Expert: Marvin Howard - 3/12/2004

Question
Dear Mr. Howard,

Thank you for your history of the divisions in the Restoration Movement.  It is very informative.  As you point out, there are several items of contention among the various groups, but there is one issue in particular that really seems to hinder many from reconciliation (and thus true restoration):  the use of the instrument in worship.  What can we do about this?

The split in our churches has, for some time, been like an awful, open wound in my heart.  For my part, I wish there had never been such a thing as an instrument, if it is to have the effect of dividing the body of Christ asunder.  

Compromising our faithful submission to the Word of God is too high a price to pay for unity.  Most would agree here, I think.  Some differences come in when we discuss interpretations of passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 (the non-instrumental believer examining the wording in an expository light and/or performing root word studies, whereas others perceive a contextual reference to the attitude and behavior of the Christian).  Yet we are promised that "if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you."  (Phil. 3:15)

It is useful to understand the history behind the problem, as you suggest.  Do you believe that what occurred in the church in Midway, Kentucky, was the critical point in the division?  I wonder, where would the church be today if all those involved had obeyed the command to "First go and be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:24).  What if all had followed Paul's example, "We put no stumbling block in anyone's path" (2 Cor. 6:3).  Did anyone heed Ephesians 4:26-7, which warns, "Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold."  God is the judge, but I wonder, what if Adam Hibler had, in love and humility, approached the other elders and expressed his disagreement, rather than chopping the melodeon to pieces with an ax on the church lawn (after the sun had gone down)?  What if, instead of purchasing another, and then another, in disregard of this elder's opposition, the church had, for the sake of Jesus Christ and His church, been "like-minded, having the same love [as Christ], being one in spirit and purpose"?  What if the "fans" of the melodeon had "consider[ed] others [such as Hibler] better than [them]selves" and looked "to the interests of others?"  (Phil 2:2-4)  When half of the church walked out during a Sunday service, why on earth did the other half not chase them down and plead for reconciliation?

Almost 150 years ago, many mistakes were made on both sides.  We cannot change the past, but must we live with the consequences forever?  I believe God is calling us to reconcile.  While His church argues over the instrument, Satan is ensnaring the whole world with homosexuality, pornography, and false religions.  The church is thus rendered ineffective.

Why do we continue to cast lots for His body, as the unbelieving Roman soldiers did for His clothing?  Which do we say is worse?  We as the church have been given glory, the glory that the Father gave to His only Son, for the express purpose that we, His people, should be ONE.  (John 17:22)  He gave us His glory so that the world would know who Jesus is, and who sent Him!  (John 17:23)  This, our unity, was Jesus' dying wish!  Yet if our unity is required to fulfill the Great Commission, then is not the present dissension instead accomplishing the Satanic mission?

We all know that "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.  The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.  But the man who loves God is known by God."  (1 Cor. 8:1b-2)  Let us build one another up, that we may "win as many as possible" (1 Cor. 9:19) to the eternal glory of God.

As for me, "whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ" for whose sake I have lost all things.  I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ" (Phil. 3:7-8)  I can live with or without externals in order to "live at peace with everyone" (Rom. 12:18).  

If as a body we cannot bring ourselves to fully reconcile, then can we at the very least (or as a start) teach our doctrine, and shift our focus, in proportion to the emphasis of Scripture on every thing?  Where there is much emphasis, let us emphasize much; where there is little said, let us say little?  Can we not encourage the churches to stop shunning one another, and to open lines of communication?  Are 150 years of bias (on both sides) too much for the Lord to overcome?  Do our actions show that we believe that "what is impossible with men is possible with God?"  (Lk. 18:27)

Because He's coming soon!
C.P. Hommel


Answer
Hi!

Mr. Hommel, I must offer apologies for the delay in reply. I am disabled, and have a rough time staying at my desk once in a while. The doctors believe I have MS, and I am unable to either sit or stand for extended periods. Your's happens to be an extensive question, requiring an extensive answer. It has required this many days of work to get this answer typed.

