The Principle of Exclusion
By jimmy | December 22, 2008
The Principle of Exclusion - by Jimmy Allen - Searcy, Arkansas
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.
Topics: Articles |
Comments are closed.