A Singing Church

By Stephen Bastin

God's church is a singing church. It is not a singing, strumming, tooting, clanging, thumping church. It is just a singing church. Some think otherwise. Some are not sure it matters. We hope you will consider what we have to say.

Maybe in your religious background, you are not familiar with churches that just sing. Or maybe you are not that certain that all those other forms of music are not equally acceptable with singing in the worship of Almighty God. Or maybe you are just interested in further pursuing the question of the kind of music that ought to be used when the church assembles to worship.

If any of those descriptions fit you, we hope that you will read on. We believe that God has intentionally planned that His church will use only vocal music in worship. We believe that the scriptures will only support vocal music and that every other form of music is not only out of place, but that it is an offense to God. We believe that there are good reasons for the church to remain a singing church.

We are aware that many sincere people do not share these views with us. We bear them no animosity. Many of them are our brothers. We are not concerned with who is right, but with what is right. But at the same time we are convinced by the information that we will be presenting that such people are wrong in their approach to worship.

At the same time, we are very much aware of our own limitations. We do not claim to be infallible. Our interpretations and reasonings from scripture are not the Word of God and are not to be confused with God's infallible utterances. We certainly do not claim infallibility on the subject of music in worship. If there are things which we have overlooked, misstated, misunderstood, misrepresented, misused or if there is any other defect in these writings, we hope that you will make us aware of these things in order that corrections might be made. We are more interested in truth than in continuing in views that are not right. Meanwhile, this is sent forth with the prayer that it might prove helpful in promoting the worship of our Father who is in heaven.

Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God. Noah built an altar when he came out of the ark after the flood. Abraham built altars at Shechem, Bethel and Hebron . He also worshipped God at Beersheba and offered gifts to the priest, Melchizedek. Jacob vowed to tithe after a seeing a vision of angels ascending and descending a ladder whose top reached to heaven. Moses took off his shoes at the burning bush as he stood on holy ground. Men have worshipped from time immemorial.

Not all worship has been accepted by the Lord. Cain's sacrifice was rejected. Nadab and Abihu were struck dead as they came to offer incense to the Lord. Isaiah wrote for God to Israel , "Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations - I cannot bear your evil assemblies." (Isaiah 1:13).

God is the ruler in heaven above. He sits in judgment upon man. We are the creation. He is the Creator. He commands worship. We offer worship to him. We bow before His throne. We are the supplicants. He is the giver of all good things. Worship is not designed to please man. It is offered to please God. God determines what is pleasing in worship. Our feelings are irrelevant in determining what is appropriate for worship. God's feelings alone are to be consulted.

There is a story told in 2 Samuel 6 which seems appropriate to this discussion. It illustrates how a change in one thing can lead to problems in other areas that were not anticipated. Uzzah and Ahio set out to serve God by taking the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem . All Israel had gathered to praise the Lord and bring up the ark to the place which David had prepared. Uzzah ended up dead.

For some time the ark of the covenant had resided near the border with Philistia at a place called Baalah. David had erected a new tent to house the ark in the city of Jerusalem . There were 30,000 men assembled to bring the ark of God up to Jerusalem . It is evident in the way the story unfolds that God's will was not consulted in the matter of how to move the ark.

The ark was placed on a new cart and brought from the house of Abinadab. Uzzah and Ahio were guiding the new cart with Ahio walking in front of it and Uzzah behind it. When the oxen stumbled, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark. God struck him dead "because of his irreverent act."

David was angry because of what had happened. He was afraid of the Lord that day and said, "How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?" The ark was then left at the house of Obed-Edom for three months.

As the story continues, we next read of men carrying the ark up to the city of Jerusalem . With a great celebration, David finally brought the ark of God into the city of Jerusalem and had it placed in the new tent which he had prepared.

The explanation for the death of Uzzah and Ahio is found in the writings of Moses. In Exodus 37:5 we read, "And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it." The idea of carrying the ark is further emphasized in the instructions given to the Kohathites in Numbers 4:15. "...and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. The Kohathites are to carry those things that are in the Tent of Meeting."

