Truth Magazine

By Steve Klein

Changing Times

A few months ago, a preacher from “a church of Christ” in our area had a Baptist preacher as a guest on his radio program. Throughout the broadcast, the former cheerfully referred to the latter as a “brother.” As I listened I thought to myself, “Doesn’t he know any better than that?” “How can he call someone a brother in Christ who has not been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins?” There would have been a time when nearly every true Christian listening would have been asking the same questions. But the times they are a changing. 

A generation ago, perhaps only Carl Ketcherside and his fringe of followers would have argued that Baptists and other evangelicals who were not baptized for the correct reason were nonetheless brethren in Christ.1 Then, such a claim would have been firmly rejected by every sound Christian, and even by the vast majority of those who were not so sound. Now, many are apparently questioning truths they once held dear regarding scriptural baptism and fellowship. They are wondering if it is possible that an individual who thinks he has been saved by faith alone, and has only been baptized because it is commanded, could in fact be saved? They are wondering if baptism which was not performed “for the remission of sins,” could still be effective. And ultimately, they are wondering if fellowship should not be extended to believers who have been baptized for the wrong reason.

F. Lagard Smith, in his recent book Who Is My Brother? is currently leading the way in paving this broad path of fellowship. He writes that “despite their misunderstandings of baptism’s purpose — believers who are immersed in order to obey the command to be baptized might nevertheless be regarded in God’s eyes as saved believers” (128). 

A generation ago, any book containing such a statement would have been greeted with cries for correction and demands for debate from virtually every corner of the brotherhood. Now, more than a few are touting it as “a good book” and “a breath of fresh air.” Its author styles himself a “conservative” and is received as such by congregations which view themselves as sound. Times have changed indeed.

What about Acts 19:1-7?

Times may change, but the Scriptures do not. In Acts 19:1-7, the Scriptures teach that baptism for the wrong purpose does not save. In that text, twelve men who had been baptized “into John’s baptism” were told by the apostle Paul that “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (19:4). Upon hearing this, these twelve men “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5). Obviously, a baptism which is not “in the name of Christ for the remission of sins,” will not save.

LaGard Smith does not agree with this assessment. He asserts that the case of the twelve men in Acts 19 is not applicable to the case of the modern day believer who is baptized for the wrong reason. He says, “Unlike these men (in Acts 19, sk), whose faith in God had been claimed through John rather than through Jesus, today’s Baptists, for example, are fully convinced about the necessity of being baptized in the name of Jesus” (127). “The men from Ephesus,” he asserts, “had to be re-baptized, not merely because of misunderstanding about timing and purpose, but because their baptism was not based upon the redemptive blood of Jesus. For those who are baptized in the name of Christ, however, the issue surely must be different” (129).

If LaGard’s reasoning on Acts 19 were correct, he would have the beginnings of a case for fellowshipping every baptized believer, regardless of the reason for their baptism. However, he would still have much to prove. For instance, even if the timing and purpose of baptism were not the issue in Acts 19, how does he know that these issues are not of consequence to God? Examples can be given from both Old and New Testaments demonstrating that God often considers the reason someone is complying with his will before he accepts them. God has rejected prayers, fasts, and sacrifices because they were not done for the right reason (Matt. 6:5; Isa. 58:4). To prove that God would not also reject baptism done for the wrong reason would truly be a very tough brief to argue.

But the reality is that LaGard is just wrong in his reasoning on Acts 19. He doesn’t even have the beginnings of a case. The basis of his reasoning is that the twelve men re-baptized in Acts 19 claimed their “faith in God … through John rather than through Jesus.” This is patently false. The context of Acts 19 would indicate that these twelve men had probably been taught by Apollos, a man who had been “instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). According to the text, the only thing Apollos did not teach accurately was baptism. He knew “the way of the Lord.” Please notice that the phrase “the way” is used seven other times in Acts, and in every other instance it has obvious reference to those who claimed their “faith in God” through Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:26; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22). 

