Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” The Christian Church people and our own folk both claim to accept Campbell’s statement as the motto for restoring New Testament Christianity.

The biblical autographs claim plenary, verbal, inerrant inspiration for themselves (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1Corihthians 2:10-13; John 10:34-35). The concept of not adding to or taking from the message of God is set forth in both the Old and New Testaments (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19). Those who teach the Christian religion must “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). The practices of God’s people must be authorized (specifically or generically) by the New Testament or abandoned.

Those of the Christian church and the churches of Christ claim to maintain silence where the Scriptures are silent. However, quite a difference exists between the two groups concerning the silence of the New Testament as it relates to the question of instrumental music in worship.

An instrumentalist brother said, “Many of us find it difficult to see how our non-instrumental brethren determine in which instances the silence of the Scripture becomes a prohibition.”

A non-instrumentalist brother responded by saying, “Many of us find it difficult to see how our instrumental brethren determine in which instances the silence of the Scripture becomes permission.” He then asked; “How does it permit instrumental music but prohibit infant sprinkling and dancing and incense as worship?”

Does silence mean we can do anything not prohibited or does it mean we can practice only what is authorized?

Although the concept of exclusion appears verbatim at least five times in the New Testament (Acts 15:24; Hebrews 1:5, 13; 7:3, 14), recently, some among us have denied it as a legitimate method of interpretation.

Exclusion does not mean it is wrong for us to engage in practices that were unknown to the first-century church. Early congregations did not use our type of church buildings, electric lights, indoor baptistries and invitation songs; however, these generically are authorized by the Word of God; if they are not, we should forsake them.

The command to assemble (Hebrews 10:25; Acts 20:7) necessitates a place, and a church building with electric lights is expedient for fulfilling the command. The command to evangelize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16) gives authority for an invitation song. The command to baptize (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16) furnishes approval for a baptistry.

These modern-day practices do not in any way add to the Lord’s teaching. In using buildings, baptistries and invitation songs, we are doing exactly what God said, namely, assembling, baptizing and evangelizing.

Exclusion means that a practice authorized by God excludes all other practices that fit into the same rank or order. Anything that can be subordinated to a bib1ical teaching is an expedient. A baptistery is not another kind of baptism or an additional baptism; it is a means for expediting Bible baptism.

Anything that is a coordinate to the Lord’s teaching fits into the same rank or order with what He has said, must be considered as an addition, and is lacking in authority. A universal human head over the church is another kind of head than the Lord Jesus and also an additional head; hence, no divine authority is given for him to exist.

If this type of reasoning is incorrect, how would it be possible to add to heaven’s message?

The principle is illustrated in Hebrews 7:14. Thirteen tribes constituted the Hebrew nation; however, only men from the tribe of Levi could serve as priests. In showing that Jesus could not have been a priest under the Old Testament order, the author of Hebrews said, “For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Hebrews 7:14 ASV).

Where is the passage in the Old Testament prohibiting a man of Judah from serving as a priest? It cannot be found. Then, how could the writer of Hebrews argue as he did? The principle of exclusion furnishes the answer.

When God specified Levites, men from all other tribes were excluded. Tall short, bald, hairy, rich, poor, brilliant and simple Levites could serve as priests. These traits were included in the word “Levite” and added nothing to the Lord’s teaching. However, only Levites were authorized by God to serve as priests in Old Testament times.

King Saul, a Benjamite, understood the concept enunciated above. However; he “forced” himself to act as a priest and offered sacrifice to God. Because of his action, he lost the kingdom (1 Samuel 13:8-14).

King Uzziah, a Judahite, attempted to fulfill a priestly function by burning incense in the temple. Azariah and 80 other priests withstood him and said, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense . . . Go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God” (RSV).

God smote Uzziah with leprosy; and he remained a leper for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). No excuse existed for what he did. He might have said the Bible was silent as for as his performing as a priest was concerned. He might even have asked for the scripture that forbade his action. The truth is that he acted without authority and paid a terrible price.

The principle is illustrated in everyday life. For example; when a physician writes a prescription, he tells only the kind of medicine to be included. He does not need to relate what is excluded or prohibited.

The druggist understands that other kinds of medicine are excluded simply because they are not mentioned.. He also understands that using a container for the medicine, a label, and a sack do not constitute additions to the prescription. They are subordinates to what is prescribed and expedite the delivery of the medicine to the patient.

