Mike Cope's blog

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

Who can tell me--and trust me, I know all the hermeneutical arguments--how "instrumental worship" became such an important issue? (Note to blog readers who aren't from Churches of Christ: this is about an intramural discussion that won't make sense to you without a lot of explaining. Every denomination has their own equivalent internecine issues!) Even if a person felt like anything other than pure, unadulterated, nonclapping a cappella music was wrong, how did they then come to the unbelievable conclusion that this issue determined whether or not someone really was a follower of Christ? Do you have to be RIGHT about everything in order to be on the Way? Don't we all have failures and blind spots? To me those old hermeneutical guidelines are misguided. They were based on a reading of scripture that is more blueprint than narrative. I have no interest in being "anti-instrument." God is obviously blessing churches through instrumental worship (among other things). But there is a place, it seems to me, for being "pro-a-cappella." A cappella singing has clearly blessed the church for a long (like maybe 2000 years!) time. Can we ever get to a place where we're comfortable with this as a part of our heritage without making it central to our identity? Can we see it as a blessing to the larger family of faith (that helps keep singing alive and vibrant) without condemning the larger family that doesn't follow along? Can we celebrate what God's doing through the outbreak of contemporary Christian music without feeling embarrassed about our relatively unique assemblies? Can we ever really own up to the truth of words we sing like: "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness"?

37 Comments:

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Jeff, at 6/08/2004 11:47:00 AM  

  • Knowing God - He'll probably lead the entire church all over the world to a cappella worship and churches of Christ will by then be prodominantly instrumental. Just kidding, but the truth is that unplugged is becoming alot more popular today than concert style worship.

    It seems to me that "God's leading" seems to match pretty well with "people's choice".

    In that case - there will be a larger demand for a cappella stuff and even is today.

    "When the music fades" "heart of worship" did alot in the instrumental groups. I don't know the answer - but I don't think that it will ever ever ever be a non issue on this earth. Methods of worship have always and will always be a debatable issue - as long as people are involved.

    I just wrote about "500" part harmony and I think that's what He's looking for -

    By Blogger Jeff Jenkins, at 6/08/2004 11:49:00 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Jeff Jenkins, at 6/08/2004 11:49:00 AM  

  • After spending a few weeks contemplating missions and ministry within the emerging postmodern era, I think non-instrumental worship will be a key part of our identity. But, is it possible for something to be so closely associated with something else, without defining it? Sure, we are known for being non- and even anti-instruments (as a movement in general), and I think this could stand us in good stead as the years progress. Even though I personally don't plan to be minstering and planning worship in a North American context, I do see how "church" will need to change in order to remain relevant.

    I see a capella worship as one way to connect with outsiders. As a large number of churches are becoming more and more complicated (I'm talking laser light shows, tremendous sound systems, 50 person praise teams), they seem to be adding to the complicated, fast paced lives so many Americans already live. What if our worship times were seen as a peaceful, restful place. A place where, yes, God is praised and the community is drawn together, but also a place of respite from the chaos outside the walls?

    And as for the other issue (not being defined by externals), I heard a great quote the other day. This person said that they were "too conservative to draw boundaries where God has not." This, coming from a man who has often ben criticized as being too liberal by people in our movement. Inherent in that statement is the fact that God has drawn some boundaries, but who in the world do we think we are when we go around erecting walls He never intended?

    I think that as our churches, our missionaries and our members venture out into the world in the coming years and decades, it will have to be with a greater sense of humility (more messengers than judges) than we have traditionally experienced.

    But then again, that's the missionary in me talking, and it seems like when you're out "on the field" (as if Africa or Latin America is "the field" and America is the home base) people of all fellowships are able to experience greater unity than the churches that sent them. I pray that one day churches in America will feel the pressure of living as "aliens and strangers" that so many foreign missionaries do, and it will drive them to greater unity and cooperation.

    By Blogger Greg Kendall-Ball, at 6/08/2004 11:56:00 AM  

  • Isn't it just human tendency to latch on to a "good way of doing things" and do it that way for so long until it becomes the "only" way to do things? For some, home schooling is the "only" way. For others, private Christian schools are the "only" way. My oldest son starts in August at a PUBLIC school kindergarten, so we've heard all those particular arguments recently! It seems to me that the trick with all good ideas is keep them from becoming the ONLY good idea. (And yes, I do know that some things fall in the category of absolute truth.)

