Part 5 of Rubel’s series of seven sermons is titled “A Cappella Music.” By now the reader can probably guess what he will say–something to the effect of how beautiful a cappella music is, that we should never change it, but of course we can not judge those who use accompaniment or call it a sin. That would be a good guess; in fact, Shelly approaches the subject in the following way.
“One of the things that makes us who we are,” he begins, “is our distinctive musical heritage and practice” (delivered July 11, 1999). This sentence simply builds upon his false view of the church (as expressed earlier). Shelly does not consider that today’s churches of Christ are the church of the New Testament. He speaks as if we are a denomination begun in the 1800s, sprouting from “the American Restoration Movement.” He thinks we ought to preserve this “heritage.” His views have nothing to do with Truth or error.
Shelly correctly defines the term a cappella as Latin for “in the style of the church.” He further admits that the “New Testament and early Christian history reveal a practice of unaccompanied vocal praise to God in the church’s worship.” So! Our “distinctive musical heritage” dates back to the New Testament? Then it did not originate with the “American Restoration Movement.” We do what we do because of what the New Testament teaches–not because of what somebody in the 1800s thought up. Shelly has hopelessly contradicted himself. But he quickly gets over his flirtation with Truth to immediately condemn church members for passing “harsh judgment on people with a different practice” (those who use unauthorized instruments).
Shelly, as was predicted earlier, states: “There is no explicit instruction that either requires or excludes musical instruments in the church’s worship.” Oh. Would not the logical conclusion be, then, that we can either use it or not use it? Yes, but Shelly and the elders at Woodmont Hills refuse to do so. On what basis, then, is such a decision made? He will defend a cappella music (and the exclusion of instrumental music) on two grounds: 1) it is “part of our heritage”; 2) instrumental music “would be divisive and therefore wrong….”
The first reason is nonsense. Perhaps Shelly has a religious heritage to crystallize and preserve, but true Christians could never have a view that solidifies doctrine (whether right or wrong) into some sort of permanent catechism. We must always be open to different concepts and interpretations of Scripture. What we teach must always be subject to evaluation and scrutiny in light of the New Testament. If instrumental music in worship is acceptable to God, then we would be wrong to forbid its use. It does not matter if we have opposed it for 200 or 1800 years. If the New Testament advocates or authorizes its use in any way, then we must cease our opposition, for we are in error.
The second reason contains a valid point within a certain context–if something is a matter of indifference. We used this argument 100 years ago–to no avail. Christians told their brethren, “If instrumental music is a matter of indifference to you, then please don’t introduce it; it will divide us.” Such pleas were met with a collective yawn, and a division was forced upon those who could not conscientiously use it.
The operative word in that instance, however, was if. We never said that it was a matter of indifference; we only argued that if it were a matter of indifference to those who wanted instruments in worship, they should forego their “rights.” But Shelly declares that instrumental music is a matter of indifference. Despite the fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever used instruments of music and the fact that the church did not use them (he gives quotations to that effect), nevertheless HE, Rubel Shelly, has decided that using instruments is a matter of indifference. God did not authorize them, but Shelly knows that their use is all right.
Shelly amazes us by his recognition that Hebrews 7:14 is still in his New Testament. Of course, he will not apply the principle properly, but at least he knows it is there. He knows that God authorized the Levites to be priests. That specification excluded all coordinate options–namely, the other 11 brothers. This is an argument the Holy Spirit made, which Shelly cannot explicitly deny. So he tries to get around it by arguing that the silence of the Scriptures, besides being prohibitive, is also concessive. Shelly’s postmodernism surfaces here. Most people who are not as educated as Dr. Shelly would scratch their heads and say, “If Biblical silence both prohibits and allows, then that’s contradictory.” Contradictions, however, don’t matter to postmodernists–only to those interested in Truth.
His “example” of silence’s concessiveness is the rise of the synagogues. God did not specifically authorize them, yet Jesus and the apostles did not condemn them; they actually took advantage of the system. Unfortunately, Shelly does not see (or more likely, hopes that the reader will not see) that this situation is not at all parallel with the example given us by the Holy Spirit. In God’s example of the proper use of silence, one brother of twelve was specified for a particular work (priesthood), which meant that the other eleven had no permission to do so. When the synagogue concept arose, it did not violate anything else that God specified. In fact, it was in harmony with God’s goals; it furthered spirituality. God’s people always had the liberty to do right. Gospel meetings and lectureships are not specifically commanded, but they violate no other principle God has given and further His interests. They are ways of preaching and edifying. Shelly’s example of synagogues proves nothing against Hebrews 7:14. He knows that there are many types of music and that God specifies only singing (with words that edify), which excludes all coordinate forms of music. This is the correct application of the argument from silence.
Rubel resorts next to “the core gospel” heresy. Echoing Carroll Osburn, he writes: “Jesus didn’t die over our interpretations of eschatology, congregational government, or church music.”
Notice what Rubel is willing to say are matters of indifference: eschatology (therefore he can fellowship premillennialists although their doctrine is dead wrong at best and dangerous at worst), congregational government (the “pastor” system not taught in the New Testament is acceptable to Shelly), or church music. So affirms Rubel. Then he provides three essentials so that we will all know what is important to God: John 3:16; Acts 2:36; Romans 5:8-9. What arrogance! God put John 3:1-15 and John 3:17-21:25 in the New Testament, but Rubel knows that only John 3:16 is important! Only one verse out of the entire book of Acts is crucial, and that verse tells us Jesus has been made both Lord and Christ; it does not tell us how to respond properly to that fact. Although Acts 2:38 was vital to those on Pentecost who did what Peter said (Acts 2:41), Rubel does not think God is passionate about the means of becoming a Christian. Only two verses from the entire book of Romans are important, and apparently anything from there on in the New Testament is irrelevant. God is not passionate about what He inspired Paul to write in Ephesians or Philippians. How fortunate this era is to have Shelly to boil down and condense the entire New Testament for us. No doubt we should let him do our studying for us too and enlighten us as he sees fit..