Uzzah had violated the command not to touch the ark. The problem had begun with a change in the method of transporting the ark. It may not have seemed important at the time. Perhaps if the oxen had not stumbled, no further accidents would have happened. The oxen did stumble. Uzzah did touch the ark and he died. This could have been avoided by following God's instructions as they later did. Changing God's ways can lead us into problems that would have been avoidable by the simple expedient of obeying the law down to the last detail. We need not have an answer to the question, "How long can we improvise with impunity?"

Please note that nowhere does God forbid the transport of the ark on an oxcart. The statement of a positive command by implication excludes alternatives. The 40th chapter of Exodus describes the setting up of the tabernacle for the worship of Israel . Eight times in that one chapter alone we read the phrase, "as the Lord commanded him." It was important to Moses as it ought to be important to us in matters of worship that we do "as the Lord commanded."

In another passage in the New Testament we read about Jesus. "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah , and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." (Hebrews 7:12-14). Please note the phrase, "Moses said nothing." The reason that Jesus could not be a priest without a change of the law was that the Lord said nothing.

Here again the worship of God is under consideration. If the Lord said nothing it could not be done. It would be considered an offense to God. Worship must be conducted under the express authority of God. Only those people authorized by God as priests could serve at the altar. Nothing in worship can be justified by arguing that the Bible says nothing against it. The question is, "Does the Bible say anything for it?"

In another Old Testament example, two sons of Aaron came to offer incense before the Lord at the tabernacle in the wilderness. We read in Leviticus 10:1-2, "Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord."

They were the right priests. They offered the right incense. They came to the right place. But the fire was not obtained from the altar outside the tabernacle. It was, as the King James Version reads, "strange fire." Their punishment was death. The fire was unauthorized. They had not done what God had forbidden. They failed to do what he had commanded.

Let us move on to the consideration of another Bible principle. The Bible is conveniently divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is important to keep this in mind as we consider the matter of music in worship. For example, our instructions for worship will not be taken from Psalms, they will be taken from the New Testament documents, Matthew to Revelation.

There is a prophecy found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12. "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt , because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

The writer of Hebrews goes on to describe the old covenant as obsolete and passing away. It is to the new covenant that we must go to find the authority for worship in the church of God . The worship of Israel has been made obsolete by the coming of Jesus. All the practices and the accompaniments of worship in the old testament are no longer of primary concern for the worshipper of God today. The church worships according to the pattern laid down in the New Testament. To go back to the Old Testament for authority in worship is to turn from Jesus to Moses. We cannot do that for salvation is found only in a relationship with Jesus Christ.

On the mount of transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus. As Peter, James and John watched, a bright cloud overshadowed them and there came a voice out of the cloud. "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" After the sermon on the mount, the people noted that Jesus "taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law." In Colossians 3:17, Paul wrote, "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." After his resurrection, Jesus said to the apostles as recorded in Matthew 28:18, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." All of these passages point to the authority of Jesus to govern his people. His people we are when we yield up our lives to him. We look to Jesus, not to Moses for instructions for worshipping Almighty God.

Perhaps we ought to add at this point that the authority of Jesus is expressed through the apostles as well as in the gospels. Paul, in his instructions to the Corinthians said: "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command." (1 Corinthians 14:37). The apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit "into all truth." Their writings are as much an expression of the authority of Jesus as their record of his teachings in the gospels.

There are many subjects about which the scriptures are silent. There is nothing for example in scripture on the baptism of infants, the substitution of sprinkling for immersion (or in addition to immersion), praying to Mary and the saints or the use of religious titles such as "Reverend" and "Cardinal". Are we to conclude that these are also acceptable because the scriptures do not prohibit them or are we correct in determining that they are unacceptable because there is no Bible warrant in their favor? We feel quite confident in rejecting these things because they are not a part of the New Covenant and have not the authority of Jesus to commend them.

We turn our attention now to some New Testament quotations concerning music in worship. We will begin with the example of Jesus at the last supper. In Matthew 26:30 we read, "When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives ." The non-use of instrumental music is probably not significant in this case. The disciples and Jesus had just concluded the passover feast in the upper room of a private home. Instruments may not have been available so the fact that they were not used could simply be labeled as an incidental and it could be argued that under other circumstances they might have used an instrument to accompany their singing.

