Musical instruments in worship

sojourner · Aug 11, 2010

So, scripturally speaking, if something is not specifically prohibited, then we have full authority to do it?

Absolutely.

How does make sense?

Laws are in place, primarily, to provide boundaries for behavior. Some provide direction, but most provide barriers.

We can’t know what pleases God unless He tells us (which he has done through his word)!

Sure we can! We have the Holy Spirit, don't we? God is pleased with us if we live our lives being honest with ourselves and true to who we are. We do know those things.

We don’t know Gods mind outside of what he has revealed in the NT.

Of course we do! We know God's mind through the Tradition of the Church. We know God's mind if we pay attention to the universe. We know God's mind if we listen to our inner self.

How does God’s silence on a subject give us any authority to act at all?

If the government doesn't specifically prohibit an act, we have to assume that the act is legal. I suspect the same is true for God, especially since God isn't nearly the control freak that the government is. God gives us the freedom to be, to explore, to expand, to experience. If a large dimension of, arguably, one of the most influential arts, is instrumental, and if that art is used to deepen our experience of God in worship, why wouldn't it please God for us to utilize that dimension?

Again you’re talking about expediencies here. The command is “to worship,” not “to worship while standing.” The same goes for prayer, song, communion, scripture reading, etc. As long as I am worshipping in spirit and in truth, my posture becomes an expediency – a way to carry out a specific command. It has no bearing on the matter. Musical instruments are wholly different.

so... you're discounting the Tradition (of which the Bible is part)?

How do you reckon musical instruments are "wholly different?" In what way? How, specifically, will our worship be diminished by their inclusion?

It can also be argued that the opposite is true – that tradition actually was derived from scripture.

It can't, actually, since Christians were engaging in worship long before the NT was produced. It was, in fact, the Tradition that produced the texts, themselves.

2 Thes 2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
The letters of Paul, and others apparently, dictated, at least in part, what the tradition was, not the other way around.

Of course, you realize that those letters weren't part of scripture when they were written? And it was the Tradition -- not the Bible -- that declared some of those letters to be scriptural.

In fact, Luke even states that he wrote down his Gospel so that Theophilus would know the exact truth, indicating that the tradition handed down by even the Apostles themselves was not adequate (Luke 1:1-4)! So apparently scripture even negates tradition to some degree.

It indicates no such thing. When Luke wrote, he was compiling oral tradition from several sources into written form, so that it would be concise. Luke, in fact, bore witness to the Tradition of the apostles.

We have the Bible today, thus I see no need for tradition.

What did Xians who lived 250 years after the fact have?
So you think we should just be stopped in time -- not move forward in our faith? Our faith should be preserved behind glass and not be a living faith? Do you really think that the Bible tells the entire story?

Why should it effect the day on which we assemble either? The Old Law required assembly on the Sabbath. Why, then, did the apostles decide to assemble on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2)? The OT would have dictated that they still keep the Sabbath.

If you remember, the apostles did worship on the Sabbath, with all the other Jews. It wasn't until they were cordially invited not to come back that they stopped the practice. Additionally, as Jewish Xy died out, and Xy became a Gentile religion, the Gentiles saw no need to go to Synagogue.

(BTW, you do know that, during the times the Church had injunctions against instruments, it wasn't just instruments? It included all music?) Your argument just doesn't make any sense to me.

Even so, the emphasis within scripture is that scripture itself (OT or NT) holds more weight than tradition. Jesus even warned the Pharisees of the dangers of relying on tradition in Matt. 15:6 and Mark 7:13.

You're only telling half the story. Jesus also said, "It is written...but I tell you..."

Less than 100 years after Jesus’ death, the various writings that would eventually be compiled into the NT were completed and being shared among the early Christians. So, as you say, “The Bible” as we have it didn’t exist, but the writings from which it was compiled certainly did. We have the Bible today, thus we have no more need for tradition. It was a stepping stone that bridged the gap between the establishment of the Church and the complete, written teachings.