The twelve men in Acts 19 are also called “disciples,” and although John the Baptist had disciples (cf. Matt. 9:14), every single one of the other thirty-one times Luke uses the term “disciple(s)” in Acts, he plainly refers to disciples of Christ, not John. A disciple is a learner or follower. These men were disciples of Jesus. They followed Jesus’ teaching to the extent they had correctly learned it, but they had not been taught accurately concerning the purpose and effects of baptism. But suppose this is not right; suppose these men knew nothing directly of Christ and his teachings and that they only knew what John had said and done. They would still have known that Jesus was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”! That’s what John taught (John 1:29)! They would have had faith in the redemptive power of Christ’s blood! But they had not been baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of their sins. They needed to be re-baptized for exactly the same reason people today who have not been baptized for the remission of sins today need to be — in order to be saved!

Can Baptism for the Wrong Reason Be “In the Name of Jesus”?

Read again the quotes from pages 127 and 129 of Who is My Brother? In essence LaGard is saying that those in Acts 19 had not yet been baptized “in the name of Jesus” but “today’s Baptist for example,” has been baptized “in the name of Jesus.” This is a glaring error. LaGard is claiming that any person who believes in Jesus, and has been baptized based on that belief, has been baptized “in the name of Christ” or “in the name of Jesus” — it doesn’t matter whether that person knows the meaning and purpose of baptism. According to LaGard’s reasoning, a person can be baptized not for the remission of sins (Acts 2:28), not to get into Christ (Gal. 3:27), not to have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16) and still have been baptized “in the name of Jesus.” As incredible as it seems, F. LaGard Smith simply does not know what it means to do something “in the name of Jesus”! 

Jesus makes it abundantly clear in Matthew 7:22-23 that just because people claim to have done something in the Lord’s name, does not mean they have. Many claimed to prophesy in Jesus name whom he never even knew! To do something in Jesus name is to do something he has empowered, permitted, authorized, or asked us to do. 

To do something in the name of Jesus also involves doing it for the reason and purpose that he has assigned.  If we do not do what he has asked for the reason he has asked, he doesn’t accept it. How do we know this is true? Consider other things we are to do “in Jesus name.” If someone gives you a “cup of cold water” in his name, “because you belong to Christ . . . he will by no means lose his reward” (Mark 9:41). But if someone does that same charitable deed “before men, to be seen by them” he will receive “no reward” from the Father in heaven (Matt. 6:1). The reason the charitable deed is done is what determines if it is done in Jesus’ name or not. 

Similarly, when a church withdraws fellowship from a sinful member “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” they do it “that his spirit may be saved in the day of judgment” (1 Cor. 5:4-5; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). If a church withdraws from someone because it is following the lead of a bully (like Diotrophes) who wants to control everything (3 John 9-10), that church has not practiced withdrawal “in the name of Jesus,” no matter what it may claim. 

To pray “in the name of Jesus” (Eph. 5:20) “is not merely to add to one’s prayers a meaningless formula, but it is to ask something from God as Christ’s representatives on earth, in his mission and stead, in his spirit and with His aim.”2 If I pray selfishly or not according to the will of God, I am not praying in Jesus name, even if I believe in Jesus and say “in Jesus’ name, Amen” at the end of my prayer (cf. Jas. 4:3; 1 John 5:14). 

Yes, baptism in the name of Jesus requires that the one baptized “believes” on Jesus Christ (Acts 19:5; 8:37), but it also requires that the one baptized do so “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), and to “put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). No one who has failed to be baptized for these reasons can possibly be in fellowship “in Christ” with anyone who has.

Endnotes

1.    Though some may not realize it, this was Ketcherside’s position. In answer to the question “Do you think one must know at the time of baptism that it is for the remission of sins in order for it to be valid?” He wrote, “I do not. When one believes that Jesus is the Christ and God’s Son and is immersed because of that faith it is for the remission of sins, whether he knows it or not” (Mission Messenger, XXVI:12).

2.    G.F. Hawthorne, “Name,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 3. 483; 1988).

16239 Log Cabin Rd., Athens, Alabama 35611

By Connie W. Adams

Peter spoke of the certainty of what he and other apostles reported. He said they were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” and then referred to the events at the transfiguration scene to which he was a witness. He contrasted that to “cunningly devised fables.” But there was another line of evidence which declared the surety of what was reported and that was the “word of prophecy.” There is no stronger evidence for the truthfulness of the gospel than prophecy and fulfillment. The source of their message was not their own “private interpretations” but “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:16-21).

