Hello all:
Last night I had a hard time falling asleep because I couldn’t get an idea out of my head… so, now I’ll throw that idea down on paper (or on screen, anyway) and see where it goes….
I was reading the Christian Standard last night. This week, really, this whole month, the theme is unity. They had an article about Restoration History; one about a Luthern Church member who went to a church planting center affiliated with the independent Christian churches, who was then baptised and ordained as a minister and is planting a restoration movement church; and another one how the church is intentionally one…
These articles, along with my previous post on the recent church of Christ church plant that used instrumental music, got me thinking a few things:
First off, many independent Christian churches, especially the more conservative ones, when asked what differenties themselves from churches of Christ, don’t say that they specifically use instrumental music. They instead say that they are the body inside the Restoration Movement that doesn’t not have a denomination form of government and which does not hold the use of instrumental music as a test of fellowship…
That distinction is important, because the fact that the use is not a test of fellowship does not necessarily mean that a church would have to use instrumental music, but obviously could if they so chose.
In a capella churches of Christ, the church typically does use instrumental music as a test of fellowship, and does not use instrumental music.
So, my idea is this: Plant a church of Christ, which would be a capella, but, does not hold the use of instrumental music as a test of fellowship.
This plant could be possibly done in cooperation with one of our groups that assists in church planting for churches of Christ, and with one of the evangelizing associations of the Independent Christian Churches.
The leadership for the church plant could come out of both church of Christ and independent fellowships. Involvement with both church of Christ and Independent encampments, gatherings, lectureships, schools and beneveloance would put this plant in the middle between these two fellowships of people.
It could provide a bridge, albiet small, between two groups with so much in common.
So, what do you think? Could it work? Would it be feasable? Could one church fellowship with both groups?
I’d love to hear your opinion.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
October 26th, 2005 at 12:24
Hey Clarke,
We are already doing some things that are similar to what you described.
As background, the ICOC churches have historically used musical instruments since the late 1980’s. Prior to that time most if not all these congregations followed the non-instrumental practices inherited from the churches we came from. The transition into acceptance of instrumental music (and clapping, also an issue) was not without problems, but the pressure to go along with the direction of Boston prevailed despite some strong dissent. So for the ensuing 15 years or so instrumental music was the norm in these churches.
More background: the Atlanta Church of Christ is made up of numerous smaller local ministries which sometimes meet separately and sometimes together in various combinations. Last week for example the whole ACOC met together. However, in the past couple of years the local ministries have been acting more autonomously. A couple of those groups have reverted back to almost completely acapella singing of traditional hymns in worship. There are different cultural preferences in these ministries based at least partly on demographics. Some prefer soul/gospel music, generally with accompaniment. Some prefer the more modern music that one hears on contemporary Christian radio. And some prefer acapella hymns. When we all come together, we do some of all these types of music.
Note however that this does not address the issue of people who have a conscientious objection to participating in worship with instrumental music. We have not faced that question. I do believe that if we had an combined event or a worship service with a non-instrumental congregation, we would have the sensitivity to abstain from any instrumental music in order to keep from creating an issue of conscience with those brothers and sisters. There still remains the question of whether they would accept us as faithful brothers and sisters given our normal practice.
As for bridging between the instrumental and non-instrumental churches, I think a concession is needed on both sides. In a joint service, the instrumental brethren need to abstain from instruments due to the consciences of the non-instrumental. And the non-instrumental brethren need to embrace their instrumental brothers and sisters despite the difference on this subject. Perhaps Romans 14 provides a basis on which they could do so without violating conscience.
IMO the instrumental folks need to make the first step. They have the option to use, or not use, instruments. They should exercise this option in a way that accomodates their non-instrumental brethren so that fellowship can begin.
Anyway, enough of my rambling.
Alan
October 26th, 2005 at 13:50
Alan:
Thanks for the comment. I didn’t know that the ICOC used instruments, good to know.
It sounds like a good system is being used when the Atlanta church comes together. That makes sense and I would agree that as long as there aren’t objectors, that would probably work well.
I also agree that the instrumental churches should probably abstain if there is a joint meeting if there are people who object due to conscience. I think that that is probably what should have occured in the first place a long, long time ago, but it didn’t.
However, at the same time, I think we in the a capella churches, if we truly want to ever achieve some type of unity or at least some reconciliation, need to make an effort as well. I think one way to do that might be my idea about a church with dual affiliation, but I don’t know if it would work or not.
-Clarke
October 27th, 2005 at 12:44
Hey Clarke,
Lots of churches have separate contemporary and traditional services. I’ve heard of at least one large church that has a non-instrumental service as an option, both for those whose consciences require it, and for those whose tastes prefer it. Of course that sort of arrangement has a better chance of working in a large church than in a small one. Accomodating these differences in small congregations might take a greater concession since it probably affects the whole congregation.
FYI, I’ve posted some thoughts on T Campbell’s first proposition at my blog.
Alan
October 28th, 2005 at 18:45
Good post. I guess I have a couple questions, just to try to provoke thought and discussion.
First, what is the defintion of the Church?
What happens when the leadership of this new Church decides they wants to use instrumental music?
What gives these Churches unity? Is it their ‘forms’ or worship or something else? Where does the unity between all these churches come from?