Certainly those letters weren't universally distributed, and certainly the Church had no conception of them being scripture, or even proto-scripture when they read them. What those letters represented to the intended audiences was Tradition. By the grace of hindsight, we perceive those letters differently today, but originally, they would have been no different than a Papal bull today.

Assuming gets us nowhere. Just because aspects of Ancient Greek culture were acceptable culturally, doesn’t mean it was accepted within the church. Also, just because they may or may not have used instruments, doesn’t necessarily mean that they did so justifiably.

You're right. You're assuming that the silence with regard to the use of instruments means that they may not be used. There is no injunction banning the use of them.

It becomes clear then that the Jews, and even Jesus himself considered the psalms law. Therefore, any claim that we can use them as a guide in NT worship, inherently suggests that we can follow all other parts of the Old Law. By your own logic, then, if we can praise God with instruments mentioned in the Psalms, then we must require circumcision, animal sacrifice, keeping the Sabbath etc. which is obviously not true.

By your logic, then, if we can eschew circumcision, animal sacrifice, keeping the Sabbath, etc., then we are free to praise God with instruments. Because you have made it clear that keeping the "old Law" doesn't matter. If the old Law was written and understood and we can disregard it, why should we doggedly adhere to something that is not even mentioned in the texts, when the use of them is suggested (not mandated) in the Tradition?

It seems to me that the prohibition of instruments is based in Tradition (seeing that there is no specific written injunction against them), and since you say "we have no further need of tradition," that must mean that we have no further need to prohibit instruments from being used.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 11, 2010

Strength & Honor said:
So, scripturally speaking, if something is not specifically prohibited, then we have full authority to do it? How does make sense? We cant know what pleases God unless He tells us (which he has done through his word)! If God says nothing about a certain subject in the NT (i.e., musical instruments), how can we know whether or not it pleases him? Thats my point regarding authority.

In my reading of the Bible, it does say that it's the intent of an action that matters, not its form, and if a thing is done for the purposes of honouring God, it's acceptable.

angellous_evangellous · Aug 11, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
In my reading of the Bible, it does say that it's the intent of an action that matters, not its form, and if a thing is done for the purposes of honouring God, it's acceptable.

Just to strain at gnats a bit more....

With this thinking, a person can do anything [rape, murder, lie, etc] with the intent of honoring God.

In this case, Christians are divided by their arrogance in thinking that one is more righteous than another. Pathetic.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 11, 2010

angellous_evangellous said:
Just to strain at gnats a bit more....

With this thinking, a person can do anything [rape, murder, lie, etc] with the intent of honoring God.

Hopefully you realize that I was taking as given the other biggies in the Bible, like using love to guide one's actions.

When it comes to the question of musical instruments, I was thinking of the specific passages in the epistles about worship ("let no one judge you for a new moon celebration or a Sabbath day", etc.). It would seem to me that raping and murdering others would be lacking in the "love your neighbour as yourself" stuff that Jesus placed such an emphasis on.

Unless you're robbing your neighbours to buy a piano, instrumental accompaniment in church isn't the sort of thing that's likely to go against the principles of love for God or love for others.

angellous_evangellous said:
In this case, Christians are divided by their arrogance in thinking that one is more righteous than another. Pathetic.

But if a person is motivated by arrogance, then they're not really motivated by a desire to honour God, are they?

angellous_evangellous · Aug 11, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Hopefully you realize that I was taking as given the other biggies in the Bible, like using love to guide one's actions.

Sure, I would have given you the benefit of a doubt...

sojourner · Aug 11, 2010

Do I believe in musical instruments in church?

Heck! I've seen them!

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

sojourner said:
Laws are in place, primarily, to provide boundaries for behavior. Some provide direction, but most provide barriers.

Exactly. So, why do you consider it safe to go beyond those barriers?

sojourner said:
We have the Holy Spirit, don't we?