In describing this powerful evidence, Peter said prophecy was “a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (v. 19).

What Was a Prophet?

Often, in the Old Testament, God spoke of these men as “my servants the prophets” (Jer. 7:25). But how did they serve? The prophet was a mouth through which God spoke to the people. The Lord told Moses that Aaron “shall be to thee instead of a mouth” (Exod. 4:16). He would speak for Moses. Later God said, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exod. 7:1). The message in his mouth was the word given to him by inspiration. He was “moved” by the Holy Spirit. His message was two-fold. He served as a preacher of righteousness to his own generation often calling upon the people to repent. In the course of doing that, he also looked to future times and foretold events far in advance of their occurrence. There was no natural explanation for this. They were “moved” or driven, or borne along by the Holy Spirit. Human or natural origins cannot account for the predictive element in prophesy.

What Was the Dark Place?

Prophesy was divine light shining in a dark place. What was that? The Patriarchal Age has been described as the starlight age in which promises were made to patriarchs concerning a coming Savior. The Mosaic dispensation has been called the moonlight age because God raised up prophets who foretold events connected with the coming Messiah. The Gospel dispensation has been called the Sunlight age ushered in by the “day star” and signaling the dawning of the day of salvation (Mal. 4:2).

The Old Testament history was a dark place in the sense that God’s divine plan of redemption was not fully disclosed. It is described as a    “mystery.”  Paul wrote, “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3-5). That “mystery” included God’s plan to save the Gentile as well as the Jew through the gospel. That was the “fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:9). This plan included the church which was in God’s eternal purpose (vv. 10-12).

Before the fulness of this mystery was made known, prophecy was a light shining in this dark place. It pointed to future blessings and the full revelation of the mystery. As God shined the light of divine truth into the hearts of the apostles (2 Cor. 4:6), putting his treasure in these earthen vessels, even so it was the light of divine truth which shone in the hearts of his servants the prophets. 

The Dawning of the Day

If the Old Testament period was a mystery, surely the coming of Christ and the beginning of the gospel age was the dawning of the “day.” Jesus described himself to John as “the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied of Christ when he said “whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:78-79). Jesus himself declared plainly: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”(John 8:12). The mystery is revealed. The darkness is dispelled. The day has dawned, the day of which the prophets spoke.

Perverting the Prophets

It is a perversion of the prophets to look beyond the gospel age for the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies. This is the blunder of the dispensationalists and pre- millennialists. They are anachronistic  — they assign the wrong dates to events.

In Acts 13, Paul preached in Antioch of Pisidia. He had much to say about fulfillment of the prophets. In verses 22-23, he said God had sent Christ of the seed of David “which shall fulfill all my will.” Christ was sent “according to his promise.” John the Baptist “fulfilled his course” (v. 25) and pointed to the Christ of promise and prophecy. The Jewish rulers ignored their own prophets and fulfilled them in condemning Christ (v. 27). In the trials before Pilate they “fulfilled all that was written of him. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again” (vv. 32-33). The “sure mercies of David” are ours in him (v. 34).

Yet, the prophetic perverters continue to ignore these fulfillments and postpone all of that to an imagined age after the gospel age has ended. Peter nailed it down in Acts 3:24-26 when he said “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” What could be plainer? The day star has arisen and the day has dawned — the day which the prophets said should come. 

Our Unique Position

Peter wrote, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into” (1 Pet. 1:9-12). The salvation of souls through Jesus Christ which was preached by those guided by the Holy Spirit was that to which the prophets pointed. The prophets themselves did not understand when it would be nor how it would be developed but they faithfully delivered the message which God put in their hearts and on their tongues. We walk in the sunlight of divine revelation of which the prophets inquired and searched and even angels pondered. Paul said that by the church was the “manifold wisdom of God” shown unto “principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10).

The Source of the Light in a Dark Place

The sceptic has never been able to deal with fulfilled prophesy. How could men foretell events hundreds of years in advance giving minute details of the coming Messiah and his kingdom? Were they lucky at guessing? Clairvoyant? No, the details of Psalms 22 or Isaiah 53 cannot be explained apart from Peter’s claim that “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” The source of that light shining in a dark place was the mind of God. There is no escape from this conclusion.

