The rightness or wrongness of every doctrine and practice is to be determined by what God has said (authorized) about the matter. (Colossians 3:17.)
First, it is imperative that we understand that the conscience is not the final authority in matters religious. It is possible for some, in following their consciences, to condemn that which God allows. Such is the case with those of whom Paul warned Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-4. These brethren were refusing to marry and commanding others to abstain from meat— actions which, in and of themselves, were perfectly acceptable to God.
On the other hand, some, in following the dictates of their consciences, have condoned that which God has condemned. We need only to be reminded of the life of Paul prior to his conversion to Christ. He consented to the stoning of Stephen. (Acts 8:1.) He persecuted the church, and thus persecuted the Lord. (Acts 8:1; 9:1-5; 22:4; 26:10-12.) Yet, in all of these sinful actions Paul only did that which his conscience allowed. (Acts 23:1.)
Clearly, the conscience alone is not a sufficient guide in religious matters.
Second, it is imperative to note what is and what is not a matter of conscience according to God’s word, not according to man’s feelings. Many brethren, in an attempt to defend or reject this or that practice, have relegated issues to the realm of conscience by simply stating: “Oh, that’s only a matter of conscience.” The statement is often made as if to say: “If your conscience allows it, that’s fine, If your conscience condemns it, then that’s fine too. Whatever your conscience dictates is right.” The problem occurs, however, when this sort of statement is made without regard to the specific nature of the issue under consideration.
There are, for example, those areas of Christian practice that are properly determined to be right or wrong based upon the dictates of the individual conscience. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8, 10, and Romans 14, addresses some of those issues. More specifically, he taught that such actions as the eating of meats offered to idols and the keeping of certain days, were, in effect, matters of conscience, and thus to be determined by each individual in accordance with the dictates of that faculty. It is imperative, however, to note that both of these actions were right, in and of themselves, to be practiced before God, but also right to be avoided before God. (Romans 14:6.) Not every issue falls into this category.
There are many issues and practices that brethren seek to make matters of conscience, but which, in reality, are not at all parallel to the eating of meats offered to idols and the keeping of days. The marriage, divorce and remarriage question is not an issue that can be decided by the urgings of one’s conscience. The matter of fellowship, regardless of what men might say, is not merely a matter of conscience. Neither is the use of instrumental music in worship only a matter of conscience.
Third, though the conscience is involved in these, and other issues, they are really matters to be decided as right or wrong based upon biblical authority. The rightness or wrongness of every doctrine and practice is to be determined by what God has said (authorized) about the matter. (Colossians 3:17.) Even the matters of conscience that Paul addressed involved authority. If the eating of meats met God’s approval, and thus was authorized by God, then it would be wrong to demand that one abstain from meats as if abstention was the only practice demanded by the Lord. On the other hand, if God allowed (authorized) the eating of meats to be avoided, it would be wrong to force the eating of meats as if it were the only practice demanded by the Lord. The eating of meats and the keeping of days were both practices that were, in and of themselves, acceptable to the Lord, but which could also be avoided with the approval of the Lord. The marriage, fellowship, and music questions involve certain positions which are not, in and of themselves, acceptable to the Lord, and thus not parallel as matters of conscience to the questions of eating meats and keeping days.
Fourth, matters of conscience can be matters of opinion, but are not, of necessity, always, and only, matters of opinion. The issues discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8, 10, and Romans 14 were matters of conscience in the sense that one could either involve himself in or abstain from a given practice and still be right in the sight of God based upon his conscience. There are, however, biblical doctrines and practices that, though they involve the individual conscience, are not, simply by virtue of the conscience’s involvement, only matters of opinion. Such has been intimated previously and will presently be discussed as the question of instrumental music is raised.
Fifth, the use of instruments of music in worship involves the conscience, but sixth, the use of such also involves authority. As previously mentioned, it is almost impossible to discuss a matter of conscience without also realizing that, whatever that matter might be, it also involves authority. An explanation is in order.
I am conscientiously opposed to the use of instrumental music in worship, not merely as a matter of conscience, but rather due to the fact that I know that the use of instruments of music in worship (o God is not authorized. I cannot, therefore, in good conscience, worship God with the use of instruments. My opposition is not based solely upon the promptings of my conscience, but primarily upon my knowledge of God’s word, which, I am convinced, provides no authority for the use of such in the New Testament.
Those who contend that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is only a “matter of conscience” or a matter of opinion’’ confound the issue. The issue is not one of “conscience” versus “opinion.” The issue is now, and always has been, centered around authority. The issue is “authority” versus “non- authority.” To be parallel to the issues discussed by Paul, both the use and non-use of instrumental music in worship must be authorized by God. Then, and only then, would a person’s decision about the issue be that of his conscience. But, such is not the case, for the use of instrumental music in worship is not authorized in the New Testament.
To suggest therefore, that the instrumental music question is only a matter of conscience, is to be most misleading. Such a position completely overlooks the fact that the instrumental music question is, first and foremost, a question of authority. It is not enough to say that “We can worship with the instrument because to us it is only a matter of opinion.” The question is not simply “Can we, in good conscience, use instrumental music in worship to God?” Rather, the crux of the matter centers on the questions “What does God, through the Bible, authorize?” and “Is our practice of worshipping God with/without instruments of music that which is authorized by God in the New Testament?This item originally appeared in Gospel Advocate (October 18, 1984)