I will try to answer the many questions, and address your comments, within your question. I will use Bible where I am able. Where there is no scripture, I must rely on language arts (including grammar), and my limited knowledge of history. You see, the history chart, if you look at the credits below it, was originally done by another Brother. I did a lot of work in the restoration and recolorization of the document, but changed very little of the original information. If my history answers are not what you need, there are other experts, within this category, having history as their forte.

1) You asked, "What can we do about this?"

A) The best answer available is to respond to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). We are not only to teach to the point of salvation, but continue teaching beyond. I don't think this is the answer you were seeking here, but perhaps some answers further down may shed more light on the subject.

2) You stated, "I wish there had never been such a thing as an instrument, if it is to have the effect of dividing the body of Christ asunder."

A) I agree with your sentiment here. However, I must ask a question in return. If the church became divided (and remains so) over the instrument, who is responsible for the division? Is it the ones who followed God's Word, or the ones who changed it?

3) You stated, "Compromising our faithful submission to the Word of God is too high a price to pay for unity."

A) I agree. Which, though, is "faithful submission?" Is it following opinions, or learning definitions?

At this point, I wish to point out a bit of linguistics, which may shed some more light on the answer to the first question, i.e., "what" to teach.

I hope you know the definition of a chapel. I am not trying to talk down to you. I just need to make sure we are on the same page, especially since we are not face to face. The most common definition (for those who know the church is people instead of a building) is, "A place where the church meets." When given this response to my question, I readily agree with people.

Next, I know you know the meaning of A Cappella music, for this is the focal point of the question. When teaching, it is necessary to ask this question.

"Are you aware that A Cappella is a Latin phrase?" This is the next question which must be asked, followed by, "Do you know its translation (not its definition) into English?"

Most often, the response is negative on translation, even if a mixed bag on it being Latin. This is where the teaching comes in. Assign them the task of verifying this in any lexicon. For the sake of expediency, go ahead and provide them with the answer. "A Cappella" translates to "Of the Chapel."

Now we must apply the logic inherent in theology. If A Cappella music is "of the chapel" music (that conducted in places where the church meets), then the opposite must also be true. If
non-A Cappella music is used there, it is of necessity a place where the church does not meet. Ergo, those who use instruments (in worship) cannot be part of the church. The sad part of this is, Rome speaks Latin! They know better. But their itching ears started the whole thing.

Are your students willing to accept the teachings of apostates and reject the historically provable practices of the early church?

I will now come off my soap box, and return to your post.

4) You stated, "(the non-instrumental believer examining the wording in an expository light and/or performing root word studies,"

A) There is more to this than "root word studies." First, we must understand that God created all languages at Babel (Genesis 11:9). Since He chose to communicate to us in these languages, we must expect Him, being God, to be even more perfect in their use than we. If he has not this power, He isn't much of a God. This means He will use all the proper grammar, all the time, applying the rules perfectly. In Ephesians 5:19 and Collossians 3:16 (the only two places where this is translated as other than "sing"), God used a transient verb tense. This demands that a specific instrument be named. Did God name a specific instrument? Yes, He did. He named the heart (not the harp). Because of this specificity, instruments can no more be used than can coke and hamburgers be served as communion. Therefore, there is no other believer than the one who rejects instruments outright.

5) You stated, "...whereas others perceive a contextual reference to the attitude and behavior of the Christian)."

A) The perception is false. The context is clearly instructional for times of worship, and not dealing with attitudes.

6) You stated, "Yet we are promised that 'if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.' (Phil. 3:15)"

A) You must also remember II Thessalonians 2:10-12. The people who desire to do their own bidding, rather than God's, are not going to fall under the promise of the quoted passage in Phillipians. Instead, they will believe a lie, instead of allowing God to make it clear, and be damned.

7) You asked, "It is useful to understand the history behind the problem, as you suggest. Do you believe that what occurred in the church in Midway, Kentucky, was the critical point in the division?" You followed up with a comment, "I wonder, where would the church be today if all those involved had obeyed the command to "First go and be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:24)."

A) I have heard the story you relate following this. I trust my multiple sources for this, and believe it true. I am afraid I will have to take your word for its location and date. Not having my own knowledge of when it occurred, I cannot say with certainty that this was critical: I cannot tie it with surrounding events. Let me say, it would "seem" to be the case.

