For
the benefit of readers who might not be acquainted with the
new "Grace-Unity Movement," a brief explanation of that
movement is in order. The unity which this movement
advocates is not unity achieved through reaching agreement
regarding such issues as the work, worship, and organization
of the church; rather, it is unity which is attained by
overlooking such differences - hence, unity in diversity.
This is the only kind of unity which is possible, the
proponents of this movement argue, for it is impossible for
brethren to reach agreement on these doctrinal issues; such
issues are matters of mere human opinion, so that we cannot
know for certain the truth about them. Hence, we agree to
disagree on such matters.
This
concept of unity is based on a perversion of the Biblical
doctrine of grace. Since we are under grace, the advocates
of this doctrine claim, it is not essential that we be
correct regarding all of these issues. Even though one is in
error on such matters, God will accept him by grace so long
as he holds to certain fundamental truths about Jesus and
professes Him to be Lord. Since God will accept all of us by
grace, regardless of doctrinal beliefs and practices, they
conclude, we should accept each other and overlook doctrinal
disagreements.
The
unity which is taught in this movement is unity which
crosses denominational boundaries. Leroy Garrett one of the
most notable advocates of this teaching, after referring to
different denominational groups, stated that they could all
continue to exist, yet "be as one body in the holy bond of
Christian brotherhood, despite external differences and even
annoying disagreements," and "accept each other as brothers
and treat each other as children of God in the same heavenly
family . . . . They would drop creedal barriers, having
fellowship on the Lordship of Christ and nothing else"
(Restoration Review, May, 1964).
One
cannot help but note the similarity between this brand of
unity and that which has for years been taught by
denominationalists. In fact, W. Carl Ketcherside, a primary
leader of the Grace-Unity Movement, admits the influence
which the denominational ecumenical movement has had on him:
We
are wholly sympathetic to the "call of renewal" as voiced by
our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles. We
congratulate and commend them for their recognition that,
our present state is abnormal and for their concern which
prompts them to want to do something tangible to remedy it.
What they have said and written has affected a great many of
us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our
thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into
the twentieth century quite against our wills (Mission
Messenger, July, 1967, p. 98).
A Matter of Opinion
According to this view, therefore, unity exists despite
differences over such matters as instrumental music in
worship. The question of whether ox not instrumental music
should be used in worship is a matter of mere opinion, so
that it is impossible for us to agree, on the matter. In
discussing the view which he believes he Campbell's held,
and which' he himself does hold, Edward Fudge said,
"Anything specifically stated by God is a matter of faith. .
. If you've got to put two and two together and get four,
theft they called it opinion." Then he added, "Obviously
instrumental music and all kinds of issues are not things,
most of the time, that we can just turn and read straight
out of the Bible, `do not do it.' It's not that simple. It's
a matter that you've got to put two and two together" (Truth
Magazine, Vol. 18, no. 18, p. 278). Brother Fudge's view,
then, is that since there is no direct command which
specifically forbids instrumental music, the question is a
matter of opinion.
Their
conclusion is that since the issue is a matter of mere
opinion, surely we should be tolerant of those whose belief
and practice differ from outs. Unity exists between us and
them despite our differences. In an article entitled
"Fellowship and the Instrument" (Vanguard, Vol. I, no. 13,
pp. 390-393), Fudge said, "If a man who has been baptized
into Christ in obedience to the gospel loves the Lord with
his whole heart and seeks only to serve Him, he and I are
`one' in that allegiance and loyalty, although we differ on
the piano in church." In that same article he said, "As
individual Christians, though, brothers who differ on this
issue may still have opportunities to be together, and they
may then enjoy their onenesses of relationship, of
allegiance, and of sentiment and affection."
Is it
true that, since instrumental music in worship is not
specifically forbidden, the issue is a matter of opinion, so
that we should simply agree to disagree on the question,
exercising tolerance toward those who worship with the
instrument? Absolutely not! Even though the New Testament
does not specifically name instrumental music as a thing
forbidden in worship, it does in principle condemn all such
innovations (as the other articles by other writers
demonstrate); and if the scriptures condemn a thing, it is
not a matter of opinion whether that thing is right or
wrong. We can have unity on this matter, not by agreeing to
disagree, but by a common decision to abide in the teaching
of Christ (2 John 9), follow the scriptures (2 Tim.
3:16-17), cease practicing human traditions (Matt.
15:9, Col. 2:8), and practice the divinely revealed
religion rather than a humanly devised one.