    By Blogger Matt Elliott, at 6/08/2004 12:08:00 PM  

  • Yes I do think we can grow to accept it as a blessing to the family of faith - especially if it is no longer viewed as heaven/hell stuff.

    By Blogger Jeff Jenkins, at 6/08/2004 12:15:00 PM  

  • Usually for me when it is too hard to love I resort to doing my best to be 'right.' In fact, I'm more comfortable working at my rightness (and therefore your wrong-ness:)) than I am at simply letting love be the 'weapon' of choice to spread the Kingdom.

    -Steve McMillan

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 01:19:00 PM  

  • I think what we have lost as a church (by church I mean worldwide), is the relationship we have and metaphor we share with Israel. Israel had twelve tribes, all varied and distinct, yet all Israel.

    That is how I look at denominations. Some people would not likely come to Jesus in a church like the traditional CoC, and some would not come to Jesus in a congregation with the 50-piece band. We are all still the church, and need to stop shooting arrows at one another, whether it be instrumental music, Calvinism v. Arminianism, Open Theism vs. the future set, blah blah blah.

    We are saved by grace through faith. THANK GOD

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 01:42:00 PM  

  • What I don't understand is why churches in our brotherhood have to be all acapella or all instrumental. We have moved quite a bit in the last few years and now go to a progressive, all acapella church after going to a progressive, 98% instrumental church(or service at church). Maybe it is because I was raised C of C, but there were Sundays I craved a little acapella worship at the instrumental church. Now at the acapella church I sometimes wish we could have a few instrumentals to guide us in praise.
    Why does the way with which we raise are voices in praise have so much to do with our church identity?
    Why can't we do a little of both?
    Last week you said you identified more with a Kenyan who loves Jesus than with an American who doesn't. I have to tell you that I feel more connected to a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic who truly loves God and lives their life to bring others to Christ through HIS love and grace, than I do to members of our brotherhood who let issues such as insruments in praise, kitchens in buildings, and words on signs define their identity in Christ.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 02:11:00 PM  

  • As my dear friend Randy Gill says, "I need the umbrella of grace".

    I completely agree with Mr. Anonymous up there who said he has more in common with those who are passionate for Jesus than the legalists among us.

    Who knows where we'll be 10-20 years from now. However, what I would hope would define us would be a sense of passion for Christ's teachings (the real ones--not the ones we construct) over any method of worship. Wow--imagine if we were only known as "worshippers"!!?? The thought is almost too much.

    What about this 2006 gathering approaching with the CofC folks and the Indy Christian Churches? Seems to me like maybe God is doing something here.

    What if...a church who wants to be more "cross platform" in worship styles doesn't have to LEAVE our "fellowship" but instead is embraced as another part of our grand tapestry?

    I love the comment about us being like the tribes of Israel. I agree. However, the more interdenominational settings I find myself in, the more I realize we didn't write the book on being the only right ones.

    We're in desperate need of something deeper to offer this culture. May God give us wisdom for our times and the boldness to walk it out. As one who loves to lead both acapella and instrumentally, I see the benefit and heart changing potential in both. Maybe there is a place for both?

    By Blogger Brandon Scott, at 6/08/2004 02:52:00 PM  

  • humhum..that is Mrs Anonymous BST!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 02:59:00 PM  

  • "Some people would not likely come to Jesus in a church like the traditional CoC, and some would not come to Jesus in a congregation with the 50-piece band."
    --Anonymous

    While I agree with Anonymous in principle (that everyone has his or her own "thing" that appeals to them personally in regards to worship), I'd like to take that thought one step further.

    I fully realize I might be beating a dead horse here, but I have to say it: What bothers me most about this issue is that we've lost sight of the fact that most people don't come to Jesus in a worship service of any kind. By that I mean that while worship is obviously very important in the life of any church, most new believers are led to faith in Jesus by the one-on-one relationships they have with Christians. It's the time we take telling people around us how much Jesus loves them that really makes the difference. Wouldn't it be great if we spent more time doing that (and teaching our kids and fearful adults to do that) than splitting instrumental hairs?

    Okay. I'm finished overstating the painfully obvious for today. Thanks for listening.

    By Blogger Daughter of the King, at 6/08/2004 03:26:00 PM  

  • I don't know. I mean, I understand historically the development and how it became an identity issue -- how to tell "us" (c's of C) from "them" (those darned instrumental Christian churches) but I still can't understand how it became the dividing issue it did -- and especially as early as it did and with what fervor it remains even today.

