0139 – Do YOU have DOGMA? (Part 2)
Note: Part 1 was posted 7/14/2009. THIS part, Part 2, includes the first posting, for continuity, but then concludes the posting below, i.e., if you read the 7/14/2009 posting when it was published you may think the below is a duplicate, but only the first part below is a duplicate – the bottom part is new!
Well, do you? Have DOGMA, that is?
What is dogma, anyway? Is it bad or good? Well, I suspect that the answer is: It depends.
What is dogma?
Merriam-Webster thinks it is:
1 a: something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
(Oh, by the way: I’m going somewhere with this. The point of the post is not DOGMA; but the DOGMA discussion gets us where we can discuss the real point !)
I’ve normally associated the word “dogma” with definition 2 above, and that most often with respect to the Roman Catholic church, which has raised official church dogma to a very exalted position. I’ve pointed that out to people before, and commented about how we need to be using only the inspired scriptures as our guide to Faith and Practice, and not teachings passed down by men, and subsequently deified. Talk about trying to see around the beam in my own eye!
Continuing that analogy, I think I HAVE begun to see around that beam a little bit. I wish I could say I’ve removed the beam, but I don’t know that I can say that yet. I’ll wait awhile before claiming that. I have begun to see dogma in my own life, particularly the “1.a” type from the dictionary definition.
When one has grown up hearing people state that “we believe such-and-such” because it’s in the Bible, one does not associate those statements with dogma. Rather, they are the simple truth. After all, if it’s “in the Bible” it can’t be dogma, right?
But what if it’s “in the Bible” only if the reader assumes certain “rules” for reading the Bible… for interpreting the Bible? In other words, I may read the Bible and not see a particular teaching, only to have another person who uses his set of “rules” when he reads, and comes to the unambiguous (to him) decision that indeed the Bible DOES teach “such and such!”
One “rule” that I have been told is “in the Bible” is: The Law of Silence. Have you ever heard that one? It goes like this: “If the Bible doesn’t say anything about some practice, that means it is forbidden.” And not to poke fun at anyone (it’s too serious to handle that way), but I have very close friends who, as near as I can tell, believe that rule (The Law of Silence) was written in the Foreward to the Bible, by Inspiration! I have come to believe that this “Law” is not a law at all. So I am immediately suspect by those who DO believe it is a Law. Do they ask WHY I don’t believe in this rule/law? No. They’re not too interested in understanding the Bible study that brought me to this point. (In a nutshell, in case you are wondering: Jesus did several things while walking the earth that were not “authorized” by the Bible, i.e., the Bible was silent on various religious practices, but He practiced them. And we are told He did no sin. My conclusion: there is no such law as The Law of Silence. Usually we don’t even get that far in the discussion though because they have concluded that I do not observe the right DOGMA. [They would never state it in those terms, of course!])
What began as “type 1a” dogma has progressed to the “type 2” dogma, but when I look at [some of] it now, what I see is “type 1c” dogma.
OK, so I’m belaboring the point. Let’s move on.
I’m working around to introducing you to a document that I just became aware of a couple of weeks ago. I simply haven’t had the time to read it all yet, but I’m impressed with what I’ve read so far.
The author has clearly dealt with “dogma” in the churches he grew up in. He writes,
“In practice, we have a tendency to question not just the credentials, but even the moral character of anyone who would write on the wrong side of our topics (where wrong means the opposite view to one’s own).”
That is clearly the result I observe personally, too. In fact, a group of men whom I should be able to confide in at church, to discuss theological issues with, to share my struggles and studies with, have told me, “Don’t send us any more of those emails which express ideas that don’t hew to the party line of the church!”
Now I have to be honest and say that “hew to the party line of the church” was not a direct quote. That is what I translated their words to in my mind, however, when I heard them. What they actually meant was, “Don’t share material with us unless the ideas expressed are all Biblical.” And by that, similar to the quote I shared above from the yet-to-be-revealed “document,” they meant, “Don’t send us material to read that we might not agree with,” because, of course, if they didn’t agree with it it would mean it was not in the Bible, which meant it was heretical. Really. (Don’t raise your eyebrows at me; I know some of you have “been there” too.)
I often despair of ever being able to reach Christians who are so closed to the Truth, who have neither the desire nor the willingness nor the patience to listen to the “why” if they have pre-judged the “what” to be wrong. Such brothers and sisters are content in their “I’m right and you’re wrong”ness.
One of the big issues of course is that we (well, not me personally, ‘cause I’m into grandchildren now) train our children to have the same closed-mindedness. And I guess, since I’m trying to be honest, that I did my share of that too – but I’m trying to make it up to them now! Along those lines consider this second quote from the document’s author:
“Students don’t reach conclusions like this on their own; our churches train them. I had to take into account the role of views like <XYZ> in the exodus of the students from our churches. Right now, you may think that whatever I believe about <XYZ> is wrong, but we must ask why our sons and daughters are most likely to leave our churches.
“I’ll mention one other student who brought me a booklet opposed to <XYZ>, written by his new preacher. I took the first argument and showed the student how it was flawed. To my surprise, he shared my study with his preacher. To my greater surprise, the preacher said it looked like he couldn’t use that argument any more. I wondered if there was hope.”
Wow! Wasn’t that great! He found a person (preacher in this case) who WAS willing to actually listen and study, and re-evaluate his thinking. My personal prayer is that the Lord would give us all hearts similar to that of this preacher who was willing to use his mind to study the Word, instead of limiting himself to simply repeating what he has heard others say for 50 years.
