A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 2

Last week we pointed out how a cappella music in worship, far from being an oddity, was the norm throughout the early Church. This week, we’ll pick up with the Protestant Reformation and consider some subsequent developments. One trend that is seen especially during this time period is the connection between Church reform and the rejection of instrumental music in worship.

At the time of the Reformation, two attitudes towards instrumental worship in the Church arose. On the one hand, Lutherans and Anglicans, seeking to maintain as much continuity with then-current practice as possible, maintained instrumental worship. On the other hand, the Reformed branch (those influenced by Calvin and Zwingli, such as Presbyterians) and the Anabaptists rejected instrumental music in public worship. Their argument for doing so is simple and familiar: the New Testament does not authorize it, the early Church rejected it, and the corrupted Roman church introduced it.

Over time, however, the descendants of these movements began reintroducing instruments into worship, but not without protest. Within Presbyterianism, for example, there remains a significant branch that continue to insist on a cappella worship. In fact, as I write this, I have before me a book published by a Presbyterian publishing house titled Joyful Voices: A Cappella Singing in Congregational Worship. Baptists are another group which have a history of rejecting instruments in worship. For example, Charles Spurgeon, while giving freedom to other congregations to do otherwise, nevertheless strongly insisted on a cappella music within the congregation he led. Today, the group known as Primitive Baptists continues the practice of a cappella worship.

As mentioned above, the Anglican Church continued to use instruments in worship; however, the early leaders of Methodism (which began as a reform movement within Anglicanism) rejected instruments in the Church. Adam Clarke, Methodism’s most influential biblical commentator, is worth quoting at length on this topic. In his commentary on Amos 6:5, Clarke writes, “I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion and that they are sinful… I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor.” Clarke then goes on to quote John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, as quipping, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN.”

Again, the argument so far is not that, because John Wesley and Adam Clarke agree with a cappella worship, therefore it is correct. The point simply remains that there is very strong historical precedence for a cappella worship in the Church. Next week, Lord willing, we’ll consider the great American reformation movement, commonly referred to as the Restoration Movement. Here too, as we will see, is a call to biblical faithfulness which leads to an insistence on a cappella music. But, as is the trend throughout history, we will also see how subsequent generations moved away from that original position.

A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 1

“Oh, you’re the ones with no instrument.” Perhaps you’ve heard that before. One of the “distinctives” of churches of Christ is a cappella singing during worship. That we do not have a band or even a piano is considered by many to be an oddity. And it is true that in our 21st century American context a cappella music is an oddity. After all, in any given town the largest churches are likely going to be Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, or Non-Denominational – all of which make more or less use of instrumental music in worship. However, when the entire history and scope of Christianity is taken under consideration, we quickly find that a cappella worship, far from being an oddity, is well within the historical norm of Christianity. We are an oddity only in our current context. This fact helps us to see the reasonableness of our position.

To begin with, the very phrase a cappella means “as the chapel.” Unaccompanied singing was such the norm for a long enough time that “church singing” became synonymous with singing without instruments. That alone should help us see that by insisting on unaccompanied music in the public worship of the Church, we are not being weird or unreasonable.

Further, the early church, for many centuries, was uniform in its praise of a cappella worship and condemnation of instrumental music in worship. Significant leaders such as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Basil of Caesarea are all on record as being against the use of instruments in public worship (see chapter 2 of A Cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, by Everett Ferguson for quotes from these men and others). John Chrysostom, writing in the 4th century, is representative when he says, “in olden times they were thus led by these instruments because of the dullness of their understanding and their recent deliverance from idols. Just as God allowed animal sacrifices, so also he let them have these instruments, condescending to help their weakness” (quoted in Ferguson, 67). For Chrysostom and others, instrumental music in worship was permitted by God due to the childishness of Israel; therefore, it has no place in the maturity of the Church.

This view prevailed until the Western church (what we know as the Roman Catholic Church) slowly introduced instruments into worship, possibly as late as the 10th century. Remarkably, this development only occurred in the West. In the East, in what is called the Eastern Orthodox Church, instruments were not introduced, even to this day. Consider that for a moment: the introduction of instruments was a late development of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, was a break from the consensus of earlier Christians, and was rejected by the Eastern churches. Why would we want to join the Roman Church of the Middle Ages in adding instruments to worship? Food for thought.

