Recently someone sent an evaluation of hand clapping in worship. The author is Ray Davis, who preaches for the Edgewood Church of Christ in Mansfield, Massachusetts. The document consists of a review of four articles, one of which was mine, “The Applause of Men.” Others were written by Bobby Duncan (“Let God Do the Clapping”), Mel Futrell (“Hand Clapping and Worship”), and Hugo McCord (“Hand-Clapping in Worship”). We will herein deal with the teaching set forth in this material dated September 2nd.
The first assertion is that the clapping referred to in Psalm 47:1 and 2 Kings 11:12 is directed at God and that therefore such a principle might be valid today. Psalm 47:1 states: “Oh, clap your hands, all you peoples! Shout to God with the voice of triumph.” It is true that the action of clapping encouraged in this verse is directed toward God just as is the shouting, but what more should be deduced? Are the sons of Korah referring to applause? Or is it possible that the clapping refers to a rhythmic beat that accompanies the singing or the chanting of this song? It is difficult to envision the writer as meaning, “Let’s all get together and applaud the Lord. Ready? On the count of three: Yea, God.” But even if this were the meaning, it provides no authority for clapping, shouting, or dancing before God today, which David did in 2 Samuel 6:14.
2 Kings 11:12 mentions that when Joash (aged 7) was crowned, “they clapped their hands and said, ‘Long live the king!'” This applause is directed toward the king, not God. They were celebrating the restoration of the throne from the hands of the usurper Athaliah. The next argument is that edification and entertainment need not be mutually exclusive; he says that singing can be fun and that we sometimes focus more on the beat than on the words. The problem with this reasoning is that it does not distinguish between primary and secondary purposes. Is singing fun? Yes. So is Bible study. Every act of worship is enjoyable to the spiritually minded. But the purpose for worship is not to derive entertainment; it is to honor God. When we focus more on the melody and the beat than the words, we have lost the appropriate emphasis. Some things are designed for entertainment (novels, movies), and they probably contain a message or truth for the audience to absorb, but the focus of worship is upon God. The problem is that in our current selfish era we have insisted that everything be ME-oriented.
Davis’ paragraph on spiritual gifts being irrelevant, we turn to his next argument: We have been clapping hands to songs in teen devotionals, Bible camps, children’s Bible classes, and Vacation Bible School. He should speak for himself. Hand clapping is no more authorized there than in the public assembly. Many of us have consistently opposed all such practices, the one exception being, “If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands,” in which case the clapping is neither applause nor joined with the singing. If someone thinks that this might confuse a child or send a mixed message, however, we cheerfully give it up for the dozens of other songs that are available. We ought to be consistent between what we do in more informal gatherings and in worship. Is not that failure to distinguish the means by which instrumental music was introduced?
Davis next finds fault with assigning motives to those who enjoy hand clapping. He writes: “What clappers view as unspiritual, unscriptural, and therefore, intolerable, is a stoic manner of singing.” But, we ask in return, “Where would they get the idea that singing is ‘stoic’ if not from secular entertainment, which emphasizes the point that they are trying to be like the world?” One of the growing markets today is religious (“gospel”) music with a rock or modern beat. Naturally, hymns may seem boring next to that style, but againspiritual must not be defined by the way someone feels about a song but whether or not it seeks to glorify God and edify one another. As long as we do not use instruments, we will never be able to compete with the music of the world and the excitement and enthusiasm that it generates. In fact, we have occasionally been told that singing without instruments does not seem right or spiritual. Davis saddled a losing horse when he chose this argument.
Brother Summers
Thus far, no substantial case has been presented in favor of hand clapping. It was already admitted that the Old Testament Scriptures cited did not constitute authority. Next, each of the four aforementioned articles is discussed. Davis took issue with this assertion: “Fervency in worship is provided from within, not by some artificial, external stimulus.” He tries to argue that standing or bowing in prayer constitutes an artificial, external stimulus, which is a really weak, not to mention inaccurate, argument. Generally, bowing is considered an act of reverence. Closing one’s eyes is a means of shutting out distractions and concentrating better. Standing may afford some small benefit (it is harder to sleep), but none of these are “mood” maneuvers. Clapping hands, turning down the lights, or things of that ilk are calculated to affect the mood.
Davis wonders how I determined that hand clapping smacks of artificiality and if I am not simply speaking for myself. This knowledge was obtained by watching and by conversation with others who have observed the same thing. Apparently, Davis is one of the few people whose powers of observation are limited.
Incredibly, the critic next tries to appeal to the Old Testament as a valid authority for our worship on the basis that New Testament writers quoted from it. After referring to several verses in Romans, he says:
Is not Paul appealing to the Old Testament to prove his point which is for us New Testament doctrine and practice? What about the time Paul participated in the rite of purification (Acts 21:24-26)? Does the apostle not refer to this act as worship (Acts 24:11)? Was this not an Old Testament authorized act, done in New Testament times? …There is more to Heb. 8.6-7; Col. 2.14; Gal. 5:3.4 than the idea that the Old Testament is no longer usable for New Testament doctrine, practice or worship.
As brother Taylor would say, this paragraph is amazingly amazing! To what lengths will someone go to try to justify hand clapping we would never have believed if we had not seen it! This man has more problems than hand clapping; he does not know how to rightly divide the Word of God. Perhaps he should not just cite Galatians 5:3-4‹he should read it:
And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law: you have fallen from grace (emphasis mine).