There is one thing of notable interest, however. The Jewish tradition was to sing the second portion of the Hallel (Psalms 115 to 118) at this point in the passover celebration. Later the tradition was to use Psalm 136. Of interest is the fact that the use of a psalm did not require that we understand instrumental accompaniment. The verb form used in Matthew to describe their activity means simply to sing. Psalms were sometimes sung by the Jews without instrumental accompaniment. They were not necessarily accompanied by a harp or by another instrument. This is of interest to us later as we find the church singing psalms.

Another New Testament reference is found at Romans 15:9. "so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: `Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.'" This contains a quotation from 2 Samuel 22:50 or Psalm 18:49. The wording is nearly identical in both sources making it impossible to tell which of the two Paul had in mind.

The verb occuring here which is translated "sing," is the future tense of the Greek word, psallo. (We will be using English equivalents in all our references to Greek words). An often debated issue concerns whether the use of psallo implies instrumental accompaniment to the human voice. Others have traced the usage of the word from its original meaning "to pluck the hair" all the way to its later meaning "to sing" with the additional meaning "to sing to instrumental accompaniment" as its usage at some point along the way.

Rather than enter into a debate over the time at which these changes in meaning occured, going from the Classical to the Medieval period, we will rather approach it from the standpoint that an instrument is implied and proceed to demonstrate what the New Testament writers considered that instrument to be.

For the present we will simply note that in Romans 15:9 we have the translation "sing" used for the word. The following translations have been checked and all concur in that translation of the word in this place: New International Version, King James Version, New American Standard Version, New English Bible, New American Bible, Today's English Version, Living Bible and New World Translation. We know of no version which translates it "sing and play," including instrumental accompaniment as inherent in the word.

We turn our attention next to 1 Corinthians 14:15. "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." The verb here also is psallo. It might prove interesting to try playing an instrument with your mind. Those who are involved in a study of parapsychology, the power of the mind over matter, might find this to be an interesting interpretation of the Corinthian passage. For ourselves, we are content to abide with the translation, "sing."

We read the following in James 5:13, "Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise." Here the New International Version has become a little wordy in the translation. Literally, James has, "Let him sing." We have no objection to making it a "song of praise," although we fail to see why a song of thanksgiving might not be just as appropriate (or would the translators consider thanksgiving as praise?). The point however concerns a response to God out of a joyful heart. James exhorts singing as that response.

It might be well to point out that singing is not our only appropriate response to happiness. At the raising of Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20, they partook of a meal and listened to Paul speak as he continued talking until daylight. No singing is mentioned. We have assumed that they were happy at his being revived. Additionally we do not read of singing in response to any of the miracles of Jesus, yet they must of brought happiness to a great number of people.

It is also true that happiness is not the only motive in the New Testament for singing. Disciples were admonished to teach one another in song. This is found in the Ephesian and Colossian letters of Paul. The disciples had also sung at the conclusion of the Passover feast. In the discussion which Jesus had had with them concerning their upcoming desertion and the events that lay ahead there was hardly any cause to induce happiness. Yet they sang. Paul and Silas were singing and praying in the jail at Philippi . (This is recorded in Acts 16.) There was probably great happiness afterward when the jailer and his family became disciples. There was also probably great happiness when Paul and Silas were released. But at the time Paul and Silas were singing, they had been severely beaten and had been locked in the innermost part of the prison with their feet fastened in the stocks. It is difficult to imagine their songs as an expression of happiness in those circumstances although Paul would later write, "rejoice always." (Happiness and joy are not necessarily synonyms.)

One of the more important passages to consider in this discussion is found in Ephesians 5:15-21. Paul had spent over two years in Ephesus, preaching the gospel and establishing the church. Upon his arrival in Ephesus he had found certain disciples who had not received the Holy Spirit. Upon examining them he found their baptism to be defective and they were rebaptized, their baptism this time being in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus.

Paul's work in Ephesus was in opposition to the prevailing customs. The temple of Artemis (the Latin, "Diana") was located in Ephesus. The silversmiths were devoted to the goddess and much of their business was in the making of silver idols which they sold to the populace. A great uproar ensued in Ephesus as the preaching of Paul and the other disciples came into conflict with the prevailing heathen customs.