As we close this article, I want to reemphasize what we’re trying to accomplish at this time. The point is not that being in the majority or having the backing of John Chrysostom means we are right to insist on a cappella music. The point that I’m trying to emphasize is that by insisting on a cappella music, we are not oddities, but are quite normal within Christianity – the oddity was actually the addition of instruments.  Understanding this helps us to see that it is an absolutely reasonable position to insist on a cappella music in worship. Next week, Lord willing, we’ll consider the Protestant Reformation and some subsequent developments.

Objections to Baptism: Baptism is a Work, pt. 2

Having laid the foundation for this discussion last week, we will now lay out some arguments as to why baptism is not a work. As previously mentioned, the concept under discussion is that of salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works as expressed by Paul in, for example, Ephesians 2:8–9. We must help others see that by “works” Paul does not have baptism in mind.

First, I would point out that the Paul who wrote Ephesians 2:8–9 is the same Paul who wrote Romans 6:1–4, 1 Corinthians 12:12–13, Galatians 3:26–27, Colossians 2:11–13, and Titus 3:4–5. He also spoke the words recorded in Acts 22:16. Paul obviously does not have any problem connecting baptism with salvation. Such a recognition should be a major red flag for those wanting to label baptism as a “work.”

Second, by “apart from works,” Paul does not mean “and you cannot do anything.” What Paul is doing in passages like Ephesians 2:8–9 is contrasting two systems of salvation: a system of grace and a system of works. A system of grace is one in which a gift is freely given by one to another. It is benevolent in nature. The gift is not earned and the recipient can lay no claim to having deserved the gift; the recipient can only render a “thank you.” Examples of such a system include a parent giving a gift to a child, or freely giving assistance to someone in need. This is the only system by which we can think of our relationship to God: he has given us the undeserved gift of salvation, and all we can return is “thank you.”

A system of works on the other hand is transactional in nature. In such a system, two people agree on specified deeds for specified pay. Upon completion of the deed, pay is given as proper due. There is no gift or “thank you;” there is work and earned pay. We all recognize such a system: it’s called a job. When you do your work and receive a paycheck, your boss is not being benevolent, he is giving you what you’ve earned. This is the type of thinking that a Christian absolutely cannot have when approaching God. As soon as we begin thinking of our actions (whether belief, baptism, prayer, good works, etc.) as somehow compelling God to act on our behalf, we have entered into a system of works-salvation, a system foreign to Christianity.

We must show that a system of grace still allows for the recipient of the gift to do something to receive the gift. Again, the recipient does not earn, but receives. By way of analogy, unwrapping a present in no way diminishes the fact that it is a present! But how about a biblical example: the exodus from Egypt. In the exodus, God is rescuing the Israelites because of His covenantal love for them. They are slaves, in need of rescue, and can only cry out to God – no earning salvation here. When God goes to rescue the Israelites from Egypt, He tells them to sacrifice a lamb and put the blood on their doorposts. Then, the people are to follow Moses to the Red Sea which God divides for them so they can walk across. Now, by sacrificing the lamb, putting the blood on the doorposts, following Moses, and crossing the Red Sea, do the Israelites in any way earn their salvation? Of course not. Did they have to do all those things to participate in the salvation God was bringing about? Yes! In the same way, we in no way earn salvation by baptism, even though we must do it to participate in the salvation brought about in Christ Jesus.

In short: baptism is not a proscribed work, but a prescribed act to receive the gift of salvation. I hope these articles on baptism have been helpful. May God bless you. Thanks for reading.

Objections to Baptism: Baptism is a Work, pt. 1

As mentioned last week, we now begin to address what I am convinced is the heart of the issue regarding the debate over baptism for the forgiveness of sins: is baptism a work? Appealing to the thief on the cross or arguing that Acts 2:38 means “because” are really symptoms of this deeper question. What I would like to do in this article is introduce this idea and to help the reader understand how much of a challenge it is for someone who has always thought of baptism as a work to adjust their point of view to see that baptism is not a work in the biblical sense. In the next article, Lord willing, we’ll go more into detail as to why baptism is not a work.