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109

By Bobby Graham

When the Spirit prompted Paul to write 1 Corinthians chapter 13, he was not doing so that the letter might be a bit longer or that people might have more to argue about. He further did not write for the edification of all except preachers. If it is true of love in one person, then it must be true of all: “Love does not rejoice in iniquity” (1 Cor. 13:6).

As is usually the case in the study of God’s Word, it is not the understanding of it that most challenges us, but the practice of its teaching. We accordingly give attention to both the meaning and the application of this principle.

Its Meaning

Love is the chief consideration in this principle in that it constitutes the central focus of the entire passage. After setting forth the necessity of love in verses one through three, the apostle then described the behavior of love in the next few verses. In both negative and positive ways he made it clear how love will cause us to act. In doing so he demonstrated the principle of 1 John 3:18 that love needs to be acted upon, not just talked about. One who does not conduct himself as these verses describe does not really love, in spite of all his claims to the contrary.

Love is that genuine regard for another’s good, which causes one to act with that one in mind. This kind of “active good will” for another will forbid one to exult to delight in the unrighteousness of another. This amounts to saying that one cannot act for another’s good and also rejoice in influences that bring his downfall. The one claiming to love another while acting to the contrary, or holding attitudes leading to his spiritual demise or preventing efforts to strengthen that one, is obviously not speaking the truth. There is a large discrepancy between his claim and his conduct.

The complete thrust of this passage is conduct toward others. The definition of love demonstrates such to be the case, for it stresses conduct toward others. The examples cited in the early verses dealing with the necessity of love further indicate such a thrust. The attributes of love in the section on its behavior also show that the reader should understand the matter this way. In other words, it is a sin for one to delight in another’s iniquity because of the divine requirement that he love that person, whether he be friend, enemy, neighbor, or brother in the Lord.

Its Application

The understanding of the principle involved immediately suggests that each one carefully guard his communications concerning others. In both hearing and speaking there is abundant need to be careful not to exult in the sins of others.

In hearing about another’s sinful conduct, whether in the form of confirmed reports or vicious rumor, the hearer must exercise special care. If the report is known to be true, even then it should be heard only when the information is needed by the listener to carry out the demands of love. When the true report is needed, it is still wrong for one to hear it with delight, because love does not rejoice in iniquity. The real test comes in answer to this question: Do you rejoice in someone else’s sin? If you do, then you do not love that person.

Likewise in telling of another’s unrighteous conduct, even that which is known to be true ought never to be told when one enjoys telling it, for he rejoices in that one’s sin. It should be obvious to all readers that the real problem in all of these matters lies back of the communication. It is the attitude of not loving another, as seen in the delight experienced on the occasion of his sin, error, downfall, or disadvantage, that ought to prevent one from sleeping at night.  If a loving Father would do nothing to hinder that one in sin from repenting and returning to God, then how can one claiming to be his child do otherwise?

Preachers and brethren who write for the papers need to consider these matters. The vicious rumors, vitriolic reports, sarcastic statements, envious doubts, backhand scheming, and other diabolical devices, whether heard or spoken or acted out, ought never to be named among saints professing godliness. 

Love for others demands dealing with their wrongs, in whatever form they exist (2 Tim. 4:2; 1 Tim. 5:20; Eph. 4:15). Love for others (both the offender and those endangered by his wrong) sometimes would dictate the wisdom of naming the persons in the wrong. The principle here being emphasized, however, would forbid that one who enjoys telling of the sins or errors allow others to deal with the matters.

It is difficult to understand how one who has been loved so lavishly by God, who is love, could fail to love others thus loved by the Father in heaven. “We love because He first loved us.” One who loves in this fashion will not find it possible to rejoice in the iniquity of another.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@juno.com 

By Irvin Himmel

In the New Testament “fellowship” means communion, sharing, partnership, or joint participation. It is a term of intimacy. When Christians work and worship together, following the same Master, “striving together for the faith of the gospel,” being “of one heart and of one soul,” walking “by the same rule,” and speaking “as the oracles of God,” there is a divine fellowship that transcends social sharing, association with neighbors and friends, and other kinds of human togetherness.

