Sunday, February 16, 2020
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Why the Record of the Early Church is Silent about the Use of Instrumental Music
The earliest
Christians met in the Jewish temple daily, praising God and having favor
with all the [non-converted Jewish] people.
These non-converted Jewish people used instruments in their temple. The Christians were right there, thinking they were nothing more than Jews who had found their Messiah, keeping the Mosaic law zealously (Acts 15:1,5; 21:20). There's no hint these Jewish Christians were saying a word against the musical instruments. They felt no need to move their assembly away from the Jewish musical instruments; they met regularly right there in Solomon's Porch (Acts 5:12), right near the "band". It seems to simply have been a non-issue with them.
As the message moved away from Jerusalem and its temple, it moved into the Jewish synagogue. (James specifically refers to the Christian assembly as "your synagogue" - James 2:2 - although most English translations hide that from you.) The synagogue did not have musical instruments. But this was not a result of any command from God (there is no such command in scripture), but rather of tradition. The synagogue seems to have developed during the Babylonian Captivity (without any "authorization" from God; yet Jesus approved by his regular habit of attendance - Luke 4:16). During this captivity, the Jews, when asked to sing a song about their homeland, replied that they were too sad to sing, so they put away their instruments - Psalm 137. (Note that the Jews in this passage associated instruments with "sing", such that "singing" and "harps" were essentially synonymous - they couldn't sing, so they put away their harps. This is the way God uses the word "sing". He never uses it in such a way as to exclude instruments.)
When the church moved away from the temple and into the synagogue, the church moved away from instruments, at least in the common public gathering. Note again that this was not the result of any command from God, but simply a matter of man-made tradition. The last word God had said on the matter of public praise singing was to use instruments; there is no record afterword to not use instruments. There is no record (or evidence) that the early Christians had been told that God's last instruction about how to "sing" had been rescinded. The converts on Pentecost in Acts 2 had been praising God with instruments that morning; by evening, according to our traditional brotherhood doctrine, such praise was sin, yet there's no record or evidence of an apostolic message turning instrumental praise into sin.
When Gentiles began to be welcomed into the Christian family, they did not "learn to do church" in the musical-instrument environment of the temple, but rather in the non-musical-instrument environment of the synagogue. A mere 20 years later, the emerging twenty-year-old leaders of the Gentile churches had known nothing all their lives except non-instrumental regular assemblies. It was this *tradition* that became the norm.
Eighty, a hundred, two-hundred years later, by the time any church leaders got around to writing about instruments one way or the other, they identified their non-instrument tradition as being distinct from both the pagan and the Jewish traditions. They never give reasons of "the apostles teach this" or "Scripture says this"; they give human-logic reasons - "We want to be different from the pagans" (Ex., "lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews" - Victorinus, 300 A.D.). These writers, thinking God now hates all things Jewish (a doctrine completely at odds with the New Testament, but bolstered by the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple), condemned all things Jewish, including the instrumental psalms. They did not do so on the basis of God's word, but on the basis of human reasoning.
It's interesting that when we look for actual writing condemning instruments, we don't find it in scripture, but in these post-NT writings. And although we refuse to cite these writers about sprinkling as baptism, or about a pre-Pope "President" of the elders, etc, we cite as gospel their condemnation of instruments.
The early reformation writers were against instruments for pretty much the same reasons: they had grown up non-instrumental (which therefore must be the "old ways"), and they reasoned that God hates Jewishness, therefore he hates instruments. Thomas Aquinas, in the mid-1200s, wrote, "But the Church does not make use of musical instruments, such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews." (The more common rendering is, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.")
Even though writers from the second-century to the present have condemned musical instruments in the praise of God, such condemnation is never based on actual words from God or the apostles, but on human logic. The actual words from God neither condemn, nor change his last word on the matter. Any such change must be derived from human reasoning.
And if human reasoning is the standard, then reason just a moment: Did Paul write:
If we are to teach one another with psalms, without adding any restrictions to what is meant by "psalms", then let me teach:
That's incredibly uncomfortable for many in the Church of Christ. But it's the result of human reasoning that is more consistent with scripture than the human reasoning that converts "psalms" into "psalms except...".
The lame man healed by Peter "danced" for joy in the place where the Christians assembled (Solomon's Porch - Acts 3:8-11), and there is no record of anyone telling him to sit down to be "decent and in order".
Our anti-instrument position is not supported by scripture, but rather by human reasoning and tradition. I think its a fine tradition (I prefer it), but I object when this tradition is turned into a commandment of men and then taught as doctrine.