    Maybe I never caught the frenzy, being a convert; I guess I still smell of Baptist. I enjoy a cappella music a lot. I even prefer it most of the time. But church has never been about my preferences; it's supposed to be about God. I understand the historical arguments and the arguments from silence, but oy. It really doesn't seem like it ought to be the test of fellowship.

    I think I won't worry too much about a piano since church buildings (with or without kitchens, fellowship halls OR pianos) aren't mentioned in the new testament either.

    By Blogger Q, at 6/08/2004 03:58:00 PM  

  • I liked Greg's post about simplicity and Steve's about using our "rightness" to avoid the really tough things like loving one another.

    Personally, I have always used my religious idiosycracies to connect with others. Churches of Christ are not the only group that believes in acapella singing, nor are we the only ones with weekly communion, nor are we the only ones who espouse baptism by immersion, nor are we the only ones who have a plurality of pastors or elders, though we may feel like we are.

    We are also not the only ones who have "one cuppers" in our midst. Check out the Episcopals. My friend Nancy told me that they had always been one cuppers and that she faithfully takes her spoon to dip into the challis.

    Many members of the last generation may have felt superior because of the "purity" and simplicity of our doctrine, giving rise to a generation who felt they had to apologize for it.

    I embrace it and appreciate it as I do my Primitive Baptist and Deep Water Methodist roots: One was acapella and the other, well.... don't think they had the money for a piano, but all believed in immersion.

    Funny thing though, my great-grandmother was immersed while in the Methodist Church, immersed again when she married my great-grandfather, a Primitive Baptist minister, and then again after her two oldest sons married church of Christ women. She said, "I don't know which one counted; all I ever wanted to do was please God."

    Our family is diverse as far as sects of Christianity go, but last year at our family reunion, for the first time, we had a church service at our reunion site. The service that took place was one that all our family members were able to participate in with good conscience....and it looked like a church of Christ service, complete with acapella singing and communion.

    It was the first time that we had worshiped as an extended family and it was the first time that some of my cousins, aunts and uncles had attended a worship service of any kind. Those that would have gone would have ended up in several different buildings. Instead, for an hour, we were not only continuing to identify ourselves as having the same forebearers,we were united in our praise for our Creator, the only one through whom we are family.

    By Blogger Serena Voss, at 6/08/2004 04:18:00 PM  

  • I always appreciate your thoughts, Q. I, too prefer acapella music, but I am SO ready to stop talking about it! It's been my experience that non-Christians and floundering or empty Christians couldn't care less about our worship wars. They're hungry for God. They want real life. They want community. Let's move away from internal affairs and get down to buisiness.

    By Blogger Josh, at 6/08/2004 04:23:00 PM  

  • Yes, Josh, and Q, I love acapella, too. It is best to sing it, not talk about it and yes, people who are hurting need God, not our doctrinal debates.

    By Blogger Serena Voss, at 6/08/2004 04:42:00 PM  

  • She said, "I don't know which one counted; all I ever wanted to do was please God."I think I would like your great-grandmother, Serena.

    I kind of like the Greek Orthodox approach: if you were baptized, it counts. I understand the reasons for immersion, but I also understand that while some are sprinkling, we're busy flubbing other things. We inferred 4-part harmony, which I can't say the early church had. And, too, a lot of songs address Jesus in prayer language. I'm not sure that's kosher, either. Jesus didn't teach us to pray to him, but to pray to the father through him -- and I don't know of any examples in the Bible where anyone did. Dunno.

    But, I think the attitude of wanting only to please God is a desirable attribute. And one I sometimes lose sight of. Fortner said the danger of worship is that you become like that which you worship. It's a sobering thought.

    By Blogger Q, at 6/08/2004 06:17:00 PM  

  • I wish I could meet regularly with this blog community to help me brainstorm sermons!

    By Blogger Mike, at 6/08/2004 08:25:00 PM  

  • The question of instrumental music for me was settled in Revelation 5 where the twenty-four elders before the throne all have harps.

    --Jim

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 08:29:00 PM  

  • Yeah, Jim, but it doesn't say they were playing them!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 08:32:00 PM  

  • Jim,

    Some elders have harps today... they "harp" on silly issues like instrumental music.

