Expert: Brent Jobe, DVM - 11/1/2008

Question
Why is a Musical Instrument called a "Pitch Pipe" used in the a capella choir?  A "Pitch Pipe" is technically classified as a Musical Instrument and is purchased as a musical instrument from music stores.  If a Church of Christ is truly free of musical instruments, why is the "Pitch Pipe" allowed?
Hunter Anderson


Answer
Hello.  That a pitch pipe or even a tuning fork is a type of musical instrument would not (or atleast should not) be denied by anyone.  Music, in general, is a melodic succession of tones in an orderly and melodic pattern.  The pitch pipe or tuning fork are different from the piano or organ in that they have the sole purpose of securing the pitch.  The command is to sing, and it is impossible to sing without a pitch.  I personally could do without the tuning fork or pitch pipe because, although I believe them to be permissable, they do serve as sources of confusion.  

The issue revolves around "worship" - when does worship to God begin and end?  We would maintain that worship does not begin when the songleader announces the song number and, as people are turning to the page, he taps a tuning fork or uses a pitch pipe:  worship begins when the singing begins and ends when the song is finished.  Prior to worship, the tuning fork is used, but during worship, it is silent.  Then there is a lapse while the next song is announced, etc. and worship begins again with the first word of the next song.  Thus, the pitch pipe and tuning fork are excluded from worship, and the singing will be acapella.  The piano or organ, however, are not used in this manner.

Many things said or done during the assembly do not constitute worship:  the announcements, introduction of the speaker, etc.  I am assuming that it is conceded that instrumental music was not used in the first century in worship, that the writings of early post-apostolic members of the church condemn it, and even the Reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, the Presbyterians, etc), rejected it.  It was introduced gradually, over protest, and split many churches.  The tuning fork or pitch pipe falls into the category of "not a part of worship and is not used during worship."

The preceding is simply my opinion.  I will now give the opinion of M. C. Kurfees, who was a preacher for the church of Christ at a time when the controversy was raging:

"It is objected that musical instruments are on a par with tuning forks, note-books, and hymnbooks, and that they all stand or fall together. Here again the cases are not parallel as is clearly shown by an examination of the office filled by each. For instance, the tuning-fork stops before the singing or act of worship begins. If an organ were only used to pitch the tune, there would be nothing wrong in its use, because we are commanded to sing, and we can not sing without pitch. Whatever is essential to doing a command is involved in the command, but pitching the tune is essential to doing the command to sing; therefore, pitching the tune is involved in the command to sing. No difference whether it be pitched with the voice, a tuning-fork, a pitch-pipe, or any other way, the thing that is done, viz., pitching the tune, is involved in the command to sing. Moreover, when a tuning fork is used to pitch the tune, nothing is done in singing that is not done without it, pitching the tune being the only thing done with the tuning-fork, which is done in singing without the fork, for it is impossible to sing without pitching the tune. But when a musical instrument is used with the singing, something is done that is not done without it, viz., another kind of music is made simultaneously with that made by the human voice. It is praising God with two kinds of music where God himself has chosen and appointed only one kind.

The same principle applies to the use of notebooks. In using notes, no act is performed that is not performed without them, and nothing accompanies the singing that does not also accompany it without them; but in using musical instruments, an act is performed that is not performed without them, and something does accompany the singing, viz., instrumental music, which does not accompany it without them. By no sort of reasoning can it be shown that playing on an instrument and singing are so related that singing involves playing, or its equivalent; but it can be shown that musical notes and singing are so related that singing involves either the notes or their equivalent. This is seen in the following reasoning: We are commanded to sing; but we can not sing without a tune; therefore, the tune is involved in the command to sing.

Again: a tune can not be sung without length and pitch of tones are indicated; but notes, or their equivalent, are essential to indicating length and pitch of tones; therefore, notes or their equivalent are essential to singing a tune. If it be said that many persons sing who do not know the notes, it is sufficient to reply that they learned the tune either directly or indirectly from some one who got it from the notes. The principle is the same whether the tune be learned directly or remotely from the notes. A tune can not exist without notes or their equivalent. The notes simply indicate length and pitch of tone which are essential to either vocal or instrumental music.

If it be objected that the instrument gives the tune to the ear just as the notes do to the eye, I reply, this is a mistake. The instrument has to get the tune from the notes just as does the leader of the singing. This is an artful sophism, founded on an egregious blunder. The tune exists before it is played on the instrument. But, it may be asked, if a tune were improvised on an instrument, would not that be a case of the ear getting the tune from the instrument? By no means. Though a multitude of ears might hear it, it could only be an instrumental solo, no one knowing the tune but the performer, from whose soul comes the tune, and not from the instrument. If it could be said of musical instruments as it can be of musical notes, that their use results in nothing but singing, there would be nothing wrong in using them, for we are commanded to sing; but their use produces another kind of music which we are not only not commanded to have, but which the Lord excluded from Christian worship. That the two cases are not parallel, those who will open their eyes to the facts can plainly see.

As to hymn-books, we are commanded to sing hymns, and the hymn-book is simply the hymns, just as your bound-Bible is the Word of God. Hymns are none the less hymns whether they are in manuscript or in a printed volume, just as the Word of God is none the less the Word of God whether it is in manuscript or in a printed volume. In each case, you have what God commands."

I sincerely hope I have answered your question, and I notice that I did not use a single scripture, which is unusual for me.  If I have not answered or left something out, please let me know, and I shall try to clarify it.  Thank you and best wishes.

Very sincerely yours,

Brent Jobe, DVM