Grace and the Instrument
Due
to their concept of grace, the advocates of the Grace-Unity
Movement maintain that if people are in error on
instrumental music, we should overlook it, recognize that
God accepts them by grace despite their error. This concept
of grace is unscriptural. We must recognize that God's
gracious forgiveness is conditioned on acknowledging our
sins, repenting of them, and asking His forgiveness (1
John 1:9, Acts 8:22). God does not promise that He will
overlook sins in which we persist; hence, we must urgently
call on those who use the instrument in worship to repent of
it that they might be forgiven by God's grace. None of us
keep God's law perfectly; all of us sin, hence, we depend on
God's grace; but we must not persist in our sins, for God's
grace is conditioned on repentance.
Sometimes it is argued that God's grace will cover their sin
because it is done in ignorance. In the first place, God
makes no such promise in His word. In the second place, the
Bible teaches that the ignorant will be punished (Matt.
15:14; Lk. 12:47-48). In the third place, in view of the
availability of Bibles and of the prevalence of teaching on
the subject, the ignorance is generally willful and
inexcusable. It is further argued that such sins will be
overlooked because the perfect life of Christ is imputed or
credited to the one who is guilty. However, the Bible does
not teach this Calvinistic doctrine; it teaches that God
justifies His sinning child, not through giving him credit
for Christ's perfect life, but through forgiving him when he
meets the divinely ordained conditions (Acts 8:22; 1 John
1:9). Since God has made no promise that he will forgive
sins when these conditions have not been met, we have no
right to proceed on the presumption that He will?
Does Romans 14 Apply?
In
their plea that we overlook our differences with those who
worship with the instrument, the proponents of the
Grace-Unity Movement appeal to Romans 14. In that
passage, Paul instructed brethren who differed on certain
matters to accept one another, not condemn one another.
However, the matters over which the Romans differed involved
practices which were purely private and individual in
nature. One could engage in the practices without involving
anyone else. Hence, it was possible to leave the matter
between him and God. This is the case with such present-day
issues as the covering question and the war question. It is
not the case, however, with the matter of using instrumental
music in congregational worship. This is not an individual
matter which one can leave between the man and his God.
Rather, it necessarily involves the whole congregation.
The
difference is clear. Those who bring this sin into a
congregation bind the evil practice on all who remain in the
congregation; a congregation which engages in the practice,
binds it on all who would become a part of the congregation.
Thus, those who defend and practice this error lead many
souls into their evil. If they had their way, all
congregations would be corrupted with their sinful deeds and
the cause of pure, New Testament Christianity would perish
from the earth. There is a vast difference between one who
engages in a practice strictly on an individual basis,
involving no one but himself, and one who would corrupt the
Lord's church. To corrupt God's church is indeed a serious
matter, and it must be dealt with seriously.
Since
Romans 14 deals with private practices of
individuals, it is a fallacy to apply it to practices that
involve a congregation. Those who do so are applying the
passage to situations it was not intended to deal with. The
scripture in Romans which applies to those who defend
instrumental music in worship is not Romans 14, but
Romans 16:17-18. Unlike those who privately practice
things which I could not in good conscience practice, they
lead others into sin and cause division in the Lord's church
-- division between those who want to engage in a form of
worship which is clearly unscriptural, and those who insist
on practicing only the religion revealed from Heaven. Hence,
we must mark and avoid them.
A Doctrine of Compromise
A
consideration of their views makes it obvious that the
attitude of those involved in this movement is one of
compromise. They are certainly not of the disposition to
raise their voices in firm opposition to the use of
instrumental music in worship, even if they believe it to be
wrong. Tolerance must prevail on such "matters of opinion."
Moreover, believing that-hose who use the instrument are
going to be saved by grace despite their error, they
naturally feel no urgency to lead them out of error. Writing
of a meeting between those he ludicrously called "top-level
men in the churches of Christ" and a prominent leader in the
Christian Church, Carl Ketcherside reported, It was agreed
that these leaders in the non-instrumental ranks would tone
down their factional approach in their articles and
broadcasts, eliminating such material as would intensify
tensions between the two groups . . . the effect has been
seen coast to coast (Mission Messenger, Nov., 1969).
This
is the attitude we are called on to have. By thus ceasing
our strong objections to the instrument, we can have peace
with those who use it, and the "unity" advocated by this
movement will exist.