    [insert acappella rimshot here]

    As I've witnessed firsthand this week, too many Cs of C are still mired in the cultlike mentality of keeping themselves "unspotted" (withholding our "one true church" fellowship from the unwashed denominations).

    Instrumental music isn't really the hot-button issue... it's our fear of discovering the Baptists, Episcopalians, etc., AREN'T OUR ENEMY!

    (Sorry. Had to vent. Need to go take a couple of quick hits on my pitchpipe and I'll be OK.)

    -- T.A.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 09:51:00 PM  

  • Q said: "Jesus didn't teach us to pray to him, but to pray to the father through him -- and I don't know of any examples in the Bible where anyone did. Dunno."

    How's this one? At least in the RSV :)

    Acts 7:59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

    Not an "approved example" we COCs are fond of binding ô¿ô

    *hugs*
    Damien

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/08/2004 10:57:00 PM  

  • Damien,

    I know that verse; a friend brought it up before when we were talking about this. Problem is, it's not a typical prayer. He saw Jesus as he was dying. The RSV uses "prayed," but the NASB uses "says" because the Greek word is "legonta," from "lego," which the NASB consistently translates as "say," "spoke" or "said." The word "proseuche" (and other forms), "deomai" or "enteuxis" are consistently translated "pray" "offered prayers," or various forms there.

    Since the text says that Steven saw Jesus, and the word used is "said," as in spoke to, I see in this text Steven addressing Jesus as did the disciples and apostles when he dwelt bodily among them. Whether I could make a huge case that it's tremendously different from praying, I dunno. It's just not something I see there.

    By Blogger Q, at 6/09/2004 06:22:00 AM  

  • I think of the story I heard a missionary tell about a tribe that had developed a practice of covering people in mud before baptizing them, in order to show how their sin had been washed away. He talked about how powerful it was, but added "The downside is that, in 10 years, they'll insist that being covered in mud is an essential part of baptism." I don't know how we got here on the a capella thing, but I wish we could get over it. It would be so much more inviting to people if we didn't list "We believe in a capella worship" alongside "We believe that Jesus is the Son of God".
    Point two: if we're going to carry on the acapella tradition, let's get better at it. We used to really know harmonies and such, now we're a bunch of folks singing unison with the song leader. When that happens, so much of what I love about a capella music has vanished. Let's not be for a capella and against praise teams. We need the help.
    Finally: Let's stop converting songs that were written with instruments into awkward a capella arrangements. We've all heard the song that comes with an obvious pause where thwe drum and guitar used to be. And if we're going to keep the song with the pause, don't get mad when kids clap to cover it.
    Ideally: I have, only once, worshiped at a church that sang according to what fit the music. They didn't try to sing complex Dennis Jernigan melodies a capella, they understood the piano was key. They could play along with Rich Mullins "Sometimes By Step" but fall out for an a capella rendition of the "Step By Step" chorus. Let's bring it all in. If it doesn't water down the truth of the gospel, let's do different things. As a high school teacher, I was taught about the various learning styles (I think there are 8, but I forget). I had to try my best to teach to as many as I could in a given class. The point was that they learn history and, hopefully, love history. If the point is to have people learn God and love God, let's help them do that. Let's see that we can give on stuff like instruments vs. not without giving one bit on the gospel message. In fact, our willingness to cater to those who might not worship like us actually enforces the gospel message. If Peter can eat pork chops, I can pick up a guitar.

    By Blogger chrismith, at 6/09/2004 07:30:00 AM  

  • You know I have always been confused by the whole argument of instrumental worship. I did not grow up in the Church Of Christ. Infact I have only been involved for the last 12 years. My friend in California who also did not grow up and has only been involved 2 years longer than I, stands very fiercly aganst instruments.
    While I do not have a preference, I only have one question, that she nor anyone else has been able to answer for me.
    If we are to use our talents to bring Glory to our Lord, then why is it okay to play instruments in a band or orchestra, etc... for the world but not in church where we come together to worship the Lord?
    then there is the whole thing of aren't we suppose to be in worship every minute of our life....
    My friend allows her children to be in the public school orchestra, the same school who does not allow God to be professed, and yet she is angered at the church for even considering implementing an instrumental worship during a second service on Sunday morning. I am just confused thats all. I truly submitt this in God's Holy name.
    Kim Quile

