Friday, March 08, 2013
So what did Southern Hills decide?
I spent some time talking about how Southern Hills worked through the music in worship question. Much study and prayer. Much discussion. Much hammering out a decision. So here is the decision:
Statement
Over the past couple of years your shepherds and ministers have spent time studying worship as God presents it in His Word. In our study, we have seen where God has stressed singing praises to him with our voices as important. As we have studied and read the Scriptures, we have found no scripture that directly either endorses or condemns the use of instruments in worship as it relates to an issue of salvation or fellowship.You do need to know that at Southern Hills our elder decisions are unanimous. But our votes do not have to be. The above statement is not at all what every individual elders would have decided if he were the Chief Bishop. But it was our unanimous decision.
Therefore we are keeping our three services on Sunday a cappella by choice. When mission appropriate, we will allow the freedom to use instrumental accompaniment in other settings.
What does this really mean? Here is how I explained it to the congregation.
Instrumental music in worship is not a salvation issue. If it is not what our eldership stated as What Matters for our church, so it cannot be what matters in terms of salvation.
It is not a matter of fellowship. We will not draw lines over things that are not core.
Use instruments if missionally appropriate. Some of our mission points worship with instruments. Some do not. We will not dictate from Abilene into a culture that we do know. And missional means it is about bringing people to Jesus. That does matter.
We are acapella by choice, not conviction.
Here are the reasons our elders chose to remain Acapella:
1. We know we can speak to one another clearly in acapella worship.
2. It is a great tradition at Southern Hills and in churches of Christ. Tradition is not the same as a conviction, but there is nothing wrong with tradition.
3. We are really good at it. We have been for years. It is part of excellence in worship for us.
So what are the implications for living this out? Again, this is how I explained it (our elders supported this but these were my words).
We are one body. We will not please everyone, but we will remember that each of us is precious to God and to each other.
We will not let non-core issues divide our body.
Reaching lost people will always trump non-core preferences.
If the type of music used in worship is a core conviction to you,
we may not be the church for you.
If it is core to you that a church oppose instruments in worship, we may not be the church for you.
If it is core to you that you worship with instruments, we may not be the church for you.
This issue is not core to the Southern Hills leadership. And it will not be core.
So... this was a decision for Southern Hills only. Our elders do not think that we set doctrine, practice, or policy for the brotherhood. We just try to make decisions that are right for Southern Hills.
So this is who we are, and what we did.
Comments:
<< Home
i need ot send you my article (a few years old now) on the "pro-a cappella" position. Not anti-instument, but pro a cappella.
# posted by 
: 1:25 PM PST
: 1:25 PM PST
This was an interesting read for me, since I was once a leader of singing at several churches of Christ (including SHCC), and since I no longer find myself within that denomination (though still holding it in high regard). It's a question that was settled for me long ago, coming to basically the same decision as did the SHCC elders. I think this sentence embodies and important truth: "Tradition is not the same as a conviction, but there is nothing wrong with tradition." This sounds like an honest, thoughtful bit of spiritual leadership. - Dave Wright, San Jose, CA
# posted by : 4:46 PM PDT
: 4:46 PM PDT
What I find interesting during the music discussions, is there is never references made to the music that would have been popular during the life of Christ.
The chants and singing of psalms were forms of worship. I have only been to one worship service were this was done, and it was a beautiful, spiritual, and loving tribute to God.
We can easily become so tied to our traditions we forget the past, and in so doing lose ourselves in being "correct".
The chants and singing of psalms were forms of worship. I have only been to one worship service were this was done, and it was a beautiful, spiritual, and loving tribute to God.
We can easily become so tied to our traditions we forget the past, and in so doing lose ourselves in being "correct".
I'm way too wordy, so I'll have to break up my post into several comments.
A) The elders are correct: there is no direct endorsement or condemnation one way or the other. So to make a commandment where there is not one, is to make a commandment of men, which would then be taught as doctrine. Hmmm....
A) The elders are correct: there is no direct endorsement or condemnation one way or the other. So to make a commandment where there is not one, is to make a commandment of men, which would then be taught as doctrine. Hmmm....