These non-converted Jewish people used instruments in their temple. The Christians were right there, thinking they were nothing more than Jews who had found their Messiah, keeping the Mosaic law zealously (Acts 15:1,5; 21:20). There's no hint these Jewish Christians were saying a word against the musical instruments. They felt no need to move their assembly away from the Jewish musical instruments; they met regularly right there in Solomon's Porch (Acts 5:12), right near the "band". It seems to simply have been a non-issue with them.
As the message moved away from Jerusalem and its temple, it moved into the Jewish synagogue. (James specifically refers to the Christian assembly as "your synagogue" - James 2:2 - although most English translations hide that from you.) The synagogue did not have musical instruments. But this was not a result of any command from God (there is no such command in scripture), but rather of tradition. The synagogue seems to have developed during the Babylonian Captivity (without any "authorization" from God; yet Jesus approved by his regular habit of attendance - Luke 4:16). During this captivity, the Jews, when asked to sing a song about their homeland, replied that they were too sad to sing, so they put away their instruments - Psalm 137. (Note that the Jews in this passage associated instruments with "sing", such that "singing" and "harps" were essentially synonymous - they couldn't sing, so they put away their harps. This is the way God uses the word "sing". He never uses it in such a way as to exclude instruments.)
When the church moved away from the temple and into the synagogue, the church moved away from instruments, at least in the common public gathering. Note again that this was not the result of any command from God, but simply a matter of man-made tradition. The last word God had said on the matter of public praise singing was to use instruments; there is no record afterword to not use instruments. There is no record (or evidence) that the early Christians had been told that God's last instruction about how to "sing" had been rescinded. The converts on Pentecost in Acts 2 had been praising God with instruments that morning; by evening, according to our traditional brotherhood doctrine, such praise was sin, yet there's no record or evidence of an apostolic message turning instrumental praise into sin.
When Gentiles began to be welcomed into the Christian family, they did not "learn to do church" in the musical-instrument environment of the temple, but rather in the non-musical-instrument environment of the synagogue. A mere 20 years later, the emerging twenty-year-old leaders of the Gentile churches had known nothing all their lives except non-instrumental regular assemblies. It was this *tradition* that became the norm.
Eighty, a hundred, two-hundred years later, by the time any church leaders got around to writing about instruments one way or the other, they identified their non-instrument tradition as being distinct from both the pagan and the Jewish traditions. They never give reasons of "the apostles teach this" or "Scripture says this"; they give human-logic reasons - "We want to be different from the pagans" (Ex., "lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews" - Victorinus, 300 A.D.). These writers, thinking God now hates all things Jewish (a doctrine completely at odds with the New Testament, but bolstered by the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple), condemned all things Jewish, including the instrumental psalms. They did not do so on the basis of God's word, but on the basis of human reasoning.
It's interesting that when we look for actual writing condemning instruments, we don't find it in scripture, but in these post-NT writings. And although we refuse to cite these writers about sprinkling as baptism, or about a pre-Pope "President" of the elders, etc, we cite as gospel their condemnation of instruments.
The early reformation writers were against instruments for pretty much the same reasons: they had grown up non-instrumental (which therefore must be the "old ways"), and they reasoned that God hates Jewishness, therefore he hates instruments. Thomas Aquinas, in the mid-1200s, wrote, "But the Church does not make use of musical instruments, such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews." (The more common rendering is, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.")
Even though writers from the second-century to the present have condemned musical instruments in the praise of God, such condemnation is never based on actual words from God or the apostles, but on human logic. The actual words from God neither condemn, nor change his last word on the matter. Any such change must be derived from human reasoning.
And if human reasoning is the standard, then reason just a moment: Did Paul write:
"Teach one another using psalms, except for the ones God has given to you, recorded in scripture, given for our learning of how to be right, given to make us complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work?"Or did Paul write:
"Teach one another using psalms"?Which of the two versions above adds to the word of God?
If we are to teach one another with psalms, without adding any restrictions to what is meant by "psalms", then let me teach:
WEB Psalm 150:Praise him with tambourine and dancing! Praise him with stringed instruments and flute!(it's often claimed that the Psalms are "Old Testament"; but that's a result of how our modern-day printed Bibles divide up the scriptures; the scriptures themselves make a distinction between "the old covenant" and "the psalms" and "the prophets" (Luke 24:44, words of Jesus); even Paul points out that the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis, 430 years older than the "old covenant", was not superseded by the temporary "old covenant" of Exodus-Deuteronomy.)
That's incredibly uncomfortable for many in the Church of Christ. But it's the result of human reasoning that is more consistent with scripture than the human reasoning that converts "psalms" into "psalms except...".
The lame man healed by Peter "danced" for joy in the place where the Christians assembled (Solomon's Porch - Acts 3:8-11), and there is no record of anyone telling him to sit down to be "decent and in order".