In the passsage to which we have referred in the Ephesian letter there are several parallels either stated or implied contrasting the practice of the Christians with the pagan worship that existed. There is a contrast between "filled with wine" and "filled with the Spirit." In both cases the person who is filled is influenced in his actions by that which has filled him. Those filled with wine would act in a drunken manner while those filled with the Spirit would act in a Christian manner. Both wine and the Spirit affect the way in which we act.

There is a contrast between debauchery on the part of the heathen and consecration to Jesus on the part of the disciples. Earlier in this letter Paul had written, "So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more." The disciples were to "put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."

Another contrast occurs in the type of songs which are used. The Christians are to use "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." The word translated "songs" is the Greek word ode. The disciples sing "spiritual odes." On the other hand the Ephesians in their heathen worship used Bacchanalian odes. These we would refer to more commonly as drinking songs.

Again there is a contrast in the accompaniment of the song. The heathen worship had included the use of instrumental music. The worshippers were whipped into a frenzy by the music that was played. This was similar to the type of frenzy that is induced by much of our modern rock music. Some churches are using similar types of music with much the same affect upon the people assembled. On the other hand the disciples sang to the accompaniment of the heart. Here the instrument that accompanies Christian singing is specified. It is "the heart." Paul says that they "sing and make melody with the heart." This is what we meant earlier when we mentioned that we do not have to determine at what point the meaning of psallo changed. Paul specifies the instrument that accompanies the singing. He specifies the heart.

Finally there is a contrast in the god to whom the worship is offered. The Christian offers his psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to the Lord. The heathen in Ephesus offered his worship to the gods, whether Bacchus or Artemis or some other.

The disciple would never consider giving thanks to anyone but God the Father alone. Others who had not learned the truth about Jesus Christ might do otherwise. And having come to the Father through Jesus they would as a matter of course live their lives in sumission to one another out of reverence for Christ. There would be no such submission among the heathen worshipers at Ephesus.

The passage in Colossians 3:16 closely parallels the one we have just reviewed in Ephesians. Again there is the emphasis upon singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Just as nothing but psalms, hymns and spiritual songs could be considered as appropriate in a Christian assembly, so nothing but singing could be considered appropriate.

Other music may be suitable for other occasions. Instrumental music is not an evil in and of itself. The question is not whether it is evil but whether it is appropriate for the worship of Almighty God. Love songs are appropriate for a boy in the wooing of a girl, but inappropriate as an expression of love for God. Instrumental music is appropriate in setting the mood for dinner or a variety of other activities but inappropriate for setting the mood for divine worship.

We will turn our attention now to the testimony of history. We are not dependent upon history for our interpretation of scripture, but will use the history of the early church to see if there is an agreement with our interpretation. If the history of the church in those first centuries following the apostolic age differs from our understanding of scripture then either we or they must be wrong. If the history agrees then we have additional confirmation that our view is, indeed, correct. We will survey a variety of sources in checking our understanding.

The following quotations are taken from Music in the History of the Western Church by Edward Dickinson. "The religious guides of the early Christians felt that there would be an incongruity, and even profanity, in the use of the sensuous nerve-exciting effects of instrumental sound in their mystical, spiritual worship. Their high religious and moral enthusiasm needed no aid from external stimulus; the pure vocal utterance was the more proper expression of their faith. This prejudice against instrumental music, which was drawn from the very nature of its aesthetic impression, was fortified by the associations of instruments with superstitious pagan rites, and especially with the corrupting scenes habitually represented in the degenerate theatre and circus. `A Christian maiden,' says St. Jerome, `Ought not even to know what a lyre or a flute is, or what it is used for.'"

"Many of the fathers, speaking of the religious song, make no mention of instruments; others, like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them. Clement says: `Only one instrument do we use, viz., the world of peace wherewith we honor God, no longer the old psaltery, trumpet, drum, and flute.' Chrysostom exclaims: `David formerly sang in psalms, also we sing today with him; he had a lyre with lifeless strings, the Church has a lyre withl living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre, with a different tone, indeed, but with a more accordant piety.' St. Ambrose expresses his scorn for those who would play the lyre and psaltery instead of singing hymns and psalms; and St. Augustine adjures believers not to turn their hearts to theatrical instruments."

