What is really ironic to me is how some people will be against musical instruments in church, but do not think church should obey what is actually commanded.
I Corinthians 11 and 14 are the two passages that actually give us any lengthy commands on what to do in church. Chapter 11 is about the Lord's Supper. Chapter 14 verse 26 and onward tell us what to do in church.
Paul says, when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. And he commands, "Let all things be done unto edifying."
How many people are comfortable with one preacher, with only clergy speaking, week after week, when the Bible's instructions are that 'every one of you' be allowed to do such things unto edifying. How many people would forbid a tongue and an interpretation or the sharing of a revelation in the form of a prophecy, but would insist that no musical instruments be used? The verse does allow for a psalm, and etymologically, the word for psalm has to do with musical instruments. Historically, many, at least, many psalms were accompanied by musical instruments.
The passage continues on to say that ye may all prophesy one by one. Paul had written that if a revelation comes to one sitting by, the speaking prophet was to hold his peace. How many churches that are adamant against the use of instruments follow these instructions? How many would violate Paul's directive 'forbid not to speak with tongues' even in situations where the tongue is interpreted according to scripture?
Instead of following the actual commandments of the Lord for church meetings, we see people getting all upset over people doing what is not specifically commanded in scripture. The rule for the church, however, is let all things be done unto edifying.
And why do so many churches that oppose instruments allow for congregational singing? Is there any reason 'speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' would have to be congregational singing? We may assume that because that is what we are used to. But congregational singing became the norm in the Reformation period. I have read that there was antiphonal singing in the early centuries of Christianity, where one led a line, and others sang a line after him. But we don't really read about a clear example of this in scripture.
In fact, I Corinthians 14:26 would seem to indicate a solo, since every ONE of you hath A psalm. So if we are looking for a scripture to clear up whether congregational versus turn-taking solos are specifically authorized, then shouldn't we go with solos?
I do not apply a rule like that, though. If congregational singing is edifying, I am not opposed to it. Though I certainly think we should allow for the solos, and perhaps prefer it, because they are specifically authorized.
It is also interesting to note that the apostles sung a hymn at the Lord's supper. I've read that certain songs were song 'congregationally' by the family or group there, all at the same time, after the meal. The text doesn't specify this, however.
I Corinthians 11 and 14 are the two passages that actually give us any lengthy commands on what to do in church. Chapter 11 is about the Lord's Supper. Chapter 14 verse 26 and onward tell us what to do in church.
Paul says, when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. And he commands, "Let all things be done unto edifying."
How many people are comfortable with one preacher, with only clergy speaking, week after week, when the Bible's instructions are that 'every one of you' be allowed to do such things unto edifying. How many people would forbid a tongue and an interpretation or the sharing of a revelation in the form of a prophecy, but would insist that no musical instruments be used? The verse does allow for a psalm, and etymologically, the word for psalm has to do with musical instruments. Historically, many, at least, many psalms were accompanied by musical instruments.
The passage continues on to say that ye may all prophesy one by one. Paul had written that if a revelation comes to one sitting by, the speaking prophet was to hold his peace. How many churches that are adamant against the use of instruments follow these instructions? How many would violate Paul's directive 'forbid not to speak with tongues' even in situations where the tongue is interpreted according to scripture?
Instead of following the actual commandments of the Lord for church meetings, we see people getting all upset over people doing what is not specifically commanded in scripture. The rule for the church, however, is let all things be done unto edifying.
And why do so many churches that oppose instruments allow for congregational singing? Is there any reason 'speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' would have to be congregational singing? We may assume that because that is what we are used to. But congregational singing became the norm in the Reformation period. I have read that there was antiphonal singing in the early centuries of Christianity, where one led a line, and others sang a line after him. But we don't really read about a clear example of this in scripture.
In fact, I Corinthians 14:26 would seem to indicate a solo, since every ONE of you hath A psalm. So if we are looking for a scripture to clear up whether congregational versus turn-taking solos are specifically authorized, then shouldn't we go with solos?
I do not apply a rule like that, though. If congregational singing is edifying, I am not opposed to it. Though I certainly think we should allow for the solos, and perhaps prefer it, because they are specifically authorized.
It is also interesting to note that the apostles sung a hymn at the Lord's supper. I've read that certain songs were song 'congregationally' by the family or group there, all at the same time, after the meal. The text doesn't specify this, however.