In buying a pair of trousers, I specify that they are to be 31 inches in the legs and 34 inches in the waist. Telling the clerk what sizes not to include is unnecessary. If it were necessary, buying a suit in a lifetime would be impossible.

All understand that stating the size excludes all other sizes. Scissors, tape measure, hanger, wrapping paper and string are not excluded as they do not fit into the same category as do other sizes. Actually, they are expedients involved in filling the order I made.

Suppose someone among us should attempt to make himself head of the church. Is the Bible silent about the matter? If not, where is the verse that prohibits a man from functioning in this capacity? It cannot be found.

Because Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23), we all know that everyone else, whether angelic or human, is excluded. Obviously, elders are not excluded as they do not fit into the same category with the Savior. They are simply shepherds tending the flock under Jesus, the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Suppose some should attempt to bind either the Catholic or Protestant hierarchy on our people. Where is the biblical teaching to keep it from being done? The. teaching is there, but it does not appear in the form of prohibition. Rather, it can be found in God’s positive declarations as to what He wants done. His having specified 1ocal churches With bishops and deacons (Philippians l:1; Acts 14:23) excludes a super church organization overseen by a hierarchy unknown to the New Testament.

Is it biblical to pray to God through Mary, the mother of Jesus? The answer is no, but where is the verse that prohibits it? Because we are to pray to God through the one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5; John 16:23), all other mediators are excluded. The intercession of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26) is not excluded because it does not fit into the same category as Christ’s mediation.

Is the Bible silent on infant baptism? Surely, the command to baptize believers (Mark 16:16) excludes atheists, horses, fence-posts and infants. In this way we answer those who say it is biblical to baptize believers and infants. Our opposition is not based upon prohibition but exclusion that prohibits.

Those aware of this controversy know that others besides us have opposed and continue to oppose instrumental music in worship. Ulrich Zwingli, as a reformer in Switzerland, took musical instruments out of the church buildings. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, said the instrument in Methodist chapels was all right, provided it was neither seen nor heard.Charles Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher, said he would as soon pray to God with machinery as sing with it. John Girardeau, a Presbyterian, wrote an entire book opposing the use of the instrument titled Instrumental Music in Public Worship.

Alexander Campbell felt the instrument in worship was as much out of place as a cowbell in a concert. Moses Lard, J.W. McGarvey, Jacob Creath, David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning were opposed to its use.

Primitive Baptist Churches are adamant in their opposition to the instrument. Most of the Greek Orthodox Churches still do not use instrumental music.

In 1965, James McKinnon, a Catholic, wrote a 311 page doctoral dissertation for Columbia University titled The Church Fathers and instrumental Music. He concluded that the early church not only did not use it in its worship but also opposed it in weddings and banquets.

How is it that people so separated from one another by time, culture and religious affiliation came to a similar conclusion?

The New Testament is no more silent on instrumental music in worship than it is concerning infant baptism, the papacy, Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, and the mediatorial work of Mary. When God specified that His people are to sing (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19), He excluded all other kinds of music except vocal music.

He did not exclude song leaders, books, four-part music, pitch or microphones. None of these is an addition, namely, another kind of music. They are all expedients because they are subordinates to the command and assist in its fulfillment.If mechanical music is not another kind of music in addition to the one commanded, what would have to be done to add to the teaching concerning singing? Is the command to sing unique in that there is no way it can be corrupted? Naturally, one’s attitude can be incorrect while singing but the point here is the action itself.The same year Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Scriptures are. silent, we are silent,” he also wrote the Declaration and Address. In that work, he set forth 13 propositions he believed were essential in restoring New Testament Christianity.A close study of Articles 3 and 5 show that his reasoning provides the thrust for this article. Even if I have misunderstood him, I think I have interpreted the New Testament properly.

Logically, our movement stands or falls in our attitude toward the instrument. This is not to say that all of us are consistent or logical. However, the same reasoning used to oppose the papacy, Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, the mediation of Mary, and infant baptism is what I use in opposing instrumental music in worship. From my perspective, they all stand or fall together. Take the principle of exclusion from me, and I would be at sea without a chart or compass.

Many years ago, McGarvey stated an attitude similar to mine concerning the principle of exclusion as it relates to instrumental music in the following words: “It is manifest that we cannot adopt the practice (i.e., instrumental music, JA) without abandoning the obvious and only ground on which a restoration of Primitive Christianity can be accomplished, or on which the plea for it can be maintained.

Such is my profound conviction, and consequently the question with me is not on the choice or rejection of an expedient, but the maintenance or abandonment of a fundamental and necessary principle.”