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/09/2004 10:05:00 AM  

  • There's no simple answer to why your friend might feel how she feels. In my experience, a lot of this can do with how a person is converted. If their conversion into the Church of Christ was directly connected to their conversion to Christianity, then the C of C doctrine can carry weight that they shouldn't. Increase that if the person were converted from another denomination because that denomination was "wrong". Tell a person that they have to leave what they know because they worship with instruments and you're going to have a hard time when you come back around and tell them instruments are OK. I don't know what your friend's experience was. I think we who are trying to gather converts should be careful about what we ask people to convert too. If we ask them to believe in Christ, be saved by him, and obey him then we leave room for them to make decisions about worship and other things through the filter of who Christ was and what he taught. If we attach a capella, then a new convert, looking for something to cling to, may find themselves unable to let go of a teaching that was never at the core of who Christ was or what he taught. I have to remember this when I'm tempted to lose patience with those who hold strongly to a capella singing as if it were a life and death issue. For many of them, someone at the beginning of their conversion process taught them that we believe in God, in Christ, and in a capella music. If one can change, they can all change, and the fear of that slippery slope keeps some people hanging on to traditionalism pretty strongly. The best we can do is be patient, but still speak truths, and make sure that when we introduce others to Christ we preach his message and avoid attaching "truths" that might hinder their growth later in their walk.

    By Blogger chrismith, at 6/09/2004 10:52:00 AM  

  • I don't have a good answer, but I've got an opinion:

    Many of the discussions, arguments and apologetics I've encountered concerning the necessity of a cappella music have, to me, boiled down to simply the idea "better safe than sorry."

    For some, this is reason enough. For others, it's not. Much like textual criticism is seen as accurate by some and others employ a different hermeneutic as "most faithful." A lot of it depends on what one accepts as evidence.

    By Blogger Q, at 6/09/2004 02:43:00 PM  

  • Since the text says that Steven saw Jesus, and the word used is "said," as in spoke to, I see in this text Steven addressing Jesus as did the disciples and apostles when he dwelt bodily among them. Whether I could make a huge case that it's tremendously different from praying, I dunno. It's just not something I see there.Hey Q,

    You are of course right that a more typical word could be used for prayer, but, I think the word in question in this passage is not legonta, but rather epikaloumenon.

    To invoke, appeal unto, call upon etcetera.

    In other words, addressing deity, he called upon Jesus(as you mentioned, how this differs, if indeed it does at all, from the nature of prayer would be an interesting discussion).

    Incidentally, Stephen also saw God to the left of Jesus... so I ask you this... were the text to say that stephen "epikaloumenon kai legonta theou", instead of "kyrie iesou"... would one not find it easier to call that prayer? Just a thought.

    And hey, if all else fails, I've got big Vincent on my side on this one,

    "An unquestionable prayer to Christ" The Word Studies in the NT

    How can you argue with that? ;)))

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/09/2004 04:34:00 PM  

  • I find it easier to believe that had he been addressing the father in heaven, the word used would likely been 'to pray.' (And I'll see your Vincent and raise you an Oster. ^_~) I dunno. Was Moses praying when speaking to God? Maybe. And an argument can probably be made for "asking" = "praying," though that's an argument based on English connotation and usage rather than the languages actually concerned.

    I realize that "arguing over words" is right up there with genealogies in the list of "things that qualify as infant formula" in the Christian walk. This is something I do feel strongly about, personally, and probably just another quirk of my oddball self. And I'm not about to try to bind it on anyone. I just don't find support for the practice and am kind of sketchy on praying (in whatever form) to Jesus or to the spirit, when we're told to pray through (or by) the spirit, to the father in the name of the son.

    But if God heard Cornelius, who wasn't likely a studied theologian, I don't doubt that he hears and answers the prayers of anyone praying with a seeking heart. He is, after all, God.

    By Blogger Q, at 6/09/2004 04:46:00 PM  

  • Hey Q,

    Bah, you stole Cornelius. How can I play a successful devil's advocate if you steal my lines in advance?!

    To be honest, while I disagree with your take on Stephen, my verbalised prayers are to God, in His son's name.

    I couldn't resist jumping on the band wagon with your earlier statement though.

    Unfortunately I've seen a not so shepherdly leader pounce upon an infant babe for praying to Christ, not having been taught otherwise... it shook that person and their innocent faith.

    Like yourself, I tend to believe that our loving father has ears to hear his seekers outside of an orthdox formulaic prayer.

    We need to do coffee when I move over to the states Q.