What happens when mechanical instruments of music are used in worship? Is such a practice a barrier (hindrance, roadblock, or impediment) to intimate spiritual fellowship? This is the question to be addressed in this article. 

Learning from History

Historically, numerous cases could be cited to demonstrate that the introduction of instrumental music into congregational worship has been a barrier to fellowship. The following are a few examples:

The church in Waxahachie, Ellis County, Texas, began using instrumental music in the fall of 1885. C. McPherson, the preacher, took an active part in introducing the organ, soliciting funds for its purchase, and ordering the instrument. The organ was used (under protest) for two consecutive Lord’s days in October. Isaac M. Fuston, one of the elders, requested a 3:00 p.m. meeting of those who were opposed to the organ. McPherson came and proposed a compromise. He suggested that the organ be used in Sunday school and in the opening services when there would be preaching, and set it aside at other times. This plan was rejected as being contrary to the Scriptures. Two of the elders and some other families deemed it best to quietly withdraw and meet in private homes. To them the organ was a barrier to fellowship. David Lipscomb commented on the situation at Waxahachie by noting that it is clear that McPherson “pressed the organ into the Church, to the driving out of a number of members, that he had testified were good brothers.”1

A congregation at Kaufman, Texas, was troubled over instrumental music in 1895. Christians who could not in good conscience worship with the accompaniment of the organ felt compelled to meet elsewhere. The pro-organ group made a gesture to regain those who had left their fellowship. They agreed not to play the instrument on the Lord’s day at the hour of worship and on Wednesday night at prayer meeting, provided they be allowed to play it in Sunday school and on all other occasions. T.R. Burnett observed, “That is like unto a man saying he will not swear and drink on two days of the week if you will let him swear and drink all the rest of the time!”2

The Walnut Street church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, began using instrumental music in its worship in 1886. The congregation had met at different places and without its own building since its establishment in 1871. When a lot was purchased and a new building erected, the new meeting house contained an organ. Dr. D.E. Nelson, a physician, opposed the organ and asked that it be removed. To him it was a barrier to fellowship. After his request was denied, Dr. Nelson and a few others left and started a congregation in South Chattanooga.3 Nelson explained his position in these words: “For me to believe the use of the organ wrong and then go ahead and worship with it, I am sure would be sinning.”4 E.A. Elam encouraged the South Chattanooga brethren for building up a church where they could “conscientiously worship God.”

The church in St. Louis, Missouri, purchased a building from the Episcopalians in 1867. It was located on Olive Street at Seventeenth, and the deal included a $3000 organ. There was agitation over the organ for two years. The majority favored its use, but a strong minority, led by Dr. Hiram Christopher, brother-in-law of J.W. McGarvey, opposed instrumental music in worship. For the sake of peace the organ was rarely used. The pro-organ group eventually took control, forcing the opposition to leave.5 Dr. Christopher wrote in 1867, “We must never forget that it is not our province to determine what is or what is not acceptable worship. What pleases God should please us.” He noted, “In the apostolic church the music was entirely vocal and congregational.” He concluded that using musical instruments in the worship of the church “is an innovation on apostolic practice.”6

The New Testament instructs that we are to sing and make melody in the heart (Matt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:18-20; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13). Singing (vocal music) is specified; playing (mechanical music) is not authorized. All who have strong convictions that we should follow the New Testament plan for worship and regard instrumental music as a perversion of that plan must either stifle their consciences or else conclude that the use of the instrument is a barrier to fellowship.

Admissions and Warnings

Respected historians generally agree that instrumental music has been a major cause of division among people pleading for New Testament Christianity. Sober minds warned that pushing the instrument would disrupt fellowship.