What about Paul’s actions? Who said he was right in what he did? He succumbed to peer pressure in Acts 21 just as Peter had at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-13). He was trying to make the point that he did not despise Jewish customs, and he went about it the wrong way. He transgressed briefly his own writing. The apostles were not perfect men in their actions–only in their inspired teaching. We must abide by their doctrine and only follow their example only as they followed Christ.If Old Testament teaching is reaffirmed in the New Testament as part of our covenant, then it may be used. In most cases, it is a principle that is made applicable or a truth that is restated (“there is none righteous; no, not one,” e.g.). Verses are also cited as fulfilled prophecies (Acts 2). In quoting an Old Testament passage, the inspired writers of the New Testament were not in any way insinuating that we are to follow their laws regarding worship.
Davis (whether inadvertently or not we do not know) missed the point in my article of mentioning Saul’s disobedience to God regarding the Amalekites. We are well aware that Saul violated a specific commandment and that hand clapping does not. What the critic missed was the point of similarity between the two:
“Oh, but all of this is for God [referring to the reason for clapping hands, gws].” Sure it is–just as the animals that Saul was to kill (but instead brought them alive back from the Amalekites) were for sacrifices for Jehovah (1 Sam. 15).
The reader can clearly see that the point of comparison is that people excuse their actions (whether violating a specific law or doing what God has not authorized) on the basis that they are just wanting to please God.He also tries to restrict the phrase, in spirit and in truth, to Jesus’ ministry and death. Worship is with the right attitude and in harmony with God’s revelation, or it is not, period. False teachers, who generally use the NIV (as he does), are always trying to limit universal principles. They want to choose the context in which it applies, but a principle applies beyond an immediate problem unless it is plainly limited (Gal. 1:8).
Brother McCord
Primarily, all Davis says here is that McCord’s conclusions are unrelated to the Scriptures he lists, and he faults him for not making “a deeper examination of the text.” He also reaffirms what he said earlier about the Old Testament.
Brother FutrellHere the critic takes issue with the authority principle of Colossians 3:17. He asks: “What if a person asked him for his specified authorization for the prohibition of clapping?” Does he not realize that the whole point of talking about authorization is to show that none exists for hand clapping in worship? When there is a “thou shalt not,” that ends the discussion. Some think that, in absence of such a statement, everything is permitted that is not expressly condemned. God wanted us to know that suh a way of thinking involves faulty logic. Whatever someone advocates must have Biblical authority. Would this “preacher” object to instrumental music? Most of the rationale that he applies to hand clapping would have the same application to mechanical instruments of music.
Brother DuncanThe application of 2 John 9-11 is also challenged by Davis. See if what he says would not apply equally to instrumental music as well. “Brother Duncan I think, is defining the doctrine of Christ as anything Jesus taught and did not mention.” By that criticism, 2 John 9-11 would not prohibit the use of instruments of music in worship–even though they were never used by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church in worship, were never commanded to be used, nor was it even implied that their use would be acceptable. Brother Duncan is right.
The Argument from Scripture’s SilenceDavis argues that we are inconsistent. We are commanded to greet one another with a holy kiss, but we shake hands instead. We reject a specific commandment and do what we are not authorized to do (based on the silence of the Scriptures). If he really believes his own argument, then he should encourage all brethren to drop their hands and pucker up instead. Otherwise he is objecting to the argument from silence, which the Scriptures themselves make in Hebrews 7:14 (Moses spake nothing concerning priests from any other tribe but Judah).
Then he attempts to make hand clapping a substitute for saying, “Amen.” Truly, only the “uninformed” would clap in place of the Amen (1 Cor. 14:16). This approach rids us of a valuable, Biblical principle and substitutes it with, “Let’s just do what we want.”
Perhaps next we could substitute for the elements of the Lord’s Supper Pizza and Pepsi; after all, the Lord didn’t say NOT to make substitutions. And if we can substitute shaking hands for holy kissing and clapping for Amening, why not change the day of worship from Sunday to Saturday (some congregations in New York have already done so)? We can really start to blend in with our culture, have the kind of worship we enjoy, and maybe even bring in some rock bands to replace that “stoic” singing. Wahoo!
“The Solution to the Clapping Issue”
Whether one claps or refuses to clap, a person’s relationship with the Lord is not effected [sic] for we are justified in the Lord’s sight by faith in Christ’s obedience and sacrifice.
We disagree: If God refuses to accept our worship, we are affected. Furthermore, those insisting on clapping will affect everyone else’s worship, just as bringing in an organ, a piano, or a guitar would.
Here it comes: “Is the blood of Christ and His body more important than our clapping preference?” No, and that is precisely the reason it should not be done. If it is not a requirement, then those who crave it should go to a basketball game and leave the church assembly alone! This is the same problem that existed with instrumental music 100 years ago. Brethren said, “We can worship without it and be acceptable to God.” But they would not give it up for the sake of unity! Neither will the hand clappers.
Davis even suggests using different songs for clappers than for non-clappers and then speaks of maturity. If we were mature, we would not insist on bringing something into the worship assembly that is admittedly not required.
Yes, we will have clapping and non-clapping churches, just as we have instrumental and non-instrumental churches. The basic difference, however, will not be the clapping–but rather the love and respect the members have for the Head of the church, Jesus Christ. Those who love Him would not want to add anything to the worship that is not practiced or authorized in the New Testament. They would rather die than sow discord among brethren (Pr. 6:19).
In 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul wrote that, “if food makes my brother to stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” If brethren could withhold themselves from something that was outside the assembly (but would adversely influence brethren), then how much more should brethren repudiate a practice which no one has proven that they are entitled to do and which affects every worshipper in the assembly! Such a disposition would be mature and promote unity.