Indeed we do. Our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit. But that doesnt mean he is constantly revealing Gods will. If it does, then he must be telling you that musical instruments in worship are ok, because He certainly didnt talk about it anywhere else.

sojourner said:
I suspect the same is true for God,

Again, your own conjecture is not good enough. These are matters of eternal consequence that we cannot afford to take lightly. We need something more concrete.

sojourner said:
God gives us the freedom to be, to explore, to expand, to experience.

Perhaps he does. We should always be testing ourselves and expanding our knowledge. But how does that justify our going beyong His established Law. In fact, I see many warnings regarding authority and obedience. 2 John 1:9 warns against going too far concerning our obedience. Additionally, Jesus himself, in John 12:49-50, only spoke just as the Father had told him. Nothing more, nothing less. The Holy Spirit, too, only speaks what He hears (John 16:12-13). If the HS, and even Jesus Himself, who has been given all authority, wouldnt even branch out beyond what was revealed to Him, surely we cant either.

sojourner said:
If a large dimension of, arguably, one of the most influential arts, is instrumental, and if that art is used to deepen our experience of God in worship, why wouldn't it please God for us to utilize that dimension?

Musics personal effect on you or me has no bearing on authority.

sojourner said:
so... you're discounting the Tradition (of which the Bible is part)?

I discount the authority of tradition as it pertains to daily Christian living and worship provided the Bible and tradition are separate. Im not saying that all tradition is wrong. The Churches of Christ have many of them. However, our traditions stem from the scriptures, are neither binding nor authoritative, and could easily be done away with. At any rate, its not that having traditions is wrong, per se, but tradition doesnt dictate my beliefs.

sojourner said:
How do you reckon musical instruments are "wholly different?" In what way? How, specifically, will our worship be diminished by their inclusion?

Its not an issue of diminishing or taking away from our worship. Ive already told you that I believe Instruments add a separate act of worship not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. They are not expedient, nor are they simply aids. They add a separate act of worship for which we have neither a command nor a recorded apostolic example. Sitting or standing neither adds nor subtracts a thing thats the difference.

Let me ask this: What do instruments add to worship that pleases God? Can you tell me where God has specifically revealed that musical instruments actually please Him? Outside of the vague and subjective concept of music moving and changing us, there is no justification for it.

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

sojourner said:
It can't, actually, since Christians were engaging in worship long before the NT was produced. It was, in fact, the Tradition that produced the texts, themselves.

But you are forgetting the most important aspect of the early church: the role of the Holy Spirit the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of the NT. So we cannot say that tradition alone produced the NT. The Bible is a product of God through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, not just tradition. That makes it an afterthought, diminishing its value.

sojourner said:
Of course, you realize that those letters weren't part of scripture when they were written? And it was the Tradition -- not the Bible -- that declared some of those letters to be scriptural.

That is why I say that yes, clearly tradition played its part in the early church. But God saw fit to have His inspired writings preserved for us to follow today. Thus, the role of tradition itself has changed to a secondary position, not an equal one.

sojourner said:
When Luke wrote, he was compiling oral tradition from several sources into written form, so that it would be concise. Luke, in fact, bore witness to the Tradition of the apostles.

He was not writing just to be concise. Luke states that, whatever information Theophilus had prior to Lukes letters, it was not the exact truth. If that information includes the oral traditions, then your own logic is working against you here.

sojourner said:
What did Xians who lived 250 years after the fact have?

Doubtless, they had some traditions taught by the apostles. But apparently some had Gifts from the Holy Spirit as well. Some prophesied, some spoke in tongues, others interpreted tongues. Its clear that God was still looking out for his people during the time between Jesus ascension and the Apostolic writings.

sojourner said:
Do you really think that the Bible tells the entire story?

No. There are still countless things that the Bible has not revealed to us. But it tells us enough of the story to know what we need to do to please God. 2 Tim 3:16.

sojourner said:
If you remember, the apostles did worship on the Sabbath, with all the other Jews. It wasn't until they were cordially invited not to come back that they stopped the practice. Additionally, as Jewish Xy died out, and Xy became a Gentile religion, the Gentiles saw no need to go to Synagogue.