"As far back as 1586 a pamphlet which had a wide circulation prays that `all cathedral churches may be put down, where the service of God is grievously abused by piping with organs, singing, ringing, and trowling of psalms from one side of the choir to the other, with the squeaking of chanting choristers, disguised in white surplices; some in corner caps and silly copes, imitating the fashion and manner of Antichrist the Pope, that man of sin and child of perdition, with his other rabble of miscreants and shavelings.'"

The following quotation is taken from The Early Liturgy - to the Time of Gregory the Great by Josef A. Jungmann, S.J. translated by Francis A Brunner. "Quite a similar problem also arose with regard to instrumental music and singing. How far should such music and singing be admitted into the framework of Christian worship?

"According to the concepts of antiquity, music was a part of each sacrifice even when only incense or a libation were offered. Flutes various stringed instruments, noisy kettle-drums, trumpets and little bells, the so called sistrum, were employed. The music was meant to ward off the demons and to invite the coming of the gods. It must be granted that the philosophers, especially those of Plato's school, voiced their rejection of things so worldly, demanding a `logike thusia;' but they went unheeded.

"An absolute rejection of such noisy music as a whole was achieved only by Christianity. The Church excluded in those days all musical instruments from her worship; plain homophonic singing only was allowed, unaccompanied by any musicalinstruments."

The following is taken from Worship in the New Testament by Gerhard Delling, translated by Percy Scott. "Three concepts are used for these activities: psalms, hymns and songs; it is scarcely possible to distinguish them absolutely from each other....In the New Testament there is nowhere any emphasis laid on the musical form of the hymns; and in particular none on instrumental accompaniment (whereas this is significant on occasion in paganism)."

The following is taken from Worship in the New Testament by C.F.D. Moule. "`Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) must have been heard on many occasions - and incidentally, they were probably unaccompanied. Though the Temple had elaborate choirs with instrumental accompaniment, the poor and frequently clandestine Christian assemblies can hardly have boasted instruments. If stringed music (psallein) is referred to, it is `in the heart' only."

Whether one searches the writings of early Christians after the time of the apostles or whether one reads the writings of present-day historians who have conducted their own research, there is unanimous consent that the early church did not use instrumental music. Different causes are assigned for the absence of instrumental music by the writers cited above. But there is no dispute among them as to the absence of instrumental music in the New Testament church.

We will turn our attention now to some practical considerations. Because of the spiritual nature of that which we offer to God there are limitations upon what may or may not be done.

It is important to note that worship involves the spirit of man. Feelings are not worship. Rather, worship is an activity which is intended to affect our feelings. We are not advised to worship God when we feel good and abstain when we do not feel our mood is right. We worship on God's command not on the basis of our feelings. We ought to "feel like" worshipping God on all occasions.

In discussing the matter of worship with a woman outside the Samaritan village of Sychar, Jesus offered these observations. "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." While the Samaritans felt good about what they had done on Mount Gerizim, Jesus concludes that it was done in ignorance and did not constitute the worship the God demands.

We previously noted Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 14:15. "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." In the music which God authorizes in the church there is the presence of spirit and mind. Both our feelings and our thinking processes should be involved in the music we produce.

Throughout Paul's discussion of the conduct of worship at Corinth there is the emphasis that the things done ought to be done for the edification of the congregation. Tongues which are not understood are not to be used in the assembly without an interpreter. For those who cannot be understood, Paul says they "will just be speaking into the air." Instrumental music may create good feelings but it will never edify. It has no place in worship for this reason alone. It can only speak to the air.

This is not to say that all that we do is done for edification. There are other abuses that creep into our worship that ought to be corrected as well. However, the presence of other elements that are inappropriate does not justify the addition of instrumental music. It just shows our inconsistency.