Shelly says Jesus didn’t die over church music. While it is true that Jesus came to die for our sins on the cross, He also came “to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:36). Part of the Truth He revealed is that “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). If true worship does not matter, then Shelly is right in saying church music is irrelevant.
Paul thought that eschatology was important. He taught the facts of the matter (1 Thess. 4:13-17); then he corrected misconceptions concerning the second coming (2 Thess. 2); finally he said that the eschatological error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18).
The New Testament authorizes one and only one form of church government–elders and deacons in local congregations with no hierarchy beyond that (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1); how dare any man change that Divine pattern? And how dare Shelly defend those unauthorized changes? What is the point of God teaching us anything if men like Shelly can come along and say, “Well God says X, but Y sounds just as good to me”?
Shelly also defends the use of instrumental music OUTSIDE the assembly:
…”Cowboy Dan” and his guitar teach Bible lessons to our children. Adult and teen devos occasionally use instrumental tracks, guitars, or other instruments…. These practices are in no way inconsistent with our commitment to a cappella music in worship.
Inconsistency comes easily to postmodernists.
This sixth lesson was delivered on July 18, 1999. One wonders why Shelly devoted an entire lesson to church organization as it is defined in the New Testament, since it is a matter of indifference anyway. Jesus did not die on the cross for “congregational government,” according to Shelly. Does the man belie himself? Does he realize that the Christians on Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” after all (Acts 2:42)? Or is this simply evidence of more contradictions within the man?
Most of our objections to this lesson lie with what Shelly did not say. He does not define what he means by churches or demonstrate how New Testament churches differ from denominations. The pre-postmodern Rubel would have done so; the modern Rubel observes the passover. He is careful to offend no one–except the Lord and His church.
Shelly concludes this series with a look at another subject area for which Jesus did not die: eschatology (July 25, 1999). He first advises all to be content with the fact that Christ is coming–no matter when it is. He is right, but he overlooks the fact that people get excited about setting dates. Those who advocate that the signs of the Bible are being fulfilled in our lifetime and that His return is immanent are the ones generating all the enthusiasm. Who has had a best-seller with the title of Jesus Is Coming–Sometime?
Second, Shelly sets forth three views of the second coming: the Scriptural one and two that are erroneous. But Shelly is quick to add that, although he believes the truth, he certainly will not defend it.
I’m not willing to fight any brother or sister over my reading of the end-time texts. I confess I’m not particularly passionate about the topic simply because I don’t think anybody’s salvation depends on a particular interpretation of the second coming….
What a contrast between Paul and Rubel! The apostle seemed eager to have people know the truth concerning the second coming (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Thess 2). Undoubtedly, those on Pentecost learned the truth of the matter, also, as they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. How then can matters of Divinely revealed doctrine turn into matters of indifference? Is the Bible presented with this attitude: “Here is what God says on this subject, but it doesn’t really matter”? Where in the Scriptures is it taught that some doctrines are essential but others are peripheral? What passage says, “Here is the truth, but the truth doesn’t really matter”? Did Jesus not teach that true freedom comes from continuing in His Word (Truth)?
In the early 1970s Rubel Shelly published the book whose title heads this section (there is no publication date listed). Notice then what he said about instrumental music:
To play mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is to go beyond what Scripture authorizes and to commit sin. This is no mere matter of opinion or inconsequential difference of interpretation, for what is at stake is not so much the presence or absence of a piano in a church building but the far more fundamental matter of the authority of the Word of God. If Biblical authority can be set aside with regard to this issue, why must it be respected in any other?
Yes, instrumental music in worship is sinful and serves as a valid test of Christian fellowship (64).
Does anyone doubt that Shelly has changed his teaching? He is now well-reversed in the Scriptures. Whereas now he teaches unity despite truth, he once wrote: “Only if there is truth in the realm of religious considerations–truth which can be both learned and obeyed–can there ever be real unity” (21).
Shelly once correctly affirmed: “Liberal false teachers hold that men cannot learn the truth, that we can never be sure we are right about anything” (24). But these sentiments were made before he was taught political correctness at Vanderbilt University. Shelly also said: “Error is not the means to salvation” (28). Now he says, “Error doesn’t matter.”
There was a time when Shelly could not fellowship spiritually those in error. He wrote that Christian fellowship must be withheld from those “who believe that Jesus is the Son of God but who have not been Scripturally baptized” and from “those who are members of denominational religious bodies” (56). Now he fellowships both categories.
This review of Shelly’s series has contained a few zingers as well as the evidence needed to make its case. Some do not enjoy this tactic, but the writer figures that if Elijah could mock the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18), a lesser man should be allowed to use some small doses of ridicule to show the folly of Shelly’s evolving heresies. He has not been misrepresented, however. He once knew, preached, and wrote the truth on these various matters; now he propagates error and false doctrine, leading many astray in the process.
We cannot apologize for opposing Shelly and doing so vigorously. And if he should find fault with such, he has only himself to blame, for we took him at his word, when he wrote: “But false teachers must be exposed for both their own sakes and for the sake of the church at large” (89).