They worshipped on the Sabbath in order to preach to the Jews. There's no indication in scripture that he went to the Synagogue just because that is what he was used to doing as a Hebrew...

sojourner said:
(BTW, you do know that, during the times the Church had injunctions against instruments, it wasn't just instruments? It included all music?) Your argument just doesn't make any sense to me.

What makes no sense is why what you call the Church (by which I presume you mean the catholic church) changed its practice regarding something which, according to you, tradition is so clear on, even going so far as to ban singing, an explicitly commanded act of worship. Now thats just backwards.

sojourner said:
You're only telling half the story. Jesus also said, "It is written...but I tell you..."

True. However, if Jesus is telling us something, it constitutes a new, authoritative command anyway. In which case, the tradition would have to spur from that, not the other way around.

sojourner said:
Certainly those letters weren't universally distributed, and certainly the Church had no conception of them being scripture, or even proto-scripture when they read them. What those letters represented to the intended audiences was Tradition. By the grace of hindsight, we perceive those letters differently today, but originally, they would have been no different than a Papal bull today.

That, again is where the role of the Holy Spirit comes into play.

sojourner said:
You're right. You're assuming that the silence with regard to the use of instruments means that they may not be used. There is no injunction banning the use of them.

Id rather err on the side of caution than take liberties with the Word of God. I mentioned Nadab and Abihu earlier. What do you think Leviticus 10:1-2 teaches us about how God feels about our adding to worship something that He does not specifically command? He Killed Nadab and Abihu, even though, by all indications, their intentions were good.

Its the same with our worship today. God wont strike us dead over it, but it matters to Him.

sojourner said:
By your logic, then, if we can eschew circumcision, animal sacrifice, keeping the Sabbath, etc., then we are free to praise God with instruments.

Not even remotely. My logic dictates the exact opposite. My argument, since you dont seem to really understand it, is simply this: We cant use the Old Testament to authorize anything we do.
1. If the entire Old Law, being fulfilled and completed in Christ, is no longer authoritative;
2. And the psalms were considered part of that law;
3. Then the psalms are not authoritative, and justify nothing concerning NT worship

So, in doing away with the Old Law as our system of worship and daily religious living (which included animal sacrifice, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, etc), we must do away with instrumental worship as well. They are a part of the same system, and, as Paul said, if we include one aspect of the OT in our NT lives, we are required to follow the whole Old Law.

Gal. 5-3: And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

sojourner said:
It seems to me that the prohibition of instruments is based in Tradition (seeing that there is no specific written injunction against them), and since you say "we have no further need of tradition," that must mean that we have no further need to prohibit instruments from being used.

Not once have I cited a single traditional practice as justification for anything. Part of my point has, in fact, been that tradition authorizes nothing. All of my arguments have come from scripture, and nowhere else.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2010

Exactly. So, why do you consider it safe to go beyond those barriers?

There is no law prohibiting their use. Therefore, it is assumed that it's safe to go there.

Indeed we do. Our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit. But that doesn’t mean he is constantly revealing God’s will. If it does, then he must be telling you that musical instruments in worship are ok, because He certainly didn’t talk about it anywhere else.

Well, if the Holy Spirit speaks to us at our gut level, I'd have to say you're right.

Again, your own conjecture is not good enough. These are matters of eternal consequence that we cannot afford to take lightly. We need something more concrete.

What you have yet failed to produce is a valid argument outlining why God would be so displeased with the use of instruments, and why their use might be a matter of "eternal consequence." I rather suspect from reading the Bible that God is far more concerned about how we treat other people, than our picayune attitude toward perceived laws.

We should always be testing ourselves and expanding our knowledge. But how does that justify our going beyong His established Law.

But there is no established law concerning music.

If the HS, and even Jesus Himself, who has been given all authority, wouldn’t even branch out beyond what was revealed to Him, surely we can’t either.

The prohibition of instruments has not been revealed, though.

Music’s personal effect on you or me has no bearing on authority.

Where there is no law, there is no authority, except our own authority to worship as deeply as is appropriate for us, which for most of us, includes instrumental music.