    Take care,
    Damien

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/09/2004 05:19:00 PM  

  • Damien,

    Since in so many ways I'm still a babe in Christ myself but have seen damage done by careless word or deified traditions, I hope I never cause that kind of hurt. I try to watch what I say, choose my battles and stand for things I know: God is. He sent his son. For me, despite myself and if for me, then as much for all. My God gets bigger all the time, but I think it's his teaching me to be smaller, or to realize that I've always been so.

    I'm not always particularly good at living it out, though.

    And we can do coffee on two conditions: if it's decaf (well, you have have regular stuff; I have to do super unleaded) and I get to meet your wife. I've seen pictures, but since (as far as I know) she doesn't make much of an online presence and therefore I've never "heard" from her, I'm beginning to think the pictures are just extremely good photoshopping on your part. ^_~

    Oh -- and also a third: if you are also not, in fact, a monkey. I'm probably allergic and I'm not sure I'd ever want to meet a caffeinated feral primate. ^_~

    By Blogger Q, at 6/09/2004 06:56:00 PM  

  • O.K., I can't resist any longer. Mike's blog stayed with me all day long and I was resolved to just observe and then I had a weak moment.

    I believe in creation but I think WE have evolved. Whew! So far so good! While GOD remains the same and HIS message also remains the same. GOD's creation has changed! I think sometimes that GOD has to sit up straight and take his feet off the desk and look at the monitor and say "Where are you going to take this now?" GOD's audience is not the same one he had millions of years ago. Feeding the multitudes or walking on water might not garner a raised eye brow. Special effects! The way GOD's message is presented has changed, instead of damnation we push salvation, we preach love instead of fear, forgiveness instead of consequence. I grew up in the damnation church. Ten verses of "Just as I am" or "Why Not Tonight". Many times I felt beaten down instead of uplifted. Worship must be appealing, ie....basically entertaining. There I said it! Worship must be enjoyable, uplifting, edifying! The key here is to maintain point without becoming scripted. I prefer acapella music, but enjoy both. I believe that when you have instruments everyone lays back a notch, and then another and then we are all listeners. I believe that by singing and making melody in our hearts we can do it anywhere any time. In Biblical times they didn't have access to so many of the modern conveniences we take for granted. I believe that GOD doesn't care how we get to the destination. It's the getting "THERE" that HE is interested in! I can't believe the a piano or an organ or a guitar or a drum or tamborine will close those pearly gates.

    By Blogger d, at 6/09/2004 07:29:00 PM  

  • "I grew up in the damnation church. Ten verses of 'Just as I am' or 'Why Not Tonight'" --d

    Jimmy Allen preached at your church? ^_~

    (He's mellow in his books, but a killer on the basketball court...)

    By Blogger Q, at 6/09/2004 07:51:00 PM  

  • i want to find the church where they actually just sing and make music in their hearts. that would really throw a visitor for a loop. a bunch of people staring into space silently.

    "what are they doing?"

    "singing"

    "they're not making any noise"

    "they do it in their hearts"

    it would be hardcore, but hilarious. seriously, how did "in your hearts" come to mean "without instruments". What a strange interpretive tool. I love the Lord Messiah, deep down in my heart could mean I love the Lord Messiah without instruments.

    By Blogger chrismith, at 6/10/2004 01:30:00 PM  

  • Organic -- a Dave Matthews kinda sound! The cutting edge Independent Christian Churches like Journey's Crossing (www.ilovethischurch.com) may be the best place to guide those who get a lot out of an instrumental experience, yet want to stay in the RM. Ride that soul sunami!

    By Blogger David Michael, at 6/10/2004 07:16:00 PM  

  • I wrote a little essay:
    "The A Cappella Stage--screen memories from a Cambellite dreamer" my experience in answer to your blog, Mike.

    http://bevchoatedowdy.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger Beverly Choate Dowdy, at 6/10/2004 10:52:00 PM  

  • At it's very essence, Acapella worship is pure. The only instrument that God created was (and is) the human voice. Acapella worship is the created using the creation to praise The Creator. However, instrumental music was used extensively in the Old Testament and it is being used (Rev 5)in Heaven. Christ will return with the sound of trumpets. If it's ok to use instruments before the Church and after the Church, what's wrong with using it IN the Church? Just a thought.

    www.edharrell.blogspot.com

    By Blogger Ed Harrell, at 6/12/2004 07:10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home