Dr. Jimmy Allen taught in the Bible Department at Harding University
in Searcy, Arkansas for fifty years before his retirement in 2008.

In a former article, I pointed out that the theological winds in our movement are blowing from the left and the right. I have now taught at Harding University for more than forty-seven years. During this period I have believed we did a good job in occupying a centrist position. Some have thought I am a liberal because of my book entitled Rebaptism? The truth is the book defends the position taken by the majority of our people as late as the 1930s. As a matter of fact, the Gospel Advocate continued to uphold the book’s thesis when B.C. Goodpasture was its editor. The truth is I have never varied from believing and practicing the concept of restoring first century Christianity to the twenty-first century. This means we should seek to be undenominational, New Testament Christians as were Peter, Paul, James, and John.

With a group of like minded individuals at the home of Abraham Altars in the southwestern comer of Pennsylvania (apparently the date was 1808), Thomas Campbell said, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Andrew Munro then said, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” To which Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it” (Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, vol. I, pp. 47-48). From these remarks, it is seen that the motto of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent means to engage in activities authorized by the scriptures and refuse to participate in activities unauthorized by the scriptures. If this is followed, wherever it goes, real New Testament Christianity can be practiced today as it was in the apostolic age.

My claim to fame is travel. I have spoken in forty-two states and seven foreign countries. Furthermore, travel has brought many of my students from other parts of the world to Harding. From my experiences away and in the classroom, as well as what I read, I have concluded that the winds from the left are blowing far harder than winds from the right. We had a scrap here in 1969 which was simply a precursor of what is now taking place across our brotherhood. These winds blow not only on the churches but also on the schools. Because of its attitude toward instrumental music in worship, in my judgment, we have already had one of our schools to take at least one step away from the Restoration Plea.

Nine times in the New Testament we are told by command and example to sing. As baptism by immersion excludes sprinkling and pouring; as baptism for believers excludes infants; as praying to the Father through Jesus excludes Mary; as Christ being head over the church excludes the pope, the use of vocal music (called acappella which means according to chapel or church style) excludes instrumental music. If the instrument is not an additional kind of music, how can one add to it? Is it impossible to corrupt the teaching of the New Testament concerning singing? Furthermore, if the use of instrumental music in worship is simply an innocent expedient, why did those who professed to be Christians fail to use it for 600 to 800 years after the church was established? It certainly was not because instruments were lacking.

Responses I Have Heard

More than one brother has told me “there is no pattern” for the church. If this is correct, is there nothing to be bound today religiously or morally? Surely, there is something in the New Testament we are expected to follow and whatever that is must be pattern. The issue is not pattern but how large or small is the pattern to be followed.

Recently, another brother dismissed the issue by saying, “Give me a break.” By this, he justified the use of the instrument in worship. Can you imagine one being so asinine to say this in light of the problem this controversy has been in the American Restoration Movement for almost 150 years and the millions of people who have been affected?

Still another brother, an elder in the church, told me that the leadership in his congregation had studied the issue in view of the Greek language and found our case to be a little weak. My reply was that the western (Roman Catholic) and eastern (Greek Orthodox) church was split in 1054 and instrumental music in worship was part of the reason for the division. I also pointed out that most of the Greek churches, made up of approximately a hundred million people, use only vocal music. Apparently, for them the Greek is more than a “little” weak on the subject. I was on top of traditional Mt. Sinai with a Greek monk stationed at Mt. Catherine monastery in 1964. I asked him what the word “psallo” means. He said, “sing.” I replied that a that a few Greek churches in America were using the instrument. Immediately, he said, “That is wrong.” When I asked him for the meaning of “baptizo,” he said it meant “to immerse.”

A number of times students have cited Rev. 14:2 and said the saints play harps in heaven so we can use instruments here.

First, it would be worthwhile to notice the different translations of the verse (also see Rev. 5:8-9, 15:2-3). The NIV, JB, and TEV all say that what John heard was “like” the sound of harpists playing their harps. However, other translations do say it is harpers harping with their harps.

Second, is this language to be interpreted literally? If so, try the same reasoning on Rev. 11:19. There, the ark of the covenant is depicted as being in God’s heavenly temple. We all know the ark belonged to Judaism and that the ten commandments, which included the keeping of the Sabbath Day, were in it (I Kgs. 8:9). Does this mean we are to observe the Sabbath today as did the ancient Hebrews?