I discount the authority of tradition as it pertains to daily Christian living and worship provided the Bible and tradition are separate. I’m not saying that all tradition is wrong. The Churches of Christ have many of them. However, our traditions stem from the scriptures, are neither binding nor authoritative, and could easily be done away with. At any rate, it’s not that having traditions is wrong, per se, but tradition doesn’t dictate my beliefs.

Even when that tradition includes the authority of scripture, itself? In the end, all we have is the authority of the community of faith, since it is that community of faith to whom Christ gave authority.

It’s not an issue of diminishing or taking away from our worship. I’ve already told you that I believe Instruments add a separate act of worship not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. They are not expedient, nor are they simply aids. They add a separate act of worship for which we have neither a command nor a recorded apostolic example. Sitting or standing neither adds nor subtracts a thing – that’s the difference.

What separate act do they provide? If worship is broken down into its basic parts, we have the Service of the Word and the Service of the Table. Within those basic divisions we include acts of gathering and departing, penitence, praise, consecration, thanksgiving, intercession. These are carried out in the form of prayer, singing, hearing, seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, preaching, sharing the Meal. Instrumental music can be used to enhance any of those activities.

Let me ask this: What do instruments add to worship that pleases God?

They can add a level of creative deepening and understanding. Surely that pleases God, since it's that creativity and deepening of spirit that is the very aim of our worship.

Can you tell me where God has specifically revealed that musical instruments actually please Him?

I'd have to say the Psalms are a pretty good indication.

Outside of the vague and subjective concept of music “moving and changing us,” there is no justification for it.

I wouldn't call it "vague." Amorphous and ineffable, perhaps. But then, our very concept of God (and usually of ourselves) is amorphous and ineffable.

Subjective, certainly. Objectivity is for knowledge. Subjectivity is for understanding, which is the whole aim of spiritual formation (of which worship is part).

Since instrumental music can move us in directions that sung music cannot, and since the movement toward wholeness is also part of our spiritual formation, I'd have to say that it is justified for that very reason!

sojourner · Aug 13, 2010

But you are forgetting the most important aspect of the early church: the role of the Holy Spirit – the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of the NT. So we cannot say that tradition alone produced the NT. The Bible is a product of God through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, not just tradition. That makes it an afterthought, diminishing its value.

And the Holy Spirit dwells within ... Who? People -- the Church. Tradition includes both God and humanity living out a relationship with each other. That's what makes the Church a living organism. Tradition -- the ways in which we live together -- is it's lifeblood.

That is why I say that yes, clearly tradition played its part in the early church. But God saw fit to have His inspired writings preserved for us to follow today. Thus, the role of tradition itself has changed to a secondary position, not an equal one.

that idea was clearly not in place before the mid 16th century. More than 1500 years of church history dictates that Tradition (of which the texts are part) forms the basis for our life together.
You realize, surely, that the writings are nothing more than a "convenience?" Originally the stories were told orally. The concept of writing them down was not realized until much later. And the concept of preserving letters as "scripture" came later, too. It's a wonderful addition to the Tradition. Anything more constitutes idolatry.

He was not writing just to be concise. Luke states that, whatever information Theophilus had prior to Luke’s letters, it was not the exact truth. If that information includes the oral traditions, then your own logic is working against you here.

In a largely oral society, "Truth" is not watered down to "historical fact," as we have it today. We have a whole different concept of what constitutes "history" than they had. In those days, "exact truth" (facts) were lower on their list of priorities. Aspiring to make hard facts out of something intended to be more flexible than that does a disservice to the authors.

Doubtless, they had some traditions taught by the apostles. But apparently some had Gifts from the Holy Spirit as well. Some prophesied, some spoke in tongues, others interpreted tongues. It’s clear that God was still looking out for his people during the time between Jesus’ ascension and the Apostolic writings.

and those gifts and that Tradition is still in force for the Church.

No. There are still countless things that the Bible has not revealed to us. But it tells us enough of the story to know what we need to do to please God. 2 Tim 3:16.

