|
|
"I would fight vigorously if instrumental music were attempted to be introduced into my home congregation. I am firmly within the a cappella tradition. But I have a tolerance for those who make other choices, and I don't see that it needs to constitute a complete severing of fellowship. I just don't see the need for that" (Abilene Christian University President Royce Money, "A conversation with Royce Money," Christian Chronicle, April, 2006, p. 20). Royce Money is apparently convinced that playing a piano in worship won't cause one to be lost. He's right. Neither will one be lost for using pork chops and hot yeast buns for the elements of the Lord's supper. You see, there is nothing inherently sinful in playing a piano or eating yeast buns and pork chops. But what will send one to hell is sin, and the use of those things is sinful in worship to God because they are not authorized in the New Testament. Like his predecessors in pervious centuries — and a host of his contemporaries — Money either fails to understand, or blatantly disregards the principle of God's authority expressed in all ages of the world. When Noah was instructed to build the ark of gopher wood, he understood God's authority and, "According to all that God commanded him, so did he" (Genesis 6:22). Noah refused to "make other choices," but simply did that which God authorized in commanding him to build the ark. There was nothing inherently sinful in oak, pine, ash, or balsa wood. But Noah built the ark of gopher wood because that's what God authorized, and he respected God's word. An ark built of a combination of pine, gopher and oak would not have caused Noah to be lost, but had he so built it he would have been lost because he failed to respect God's authority. It wasn't a rod that kept Moses out of the promised land when he struck the rock with it instead of speaking to it as God had commanded him (Numbers 20:7-12). Moses' rod was not inherently sinful. In fact, that was precisely the manner in which he brought forth water from the rock in Rephidim on a previous occasion (Exodus 17:1-7). So, what was the difference in those two occasions? In the first, at Rephidim, Moses obeyed the word of God Who instructed him to "smite the rock" (Exodus 17:6). But in the second, Moses disobeyed God's word by smiting the rock instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20:8, 11). In his disobedience, Moses made "other choices" and rejected God's authority. It wasn't the rod that displeased God. It was Moses' "other choice" after knowing what God had commanded. The fire that devoured Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, was sent from God because they used "strange fire" in their censers when they burned incense (Leviticus 10:1-3). Was the fire they used inherently sinful? Of course not. Why, then were they punished for using it? Because it was fire which God "commanded them not" (Leviticus 10:1). They were punished for violating God's silence. That is apparently a principle which Money either doesn't understand or which he deems as unimportant. Mechanical instruments in New Testament worship is something which God "commanded not." Money could not find a mechanical instrument of music commanded in New Testament worship if his life depended on it. You see, the entire "crux of the matter" in our time — as it has been in every age of the world — is that God demands respect for His authority expressed in His word. God spoke in ages past by His prophets, but now speaks to us through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2) and in every age He has demanded that His authority be respected and obeyed. There's one noticeably presumptuous statement in Money's remarks. He says he's "firmly within the a cappella tradition," but is "tolerant of those who make other choices." Does this man make himself God? Does he now presume to offer absolution to those who "make other choices" instead of choosing what God approves and requires in worship? In the same article, Money said he ardently believes in the plea for restoration of New testament Christianity. "I believe," he said, "the plea is as valid today, if not more so, than it ever was." Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16 ASV) and it doesn't take an expert fruit inspector to see that Money doesn't accept the restoration statement that, "Where the Bible is silent, we are silent." To Money, and his ilk in the religious world, Bible silence is permissive. He would, doubtless, have had no problem with Christ serving in the Levitical priesthood while He was on earth, even though, "it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Hebrews 7:14). Did you get that? Read it again. Why could Christ not have been a priest under the Levitical system? Because God said, "Thou shalt not?" No. It was because God authorized members of the tribe of Levi to be priests and was silent — "spake nothing" — concerning the tribe of Judah as priests. No, men won't go to hell for playing a piano in worship, using oak to make an ark, striking a rock with a rod, or using fire from the "source of your choice." But one will go to hell for not respecting the prohibitive nature of God's silence. Respect God's silence and leave the "other choices" to Money and his postmodern crowd. |