Third, since they are all playing on their harps, if literally interpreted, would not this mean that each one of us would have to play an instrument in worship (a lady in the comer with the piano would not be enough). If not, why not?

Fourth, Rev. 1:1 says, “And he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John”(NKJV). “Signified” is from “samaino” which means to indicate by signs. A modern speech translation says, “He showed them by signs.” I did the research for a Master’s thesis on the eleventh chapter of Revelation. To do this, it was necessary to learn something about Apocalyptic language. Revelation is called the Apocalypse in Greek. All of the scholars know that apocalyptic writing is filled with symbolism and imagery and is written during crisis times for God’s people. Instead of literalizing the harps, one should ask what do they symbolize. The same should also be done with rushing waters and peals of thunder. Maybe the harps symbolize harmony or rhythm and the ark of the covenant God’s faithfulness to covenant. I suppose by now we have all heard the instrument justified by, “We are saved by grace and not by perfect doctrine.” The statement in and of itself is true because none of us is perfect in life or teaching. However, it can be misused. Paul wrote, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2). I was told of several Mexican men going to a gospel preacher to be immersed in harmony with Bible teaching. However, they remained in Catholicism surrendering to the pope, praying through Mary, making confession to human priests, partaking of the Mass, etc. Does the statement that we are saved by grace and not perfect doctrine apply in their case? If not, why not? Shall we continue in unauthorized activity that grace may abound? Frankly, I do not know how far God’s grace will reach. I hope it is long enough and broad enough to get me into heaven. However, one cannot logically dismiss a highly controversial subject simply by saying and implying that grace will take care of it and all argument should cease.

Conclusion

Dr. David Burks, president of Harding University, wrote an article dealing with “Core Beliefs.” In it, he stated that we could not give up our stand in favor of acappella music. He also mentioned other doctrinal matters. I complimented him on the article. In reply, he said, “Jimmy, the only ones who have said that to me are older people.” That is frightening to me.

Dr. Milton Sewell, president of Freed Hardeman University, said, “We’re not going to worship with the instrument, and we are not going to promote it here.”I think Burks and Sewell are right. Do not be blown off the foundation of the Restoration Plea by the winds from the left. The music issue is just the beginning.

Dr. Jimmy Allen taught in the Bible Department at Harding University
in Searcy, Arkansas for fifty years before his retirement in 2008.

I have been a Christian 55 years. Never during that period have I seen our people as polarized as they are now. In my judgment, there are those on the left and the right that need to rethink their positions in light of the Bible and move back toward the center. Some on the left will no longer use me for revivals because I am too conservative. Some on the right will not have me for a gospel meeting because I am too liberal.

The Left

In the following material, I give illustrations that tell something about the left wing of the Restoration Movement. Dr. Jerry Jones, a dear friend and brother, was speaking of these people when he said, “Jim, the church has moved off and left you.” Recently after a Bible class in my home congregation on a Wednesday night, I said to one of my brothers, “Surely, I have the right to quote Acts 2:38 to a person and tell him he must repent and be baptized to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” His response was, “That is just your interpretation. You are trying to play God. Hello, God!” I put my arm around him and said it was about the most sarcastic remark made to me by a fellow Christian. I have known the man more than 50 years.

We are also being told that there is a vast difference between gospel and doctrine. Everyone must accept and obey the gospel to be a child of God; however, if we attempt to bind anything on another in addition to initial belief in Jesus, repentance of sins, and immersion in the name of Christ, we are preaching another gospel. This is done so that no distinction will be made between ourselves and brothers who use instrumental music in worship. However, the point made is far broader in application than just instrumental music. To preach another gospel is to be condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). If I attempt to prove that elders and deacons are to be leaders in the local church, that communion is to be taken only on the first day of the week, that the church can go into apostasy (2 Thess. 2:1-12), and the danger of false teachers (2 Jno. 7-11, 1 Tim. 4:1-2), I am guilty of dividing the church and preaching another gospel. Accordingly, the way to have unity is to recognize that all the born-again compose the church and to work and worship with every single one regardless of any practice beyond baptism.

Pattern is another area of concern. I was talking to a well-known preacher of ours who emphasized the importance of baptism. When he finished, I asked him about pattern. He told me there was no pattern. I asked if what he had just said about baptism was or was not pattern. I then added if there is no pattern, there is nothing to be bound on those whom we teach. Of course, Matt. 28:18-20 indicates there is something to be taught beyond baptism. Obeying God’s commands, which certainly express our love for him (Jno. 15:10; 14:15; Jude 21), surely involves pattern in becoming and remaining loyal to him. When another disciple told me there is no pattern, I said there must be one if anything is to be bound on another. I then attempted to explain that the argument is not about pattern but about the size of the pattern. The larger the pattern, the smaller the fellowship. The smaller the pattern, the larger the fellowship but there is pattern morally and religiously that people must follow.