B) The "silence is prohibitive"/"must be authorized" side makes some valid points. But then in that case, I'd have to make two observations: (see next two posts)
(See previous post)
B1) Where is the authorization to sing out loud and to make melody with your voice/vocal cords/lips? The Ephesians text says that what we are to do to one another is to "speak", and what we're to do to the Lord is to "sing and make melody in your heart". Likewise, the Colossians text tells us that to one another we are to "teach in psalms", and to the Lord we are to "sing with grace in your hearts". The James text doesn't address singing in the assembly at all, as far as I can tell, but rather what to do when we're happy as we just go about daily life. So if we go strictly by the text, there is no authorization here for singing out loud with melodic voices as part of a regular worship time; rather, we are authorized to speak to one another without melody, while the making of melody and singing is to God, in our hearts. If we're really going to go with the "must be authorized" argument, this conclusion will need to be addressed.
(See next post)
B1) Where is the authorization to sing out loud and to make melody with your voice/vocal cords/lips? The Ephesians text says that what we are to do to one another is to "speak", and what we're to do to the Lord is to "sing and make melody in your heart". Likewise, the Colossians text tells us that to one another we are to "teach in psalms", and to the Lord we are to "sing with grace in your hearts". The James text doesn't address singing in the assembly at all, as far as I can tell, but rather what to do when we're happy as we just go about daily life. So if we go strictly by the text, there is no authorization here for singing out loud with melodic voices as part of a regular worship time; rather, we are authorized to speak to one another without melody, while the making of melody and singing is to God, in our hearts. If we're really going to go with the "must be authorized" argument, this conclusion will need to be addressed.
(See next post)
(See previous post)
B2) Maybe the way to address that argument is to realize what's inherent in the command to teach one another with "psalms". If we let the Bible define it's own terms (that of "psalm"), then we're going to have to conclude that the term includes those 150 psalms in the Biblical book by that name. In this manner, we do indeed find authorization for vocal, melodic singing. Yea! Oh, but that also means we're going to be teaching one another with Psalm 150 at some point, which authorizes clapping and musical instruments. D'oh!
(See next post)
B2) Maybe the way to address that argument is to realize what's inherent in the command to teach one another with "psalms". If we let the Bible define it's own terms (that of "psalm"), then we're going to have to conclude that the term includes those 150 psalms in the Biblical book by that name. In this manner, we do indeed find authorization for vocal, melodic singing. Yea! Oh, but that also means we're going to be teaching one another with Psalm 150 at some point, which authorizes clapping and musical instruments. D'oh!
(See next post)
(See previous post)
Now one might object that Psalms is "Old Testament", but that's not truly the case. We just think that because we've been trained to think that, largely because all of our Bibles are divided into two man-made divisions. but the division that Jesus made was not two-fold, but rather four-fold: "My words (the NT), the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44). And it's only one of those four divisions, the Law of Moses (that which was given to Israel when God took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Israel - composed of the text from about Ex 10 to the end of Deuteronomy), which God, via Jeremiah 31:31ff, labeled as "old covenant". Even Paul makes it clear that the temporary covenant was the Law of Moses (Gal 3), and that it was separate from the rest of what we erroneously call "the Old Testament", saying that it came 400 years after the covenant with Abraham, and that it did not nullify that covenant, to which we are currently heirs. And the writer of Hebrews (chapter 9) indicates that it was only the portion of the Scriptures filled with regulations such as how sacrifices were to be offered which was the "old covenant". So Psalms is no more "Old Testament" than is the covenant of Abraham which we've inherited, which Paul says is still valid. In any case, the plain text of Eph 5:19 tells us to teach one another in psalms, which includes Psalm 150 (and others). There's your New Testament authorization for musical instruments.