Our anti-instrument position is not supported by scripture, but rather by human reasoning and tradition. I think its a fine tradition (I prefer it), but I object when this tradition is turned into a commandment of men and then taught as doctrine.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
A Word Against Respondus Lockdown Browser
Respondus sells a special locked-down web-browser that is used by schools to allow their students to take on-line tests without the students having the ability to web-browse to other locations than the test-site, to prevent cheating/etc.
That's all well and good. But their installer routine is primarily designed for a one-install-at-at-time setup, which is fine for the individual student installing the Lockdown Browser on that student's personal computer.
But for a lab manager who might need to install the product on 20 or 100 or 15,000 computers, a one-on-one installer ain't gonna work.
So they provide two alternative methods for a "push" installation.
You'd think that's good, right?
Except the lab manager has to jump through hoops to make it work.
I've been working four days - four! - to get a simple uninstall script to work.
The install is relatively easy (although the onus is still on the lab manager to do the programming work, instead of the company doing it).
But when a year later that version goes out of date and refuses to work, Respondus doesn't have a simple update mechanism; you have to uninstall the old version and then install the new.
And no matter what I do (and I'm a very smart guy), I've been unable to get their instructions to work to uninstall the old version.
But the core point here is this (and I'm going to yell saying it):
YOUR CUSTOMERS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO WRITE PROGRAMS OR JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO USE YOUR PRODUCT!
Because of the pay-wall mentality of Respondus and the difficulty they make it to speak to them, they will never hear this message of mine. And since few readers read this blog, few people will ever hear it. But for those who do, I highly recommend that you do not purchase/use Respondus products until they learn that their in-house programmers should do the programming necessary for their customers to use their products.
That's all well and good. But their installer routine is primarily designed for a one-install-at-at-time setup, which is fine for the individual student installing the Lockdown Browser on that student's personal computer.
But for a lab manager who might need to install the product on 20 or 100 or 15,000 computers, a one-on-one installer ain't gonna work.
So they provide two alternative methods for a "push" installation.
You'd think that's good, right?
Except the lab manager has to jump through hoops to make it work.
I've been working four days - four! - to get a simple uninstall script to work.
The install is relatively easy (although the onus is still on the lab manager to do the programming work, instead of the company doing it).
But when a year later that version goes out of date and refuses to work, Respondus doesn't have a simple update mechanism; you have to uninstall the old version and then install the new.
And no matter what I do (and I'm a very smart guy), I've been unable to get their instructions to work to uninstall the old version.
But the core point here is this (and I'm going to yell saying it):
YOUR CUSTOMERS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO WRITE PROGRAMS OR JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO USE YOUR PRODUCT!
Because of the pay-wall mentality of Respondus and the difficulty they make it to speak to them, they will never hear this message of mine. And since few readers read this blog, few people will ever hear it. But for those who do, I highly recommend that you do not purchase/use Respondus products until they learn that their in-house programmers should do the programming necessary for their customers to use their products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Think "glucose sugar".
I believe a more accurate rendering for this word is "sweet wine" rather than "new wine".
I have heard arguments that this "new wine" is not alcoholic, but I believe these arguments are driven by a mistranslation of the Greek into English.
Since new wine is not alcoholic, then this word gluekos must refer to non-fermented wine, or so the argument goes.
The arguments I've heard are two:
1) The argument is made that the mockers' mocking is merely an insult that means, "These tea-totallers are drunk on grape juice."
and
2) The argument is made that in the one other place where the word is used, in the Septuagint version of Job 32:19, it is somehow to be understood as non-fermented wine.
Concerning the first argument, Peter plainly says the mockers suspected the disciples of being drunk; he does not treat their mocking as a sarcastic insult; he treats the mocking as a legitimate accusation, and his response is appropriate: Drinkers tend to drink into the night, and then sleep it off in the morning. Yes, there could be exceptions to that (as there are to most rules-of-thumb, such as with many of the Proverbs), but regardless of the accuracy of Peter's response, his response is to treat the charge as a serious charge, which he plainly denies.
Concerning the second argument, here's the text from Job:
“New” wine, that is, “grape juice”, does not cause a new wineskin to be ready to burst. Rather, the readiness to burst is a result of grape juice having fermented, causing gasses which blow up the wineskins, like a helium bottle filling up a balloon. New wineskins have the capacity to stretch (which is why you don’t put new wine into old wineskins – Mark 2:22); the only reason the skins would be ready to burst is because they have stretched to their limits, because of the gasses created by the fermentation process. Job’s belly is ready to burst; it’s full of gas; it’s not in the beginning stages of fermentation, but in the later stages.
If the word is translated properly, as "sweet wine" rather than as "new wine", wine that has fermented to the point of being ready to burst its container, there is no longer any need to explain away the apparent alcoholic nature of "new wine".