Now, credit where credit is due, most of those who argue that baptism cannot be for the forgiveness of sins because it is a work do so because they take seriously Paul’s words found in Ephesians 2:8–9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” We are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works – this is a biblical truth. In fact, this is THE biblical truth that led to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. (Somewhat ironically, Martin Luther, the hero of the Reformation, himself believed and taught that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins). So, insofar as a person is seeking to protect the biblical truth of salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works they do well.

However, problems begin to arise when non-biblical definitions are applied to the biblical truth. This is most evidently the case when dealing with the concept of “works.” Through zeal to protect salvation by grace, or due to misunderstanding, or bad teaching – perhaps a combination of all those and more – many Protestants have come to define “works” as “doing anything.” Based on that definition, “salvation by grace, through faith, and apart from works” is then understood as “salvation by grace, through faith, and you are not allowed to do anything.” Now, you may be thinking, “what about belief or repentance or confession – aren’t those all doing something and, therefore, works by such a definition?” And you would be absolutely correct. I think it is fair to say that there is some inconsistency in this regard, people wishing to label baptism as a work while giving belief, repentance, and confession a pass.

But, looking past any inconsistencies, let’s pause and reflect for a moment on how difficult it is for a person who has always thought this way about baptism – who is zealous in their defense of salvation by grace, through faith – to adjust their frame of reference to see that baptism is not a work in a biblical sense. According to their thinking, a work is to do anything. Therefore, baptism is a work. Therefore, to allow it to be for the forgiveness of sins is nothing less than to destroy the gospel of God’s grace. This is what we must understand: in their minds, the gospel itself is at stake. To bring such a person to a proper understanding of baptism will require on their part a complete paradigm shift – a feat that is usually neither easy, nor quick, nor pleasant. We should not be surprised when such a person resists our arguments, no matter how biblically sound and persuasive. After all, changing our understanding of fundamental truths usually doesn’t happen without resistance. With that in mind, may we take Paul’s words to Timothy to heart: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2). Thanks for reading. May God bless you.

Further Reading:

Objections to Baptism: Acts 2:38 Means “Because,” not “For”

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, ESV)

One of the clearest statements regarding the purpose of baptism is Acts 2:38. It is an abundantly clear statement: baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. If one wishes to argue that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38 must be dealt with. One common argument against the clear reading of this verse is to argue that the Greek word eis (“for”) can also mean “because” and that this is the proper translation of the verse. In that case, Peter’s statement should read, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been forgiven.” On this reading, a person is baptized, not to receive forgiveness of sins, but because their sins have already been forgiven. But is that a legitimate translation? No, it is not – let’s see why.

First of all, it is generally agreed within the academic realm that the idea of eis meaning “because” instead of “for” has been defeated. If you really want to dive into it, find the back-and-forth article debate by J.R. Mantey and Ralph Marcus in The Journal of Biblical Literature 70 and 71. But let’s be real, you probably don’t read Koine Greek or have any inclination to go digging through academic articles – and the same is true of your friend who’s arguing that we are baptized because we are forgiven. Since that’s the case, how might you approach this argument? I’d suggest two approaches:

First, take a look at the major English translations of the Bible. Grab a stack of them and look at them with your friend. Every one of them will say something along the lines of “be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” and not one of them will read “because your sins are forgiven.” The NRSV is perhaps the most explicit: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Each of our major translations is the work of dozens of the very best Koine Greek specialists who come from a variety of backgrounds. Now, is it possible that all of our translations have misunderstood such a simple sentence? Realistically speaking, no. Since the translations are all very consistent and clear, the burden of proof falls on the person arguing that Acts 2:38 should read “because.” They must prove why their preferred translation is correct and all of the Greek specialists involved in translating our Bibles are wrong.

Second, after looking at various translations, grab one of them and turn to Matthew 26:28 where Jesus says, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Notice the last part of the verse, “for the forgiveness of sins.” In Greek, as reflected in English, this statement is almost identical to “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38. In both instances, eis is translated as “for,” not “because.” Is Jesus’s statement difficult to understand or confusing at all? No, it is straightforward and is understood by all who read it. Would we ever argue that Jesus’s blood is poured out “because sins are forgiven”? Of course not! Since we would never translate Matthew 26:28 with “because,” we also ought not translate Acts 2:38 in that way.