But it doesn't necessarily tell us how to do those things.

They worshipped on the Sabbath in order to preach to the Jews. There's no indication in scripture that he went to the Synagogue just because that is what he was used to doing as a Hebrew...

I have no idea what you're saying here, since your pronouns are garbled. but they went to Synagogue precisely because they were good Jews. There's every indication in scripture of that being the case.

What makes no sense is why what you call the Church (by which I presume you mean the catholic church) changed its practice regarding something which, according to you, tradition is so clear on, even going so far as to ban singing, an explicitly commanded act of worship. Now that’s just backwards.

At that point in time, there were two branches of one Church: The Eastern Church (Orthodoxy) and the Western Church (Roman Church). I am speaking of the Western Church. Tradition is flexible insofar as it is used to define the essentials of who we are as the Church. At times it was felt that music was superfluous and dangerous. Those times came before the concept of sola scriptura. That tradition has obviously changed since medieval times.

True. However, if Jesus is telling us something, it constitutes a new, authoritative command anyway. In which case, the tradition would have to spur from that, not the other way around.

Maybe, maybe not. If so, surely the dynamics of the command are rooted in the concept that weighing scripture against our better judgment is not only sanctioned, but desirable.

That, again is where the role of the Holy Spirit comes into play.

This statement doesn't address my point. If the Holy Spirit was in play then, certainly it's in play now, which would mean that Papal edicts carry authority, just as the letters we've canonized do.

I’d rather err on the side of caution than take liberties with the Word of God.

So... You're like the servant with one talent, who buries it in the ground out of fear, rather than taking a chance with your gifts?

What do you think Leviticus 10:1-2 teaches us about how God feels about our adding to worship something that He does not specifically command?

What do you think Psalm 149 and Psalm 150 teach us about how God feels about our use of instruments in worship?

God won’t strike us dead over it, but it matters to Him.

Of course it matters! But what matters is our wholeness and our becoming, not our adherence to a law that doesn't exist.

Not even remotely. My logic dictates the exact opposite. My argument, since you don’t seem to really understand it, is simply this: We can’t use the Old Testament to authorize anything we do.

You seem to like Leviticus, though, in this case...

1. If the entire Old Law, being fulfilled and completed in Christ, is no longer authoritative;
2. And the psalms were considered part of that law;
3. Then the psalms are not authoritative, and justify nothing concerning NT worship

Neither is Leviticus...

So, in doing away with the Old Law as our system of worship and daily religious living (which included animal sacrifice, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, etc), we must do away with instrumental worship as well. They are a part of the same system, and, as Paul said, if we include one aspect of the OT in our NT lives, we are required to follow the whole Old Law.

First of all, the Psalms are not considered to be "part of the Law." Second, if an aspect of OT Law is "following God's commandments," surely we must, according to you, either throw that out or stop eating pork and wearing 50/50 cotton/poly shirts. Oh, and start killing homosexuals. You see the paradox? In order to follow the command, we have to not follow the command. It doesn't work.

Not once have I cited a single traditional practice as justification for anything. Part of my point has, in fact, been that tradition authorizes nothing. All of my arguments have come from scripture, and nowhere else.

Except for the part where the use of musical instruments in worship is expressly forbidden...

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 13, 2010

Strength & Honor said:
Its not an issue of diminishing or taking away from our worship. Ive already told you that I believe Instruments add a separate act of worship not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. They are not expedient, nor are they simply aids. They add a separate act of worship for which we have neither a command nor a recorded apostolic example. Sitting or standing neither adds nor subtracts a thing thats the difference.

Just wondering: where in the Bible does it say that it's okay to worship God using the English language?

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

Sojourner, thank you for this fruitful and faith-affirming discussion. It seems that our discussion has boiled down to our differing views on two main subjects:
1. The role and authority of tradition in NT worship, and;
2. The idea of the silence of the scriptures

Would you agree with that?