Another saint takes the view that Melchizedek was a pagan or idolatrous priest. This deals me trouble because of the deference Abraham showed to him and also the fact that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:14-17). This same man also holds that Job was not a historical character. I pointed out that Noah, Daniel, and Job are actually tied together four times in Ezekiel (14:14, 16, 17, 20). If Job was non-existent, perhaps the same is also true of Noah and Daniel. Suppose I were to say that Larimore, Brewer and Tracy (meaning Dick) were righteous enough to save no one but themselves. Would you not consider all three as real people? Furthermore, James urged brethren to look to Job as an example of patience (Jas. 5:10-11). I asked if he was simply accommodating Jewish ignorance. If Job is not a historical character, would it not follow that all the others mentioned in Job would also be imaginary persons?

Back to the question of instrumental music in Christian worship. I can assure you that if we were to have a vote among our students as to whether instrumental music in worship (i.e. when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs - Eph. 5:19) is authorized, those who believe it is not would be out-voted by at least three to one. This does not mean the majority would introduce it in their local churches but it does mean they have no Biblical opposition to its use. Last year, I taught a class of 19 who were studying to be preachers (the one exception was a girl in the class). I asked if the instrument in Christian worship was authorized. One did not vote. Of the other 18, the vote was 9 “yes” and 9 “no.” The people in our school do not generally hold these views because of our faculty but due to a failure to be taught at home and in the local churches. My career, outside the classroom, has been built on revivals. It appears that the majority of our churches are no longer having them. Why is this the case? One is that the local membership will no longer support them. However, I think the winds from the left have also blown so hard that a large number of our brothers no longer believe that people must obey Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 to move from the unsaved to saved or from the world to the church. We are turned in on ourselves. Special seminars, youth rallies, drama presentations, and the building of family life centers are more important than evangelistic outreach. Have you ever seen a time in the last half-century when our own brothers and sisters ran from preaching as they are now doing? If there are no gospel meetings, no personal work, and no conviction concerning those things that make us Biblically unique, our huge loss of membership will continue unabated. How much time do we have in the USA?

The Right

We all know that from the right has come the views that the Holy Spirit dwells in us only in the form of the word, that only a couple of translations can be safely used for study, and that all the born-again are meeting behind “Church of Christ” signs.

However, I recently saw something new that caught my attention. It says, “waving of arms, and clapping of hands are salvation issues” (Owen Olbricht, “Unique for Christ,” April, 2005). According to 1 Tim. 2:8, men can lift holy hands in prayer. Is it damning if those hands are waved or moved? When does the unauthorized activity begin? Dr. George Benson, former president of Harding College, always lifted at least one hand when he led public prayer or baptized. As I recall, he also moved his uplifted hand when baptizing. Some of the finest song-leaders I have ever had were masters in hand movements. For many years, I have led church groups in applause after one was raised from the waters of baptism. About 18 months ago, I spoke one night on the Faulkner University lectureship. Prior to my presentation, a young Bible major in that school presented a five-minute talk. When he finished, I stood and said, “Let’s show our appreciation to the young man who has spoken to us.” I then led the audience in applause. Later, I received a letter from a brother who said I was like Jeroboam who had caused Israel to sin. He made clear that I had sinned and every person in the audience who clapped their hands had also sinned. It is my opinion, that neither of the two brothers mentioned above have seen the enthusiasm exhibited by black brothers and sisters in some of their assemblies.

The early church continued steadfastly in prayers (Acts 2:42). One can pray with his hands held straight up, down at his sides, folded on his chest or on his brow. He can also pray standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying down. Which of these is a salvation issue?

In my thinking, there are some core truths concerning the New Testament church that must be upheld if we plan to maintain our identity. They are the role of women, the gospel plan of salvation, acappella singing, the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, leadership of elders and deacons, and the autonomy of the local church. In these areas, we cannot compromise. If we do, in my judgment, we might as well close our doors and practice full fledged denominationalism.

Dr. Jimmy Allen taught in the Bible Department at Harding University
in Searcy, Arkansas for fifty years before his retirement in 2008.