I enjoy reading your posts on the web site. You present your arguments with skill and discernment, contrary to many, who only seek to criticize and scoff.

Is there any historical evidence indicating that first-century Christians employed only a cappella singing in their worship? Over the years, I've heard various stories holding that early Christians used this form of music simply to maintain a separate identity from pagan religions, which used musical instruments. Are there definitive references which substantiate that?

We in the Church of Christ quote Ephesians 5:19 as a basis for a cappella singing, but neither that passage nor any other passage in the New Testament that I know of specifically forbids musical instruments as such. We only make that inference, an inference that is man's interpretation. Anyone can make "melody in their hearts," with or without instrumental accompaniment. Therefore, I was wondering if you knew of any historical accounts which show that early Christians used a cappella singing. Dr. D. W. P.


Dear Dr:

Thank you for writing.  Historically we know that the early Christians sang their praises without the use of instruments. Historically we know that such was the universal practice until about 670 A.D. By that time the religion of Christ had been thoroughly corrupted and the beginnings of Roman Catholicism had emerged. The bishop of Rome sought to introduce musical instruments into the worship but the opposition was too strong and the matter subsided until about 1070 A.D. By then few people had any degree of knowledge of Scripture and the matter was accepted.

To verify this historical background  you should consult McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia of Biblical and Theological Literature.  Also you would profit from the books of Dr. Everett Ferguson on A Cappella Music in the Church and Dr. Jas. D. Bales on Instrumental Music.  Both authors do a fine job of tracing the development of the practice.

Your statements about our conclusions regarding Eph. 5:19 are not sound.  It is incorrect to assume that God must specifically forbid a matter before it is forbidden.  Only in the realm of religion would you take such a position.  For this discussion, I am assuming you are a medical doctor.  When you write a prescription for a particular drug, the pharmacist is not at liberty to assume that since you did not specifically forbid some other drug he is therefore at liberty to  or substitute it.  When you instruct your bookkeeper to pay a specific bill, say your insurance provider, the fact that you did not forbid him to write checks for other things as well is not authorization for him to do so.

When Christ gave us the Lord's Supper memorial, he gave us specific items for the meal.  He did not specifically say don't use other items.  Yet to commune with milk and cookies, or with meat and tea would certainly be out of order.  Our drawing that conclusion is not a human opinion.  It  reflects respect for what the Master has said.