(See next post)
Now one might object that Psalms is "Old Testament", but that's not truly the case. We just think that because we've been trained to think that, largely because all of our Bibles are divided into two man-made divisions. but the division that Jesus made was not two-fold, but rather four-fold: "My words (the NT), the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44). And it's only one of those four divisions, the Law of Moses (that which was given to Israel when God took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Israel - composed of the text from about Ex 10 to the end of Deuteronomy), which God, via Jeremiah 31:31ff, labeled as "old covenant". Even Paul makes it clear that the temporary covenant was the Law of Moses (Gal 3), and that it was separate from the rest of what we erroneously call "the Old Testament", saying that it came 400 years after the covenant with Abraham, and that it did not nullify that covenant, to which we are currently heirs. And the writer of Hebrews (chapter 9) indicates that it was only the portion of the Scriptures filled with regulations such as how sacrifices were to be offered which was the "old covenant". So Psalms is no more "Old Testament" than is the covenant of Abraham which we've inherited, which Paul says is still valid. In any case, the plain text of Eph 5:19 tells us to teach one another in psalms, which includes Psalm 150 (and others). There's your New Testament authorization for musical instruments.
(See next post)
(See previous post)
C) I find no command in the New Testament to meet together for worship. I do find a command to meet together to encourage one another (Heb 10:24). And I do find a command that when we meet together, everything must be done for the purpose of building up the assembly (1 Cor 14:26). We think the purpose for assembling is to worship, but I can't find the text which says that. I also find examples when the assembly came together and worship took place. So examples, yes. Commands, no. So if we have no commands to assemble together for worship, it's kind of a stretch to claim there are commands of what to do in a "worship assembly" (an unBiblical term, as well as an unBiblical (not anti-Biblical) concept). It might also be noted that these "commands" for our "worship assembly" are never explicitly stated in the text, but must be jigsaw-puzzled together from this text plus that text glued together by fallible human logic.
(See next post)
C) I find no command in the New Testament to meet together for worship. I do find a command to meet together to encourage one another (Heb 10:24). And I do find a command that when we meet together, everything must be done for the purpose of building up the assembly (1 Cor 14:26). We think the purpose for assembling is to worship, but I can't find the text which says that. I also find examples when the assembly came together and worship took place. So examples, yes. Commands, no. So if we have no commands to assemble together for worship, it's kind of a stretch to claim there are commands of what to do in a "worship assembly" (an unBiblical term, as well as an unBiblical (not anti-Biblical) concept). It might also be noted that these "commands" for our "worship assembly" are never explicitly stated in the text, but must be jigsaw-puzzled together from this text plus that text glued together by fallible human logic.
(See next post)
(See previous post)
(I think perhaps we'd be more faithful to the text of the New Testament if we tossed out the group-singing and one-sided lecture for an "everyone adds whatever gift God has provided them for encouraging the group" approach, like what we see in the Paul-approved assembly in 1 Cor 14, limiting the "prophets" so they don't dominate the assembly like the sermonizer does currently (btw, no jab against SHCC's preacher; I'm not a member there, and know nothing of his abilities). It's interesting that in Acts 20 (underlying Greek, as I understand it), Paul starts out "talking to" the group (v. 7), until he bores a kid to death, after which he changes his format to "talking with" (v. 11) the group. I wouldn't really push this point, but I do find it interesting....)
(See next post)
(I think perhaps we'd be more faithful to the text of the New Testament if we tossed out the group-singing and one-sided lecture for an "everyone adds whatever gift God has provided them for encouraging the group" approach, like what we see in the Paul-approved assembly in 1 Cor 14, limiting the "prophets" so they don't dominate the assembly like the sermonizer does currently (btw, no jab against SHCC's preacher; I'm not a member there, and know nothing of his abilities). It's interesting that in Acts 20 (underlying Greek, as I understand it), Paul starts out "talking to" the group (v. 7), until he bores a kid to death, after which he changes his format to "talking with" (v. 11) the group. I wouldn't really push this point, but I do find it interesting....)
(See next post)
(See previous post)
D) Another reason for a capella -- external church history seems to indicate that's the way it was in the most ancient times of the church.
Conclusion: I agree that the elders of SHCC made a good decision; it's their decision for their flock, and is not binding on other flocks, and is not based on a supposed "command" from God, but rather on preference, tradition, etc.
(Thankfully, Kent has finally shut up!)
Post a Comment
D) Another reason for a capella -- external church history seems to indicate that's the way it was in the most ancient times of the church.
Conclusion: I agree that the elders of SHCC made a good decision; it's their decision for their flock, and is not binding on other flocks, and is not based on a supposed "command" from God, but rather on preference, tradition, etc.
(Thankfully, Kent has finally shut up!)
<< Home