W.E. Garrison, historian among Disciples of Christ, acknowledges that “many churches” divided on this issue.7 A.W. Fortune concedes, “The introduction of the organ into the worship of the church was the occasion of bitter controversy, and was one of the main causes of the division which finally came.”8 Herman Norton of the Disciples Divinity House, Vanderbilt University, avows that the practice of using musical instruments in worship “gradually increased, causing an eruption at practically each introduction” in earlier years.9 Stephen Eckstein says, “As a result of bitter controversy over instrumental music, Texas churches of Christ split into two irreconcilable bodies.”10

During the dark days of the Civil War, Moses Lard warned, “The day on which a church sets up an organ in its house, is the day on which it reaches the first station on the road to apostasy.” He proposed, “Let those brethren who oppose the introduction of an organ first remonstrate in gentle, kind, but decided terms. If their remonstrance is unheeded, and the organ is brought in, then let them at once . . . abandon the church so acting; and let all such members unite elsewhere.”11

J.W. McGarvey chastised J.S. Lamar in 1870 for his defense of instrumental music, and warned, “We can inform Bro. Lamar and all others who advocate this innovation upon apostolic worship, that they are driving a wedge which is destined to split asunder hundreds of congregations and cause worshiper alienation among both preachers and churches.”12

Conviction or Compromise?

Attempts have been made to place instrumental music in the same category as meats and days in Romans 14. The fallacy in such reasoning is that Romans 14 deals with things which are permissible but not required, whereas we are not given permission in the New Testament to add another kind of music to that which is uniformly authorized. Music in worship is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of indifference. It is not something left to our discretion. Instrumental music is more than an aid to the singing; it is the addition to the singing of another act.

People who suppose that instrumental music is optional do not consider it as a barrier to fellowship. Their attitude is, “I can sing with or without the instrument.” They deem it rather ridiculous to make the music question an issue, often arguing that whatever is not expressly condemned in Scripture is allowable.

Others take a different attitude toward the Bible. It is their persuasion that in all acts of worship we must do only what the New Testament teaches. It is what the Bible says, not its silence, which is our guide. Any practice which deviates from the divine plan revealed in the New Testament, whether in the work, worship, organization, or life of the church, is to be rejected. This attitude leads to the conclusion that instrumental music is a perversion or corruption of New Testament worship.

Some who claim to oppose instrumental music in worship covet fellowship with those who use it. LaGard Smith admits to worshiping frequently with a group in England where the “singing is accompanied by instruments.” He writes, “I tried to content myself with the thought that while everyone else was singing with the instruments, I was singing without them! Of course that didn’t solve the problem for someone like myself who is strongly opposed to musical instruments in worship! Their presence continually marred an otherwise enviable worship ideal.”13

How can one who is “strongly opposed” to instrumental music worship with it? If one can worship with the instrument in England, why not in America? If six months out of the year, why not all year long? Can one stifle his conscience and compromise his sincere convictions and still please God?

If a congregation corrupted its worship by serving roasted lamb as part of the Lord’s supper, would that be a barrier to fellowship? Would the burning of incense be a roadblock to fellowship? Or, would some higher aim, such as “unity,” justify compromise in such situations? Does the “unity of the Spirit” call for stringing along with error? Should one practice error while attempting to teach truth on the same subject? Would it make sense to sprinkle  infants while professing to be strongly opposed to infant baptism?

Whatever is sinful is a barrier to fellowship with God. If one believes that instrumental music in worship is sinful, he should not participate in such perverted worship. Teach those who are in error? Yes. By word and example!

Endnotes

1. Gospel Advocate, Feb. 3, 1886, 66-67, “C. McPherson’s Retreat.” 
2. Gospel Advocate, Nov. 14, 1895, 723, “Burnett’s Budget.” 
3. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians, 163-164.
4. Gospel Advocate, Feb. 22, 1888, 8, “The Organ Question Bearing Fruit.”
5. Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order, II: 8 1.
6. Dr. H. Christopher, Lard’s Quarterly, Oct., 1867, 349-368, “On Instrumental Music in Churches of Christ.”
7. Winfred Ernest Garrison, Religion Follows the Frontier, 237.
8. Alonzo Willard Fortune, The Disciples in Kentucky, 372.
9. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians, 159,
10. Stephen Daniel Eckstein, Jr., History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 250.
11. Moses E. Lard, Lard’s Quarterly, Mar., 1864, 330-333, “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing.”
12. J.E. Choate and William Woodson, Sounding Brass and Clanging Cymbals, 33. Quoted from Christian Standard, Mar. 26, 1870, 102.
13. F. LaGard Smith, Who Is My Brother?, 102-103.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603