The
spirit of compromise is manifested in the actions of those
involved in the movement. For example, Edward Fudge, who
states unequivocally that he does not believe instrumental
music in worship to be right, has written a number of
articles for The Christian Standard, a Christian Church
publication; but his articles have not condemned the errors
which that paper upholds, including instrumental music in
worship. The only way he could write for that paper is by
compromising, not teaching the very truths which are needed
by its readers. This does not bother him, however, for he
does not believe that being in error on this "matter of
opinion" will endanger their souls anyway; God's grace will
cover such things.
Although Brother Fudge says that he teaches against the use
of instrumental music in worship, he does not urgently call
on people to repent of the sin that their souls might be
saved. He would teach against it in the same spirit that he
taught against institutionalism in a letter to a digressive
church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Here is what happened:
That congregation had been opposed to institutionalism; but
after hearing Fudge present his views on unity, they had
taken on a sweeter, more tolerant attitude toward
institutional brethren; then, they themselves had gone into
institutionalism. On January 4, 1971, Fudge wrote them a
letter sympathizing with them because faithful brethren had
attacked them for their digression into liberalism. He told
them, "I do not believe it best honors the Lord for
congregations to get involved with institutions of any
sort." Then he added these comforting words: "At the same
time we are saved ones because of God's grace to us in His
Son, and we are accepted by Him `in the beloved!' Not
because we know it all, or do it all right!" (Truth
Magazine, Vol. 17, no. 46, p. 725). Thus, Brother Fudge
teaches against such things as instrumental music and
institutionalism in that he tells folks that he does not
think those practices "best honor the Lord" but he does not
call on them to repent lest they be lost; rather, he tells
them that even if they are practicing error, their souls
will not be lost anyway.
It
should also be pointed out that some of those who have
accepted the concepts of the Grace-Unity Movement have grown
progressively softer and more tolerant in their attitudes
toward instrumental music, to the point that they have
eventually decided that instrumental music in worship is not
really wrong. Once one begins to compromise his convictions,
tolerating a sin in others, it is not surprising to see him
grow so soft in his attitude toward the sin that he no
longer considers it to be wrong. David Tant wrote of
visiting a church in Atlanta which had a Christmas program,
including religious songs accompanied by the guitar. He told
of a conversation with Brother Harold Gooldin, a member of
that congregation, in which Harold affirmed that
instrumental music was a matter of indifference (Ancient
Landmarks, January, 1978).
Brethren, we must not take a soft, compromising attitude
toward this sin, Proponents of the Grace-Unity Movement are
asking us to abandon our firm stand against the instrument,
to practice our convictions but raise no strong objections
while those who differ practice theirs. We must not heed
this appeal. Rather, we must heed the voice of scripture,
which calls on us to reprove and rebuke all sins, earnestly
contending for the faith (2 Tim. 4:2; Jude 3). We
leave you with the warning of J.W. McGarvey:
You
are on the right road, and whatever you do don't let anybody
persuade you that you can successfully combat error by
fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I
believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I've
never held membership in a congregation that uses
instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to
preach without distinctions between churches that used it
and churches that didn't. I've gone along with their papers
and magazines and things of that sort. During all these
years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches
it to every young preacher who has passed through the
College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of
those men who are preaching the truth today. It won't work.
Questions
1.
According to the Grace-Unity
Movement, what is the only kind of unity possible?
2.
Is the unity advocated by that
movement the same kind of unity advocated in 1 Cor. 1:10?
3.
According to this movement, why
is it not essential that we be correct on issues such as
instrumental music in worship?
4.
What is the reason given by
Brother Fudge for saying that the instrumental music
question is a matter of opinion?
5.
Since they think the question is
a matter of opinion, what do they say our attitude should be
toward those who differ with us and use the instrument?
6.
Since we are under grace, those
who persist in a sin (such as worshipping with the
instrument) will not be lost. True or False. (Give a reason
for your answer.)
7.
Rom. 14 discusses
practices over which brethren differed, and teaches
tolerance of one another when such differences exist. In
what way do the practices discussed in that chapter differ
from the use of instrumental music in congregational
worship?
8.
Which passage in Romans does
apply to those who defend the use of the instrument in
worship?
9.
Ketcherside tells of a meeting
between certain non-instrumentalists and someone in the
Christian Church and reports that there was an agreement to
compromise for the sake of peace. According to that
agreement, who was to do the compromising?
10.
What has Ed Fudge had to do to
have articles published in the Christian Standard?
11.
Give a scripture which is
contrary to the compromising spirit of the Grace-Unity
Movement.
Truth Magazine - June 5, 1980 |