So what’s the big secret about “the Document?” The document’s author, Danny Corbitt, has put together his thoughts on a non-issue to most of the religious world, but an issue that is, perhaps more frequently than any other, used as a “litmus test” by Churches of Christ. That issue is, “Is it permissible to sing praise accompanied by instruments?”
It is interesting to note that this book was self-published. (It is also available to view (or download) as a PDF document here or from Amazon here.) There were no brotherhood publishers willing to publish it. One of his footnotes reads as follows:
“One publisher would not read my manuscript because ‘church politics would never allow me to print it.’ A former publisher explained that it would be ‘commercial suicide’ for anyone in the restoration movement to publish my work.”
The title of his book is: Missing More than Music – When Disputable Matters Eclipse Worship and Unity.
So why am I recommending you spend some time with this book? Well, for one, the spirit the author displays is wonderful. He does not lambast, he does not denigrate, he does not lampoon – he teaches. Secondly, I’ve not seen more information on this topic, or more depth of study, in any other single source. Whether you agree with his conclusion or not, you will be enriched by becoming aware of the information he has collected all in one place for your consideration.
While I was considering the material in Missing More than Music I also ran across another interesting word study document: Documents on Instrumental Music. Note: Charles Dailey has made copies of this book available on his site at these links:
Documents on Instrumental Music. Requires Acrobat Reader.
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6
Conclusion Appendices Bibliography
Tom Burgess authored this intriguing document. Basically, it is an entire book on the meaning of the Greek word translated “sing” in Eph 5:19, where we are told to “sing and make music in your heart to the Lord.” As you may be aware, those who believe that using instruments to accompany praise to God is sin do so because they believe that the Greek word for “sing” in New Testament times meant exclusively “to sing without musical accompaniment.” Burgess goes to great lengths to prove the opposite, i.e., that the word was commonly used to include the idea of musical accompaniment. It makes for fascinating reading. He includes photocopies of correspondence he entered into with
- The publishers of the Interlinear Literal Translation of the New Testament
- Researchers for the Merriam Webster Dictionary
- Researches with the Thorndike-Barnhardt Dictionary
- Etymology researchers with
- The World Publishing Company
- Funk and Wagnall’s
- Random House
- Etc., etc.
After he documents all this correspondence (in Chapter One), the author states:
“A concise summary of evidence needs to be made here also. This will distinctly indicate that our English dictionaries observed no revolutionary change in “psallo” or “psalmos” just prior to, or during, the New Testament period, as is asserted by those who oppose instrumental music.”
He summarizes from each source he contacted, but typical is this one from the Merriam-Webster Dictionaries company:
“ There is no evidence that pagan Greeks ever used the word for a vocal composition.” (Note: Most pagan Greeks spoke Koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written. <…> the New Testament is written in the spoken Greek of daily life, which can be proved from inscriptions to have differed but little, as found in nearly every corner of the Roman Empire of the first century.”
Chapter Two discusses Greek lexicons, Chapter Three “Commentators, Encyclopedists, and Grammarians,” Chapter Four’s content is from Greek professors, etc., etc. You get the idea.
But back to MISSING MORE THAN MUSIC. The author builds his book around discussions of what he terms the “Five Disputable Matters,” which he says are
- God commanded the early church to chant
- Texts on “worship” only apply to Christian assemblies
- The New Testament is silent on singing praise with any accompaniment
- The New Testament is silent on singing or listening to solos
- God desires division when we disagree over praise
Spread around those 5 “disputable matters” are 15 chapters. Chapter 4 is “Why do scholars disagree?” A short excerpt will perhaps help you see the writing (and thinking!) style of the author, as well as illustrate the content of the book:
An example comes from Milo Hadwin as he argues for a cappella singing only. He observes that before the first century, Jews and pagans had used instruments when praising God, but that the early church praised God a cappella. From this he concludes,
Nothing less than a command of God would have been sufficient to account for such a radical reversal in belief and practice.
Notice that his reasoning runs backwards from what one would expect. Hadwin doesn’t say that the scriptures teach exclusively a cappella singing, and therefore that explains why the early church chanted. He rather asserts that only a command of God could explain the chant of the early church, so that’s what the New Testament passages must teach. He finds a way for those passages to teach a cappella only, because he believes that nothing less could explain the early church chant. The scriptures don’t form his conclusion; they conform to it. The presumption that the early church believed God commanded chanting is the underlying premise that directs how he interprets scripture. His premise will help us understand arguments that he makes when we consider them later in this book.
<…>
Sometimes people frame this argument by saying, “I just think there is something that those first Christians understood about our singing passages that we don’t understand.” The thought is that as Paul traveled about, he made something clear to the early church that he never wrote down so clearly in scripture. It says that we need to deduce what Paul might have told them and then interpret the Bible to match our conclusions. It is not the style of argument you come to expect from the Churches of Christ. We would never agree to let that line of reasoning filter scripture on any other matter of faith. At its heart, it implies that the Bible is incomplete. Trying to make sense of the early church chant, we re-evaluate the scriptures. Hardly realizing we are governed by a premise — much less researching whether or not that premise is true — we work to align the scriptures with this suspicion that God —somehow — commanded the first Christians to sing a cappella only.
So… read his book. Examine his reasoning. And decide for yourself. But decide based on facts… not DOGMA.
In Christ,
Mark
Pingback: 0138 — Do YOU have DOGMA? « Iron Sharpens Iron