Further Reading

Objections to Baptism: The Thief on the Cross

One of the most common arguments against baptism being for the forgiveness of sins is the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39–43). Simply put, the argument goes as follows: since the thief on the cross was forgiven without being baptized, then baptism must not be for the forgiveness of sins. This argument, however, does not hold. First, we’re assuming that the thief was not baptized under John’s baptism – an assumption I’m happy to grant, but still an assumption we need to acknowledge. Even if he was, John’s baptism is not New Testament baptism (Acts 19:1–5).

Second, and more importantly, the thief is still under the Old Covenant, but we are under the New Covenant. There is a fundamental difference between life before Jesus’s death and resurrection and life after those events. It is only after Jesus’s resurrection that Christians are given the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18–20). It is also under the New Covenant that we are told the purposes of baptism, one of which is “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). We cannot allow assumptions and inferences based on an Old Covenant event to overrule the clear instruction and explanation given to us under the New Covenant.

Third, the thief on the cross is in an exceptionally unique situation: he is one of only two people who will ever be hanging on a cross alongside Jesus. Unique circumstances cannot be made normative. We all understand this, even those who appeal to the thief in their argument against baptism for the forgiveness of sins. After all, no one is advocating that a person must be nailed to a cross next to Jesus for their sins to be forgiven! Also, it’s noteworthy that nowhere in the New Testament is appeal made to the thief on the cross as an answer to any question, including the question of salvation.

Finally, and most importantly, Jesus is Lord and can instruct and forgive as He sees fit. If He looks at a man and says “be healed,” know that man is healed (e.g., Mark 10:51–52). Or, if He says “go wash, then you will be healed,” then know that once the man does as instructed, he will be healed (e.g., John 9:6–7). Likewise, when Jesus tells the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise,” we can know for certain that Jesus has forgiven that thief of his sins. But what does Jesus say to us? As mentioned above, He instructs us to be baptized, and part of the explanation as to why is that our sins are forgiven at baptism.

Summing it up: we cannot ignore what Jesus and His apostles teach us plainly by appealing to what Jesus said to someone else in an incredibly unique situation and under a different covenant.

Further Reading

Lord, lord, and Lord – A Note on Translation Customs

While rarely used in day-to-day conversation (well, at least rarely used in a non-expletive sense), one of the most frequently used words in our Bible is “lord.” Simply defined by Miriam-Webster, a lord is “one having power and authority over others.” Throughout the Bible, both humans and God are referred to as “lord,” but there is a fundamental difference between the relative lordship of a human and the absolute Lordship of God. Recognizing this, a tradition has developed within English Bible translations to acknowledge that fundamental difference and to help the reader understand who is being referred to.

Whenever a human is being referred to, the word is kept lowercase: lord. So, in Acts 25:26, Festus is recorded as saying, “But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him,” referring to the Roman emperor, Nero. However, when God is being referenced, English translators indicate this by capitalizing the first letter regardless of where the word is in a sentence: Lord. This capitalization is used of any member of the Trinity, and is often used of Jesus. So, at the beginning of Paul’s letters we frequently read something along the lines of, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Finally, there is a special usage of the word lord in our English Bibles: Lord. This style of the word, with all uppercase letters, is a special identifier used in many translations to alert the reader that the divine name is being used. This special usage is only going to be found in the Old Testament (see, for example, Exodus 34:5–6). The divine name is approximated by the English letters Y-H-W-H, but the precise pronunciation is not known with certainty. (Note: “Jehovah” is an attempt at pronouncing YHWH, but is almost certainly incorrect; “Yahweh” is likely the closest thing to a correct pronunciation). Well before the time of Jesus, the Jewish people, out of respect for God’s name, stopped speaking the name out loud. So, when reading the text of Scripture, instead of vocalizing “YHWH,” they would instead say out loud “Lord” or “The Name.” While there is no biblical instruction to not utter God’s name, the tradition of saying “Lord” in place of “YHWH” seems to be implicitly approved of by the New Testament which refers to God as “Lord,” but not “YHWH.” While there are some English Bibles that spell out YHWH, most translations follow the custom begun by the Jews and followed by the apostles, translating the divine name as “Lord”.

I hope this information is useful for your Bible studies!