| February 27, 2000 |
Vol. II, No. 44
|
The students of John L. Girardeau, professor at Columbia Seminary, South Carolina in the 1880’s, asked him to explain to them why he opposed the use of instrumental music in the worship of the Presbyterian churches. In response, he wrote a book which was published in Richmond, Virginia in 1888. It was titled, “Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church.” Girardeau’s expanded discussion of this subject gives some valuable insights into how men of the Reformed tradition in late 19th century America decided the question of whether or not a practice was pleasing to God.
Girardeau began his discussion with a statement of principle which guided his arguments throughout the book: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government, and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements is forbidden.”
It may surprise us that a 19th century Presbyterian seminary professor not only understood the “argument from silence,” but used it and felt confident that others would be persuaded by it. I suspect that there has been the feeling on the part of some that those who labored so earnestly in the last century to turn men back to simple New Testament Christianity were the originators of the idea that God’s silence on a matter was equal to a divine prohibition. Clearly, that was not true.
The arguments Professor Girardeau makes will sound very familiar to those of us who have been concerned to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent.”
He first says that the prohibitory significance of God’s silence is deducible from 2 Tim. 3:16-17, which affirms that God’s man is fully equipped for “every good work” by the “holy scripture.” Everything therefore not mentioned in the Scripture would not be a “good work.” Sound familiar?
Girardeau then proceeds to give some biblical statements that verify his principle of silence. Ex. 25:40, “And see that thou make them after their pattern which hath been showed thee in the mount.” Deut. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.” He cites also Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:5-6; Heb. 8:5; Matt. 15:6; 28:18-20; Col. 2:20-23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Rev. 22:18-19.
In extending his argument further, our Presbyterian professor treats several concrete instances that argue the prohibition of God’s silence. He cites the cases of Cain and his sacrifice, Gen. 4. He mentions Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, Lev. 10:1-3 about which he comments: “But they presumed to add to God’s commandments, exercising their own will in regard of his worship, they did that which he did not command them, and they were instantly killed for their wicked temerity.” He adds the cases of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, Num. 16, Moses’ striking of the rock, Num. 20, Saul’s sacrifice at Gilgal, 1 Sam. 13, Uzzah’s touching of the ark, 1 Chron. 13:7-10, and the presumption of King Uzziah, 2 Chron. 26:16-21.
His arguments are then summarized in the following words: “The mighty principle has thus been established by an appeal to the didactic statements of scripture and to special instances recorded in scriptural history... that whatsoever is not in the Scripture, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequences, is forbidden.”
Girardeau goes on to observe that instrumental music was never used in the worship of Israel without God’s explicit command, 2 Chron. 29:25-26 and, therefore, could not be used in New Testament worship without an explicit New Testament command. He notes that instrumental music was never used in synagogue worship and that Rabbinic literature forbade its use on the sabbath, save in the Temple.
From the New Testament, Girardeau simply asks, “Did Jesus teach or practice it?” “Did the Apostles teach or practice it?”
From what he writes, it is obvious that this Presbyterian teacher had paid a price for his convictions: “it is easy to see how irrelevant and baseless is the taunt flung by high churchmen, ritualists and latitudinarians of every stripe against the maintainers of the opposite principle, that they are narrow-minded bigots who take delight in insisting upon trivial details. The truth is exactly the other way. The principle upon which this cheap ridicule is cast is simple, broad, majestic. It affirms only the things God has commanded, the institutions and ordinances that he has prescribed, and besides this discharges only a negative office which sweeps away every trifling invention of man’s meretricious fancy.”
The irony is that I first found this old book preserved in the library of a college operated by avowed restorationists who practice the very thing which Girardeau condemns. The book’s card revealed it had lived a quiet life. Who started this “argument from silence?” As nearly as we can determine, God did.
--Paul Earnhart, via Christianity Magazine, Nov. 1987
After Jesus had finished the parables of Matt. 13, He left the Sea of Galilee, went to Nazareth, and there “He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where did this man get all these things?’ So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.’ And He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” (Matt. 13:53-58).
In Nazareth, people had known Jesus as a boy. They should have remembered His sinless character. Nazareth was a small town, and little that took place there would go un-noticed. But all they remembered about Him was His humble beginnings. “Is this not the carpenter’s son?”
Jesus was, indeed, the man they thought Him to be. But what they did not realize -- could not accept -- was that He was much more than that. Jesus had grown up in the carpenter’s shop. They knew His mother, Mary. They knew her husband, Joseph, and their other children; James, Joses, Simon, Judas and all the girls. They just couldn’t believe -- wouldn’t believe that one of those children was so special.
They thought Jesus was the son of Joseph. Most likely, they had heard the story of the virgin birth, and just as quickly dismissed it. After all, how would WE react if some young, unmarried woman in our community became pregnant, and both she and her boyfriend claimed she was still a virgin, and than an angel had appeared to them and told them the child she was carrying had been conceived by God without a human father? If that happened in our town, would we have any trouble believing it?
But, on further reflection, there were many reasons the story was quite believable, if one were willing to believe. (1) About 740 years before Jesus’ birth, the prophet Isaiah had foretold that a virgin would give birth to a Son who would manifest God in the presence of men, Isa. 7:14. (2) The people of Nazareth had known Jesus as a boy. They had known Him to be honest and trustworthy. If they were paying attention, they must have noticed He was somewhat different from the other boys He had grown up with. (3) Then, there were His words of wisdom, far beyond any education He had received in Nazareth. (4) And finally, His mighty deeds, His miracles. These were His credentials. These should have convinced friend and stranger alike that Jesus came from God. These miracles, recorded by eye-witnesses, are still the basis of our faith, even today, John 20:30-31.
--CRJ