October 28th, 2005 at 23:58
Clarke,
I would always be interested in a cooperation which you are talking about. It is very much the ‘bridge’ I see in our unity being taken advantage of. IE: I could see more happening with our church planting organizations and through contacts with the Nat. Missionary Convention/Missionaries. I think some DOC churches that are ‘on edge’ with the denominational structure of their wing, or have been ‘loners’ since the seventies (not ICC, or CoC, still called DOC but not affiliated with the national body)… These kinds of discussions have been talked about in IA/SD/ND/NEB/and MINN.
appreciate your heart….DOC
October 29th, 2005 at 7:57
Gabe:
Thanks for responding.
As far as a “definition,” I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. Could you “define” definition for me.
If the leadership of the church were to decide to use instrumental music, it would pretty much defeat one of the main purposes for this congregation - it would likely estranage this congregation from the a capella churches. For a church plant designed to foster unity between churches of Christ and independent Christian Churches, that probably wouldn’t work very well.
Now, if this congregation, after it was well established, held two services, one a caeplla and one instrumental, that might work, but thats hard to determine. It has worked other places. Whether it would work in this case would have to be seen.
As for unity… first and foremost, the desire for unity would help bring unity to these churches. This congregation would intentionally have to involve itself with both a capella and instrumental circles. It would intentionally attend things like Christian Church state conventions, and a capella events that occur. It could also host its own events and invite both groups…something I believe would be invaluable.
However, for this to work, the core group of leaders and planters would have to be very diliberate in how they do things. They would need to be committed to fostering unity between the two groups.
As far as practices, forms and worship would be important. Since many of the doctrines of both churches are the same, especially more core doctrines such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, these things would help provide unity. I would see this congregation as a fairly conservative Christian Church, and a fairly liberal church of Christ.
-Clarke
October 29th, 2005 at 8:28
Josh:
Thanks for your input. I’m not familiar with these DOC congregations that are “loners” or on the edge…could you elaborate? My knowledge of the Disciples is fairly limited to what I read on their website from time to time. I visited one of their congregations once, but otherwise don’t have any contact with them.
I checked out your webpage and see that you are planning a mission trip to India. Is this a long-term mission or a short-term?
-Clarke
October 29th, 2005 at 23:37
Thanks for getting back to me Clark. I guess, I would ask the follow up question: should a church plant primarilly foster unity between to groups, or should the primary purpose of the ‘church-plant’ be to reach out to unbelievers in the world and bring them into the kingdom of God — which is different than the local church? When doing church planting, who should we love more — those in the church, or those outside of it?
October 30th, 2005 at 14:09
Gabe:
Thanks for the great questions. You raise a good point, that our primary work is to bring the lost to Christ. We can lose focus of that when considering these other issues.
While our mission is to reach out to the lost, I don’t feel that there is a conflict between a church plant being created to foster unity. The people that came before us in the Restortion Movement did both at the same time, and I think that we can as well. I think a new congregation of this type would have a lot to offer those who need to be brought to Christ, and I think it would be worth while to attempt to bring both the resources of churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches together to make that happen.
-Clarke
October 30th, 2005 at 21:59
Clarke,
I think Alan has more history with the ICOC, and the COC before that, but I thought I’d share my perspective on the ICOC handling of this. In the churches I’ve been a part of since ‘88 (Cinci, Harlem/NYC, Detroit and Columbus) we’ve been primarily a capella, although with no explicit teaching against instrumental music. There were occasional use of instruments in service, but it was not the norm.
Of course we’ve not been paragons of building bridges and unity with those outside our own ‘tradition’, which is the topic of you post.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:44
Douglas:
I can’t say that any of us really have been building bridges and unity…. so don’t feel bad.
The great part is that we have the opportunity to do so now. The fact that we are having this conversation at all is a wonderful thing.
-Clarke
November 4th, 2005 at 7:37
Hey Clarke,
I neglected this thread for a few days and come back to find a very interesting conversation.
I have a question regarding non-instrumental convictions. I understand and appreciate that many people cannot worship with instruments with a clear conscience. Can these people accept others as Christian who do worship with musical instruments, if that is the only matter of disagreement? Or is my willingness to worship with instruments a show-stopper for fellowship?
Thanks
Alan
November 4th, 2005 at 18:24
Alan:
Such a great question.
For a long, long time, I could not accept others who worshiped with instruments. I was taught that instrumental music in worship was wrong, and I accepted that teaching. After a congregtaion I attended was “taken over” by several members who wanted to throw out the old church of Christ hermenutic (Command, Example, Necessary Inference,) and I heard several sermons on essentials versus traditions, I studied the issue on my own and changed my opinion.
While I think that we in the a capella churches of Christ most likely got the music question right, I don’t feel that we can legitamatly bind that belief on others and disfellowship those that use the instrument. If we are incorrect, it would be wrong of us to deny others the use of the instrument.
I still attend an a capella church, and have no intention of changing. I have attended services at an instrumental church, and I was uncomfortable the entire time, but I don’t think that they are bad or wrong for worshiping God with an instrument.
There are, however, plenty of people who will not have fellowship with those that use instrumental music, and, furthermore, there are still people who believe that instrumental music is a matter of salvation. They believe that the use of the instrument will condemn them.
While I don’t think a significant portion of the a capella churches of Christ would agree with that point of view anymore, and many would not disallow fellowship with those that use instruments, neither will they challenge anyone on this subject as they do not want to create a split in the church.
I hope that helps to answer your question, even if it is meandering.
-Clarke