For your comment, can I be a Brother to someone who has decided to leave the family and not be my Brother? I may love them. I may wish longingly for their return home. However, if they reject olive branches by refusing repentance when taught truth, I have done what I can to restore my Brother. Remember, when reconciling with a Brother, he must first and foremost "hear thee" before you may "gain" him again as a Brother (Matthew 18:15).

8) You stated, "God is the judge..."

A) you have fallen for the denominational teaching on this, having misquoted Matthew 7:1ff. If you more closely examine the passage, you will see that it agrees with the following, rather than contradict it which your statement forces:

John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

We are to judge. We are, however, constrained to use His standards (not our personal likes and dislikes/appearance), for there is none other righteous. If it is revealed in scripture, we not only have the right to be judges in the matter, we verily have the obligation to do so.

9) You asked, "...what if Adam Hibler had, in love and humility, approached the other elders and expressed his disagreement, rather than chopping the melodeon to pieces with an ax on the church lawn (after the sun had gone down)?"

A) He didn't, so the question is really moot. I would, however, like to offer a comparison of what someone else did when evil was found in the worship place of God.

John 2:14-16, "And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

There is a time for love, and a time for justice (judging). Just as Jesus, being God, is both infinite love and infinite justice. He was angered and dispensed violent (with a scourge) justice upon finding evil in the house of the Lord. Are we not to follow His example in such a case, rather than swallowing the denominational line that He is only love? Perhaps (not being there I do not know) Hibler was doing just this. The fact that he did it at night seems to carry a sense of "hiding" from the repercussions of his action. I offer another possiblity for this. Perhaps he had a personal conviction about being violent within a worship day. The timing of his actions should not even be included in the story, for they offer no "proof" for his motive. It was placed there initially by those wishing to make the faithful brethren appear to be the bad guys in this.

10) You asked, "When half of the church walked out during a Sunday service, why on earth did the other half not chase them down and plead for reconciliation?"

A) Who said they didn't seek reconcilliation? Was it the ones who didn't want it? I am persuaded many did seek such. They just were committed to doing things decently and in order. I believe they sought a quieter and more peaceful time, rather than confront them when all efforts would certainly be rejected.

11) You stated, "Almost 150 years ago, many mistakes were made on both sides."

A) Based solely on my knowledge of the recounting of this event, I am sure there were mistakes on one side. I remain unconvinced that this was handled improperly by those who chose to remain in the church.

12) You asked, "We cannot change the past, but must we live with the consequences forever?"

A) As long as those in error desire to remain in error we will live with the consequences. Look how long we have been dealing with the consequences of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. Also, look how long we have been dealing with the first apostacy; from the time Paul penned I Corinthians until now, there has been the church of Peter. I believe the consequences are a bit exaggerated. The additional problems (cited by you) we face are definitely not caused by this argument. There are not too many people aware of this conflict, nor do the vast majority of those in the denominations care.

13) You stated, "The church is thus rendered ineffective."

A) This is untrue, for as promised, the gates (doorways = sins) have not yet prevailed against the church: we are still here. We will remain here until His coming, so the statement can never be true.

14) You asked, "Why do we continue to cast lots for His body, as the unbelieving Roman soldiers did for His clothing? Which do we say is worse?"

A) The body is His body. Those not of the body are not. Your question is predicated on the possibility that either group may be correct, and we are gambling on the outcome to see which is which. This cannot be. Again, you make the argument to be detrimental to both sides. To the side that is correct, it is not.

15) You stated, "We as the church have been given glory, the glory that the Father gave to His only Son, for the express purpose that we, His people, should be ONE. (John 17:22)"

A) We, His people, are in fact one. Those that are not one with the body are not the body, regardless of how sincerely they hold their position. Paul was sincere in his killing of Christians. He wasn't right, and not of the body (at that time). Likewise, they left the Word of God, and are no longer part of the body.

16) You asked, "Yet if our unity is required to fulfill the Great Commission, then is not the present dissension instead accomplishing the Satanic mission?"

A) Those who left are accomlishing Satan's mission. Those who remain are not the dividers, and not a part of that mission. Those who chose to remain, are one, and fulfilling the commission.