Rather than quote long, page-filling sections of text back and forth, I would prefer to step back and discuss what’s really at the root of our obvious (yet respectful) disagreement. Would you like to that in this thread, or shall we start a new one? I do have more to say on the subject, but it is both arduous and time consuming to quote such large chucks of text.

sojourner · Aug 13, 2010

I just noticed this:

Sitting or standing neither adds nor subtracts a thing thats the difference.

Posture was (and remains) an extremely important aspect of our worship in the historic Church. Taking different stances before God in worship adds much to the experience.

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Just wondering: where in the Bible does it say that it's okay to worship God using the English language?

Who says I do?

But seriously, this is another example of an expediency, a helpful aid that is used to fulfill a general command.

Smoke · Aug 13, 2010

Strength & Honor said:
Should we use them?

My view: There is not sufficient New Testament authority for us to use them in the public assembley. The New Testament makes no mention of their use in the church, so where do we get the authority to use them?

I'm tempted to agree, but when I was a Christian I would have said, rather, that it was not part of Orthodox tradition to use them.

sojourner said:
Where do we get the authority to use electric lights, airco, radio, telephones, television, carpeting, pews, elevators, plastic, etc.?

Also bad things. Was it electric lights in 19th-century Russia? No, it was not!

You can use air conditioning, though. The Lord expects you to have some sense.

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 13, 2010

Strength & Honor said:
Who says I do?

So you don't worship in English?

Strength & Honor said:
But seriously, this is another example of an expediency, a helpful aid that is used to fulfill a general command.

Which command is that, exactly?

You talked before about the danger in assuming things about what God thinks; doesn't this apply just as much to the assumption that God is okay with you not learning Hebrew or Aramaic and praying in that?

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

Smoke said:
I'm tempted to agree, but when I was a Christian I would have said, rather, that it was not part of Orthodox tradition to use them.

That's partially what sojourner and I have been discussing: the role of tradition.

Smoke said:
You can use air conditioning, though. The Lord expects you to have some sense.

I agree. We are, afterall, commanded to worship descently and in order 1 Cor. 14:40

Smoke · Aug 13, 2010

Strength & Honor said:
I agree. We are, afterall, commanded to worship descently and in order 1 Cor. 14:40

I live in South Carolina, and when the air conditioning goes out people tend to start murdering their spouses and their neighbors. Not decent or in order at all.

I am curious, though, about how and when musical instruments were introduced to Western Christian worship. They aren't traditionally used in any of the Eastern Churches. You can find plenty of Orthodox churches in the U.S. that have adopted organs, choir robes, and other trappings of Western Christianity, but that's a relatively recent innovation and traditionalists frown on it.

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
So you don't worship in English?

A veces adoro a Dios en otra lengua.

I do - except for my mission trips to Honduras, then I do it in Spanish.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Which command is that, exactly?

Well, John 4:24 for one. "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." As long as my worship is in spirit and in truth, then I am obeying this command. The language, in this case, becomes an expediency, the way in which I fulfill that command.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
You talked before about the danger in assuming things about what God thinks; doesn't this apply just as much to the assumption that God is okay with you not learning Hebrew or Aramaic and praying in that?

It's not an assumption. I keep using the word expediency: something that is useful or advantageous but not necessary. Christians are commanded to sing, so I use a song book to keep track of the words.

Strength & Honor · Aug 13, 2010

Smoke said:
I live in South Carolina, and when the air conditioning goes out people tend to start murdering their spouses and their neighbors. Not decent or in order at all.

Ha! My parents live there, too. The humidity is bad - even worse than it is here in Kentucky.

Smoke said:
I am curious, though, about how and when musical instruments were introduced to Western Christian worship. They aren't traditionally used in any of the Eastern Churches. You can find plenty of Orthodox churches in the U.S. that have adopted organs, choir robes, and other trappings of Western Christianity, but that's a relatively recent innovation and traditionalists frown on it.

I didn't know that about the orhodox church. According to the catholic church, they have always been apart of Christian worship.

Musical instruments in worship

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

1/10 Subway Stalinist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

1/10 Subway Stalinist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Member

Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Member

Done here.

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Member

Done here.

Member

Member