The whole concept of a "vocal band" would seem to fall into this category. Just because the sound is being produced by a human without instrumental accompaniment does not mean that it is, "ipso facto," acceptable to God. The use of amplifiers to make the human voice sound like a drum, or a guitar, or some other instrument hardly qualifies as singing to God with the spirit and with the mind. It does not qualify as worshipping God in spirit and in truth. It simply means that we have tried to have the best of both worlds, to satisfy those who insist upon accompanied singing and to satisfy those who want instrumental accompaniment. The result is probably the worst of both worlds because there is neither unaccompanied singing nor the use of the best instruments possible.

The following passage is found in Romans 12:1: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - which is your spiritual worship."

Notice in this passage the contrast with the Old Testament doctrine of sacrifices. In the Old Testament the worshipper was advised to bring his best animal as an offering to God. It might be a cow, a sheep, a goat, a dove or a pigeon. Whatever it was it had to be without blemish and something that would have been useful to the worshipper had he not offered it to God.

Now in the New Testament that has been changed. No longer are animal sacrifices needed or acceptable to God. Jesus has made the sacrifice of himself and all has been changed. Now the worshipper comes before God with only himself to offer. The concepts are the same in the matter of music. In the temple the use of instrumental music was accepted in Israel. The animal sacrifices were offered. Now there are no animal sacrifices, there is only the offering of the worshipper himself.

In the use of music there is no longer the sound of that which comes from an instrument there is only what the worshipper himself has to offer. The Hebrew writer puts it thus: "Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise - the fruit of lips that confess his name." (Hebrews 13:15).

There is an interesting parallel between our singing in worship and our insistence upon immersion as baptism. In both instances we rest our case upon the Word of God and our opposition to change or addition is based upon the silence of the scripture, upon God's failure to authorize anything else.

First of all in baptism there is a need to carefully understand the meaning of the word. As one can easily determine by consulting a dictionary, the word baptize has been brought over into our English language without translation. Our dictionaries after defining the current usage of the word will in most cases give the derivation. For example, Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has the following entry for the word, "baptize": [ME baptizen, fr. OF baptiser, fr LL baptizare, fr. GK baptizein to dip, baptize, fr. baptos dipped, fr. baptein to dip; akin to ON kafa to dive].

Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek it is easily determined that the standard translation of the word is found in the meaning "to dip." To sprinkle or to pour water upon a person are both ideas foreign to the Greek word employed. Both of those ideas are expressed by quite different Greek words. Having understood what the word meant in the writings of the New Testament we are then prepared to carry out the instructions as given by God.

In Romans 6 we learn there are some theological considerations which affect the manner in which baptism is carried out. Paul speaks of Christians as having died to sin, as having been buried with Christ in baptism and as walking in newness of life following their baptism. There is then a re-enactment of those events in the that were significant in the life of Christ. Christ is imitated as a person takes on the responsibilities of the Christian life. Like Christ, we die, are buried and are given a new life. If sprinkling is substituted for the burial then there is a blurring of the significance of what is happening as the person becomes a disciple. Substitution affects the theology of baptism and so we see the consistency of continuing the practice of immersion for baptism.

This is not to say that men have not given new meanings to the word "baptize." It is to say that we will not accept these as having equal authority with the Word of God. For the person who is sincerely desirous of doing the will of God the matter is settled upon learning what God has actually said. It is additionally helpful if we can see some of the underlying reasons forwhat we are doing.

So, too, is it in the matter of music. We determine what is actually said by the writers of the New Testament. Their instructions were to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Their is no problem here in determining the meaning of a Greek word. The Greek word has been translated into English. There is no discrepancy among the translations. They are unanimous in translating "sing."

As in baptism there are theological considerations which affect our decision to use only vocal music in our worship. In the Old Testament there was an emphasis upon the physical aspects of worship. There was the smell of the burning incense and the sacrificing of an animal. There was the appearance of a tabernacle or a temple with its appliances covered with gold and the ornate embroidery and engravings upon wood. There was the sound of impressive choirs accompanied by the best instruments of men's inventive genius.

