given subject and place suspicion upon the person who is quoting. It is easier to charge that a quotation is taken out of context, than to deal forthrightly with the issue at hand. To say that a quotation is taken out of context when it isn’t, is as wrong as taking something out of context. “Taken out of context” is an overused charge that often is a false charge and is used to try to reflect unfavorably upon a writer or speaker and divert attention from the real subject.

In the present controversy over the false teaching concerning Genesis 1 by Shane Scott and Hill Roberts at Florida College, Ferrell Jenkins has used “taken out of context” as part of his defense of these men. Several have quoted from Ferrell’s writings in defense of these brethren, and Ferrell has charged that every quotation from his lecture has been “taken out of context.” He does not bother to prove his charge. He just makes it and passes on. To charge that one has been “taken out of context” obligates one to prove it and explain how it is the case, then declare his true meaning.

If Ferrell’s charge that quotations from his writings are “taken out of context,” this implies that he said something in the articles quoted that denies what he is charged with saying, and this is just not the case, so his charge is false. If the author said something in the article that denies what is quoted, he is guilty of contradicting himself. If that is not the case, then he has not been “taken out of context.” It is incredible and unreasonable to think that everyone who has  quoted from Ferrell’s writings on the present controversy has taken him out of context. There is just no way this can be true. If it is, the brethren are a lot less intelligent or more dishonest than I ever have known them to be. I beseech Ferrell to prove his charge or retract it. Is Ferrell willing to deny that he said he believes the six days of creation are literal solar days, but he leaves room for those who take a different position? Where did he say something in context that denies that?

Brother Jenkin’s Double Standard

In Ferrell’s introduction to the transcript of his class held in Puckett auditorium, February 8, 2000, he states, “Several people have quoted from the speech without my permission, but everyone I have seen have the quotations presented out of context” (Emphasis mine, jpn). Then sometime after the above statement was made Ferrell wrote an article entitled “James P. Needham Joins Those Who Don’t Know” (that is, those who don’t know the age of earth, jpn). Then he quotes a paragraph from my article “without my permission.” (Not that I think he needed it.) I about dropped my teeth when I read that incredible statement! I hate double standards, but brother Jenkins obviously has one. How can it be right for him to quote from me “without my permission” but wrong for others to quote from him without his permission? I was unaware of the article in which he quoted me until a friend called it to my attention.

When people practice double standards they are not dealing fairly and squarely with an issue, and appear to manifest a feeling that their writings possess an egocentric superior quality that’s not characteristic of the writings of others. Somehow their writings are sacrosanct, but others are not. Would brother Jenkins be willing to declare that he has never quoted from others without their permission? To those of us who have known and read after him over the years would consider that a travesty on truth. All of us have done it, and brother Jenkins is no exception. I have never thought I needed permission to quote from a brother who has written or spoken publicly. That which is expressed in a public forum is fair game for public review. If a brother doesn’t want his name attached to his teachings, he ought to stop teaching.

There is a certain squeamishness about quoting others and attaching their names to what they have said. This offends some. To avoid practicing a double standard they should also be offended at Paul and Peter, and Christ and other inspired writers for they practiced it freely. As Cled Wallace used to say, we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles!

Several brethren are saying we need to stop this discussion on this Genesis 1 issue. I agree. I will even go further than that and say it should have been stopped before it started. It can be stopped now that it is started, but it must be stopped in the right way by Ferrell and Colly admitting that they have used poor judgment and have wrongly defended false teaching at Florida College. All the whining and seeking to impugn the motives of the 67 who signed the open letter will not stop those who have at heart the good of the college and its students.

In earlier times a certain journal copyrighted its articles to keep brethren from quoting from and reviewing them. This was considered reprehensible, and the journal took a lot criticism. How things change! Now many brethren are attaching a copyright notice to what they write in journals. For what reason? Will one be prosecuted for quoting from them without permission?

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789

By James Hahn

While living in south Florida in the mid 1960s I received announcements from churches in the area of plans to have special activities for the young people (especially juniors and seniors in high school) near the end of the school year. These activities included an annual “track and field meet” of the (as one group announced it) “south Florida district of the churches of Christ.” Another event in 1966 was a “Junior-Senior Banquet” with entertainment provided by Pat Boone (remember, this was 1966) and the “Belles and Beaux” of Harding College. Also, a “senior king and queen will be crowned” during the banquet. After the banquet they had all night bowling and then a breakfast served in the “fellowship hall” of one of the area churches. Those promoting these activities said they wanted to provide wholesome activities so the young people would not be attending such activities as the school sponsored proms. The newspaper article promoting these activities quotes the person they interviewed as saying, “The event is not underwritten by the churches, but by the interested parents and friends.”

Even though the events were announced and promoted by the churches and each congregation selected their own “king and queen” candidates and one church provided the place for the breakfast, they contended that it was “not underwritten by the churches.” In the years following many churches got involved in openly providing recreational and entertainment activities to attract the young. One preacher in the area at that time defended such by saying, “Anything that may ultimately lead one to become interested in the gospel would be an authorized work of the church.” This is just another way of saying “the end justifies the means.” See what Paul said about such thinking in Romans 3:8.

Many opposed these activities then, not because they were bad within and of themselves, but because these things were not an authorized work of the church. Even though the claim was made that they were not paid for by the churches they were promoted as a work of the churches.

Recently, some of my brethren who spoke out against such activities as  described above have engaged in the very same activities and making the same claim. They plan a “Teen Retreat” that includes Bible study, prayer, and singing and, the next day, outdoor recreational activities and hay rides with meals provided. They later sent a letter explaining that they understood that recreation and social activities are not the work of the church and that these activities were not paid for by the church. This was the same statement made by those in south Florida in 1966.

I am convinced that all of these brethren are making the same mistake. And the mistake they are making is an insult to our young people. In essence they are saying to the young people, “You are too carnally minded to respond to an invitation to simply study God’s word and engage in things spiritual.” If we truly believe that recreational and social activities are the responsibility of the home then why don’t we let the parents plan and provide such and let the church fulfill its responsibility of teaching and edifying? 

At the summer time of year when many groups have their “Vacation Bible Schools” the announcements of these leave the impression they are, in the words of our own little Paul Watson, “having a party instead of a Bible study.” Whether its “Kool-Aid and cookies” or some of the previously mentioned activities, the appeal is the same. 

Let’s quit insulting our young people by thinking the only way to get them interested in studying God’s word is to make a carnal appeal to them. There are those who desire to “remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth” (Eccl. 12:1). I am convinced that we still have young people like Joseph and Daniel who love God and are dedicated to pleasing him. They do not need some carnal attraction to get them to study God’s word. They respect those who are concerned enough about their souls to provide that spiritual teaching and training they need. They recognize that the social and recreational have their place, but it is not the work of the church to provide such. I am encouraged by the number of young people who refuse to participate in the previously mentioned activities because they recognize that such is not the work of the church and that it should not be made to appear such. In the word’s of many of the older preachers in days past, “Let the church be the church and let the home be the home.”

1212 Melanie Ct., Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342-1724