17) You stated, "We all know that 'Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.' (1 Cor. 8:1b-2 {sic})"

A) Checking the Greek here, this is implying "those certain of uncertainties." It may seem oxymoronic, but really, those who are acting based on opinions are doing just this. Those who "think" it is acceptable to have instruments are thinking they are more "progressive," "modern," and a host of other prideful, boastful, glorying terms: they wrongly think they are superior. I admit I glory at being a member of the church, and in being (rather than supposing not based on facts) right. Is this wrong? Is it a contributing factor? Is it sin? The answer to all three is a resounding, "No!"

Galatians 6:14, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Glorying in Christ (being in the one, true church) is a good thing. Glorying in being outside of the body is bad. This is scripture. Opinions cannot change this and make both bad. The good and righteous cannot be lowered to the level of the evil to equal the playing field in the race we are running, no matter how badly the unrighteous need it to be so.

18) You stated, "Let us build one another up, that we may 'win as many as possible' (1 Cor. 9:19) to the eternal glory of God."

A) This is a true statement. However, it was addressed to the body/church. This passage mentions nothing about those out of the body. To try to force this truth to cover apostates is wresting the scripture by putting the cart before the horse. For those out of the body, we are to use the Word to "convict" their souls, effectively tearing down their belief systems (tilling the soil) that the truth may be planted. When it is come to fruition is then the time to build them up.

19) You stated, "I can live with or without externals in order to "live at peace with everyone" (Rom. 12:18)."

A) You leave out a much needed portion of scripture. Here is the true quote, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." If sinners will not repent, it is not possible to be at peace with them.

The externals you mention are expediencies. I, too, can live with or without them. Expediencies don't change things. Instruments change music, therefore, they are not an expediency.

20) You asked, "If as a body we cannot bring ourselves to fully reconcile, then can we at the very least (or as a start) teach our doctrine, and shift our focus, in proportion to the emphasis of Scripture on every thing?"

A) This is an attempt at the false doctrine of "unity in diversity." It is an attempt to force men to walk together, without being agreed (c.f., Amos 3:3). I cannot rightly leave the truth. For me to do so would be bidding them "Godspeed," (II John 1:11) and sinful to me, thus keeping me out of heaven. I am not willing to give up my reward to join someone who has given up their's. If the users of instruments will not rightly leave their error and return home, we will never be agreed, and cannot justly walk together.

21) You asked, "Where there is much emphasis, let us emphasize much; where there is little said, let us say little?"

A) I must speak as the oracles of God (I Peter 4:11). Jesus did not say we lived better by the more important words of God, but by EVERY word (Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4). He put no restrictions on the number of times of their use. Neither will I. If He only said it once, it is just as true as if He had said it in every chapter. I cannot dismiss some of His word, the truth, sometimes for the sake of the "feelings" of those who are unbelievers.

22) You asked, "Can we not encourage the churches to stop shunning one another, and to open lines of communication?"

A) The churches do not shun one another. If you are referring to the church shunning the apostates, they are not churches, regardless of the name they apply to themselves: God does not apply it to them. They are not desirous of being part of the body. They want to be different from us instead.

23) You asked, "Are 150 years of bias (on both sides) too much for the Lord to overcome?"

A) It is not too much in terms of His power. At the same time, He will not force those in sin to leave it. Therefore, even though He is able to overcome such, He will not do so until they voluntarily put down the sin of the instruments and come home. Only then will it be overcome, not by the Lord, but by man.

24) You asked, "Do our actions show that we believe that "what is impossible with men is possible with God?" (Lk. 18:27)"

A) This is not applicable to the question at hand. It is possible with men, but only on God's terms will it happen. God is not going to do it. The churches actions do show this in other matters where it does apply.

In summary, the whole idea of Christians "forgetting" or "ignoring" the sins of those out of the body is nothing more than an attempt to cause the Christians to sin, as well. God is never going to make us sin intentionally. God is never going to make them quit sinning. Therefore, reconcilliation is possible, but only in the direction of them coming back to us, leaving their abomination. That is, if those who are now in the church ever expect to see heaven.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
preacherman_1962@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962