In the New Testament there is no temple made with men's hands. There is only the church, the body of Christ, humans with all their sins and imperfections. There are no priests with their gorgeous apparel and their carefully orchestrated rituals. (This is not to say that a priesthood has not been introduce into some churches.) There are no animal sacrifices and no burning of incense. There is no choir and no sounding of cymbals and trumpets. There are only the worshippers with themselves to offer. Whatever gifts of singing they possess will be offered in praise to God. He desires the true worship of Himself from our hearts and from our souls. With such sacrifices alone will He be pleased.

Therefore we sing upon the same basis as we dip people in the rite of baptism. For both we have the authority of God's word. We have no authority for any other rite of baptism. We have no authority for any other kind of music in the worship of the church.

God has not condemned everything He does not want in worship. He did not do that in the Old Testament; He does not do it in the New. His instructions ought to suffice. For the humble seeker after God, it is enough that the God of heaven has said what He wants. We need no further elaborations.

It is indisputable that worship can be made more pleasing to the desires of men. Public television has given us insight as to what will attract the multitudes. We have often marveled at the ability of our mass media experts to attract the attention of men. A Sunday afternoon football game has far greater power to attract the attention of people than the Sunday morning worship of God.

However, in worship we are not seeking the praise of men. We are not seeking the happiness of men. We are offering to God what we owe to Him as our Creator. All the shouting and thumping and twanging in the world can never supplant the bowed head and the humbled heart of the seeker after God. We need to be less concerned about how worship affects us and more concerned about how worship affects God for it is God's pleasure that we seek in worship.

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:15-17).

Appendix A -Positive and Negative Commands

What is being set forth here may seem obvious to most. For that reason this material was not included in the main section of this report concerning music in worship.

However, there may be those who will be helped so this appendix has been added. There are no rules to which we appeal. The only rule which would seem to apply in this case is common sense.

Commands may be divided into those which are negative and those which are positive. Negative commands are those which prohibit or limit action in some way. Positive commands are those which set forth some action which ought to be done or some quality which one ought to acquire.

In our diagram below, negative commands are represented by the empty rectangle within a box. That which is prohibited is represented by the empty rectangle. All activity must remain on the outside. It is a violation to encroach upon the area that is closed off by the rectangle. The box could have been extended almost indefinitely. The negative command in reality forbids very little. Everything not prohibited is permitted.

On the other hand, things are much different in the case of a positive command. The positive command is represented by the shaded rectangle in the next column.

When a positive command has been given it restricts activity to the area enclosed by the rectangle. All activities of a like nature that are not specified by the positive command are excluded as not following under the authority of what has been commanded. A positive command is very restrictive in that only that which is commanded may be done with approval.

For example, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus quotes that portion of the 10 commandments which said, "Do not murder."

Since this is a negative command there was a great deal of leeway in how one might treat someone he felt like murdering. He might hate him passionately. He might inflict great bodily harm as in a beating. There are all sorts of things that he might do as long as he stopped short of murder. Still, he would have obeyed the command, "do not murder."

Later in that same sermon, Jesus gave what we call the "golden rule." Jesus said, "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Or, again, he said, "Love your enemies." Both of these being positive commands have excluded a great deal that one might wish to inflict upon an enemy and have reduced a person to doing that which his enemy will like. While several pages might be filled by the things we ought not do to an enemy, the Bible has simplified the whole matter with a straightforward positive command.

This is not some strange new idea. The principle has often been applied in the rearing of my children. When I have told them to go to bed, I do not feel a compulsion to run on and on telling them all the things that they are not to do. Go to bed. If they do not go to bed, they have disobeyed. The positive command has eliminated all options. (And if it has not they will soon be made to realize their mistake!)

Sometimes in such matters a parent may feel a desire to explain to his children why only one activity has been commanded. That is all well and good, but not necessary. If one wants to explain, one may. Whether an explanation is given or not a positive command still stands as one that limits action to the one thing that is specified. God sometimes explains to us and sometimes he does not. Either way, he is still God and we are still the children.

Of course the application of the principle in the matter before us involves music in worship. If God had told us not to use a trumpet, then any other type of music would have been acceptable. On the other hand, if God had said to make music with a trumpet then all others would have been excluded by the positive command. What God has actually said is to sing and to make music in our hearts and therefore all other kinds of music from all other sources are excluded by the positive commands.